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.
Absolutely harm. More Socialism is very destructive to retires.
Again, Socialism is comprehensive and "free college" is just one aspect. Socialism destroys economic growth. Economic growth, Capitalism is the engine that produces goodies for retirees -- stronger SSI, capital gains, demographic gains, better wages during the working years, etc.
Marxist radicals have taken over the Democratic Party which now is openly anti-capitalist.
What destroyed economic growth in the last Recession? It was corporate greed, not "socialism." Good grief.
I don't think it has to do with "corporate greed" as the source issue. Many of us benefit from products/services from such "greed". And many people's livelihood/paychecks come from this "greed". Many small businesses that provide important services that you and I benefit from are not "greed" either. What I think makes it not such a good thing is the largely bought off nature of politicians and serving themselves first/their donors(who of course often can be companies) before the needs of the people. Blame our political system first. That's the source problem in my view.
As for socialism, democratic socialism, whatever one wants to call it that people like bernie think is the answer, let's say one is all for this/thinks it's a great idea(I personally don't) for retirees and beyond. I would simply like to ask such a person:
Why would you trust an inept/campaign donor based/largely self-serving government in my view to run a larger part of our lives, including of course taking an even greater role in perhaps now managing our retirement money for each of us that we have little/no control over? To suggest a government such as ours in its current form should make lots of decisions/run big parts of our lives from birth through retirement I think is not a rational suggestion. It's frankly a reckless suggestion in my view given how our political system is set up/works.
I have no idea what sort of supplemental insurance you have. Certainly living in Mississippi must keep costs down. My wife and I pay about $4000/year deducted from social security for our Medicare and prescription drug plans. In addition when we moved from South Dakota to New York our AARP/United Healthcare supplemental plan increased from $4000 to $6000/year. So now we plan a total of $10000/year but Wait there is more. Medical travel costs, the donut hole and other out of pocket expenses have taken the total to $20000/year. That has been the total medical deduction for each of my last three tax years.
I think ROI can indeed vary greatly due to government action. The other big factor is taxation. Hillary and Bernie both want to increase capital gains taxes. That will have a major effect in reducing my income because I need to sell down my portfolio to pay my expenses. Kasich even wants to cut social security payments. That is very scary for those of us who have a lot of reliance on that money.
It seems that you have no idea about living in a high cost area. Typically someone in Mississippi cannot comprehend property taxes of $10,000-15,000/year on a modest 3 bedroom house. Of course there is also a snowball effect. Because it is already expensive then costs of services go way up because those providing the services need to cover their costs of living in a high cost area. In case you did not notice, income taxes are very progressive. Those of us living in a high cost area need bigger incomes which are then taxed at a higher rate. The snowball just continues to grow.
I can tell you that my medical costs don't even approach yours! As I said, my supplement is 1800/year and I have never paid anything out of pocket beyond that. Had 2 operations - gall bladder and hernia - and insurance paid it all.
Your property taxes are one of the reasons I live here. We pay $900/year on our modest 3-2-2.
A lot of your post was fairly condescending........
Quote:
"It seems that you have no idea"...." Typically someone in Mississippi cannot"...."In case you did not notice".....
But we're used to all that. Living in a high cost area seems to have that effect on some people.
Both Hillary and Bernie are on record about wanting to increase capital gains taxes.
Isn't that just for the very highest categories, not the middle class and lower? I think the highest tax rates are far too low as it is.
I'm a registered Democrat, but one thing for me is certain, and that is that I do not believe that everyone deserves a free college education. I paid for my own education without a cent of financial aid, and I think current and future generations should do the same.
Isn't that just for the very highest categories, not the middle class and lower? I think the highest tax rates are far too low as it is.
I'm a registered Democrat, but one thing for me is certain, and that is that I do not believe that everyone deserves a free college education. I paid for my own education without a cent of financial aid, and I think current and future generations should do the same.
No, capital gains taxes are at the same rate for everyone and always have been. I have not heard of anyone who has mentioned trying to make a progressive capital gains tax. I am not sure if a progressive tax would mean much. Those at the top don't need to sell off assets in order to finance their lives and retirement. Many of us who are not so wealthy do need to sell down out portfolios to finance retirement. That is indeed the reason we worked so hard to build that nest egg in the first place.
So you think taxes should be more progressive and even higher? I am sure you know it takes a pretty decent income to get by in the Bay area. Someone from say rural Iowa is likely to look at the incomes of people in the Bay area and think they need to be taxed at a whopping high rate.
No, capital gains taxes are at the same rate for everyone and always have been. I have not heard of anyone who has mentioned trying to make a progressive capital gains tax. I am not sure if a progressive tax would mean much. Those at the top don't need to sell off assets in order to finance their lives and retirement. Many of us who are not so wealthy do need to sell down out portfolios to finance retirement. That is indeed the reason we worked so hard to build that nest egg in the first place.
So you think taxes should be more progressive and even higher? I am sure you know it takes a pretty decent income to get by in the Bay area. Someone from say rural Iowa is likely to look at the incomes of people in the Bay area and think they need to be taxed at a whopping high rate.
Isn't SFBayBoomer referring to long term capital gain rates varying with your ordinary income rates? CG rates are 0% for the 10 and 15% income tax brackets, 15% for 25, 28, 33, and 35% brackets, and 20% for the 39.6% brackets. I wouldn't call those "the same rate for everyone." And many would agree with Boomer that some of those CG rates are too low. But I concur that those in the highest tax brackets are probably least likely to need to sell down their portfolios.
I stand corrected and feel foolish. I have never made enough to pay anything beyond the 15% capital gains tax and did not know that higher income filers paid even more.
Somehow any level of capital gains taxation seems unfair. We fight to save and invest some money. In the good years our investments pay out some dividends and/or interest. Every year we pay income taxes on those gains. Eventually we need to sell off our investments and we get hit with taxes on the gains. Unfortunately the value of those assets has also eroded due to inflation. The government wants to encourage savings and investment in businesses but they make that difficult. A high percentage of the population does not even try. They spend as fast as they earn and later on put their hands out and as the taxpayers to support them.
Due to political uncertainty, some posters suggest cutting back on expenses to offset likely tax increases and benefit decreases. I am thinking of going the other way. I should spend and enjoy my money. Both my wife and I have long term chronic diseases. They are not life threatening but greatly increase the risk that one or both of us will require long term skilled nursing care. At that point we will just ask Medicaid or, in my case the VA, to pay the costs.
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.
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.
