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.
There will always be a 1%, whether royalty, head of government or military. The sheeple can not protect themselves and succeed without them against the more evil 1%. Again, always has been, always will be. At least OUR 1% form charitable foundations and help fund all the rescue and support organizations that we have. I don't see North Korea or Venezuela or Nigeria helping hurricane victims....
We live in the real world, not some imaginary TV utopian. It's not perfect, but it is one of the best games in town for sure.
At Tuborg: you were born at the right time and did the right things. Enjoy the success of effort and luck (circumstance). Others born at a different time could have done the exact same thing as you and failed. The reality is, in hindsight, many like you (and maybe myself) could have retired earlier, enjoyed more freedom, with the same income, just less buffer and less increased income later in life, due to circumstances. But we choose/chose a more conservative path because we either didn't believe or were afraid of what the future might bring and prefered a less risky path. There are people (like DW & myself) that just can't feel comfortable without fixed income of a certain level. Living entirely off of investments just seems so risky. But that is exactly what the 1%ers, and likely 5%ers do!
Last edited by Perryinva; 09-20-2017 at 07:12 AM..
As to the OPs question, the law is the law. Follow it and take advantage of it is neither morally or ethically, wrong or questionable. It still cracks me up when the "workers" with middle income cry "we are paying for the millionaires to have subsidies, its not fair, they are profiting off our taxes". What a total load of horse $hit!!! Get off your high Socialist horse and drink some Real World Koolaid and learn the facts. Most of these workers pay near Nothing in taxes as part of the whole.
The $250k/yr income people, which account for 2.7% of returns filed pay 51.6% of all taxes. Even at $100k/yr and up, which account for 16% of all returns pay a whopping 79.4% of all taxes. So the cry baby 84% get to skate by paying only 20% of the tax burden. So the "millionaires" that saved and built their portfolio, and live on a $50k income are WAY more entitled to take advantage of the subsidies than the $25/yr people that saved nothing and have paid nothing in to the system. No one that lives on a $50k income is considered REAL wealthy. And the real wealthy have no time or care the least about subsidies. They are too busy earning money and paying more in taxes a year than most people earn.
Agree completely.
I grew up lower middle class, and those know me from those days consider me a rich person abusing the system. I'm sure as hell not rich enough to not even think about these things, as you pointed out. And my career trajectory was unusual.....I had several very high earnings years while my niche skill set was in high demand. That, as I predicted, dried up, and I "hung 'em up". I paid insane amounts in taxes, and was disciplined enough to invest for a rainy day.
Just imagine how the 1% are "gaming" the system, and year after year, decade after decade. I don't see people as mad at that group. Those who are retired and with "limited" income may end up finding they need the millions stashed away just to pay for LTC while the 1% have little to nothing to worry about other than finding another way to shelter their income.
I've never understood this either, but here's my theory....
Everyone accepts the fact that there are "monied, silver spoon" individuals. The Kennedys. The Rockefellers, etc. The average person doesn't compare themselves to these people, so whatever they do is not personal. However, when someone like them, born economically disadvantaged, moves up in the world, it's suddenly personal and thus unfair.
It makes no sense to think this way....that's part of the reason why so many never get ahead.
The problem is that social welfare programs (and the ACA is just that - if you're getting a subsidy) have become income based, not asset based. So someone who earns 120K/year, has no net worth, and lives paycheck to paycheck supporting a family in a city with high cost of living (which is why he's earning that 120K/year), is paying to subsidize someone who has significant assets, but lower income. It's flat out wrong. People should have to liquidate their assets to support themselves before they can benefit from social welfare programs.
But this is how the law is written, so you can legally do it. It's not ethical, but it's legal. Nothing to stop you from doing it.
It's all about choice. And what you do with your income. My brother probably had figures like yours in a high cost area but chose not to marry and to control expenses. He saved and invested then retired "early" and lives very modestly on investments. No pension. No social security (way too young). No disability.
With a now-low "income" and happily continuing to live a very modest life style, he qualifies for ACA subsidies.
