Richest of the rich ponder how to level the field

[s0me0nesmind1]

You listen to Rush, why are we not surprised.

Rush or not - this has actually been talked about in many places. I have to admit I'm pretty worried. I live life rather frugal, so I try to max out my 401k every year. If that is/was for nothing that would send me pretty batshit crazy D:

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

She's been against 401ks for years so this isn't really news. Every so often another outlet will cover her saying how terrible 401Ks are because they are not safe like defined benefit plans while ignoring the risks the DB take to meet the required payouts and how they charge high fees while ignoring how popular low cost index funds have become

She also claims 2008 proves 401ks are a failed experiment despite the subsequent years making up for those losses and I don't hear a peep from her about how DB plans are being mismanaged

What the hell are "defined benefit plans"? Old pension plans?

Pension plans got a good rep because they were usually compensated with high amounts. That doesn't mean it was a good investment necessarily. I prefer 401k's because you get to DIVERSIFY. You don't put all your eggs in one basket. Ask former Enron employee's how their Pension plan is working for them :thumbsup:

And yes, low cost Index funds are where it's at.

 

[Exterous]

What the hell are "defined benefit plans"?

Any retirement plan that promises a predetermined payout based on meeting certain conditions like years of service. Pensions and social security would be the two biggest examples

 

[Zxian]

The government has no right to tell them how much profit they can have.

Why should any person or entity profit off someone being ill?

Google and Facebook want to profit off my smartphone and social networking? Fine. I don't require those to live.

Health care is an inelastic commodity. If you get hit by a car and are unconscious, you don't get to choose what hospital they bring you to. You have zero buying power. Adding an insurance company in between the hospital and you increases your overall cost and is a piss-poor band-aid solution to the fundamental problem - hospitals seek profits.

 

[Incorruptible]

Why should any person or entity profit off someone being ill?

Google and Facebook want to profit off my smartphone and social networking? Fine. I don't require those to live.

Health care is an inelastic commodity. If you get hit by a car and are unconscious, you don't get to choose what hospital they bring you to. You have zero buying power. Adding an insurance company in between the hospital and you increases your overall cost and is a piss-poor band-aid solution to the fundamental problem - hospitals seek profits.

Free market healthcare is still superior. Socialism doesn't work and it's despicable you would advocate for socialized healthcare.

The free market will do more to lower prices and improve quality than government.

 

[Zxian]

Free market healthcare is still superior. Socialism doesn't work and it's despicable you would advocate for socialized healthcare.

The free market will do more to lower prices and improve quality than government.

Explain how. You've done nothing but belittle anyone with different views and repeat your rant about the free market and socialism.

 

[Incorruptible]

Explain how. You've done nothing but belittle anyone with different views and repeat your rant about the free market and socialism.

Explain how your piece of shit socialist system is superior. Remember the US was built on Capitalism and not socialism. If you think your idiotic idea of socialized healthcare is superior then explain.

And yes if you attack freedom you will be insulted rightfully.

 

[Zxian]

Explain how your piece of shit socialist system is superior. Remember the US was built on Capitalism and not socialism. If you think your idiotic idea of socialized healthcare is superior then explain.

And yes if you attack freedom you will be insulted rightfully.

You claim that free market health care is superior. Do you have any examples?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita

The US has life expectancy rates that don't line up with your public spending for health care. Not to mention that Americans spend *more* money out of pocket for insurance on top of the figures in the second link.

If you want to keep throwing money at profiting companies, be my guest. If you think that Canada is a socialist country, you've got a pretty corrupted view of the world.

 

[shady28]

Nice try, I am sure some feeble minded right wingers fall for this BS and vote against their own self interest, but it won't fly with me.
It provides insurance to millions of low income people through Medicaid expansion, and subsidies for others to buy it, paid for out of income taxes, which, as Republicans like to tell us at every corner, most Americans except the rich don't pay enough of. It also limits the profit margin of insurers.

