Harris Tax Polices

[crazed_hoosier2]

She's a Kelley grad in a financial field. She lives in Boston, so that's pretty salty. (She's moving to her own studio apt after a couple of years of sharing a place...$2600 a month.) She had an internship lined up with this Boston firm for the summer of 2020, but that ended up being canceled due to Covid. The bonus was that they offered full time positions after graduation for those interns who didn't get to work that summer. So she spent her entire senior year at IU knowing she had a position.

I get the impression that @twenty02 was more interested in #2 than #1 -- which was just a fig leaf courtesy to ask for #2.

That said: congrats to your daughter. Sounds like she's done well for herself. I love Boston. It's among a short list of large cities in this country I'd be willing to live in (if I was younger).

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Exactly. Just a 'slight' correction, now that Joe's out of the picture and Kamala needs a Fed rate cut.

It’s all a conspiracy - if you’re an idiot.

 

[Hank Reardon]

I get the impression that @twenty02 was more interested in #2 than #1 -- which was just a fig leaf courtesy to ask for #2.

That said: congrats to your daughter. Sounds like she's done well for herself. I love Boston. It's among a short list of large cities in this country I'd be willing to live in (if I was younger).

I know what Twenty wanted. Ha ha.

I'd actually never been to Boston before she moved there. I've been a few times since and I really like it. For a "big city" it's surprisingly easy to get around. If I was younger I'd love living there. She's living the dream, for now.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

This board is simply too easy for us. I checked out Peegs civil discourse board for us. Says something about vip. I guess you have to subscribe first then learn only coh is there? Peegs being Peegs huh.

It’s free but that board has been down for a couple months.

 

[mcmurtry66]

She's a Kelley grad in a financial field. She lives in Boston, so that's pretty salty. (She's moving to her own studio apt after a couple of years of sharing a place...$2600 a month.) She had an internship lined up with this Boston firm for the summer of 2020, but that ended up being canceled due to Covid. The bonus was that they offered full time positions after graduation for those interns who didn't get to work that summer. So she spent her entire senior year at IU knowing she had a position.

My god those Kelley grads. Like our young farva. Movers and shakers

 

[stollcpa]

As for the prospect of a tax on unrealized capital gains, I doubt this court would recognize unrealized gains as "...incomes, from whatever source derived" per the 16th amendment -- which means that such a tax would be a "direct tax" subject to apportionment, which means it would be wholly unworkable.

So, I'm fairly confident that, even if such a tax were to somehow get through Congress and become law, it's not something we'll see enacted -- not at the federal level, anyway (assuming the Roberts court sustains, more or less as it is, throughout a potential Harris presidency).

That said, some of the commentary on the idea I've seen beckons a thought. A defense I've seen is that the tax would only apply to people with a net worth more than $100M. Given that we're in the thick of election season, it should come as no surprise that policies would be defended on their political merits. What these defenders are saying is "Almost nobody has to worry about this affecting them. And if you do have to worry about it affecting you, you can easily afford it. So don't be afraid of this and don't let it discourage you from voting for Harris."

It's just another reminder of how differently many people (mostly on the left, but not entirely...especially in the age of right-wing populism) look at policy than I do.

I don't look at tax proposals and think "Oh bugger, is this going to result in a big tax hike for me? No? Good...well, then I'm not going to concern myself with it. Those rich pricks have trillions parked in unrealized gains...they can afford it." I look at these sorts of things and think "What kinds of ramifications would this portend for us economically? What kind of unintended consequences might result from it? Would the added tax revenues be worth those negative secondary effects?"

Tax on unrealized gains shows just how crazy the progressive socialist are.

 

[snarlcakes]

We have over 1000 participants. So I don't think it's right to call this "one anecdote." It's hundreds of anecdotes. And, moreover, we compare data with other comparable plans at our annual conference. We're only one of many DC plans there. Still the minority, but growing fast.

And there is absolutely zero question in my mind that defined contribution pensions are superior to defined benefit pensions. In fact, I feel sorry for the DB trustees I interact with there (and I know a lot of them -- including a longtime trustee of the notorious Central States Fund). Most of them are wading in varying depths of shit without any solutions I'd call "good." They're usually either hoping for more bailouts or that they'll be long gone when the crunch sets in.

