wealth distribution

[jIM_Ohio]

True. Suze Orman frequently says that 99% of her money is in municipal bonds, which generate tax-free income. So even if she pays regular taxes on her annual income, she pays none on what she earns on the bonds. Once you can generate all the money you need that way, taxes aren't an issue anymore. Also, you don't even have to worry about the ups and downs of the stock market because you don't need to take that kind of risk with your money.

Agreed this is a great technique. A few points

1) getting to the point where muni bonds generate all the tax free income needed will take longer than using other portfolio allocations (bonds grow slower than stocks).

2) Suze is presumably still working (collecting a paycheck) and adding to the bond positions she has. Inflation will eat at the bond returns once she stops buying more bonds and spending the interest (the interest from muni bonds will not keep pace with inflation).

3) A basic counter to this is that income up to the standard deduction+personal exemptions is already tax free. Make sure there is enough money invested in dividend paying stocks, and that portion of portfolio can keep pace with inflation.

I am looking forward to the point in time where I need to invest in muni bonds. Not there yet, give me 5-10 years.

[jIM_Ohio]

So, there are 2 things here. 1) is the investment tax and 2) income tax. Why not get rid of the investment tax and treat it like normal income?

Then the rich stop investing their money and keep it- keep it in a bank, maybe buy a second (or third or fourth) vacation home, maybe they take an international vacation or invest internationally because of more favorable taxes.

The private ventures the rich invest in give some of us tech workers a job.

[belic3000]

Ahhh. Immigration. That is a different matter. And most likely another thread. I say enforce federal law. Cities that don't want to enforce federal law should endanger that state of receiveing fedearal funds. Like the feds did when they wanted to up the drinking age to 21. Any state that did not want to go along risked lossing millions in aid from the government. Ask the US citizens if they would rather have lower taxes or allow illegals to stay.

[rooskers]

Americans Get Ready for an Enormous Tax Bill: Tech Ticker, Yahoo! Finance

I guess we are going to get a nice distribution of wealth. All billionares line up because the taxpayers are willing to hand out money to you. I think I am going to go to work today and go above and beyond so my tax money can go to the ultra rich.

[kork13]

Ahhh. Immigration. That is a different matter. And most likely another thread. I say enforce federal law. Cities that don't want to enforce federal law should endanger that state of receiveing fedearal funds. Like the feds did when they wanted to up the drinking age to 21. Any state that did not want to go along risked lossing millions in aid from the government. Ask the US citizens if they would rather have lower taxes or allow illegals to stay.

heeheehee . . . I can already hear the outcry from immigrant rights groups. Oh, I'd love to see them sitting squarely under Uncle Sam's left thumb (with the right one reserved for tree-hugging hippies )

[m3racer]

Here are my 2 cents:

It doesn't matter because it's not really a redistribution. If you are making $250k a year, you can afford a good accountant that will make sure that you are not paying the full amount on your income.

This is possibly one of the most ignorant comments I've read on this board.

[m3racer]

I also see no reason to give exemptions for children most folk taking those exemptions are raising future non tax payers anyway (poor have more kids than rich)

Gee, I wonder why?

[m3racer]

I second this. I don't think our government has an income problem. I think that it has a spending problem.

You can increase taxes to high heaven and our incompetent government will find ways to waste hard earned tax payer's $$$$.

[m3racer]

But I think in general, people need to take responsibility for themselves and not always look for government hand outs.

Amen to that!!!!

[LivingAlmostLarge]

I have no issues with wealth redistribution. I pay a lot now and will likely pay more forever.

Personally I favor a flat tax where we capture all the rich people living off their investments. People can very easily avoid paying a lot of taxes though they make a lot of money.

Just close the loopholes and put a flat tax. I'm against the consumption tax because I'm sure it will affect the lower income people more.

Giving people a set tax break doesn't work. Not with the COLA between California and Oklahoma. How will you compensate for that?

[cptacek]

*raises hand*

Yes, it's fine by me.

I have no issues with wealth
redistribution.

So, could we sum up your positions as:
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

[sweeps]

So, could we sum up your positions as:
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

So then can I sum up your position as:
Let the poor, sick and disabled suffer and die while the rich enjoy their spoils.

Assuming that is not your position, perhaps we can agree there is a middle ground. A completely hands-off "capitalist" government is just as bad as a full-blown socialist government.

[maat55]

So then can I sum up your position as:
Let the poor, sick and disabled suffer and die while the rich enjoy their spoils.

Assuming that is not your position, perhaps we can agree there is a middle ground. A completely hands-off "capitalist" government is just as bad as a full-blown socialist government.

On the surface, it would appear that our country is somewhere in the middle. This is the nation that many envy.

But, I wonder at this time, are people coming here for the chance to build their own dreams or to get a free piece of the pie? Before welfare, many came here with nothing looking only for the american dream. Today, many are coming here to get freebies and to send money back to other countries.

Everyone needs the desire and motivation to achieve their own goals. The more you give them the less motivation they have. But there are those that need help they cannot provide for themselves. Those are the ones I gladly give to.

I think of this from time to time. To equivocate my finances to the governments, how much debt would I be in? Then I would have to decide, what gets cut to get out of debt?

[sweeps]

Ok, well I guess we need to decide if we're talking an ideal world or the real world.

In an ideal world:
(a) Everyone would be paid in exact proportion to their contribution to society.
(b) Everyone would have equal ability to be productive to society. Children, sick people, disabled people and senior citizens could work equally as hard as everyone else.
(c) Job markets would be totally efficient. Whenever someone had the ability to work there would instantly be gainful work for them to do.

Now... can we talk about the real world?

[Scanner]

I love how people label any form of taxation as "wealth redistribution" but yet they drive on the roads, enjoy the safety from our army, and a common currency.

Yes, I beleive in taxing the rich for two reasons.

1. It works.

All you have to do is compare Clintonian Economics (he taxed the rich and we had record economic expansion) and Bush Economics (he cut taxes and we have bank runs) to know that despite the Rush Limbaugh rhetoric, it is healthy to apply a tax to the rich.

2. It's fair.

American's wealth has slowly been concentrating into the hands of the few. That is to say, the middle class has been steadily eroding. DisneySteve posted a factoid the other day that since 1989, household income has risen .5% with inflation but college has risen 53%.

Since the rich have enjoyed the benefits of what America has offered them (more and more wealth), it is only fair that they would receive a higher share of burden, no?

Anything else. . .well, it's just rancid Rush Limbaugh, O'Reilly piffle.