The big deal is that they need something to give them a sense of purpose.
Fighting the "end of America" gives them that.
And yes, they can read, but not for comprehension.
We Knew This Was Coming--Obama Targets IRA's
- Thread starter AAAintheBeltway
- Start date
The big deal is that they need something to give them a sense of purpose.
Fighting the "end of America" gives them that.
And yes, they can read, but not for comprehension.
We don't see eye to eye on this, but thanks for clarifying your thoughts and explaining your position.
I don't have a problem with setting some fairly high limit on how much retirement saving can be set aside in tax advantaged accounts. Otherwise these accounts end up being not at all for there intended purpose, but just another way of avoiding paying your fair share.
The amounts being considered are high enough that they would only concern those already quite wealthy. I think these folks already have sufficient tax dodges they can take advantage of that the average person can't. I don't like paying taxes anymore than the next person, but I dislike even more the growing income disparity in the U.S. It seems the middle class is being decimated by a tax system which once was progressive but is no longer sufficiently so. That i think, in the long run, is a very bad thing for the country, and especially the wealthy .
I want to live in a country with a strong and large middle class. We are starting to take on a wealth distribution profile in the U.S. that resembles that in a banana republic. This trend is destroying opportunity. Not a good thing. You will have to accept some income redistribution if you want to reverse this trend. One way to do that is to introduce a more progressive tax structure than what we have now. I don't want to go back to 90% marginal rates, but I would like to return to a rate structure resembling what we had during the Clinton era.
You raise valid issues regarding implementation. And we did not get any information from the article that would help answer your questions. But I am confident that reasonably ways of handling those cases you brought up can be worked out. My guess is that if there was a maximum IRA balance and you went over it, you'd have to withdraw the excess, without penalty, likely with the option of income averaging, over a three year window. That would be fair enough as far as I'm concerned.
There are lots of uncommon assets that can be legally held in an IRA, even real estate. And I suppose it was unusual appreciation of unusual assets in Romney's IRA that resulting in a rather startlingly high balance. Since you're strictly limited on how much you can contribute per year to an IRA, it's difficult to see how he could amass, legally, such a high balance without very unusual appreciation of assets. I'd love to know the details. I'll bet that would be enlightening!
Federal taxes on middle-income Americans are near historic lows,[1] according to the latest available data. Thatâs true both for federal income taxes and total federal taxes.[2]
Income taxes: A family of four in the exact middle of the income spectrum will pay only 5.6 percent of its 2011 income in federal income taxes, according to a new analysis by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center. [3] Average income tax rates for these typical families have been lower during the Bush and Obama Administrations than at any time since the 1950s, as Figure 1 shows. (As discussed below, 2009 and 2010 were particularly low because of the temporary Making Work Pay Tax Credit.)
Overall federal taxes: Overall federal taxes â which include income as well as payroll and excise taxes â on middle-income households are near their lowest levels in decades, according to the latest data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3151
Yes of course this is what you will find in a recession when folks are struggling to get by . The average income shifts downward. This is a similar effect to what Romney noted, without explaining, in his campaign when he noted that during Obama first four years middle incomes had taken a huge hit. That is what happens to your income when you are unemployed for 6 months out of a year. And all of that gets put in as part of the average. It would be helpful to view this data along side income distribution change with time. What has happened to the median income over the last 4 years? It is always dangerous to conclude anything from data in isolation.
I believe his point was that the actual tax rate on middle income salaries is the lowest it's ever been. That is not dependent on the economy. It's well known that nearly half the country does not pay any income taxes. I see that as a problem, particulalry because that same group tends to be a heavy consumer of government benefits.
I share your cponcerns about the US turning into a banana republic. We're seeing signs of it already. We have had a massive influx of immigrants, lelga and illegal, from actual banana republics. They bring the same attitude and culture with them that produced the disasteers they are fleeing. In the past, immigrants were required to assimilate. No more. We now have to accommodate them. Now we're being threatened that we have to make them all citizens or else.
We have a president who ran on a typical banana republic platform of hate the well-off, vote for me and I'll take what's theirs and give it to you.
As to income disparity, I agree it's very unhealthy. There are many causes, eg out of control CEO compensation, offshoring of middle class jobs in manufacturing, less demand for unskilled workers and of course immigration. The failure of the black underclass to value education and adopt responsible lifestyles has to be mentioned as well.
