This is true, but tax is still being paid at the capital gains rate (24% + state). I personally wouldn't have a problem if we outlawed the preferential treatment of ISO and called them all non qualified.
Is this OK?
- Thread starter Nbergbuck
- Start date
- Status
if I'm the "junior" you refer to, Both myself and my wife have LTC policies that we bought back in our 40's. We pay very little for these policies since we bought them at a "young"age. We also have annuities that we bought back in 2008 when you could get fixed
rate policies paying high rates that will provide us with much more $$ than the $8000-9000/month you highlighted in your post. It was a stretch to fund them, but we knew this decision would pay in the long run.
Additionally we have a defined benefit plan as well as social security. The miracle of compounding is not new. You just have to suck it up when you're young to lay a great foundation for the future.
Now before you give me a "it might be nice to have had a high paying job", we did this on an army officer's salary (the defined benefit plan). I started as a private E1. We just don't spend a lot of money on Starbucks, expensive cars, luxury watches, tattoos, cigarettes, booze and at the same time complain we don't have enough money to save. And, when we needed more money than we had I got a second job.
I discovered at a young age that depending on the government to take care of me and my wife in our old age was/is not a good strategy. I feel for the people who are in that position. And I'm not disparaging the decisions they made in life. To each their own. But I always find it interesting that those who highlight the plight of those who may have to depend on the government are quick to denigrate others who decided to go a different route and prepare to avoid that fate.
"I think the government should go a step further and make you sell your house." They already do, plus take whatever savings a person has!! of course, if you trust your kids, one can turn over their entire assists outside the 5-7 yr window.
--National Council on Aging (NCOA) reports that Medicaid does not cover room and board for assistant living---
On average, nursing homes cost $7,900 to $9,000 per month,
"Regardless there is no reason for 200 year old people to be on the rolls."........ you obviously don't understand Ellen's projected plans or the SS COBOL system,
"Elon Musk has repeatedly claimed that his so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) project had uncovered massive government fraud when it alleged that 150-year-olds were claiming Social Security benefits."
But Musk has provided no evidence to back up his claims, and experts quickly pointed out that this is very likely just a quirk of the decades-old coding language that underpins the government payment systems."
"The database Musk took the screenshot from listed almost 400 million people, which is more than five times the number of people receiving benefits in 2024, according to the SSA’s own website. It’s also significantly more than the entire US population."
No, 150-Year-Olds Aren’t Collecting Social Security Benefits
Elon Musk claims to have found rampant fraud in the Social Security Administration. There’s a much simpler explanation.
www.wired.com
First, every politician in the last 15 years has stated that a) these programs are not sustainable without big tax hikes or cuts b) that no one will lower the level of care, and c) that there is a lot of waste, fraud, and abuse."I think the government should go a step further and make you sell your house." They already do, plus take whatever savings a person has!! of course, if you trust your kids, one can turn over their entire assists outside the 5-7 yr window.
--National Council on Aging (NCOA) reports that Medicaid does not cover room and board for assistant living---
On average, nursing homes cost $7,900 to $9,000 per month,
"Regardless there is no reason for 200 year old people to be on the rolls."........ you obviously don't understand Ellen's projected plans or the SS COBOL system,
"Elon Musk has repeatedly claimed that his so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) project had uncovered massive government fraud when it alleged that 150-year-olds were claiming Social Security benefits."
But Musk has provided no evidence to back up his claims, and experts quickly pointed out that this is very likely just a quirk of the decades-old coding language that underpins the government payment systems."
"The database Musk took the screenshot from listed almost 400 million people, which is more than five times the number of people receiving benefits in 2024, according to the SSA’s own website. It’s also significantly more than the entire US population."
No, 150-Year-Olds Aren’t Collecting Social Security Benefits
Elon Musk claims to have found rampant fraud in the Social Security Administration. There’s a much simpler explanation.www.wired.com
This comes from every politician from both parties and I can post videos of both parties' leadership making those claims since 2008. (most are still in office).
the fact is, DOGE is the first to actually try and do something about it. it will be a process. I have no doubt that some claims will be refuted. I also have no doubt that they will find massive waste, fraud and abuse. For example, the money given to illegal aliens for care. Another is multiple people using a single SS number.
the bottom line is that it won't be as big as some want to believe and it will be considerably larger than zero.
so sit back and wait until it settles out. Let's hope that they can find ~ 20% waste, fraud and abuse that can be reinvested in legit recipients of aid. One thing I can tell you for sure, it won't be sustainable in it's present form.
