I understand the practical argument for making more revenue now... but applying incremental taxation to unrealized gains is bound to cause serious market distortion. (Even if we allowed people to pay taxes from those accounts) Who the hell would want to do that anymore? What would an employer (like me) who currently only offers a 401(k) do? Switch everyone into a Roth to dodge this crap? Do the fed them go after them?

Not liking that particular rabbit hole.

That too, but the real world implications are probably beyond me to figure out. That's why we need smart guys like you to call it out.

Trump is putting tariffs on Canadian lumber now in retaliation for the the whole milk thing I talked about a few posts back.

I have some suggestions for good candidates for the job.

But then the Democrats would hold the house, senate and Presidency... things might actually get done.

Virtually all of them bad.

I have a much more beneficial solution in mind however :)

You could argue an established middle class is the ruin of democratic countries.

The modern peaceful Western civilisation model seems to work best when countries are expanding, with a defined upper and working class, with the latter having the realistic aspiration to better themselves.

Once too many of the working class better themselves, the system creaks under the weight of too large a middle class, not enough workers nor people willing to work (two separate groups), and too many older people as modern medicine, welfare and the lack of face to face warfare saves lives.

I'm not sure any western democracy is more powerful now than at any point in the past: European countries had empires, the US was more powerful compared to the rest of the world 30-50 years ago.

Not saying I agree with this, but you could defend it in a debate.

Maybe the U.S. was more powerful in a relative sense ten years ago, but we're basically at a point where we're more powerful than we've ever been. There's literally no country on earth that could threaten us.

And the middle class, as defined by the middle three income quintiles, has a lesser share of both income and wealth than they did decades ago. What data do you use to justify the contention that the problem is a swelling middle class?

The problem is the bloating at the top. It has caused a major imbalance in the system.

If left unchecked it will bring the country to its knees.

We'll have things like:
Poisoned water lines
Coal dust being dumped in rivers
Removal of regulations attempting to increase fuel efficiency in vehicles
Dismantling the EPA
Dismantling the parks system
...

Nary a peep from conservatives after Trump issues a statement taking credit for the most executive orders since FDR.

Maybe process complaints aren't really sincere?

Wild boars overrun Islamic State position, kill 3 militants

:lol:

They have to pay for the tax cuts for the rich somehow. Middle and lower class are going to be the one's that take the hit.

It'll impact younger people who don't vote as much and likely aren't taking retirement serious. So I understand why it's a target. Older people got their tax cuts from the system and can now screw over the younger generation.

As Trump Inquiries Flood Ethics Office, Director Looks To House For Action

And in the ever expanding file of insincere arguments, add, laws should apply to congress.

exiling yourself to Outer Mongolia?? You're a prince jon.. the prince of darkness ;)

Don't you guys have plenty of lumber available in Yellowstone etc ? No need to import, sound strategy.


:banghead:



(and yeah, i have no idea as to the realities/reasoning between either the milk thing or this one)

More, and more detail, on this point in the "mainstream media" today.

Slow pace of Trump nominations leaves Cabinet agencies ‘stuck’ in staffing limbo - The Washington Post


Federal agencies now hiring lobbyists to help get their own staff appointed. WTF

Welcome To Mar-A-Lago

Guess those wheels of justice are moving really slowly these days.

Canadian lumber is cheaper. The Trump administration argument is that Canadian lumber is cheaper because the lumber companies are unfairly subsidized by the Canadian government. Most of the timber land used by Canadian lumber companies is government owned.

With milk, Canada has tariffs on imported milk and the government has a supply management system that ensures a good price to their farmers but limits growth as you must buy expensive quota to produce more milk. We could probably put the Canadian dairy industry out of business if they got rid of quota and lifted tariffs. We'd flood their market with cheaper dairy products. I don't blame Canada for keeping it.

Doesn't look like I'm getting early retirement as my milk processor is going to be keeping my farm.

That's good to hear at least.

Amidst all the tax ideas being bandied about, two in particular seem odd when placed alongside one another:

-Trump describes his plan as the "biggest tax cut ever"
-Congress appears committed to things being "revenue neutral"

So... let's try to take some of this at face value. Big rate cut for corporations. Probably a big rate cut for the very wealthy. Even if you assume some positive growth numbers and come foreign repatriation of income (there's zero doubt there will be some fantasy-like dynamic scoring in play, and those numbers will be the guide rather than those coming from the CBO), you still have to find some net increase in revenue elsewhere to make this revenue neutral, or even close to it.

I think the best guess is that for many people in middle income, the net effect might be some modest drop in rates, but a substantial broadening of your taxable income base, and probably some weird tweaks like new taxation of your pension assets' incremental gains. Lots of people in the demographic strata who voted for this president are going to end up paying higher taxes, most likely.

But "postcard" tho.

It will be very interesting to see how much Trump benefits from any tax cuts.

It probably won't matter to his supporters though. Many of them believe he's paying for his trips to Mar-A-Lago out of his own pocket.

Without knowing the full extent of his own finances will we truly know?

Is this the Joseph Ducreux version of "but her e-mails?"

Amazing no one responded on this. It still baffles me how blatantly dishonest this guy/administration is. And no one seems to give a shit anymore. Is this asshat desensitizing us to the truth? And what kills me, as a southerner, who as a whole, we pride ourself on honesty and trustworthiness, the majority of my people voted for, and still support this insincere clown.

Even if he manages to do something that works toward something good 1 time out of 10, he's still hitting better than his predecessors. The bar he needs to clear to represent improvement is awwwwfully low.