There isn't one among our group of trustees (or participants) who would trade places with them.

For one thing, there is no continuing employer obligation after contributions have been made. Your money is yours -- and is entirely shielded from employer bankruptcies. There is also no concern about anybody "properly funding" them. And not only will the proceeds generate income for you and your spouse in retirement, but the remaining principle will become inheritable upon your deaths. And I think retirement plans for working class families that result in intergenerational wealth are far preferable to plans that only provide income until death...whenever that may be.

But I'm interested to know why you think DB plans are better. About the only people in our world who think that anymore are actuaries and others who make their living off of managing DB plans.

I agree. I have a state funded pension plan and I’m basically assuming it’s f#cked. It’s also not tied to CPI. I know people who retired in 2020 and have already lost 20% of their purchasing power. I would prefer a generous 401k matching program over it.

 

[ChicagoFineForNow]

It’s all a conspiracy - if you’re an idiot.

There will be a rate cut heading into the election. Which Republicans have been forecasting ever since interest rates went through the roof. So when it comes to fruition you can excuse us for being a little annoyed if not suspicious.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Tax on unrealized gains shows just how crazy the progressive socialist are.

It's a bad idea on a number of levels, and impractical on top of it.

But the fact that it's gaining some purchase among politicians demonstrates just how much our funding strategies are falling behind our spending commitments -- assuming, anyway, that they're truly motivated by trying to fill that shortfall.

 

[BradStevens]

We have over 1000 participants. So I don't think it's right to call this "one anecdote." It's hundreds of anecdotes. And, moreover, we compare data with other comparable plans at our annual conference. We're only one of many DC plans there. Still the minority, but growing fast.

And there is absolutely zero question in my mind that defined contribution pensions are superior to defined benefit pensions. In fact, I feel sorry for the DB trustees I interact with there (and I know a lot of them -- including a longtime trustee of the notorious Central States Fund). Most of them are wading in varying depths of shit without any solutions I'd call "good." They're usually either hoping for more bailouts or that they'll be long gone when the crunch sets in.

There isn't one among our group of trustees (or participants) who would trade places with them.

For one thing, there is no continuing employer obligation after contributions have been made. Your money is yours -- and is entirely shielded from employer bankruptcies. There is also no concern about anybody "properly funding" them. And not only will the proceeds generate income for you and your spouse in retirement, but the remaining principle will become inheritable upon your deaths. And I think retirement plans for working class families that result in intergenerational wealth are far preferable to plans that only provide income until death...whenever that may be.

But I'm interested to know why you think DB plans are better. About the only people in our world who think that anymore are actuaries and others who make their living off of managing DB plans.

Your anecdotal experience is extremely skewed. Only 3% of Americans have $1 million in their retirement accounts. Good for your employees. But there are maybe 10,000 retirement plans in the US? Thinking yours is typical or representative of all of them is wrong.

How Many People Actually Retire With 1 Million Dollars?

Many people often wonder what the percentage of people actually retire with $1 Million dollars and if its even enough.

www.fuchsfinancial.com

DCs don’t contribute as much as DBs and in DBs the employee doesn’t have to take investment risk. Pretty simple. Most employees don’t invest well—see twenty’s early posts re that.

There's a reason that private companies have shifted away from DBs to DCs and it’s not because they wanted to be more generous with their workers. It’s because they don’t contribute as much and so save money. It’s why most big corps switched from straight up DBs to cash balance plans in the late 90s-2000s. That switch didn’t benefit employees, despite corporate propaganda.

The switch also happened because many fvcked up the actuarial calculations, shortchanged their plan contributions for decades, and raised or used those funds for other things. Just like the public funds in Illinois and elsewhere have been doing for a few decades.

Employees have little to worry about with a DB unless it is underfunded. And plans don’t just become underfunded—it’s the employer’s (or union’s) fault.

 

[stollcpa]

It's a bad idea on a number of levels, and impractical on top of it.

But the fact that it's gaining some purchase among politicians demonstrates just how much our funding strategies are falling behind our spending commitments -- assuming, anyway, that they're truly motivated by trying to fill that shortfall.

