- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Yellen: Treasury will consider taxing unrealized capital gains
Posted on 1/23/21 at 10:42 am to cgrand
Posted on 1/23/21 at 10:42 am to cgrand
"Means testing":
Two people of the same age earn the exact same amount over the course of their careers, and pay the exact same amount into Social Security.
Person Number 1 sacrifices and saves, drives second-hand cars, buys cheap clothes, and takes his family on only modest vacations in order to provide security for his family.
Person Number 2 blows pretty-much everything he earns on cars, boats, drugs, and vacations. At the end of his career, he has nothing in savings.
"Means testing" tells us Social Security pays Person Number 2 because he has no "means," but pays Person Number 1 nothing because he did the right thing and thus has "means"? Preposterous.
Two people of the same age earn the exact same amount over the course of their careers, and pay the exact same amount into Social Security.
Person Number 1 sacrifices and saves, drives second-hand cars, buys cheap clothes, and takes his family on only modest vacations in order to provide security for his family.
Person Number 2 blows pretty-much everything he earns on cars, boats, drugs, and vacations. At the end of his career, he has nothing in savings.
"Means testing" tells us Social Security pays Person Number 2 because he has no "means," but pays Person Number 1 nothing because he did the right thing and thus has "means"? Preposterous.
This post was edited on 1/23/21 at 10:43 am
1
Posted on 1/23/21 at 10:47 am to Zachary
person 1 and person 2 in your example would both get SS. The income shelf should be 7 figures not 5 or 6
don’t be dramatic
don’t be dramatic
Posted on 1/23/21 at 10:49 am to RebelExpress38
They are either trying to kill America or Wall Street Bets. Sucks for America cuz WSB already bought puts.
Posted on 1/23/21 at 10:52 am to cgrand
Criticizing punishing responsible behavior is not being "dramatic."
Posted on 1/23/21 at 10:57 am to Zachary
I’m responsible
I got punished for it by not getting a stimulus check because I was means tested
who do I call for that?
it’s very likely I’ve paid more in taxes over my lifetime than everyone who got a check. Was I forced into a giveaway of my money to those less responsible?
SS is just a tax
I got punished for it by not getting a stimulus check because I was means tested
who do I call for that?
it’s very likely I’ve paid more in taxes over my lifetime than everyone who got a check. Was I forced into a giveaway of my money to those less responsible?
SS is just a tax
Posted on 1/23/21 at 11:19 am to cgrand
I agree with your last post to the extent that you feel the process of selecting who receives stimulus is inequitable.
However, that does not mean "means testing" for SS is okay, for at least four reasons: First, two wrongs don't make a right. "Means testing" is, simply, wrong, for the reasons I express above. Second, SS was enacted and represented to the public as a retirement vehicle for all Americans. The citizenry, through their elected officials, created SS with the understanding that that is what it is. Moving the goalposts by now trying to make it just another wellfare program contradicts the very purpose of the legislation. Third, and relatedly, people spend their lives assuming SS will be there. There is a reliance element. It would be wrong to pull the rug out from under people by denying them a portion of what they've paid into for a lifetime late in the game. Fourth, at least the stimulus is a one- (or-two)-time payment based on a single-year snapshot of one's income (not means), rather than a life-impacting decision influenced by a lifetime of decisions. That is, "means testing" arguably rewards bad behavior and punishes responsible behavior, whereas a decision based on a single year's income is less likely to do so.
However, that does not mean "means testing" for SS is okay, for at least four reasons: First, two wrongs don't make a right. "Means testing" is, simply, wrong, for the reasons I express above. Second, SS was enacted and represented to the public as a retirement vehicle for all Americans. The citizenry, through their elected officials, created SS with the understanding that that is what it is. Moving the goalposts by now trying to make it just another wellfare program contradicts the very purpose of the legislation. Third, and relatedly, people spend their lives assuming SS will be there. There is a reliance element. It would be wrong to pull the rug out from under people by denying them a portion of what they've paid into for a lifetime late in the game. Fourth, at least the stimulus is a one- (or-two)-time payment based on a single-year snapshot of one's income (not means), rather than a life-impacting decision influenced by a lifetime of decisions. That is, "means testing" arguably rewards bad behavior and punishes responsible behavior, whereas a decision based on a single year's income is less likely to do so.
This post was edited on 1/23/21 at 6:19 pm
Posted on 1/23/21 at 11:23 am to Zachary
it’s a good conversation and I don’t totally disagree with you but the equivalency between the stimulus check and a social security check can’t be so lightly dismissed, because...
