Jump to content

US Politics #1


BloodRider

Recommended Posts

Then the advice you quoted is inapplicable for this group, as they are not likely to itemize deductions.

Sorry, Lev - the abatement of the penalty and the tax-free treatment of a medical hardship withdrawal is only applicable in such limited situations, you may as well not even trot that horse out.

It is highly unlikely, that, as you said, "money in IRA accounts could be effectively turned into funding for qualified emergencies without incurring early-withdrawal penalty, thus undermining {Chataya's] earlier arguments that the former would be an impediment to the latter."

I beg to differ .......... for anyone with an IRA, the allowed condition for penalty-free withdrawal "to the extent that the unreimbursed medical bills exceed 7.5 percent of the person's adjusted gross income" is hardly such limited situation as you've stated.

as they are not likely to itemize deductions

Irrelevant, given that "You do not have to itemize deductions to take advantage of this exception to the 10 percent penalty, according to IRS Publication 590."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my mind, its questionable that Individual retirement accounts of any kind are ever going to work out for the average worker. Its pretty much been shown that the amateur investor will always keep his winners and sell his losers. When you do that, you're just locking in your losses, year after year. They also tend to chase last years hot commodity. I've seen this myself. They'll get they're annual statement from fidelity and see a bond fund that gained 25% last year, so they sell all their poor performers and jump into the bond fund. Buying high and selling low.

The other two destroyers of assets are job loss and middle-age divorces. A worker loses their job, so takes that hardship withdrawal to survive. Young divorces are relatively cheap and painless, but once a couple has a good number of assets, they can be expensive. The aggrieved, the dumpee, is out for blood and doesn't care what it cost. You would hope that once someone turns forty-five or so, they'd learn, but love, or lust, has no age limit.

If you check any chart showing what the average worker has saved in retirement, the amounts correlate perfectly with income. The only people with any real chance of having enough to retire on, are those people earning $100,000 or more. The future truly looks bleak.

AS for as automatically signing people up for savings accounts, it almost sounds like a pension plan, don't you think. Now all they need to do is have that money professionally invested, and it just might work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see what the issue here is. If it's anything like what he proposed back during the campaign, it's just an easy opt-out if you don't wanna be part of it.

The idea is people are generally too lazy to save, so if you make it opt-out instead of opt-in like it is now, people too lazy to save will be "forced" to save and those that know what they are doing and might actually object to this policy on sane grounds will opt-out and be none the worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AS for as automatically signing people up for savings accounts, it almost sounds like a pension plan, don't you think. Now all they need to do is have that money professionally invested, and it just might work.

Since people would have the ability to opt-out, I'm thinking why not? In theory anyway, I would want to hear more on the questions Chataya and GB were asking re: the nuts and bolts. But it's not forcing anyone to save, therefore I don't find it to be intrusive. It's just nudging them in that direction. Even if it's largely ignored, I don't see a downside at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) plans to bring broad energy legislation to the Senate floor as soon as the week of July 26 that will include provisions to limit greenhouse gas emissions from electric power plants.

“We hope to be able to do it the week after next,” he told reporters in the Capitol Tuesday.

His comments confirm that Democratic leaders are clearing room to debate controversial energy measures ahead of the August recess, and will attempt to include climate change provisions despite major hurdles.

Reid said the legislation, which remains under development, would include four titles.

One will address the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, another will seek to boost “clean energy” job creation and consumer savings, while a third will reduce energy consumption, he said.

The fourth, he added, would address “pollution” from electric utilities.

“We are looking at a way of making sure that when we talk about pollution, we are focused just on the utility section,” Reid said.

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?app=forums&module=post&section=post&do=reply_post&f=10&t=44492&qpid=2184653
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since people would have the ability to opt-out, I'm thinking why not? In theory anyway, I would want to hear more on the questions Chataya and GB were asking re: the nuts and bolts. But it's not forcing anyone to save, therefore I don't find it to be intrusive. It's just nudging them in that direction. Even if it's largely ignored, I don't see a downside at this point.

"But other than THAT Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"But other than THAT Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?'

Hee. I shall ignore your knee-jerk anti-government pessimism until we have specifics to discuss. Until such time, I will continue to assume that "opt-out" means exactly that. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my mind, its questionable that Individual retirement accounts of any kind are ever going to work out for the average worker.

Indeed. Anyone relying solely on IRAs to retire is going to fail. IRAs are a nice supplement to the savings one should be accumulating anyway, especially because of the tax advantages they have, but that's as far as they go, ultimately.

As a fairly private person, my kneejerk reaction is that formally establishing a faux-pension plans using IRAs is the equivalent of someone taking two steps too far into my personal space than I like, but after actually thinking about it, it's probably a good idea. The biggest problem is that it actually requires the average person to either be educated or to educate themselves about retirement products, and after having spent the better part of the past 7 years in Banking and Credit Unions I can tell you all about how unlikely the former is and what a task the latter can be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, what's the relevance here?

I think the relevance may be that if he says that "Gov't always fails" enough times, he can continue to ignore reality. Its that whole "Clap for Tinkerbell" mentality of the extreme right. Its magical thinking - not real analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lev, I love you, buddy, but your English comprehension in matters of personal finance needs work. The link that you cited states that a retirement account liquidation MAY help you avoid bankruptcy...IF your 401(k) plan allows for "hardship withdrawals", and includes one's specific hardship. Even then, the withdrawal is taxed at ordinary income rates.

Whereas with personal (non-retirement) savings, one doesn't have an income effect upon liquidation. Investment accounts are similarly subject only to capital gains if liquidated.

