Retirement Targets

[BCClone]

Depending on how the next say 8 years or 10 years go, we have contemplated just using what myself and my wife might get to help some others who are elderly who are trying to live off it as a sole source of income. We've pretty much ignored it as a source of income for retirement just due to all the uncertainty. If they means test me out I don't think I would throw a tantrum about it.

Honestly, if it’s to keep people from being totally destitute, why should someone over median income get anything from it.

Looking at numbers. Poverty is around 21k. Median is 75k. So make the payment 1750/month and it becomes 0 at 75k. It would do what the program was created for.

 

[clonechemist]

That has a value of $3 million or so? No wealth tax IMO on that amount. And I think a wealth tax is a bad idea. Tax stock compensation the same as wage compensation. No reason for tax advantages for that. CEO giveaways.

I think stock compensation would be easier to game against taxes. That’s part of why I favor a wealth tax - just come out and say the very wealthy will be forced to liquidate some small percent of holdings each year to pay a wealth tax.

But I agree the threshold should be high - probably $10 million or higher.

 

[BCClone]

I think stock compensation would be easier to game against taxes. That’s part of why I favor a wealth tax - just come out and say the very wealthy will be forced to liquidate some small percent of holdings each year to pay a wealth tax.

But I agree the threshold should be high - probably $10 million or higher.

Why not just means testing with a sliding reduction scale like I proposed? Seems so much cleaner and easier. The wealthy would get nothing from what they pay and those in financial trouble would get the most help.

 

[Stormin]

Why not just means testing with a sliding reduction scale like I proposed? Seems so much cleaner and easier. The wealthy would get nothing from what they pay and those in financial trouble would get the most help.

Wealth tax won’t pass IMO.

 

[dmclone]

Wealthy paying the increased tax would receive the increased benefits that those taxes bring. Benefits will not be capped. Tax is not capped.

You do understand that benefits are capped today right?

 

[CascadeClone]

I think stock compensation would be easier to game against taxes. That’s part of why I favor a wealth tax - just come out and say the very wealthy will be forced to liquidate some small percent of holdings each year to pay a wealth tax.

But I agree the threshold should be high - probably $10 million or higher.

Wealth taxes are really crude instruments, its just another way to "tax the man behind the tree".

Why $10M? Why not $2M? Why not $500k? Who has too much money, and who gets to decide what is too much money?

What counts as wealth? You'd see such a bidding war for carve outs - homes, farms, small biz, manufacturing, green energy, hospitals, churches, government bonds, et al. Just screaming for cronyism. And you'd distort the values of those companies/industries as well. Lots of unintended consequences and perverse incentives there.

 

[brokenloginagain]

Is this the first thread in the history of CF to cover economic and societal issues in a respectful/informative matter?

Where am I again?

 

[KnappShack]

Is this the first thread in the history of CF to cover economic and societal issues in a respectful/informative matter?

Where am I again?

Oh snap.

Now the crazies will start showing up

 

[1SEIACLONE]

Honestly, if it’s to keep people from being totally destitute, why should someone over median income get anything from it.

Looking at numbers. Poverty is around 21k. Median is 75k. So make the payment 1750/month and it becomes 0 at 75k. It would do what the program was created for.

Do what you are saying at those rates and you are going to get a lot of working people that are making around those numbers not receiving anything, but paying in for decades. Are you talking as an individual or a couple at 75K, because if the number is for a couple, you are going to eliminate a majority of the people that have paid into the system.

 

[yowza]

Wealth taxes are really crude instruments, its just another way to "tax the man behind the tree".

Why $10M? Why not $2M? Why not $500k? Who has too much money, and who gets to decide what is too much money?

What counts as wealth? You'd see such a bidding war for carve outs - homes, farms, small biz, manufacturing, green energy, hospitals, churches, government bonds, et al. Just screaming for cronyism. And you'd distort the values of those companies/industries as well. Lots of unintended consequences and perverse incentives there.

Big money will always find a way or a means to hide or disguise or buy favor.

 

[CascadeClone]

Oh snap.