I was not injured by COVID/didn’t get a check/checks
I will not be injured in retirement/shouldn’t get a check/checks
I don’t need the money, yay for me.
I’m just suggesting that SS would work better for everyone if those who don’t need it (regardless of what they were told about the program) don’t get the checks
we disagree on that and that’s fine
I was not injured by COVID/didn’t get a check/checks
I will not be injured in retirement/shouldn’t get a check/checks
I don’t need the money, yay for me.
I’m just suggesting that SS would work better for everyone if those who don’t need it (regardless of what they were told about the program) don’t get the checks
we disagree on that and that’s fine
Posted on 1/23/21 at 11:26 am to cgrand
Thanks -- I enjoyed the discourse.
Posted on 1/23/21 at 3:07 pm to rintintin
quote:
They are quite literally trying to take money from a pool of money that doesn't yet exist, which is terrifying.
It exist if you borrow against the unrealized gains and get real cash out. Isn’t this a popular tactic by rich people?
Posted on 1/23/21 at 3:51 pm to RebelExpress38
So when my stock goes up I pay tax.
Do they give me a refund when it goes down?
Do they give me a refund when it goes down?
Posted on 1/23/21 at 6:24 pm to barry
Can’t you borrow against your portfolio even if it doesn’t have a gain? If that is the case it isn’t tied to any actual gains just the overall balance. This would mean you aren’t actually getting any “real” cash from gains necessarily just based off of equity. Same with taking a heloc or home equity loan. Doesn’t necessarily need to have any gains to pull “real” cash out.
Posted on 1/24/21 at 11:19 am to bod312
quote:You can't do this with your retirement protected programs (401k, IRA). It's expressly against the law to use 401k and IRA as collateral.
Can’t you borrow against your portfolio even if it doesn’t have a gain?
You can, though, likely take a loan up to a limited amount from your 401k but you have to pay it back within a fairly short time scale.
Any other asset you have (stock in a brokerage account that can be liquidated) can be used as collateral. In any case, you might be "getting real cash out" but you are also taking on the liability of the loan.
Posted on 1/24/21 at 3:30 pm to RebelExpress38
When the liberals get in office and they start trying to save the world with their massive programs, they start looking for ways to get your money.
Forget the fact that taking rightfully earned money from someone is theft. Whether it’s a mugger on a dark street or a gigantic government with the largest army in the world, it’s theft.
We should be trying to find ways to attract capital, not run it off with more and higher taxation but after issuing over 3 trillion in debt to save us from the financial impact of a pandemic, they’ve run out of options.
For liberals it is and always be-
“The Ends justify the means. “
Forget the fact that taking rightfully earned money from someone is theft. Whether it’s a mugger on a dark street or a gigantic government with the largest army in the world, it’s theft.
We should be trying to find ways to attract capital, not run it off with more and higher taxation but after issuing over 3 trillion in debt to save us from the financial impact of a pandemic, they’ve run out of options.
For liberals it is and always be-
“The Ends justify the means. “
This post was edited on 1/24/21 at 5:02 pm
Posted on 1/24/21 at 3:41 pm to RebelExpress38
quote:
consider the possibility of taxing unrealized capital gains
At the point she instituted this I am ready to take up arms against her. She is going to tax me on gains I have to made. My account rises and falls with the tides of the market.
This post was edited on 1/24/21 at 3:42 pm
Posted on 1/24/21 at 4:59 pm to cgrand
quote:
SS is just a tax
Isn’t it insurance? That’s what the “I” stands for in FICA?
Posted on 1/24/21 at 6:12 pm to hottub
FICA is the name of the law.
payroll taxes (SS and Medicare) are how the programs are funded.
it’s a tax.
it’s not an investment
payroll taxes (SS and Medicare) are how the programs are funded.
it’s a tax.
it’s not an investment
Posted on 1/24/21 at 6:43 pm to cgrand
I want my money either way and I didn’t get a stimulus check either.
Posted on 1/25/21 at 7:08 am to cgrand
quote:
FICA is the name of the law.
payroll taxes (SS and Medicare) are how the programs are funded.
it’s a tax.
it’s not an investment
The employee pays into fica as insurance. The employer pays into fica as a tax (why would the employer insure the employees retirement floor?)
Dont confuse the two. It is a contractual promise (insurance) by the government to the worker.
Edit to add: did someone incorrectly call it an investment? I must have missed that.
This post was edited on 1/25/21 at 7:10 am
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News