Harris Tax Polices

[crazed_hoosier2]

That's the point. Things that are claimed to affect only "the rich" have a nasty way of affecting Not The Rich. What politicians say, and the end result, are often not the same thing. So when Harris announces some punitive tax rate that, don't worry, will only affect a few wealthy folks, well I find myself understandably skeptical about what the final details might look like.

Shorter Reardon: Politicians lie and I don't believe them.

This is because the biggest concentration of money isn’t in the hands of the handful (approx. 760) of billionaires…or even the slightly larger (approx 60,000) group of people worth $100m+.

No, the bulk of the money is with people worth more than $1M (~23 million Americans) but less than $100M.

Many people would be surprised to learn how many people they know who nobody would consider “rich”, but who have a net worth over $1M or even $2m or $3m. That’s really not that much money anymore.

There are roughly 8 million households in the US that have a net worth more than $3m. That’s 6% of all households.

Still, the reason people who aren’t rich shouldn’t support these kinds of policies has nothing to do with any sympathy they may or may not have for people who are rich. It’s that policies like these make societies less prosperous over time. And it’s foolish for anybody to think they’d be exempted from that.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

On occasions it does.

View embedded media

You can't possibly think that's meaningful. What a dumb post.

 

[IUfanBorden]

As many have suggested, there are two possibilities for why she's articulating policies like this...

1. She's simply stupid and doesn't understand what she's proposing
or...
2. She thinks that her voters are too stupid to understand what she's proposing

Or...

Bro she could come out and say she's a fukin commie----and still would win. She's gonna win simply b/c people hate Trump that much.

Dems do everyhitng, AND MORE, that they blame Pubs for doing. Just so happens, Republican candidate is hated. Anyone BUT Trump crushes her.

Four years under Harris will be hiostorically bad for this country.

 

[BradStevens]

This is because the biggest concentration of money isn’t in the hands of the handful (approx. 760) of billionaires…or even the slightly larger (approx 60,000) group of people worth $100m+.

No, the bulk of the money is with people worth more than $1M (~23 million Americans) but less than $100M.

Many people would be surprised to learn how many people they know who nobody would consider “rich”, but who have a net worth over $1M or even $2m or $3m. That’s really not that much money anymore.

There are roughly 8 million households in the US that have a net worth more than $3m. That’s 6% of all households.

Still, the reason people who aren’t rich shouldn’t support these kinds of policies has nothing to do with any sympathy they may or may not have for people who are rich. It’s that policies like these make societies less prosperous over time. And it’s foolish for anybody to think they’d be exempted from that.

$3 million isn’t a lot of money anymore?

 

[DANC]

$3 million isn’t a lot of money anymore?

The price of gas for yachts is klling us. Uh, I mean them.....

 

[twenty02]

$3 million isn’t a lot of money anymore?

$3m net worth? No.

In today's world that's just probably upper middle class. I wouldn't consider anyone under $10m to be 'rich'.

 

[twenty02]

That's the point. Things that are claimed to affect only "the rich" have a nasty way of affecting Not The Rich. What politicians say, and the end result, are often not the same thing. So when Harris announces some punitive tax rate that, don't worry, will only affect a few wealthy folks, well I find myself understandably skeptical about what the final details might look like.

Shorter Reardon: Politicians lie and I don't believe them.

You can have an upper middle income family quickly get bumped into the 'rich' category on one off transactions. The perfect example is the Obamacare net investment income tax. It was sold as a tax that the 'wealthy' would pay on investment income. It was set to kick in at $250k income levels in 2010.... And never indexed for inflation. So it's still at $250k today. This is a surcharge tax on any cap gains of about 4% over the normal cap gains tax rate.

Disregarding the fact that $250k is a far cry from taxing the 'rich' today. Now the Dem define it as $400k. It's still still $250k in the code.

How it works in the real world is that any capital gains you may have in one year is added onto your normal income. So Bill and Susan make $200k from their jobs, they go sell a rental house or a stock and have a one time windfall of $100k gain. They are now 'rich' and will pay the 4% extra cap gain surcharge (in addition to normal cap gains rate) on the $50k over the $250k limit. With state income taxes the cap gain rate now comes closer to 25% range rather than the headline 15%.

 

[twenty02]

Then why did I spend years being hit with AMT, which was presented as a way to target a small number of very high income taxpayers when enacted. I'm nowhere near the top 1%. It affected 5.2 million taxpayers by 2017.

AMT hit a lot of people prior to the 2017 tax law, which eliminated it for most. I don't know what will happen after the 2025 expiration but I don't think it'll be back.

 

[76-1]

The price of gas for yachts is klling us. Uh, I mean them.....

Actually it's the berthing and upkeep that's killing me but mine is under sail about 80% of the time... 😉

It's one of the few areas where an 80% wind ratio to (all other types) of energy actually works (but it's sure nice to have an alternative when I become becalmed or am attempting ultra close maneuvering)...

