Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As we have found out at the state and local level wealth is very mobile. As we are finding out at the corporate level wealth is very mobile. We are starting to find out at the national taxation level that wealth is very mobile and doesn't need to be here to be taxed or in the thinking of some redistributed. How many threads have there been and how many of us have posted about finding low tax places to retire to so we could keep more of our assets for ourselves?
For me this is a complete non debate. Any arbitrary government "retirement" age is not going to be old enough for me to consider stopping work, unless I have an unexpected windfall. Currently I am shooting for at least 75.
My greater worries are either being forced to "early retire" or being felled by a health issue that prevents me from working. If the former happens I will not actually retire but will grab whatever I can or will start my own business to scrape up a few pennies. If the latter I've a certain level of risk coverage to prevent a completely drained nest egg, the ultimate gift to my wife.
As we have found out at the state and local level wealth is very mobile. As we are finding out at the corporate level wealth is very mobile. We are starting to find out at the national taxation level that wealth is very mobile and doesn't need to be here to be taxed or in the thinking of some redistributed. How many threads have there been and how many of us have posted about finding low tax places to retire to so we could keep more of our assets for ourselves?
Let me see if I understand all this verbiage. Are you trying to say that wealth is very mobile? Does that mean you really CAN take it with you?
Privatizing is truly the worst thing we could do. The Social Security trust fund becomes insolvent much faster if we do that.
Really I would like to see a compromise involving raising the retirement age gradually, changing the formula to lower inflation adjustments, and increasing the cap on the SS payroll tax.
Agree with you - they need to just do it. Especially raising the payroll cap.
Working to 65 is about as old as you should be. Just as back in the 70's we needed the "old guys" to get out of the way and retire so we could find jobs that paid more then minimum ($1.75/hr), It is our turn to get out of the way so the next generation can move up .
Judgeing from the # of friends needing some sort of corrective surgery (Hips, knees,heart valves) this generation (boomers) will be dropping like flies at the first frost.
Let me see if I understand all this verbiage. Are you trying to say that wealth is very mobile? Does that mean you really CAN take it with you?
Not that mobile at that point it stays behind. I think. Unless the Egyptians were on to something. On the other hand if you can't take it with you the state of last residence gets the inheritance tax if you are if owed.
Not that mobile at that point it stays behind. I think. Unless the Egyptians were on to something. On the other hand if you can't take it with you the state of last residence gets the inheritance tax if you are if owed.
Well, that's no fun and if it ain't fun it ain't worth doin' so I guess I'll just have to live forever or spend it all on my way out.
If you're saying that the problem is that wealth is mobile, then the obvious fix is to make wealth less mobile.
This is a world without borders and do you want to tell us retired folks we can't move or we do away with the rights of states to tax their citizens?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.