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.
Going back to the capital gains issue.....not every retiree has/had a 401 as the basis of their retirement funds.
Some will most definately be affected by an increase.
This is not to say whether or not the planning was the best, simply that it may be the situation as it is.
We all know you're trying to brush off the negative impact of Obama's and the Dems' capital gains tax increases to suit your political ideology. The fact is that some seniors exercise the NUA option. The fact is that any increase in the capital gains tax WILL negatively impact seniors who exerceise the NUA option.
The fact that capital gains taxes do not occur inside a 401-k has nothing to do with any ideology. It has to do with the tax code. A small number of generally very well-to-do individuals who happen to have sizable holdings of highly appreciated employer stock in their 401-k's will elect to use an NUA when they retire if the calculations show this to be to their advantage under their personal circumstances at the time. Society is under no obligation to act so as to maximize the chances of those calculations turning out favorably. Changing tax laws are one of the variables that can affect any money management strategy over time. You seem to be complaining merely over the fact that a variable might vary. Some might call this whining.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
You're not seriously trying to argue that a 20% or 25% capital gains tax is the same as a 15% capital gains tax, are you? Any tax increase takes more money away from the taxpayer. How is it possible that you don't know that?
It isn't possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Then why doesn't Medicare provide those services without forcing seniors to participate in the Medicare Advantage plans to get them?
Medicare Advantage is a part of Medicare. It is sometimes referred to as Part C. If you are enrolled in a Medicare Advantage program, all of your Part A and Part B coverage is through that plan. You will probably have lower co-pays and lower deductibles and some additional benefits may be available, particularly relating to prescription drug coverage. But all of your basic Medicare hospital and medical benefits will now come through the Medicare Advantage plan, and since 2003, the private insurer running the Medicare Advantage plan has been able on average to bill Medicare 14% more for a Part A or Part B service than what would have been billed had the patient been treated under basic Medicare instead. This is a flat-out subsidy/freebie to the operators. More is charged for exactly the same service, and the taxpayer simply picks up the difference.
Whoa now! All of a sudden doing a comparison with/without is valid, whereas when you are confronted with the failed stimulus and the comparison of the UE with/without the stimulus, completely bogus you say.
No, your attempts to interpret the Y-axis values that were determined by unemployment levels existing at the time the stimulus projection was run as some sort of promise of limits on future unemployment levels is what is totally bogus. What that projection shows is that unemployment would peak earlier and at lower levels with a stimulus bill than without. The same sort of analysis will conclusively demonstrate that revenues with a tax cut will be lower than what they would have been without. This is why no serious analyst at all holds the beliefs about the relationship between tax cuts and revenues that you do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
Credibility=toilet...again.
Knowledge=Lacking...again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
It doesn't matter what they say, the numbers (facts) speak for themselves. The deficit was reduced due to increased revenue, due to those bush tax cuts. That is an inescapable fact. You are just spinning speculation of what the situation would have been without the tax cuts.
I see. It isn't just me among those who know so much more about the situation than you do that can't be trusted. The views of the Fed Chairman and half a dozen of the highest-level Bush administration experts on the subject can be dismissed with a wave of your hand as well. That's the famous right-wing faithfulness to reality for you.
Going back to the capital gains issue.....not every retiree has/had a 401 as the basis of their retirement funds.
Some will most definately be affected by an increase.
This is not to say whether or not the planning was the best, simply that it may be the situation as it is.
Anyone having taxable capital gains after a change in the capital gains rates in either direction will be in a different situation that he or she would have been had the change not been made. This is a given. It is also a given that these and all other tax rates tend to go up and down as circumstances arise that convince rate-makers to cause them to go up or down. If people cannot accept the rules of the game, perhaps they should not be playing the game to begin with.
Anyone having taxable capital gains after a change in the capital gains rates in either direction will be in a different situation that he or she would have been had the change not been made. This is a given. It is also a given that these and all other tax rates tend to go up and down as circumstances arise that convince rate-makers to cause them to go up or down. If people cannot accept the rules of the game, perhaps they should not be playing the game to begin with.
Did I indicate the 'rules'/risks weren't being accepted?
I am simply commenting on the fact that some retirees will be affected, as opposed to your point that no retiree will be.
Another point you made was they wouldn't be affected anyway since their income will be less than it was when working.
In fact, on that point, two of the last five retirement years our income has been greater than some of the previous 10 pre-retirement years.
You are using one narrow circumstance to support your arguments....that people have 401K or that type of retirement plan and that their income will be reduced.
Many planned and saved so they might have more money to enjoy once they had more time to enjoy it.
So the VAST majority of NYC residents with a median income of $55,000 are in poverty?
It does not cost $75,000 to rent a small apartment. It can, yes, but I assure you (since I've looked for apartments in NYC) you can find a better deal...
It kind of shows that YOU don't know the stats.
Median income in NYC is $75,513, 50% higher than you proclaimed.
btw, yeah, I see 698sf units for $1200 a month, thats smaller than my BEDROOM at more cost for my whole mortgage. Try pricing them for a family of 4. No thanks.. You keep the high costs and the small living spaces, I need/like my space and would rather have money to invest than spend on rent.
It is also a given that these and all other tax rates tend to go up and down as circumstances arise that convince rate-makers to cause them to go up or down. If people cannot accept the rules of the game, perhaps they should not be playing the game to begin with.
Can one who is putting their money into a 401K now, assume that their tax rate will go to 50%, 75%, how about 90% by time they cash out their 401K? Its a given that will go up which is why 401K's are for suckers. Put money away, that one cant get money out without paying ees, and just accept whatever the government tax rate is whenever you withdraw.
I prefer to make sure I know what my costs are getting out of an investment before I get in.. Those who dont.. are SUCKERS!!
Read on to see just how much revenues plummet when government starts fiddling with those CGT.
Really, do the democrats/liberals ever learn from the past? Why do they think such a tax vehicle would work now, when it never worked in the past? It's been tried, it failed, a sure sign the democrats will try it again.
Deceptive title. The idiots who can't count will fixate on the 69% headline number when in reality, the cap gains tax rate will go up from 15% to 20%.....which is still lower than the 26% we had under Reagan, and the 28% under Clinton. Last time I checked, the stock market boomed under both presidents. So sanrene, are you saying the Reagan years were a failure?
No, your attempts to interpret the Y-axis values that were determined by unemployment levels existing at the time the stimulus projection was run as some sort of promise of limits on future unemployment levels is what is totally bogus. What that projection shows is that unemployment would peak earlier and at lower levels with a stimulus bill than without.
And...how's that projection working out? Totally wrong and bogus - and since this is one of the analysis tools they used to convince a wary public of spending $1 Trillion, they are stuck with it. It is theirs, he owns it.
Quote:
The same sort of analysis will conclusively demonstrate that revenues with a tax cut will be lower than what they would have been without. This is why no serious analyst at all holds the beliefs about the relationship between tax cuts and revenues that you do.
Except that the numbers completely prove that you are wrong. It is a fact the deficit was reduced under bush for those years that were listed. Now, how is that done? Revenues to the treasury or did they cut spending? It is clearly shown that revenues increased, deficit decreased all under the Bush tax cuts. Fact. Inescapable. It makes no difference what the opinion of those you listed say...the proof is in the actual numbers.
It's easy to wave away those opinions when the actual numbers prove the contrary.
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.
