This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Obama Proposes Retirement Account Limit In First "Wealth Tax" Salvo
The witch-hunt against the "rich" (as defined by a random group of people) through the establishment of creeping global capital controls continues. First, it was Europe deciding that €100,000 in savings is the "fair" threshold on savings above which any haircut goes, with Cyprus demonstrating first. and next Italy making it clear local depositors above the threshold will also be impaired in the future; then a group of journalists mysteriously lands millions in top secret files exposing essentially every offshore bank account: a perfectly legal option, however when mixed in with the implication that this money is all tax-evasion gotten it provides for a combustible mix, and now it is America's turn to fire the first shot across the capital control bow, because as part of his proposed budget, Obama plans to set a limit of how much one can spend per year on retirement through tax-preferred retirement plans. As it turns out, according to the Obama administration it is only fair to spend a total of $205,000 in nominal dollars per year on retirement, but not more.
Per The Hill, "The proposal would save around $9 billion over a decade, a senior administration official said, while also bringing more fairness to the tax code." Ah yes, "fairness." This means that as a result of the artificial limit, the Budget will set a total cap on retirement plans of about $3 million. Anything above that, feel free to please spend on your peas instead of saving, or just invest in Bernanke's stock market ponzi. After all, that is the only artificial indicator Obama has to point to, when "proving" his policies are working.
Of course, once the administration's destructive policies of attempting to inflate away the debt finally funnel through to the economy, and inflation explodes, that $205,000 may or may not be enough to buy a loaf of bread. But why pretend to even think logically or ahead at this point. It's not like anyone has any real plans about the future of the country when the president is actually willing to release statements like this: “Under current rules, some wealthy individuals are able to accumulate many millions of dollars in these accounts, substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving."
Why thank you Mr. President for telling the people what you consider "reasonable." Of course, it would be so much below you to simply go on the record as saying the rich (arbitrarily chosen as those who have over $1 million in assets... or $500,000... or $50,000 - who knows, it's "arbitrary") are now fair game and all those who recently received an Obama phone would be legally excused if they were to accidentally eat them. Because all is fair in hate and class warfare.
And speaking of hate, that is precisely the cover that Obama will use to pass his proposal:
The most prominent taxpayer with a multimillion-dollar IRA is Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee and co- founder of Bain Capital LLC. Romney disclosed in public filings during the campaign that his retirement account held between $18.1 million and $87.4 million. At one point, the maximum exceeded $100 million.
IRAs have evolved from a retirement-planning technique into an estate-planning tool for some wealthy families because tax laws allow the accounts to be passed on to heirs, said Ed Slott, an IRA specialist and certified public accountant based in Rockville Centre, New York.
“Over the last election it hit a critical mass when a lot of people found out that Romney had $100 million in his IRA,” Slott said. “People thought, how on earth did that happen? I think that was the tipping point.”
The Romney campaign didn’t explain how he amassed that much money in an IRA when contribution limits are much lower. Most taxpayers can contribute a maximum of $5,500 for 2013. Older workers, self-employed workers and those who save through 401(k)-style plans have higher caps and can roll those accounts into IRAs.
One possibility is that Romney included Bain investments valued at close to nothing that later grew exponentially. The value would increase tax-free in the retirement account and would be subject to taxation at ordinary income tax rates when taken out.
Of course, the outcry from those who are stupid enough to actually save cash instead of blowing it all on iPhones and other worthless gimmicks will be loud, but since they are outnumbered about 9 to 1 by those who have zero financial planning skills, zero savings but lots of debt, will be promptly drowned out.
We wonder if the administration be as forceful in limiting the net present value of public worker retirement pensions (funded by other taxpayers of course), already over $500,000/year in some cases, with the same passion as it has in going after private wealth. Or maybe because the purchasing of votes with other people's money might be impaired, Obama will just let this slide?
Finally, like everything out of the administration, there isn't actually a plan on how to do this:
The administration’s statement didn’t explain in detail how the proposal would work. The cap would apply to the total of all of an individual’s tax-favored retirement accounts.
So all up in the air and very much unknown. But what is very known is that the tax on the wealthy, which by definition has to be global in nature, is rapidly coming, and the only question is at what threshold of total taxable financial assets it will be arbitrarily set.
However since we predicted all of this in September of 2011, and did some math to go along with it, expect to hand over anywhere between 30% and 40% of your hard earned assets to whatever parasitic government happens to be your host (this of course, after being taxed on the cash flows used to generates these assets).
