Maserati wrote:
As for reported crime levels, those depend entirely on reporting and investigative and prosecutorial resources, all of which is down relative to 50 years ago. Much goes unreported
So the fact that I can walk down any street in Manhattan without seeing a crack seller, work in a Times Square bereft of pimps or hookers, or run a loop of Central Park at 10 pm without giving it a second thought is all in my imagination?
J.R. wrote:
Buying property in other countries is not so easy and most of them require citizenship.
Absolute nonsense!
Well, white collar crime over recent decades has basically been legalized. Or at least decriminalized. Insider trading is like dealing pot. Just don't do it out in the open and in large volumes and no one will bother you. If you defraud your shareholder's with some off balance sheet debt that comes back to you. You are always welcome to go to the white collar methadone clinic known as the Fed Reserve. They will print some money and give it to you.
Riverdale Runner wrote:
Maserati wrote:As for reported crime levels, those depend entirely on reporting and investigative and prosecutorial resources, all of which is down relative to 50 years ago. Much goes unreported
So the fact that I can walk down any street in Manhattan without seeing a crack seller, work in a Times Square bereft of pimps or hookers, or run a loop of Central Park at 10 pm without giving it a second thought is all in my imagination?
Riverdale Runner wrote:
So the fact that I can run a loop of Central Park at 10 pm without giving it a second thought is all in my imagination?
Of course it's all in your mind. Where else would it be?
L 8 wrote:
Sons of Shlomo wrote:[quote]ryan foreman wrote:
What a curious mix of ignorance and arrogance you whiny right wingers are
K5, why did you change your name again? Are you too cowardly to properly defend your earlier post?
Wow R U stupid.
Sons of Shlomo wrote:
L 8 wrote:K5, why did you change your name again? Are you too cowardly to properly defend your earlier post?
Wow R U stupid.
I'm smart enough to see through your obvious deception. That makes you the stupid one, K5.
L 8 wrote:
Sons of Shlomo wrote:Wow R U stupid.
I'm smart enough to see through your obvious deception. That makes you the stupid one, K5.
But dumb enuff to miss the point entirely as well as the moniker reference.
Sons of Shlomo wrote:
L 8 wrote:I'm smart enough to see through your obvious deception. That makes you the stupid one, K5.
But dumb enuff to miss the point entirely as well as the moniker reference.
No, I picked up on that. Your spelling error too.
L 8 wrote:
But dumb enuff to miss the point entirely as well as the moniker reference.
No, I picked up on that. Your spelling error too.[/quote]
Sure you did.
Agreed.
L 8 wrote:
Agreed.
Enlighten us.
Can't do that, can you
Maserati wrote:
"If I have $5 million or more in retirement accounts when I retire, then I shouldn't mind paying a bit more in taxes."
And this is where you and I part ways.
Why? Waste, fraud, and abuse.
I would have no problem paying a fairly large sum in taxes, if I got something meaningful in return. Increasingly, we pay more and get less, while being charged higher taxes and other specific "user fees". In the current and foreseeable environment, I totally disagree with paying any more in taxes, especially when agreed-upon social contracts are unilaterally varied by government.
Wealthier people SHOULD pay more. I will end up wealthy, and I will not mind paying more than those who are not as wealthy. Sometimes wealth is derailed by bad luck, health care issues, and on and on. Also, not everyone is on equal footing in this life (not as smart, not as capable, etc.). Doing what you can in life within reason to help pull others up is the right thing to do.
Maserati wrote:
Data for the last 30 or so years are not relevant when it comes to SS and Medicare going forward, and when the federal debt has doubled in only the past few years.
I re-iterate:
The fact that I hastily used the term "rate" rather than "burden" in my post should have no bearing on the substance of this discussion. In my personal experience, during my productive life, my tax burden in this country has risen--enormously--while level of services I personally receive have dropped precipitously.
look, you made a claim that tax rates only ever go up, when discussing retirement savings. your point, i'm nearly certain, was that the tax rate on a certain amount of investment income will be higher in the future than it is now. the import of that being that there is no point in saving in a retirement account vehicle like a traditional IRA.
as evidence for your opinion, you cited historical tax rates. your evidence was total bs. i explained that to you and anyone else who bothered to read it.
now you are claiming that your evidence is not that tax rates go up, but rather that as one has more income, one pays more in taxes. i hope it's readily apparent to you that that is not evidence that tax rates in the future will be higher than today. (instead it's merely evidence that taxes on larger amounts of income are higher than taxes on smaller amounts of income. that has absolutely nothing to do with whether a traditional IRA account will reduce taxes relative to not investing in an IRA account.)
finally, you've shifted to the real reason you think that taxes will be higher in the future - high nominal federal government debt, social security obligations and medicare.
why didn't you just start with that? i mean, you're wrong, but at least it would have been a plausible piece of evidence instead of complete bs that is readily disprovable.