While I do still have Obama above Carter in the worst-ever derby, the majority of my friends (largely Southern, which is why I feel like it's relevant to your specific complaint) have Obie firmly in the worst-ever slot. And I'm talking about people who, by a strong majority, lived through both.

I believe the majority of those voters you're talking about (tho a disappointingly slim majority) knew this was a simply "best of the available choices", not "greatest ever". The bar is pretty low.

We live in a time where the right is being steered by 4chan and the left by professional victims that call themselves activists. It's not about policy or the truth. It's about my team winning and shifting my ideals to fit the policy introduced by my team's leader.

So probably shady... but at some level, isn't it getting tough to fill these positions with qualified (or at least somewhat qualified) candidates if lots of people don't want to serve under this administration.

Am I wrong in stating that the US gov't subsidizes US milk by buying up supply if the price drops below a certain point?

You are blaming Trump for desensitizing people to the truth? Where have you been the last 10, 20, 30, 40 years?
This is what all politicians do. So a better question would be "Have we really become this desensitized?" or "When do we start the take over?"

It might still be in place but hasn't been updated in so long so that it actually kicks in.

The current government margin insurance program from the last farm bill was pretty much a joke. I never did sign up, but I continue to use a different insurance program to set a floor on my milk price. The premium on this insurance is partially government subsidized.

No

Comparing the level of lying and general dishonesty from Trump and his administration to any other administration in US history (including Nixon) is either nativity or ignorance.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...heir-promises/

Politicians generally twist reality to suit their arguments. Trump just makes shit up - it's a big leap.

Q: how is milk literally selling for 1.28$ in Ohio when 15 miles over in PA there is a state minimum of 3.40$ I think. Surely it costs a helluva lot more than 1.28 to produce a gallon of milk, right?

Anyways I find myself getting 4-5 gallons every time I stop at Walmart there. Even if I throw away some I'm still way ahead.

I'm saying this anecdotally, but the southerners who voted for Trump and value honesty only do so as a stereotype they claim but rarely try to live up to. My family's roots are in Appalachia a couple of generations back and most of them voted for Trump. Neither of my parents had ever seen a non white person before they left home at 18. They don't care that he's lying because they are habitual liars who will double down on an obvious lie, who will change positions because Fox News tells them to, and whose vote for Trump had nothing to do with his character and everything to do with stupid promises about backwards crap like pumping money into dead industries like coal and keeping out anyone who isn't white. It's that simple. They'll self describe as good, honest, hard working folk but it's simply not true in practice and never has been.

I suspect that the following three tax deductions will go away in the next decade:

- 401k / Retirement from pre-tax dollars
- Mortgage interest
- Lack of tax on other employer benefits, healthcare being the big one

My question is will it be better to do it all at once or piecemeal.

It's probably for the best to move people off of the 401k and onto better savings options.

If you have a company match, what would be better (even taking the matched portion out of the equation)?

Politically I'm not sure you can get away with any of that list, but you certainly couldn't do it all at once. The tax hit on the middle class would be huge, and they generally don't pay enough in income taxes to have a rate cut offset the increases.

Nothing up to the match. After that it I think the conventional wisdom is that it depends on what investment options are offered and potential fund expenses compared to personal retirement accounts you can open and fund yourself.

It depends on how much the company matches. It's also an issue of having an option where you aren't penalized for accessing your money in a crisis situation. I'll again reference James Altucher who, though I don't agree with all of his points, is a financial wiz who has made millions several times in his life. I don't agree with him that's it's just a big scam, but I do agree that it's shady and something as simple as putting money into a Wealthfront account or investing in a Vanguard index fund is better and allows much more flexibility.

Why Your 401K Is A Scam!

I agree. Diversification is always important and the key to any good financial planning.

But it isn't as simple as saying "just move to another saving option" when people in this country have a problem with saving. There is enormous power in having that money come out of your paycheck automatically, and it took a real long time for people to understand why using pre-tax money is so important. So yeah, you can start directing contributions from your paycheck to another account that you have designated for retirement but you had to have had some very expensive investment options in your 401k account in order to make up for the pre and post tax difference.

Yeah I don't expect there to be an offset. Eventually revenues will have to be raised and the government doesn't seem ready to cut spending. And frankly neither does most of the population since any proposed cut results in some special interest group coming out saying that it's the worst thing ever.

I think the difference is that employers should be matching something like an index fund instead of something as restrictive as a 401k. Even the creators of the 401k say it's a mistake. Overall, I don't view the 401k as bad, and definitely not a scam, but I don't see it as a solid enough option given the alternatives. I interviewed for a job with UNLV and was shocked that they require 14.5% to be placed into their retirement fund.

Even the people who pushed the 401(k) think it's been a huge mistake.

Some 401k programs are good, some are not. Some 401k's do offer index funds as investment options. Some do not.

Your link is about how 401k's replaced pension funds and that is a net negative. That's not helpful from the standpoint of "invest in something other than a 401k right now." That's a totally different line of discussion.

A data point for the earlier staffing discussion:


http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...t-incompetence

Withdraw from NAFTA, murder healthcare for poor people, destroy taxes for everyone but the extremely wealthy. He's really going for the trifecta so people think he accomplished something at that deadline he says is stupid.

More fake news from another liberal news organization /s

Looks like a short call with Trudeau talked him out of leaving NAFTA. Art of the Deal or whatever LOL.

Cookies are Not Accepted - New York Times