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.
And we've had how many pages of discussions here discussing just 1 other way that people who are rich, arent being attacked, while the working class is by this administration, but how about others..
Hey William, how about people who own businesses worth over $3M, and they plan to sell it upon their retirement? Are they next going to say that you cant own a business worth $x because the value of that business isnt being taxed until its sold and spent?
I know someone who has a car collection, and while the value isnt near $3M, its their retirement fund. How about if they manage to acquire $3M+ in cars, why dont we demand that they stop accumulating?
Hell, my internet company probably has $3M in inventory, and because I'm a sole proprieter, does this mean it cant acquire more? We wouldnt want people to have too much saved when they retire, we want them dependant upon Social Security..
Why would we do that? If government establishes that having $3M is bad, then its bad for everyone. Whats wrong, you dont like me pointing out how dumb the proposal is by using other examples of people who have the EXACT same net worth?
And the government expects to get $9 billion in NEW revenue over 10 years from this.
Yipee..the government is getting REVENUE off the backs of those that saved for 30+ years to fund their retirement.
Actually if you read the article, it says "in IRAs and other retirement accounts." I believe 401k accounts would be classified as other retirement accounts. I haven't checked, but I would bet that the median balances of IRA accounts is even lower.
[LEFT]
[/LEFT]
I think that once government establishes laws and you establish something as important as your retirement based upon the laws, then yes, they have officially formed a contract with you.
I'm sure you wont have a problem if they change Social Security payouts to $1 a month then right, because clearly, the payment isnt cut in stone and cant be changed.. Right?
How the hell do you expect people to plan for their retirement? Ooh thats right, you dont, you want people to be spoon fed off the government just like you re.
And they do it one month before you apply for your SS.
This younger crowd is NOT planning their retirement. They live for the here and now.
US savings rate is a pitiful 2%.
30% of companies went to an automatic 401K enrollment and paycheck withdrawal because employees were not enrolling and that number is growing.
Outlining his rationale, Buffett suggests not paying dividends works better both for shareholders and the firm, by allowing individuals the flexibility to extract the right amount of cash for them in the right circumstances, while leaving the business free to invest in itself.
So, he says investors looking to extract money should instead sell shares, leaving the company to pump all earnings back into its operations to increase the net worth of the business over time: what he calls the sell-off alternative.
The second important argument against dividends is tax, where all the cash received by shareholders under a dividend policy is taxed, versus the sell-off approach where only a portion is taxed.
How the hell do you expect people to plan for their retirement? Ooh thats right, you dont, you want people to be spoon fed off the government just like you are.
Again, attacking the responsible people. One thing I do not like about 401K's is I know the government is always looking for ways to increase revenue and I don't trust the government when they are eyeing us as piggy banks.
Government put controls on 401K's but will not put controls on how people spend their welfare check, cripe we pay so they can go to strip bars for gods sake yet they go after responsible people to pay for it.
I remember Obama they were saying that Obama would probably go after retirement accounts during the election but obviously MSMBC didn't report that.
Outlining his rationale, Buffett suggests not paying dividends works better both for shareholders and the firm, by allowing individuals the flexibility to extract the right amount of cash for them in the right circumstances, while leaving the business free to invest in itself.
So, he says investors looking to extract money should instead sell shares, leaving the company to pump all earnings back into its operations to increase the net worth of the business over time: what he calls the sell-off alternative.
The second important argument against dividends is tax, where all the cash received by shareholders under a dividend policy is taxed, versus the sell-off approach where only a portion is taxed.
Yea, Buffett is a hypocrite. and now it makes even more sense why he is an Obama supporter.
But he is an astute investor. I bought some BRK-B when it reverse split to $60/share.
It's now over $100/share..no dividends, no taxes.
When I buy/sell I aim for LT gains and did that with some of my AAPL stock.
I don't care for dividends as it screws up your income like interest received does.
All that extra "income" only serves to bump you UP in your tax bracket.
But he is an astute investor. I bought some BRK-B when it reverse split to $60/share.
It's now over $100/share..no dividends, no taxes.
No I can not take that away from him and good for you on the split and increase in wealth without an increase in taxes. Me, I have dividend paying stock, oops, dividend investing instead of wealth for wealth.
Unfortunately the middle class look at him as a champion for the middle class because he was in agreement in going increasing taxes on higher incomes. But he is investing to avoid income.
Are you still invested in BRK-B? I find going further into the stock market a little un-nerving but then again I did miss a big run. Reinvesting in my company so all is not lost.
So? lets propose to only kill gays, I'm sure you wont have a problem with that since the vast majority of people are stright.. Yeah, your response was that dumb...
My response was to those who keep saying that this proposal will affect the middle class, which is simply not true in the vast majority of cases.
Why would we do that? If government establishes that having $3M is bad, then its bad for everyone. Whats wrong, you dont like me pointing out how dumb the proposal is by using other examples of people who have the EXACT same net worth?
I would classify other means to avoid taxes as a separate issue than retirements accounts. Feel free to discuss what ever you want.
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.