Example current law: you have $5,000 capital gain and $30,000 capital losses, losses can only exceed capital gains by $3,000. Therefore in this example you get to deduct $8,000 of the $30,000 capital losses. The remaining $22,000 loss is carried forward to future years to be used if you have capital gains.

Now let’s say you have $100,000 net unrealized gain in year 1 and pay tax on it. Year 2 $100,000 net unrealized capital loss and that’s repeated in year 3. So do you only get $3000 loss deductions in years 2 and 3 and you’re carrying forward $194,000 of capital losses?

 

[El Drado]

Example current law: you have $5,000 capital gain and $30,000 capital losses, losses can only exceed capital gains by $3,000. Therefore in this example you get to deduct $8,000 of the $30,000 capital losses. The remaining $22,000 loss is carried forward to future years to be used if you have capital gains.

Now let’s say you have $100,000 net unrealized gain in year 1 and pay tax on it. Year 2 $100,000 net unrealized capital loss and that’s repeated in year 3. So do you only get $3000 loss deductions in years 2 and 3 and you’re carrying forward $194,000 of capital losses?

Yeah, this is why i cannot see a tax on unrealized gains getting thru. It would be a nightmare, and would create more problems than solve.

 

[BradStevens]

We have over 1000 participants. So I don't think it's right to call this "one anecdote." It's hundreds of anecdotes. And, moreover, we compare data with other comparable plans at our annual conference. We're only one of many DC plans there. Still the minority, but growing fast.

No, DCs are by far the majority in the private sector. Not sure where you are getting your information.

15 percent of private industry workers had access to a defined benefit retirement plan : The Economics Daily: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

In March 2023, 15 percent of private industry workers had access to a defined benefit plan. Defined benefit plans provide employees with guaranteed retirement benefits based on plan formulas. Defined contribution plans determine the value of individual accounts based on the amount of money...

www.bls.gov

 

[hoot1]

View embedded media

Harris leaked a couple more economic policies. They of course suck. My question is why? All she has to do is say Trump is evil. Who is advising her to release these policies? She needs to fire her campaign manager.

Taxation is a subject which brings up a question which makes me uncomfortable.

Uncomfortable because I want capitalism and democracy to be compatible.

It has long been my opinion that over the long run our representive democracy has given us a government which somehow has balanced the interests of those who own and manage most of our capital with the interests of workers and consumers.

Tax policies and the potential conflict between the super wealthy and the less affluent brings up the question of whether capitalism and democracy are compatible.

Is it beginning to appear our luck has run out and we are beginning to find out capitalism and democracy aren't compatible thanks to the global marketplace and the ability of capitalists to take their investments elsewhere ? Elsewhere where their wealth and earnings are less subject to taxation.

 

[BradStevens]

Not even close. $3 mil in retirement accounts gets you $120k a year in income using the oft-quoted 4% rule. That's not rich. That would even be hard to live on in some areas.

Bringing up locale is a good point. But here's a timely article that shows that $3 mil is still rich for every city in the USA besides San Fran. And who would want to live there, anyway?

Loading…

www.cnbc.com

For Indiana, though, where a majority of this board are, as of 2020, $3 million is over three times more than what gets you into the top 1%.

What it takes to be in the top 1% of every state

The top 1% of Americans have a combined net worth of $34.2 trillion, according to Federal Reserve data last updated Oct. 19, 2020. That number represents more than 30% of all household wealth in the U.S.

www.windfall.com

 

[Hank Reardon]

Bringing up locale is a good point. But here's a timely article that shows that $3 mil is still rich for every city in the USA besides San Fran. And who would want to live there, anyway?

Loading…

www.cnbc.com

For Indiana, though, where a majority of this board are, as of 2020, $3 million is over three times more than what gets you into the top 1%.

What it takes to be in the top 1% of every state

The top 1% of Americans have a combined net worth of $34.2 trillion, according to Federal Reserve data last updated Oct. 19, 2020. That number represents more than 30% of all household wealth in the U.S.

www.windfall.com

I guess I'm not buying into the idea that if you're within some specific % that you're rich. If there are 100 people in a room, and one guy has $10,000 while the other 99 have only $9500, is that one guy "rich" because he's the top 1%? Am I rich if I have $100,000 at age 60 just because there are 5 homeless people living in boxes?

