Retirement in America is a disaster for many.

[expat_panama]

This is just sort of stupid. Nobody is going to earn less money just because they have to pay more taxes. I hear this stupidty all the time...."If I take this raise it will put me in a higher tax bracket"...and I am like "sure, you will make 100 dollars more and pay 10 bucks more in taxes...seems a win to me".

Let's look at what really happened. The top rate has been up to 94%. At that rate you'd get to keep 6 cents on the dollar. For many decades the top rate never went below 70%. Consequently there were a lot of folks who felt their time was not for sale at what they could get and they lived of their savings. I could name names and give examples but I doubt it would matter.

When those rates were cut, total revenue increased because more people went to work. This is all public record and we can look at it together if it would make any difference.

How does the tax burden in Panama compare to that in the US?

You could find out what you wanted to know directly much faster than I could tell you what I imagine you're looking for, tho I'm not sure how that bears on U.S. taxes.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Let's look at what really happened. The top rate has been up to 94%. At that rate you'd get to keep 6 cents on the dollar. For many decades the top rate never went below 70%. Consequently there were a lot of folks who felt their time was not for sale at what they could get and they lived of their savings. I could name names and give examples but I doubt it would matter.

Nobody is talking about going back to the days of 94% or even 70% taxes.

But it is interesting to note that during these times there was no national debt to speak of.

1982 was when the top rate went from 70 to 50%

 

[expat_panama]

Nobody is talking about going back to the days of 94% or even 70% taxes.

But it is interesting to note that during these times there was no national debt to speak of.

1982 was when the top rate went from 70 to 50%

View attachment 1027517

Actually, you and I are both talking about the 94% and 70% levels.

Something else is the fact that when the top rate was cut, revenue went up. Even tho revenue went up, the nat. debt went up more. That has to be the result of the fact that spending soared.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Actually, you and I are both talking about the 94% and 70% levels.

I was not. And neither is anyone in power today.

Something else is the fact that when the top rate was cut, revenue went up. Even tho revenue went up, the nat. debt went up more. That has to be the result of the fact that spending soared.

Revenue always goes up unless there is a recession. The thing to look at is did the rate of growth for revenue to up or down? The rate of revenue growth slowed down a fair amount after the Reagan tax cuts.

 

[initforme]

Another mass resignation would help the economy.

 

[expat_panama]

Actually, you and I are both talking about the 94% and 70% levels.

I was not. And neither is anyone in power today.

Whatever, anything you say. However, while we're not talking about the 94% & 70% rates, another thought is that maybe we could agree that America sometimes will impose those rates and that we don't want to go back to them.

..Something else is the fact that when the top rate was cut, revenue went up. Even tho revenue went up, the nat. debt went up more. That has to be the result of the fact that spending soared.

Revenue always goes up unless there is a recession. The thing to look at is did the rate of growth for revenue to up or down? The rate of revenue growth slowed down a fair amount after the Reagan tax cuts.

This is a very good point and I do thank you for bringing it up; let's both look at this together. My thinking is that the biggest tax cuts in recent history have been the Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush tax cuts. Imho the Trump tax cuts were a bit lackluster but that's a different issue.

Lots of ways of looking at this but I'm seeing revenue increases.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Whatever, anything you say. However, while we're not talking about the 94% & 70% rates, another thought is that maybe we could agree that America sometimes will impose those rates and that we don't want to go back to them.


This is a very good point and I do thank you for bringing it up; let's both look at this together. My thinking is that the biggest tax cuts in recent history have been the Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush tax cuts. Imho the Trump tax cuts were a bit lackluster but that's a different issue.
View attachment 1027862
Lots of ways of looking at this but I'm seeing revenue increases.

Yes, you are seeing revenue increases whether there is a tax cut or not. The only question is would it have increased more if there were not a tax cut.

Using the data from this site....https://www.thebalancemoney.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762

Reagans' first tax cut was in 1982 and took effect in 83. The 5 years before the revenue grew at an average rate of 13.5% a year. Between 83 and 86 when the next cuts were signed revenue grew at an average rate of 7.2% per year. The five years after the 86 cuts revenue grew at an average rate of 5.4%.

Tax cuts, at least in the short term, slow revenue growth.