Senseamp, sometimes you say things that sound more or less right, but like a poor chess player you have no ability to see beyond the current move.

Case in point : taxes. "Joe" Democrat wants to raise *income tax* on the rich, so the tax rate goes up to ~35%.

Now lets be clear - that taxis a *payroll tax*.

Now tell me, how many "rich people" do you figure make most of their money from payroll? Not many. "payroll" is only a fraction of what they make so they are not subject to the tax increases.

In other words, that is not a meaningful tax on truly rich people. It is a tax on the *upper middle class professionals*.

As far as what tax breaks the truly wealthy get, and who in congress supports them -

An hour of research about who "earmarked" this or that would make you a much more educated person. Democrats and Republicans do the same exact thing, to slightly different constituents.

Some examples :
Joe : Payroll tax up to 35%
Rich guy : Capital gains tax for assets held more than a year : 15%

Assets passed to your heir (inheritance):
Joe : Estate Tax Up to 40% (the average American has most of their wealth tied up in their house)
Rich guy : Inheritance of stock and financial assets : Step-up, ie you only get taxed on what they gain in value *AFTER* you inherited it. So you get $100mil in stock from your folks, and it does not go up in value, you pay no tax.

Carried interest :
Joe : You can be taxed up to 35% on interest earned in your savings account.
Rich guy : Hedge Fund Managers get a percentage of the net gains as a management fee. This payment is known as carried interest. It is taxed at 15%.

Some other examples include tax breaks for buying a Yacht or a private Jet.

And if you think it's all Republican, then you are just another of the mindless masses that the Democrats have fooled. Both parties do exactly the same thing. And Ironically, it was under Regan and Tip ONeil that the last rollback of "corporate welfare" occurred.


Right after Obama and the Democrats nixed the Social Security tax rollback, we get this :

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/pol...alls-reform/omgZvDPa37DNlSqi0G95YK/story.html

"The Senate approved tax benefits for Whirlpool and a host of other corporations early on New Year’s Day, a couple of hours after the ball dropped over Times Square and champagne corks began popping. A smorgasbord of 43 business and energy tax breaks, collectively worth $67 billion this year, was packed into the emergency tax legislation that avoided the so-called “fiscal cliff.’’

Whirlpool officials said the tax breaks help the company retain jobs, but in recent years, it has closed refrigerator manufacturing plants in Indiana (above) and Arkansas.

In the days that followed, the tax handouts for business were barely mentioned as President Obama and members of Congress hailed the broader effects of the dramatic legislation, which prevented income tax increases on the middle class and raised top marginal tax rates for the wealthy.

...
Congress reduced the number of tax breaks in 1986 as part of the broader reform package. The breaks steadily crept back, particularly in the last decade, as lawmakers heeded requests from advocacy groups and business lobbyists to lower taxes as a way of subsidizing particular industries."


As I already pointed out - the wealthy arent much affected by that increase in the payroll tax.


What this really comes down to is that the masses of people are just stone cold stupid, and both Dems and Repubs take advantage of that every single year.

 

[dainthomas]

Explain how your piece of shit socialist system is superior. Remember the US was built on Capitalism and not socialism. If you think your idiotic idea of socialized healthcare is superior then explain.

And yes if you attack freedom you will be insulted rightfully.

Yes, it's such a shame that the poor and elderly aren't dying in the gutter any more. Damn socialist medicare! We should go back to the good old days.

 

[theeedude]

Senseamp, sometimes you say things that sound more or less right, but like a poor chess player you have no ability to see beyond the current move.

Case in point : taxes. "Joe" Democrat wants to raise *income tax* on the rich, so the tax rate goes up to ~35%.

Now lets be clear - that taxis a *payroll tax*.

Now tell me, how many "rich people" do you figure make most of their money from payroll? Not many. "payroll" is only a fraction of what they make so they are not subject to the tax increases.