Again, rich has no agreed upon definition. It means different things to different groups of people depending on their situation. My original point that started this debate was that when politicians use the term "rich" if often encompasses groups of people who don't think of themselves as rich, and in reality are just families worried about health care costs and college tuition. Not sipping mimosas on the decks of their yachts.

 

[BradStevens]

I guess I'm not buying into the idea that if you're within some specific % that you're rich. If there are 100 people in a room, and one guy has $10,000 while the other 99 have only $9500, is that one guy "rich" because he's the top 1%? Am I rich if I have $100,000 at age 60 just because there are 5 homeless people living in boxes?

Again, rich has no agreed upon definition. It means different things to different groups of people depending on their situation. My original point that started this debate was that when politicians use the term "rich" if often encompasses groups of people who don't think of themselves as rich, and in reality are just families worried about health care costs and college tuition. Not sipping mimosas on the decks of their yachts.

Re your second question, yes if that comprises your entire community. The numbers in Indiana aren’t anywhere near your other example.

It’s true that there is some subjectivity in the definition, but there are still parameters. You can be 6’6” and insist you’re not tall, pointing to all those NBA 7 footers, but it’s not a very compelling case.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

No, DCs are by far the majority in the private sector. Nor sure where you are getting your information.

15 percent of private industry workers had access to a defined benefit retirement plan : The Economics Daily: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

In March 2023, 15 percent of private industry workers had access to a defined benefit plan. Defined benefit plans provide employees with guaranteed retirement benefits based on plan formulas. Defined contribution plans determine the value of individual accounts based on the amount of money...

www.bls.gov

IFEBP. Union pensions are still dominated by DB plans.

But, yeah, they’re declining there too - mercifully.

 

[baileyiu]

Not even close. $3 mil in retirement accounts gets you $120k a year in income using the oft-quoted 4% rule. That's not rich. That would even be hard to live on in some areas.

$120k per year plus social security for both spouses is definitely upper middle class or probably close to upper class as most retirees have little or no debt.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Your anecdotal experience is extremely skewed. Only 3% of Americans have $1 million in their retirement accounts. Good for your employees. But there are maybe 10,000 retirement plans in the US? Thinking yours is typical or representative of all of them is wrong.

I didn’t say it was typical. More like…possible. What would you think is special about our members?

The contribution is collectively bargained and not a deduction. We also don’t allow any hardship withdrawals.

DCs don’t contribute as much as DBs

We have both. And the contribution to the DC is triple the contribution to the DB.

in DBs the employee doesn’t have to take investment risk.

I’d say it’s pretty apparent that the risk is worth taking over the course of a 40 year working career.

That said, DBs are just as subject to risk as any other investment vehicle. It just manifests differently.

Most employees don’t invest well.

As opposed to the DB fund managers who have steered so many of them under water.

But, again, the suggestion is that our 1000 blue collar workers mostly with HS educations are somehow unusually shrewd.

They aren’t. Most of them choose either the default balanced fund or the appropriate target date fund.

But even the people who have allocated their money poorly (going into fixed income at age 22, etc) are retiring with 400-500K.

There's a reason that private companies have shifted away from DBs to DCs and it’s not because they wanted to be more generous with their workers. It’s because they don’t contribute as much and so save money.

I’d guess it actually has more to do with withdrawal and unfunded/underfunded liabilities and the risks that comes with them.

As I said, in our case, the DC contribution is larger than the DB. But that is actually the discretion of the union. For the most part, we bargain the package, not the distribution of its components.

The switch also happened because many fvcked up the actuarial calculations, shortchanged their plan contributions for decades, and raised or used those funds for other things

Demographic changes, market changes, employer bankruptcies, etc. These things are the Achilles Heels of DB plans.

Just like the public funds in Illinois and elsewhere have been doing for a few decades.

Employees have little to worry about with a DB unless it is underfunded. And plans don’t just become underfunded—it’s the employer’s (or union’s) fault.

Not necessarily. There are various reasons why funds have come up short. Demographic changes are a big one. But the fact that so many have makes it kind of remarkable that you’re so worried about the investing acumen of individuals.

Just have sensible a default fund that has fairly moderate risk or else default into a target fund. Roughly 2/3 of our participants use our default.