You don't believe it's for Ellen's own personal gain, do you?
"it won't be sustainable in it's present form"..........
No, it won't Obli, there are a few solutions out there....but it would mean a larger taxation to the higher echelon. No politician wants to go there.
I say just let the country roll back to Golden Years of 1938-1945. We're obviously headed in that direction.
gatta to go now and listen to the agonizing state of once was the government....catch you tomorrow.
Totally agree. I don't want my taxes to go up. I pay north of six figures in taxes when you consider fed/state/local income tax, real estate tax, and sales tax (not to mention embedded taxes like gasoline, Social security, and others).
First, I need to feel comfortable that the federal and state governments have done everything they can to curb waste and fraud. FIX THE DAMN PROBLEM before you take money out of my and my family's pockets. DOGE is the first initiative I've seen since Clinton/Gore that ended in 2000. So kudos to them.
The people that get screwed are people that work for a living and draw an income. The poor suck off the hind tit of governments with handouts and programs. The wealthy buy influence and get favors. The middle class gets screwed while we pay for almost all of this BS.
$1500/month, unlimited time. As I wrote, I bought this a long time ago. I once looked to upgrade, maybe a few years ago, when I learned that the average person only stay on LTC for about 2 years. But when I got the numbers to "upgrade" to around a 2 year length, my monthly premiums increased significantly. So I kept what I have. I, in effect, self insure for any difference in what I get from my policy and any difference.
Key is start early in life
Your livelihood was entirely dependent on the federal government ... and its excesses.
I'm more conservative than anyone you will meet on this board. I'd throw granny over the cliff in her wheelchair her children and grandchildren if they were Leftists. Citizen or not I catch you cheating stealing lying illegally voting any of that and I had the power, I would personally pay to get you to the border then shoot you after you crossed over guaranteeing you won't be back to do it all over again. While Homan and Elon are some of my new hero's they are Wussies compared to me. You don't get to screw me over twice.
Last edited:
LoL - Paying north of 6 figures you aren't middle class my friend but i get your point. You are spot on. The rich can pay more and if they/we really felt the waste was cleaned up AND every dollar we sent in didn't get matched with 2 extra dollars of spending we would pay more. I also think and not to derail the post wealth [not income] should be the way to go.
I didn’t say I was but anyone who works hard and relies on payroll income is getting screwed. Fortunately, I read Rich dad poor dad over two decades ago and learned to turn income into assets asap.
Sorry, I thought your last sentence suggested your were middle class. Your are 100% correct on the income issue.
I honestly think anyone that relies on payroll income is middle class. That leaves the investor class which is far less taxed. Payroll class gets raised by the government.
C'mon bdgan We had 750,000 age 65 and over die from Covid. In a 5 year period how much older did we get. I thought life expectancy actually dropped 1 year. I'll give you well meaning politicians but that does border on oxymoron status.
Actually if you check you will find that the top 1% pay over 45% of TOTAL federal taxes. Its Democrat talking points (lies) screaming that the rich dont pay there fair share. They do. It's time to cut the spending before the country goes under. Go look at the tax brackets before and after the Trump tax breaks. You will see the truth. If congress doesn't act the current tax brackets expire at the end of this year and it will be a huge tax increase for everybody.
Outside of obvious waste, fraud, or abuse you can save billions if you simply give lower level managers the power to fire useless employees. If you were ever employed or contracted with the government you know that there are plenty of useless people. As is, the best a manager can do is try and farm them out and make them somebody else's problem. It's virtually impossible to fire them.
You can also save billions by incentivizing saving as opposed to running around trying to spend every last penny of the budget at the end of the fiscal year. I think a good approach would be if you spend all your budget it's cut by 10% the next year. If you save 5% or more you get the same amount. The incentive now is to spend every dime because if you don't you don't get your budget the next year. Everything is ass backwards.