(now if you're claiming that - without a rise in income - your tax burden has only ever risen during your working life, then i will again say that you are making that up unless your working life began after the w bush tax cuts around 2005.) (and even then you had a tax cut in 2009 due to the obama stimulus law).
J.R. wrote:
Buying property in other countries is not so easy and most of them require citizenship.
Yes, I know, I have looked into it in some places. Many countries have a system whereby residency can be gained with a purchase of a property costing a certain amount, and sometimes the two things are tied together--i.e. you need property to get residency, and you need residency to get property. I still have the opportunity to purchase a very interesting property in a very international place, but I have held off on that purchase because of the potential intricacies of that ownership.
As a frequent visiter to Manhattan, I can validate your specific experiences and feelings. However, the exception does not prove the rule.
Riverdale Runner wrote:
J.R. wrote:Buying property in other countries is not so easy and most of them require citizenship.
Absolute nonsense!
The citizenship part isn't entirely accurate, but it is true that the mechanics of property transfer, and the nature of ownership, can vary widely between different countries, and may also depend on your own country of citizenship.
"Well, white collar crime over recent decades has basically been legalized. Or at least decriminalized. Insider trading is like dealing pot. Just don't do it out in the open and in large volumes and no one will bother you."
This is my feeling as well. Even when restitution is sought as a criminal sanction, it is the corporate entity that pays, with corporate money. Only when the fish is big enough to go after, or if there is someone with influence who is pushing the matter, or if the dollar value is big enough, or if there is a tight enough political connection, will such matters be prosecuted, given limited prosecutorial and investigative resources.
Essentially, white collar "criminal" activities have been increasingly shifted from the realm of the "criminal" to the "administrative", with administrative, rather than criminal, investigations and remedies.
"why didn't you just start with that?"
I thought I had cleared that up in my earlier posts, and had made it more clear with my re-iteration. I re-re-iterate:
The fact that I hastily used the term "rate" rather than "burden" in my post should have no bearing on the substance of this discussion. In my personal experience, during my productive life, my tax burden in this country has risen--enormously--while level of services I personally receive have dropped precipitously.
Again, public accounts will have to be responsive to prevailing conditions. They will have to get the money from somewhere...not only are SS and Medicare screwed, there is an ever-increasing debt burden. To some extent these can be offset with increases in GDP, which is why we are furiously after gas and oil on our own land--but only to some extent.
The shortfall will come from...me. A guy with some money. Not enough to essentially run a business protecting my assets, but enough to live on and grow if current conditions prevail...which they won't.
To me this is not debatable. It is my opinion, buttressed by my own personal experience during my productive lifetime. "Guarantees" made by the government regarding "retirement accounts", including SS, IRA, 401k, etc., can be, and are, varied unilaterally, and those variances will not be in my favor.
Again, it is a matter of control--the potential benefit of accounts predicated on governmental regulation is a lowered tax burden at some point; the price to be paid for that benefit is a lack of control. This is one reason why the very rich don't touch those types of accounts, although, yes, all "bank accounts" as they are simply understood, are regulated to some extent.
"(now if you're claiming that - without a rise in income - your tax burden has only ever risen during your working life, then i will again say that you are making that up unless your working life began after the w bush tax cuts around 2005."
Yes, my income has risen. BUT I still claim what you quoted above, when all sources of taxation are taken into account:
Federal Income
State Income
City
County
Special Taxing Districts-soil, water, facilities, etc.
Gasoline
Capital Gains
Corporate
School
etc.
plus user fees
administrative fees (hugely up)
user fees
permits & registrations
health care
etc.
The lastest blow for me is that I am self-insured, yet I now have to purchase insurance from someone else. I am, and have been, comfortably self-insured for years. If you know how I can get out from under the new mandate by proving this self-insurance to the satisfaction of the government, do tell...but it represents, to me personally, yet another gigantic, ever-increasing tax, to add to all the others.
Flagpole:
You are throwing around vague terms, with little meaning attached to them.
For instance, my definition of "wealthy" does not include someone whose relative position could be derailed by "bad luck" or "health care issues". If that is the case, you are dependent on other structures to support your position, and you are not "wealthy" in the sense that you are not self-determinative.
Because of your lack of precision, I will not argue your initial opinion, because it lacks sufficient meaning to provide the basis for a good discussion. The usual deficiencies are present.
You can do what you wish with your money, there is no need for you to have to respond to the coercive power of the state. Coercion and re-distribution represent a ceding of decision-making power to public authorities--a ceding of control.
You may be fine with that mechanism, if your values and beliefs are aligned with those of the public authorities as far as you can tell--but mine are not. I would point out that such things are subject to change with time, as well.
Some people prefer not to have control, they enjoy ceding authority because they find it unduly burdensome to make up their own minds on things. I am not one of those people.
I find the lack of control attached to "retirement accounts" to be essentially a deal-breaker, YMMV. This is an individual decision to be made, depending on an individual's particular situation--but no matter how you decide, you should be aware of the basis for your opinion, and make sure that you haven't overlooked anything.
I do respect your position, although I do not share it.