Our members aren’t special or smarter than anybody else. We’ve just put together a sensible plan - and it’s been a massive blessing for them and their families.

Others shouldn’t reject this. They should emulate it.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

We have over 1000 participants. So I don't think it's right to call this "one anecdote." It's hundreds of anecdotes. And, moreover, we compare data with other comparable plans at our annual conference. We're only one of many DC plans there. Still the minority, but growing fast.

And there is absolutely zero question in my mind that defined contribution pensions are superior to defined benefit pensions. In fact, I feel sorry for the DB trustees I interact with there (and I know a lot of them -- including a longtime trustee of the notorious Central States Fund). Most of them are wading in varying depths of shit without any solutions I'd call "good." They're usually either hoping for more bailouts or that they'll be long gone when the crunch sets in.

There isn't one among our group of trustees (or participants) who would trade places with them.

For one thing, there is no continuing employer obligation after contributions have been made. Your money is yours -- and is entirely shielded from employer bankruptcies. There is also no concern about anybody "properly funding" them. And not only will the proceeds generate income for you and your spouse in retirement, but the remaining principle will become inheritable upon your deaths. And I think retirement plans for working class families that result in intergenerational wealth are far preferable to plans that only provide income until death...whenever that may be.

But I'm interested to know why you think DB plans are better. About the only people in our world who think that anymore are actuaries and others who make their living off of managing DB plans.

100 percent agree with you on this.

 

[BradStevens]

I didn’t say it was typical. More like…possible. What would you think is special about our members?

The contribution is collectively bargained and not a deduction. We also don’t allow any hardship withdrawals.




We have both. And the contribution to the DC is triple the contribution to the DB.



I’d say it’s pretty apparent that the risk is worth taking over the course of a 40 year working career.

That said, DBs are just as subject to risk as any other investment vehicle. It just manifests differently.



As opposed to the DB fund managers who have steered so many of them under water.

But, again, the suggestion is that our 1000 blue collar workers mostly with HS educations are somehow unusually shrewd.

They aren’t. Most of them choose either the default balanced fund or the appropriate target date fund.

But even the people who have allocated their money poorly (going into fixed income at age 22, etc) are retiring with 400-500K.



I’d guess it actually has more to do with withdrawal and unfunded/underfunded liabilities and the risks that comes with them.

As I said, in our case, the DC contribution is larger than the DB. But that is actually the discretion of the union. For the most part, we bargain the package, not the distribution of its components.



Demographic changes, market changes, employer bankruptcies, etc. These things are the Achilles Heels of DB plans.



Not necessarily. There are various reasons why funds have come up short. Demographic changes are a big one. But the fact that so many have makes it kind of remarkable that you’re so worried about the investing acumen of individuals.

Just have sensible a default fund that has fairly moderate risk or else default into a target fund. Roughly 2/3 of our participants use our default.

Our members aren’t special or smarter than anybody else. We’ve just put together a sensible plan - and it’s been a massive blessing for them and their families.

Others shouldn’t reject this. They should emulate it.

What's special about your members? You just said it: they're represented by a union. OF COURSE, their plans are better.

https://www.axios.com/2024/03/20/union-workers-wealth-comparison-pay-difference

All the more reason your experience is not typical. Only 10% of the work force is represented by a union.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

What's special about your members? You just said it: they're represented by a union. OF COURSE, their plans are better.

What does being a union member have to do with someone's ability to make sound decisions regarding allocation of retirement funds?

The plan itself isn't really different than a 401k or 403b, in terms of its mechanics. It falls under the Taft-Hartley Act, so it has a different legal status. It's a multi-employer plan and the contributions are dictated by a collective bargaining agreement. But, other than that....

You're making comparisons on pay. But that wasn't the basis of my question. The basis of my question was you saying that one reason DC plans are inferior to DB plans is that average Joes aren't competent at making good investment decisions.

 

[BradStevens]

What does being a union member have to do with someone's ability to make sound decisions regarding allocation of retirement funds?

The plan itself isn't really different than a 401k or 403b, in terms of its mechanics. It falls under the Taft-Hartley Act, so it has a different legal status. It's a multi-employer plan and the contributions are dictated by a collective bargaining agreement. But, other than that....