Nothing wrong with having a family but why penalize someone who in a no-pension job instead funded his retirement? Not being married, he'll never benefit from spousal social security in later years. Even in our individualistic-oriented culture, a lot of elder-support IS provided by children. He won't have that. So he was responsible and saved.
He tells me that for his former salaried-income, the tax benefit to his employer-provided health care plan about EQUALED the amount of his ACA-subsidy. Taxes not paid versus benefit provided. What's the difference?
You, too, are being "subsidized" by our tax / health-care system, if you have employer-provided insurance. Just in a different form.
Gold is unregulated so purchase and profitable sale of it, up to a certain level, are tax free.
Untrue. When gold is owned in a taxable account, the capital gains upon sale, if there are any gains, are taxed.
Holdings in precious metals such as gold, silver or platinum are considered to be capital assets, and therefore capital gains may apply. When it comes to tax purposes, the IRS classifies precious metals as collectibles, and thus they may potentially be taxed at the maximum collectable capital gains rate of 28 percent.
....tax and RMD free, as sales of gold are rarely reported as income. Unlike taxed equities, which in the 25% bracket, still have 15% on LTCGs, gold carries an instant 15 to 25% increase in net profit.
That is called breaking the law. It is tax evasion. You could go to jail. Remember: in Tax Court, the IRS is presumed correct and the burden is upon you to prove otherwise.
Everyone accepts the fact that there are "monied, silver spoon" individuals. The Kennedys. The Rockefellers, etc. The average person doesn't compare themselves to these people, so whatever they do is not personal. However, when someone like them, born economically disadvantaged, moves up in the world, it's suddenly personal and thus unfair.
At the risk of giving this discussion a political bent, it seems to me, that “class envy” in America is (1) almost never against the truly super-rich, and (2) almost never practiced by the truly very-poor. The envy is generally by people earning say $50K/year, against those earning $150K/year. The persons receiving the most vitriol are tenured university professors, senior career-administrators in the public sector, upper (but not executive) managers, lawyers… in other words, the sorts of people who can afford to save maybe $50K/year, hit their first $M by age 40 or 45 or 50, and go on to scrape against the threshold of the 1% just before retiring.
The truly wealthy are extolled as the great captains of industry, the success-stories, the movers and pillars. But the relatively highly-compensated employees, who live modestly, save and invest, and arrive at the low-7-figure range, receive broad opprobrium, as being “the elite”, or otherwise un-American.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EveryLady
With a now-low "income" and happily continuing to live a very modest life style, he qualifies for ACA subsidies.
The part that continues to confound me, is how can it be possible to simultaneously have a sufficiently large portfolio, as to fully find one's own retirement.... AND to so construct it, as to generate such a low income, that ACA subsidies are still substantial.
Or to rephrase: I don't see how intentionally allocating one's investments to generate minimal income, such as to qualify for the subsidy, is financially wise, relative to forgoing the subsidy but earning a higher investment income.
There is no real difference between this and those with assets who qualify for expanded Medicaid. That has been referred to as cheating, loophole, or working the system.
Untrue. When gold is owned in a taxable account, the capital gains upon sale, if there are any gains, are taxed.
Holdings in precious metals such as gold, silver or platinum are considered to be capital assets, and therefore capital gains may apply. When it comes to tax purposes, the IRS classifies precious metals as collectibles, and thus they may potentially be taxed at the maximum collectable capital gains rate of 28 percent.
That is called breaking the law. It is tax evasion. You could go to jail. Remember: in Tax Court, the IRS is presumed correct and the burden is upon you to prove otherwise.
Well, duh, thanks for pointing out the obvious. I never said it was in a taxable account, and why I plainly stated "up to a certain level". Illegal or not, people for centuries have collected precious metals to hide wealth. It was one of the reasons why the US Government tried to make it illegal to own bullion when they were controlling the price on a gold based currency. If I implied that gold was a legal loophole, then I apologize, it was not stated that way. When gold was $1700/oz, I don't know a single person that sold their jewelery and then included the profit against basis and claimed it as income. One is supposed to pay tax on values of bartered or traded items. Again, know anyone that does? Ever make a copy of any recorded music? You owe royalties to the Recording Company. Give me a break.
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.