In other words, that is not a meaningful tax on truly rich people. It is a tax on the *upper middle class professionals*.

As far as what tax breaks the truly wealthy get, and who in congress supports them -

An hour of research about who "earmarked" this or that would make you a much more educated person. Democrats and Republicans do the same exact thing, to slightly different constituents.

Some examples :
Joe : Payroll tax up to 35%
Rich guy : Capital gains tax for assets held more than a year : 15%

Assets passed to your heir (inheritance):
Joe : Estate Tax Up to 40% (the average American has most of their wealth tied up in their house)
Rich guy : Inheritance of stock and financial assets : Step-up, ie you only get taxed on what they gain in value *AFTER* you inherited it. So you get $100mil in stock from your folks, and it does not go up in value, you pay no tax.

Carried interest :
Joe : You can be taxed up to 35% on interest earned in your savings account.
Rich guy : Hedge Fund Managers get a percentage of the net gains as a management fee. This payment is known as carried interest. It is taxed at 15%.

Some other examples include tax breaks for buying a Yacht or a private Jet.

And if you think it's all Republican, then you are just another of the mindless masses that the Democrats have fooled. Both parties do exactly the same thing. And Ironically, it was under Regan and Tip ONeil that the last rollback of "corporate welfare" occurred.


Right after Obama and the Democrats nixed the Social Security tax rollback, we get this :

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/pol...alls-reform/omgZvDPa37DNlSqi0G95YK/story.html

"The Senate approved tax benefits for Whirlpool and a host of other corporations early on New Year’s Day, a couple of hours after the ball dropped over Times Square and champagne corks began popping. A smorgasbord of 43 business and energy tax breaks, collectively worth $67 billion this year, was packed into the emergency tax legislation that avoided the so-called “fiscal cliff.’’

Whirlpool officials said the tax breaks help the company retain jobs, but in recent years, it has closed refrigerator manufacturing plants in Indiana (above) and Arkansas.

In the days that followed, the tax handouts for business were barely mentioned as President Obama and members of Congress hailed the broader effects of the dramatic legislation, which prevented income tax increases on the middle class and raised top marginal tax rates for the wealthy.

...
Congress reduced the number of tax breaks in 1986 as part of the broader reform package. The breaks steadily crept back, particularly in the last decade, as lawmakers heeded requests from advocacy groups and business lobbyists to lower taxes as a way of subsidizing particular industries."


As I already pointed out - the wealthy arent much affected by that increase in the payroll tax.


What this really comes down to is that the masses of people are just stone cold stupid, and both Dems and Repubs take advantage of that every single year.

Income tax and payroll tax are not completely same things, but I agree with your bigger point for raising capital gains taxes and closing carried interest loopholes.

 

[dmcowen674]

1-27-2014

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/wealth-gap-guide-why-matters-083657223.html

Wealth gap: A guide to what it is, why it matters



From the White House to the Vatican to the business elite in Davos, Switzerland, one issue keeps seizing the agenda: the growing gap between the very wealthy and everyone else.It's "the defining challenge of our time," says President Barack Obama, who will spotlight the issue in his State of the Union address Tuesday night.


Experts say it may be slowing the economy.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Ponder no more! Regan answered it all in the 80s; jobs. Create actual jobs. Not in India, Philippines & Poland. But, in America.

 

[brianmanahan]

What the h**l are "defined benefit plans"? Old pension plans?

Pension plans got a good rep because they were usually compensated with high amounts. That doesn't mean it was a good investment necessarily. I prefer 401k's because you get to DIVERSIFY. You don't put all your eggs in one basket. Ask former Enron employee's how their Pension plan is working for them :thumbsup:

And yes, low cost Index funds are where it's at.

pensions are insured by the PBGC, so enron employees got theirs: http://www.chron.com/business/enron...nsion-holders-to-get-paid-in-full-1512687.php

i have a pension and a 401k and i love them both

 

[Engineer]

pensions are insured by the PBGC, so enron employees got theirs: http://www.chron.com/business/enron...nsion-holders-to-get-paid-in-full-1512687.php

i have a pension and a 401k and i love them both

Curious, did you read that? the PBGC didn't pay the pension, it pressured Enron to fund it. Also, IIRC, the PBCG doesn't fund pensions 100% but I could be wrong on that one.