I find that when I have no wind (or when maneuvering coming into my busy marina) my deeply ingrained desire to stay a "purest" and remain under sail 100% of the time melts immediately into a "need" to be able to rapidly adapt to the conditions at hand (an attitude our national Democrat illuminati types might do well to consider when it comes to wind power)...

Have to go now...; my female staff will soon be initiating their "waking" procedures and I'll need to soon decide to direct several of the rest of the staff as to whether I'll be riding or sailing after breakfast this morning (or both).

Now a Top of the Morning to you... 😎🇺🇸

(Forgot to add): If they ever go to a flat tax I may struggle a bit... I try to upgrade my sailing vessels every three to five years, my horses every eight to 12 years and my homes every ten to fifteen years... Consumption taxes would be a bitch..., and I find pure bartering, while somewhat entertaining, to be tedious...

A little music to awake to-

 

[mrhighlife]

$3 million isn’t a lot of money anymore?

I wish I had not a lot of money...

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

$3 million isn’t a lot of money anymore?

No, it isn’t.

I wouldn’t call somebody with a low 7-figure net worth middle class, per se. They’re on the better side of the bell curve.

But I wouldn’t consider them rich, either. Again, there are ~8m households worth $3m or more. Approximately 1 in 17, according to the source linked above.

 

[76-1]

I wish I had not a lot of money...

Away Plebeian...!!!

We have no time for the great unwashed here! (VBG) 😉😎

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I wish I had not a lot of money...

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.

 

[snarlcakes]

$3 million isn’t a lot of money anymore?

Nope. Now 3 Bitcoin? Wealthy as f#ck. There are around 50 million millionaires on the planet. There will never be more than 21 million whole coiners. I doubt there will ever be 10 million. I hope you weren’t reading a book during math class Brad. Don’t f#ck this up.

 

[BradStevens]

$3m net worth? No.

In today's world that's just probably upper middle class. I wouldn't consider anyone under $10m to be 'rich'.

Disagree. As do most Americans. Median net worth is $281k.

$3 million puts you in the upper 6% of the USA, which means top 1% of the world?

Are You Wealthy? The Net Worth You Need To Be Considered Poor, Middle-Class And Wealthy In America

In the United States, a person's net worth is a barometer of their financial standing, particularly as they approach retirement. This figure, calculated by subtracting liabilities from assets, varies considerably across the population, shaping the retirement lifestyle and economic security of...

finance.yahoo.com

 

[BradStevens]

Don’t call it a windfall. They earned it from that example.

 

[twenty02]

Disagree. As do most Americans. Median net worth is $281k.

$3 million puts you in the upper 6% of the USA, which means top 1% of the world?

Are You Wealthy? The Net Worth You Need To Be Considered Poor, Middle-Class And Wealthy In America

In the United States, a person's net worth is a barometer of their financial standing, particularly as they approach retirement. This figure, calculated by subtracting liabilities from assets, varies considerably across the population, shaping the retirement lifestyle and economic security of...

finance.yahoo.com

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.

 

[BradStevens]

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.

Drawing a conclusion about all pension plan structures from one anecdote is logically fallacious.

DBs are superior for most workers.

That they are underwater and companies didn’t properly fund them isn’t really a fault of the plan structure. What you’re really saying here is that most employees shouldn’t trust their employers to follow through on their promises. That’s a cynical view, but I probably agree with you.

 

[BradStevens]

Nope. Now 3 Bitcoin? Wealthy as f#ck. There are around 50 million millionaires on the planet. There will never be more than 21 million whole coiners. I doubt there will ever be 10 million. I hope you weren’t reading a book during math class Brad. Don’t f#ck this up.

I still have my one whole coin. I won’t sell it until you tell me to.

 

[mrhighlife]

Away Plebeian...!!!

We have no time for the great unwashed here! (VBG) 😉😎

The "good" at the end always kills me...

 

[BradStevens]

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.

Rich is relative to others, I think.

If we lived in a tiny village and most had one room mud huts, but 6% had no huts and 6% had two room mud huts, the two roomers are rich.

The interesting thing here, to me, is the charge a lot of people get out of being called “rich” or having people think they are or close to it. (Not sure if that’s you, twenty, or not. I’m not judging you if it is; I get a charge out of many things. We all do). I think there is still a tinge of Christian morality tied to the term, though.

 

[Hank Reardon]

$3 million isn’t a lot of money anymore?

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.

 

[Hank Reardon]

AMT hit a lot of people prior to the 2017 tax law, which eliminated it for most. I don't know what will happen after the 2025 expiration but I don't think it'll be back.

My experience was indeed prior to 2017. Why don't you think it'll be back? Wouldn't this be exactly the sort of thing (screw the rich, but really not the rich) that a President Harris would champion? It won't personally matter to me any longer. The "situation" that was triggering it then is no longer in play.

 

[baileyiu]

What income level is upper middle class? What income level is considered upper class?
Almost everyone I know considers themselves either middle class or upper middle class. Almost no one considers themselves upper class (wealthy).
Is the upper 5% of income earners upper class?