Because in the new socialist international normal, "it's only fair."
»
- 70304 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
No. It is my asset, subject to risk.
It is the bank's liability.
You clearly have no idea how accounting works, and the legal reporting practiced by banks.
We agree on what happened: I loaned it to the bank, so I don't have it, and I may never see it again. The bank has it, and can use it for "levered" capital deployment.
But, you misunderstand the terms "liability" and "asset", and how they are used in both the day-to-day and legal-reporting sense.
It is a liquid asset - the deposit - so if you want it back you can ask for it back, but it is your loan to the bank, therefor it is your liability.
<sigh>, now we're just being silly.
There is no dictionary, investment book, accounting practice guide, regulatory policy, banker, or regulator that would agree with that statement.
I agree that you may never-get-it-back. But, that is not what "liability" means. Rather, it is an "asset", which when adjusted-for-risk, might have a value of "zero".
It is part of your estate. It can be used as an asset to securitize other financial instruments. It doesn't "cost" you anything, and you're "not-on-the-hook" for anything. It is not a liability.
As "loaner-of-the-money", I am now an "unsecured-creditor". The bank is the debtor (the "receiver-of-the-loan"). For it to be my liability, you would somehow have to define a scenario by which I loan money to the bank, and as a result, become a "debtor".
You are correct on one thing, though you do not know it - the deposits can securitize financial instruments, but not for you; it is done by the bank.
When the money is on deposit you do not use it, the bank does. If you want to use it, you take the money out of the bank.
It is your liability when it is on loan to the bank.
What color is the sky in your world?
Well, duh!
RED of course!
Don't you realize by now that Keynesian big (over)spenders know no other color?
Pirate, all your opinions are good for is demonstrating fallacies.
And all your replies are good for is demonstrating the depths of sheer spinelessness, moral depravity and outright insanity that lackies such as yourself for the corrupt and criminal status-quo power structure are willing to sink to in order to sit at their table and feed on the scraps thrown to their lapdogs.
I have written the facts and nothing but the facts.
Well, Dr. K you might be an expert in the field of "economics", you obviously don't possess the requisite expertise in the fields of linguistics to understand what facts are. As a linguistics PhD, I can tell you definitely what you have stated are not facts at all. I think my expertise settles this matter: you are wrong.
Well, krugman might be correct in one linguistic case -
I go into a bank, give them my money (which becomes their money) and I get a receipt. Not a loan, I gave $$ to them in exchange for a receipt. No promise attached. Just a receipt.
I am liable not to get the money back in exchange for the receipt in the future.
Dr Paul Krugman said:
Economist [spit], all your fallacies are good for is demonstrating opinions.
What happens to the deposits at a bank? They are loaned out by said bank by using fractional reserve lending. If you want to use your deposits, you take them out.
This is very simple. You are only missing this because you have no expertise in this field.
Um... That's my assertion to you:
In short: You're trying to "know-more-than-you-know", and double-down when you misspoke, or extended too far beyond what you actually understand (I can't tell which, therefore (3)).
Once again - you can't spend what you don't have, and if your money is in the form of a deposit at a bank, you don't have it, the bank does.
If you don't understand this call a financial advisor at your bank. Your deposit is a loan to the bank - a loan is a liability.
And wow. Ad hominem always wins in the end.
You just fail to recognize the terms of the deposit. Unfortunately for Tyler you must write articles here - hence the ability to post a picture. Maybe he can correct your insolence by telling you how wrong you are.
We're at the silly stage, as I said above, because you don't understand the term, "liability".
Let me help you:
Liability, as applied to finance:
An obligation requiring future settlement, arising from borrowing, or duty or responsibility to others.
Until you learn that term, I shall be embarrassed for you upon your behalf.
I'm convinced. This indeed is the one and only Dr. Paul Krugman.
+1 I'm just lmao. It's either the real Krugman, or someone who drank from the same bowl of kool-aid. God help us all, is anyone still surprised why the whole f*cking shithouse is going up in flames?
I submit that it is a dual liability - the depositor has the duty to present proof of the former ownership of the $$ by presenting the receipt to the bank.
The bank has the liability to settle the return exchange of the receipt for dollars.
It's all a shadow choice of terms anyway, just see it from another point of view.
Tangled up in blue
The depositor has no obligation for future settlement.
You're talking about a "claims-process". I have no obligation to claim my lawnmower after previously loaning it to my neighbor. I can pretend it is gone. The neighbor has a "possible" claim-by-me hanging over his head (so my neighbor has a liability).