Last edited:
yea, not sure about accuracy of that number. From national taxpayers union foundation. top 1% of wage earners paid just about 40% of total taxes, top 10% pay about 76%. I believe these are update 2024 figures, meaning 2023 tax year.
Where things get conflated is comparing billionaires paying "their fair share" of income taxes. Reality is that there are only about 11 individuals who make that much (likely changes from year to year). But someone who has over $1billion in assets, as has been pointed out already, makes his/her money off that and pays a lower tax rate.
No matter what - and members of both parties will disagree on this - if 10% of earners are paying 76% of the total taxes, it certainly can be argued that these 10% are paying their fair share.
You are talking about payroll income. On that I agree.
Wealthy people don’t care about income and think assets. If you look at a CEO, their pay is much heavier on assets (typically stick options) and not payroll. Why? Payroll ends up being -40% depending upon the state. Some higher. And it is paid twice a month. Cap gains is far less and only paid once, at the end. So would you rather have gifted a $100,000 watch/art/vintage car/autographed stones guitar… that appreciates10% a year or a $100,000 bonus?
While you guys discuss and haggle over percentages this fact remains. There should be no Federales Income Tax or Property Tax for anyone other than possibly Corporations and probably not them either. It would take a couple of election cycles to get close to that through import taxes and cuts by congress but getting very close to that in this day and age can be done. And another thing except for the disabled every welfare recipient should be made to work a minimum of 20 hrs a week or no Federales Checks. Hopefully the business of generational welfare would be over.
Last edited:
I just looked it up, for income tax only. According to this, the top 10% of payroll income earners pay over 70% of income taxes, while the bottom 50% pay 11.5%. it looks like the top 10% make around $250k per year and up.
Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2025 Update
not sure we will ever get to your point. But couple of things are clear to me 1. we are we $37 trillion (and counting) in debt 2. the federal government is too big, wastes a lot of money, and is focusing on things that are better left to states. 3. the federal government is incapable of managing programs in the $billions.
We need a zero based effort that relooks how we do everything. But we'll never get there because our politicians can't agree on even the most basic of things .
Last edited:
Executives at large corporations typically get both.
But to answer your question a $30 salary provides a current source for spending money after taxes (50%) are paid. Stock options don't provide a source of income in the short term. One reason is that they are typically issued at the current market price so they are worthless unless the stock price goes up. Then there's a vesting period. Even after the vesting it's frowned upon for a company executive to sell his own stock. That has to be disclosed to the SEC on Form 4 which is publicly available information.
The number of SS recipients keeps going up in spite of covid deaths (over 68 million in 2024 vs 59 million 20 years earlier). 750k is a drop in the bucket compared to those number. Besides half of those people would have died by now anyway (307k were over 85 and another 296k were over 75). I don't mean to minimize the importance of anybody's life but people 75-90 with preexisting conditions were on the edge anyway.
Last edited:
Why does is this political thread still here? Why can't the usual suspects ever control themselves from political speech where it's not allowed?
They do but most minimize income and maximize other types of pay. I know several software entrepreneurs and most pay themselves a nice income, to live off of, but plow most of their money into company assets. For example, the CEO of one company told me I made more than he did. A few months later, he bought himself a Porche 911 twin turbo which was about $125K at the time. I told him that I couldn't afford that car so how could he? he laughed and said he found the car, called a special board meeting, and paid himself a nice bonus.
Another example is the Cleveland Indians back then. Dick Jacobs bought the Cle Indians for $40,000,000. That was 1986. He ran the company at about a $1m deficit each year paying zero in income tax. In 1999 he sold them for $323,000,000. So in those years, he paid no taxes and made a $277,000,000 profit. OK, he lost a million a year for 13 years so he only made a $264,000,000 profit. He then paid some kind of cap gain tax in 1999. Larry Dolan then had the $323m Indians and complains about year-over-year losses. But the estimated worth of the franchise is $1.3B. So his complaints about losses and his basis for taxation don't take into account the $1B in increased value of the franchise.
and the large number of people who are here illegally being enrolled in Medicaid - CA just underestimated their exposure to this by Billions - not blaming these folks because why wouldn't you collect benefits if they allow you too but this is not sustainable unless we increase taxes exponentially which is not politically an option.