 

[snarlcakes]

I still have my one whole coin. I won’t sell it until you tell me to.

I’m looking forward to your transformation from a socialist to a sound money saint. Us in 10 years 👇

 

[ulrey]

This is why she’s never received a vote

But she smiles a lot!

 

[Hank Reardon]

Rich is relative to others, I think.

Absolutely. There is no definition. Which makes it easy for politicians of all stripes to pontificate on "making The Rich pay their fair share" without anyone really knowing who that will be. Everyone assumes it is someone better off than them. But often, it's them.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Absolutely. There is no definition. Which makes it easy for politicians of all stripes to pontificate on "making The Rich pay their fair share" without anyone really knowing who that will be. Everyone assumes it is someone better off than them. But often, it's them.

To give to Biden/Harris/walz with a 100 years of gov and not a single day worrying about payroll. Just Monopoly money to them. “Tax the rich”

 

[BradStevens]

Absolutely. There is no definition. Which makes it easy for politicians of all stripes to pontificate on "making The Rich pay their fair share" without anyone really knowing who that will be. Everyone assumes it is someone better off than them. But often, it's them.

We can make comps.

I’d call someone 6’1” tall. They’re top 6%.

I’d call someone with a 123 IQ smart. They’re top 6%.

 

[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.

You don’t have to work for the rest of your life and you’re not rich?

Huh.

And $120k would mean you’re living off a larger amount of money each year than 90% of Americans, the richest nation in the world.

Are you upper middle class?

Discover the upper middle class’s defining characteristics, income range, and lifestyle.

www.usatoday.com

 

[mcmurtry66]

You don’t have to work for the rest of your life and you’re not rich?

Huh.

And $120k would mean you’re living off a larger amount of money each year than 90% of Americans, the richest nation in the world.

Are you upper middle class?

Discover the upper middle class’s defining characteristics, income range, and lifestyle.

www.usatoday.com

Median US salary $59k
Median house price $425k
Avg new car price $50k

Yikes

 

[twenty02]

Rich is relative to others, I think.

If we lived in a tiny village and most had one room mud huts, but 6% had no huts and 6% had two room mud huts, the two roomers are rich.

The interesting thing here, to me, is the charge a lot of people get out of being called “rich” or having people think they are or close to it. (Not sure if that’s you, twenty, or not. I’m not judging you if it is; I get a charge out of many things. We all do). I think there is still a tinge of Christian morality tied to the term, though.

Sure it's relative. I mean most all Americans are rich compared to someone living in Sub-Saharan Africa.

​

 

[snarlcakes]

We can make comps.

Measurable’s below

I’d call someone 6’1” tall. They’re top 6%.

6’2

I’d call someone with a 123 IQ smart. They’re top 6%.

131

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Drawing a conclusion about all pension plan structures from one anecdote is logically fallacious.

DBs are superior for most workers.

That they are underwater and companies didn’t properly fund them isn’t really a fault of the plan structure. What you’re really saying here is that most employees shouldn’t trust their employers to follow through on their promises. That’s a cynical view, but I probably agree with you.

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.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

You don’t have to work for the rest of your life and you’re not rich?

There is a huge difference between being financially independent and being rich.

The two opinions you're expressing in this thread -- (a) that having a low 7-figure net worth is "rich", and (b) that a retirement plan that leaves its participants with low 7-figure net worths is inferior to plans that are struggling to even meet their obligations -- makes for one helluva juxtaposition, Brad.

 

[Hank Reardon]

You don’t have to work for the rest of your life and you’re not rich?

Huh.

And $120k would mean you’re living off a larger amount of money each year than 90% of Americans, the richest nation in the world.

Are you upper middle class?

Discover the upper middle class’s defining characteristics, income range, and lifestyle.

www.usatoday.com

"Don't have to work the rest of your life." See, I think that to someone who is ~40 years old and working, $3 mil sounds rich, because you don't need to utilize that money. It's gravy. To someone who is retired and tasked with living for 25+ years on their savings, $3 mil is absolutely not rich. My daughter is 2 years out of college and probably makes $120k, which is what you could draw off of a $3 mil retirement portfolio. Is she rich?

 

[twenty02]

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 We're still a 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 one that only provides income.

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.

Brad doesn't believe in inheritance so that's not gonna carry water 😂

 

[twenty02]

"Don't have to work the rest of your life." See, I think that to someone who is ~40 years old and working, $3 mil sounds rich, because you don't need to utilize that money. It's gravy. To someone who is retired and tasked with living for 25+ years on their savings, $3 mil is absolutely not rich. My daughter is 2 years out of college and probably makes $120k, which is what you could draw off of a $3 mil retirement portfolio. Is she rich?

1) $120k two years out is solid, what does she do?
2) any pics?

 

[mcmurtry66]

1) $120k two years out is solid, what does she do?
2) any pics?

Robust even

 

[Hank Reardon]

1) $120k two years out is solid, what does she do?
2) any pics?

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.