You're making comparisons on pay. But that wasn't the basis of my question. The basis of my question was you saying that one reason DC plans are inferior to DB plans is that average Joes aren't competent at making good investment decisions.

I explained earlier that it's because of who the risk falls upon for underperformance of investments. In a DB, that risk falls on the employer.

But yes, traditionally, DB plan benefits were better than DC benefits. Employers make all the contributions to DB plans, but only partially fund most DCs. That your particular plan might have good DC benefits--given that it is was negotiated by a union in a multi-employer context--isn't very germane to the other 700,000 private plans out there.

DC plans have benefits to them to be sure--they're much cheaper to operate and much less confusing and apt to bad administration (other than fee control, which DC plan fiduciaries ignore too often) that might screw a participant out of his money. But most employees would prefer a DB b/c of certainty and removing the burden of investment decisions. For employers, though, it's obvious why they want them: they are cheaper and they fund it less than DB plans.

The pros and cons of defined benefit pensions | PensionBee

Find out how defined benefit pensions differ from defined contribution pensions, for better and worse.

www.pensionbee.com

Redefining Expectations: Why the UAW’s Push for a Return to Defined Benefit Retirement Plans Should Only Be the Beginning of a Pension Revolution

www.law.georgetown.edu

 

[Baller23Boogie]

Did everyone know Harris's degree from Howard was in political science and economics?

God, I'd love to vote for someone with a GED.

One day.

 

[ChicagoFineForNow]

Did everyone know Harris's degree from Howard was in political science and economics?

Not good. A mind filled with Keynesian crap and garbage political theory is a dangerous combination.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Trump is fvcked. The fact that people are sick and tired of his tired old shtick is the main reason, but he's fvcked on most of the issues as well:

1) The economy. Real GDP growth has surpassed (in some cases far surpassed) all other G7 nations and most of the developed world since the pandemic. Inflation is back under control and interest rates will be coming down next month which will spur home-buying, car-buying and other purchases that involve lending.

2) Violent crime (defined as murder, rape, aggravated assault and robbery). It is approaching a 50 year low.

3) The border. There are fewer illegal monthly border crossings now than there were at the end of Trump's presidency. One of the most conservative senators drafted an impactful border security bill that had broad bipartisan support until, well, you know what happened. When Trump brings up the border a minute into next month's debate, Harris will be ready with something along the lines of: "We had a bipartisan border security bill ready to go. You killed it. I'll sign it."

4) Prices. This is all Trump should talk about from now until Election Day. But he's too stupid and undisciplined to stay on message. He'll keep questioning Harris' blackness and claiming that images of the crowds at her rallies are AI-generated. Idiot.

Devil's advocate post. I'm not saying your arguments are wrong. I'm explaining why I don't necessarily think they lead to "Trump is fvcked."

1. Economy. Inflation is a leading indicator. People don't feel the pain of inflation until after it's been high for a while, and similarly, they won't feel the relief of getting it under control right away. We still have a cost of living crisis in this country, which you clearly recognize by mentioning prices. Interest rates may have a more immediate effect, but the election is coming up very soon, so I don't know if we really have enough time for that effect to spread enough to make a difference.

2. Violent crime. It's been very low for a couple of decades now, but that doesn't really matter. When it comes to voters, it only matters if people think it is low. I think the fearmongers have done a very good job convincing people it's not. I think many voters honestly believe the country is more dangerous now than it was in the early 90's. Just how it seems to me.

3. The border. Too many voters can't separate the border from other immigration issues. Repubs tend to come off as far more anti-immigrant than Dems, and that naturally leads them to appear better on border security. It's really nonsense in that there is no inherent relation between them, but I think the perception is still there.

4. I actually agree on this one. Harris' best hope is that Trump continues to be Trump and ignores his ace in the hole while playing every other shit card he can pull out his ass. I still think it's going to be very difficult for Harris to win this election, but it won't be surprising at all if Trump finds a way to lose it.

Long story short, I have no issues with the reasons you personally are going to vote for Harris. I just don't think that will translate to most other voters. FWIW, I'm under no illusion about that fact that most other voters don't give three shits about the reasons I'm going to vote for Harris, either.