You are correct. I had read that a while back and it is not correct. In 2021 it was 45.8% of the total. Still most of the taxes. The top 50% paid 97.7% of the total.
Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2024 Update
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) made many significant, but temporary, changes to the individual income tax code to lower tax rates, widen brackets, increase the standard deduction and child tax credit, and more.
taxfoundation.org
very well said. 10% flat income tax for everyone. 3.5% wealth tax with $500,000 deductible.
everyone has skin in the game
remains very progressive
and as some in this thread have said using income tax as the tool focuses on the wrong group.
BUT FIRST get Spending in line
Leave it to Tommy "Obliviax" Flanagan to allege, in his made-up stories, that someone casually told him he engaged in illegal activity to enrich himself.
It's beyond comical, and has moved on to very concerning, at this point.
not to be picky, but not all stock options go to executives (unclear how high up you go as defined executive). Some companies give options down the line to their employees and these folks don't have to notify anybody when they decide to execute the option. Remember back in the dot com boom, the only way some companies stayed in business was via low salaries and generous stock options. The company I worked for gave out options five or so levels below those on the C Suite.
Fair enough (never happen) but just for grins, what is a 3.5% "wealth tax?" What is wealth? If I own a 1967 Dodge Dart, would that be taxed as part of my wealth? And if so, how does one identify the value if one looks like the top versus the bottom? How about my Mick Jagger autographed guitar, Roberto Clemente rookie card, or my Yayoi Kusama painting?
For the record, I am not against a wealth tax but have no idea how it is operationalized. If you decide to tax, say, investment funds, precious metals will go through the roof. If you decide to include those too, look for people to start buying overseas items (real estate, paintings, collectibles) and live them tax-free.
Last edited:
I understand that some top executives often make more on stock gains than salary.
I don't look at sports franchises the same way as I look at fortune 500 companies. Sports franchises don't operate in the free market. If they did anybody could start a new team. The NFL, NBA, MLB, etc don't allow that.
Traditional businesses are different. We used to have Sears, Penney's, and KMart. Now we have Amazon & Walmart. NVIDIA only went public 25 years ago and there's a decent chance they won't be in business 50 years from now. IMO the sport world is different than the real world.
Here's my opinion on taxation of the super wealthy:
- A lot of people say the rich don't pay taxes. That's nonsense. I assure you that Jamie Dimon, Aaron Judge, Hollywood celebrities etc pay a lot of taxes (50%) on their income. What they don't pay taxes on is their unrealized income. They might earn $40 million, pay $20 million in tax, and buy a house with the remaining $20 million. That house could grow to $50 million and they don't pay tax on the unrealized gains. Just like you with your house, the difference being that your house isn't worth that much. A lot of people talk about loopholes but there aren't that many loopholes. The big issue is unrealized gains.
- One solution proposed by liberals is a wealth tax. I'm not totally opposed to that but such taxes are difficult to enforce. Some assets are difficult to value until you sell. Some entrepreneurs don't have a lot of cash so you would be forcing them to sell off big chunks of their company. And these guys can move if you make taxes too onerous. Most European countries abandoned their wealth tax for this reason. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/...s-such-a-good-idea-why-did-europe-kill-theirs
- There are approximately 750 billionaires in this country. I read that the combined net worth of the top 400 was roughly $4.5 trillion. That's an unthinkable amount of money but if we confiscated all of it that would only be enough to run the federal government for about 8 months. Then what would you do in year 2? Biden said his tax the rich plan would generate $500b over 10 years, or $50b per year. That's a drop in the bucket when you have a $1.9 trillion annual deficit. Bottom line is I'm OK with raising taxes on people earning > $1 million but anybody who thinks we cand eliminated the debt by simply taxing the rich is ignorant to the math.
P.S. An entrepreneur might plow money back into his company but that's generally a good thing. I don't think we want to discourage that. Fortune 500 CEOs accumulate shares via grants or options. Very few are plowing their own money back into the company.
A 10% flat tax wouldn't fly. Half currently pay zero or negative income taxes and politicians aren't going to win by promising to tax people with lower incomes.
