401k

[falco]

there is nothing here to even substantiate this as remotely legitimate... when there is, i'll be concerned.

I'm old enough to remember we there were no 401ks or IRAs for that matter. I also remember when the marginal tax rate was as high as 55%. These "benefits" came quickly, and can leave quickly, too.

certainly with the democratic congress there is a strong chance for many benefits to the wealthy being rolled back...but the 401k system benefits more than just the wealthy - in fact, the middle class would seem to have the most to lose from it being rolled back...it would take a lot of political capital to do so.

[HowardRoark]

there is nothing here to even substantiate this as remotely legitimate... when there is, i'll be concerned.

I'm old enough to remember we there were no 401ks or IRAs for that matter. I also remember when the marginal tax rate was as high as 55%. These "benefits" came quickly, and can leave quickly, too.

certainly with the democratic congress there is a strong chance for many benefits to the wealthy being rolled back...but the 401k system benefits more than just the wealthy - in fact, the middle class would seem to have the most to lose from it being rolled back...it would take a lot of political capital to do so.

Thursday, around noon, the market started coming apart. Dig into it. Find out what was going on behind closed doors in DC. That "enlightened" New School was holding court.

[Patler]

I love the post with one exception. I do understand that gov't has some vital roles in keeping a country stable and prosperous and therefore needs some funding. But fuck they are getting carried away with it. Also, it is ALL of our duties to fund said gov't as we ALL benefit from it...exempting 40% of the populations from paying taxes while the "more fortunate" have to carry the load is kinda BS. I don't mind taxes, if they are reasonable and gov't is using the money wisely...they aren't.

We basically agree, I guess I just want to make it clear to liberals that most of us understand SOME taxes can be a net benefit, but that is not where our gov't is.

I think we all understand that we have to pay something to have services for the common good. I never meant to imply anything different. I hope you didn't take it that way.

It just really irks me when those in government, or tied to the government, act as if they are being generous simply because they do not take 100% of what I earn. The questions should, whose money is it? and where does the "giving" start? The money is ors, and the giving starts with us. The government has nothing to "give" us. Maybe they can "return" money to us, but terms like "investing" and "subsidizing" do not apply in any way shape or form to a tax credit, deduction or exemption that a tax payer uses. If we allow that kind of thinking, we are already losing the battle.

[falco]

there is nothing here to even substantiate this as remotely legitimate... when there is, i'll be concerned.

I'm old enough to remember we there were no 401ks or IRAs for that matter. I also remember when the marginal tax rate was as high as 55%. These "benefits" came quickly, and can leave quickly, too.

certainly with the democratic congress there is a strong chance for many benefits to the wealthy being rolled back...but the 401k system benefits more than just the wealthy - in fact, the middle class would seem to have the most to lose from it being rolled back...it would take a lot of political capital to do so.

Thursday, around noon, the market started coming apart. Dig into it. Find out what was going on behind closed doors in DC. That "enlightened" New School was holding court.

i've got a better idea - you do it, then start a worthless thread about it.

[falco]

I love the post with one exception. I do understand that gov't has some vital roles in keeping a country stable and prosperous and therefore needs some funding. But fuck they are getting carried away with it. Also, it is ALL of our duties to fund said gov't as we ALL benefit from it...exempting 40% of the populations from paying taxes while the "more fortunate" have to carry the load is kinda BS. I don't mind taxes, if they are reasonable and gov't is using the money wisely...they aren't.

We basically agree, I guess I just want to make it clear to liberals that most of us understand SOME taxes can be a net benefit, but that is not where our gov't is.

I think we all understand that we have to pay something to have services for the common good. I never meant to imply anything different. I hope you didn't take it that way.

It just really irks me when those in government, or tied to the government, act as if they are being generous simply because they do not take 100% of what I earn. The questions should, whose money is it? and where does the "giving" start? The money is ors, and the giving starts with us. The government has nothing to "give" us. Maybe they can "return" money to us, but terms like "investing" and "subsidizing" do not apply in any way shape or form to a tax credit, deduction or exemption that a tax payer uses. If we allow that kind of thinking, we are already losing the battle.

patler - i agree 100%

[HowardRoark]

there is nothing here to even substantiate this as remotely legitimate... when there is, i'll be concerned.

I'm old enough to remember we there were no 401ks or IRAs for that matter. I also remember when the marginal tax rate was as high as 55%. These "benefits" came quickly, and can leave quickly, too.

certainly with the democratic congress there is a strong chance for many benefits to the wealthy being rolled back...but the 401k system benefits more than just the wealthy - in fact, the middle class would seem to have the most to lose from it being rolled back...it would take a lot of political capital to do so.

Thursday, around noon, the market started coming apart. Dig into it. Find out what was going on behind closed doors in DC. That "enlightened" New School was holding court.

i've got a better idea - you do it, then start a worthless thread about it.

I'll wake you when I see the whites of their eyes.

[Patler]

certainly with the democratic congress there is a strong chance for many benefits to the wealthy being rolled back...but the 401k system benefits more than just the wealthy - in fact, the middle class would seem to have the most to lose from it being rolled back...it would take a lot of political capital to do so.

For individuals, there really are not that many benefits for the so-called wealthy anymore, except that the marginal tax rates are not as oppressive as they were at one time. Most of the common tax advantages applicable to individuals begin phasing out at incomes between about $100K and $160K, depending on the particular program, and they phase out relatively quickly. Even very basic things, like itemized deductions, are limited; and I'm not talking about ultra high deductions, or individuals with mega-incomes. You don't have to be rich to be excluded from Roth IRAs, or from the tax advantages applicable to student loans.

I could argue that the truly wealthy really do not benefit that much from 401ks or IRAs because of the maximum contribution limits applicable to them. I know very typical families who can max out on those.

[bobblehead]

I love the post with one exception. I do understand that gov't has some vital roles in keeping a country stable and prosperous and therefore needs some funding. But fuck they are getting carried away with it. Also, it is ALL of our duties to fund said gov't as we ALL benefit from it...exempting 40% of the populations from paying taxes while the "more fortunate" have to carry the load is kinda BS. I don't mind taxes, if they are reasonable and gov't is using the money wisely...they aren't.

We basically agree, I guess I just want to make it clear to liberals that most of us understand SOME taxes can be a net benefit, but that is not where our gov't is.

I think we all understand that we have to pay something to have services for the common good. I never meant to imply anything different. I hope you didn't take it that way.

It just really irks me when those in government, or tied to the government, act as if they are being generous simply because they do not take 100% of what I earn. The questions should, whose money is it? and where does the "giving" start? The money is ors, and the giving starts with us. The government has nothing to "give" us. Maybe they can "return" money to us, but terms like "investing" and "subsidizing" do not apply in any way shape or form to a tax credit, deduction or exemption that a tax payer uses. If we allow that kind of thinking, we are already losing the battle.

patler - i agree 100%

me too, I guess I just am always fighting the lefts "greedy pig" comparisons.

[bobblehead]

there is nothing here to even substantiate this as remotely legitimate... when there is, i'll be concerned.

you have never heard the lefts favorite politicians use the term "means testing"????

[falco]

there is nothing here to even substantiate this as remotely legitimate... when there is, i'll be concerned.

you have never heard the lefts favorite politicians use the term "means testing"????

yes, in welfare programs, not retirement vehicles