I do not like paying taxes anymore than the next guy, and we pay a pretty hefty percent as we are well off enough to be taxed high but not rich enough to be able to pay a firm of tax lawyers to get us every possible write off.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

It isn't difficult.
The vast majority of people retiring today partook in the most disaster-ridden economic policy in U.S. history. A policy developed by Alan Greenspan at the head of the table - and that plan is called - Debt as Income.
Mots people retiring now/recently spent their 30s and 40s head over heels in - debt.
5 figures in high interest credit card/store debt.
Buying homes they couldn't afford, and then doubling down and getting a 2nd mortgage on top of that.
Not one - but two car loans.
Vacation loans
You name it - America was profoundly in debt. They treated - Debt as Income.
So now - they have no money. Because they also borrowed and robbed their 401ks.
My wife's mother certainly did not live a wealthy life. About dead center in middle class.
She is now 88 years old. And she has a net worth of about $600,000
My mother, about the same - middle class. She is 84. She has about $400,000 net worth.
Keep in mind folks - they are both 30 years after they retired!! And they still have this much. Even though neither was ever close to weathy.
Find me a middle class person, who never had wealth and never inherited any money who is now retiring and has half that much money.
They don't. Because they spent every dime they made in their earning years and borrowed more.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It isn't difficult.
The vast majority of people retiring today partook in the most disaster-ridden economic policy in U.S. history. A policy developed by Alan Greenspan at the head of the table - and that plan is called - Debt as Income.
Mots people retiring now/recently spent their 30s and 40s head over heels in - debt.
5 figures in high interest credit card/store debt.
Buying homes they couldn't afford, and then doubling down and getting a 2nd mortgage on top of that.
Not one - but two car loans.
Vacation loans
You name it - America was profoundly in debt. They treated - Debt as Income.
So now - they have no money. Because they also borrowed and robbed their 401ks.
My wife's mother certainly did not live a wealthy life. About dead center in middle class.
She is now 88 years old. And she has a net worth of about $600,000
My mother, about the same - middle class. She is 84. She has about $400,000 net worth.
Keep in mind folks - they are both 30 years after they retired!! And they still have this much. Even though neither was ever close to weathy.
Find me a middle class person, who never had wealth and never inherited any money who is now retiring and has half that much money.
They don't. Because they spent every dime they made in their earning years and borrowed more.

You do make good points.

If there is good news it is that unless you are retired it is not to late to change.

A decade ago my wife and I had basically nothing saved and our only retirement money would have been my Marine Crops pension. Now we have over 500k between our 3 retirement accounts and by the time we retire in 4.5 years it will be in the 800k range at least. Couple that with SS, my pension and one for my wife from the VA and we will live just as well in retirement as we do now, perhaps even better since we plan to retire to Panama.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

You do make good points.

If there is good news it is that unless you are retired it is not to late to change.

A decade ago my wife and I had basically nothing saved and our only retirement money would have been my Marine Crops pension. Now we have over 500k between our 3 retirement accounts and by the time we retire in 4.5 years it will be in the 800k range at least. Couple that with SS, my pension and one for my wife from the VA and we will live just as well in retirement as we do now, perhaps even better since we plan to retire to Panama.

I am fortunate enough to have worked for a news conglomerate for 27 years. They had genuine "old fashioned" honest to goodness pensions. It is likely I will draw around $350,000 in benefits before I die. It didn't cost me one red cent of my own money.
Companies use to do this before we all got talked into 401ks - that I KNEW was going to replace pensions - all our money - not theirs.
Also I never borrowed from 401ks and a 403(b).
I lived like no one else, so I could live like no one else.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I am fortunate enough to have worked for a news conglomerate for 27 years. They had genuine "old fashioned" honest to goodness pensions. It is likely I will draw around $350,000 in benefits before I die. It didn't cost me one red cent of my own money.
Companies use to do this before we all got talked into 401ks - that I KNEW was going to replace pensions - all our money - not theirs.
Also I never borrowed from 401ks and a 403(b).
I lived like no one else, so I could live like no one else.

Yeah, pensions are rare these days. The good thing about mine, and the one my wife will get, is they get COLA...so they do not stay the same amount every year.

We have never borrowed from our 401k either, had a lot of debt once and now outside of our house not all that much.

 

[expat_panama]

Yes, you are seeing revenue increases whether there is a tax cut or not. The only question is would it have increased more if there were not a tax cut.