P.S. Some people applaud Clinton for having the last balanced budget. Back then $19k ($41k in today's money) put you in the 28% bracket. Today that family is in the 12% bracket. Can you imagine any democrat or republican proposing we go back to those old brackets?
- "A lot of people say the rich don't pay taxes. That's nonsense. I assure you that Jamie Dimon, Aaron Judge, Hollywood celebrities etc pay a lot of taxes (50%) on their income..." I guarantee you that Jamie Dimon payed less, as a percentage of his total income, than I did. Aaron Judge, as far as I know, makes payroll income so who knows? Same with most Hollywood celebrities. But I'll tell you this, I know of several very high value paintings that were destroyed in the Malibu fires. Why where so many valuable paintings in those homes? Because they go up in value, tax free. And when sold, they should pay capgains but often don't report the sale. it isn't tracked so the tax on sale is really voluntary.
- On a wealth tax you have two problems. The first is what you said; how do you ascribe value? But the second is just as bad. If you tax wealth in the USA, people will just move their wealth overseas. The US Govt will not only never see or tax it, but will lose value assets and resources on US soil. For the wealthy, it is a world market. If the US tries to raise taxes on wealth, they'll just move it someplace else.
- "750 billionaires in this country."....That money is tied up on holdings like stocks, bonds, companies and other valuable assets but it is NOT cash. So the CLE Browns are valued at ~ $4.6B. The Haslems, the owners, are estimated to be worth $8.5B. If you told the Haslems that they needed to pay 3.5 % each year for the Browns, they'd be really hard pressed to come up with $161 million in cash to pay taxes. That would put hundreds of privately owned companies out of business or liquidated to a giant conglomerate. We are talking about privately held companies like Cargill, Publix, Mars, Wawa, McKinsey, Sheetz, Kohler, SpaceX, etc. Art Model literally moved the CLE Browns to Baltimore MD to get a cash infusion that would help pay for his kid's inheritance when he died. The stadium was certainly a contributing factor but the issue was cash. I know because I was friends with Al Lerner's pilot. The contract was signed on this jet. Al Learner was a minority owner. Learner felt so bad about it later, he got the NFL franchise for the new Browns before he died of cancer and his son took it over, Randy. Randy's son died in an ATV accident and the TV network that had the Browns contract televised the rescue mission on TV from a chopper. Randy broke the contract and sold the Browns to the Haslams who owned Pilot gas stations. So I have no sympathy for billionaires but they don't have cash, they have assets.
Last edited:
a problem with folks on the left thinking.....to begin, most people have no problem with taxing people who make $1million/year a higher rate or even a surcharge. The problem is there's not enough of them to make a significant dent in a $1trillion deficit much less than a $37 trillion debt. So, to me at least, the argument "tax the millionaires" is just a political slogan. Sure you'd get more money, but others on the left want to spend that money (and more) on free college, or free childcare or even more subsidies for green energy. We'll know the government is serious when they pass bills that reduce federal spending.
The reaction from folks on the left to the work of DOGE leads me to believe that our democrat, and republican, elected officials are not yet sold on the benefits of reduced spending. I still believe that Americans look at the federal government as just a money factory. I read today that Vermont gets in the vicinity of $250 million annually from the feds for education. I might be in the minority, but it seems to me that legislators in that state might not be as eager to increase spending if they had to go to their taxpayers as opposed to filling out paperwork to request more from the feds. Right now the federal government takes the political hit for too high taxes and too much spending. It's similar for just about all spending categories..the fed taxes, takes a % off the top for federal salaries, benefits and overhead, then sends a portion to the states. Didn't use to be this way, but we've just become accustomed to the current process
Yes they would have died but likely with huge end of life bills. Isn't a very large percent of our health care in the last 6 months of life?
Of course it is, but that is true of a lot of folks who are not elderly, too, like 5, 15,25,35,45, and 55 year olds with cancer and other deadly diseases and conditions. Stopping those with terrible diseases and conditions from dying is VERY expensive, and fairly often does not succeed. End of life care is expensive for people of all ages, right?
Last edited:
- Status
Latest posts
-
FB Recruiting Which Prospects Are Visiting Penn State This Weekend?- Latest: Marty Leap