ETA - let's not get into any UHC debate on this. Assume that the savings are needed solely for a down payment on a home, a car (due to the fiery death of the old one), or a new roof.

I have three savings accounts. One for short-term wants, like a new TV, concert tickets, whatever. There's one long-term account to help plan for the big stuff like a new car (I finance as little as possible, because I hate banks and they're not getting any more out of me than is absolutely necessary). The other long-term one is because I hate not having a back up source of income if needed. It's my security blanket. When I got divorced, I had nothing, I was completely wiped out financially. Ever since then, I have to have money stashed away. It terrifies me not to.

Since people would have the ability to opt-out, I'm thinking why not? In theory anyway, I would want to hear more on the questions Chataya and GB were asking re: the nuts and bolts. But it's not forcing anyone to save, therefore I don't find it to be intrusive. It's just nudging them in that direction. Even if it's largely ignored, I don't see a downside at this point.

My employer mandates putting money into a retirement account, which I think is a great idea. Left on their own, most people would never do that. Since you never see that money, you don't miss it. In fact, when they reduced the contribution rate to 3.5%, down from 9%, a lot of people were very angry. It's now 6%. After 17 years, I've got quite a bit stashed in there, AND I get a saver's credit on my 1040. The only bad thing is that it's not a 401K so I can't borrow against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill O'Reilly makes history by making Sarah Palin actually consider the implications of the sloganeering she substitutes for policy positions. He manages to prod her into answering a direct question instead of sidestepping to the talking points on her palm.

Also they both admit the Sainted Ronald Reagan actually fucked something up. Shocking stuff.

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/bill-oreilly-schools-sarah-palin-on-immigration-reform-video.php?ref=fpblg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, I think it's an appallingly intrusive method of encouraging savings. It's also going to lead to a boatload of unintended consequences.

One of the arguments previously advanced against the merits of tax cuts versus increased government spending is that we supposedly know that government spending really will go right back into the economy. Conversely, with tax cuts, people might just save the money rather than spend it, which will have less of a stimulative effect. Saving=bad, spending=good.

But now, the government is urging people to increase savings rates, which means less money being spent in the economy, and a "de-stimulative" effect. Personally, I think increasing the savings rate is good even though I don't like this bill. But there seems to be a "have your cake and eat it too" logic to some of the support for this, because it doesn't quite seem we know whether we want people to spend, and thereby stimulate the economy, or save.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is America. There is no past if I do not want there to be. Thus the subtitle.

:cool4:

It's similar to the Oliver Stone version of history - the latter is whatever he wants it to be. Did I mention Stone is of the liberal political persuasion?...same as the vast majority in LaLaLand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the arguments previously advanced against the merits of tax cuts versus increased government spending is that we supposedly know that government spending really will go right back into the economy. Conversely, with tax cuts, people might just save the money rather than spend it, which will have less of a stimulative effect. Saving=bad, spending=good.

But now, the government is urging people to increase savings rates, which means less money being spent in the economy, and a "de-stimulative" effect. Personally, I think increasing the savings rate is good even though I don't like this bill. But there seems to be a "have your cake and eat it too" logic to some of the support for this, because it doesn't quite seem we know whether we want people to spend, and thereby stimulate the economy, or save.

THat's because you are not thinking about it ... well at all really.

Savings is good when it's Savings vs No Savings. Not so much in an economic crisis when it's Lots of Savings vs Lots of Savings and then a bit more Savings too. And the difference between those 2 is largely income. The big problem with tax cuts is that the more money you make/have, the more likely you are to save it. Propensity to Save goes up as income and wealth increase.

This kind of initiative largely targets people on the lower end of the income spectrum, simply because they are the most likely to not opt-out of it and know what to do with their money. And these people are, at the same time, the least likely to save if given a tax cut.

The people higher on the income spectrum, on the other hand, are the most likely ones to opt-out of this initiative because they generally save already and know what to do with their money. And it's exactly BECAUSE of this behavior that tax cuts don't work on them in a recession because they will simply save the money.

These things are not at cross-purpose because they are targeting different groups. They, in fact, work fine together because those most likely to be forced to save by this are those least likely to save on their own. Mostly it would seem to even out the savings rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lmao:

Ok, seriously, whose alt is this?

I can't decide if it is an extreme rightist, or an extreme leftist. Why leftist? Because really, I can't think of someone who has brought up more lame ass arguments that are such obvious strawmen. Hell, its even driven you and ser Scott away from some of the far right's positions. So yeah....

As to calling teabaggers teabaggers. I have an anecdote. My dad's initials are WFT. Of late he has take to putting his monogram on EVERYTHING. Which would be OK, except he insists on using the traditional style of monogram with the last name in the middle.

Thats right, practically everything business related my dad owns is labeled with WTF. I keep telling him what message that sends, and his take on it is - well thats my initials. OK fair enough. But it has an effect on his clientelle. Is that right or the way it should be? Perhaps no. He was named well before anyone had even conceived of texting.

But it still cracks me up every time I see it. Just like people who are adamantly anti-sex-except-for-procreation-especially-if-it-teh-gay-sex calling themselves teabaggers will keep me laughing for quite a while. I am not laughing at them per se, just the irony of it all. And the stubbornness that keeps the joke alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't decide if it is an extreme rightist, or an extreme leftist. Why leftist? Because really, I can't think of someone who has brought up more lame ass arguments that are such obvious strawmen. Hell, its even driven you and ser Scott away from some of the far right's positions. So yeah....

At first I thought it was Lev, but I figured Lev would be talking about Sarah Palin more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...