I think where we differ is I don't think the tax code is the way to address these issues. We should be encouraging people to save and invest, not enacting disincentives.
Yes of course this is what you will find in a recession when folks are struggling to get by . The average income shifts downward. This is a similar effect to what Romney noted, without explaining, in his campaign when he noted that during Obama first four years middle incomes had taken a huge hit. That is what happens to your income when you are unemployed for 6 months out of a year. And all of that gets put in as part of the average. It would be helpful to view this data along side income distribution change with time. The graph gives us a nice look at the change in tax rate for the median income, but what has happened to the median income over the last 4 years? It is always dangerous to conclude anything from data in isolation.
The graph is actually a dire sign of real underlying structural trouble in the economy. You would like to see those tax rates rise back to around 11% where it was during the boom years. (These are not tax bracket rates of course, but net income tax rates on AGI.)
In the graph you can see rather dramatically the ill advised income tax rate cuts during the Reagan years and Bush II. Also the 2008-9 crash, and now a little recovery is occurring. Of course these tax cuts were focused at the high end and really fed the deficits during times of tremendously accelerated spending.
Interestingly, while Reagan dramatically lowered income tax bracket rates in the upper brackets and actually raised the rate at the low end --went from 11 to 15%, he also presided over what I believe is the largest peace time tax increase ever,i.e., TEFRA, but it wasn't income tax rates that were raised, it was closing of loopholes and increased excise taxes etc. All of these changes together, ended up disproportionately hurting those in the lower brackets and kicked off what has been a disheartening redistribution of net income from the middle ranks toward the upper ranks. That is a very undesirable type of income redistribution, and I would guess that it was largely the result of unintended consequences.
In spite of all the dickering with taxes during various periods, federal revenues held quite steady at about 18.2 % of GDP --not sure if that holds for the recent recession which has been extraordinarily severe. But in the process there has been a very damaging net income redistribution.
The graph is actually a dire sign of real underlying structural trouble in the economy. You would like to see those tax rates rise back to around 11% where it was during the boom years. (These are not tax bracket rates of course, but net income tax rates on AGI.)
In the graph you can see rather dramatically the ill advised income tax rate cuts during the Reagan years and Bush II. Also the 2008-9 crash, and now a little recovery is occurring. Of course these tax cuts were focused at the high end and really fed the deficits during times of tremendously accelerated spending.
Interestingly, while Reagan dramatically lowered income tax bracket rates in the upper brackets and actually raised the rate at the low end --went from 11 to 15%, he also presided over what I believe is the largest peace time tax increase ever,i.e., TEFRA, but it wasn't income tax rates that were raised, it was closing of loopholes and increased excise taxes etc. All of these changes together, ended up disproportionately hurting those in the lower brackets and kicked off what has been a disheartening redistribution of net income from the middle ranks toward the upper ranks. That is a very undesirable type of income redistribution, and I would guess that it was largely the result of unintended consequences.
In spite of all the dickering with taxes during various periods, federal revenues held quite steady at about 18.2 % of GDP --not sure if that holds for the recent recession which has been extraordinarily severe. But in the process there has been a very damaging net income redistribution.
Ditto, #1.
Disagree, #2. You can't have a capital structure if everybody is equal and equally poor. There NEEDS to be smart, hard working, rich so they can provide jobs for not-so-smart, not-so-hard-working others.
There NEEDS to be income disparity as well as the POTENTIAL for everyone to "climb the ladder". Throughout most of America's history, there has been such potential... much less now... not only thanks to Odumbo, but he's surely escalating the difficulty... perhaps to the point of now being nearly impossible. (IOW... you likely can't drop out of school and get a $70K/yr job at the local plant or mill. However, you can still do a "Zuckerberg" if capable.... You can still make big money in the financial markets... you can still make big money flipping RE... IF you're willing to learn how and are ambitious enough to do the work. Most aren't.. and they're the ones who whine about "income disparity".)
There is no such thing as a "rich and vibrant economy with income parity".
Speaking of assimilate, I read yesterday of 2 examples of transgenders from misc banana republics that moved here to assimilate, they weren't assimilating too well in their own country.
I'm sure with the help of a tort lawyer they'll soon be flush with cash after a lawsuit because we failed to make accomodations.