 

[hoot1]

Devil's advocate post. I'm not saying your arguments are wrong. I'm explaining why I don't necessarily think they lead to "Trump is fvcked."

1. Economy. Inflation is a leading indicator. People don't feel the pain of inflation until after it's been high for a while, and similarly, they won't feel the relief of getting it under control right away. We still have a cost of living crisis in this country, which you clearly recognize by mentioning prices. Interest rates may have a more immediate effect, but the election is coming up very soon, so I don't know if we really have enough time for that effect to spread enough to make a difference.

2. Violent crime. It's been very low for a couple of decades now, but that doesn't really matter. When it comes to voters, it only matters if people think it is low. I think the fearmongers have done a very good job convincing people it's not. I think many voters honestly believe the country is more dangerous now than it was in the early 90's. Just how it seems to me.

3. The border. Too many voters can't separate the border from other immigration issues. Repubs tend to come off as far more anti-immigrant than Dems, and that naturally leads them to appear better on border security. It's really nonsense in that there is no inherent relation between them, but I think the perception is still there.

4. I actually agree on this one. Harris' best hope is that Trump continues to be Trump and ignores his ace in the hole while playing every other shit card he can pull out his ass. I still think it's going to be very difficult for Harris to win this election, but it won't be surprising at all if Trump finds a way to lose it.

Long story short, I have no issues with the reasons you personally are going to vote for Harris. I just don't think that will translate to most other voters. FWIW, I'm under no illusion about that fact that most other voters don't give three shits about the reasons I'm going to vote for Harris, either.

Goat, you hit it out of the ball park with this one from where I sit.

Cannot wait to see the response of others.

 

[DANC]

I’m a trustee of a defined contribution pension plan for workers who are paid hourly wages.

Our median full-term (which we consider 42+ years working) retiree has $1.2m in their account at retirement. No, it isn’t $3m (yet), but it isn’t all that far off.

Despite this, I still run into people who insist that defined benefit pensions - many of which are under water or close to it - are superior. These people are not very smart.

I think most people prefer a defined benefit pension because it's a base they can count on. Yes, they can do better investing it all, but how many are financially disciplined and equipped to do that?

Most people I know who are on a defined benefit pension (I'm not) also have considerable money in the stock market and only tap into it for vacations or vehicles or education for grandchildren.

Having a guaranteed base is a comfort to many and the fluctuations of the stock market doesn't matter as much to them.

SS gives a crappy rate of return, though.

 

[DANC]

Most Americans are morons. $3m net worth likely includes a home. That leaves maybe $2.2m.

4% rule that's like $90k/yr you could pull off a portfolio. Not rich.

$90k a year goes a long way when you don't have house and car payments.

You focus too much on the income and not enough on the outgo.

 

[Circlejoe]

Goat, you hit it out of the ball park with this one from where I sit.

Cannot wait to see the response of others.

If we see the momentum continue to build for Harris, Trump will begin to crumble. He’s already panicking and if he sees things going in the wrong direction, we’ll see his worst behaviors come out. If Harris starts to plateau, Trump can regain his balance. The debate will be incredibly important.

 

[DANC]

I know what Twenty wanted. Ha ha.

I'd actually never been to Boston before she moved there. I've been a few times since and I really like it. For a "big city" it's surprisingly easy to get around. If I was younger I'd love living there. She's living the dream, for now.

AND you get to see the Red Sox whenever you want.

I go to Boston every few years - always have a great time and catch a few Sox games. I like the people there and the clam chowdah!

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I explained earlier that it's because of who the risk falls upon for underperformance of investments. In a DB, that risk falls on the employer.

To which I would again say that’s this is a remarkable thing to say given the horrid condition of so many defined benefit plans - both public and private.

If you’re laboring under the assumption that the plan participants are insulated from the negative effects of this and the burdens of these shortfalls will be borne by somebody else, then you and they are in for a rude awakening.

The PBGC just had to get a massive taxpayer bailout, for chrissakes. And I assure you that only bought time.

Employers make all the contributions to DB plans, but only partially fund most DCs.

Wait a second….are you saying that compensation in Form A is the employee’s, but compensation in Form B is the employer’s? That some kind of financial alchemy happens when burden funds are allocated above the line rather than below it, or below the line rather than above it?