 

[Phokus]

Ponder no more! Regan answered it all in the 80s; jobs. Create actual jobs. Not in India, Philippines & Poland. But, in America.

Here let me fix that for you:

Ponder no more! Regan (sic) answered it all in the 80s; deficits. Triple the defecit. Not in India, Philippines & Poland. But, in America.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Ponder no more! Regan answered it all in the 80s; jobs. Create actual jobs. Not in India, Philippines & Poland. But, in America.

Actually Reagan didn't do particularly well when it came to job creation.

Since Harding/Coolidge (1921-25) Reagan's 1st term is down towards the bottom of various administrations since then.

His 2nd term is a fair bit higher though it still comes in around 7th since 1921-25.

Hell, job creation under Carter was +3.06% compared to Reagan's +1.43% (1st term) and +2.69% (2nd term).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms#Job_creation_by_term

 

[Engineer]

Actually Reagan didn't do particularly well when it came to job creation.

Since Harding/Coolidge (1921-25) Reagan's 1st term is down towards the bottom of various administrations since then.

His 2nd term is a fair bit higher though it still comes in around 7th since 1921-25.

Hell, job creation under Carter was +3.06% compared to Reagan's +1.43% (1st term) and +2.69% (2nd term).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms#Job_creation_by_term

Wow, that's a mind blowing stat. I have never saw that before although I admit that I don't know much about Carter other than I've heard he was a massive failure (not saying he is or isn't, just what I have read/heard).

 

[shady28]

Wow, that's a mind blowing stat. I have never saw that before although I admit that I don't know much about Carter other than I've heard he was a massive failure (not saying he is or isn't, just what I have read/heard).

Read the fine print and it is far less impressive, and quite deceptive.

The big thing is #1 below (think - a full time person vs a person working 2 part time jobs)

1 - Counts one person with 2 jobs as 2 employees
2 - Excludes certain types of jobs, like the self-employed
3 - Only looks at non-farm payroll
4 - Population growth is not factored in

 

[Engineer]

Read the fine print and it is far less impressive, and quite deceptive.

The big thing is #1 below (think - a full time person vs a person working 2 part time jobs)

1 - Counts one person with 2 jobs as 2 employees
2 - Excludes certain types of jobs, like the self-employed
3 - Only looks at non-farm payroll
4 - Population growth is not factored in

See, I told you that I don't know much about Carter!

 

[Victorian Gray]

Wow, that's a mind blowing stat. I have never saw that before although I admit that I don't know much about Carter other than I've heard he was a massive failure (not saying he is or isn't, just what I have read/heard).

It surprised me as well (the Carter numbers, not the Reagan numbers). As regards at least a few issues, Carter has a bit of an undeserved bad rep.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Read the fine print and it is far less impressive, and quite deceptive.

The big thing is #1 below (think - a full time person vs a person working 2 part time jobs)

1 - Counts one person with 2 jobs as 2 employees
2 - Excludes certain types of jobs, like the self-employed
3 - Only looks at non-farm payroll
4 - Population growth is not factored in

Non of which has anything to do with the original point which was the claim that Reagan was a great job creator. He wasn't and the stats show that.

 

[LegendKiller]

It surprised me as well (the Carter numbers, not the Reagan numbers). As regards at least a few issues, Carter has a bit of an undeserved bad rep.

A bit? He has a hugely undeserved bad rep. It's quite ridiculous. I haven't found one person in their 50s or 60s that remain objective about him and have a grounding in any real data.