Now the crazies will start showing up

Paper money is unconstitutional, only coins made of at least 14.8% bronze are legal tender!

 

[CascadeClone]

Do what you are saying at those rates and you are going to get a lot of working people that are making around those numbers not receiving anything, but paying in for decades. Are you talking as an individual or a couple at 75K, because if the number is for a couple, you are going to eliminate a majority of the people that have paid into the system.

That would keep it solvent as heck though... or you could lower the age, or lower the tax rate, or the cap, etc.

It's all like squeezing a balloon, just where you want to squeeze.

 

[BCClone]

Do what you are saying at those rates and you are going to get a lot of working people that are making around those numbers not receiving anything, but paying in for decades. Are you talking as an individual or a couple at 75K, because if the number is for a couple, you are going to eliminate a majority of the people that have paid into the system.

And why is that a problem? 75k is considered a median household income so set that as the standard.

If the goal of the system is to keep people from being without housing, food and utilities in their retirement, why do we care if a group receives some or not? It accomplished its task.

 

[clonechemist]

Wealth taxes are really crude instruments, its just another way to "tax the man behind the tree".

Why $10M? Why not $2M? Why not $500k? Who has too much money, and who gets to decide what is too much money?

What counts as wealth? You'd see such a bidding war for carve outs - homes, farms, small biz, manufacturing, green energy, hospitals, churches, government bonds, et al. Just screaming for cronyism. And you'd distort the values of those companies/industries as well. Lots of unintended consequences and perverse incentives there.

I’d pick a wealth number where a 4% return yields an income equivalent to the top 1% of salaried workers.

If you can stick all your money in a HYSA or money market and remain a member of the 1% indefinitely, in the richest country in the history of the planet, congrats, you’ve won at life!

Alternatively, taxing cap gains as regular income would accomplish almost the same effect and is also good with me

 

[CycloneDaddy]

And why is that a problem? 75k is considered a median household income so set that as the standard.

If the goal of the system is to keep people from being without housing, food and utilities in their retirement, why do we care if a group receives some or not? It accomplished its task.

So I would pay in for 50 years and would get none because I made good financial decisions?

 

[BCClone]

So I would pay in for 50 years and would get none because I made good financial decisions?

Yep. If social security is a poverty insurance program, Then you got insurance incase you, your spouse, or child could not provide essential needs later in life or you died or was disabled.

I think the one thing that people seem to keep forgetting is, this isn’t a retirement program, it’s a safety net. If it’s a safety net, then means testing with basic thresholds like poverty level and median household income make sense.

 

[1SEIACLONE]

Yep. If social security is a poverty insurance program, Then you got insurance incase you, your spouse, or child could not provide essential needs later in life or you died or was disabled.

I think the one thing that people seem to keep forgetting is, this isn’t a retirement program, it’s a safety net. If it’s a safety net, then means testing with basic thresholds like poverty level and median household income make sense.

I would say its both, insurance for people that get hurt or pass away for their spouse and children. Plus a minimum retirement plan for those that make it to retirement.

 

[whatthewhat]

Yep. If social security is a poverty insurance program, Then you got insurance incase you, your spouse, or child could not provide essential needs later in life or you died or was disabled.

I think the one thing that people seem to keep forgetting is, this isn’t a retirement program, it’s a safety net. If it’s a safety net, then means testing with basic thresholds like poverty level and median household income make sense.

If it is insurance, do I have the ability to opt out and instead use the money to fund my retirement account?

 

[BCClone]

If it is insurance, do I have the ability to opt out and instead use the money to fund my retirement account?

Nope.

 

[CascadeClone]

I’d pick a wealth number where a 4% return yields an income equivalent to the top 1% of salaried workers.

If you can stick all your money in a HYSA or money market and remain a member of the 1% indefinitely, in the richest country in the history of the planet, congrats, you’ve won at life!

Alternatively, taxing cap gains as regular income would accomplish almost the same effect and is also good with me

That's an interesting way to look at it... I still don't like it, but appreciate the thought process behind it.

Don't get me started on cap gains taxes though! Its a great way to double tax people and hurt the economy at the same time.