To an employer, compensation is compensation. How much of that cost is ever seen by an employee on his paystub, or where those dollars ultimately end up, is of no consequence to the employer. Even when there are some different tax treatments, it all feeds to a bottom line that is the only number that ultimately matters to an employer.

Only half of the FICA tax shows up on an employee’s paystub in the form of a deduction, right? When we’re looking at labor costs to calculate rates, margins, etc, would you think that both sides of that tax ends up in that bottom line…or only the “employer” part of it?

That’s a long-winded way of saying that employees fund all of their benefits. Whether the cost of a benefit sees their paycheck in the form of wage/salary or not, it’s still part of their compensation.

That your particular plan might have good DC benefits--given that it is was negotiated by a union in a multi-employer context--isn't very germane to the other 700,000 private plans out there.

This has nothing to do with our plan’s success or the reason it’s been such a blessing for our employees.

I mean…what happened to your argument that risk falls on the employee? Did that just go away, because our members are in a union? Do union members get an exemption from market risk?

Our non-union employees are in a 401k/Roth hybrid. Just as much of a blessing.

DC plans have benefits to them to be sure--they're much cheaper to operate and much less confusing and apt to bad administration….that might screw a participant out of his money.

Ah, so that’s what happened to your argument that DB participants are insulated from risk. You don’t actually believe it. You’re right not to. I don’t either.

But most employees would prefer a DB b/c of certainty and removing the burden of investment decisions.

Aaaand now it’s back. “Certainty.”

Should a 43 year old teacher in Mt. Carmel, IL have certainty about their benefits?

For employers, though, it's obvious why they want them: they are cheaper and they fund it less than DB plans.

Again, cost of employment is cost of employment. And it’s all market driven. It doesn’t matter to an employer how much compensation is visible to employees.

The reason employers prefer DC plans is because there are no enduring liabilities after the contributions have been allocated in regular payroll - and also because it’s far easier to modify (that is, reduce) their cost in a pinch.

 

[UncleMark]

God, I'd love to vote for someone with a GED.

One day.

Boebert?

 

[76-1]

I guess I'm not buying into the idea that if you're within some specific % that you're rich. If there are 100 people in a room, and one guy has $10,000 while the other 99 have only $9500, is that one guy "rich" because he's the top 1%? Am I rich if I have $100,000 at age 60 just because there are 5 homeless people living in boxes?

Again, rich has no agreed upon definition. It means different things to different groups of people depending on their situation. My original point that started this debate was that when politicians use the term "rich" if often encompasses groups of people who don't think of themselves as rich, and in reality are just families worried about health care costs and college tuition. Not sipping mimosas on the decks of their yachts.

It's only one single malt scotch double in the evening while at anchor for me my good man..., I like to keep my wits about me while at sea.

Mimosas are only offered to the wife's female entourage usually gathered in the galley playing bridge or occasionally in the aft pit sunbathing... 😎

The Solaris 55 is a serious sailing vessel (with all the attendant dangers) so we usually limit our heavy drinking to on shore adventures...

 

[Baller23Boogie]

Boebert?

You know someone that likes to be that hands on is someone I think I can really get behind.

 

[UncleMark]

You know someone that likes to be that hands on is someone I think I can really get behind.

I see what you did there.

Twice.

 

[Stuffshot]

Have fun and make money. Ms Harris can’t hammer you with taxes this year.

What's with the big gap in the middle of the 2024 tax rates?

10%
12%
22%
24%
26%
32%
35%
37%

Has there ever been a 6% gap between two brackets in the past?

Federal income tax rates and brackets | Internal Revenue Service

See current federal tax brackets and rates based on your income and filing status.

www.irs.gov

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

You know someone that likes to be that hands on is someone I think I can really get behind.

Yeah, you’ve really got to hand it to her for that.

 

[Spartans9312]

What's with the big gap in the middle of the 2024 tax rates?

10%
12%
22%
24%
26%
32%
35%
37%

Has there ever been a 6% gap between two brackets in the past?

Federal income tax rates and brackets | Internal Revenue Service

See current federal tax brackets and rates based on your income and filing status.

www.irs.gov

We should reduce to 3 brackets