Using the data from this site....https://www.thebalancemoney.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762

Reagans' first tax cut was in 1982 and took effect in 83. The 5 years before the revenue grew at an average rate of 13.5% a year. Between 83 and 86 when the next cuts were signed revenue grew at an average rate of 7.2% per year. The five years after the 86 cuts revenue grew at an average rate of 5.4%.

Tax cuts, at least in the short term, slow revenue growth.

I do not like paying taxes anymore than the next guy, and we pay a pretty hefty percent as we are well off enough to be taxed high but not rich enough to be able to pay a firm of tax lawyers to get us every possible write off.

So you and I measure taxes at different times and we come up with different conclusions, it's like I said...

...Lots of ways of looking at this but I'm seeing revenue increases...

--and you're not.

A place where you and I may be able to agree on is the fact that neither of us wants infinite government and infinite taxes. We want only the amount of government that we need and we want to pay the minimum amount of taxes needed for that minimum amount of government.

We still together?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

--and you're not.

I did see increased revenue, it was just increasing slower than before the tax cuts. I gave you the data and the figures. Feel free to show me where my math is wrong.

A place where you and I may be able to agree on is the fact that neither of us wants infinite government and infinite taxes. We want only the amount of government that we need and we want to pay the minimum amount of taxes needed for that minimum amount of government.

We still together?

we are, but that is not what we have in the US. What we have in the US is massive Govt but not enough revenue to cover the cost, so we are kicking the can down the road to our children and grandchildren.

I find that to be an immoral thing to do

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/retirement-in-america-is-a-disaster-for-many-is-there-hope-130053770.html

Retirement in America is a disaster for many like Withers. And no one — politicians, financial planners, pick your own expert — seems to know what exactly to do about it.

I have been covering all this for years as a journalist, book author, and public speaker. Trust me, the state of retirement in America has never been this bad since the federal law that molded the majority of today’s retirement landscape, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, was signed into law 50 years ago.

The article is a tad long but well worth the read.

The heart of the problem comes down to not saving enough prior to retiring and the cost of healthcare as you age along with the cost of assisted-care facilities and nursing homes.

Lots of suggestions for how to fix it, most rely on the Govt, which does not seem to be the way to go

Inflation is a fixed income killer

 

[SweetSue92]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/retirement-in-america-is-a-disaster-for-many-is-there-hope-130053770.html

Retirement in America is a disaster for many like Withers. And no one — politicians, financial planners, pick your own expert — seems to know what exactly to do about it.

I have been covering all this for years as a journalist, book author, and public speaker. Trust me, the state of retirement in America has never been this bad since the federal law that molded the majority of today’s retirement landscape, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, was signed into law 50 years ago.

The article is a tad long but well worth the read.

The heart of the problem comes down to not saving enough prior to retiring and the cost of healthcare as you age along with the cost of assisted-care facilities and nursing homes.

Lots of suggestions for how to fix it, most rely on the Govt, which does not seem to be the way to go

Young people cannot afford houses and long term care is astronomical. It's unbelievable to me.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Young people cannot afford houses and long term care is astronomical. It's unbelievable to me.

Long term care is astronomical, and has been for a long time. A decade before they might need it my mom and step-father signed over ownership of their 30 acres along with their house and all they owned to my sister and her husband so that if my mom or step-dad needed long term care they would not be able to take the land and house to make them pay for it.

That was 15 years ago. This is not a new problem.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Inflation is a fixed income killer

Of course it is. Always has been, always will be.

 

[SweetSue92]

Long term care is astronomical, and has been for a long time. A decade before they might need it my mom and step-father signed over ownership of their 30 acres along with their house and all they owned to my sister and her husband so that if my mom or step-dad needed long term care they would not be able to take the land and house to make them pay for it.

That was 15 years ago. This is not a new problem.

I really think the next step is Canada....we will help you die. To our great shame.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Of course it is. Always has been, always will be.

Wow

We agree

Hell must be freezing over

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I really think the next step is Canada....we will help you die. To our great shame.

There are times when death is better than going on living, especially if one believes there is paradise waiting for them.

I had two aunts die of pancreatic cancer. One was dead within 10 days of being diagnosed, the other lingered for more than a year after hers. It was not a pleasant existence