"Once again, you can't spend what you don't have..."
Bwahahahaha! Tell that to CONgress and the majority of citizens of the US of A. Suck my sequester.
Bank deposits are liabilities to the bank. They (used) to pay interest on deposits. The loans they make (by LEVERAGING the deposits well beyond the actual desposits on hand) are their assests.
.
+10000
"Once again, you can't spend what you don't have..."
The irony of that statement coming from somebody calling himself Paul Krugman is priceless.
and once again DPK resorts to the "ad hominem" ad hominem, as if the mere statement of naming a specific logical fallacy(hypocritically i might add) is the magic incantation which will set him free once and for all from the confines of logic itself.
you jest?!
If you want to lose your deposits, leave them in.
If my demand deposit is also my liability, please explain how I settle this liability.
the m.o. of the krugman persona here is to demonstrate how the establishment turns fiction into facts (black is white, liabilities are assets, debt is wealth, etc.)
What I am writing are facts.
Even you know that you are nothing but a gross liar and a self-serving apologist for criminal corrupt and sociopathy.
@akak
I'm afraid in this upside down world of double-speak, NWO, and Janus culture, all that Dr. Krugman writes about banking on this blog is correct. The debt notes deposited to our own accounts are loans. We are self-reporting our debt notes. Debts are assets to banks.
People are still thinking in terms of 19th century gold-backed currency. The system was updated in 1933 with the US bankruptcy. Our Secretary of Treasury is the trustee of a bankruptcy proceeding. The Uniform Commerical Code backs up a debt currency system, but nobody informed the people. That is why we are here today.
yes. agreed. you write about lies that after skillful msm peddling and university mis-education became facts to the vast majority of the sheep; educated or not
Thank you, based on your property rights position, I will immediately remove my liability at my bank and convert to asset (cash). Dare I suggest we all folow the advice of the good Doctor?
YES !
BTFD
The government is "inserting-itself" between the client-and-broker, and seizing assets, that was not agreed to by either the client-nor-broker.
The government is not party to this contract.
You are confusing "counter-party" risk with parties-in-the-contract.
Further, if you claim that my retirement account is not my "property", then no sane person would have one.
You obviously do not know a thing about finance.
When you make a deposit in a bank you are making them a loan. It is that simple.
See above: Agree that deposits are loans to the bank. Disagree how assets/liabilities are recorded: Your terminology is wrong.
Disagree that your understanding of finance is superior.
Our disagreement relates to distinctions:
You misunderstand that (1) is different from(2..5).
Since you've stated government has no limits, that makes sense.
But, it is wrong (demonstrably not true).
mikla, from legal stand point, the statement that the state has no limits is correct. it is not wrong. if you are prepared to accept the fact that the legal fiction with legal personality (your birth certificate plus your ssn) is a corporation sole defined by a name under which you conduct business and your ssn as the number of your corporation, you will realize that you are a creature of the state. your legal fiction will continue to exist even if the flesh and blood agent administering the legal fiction with legal personality dies. in other words, legal fiction is immortal and exists until the record of it is erased. the flesh and blood individual administering the legal fiction lives. there's a clear distinction. legal fiction exists, humans live and are mortal. legal fictions are creatures of the state. the f&b individual is a creature of its maker.
"Deposits are loans to the depositor."
lol...what? Does the FDIC know about this? And by the way, who or what backs the FDIC and why?
It is an insurer.
They are backed like any other insurer - with investments.
You're being dodgy, as usual, but be that as it may...Mr.Economic Genius, you will need to reconcile this answer with your next sentence of the previous...
"If the bank goes bankrupt, like Cyprus, then the money, as the liability to the depositor, is collected."
You're either saying everyones deposits are not insured or that FDIC is a smokescreen to make people think their deposits are insured because you have already stipulated that you think deposits are loans to the bank.
So I suppose what you're gettiing at is common people shouldn't trust having their money in banks...perhaps they should hoard...ahem...stockpile it in another form or elsewhere? ;-)
And what do you really know about it?
Know about what?
As an aside, they say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery...nice pic...lol...but you gotta be able to carry off something like that with ALL that it entails. That means not defending "power elites" who could care less whether you live or die.
I wish you the very best of luck with that...you'll need it.
Does Dr. Krugman know that you are here on ZeroHedge channeling Robert Owen in his name? I would think he would be furious.
"Deposits are loans to the depositor. "
I think he has point on that. If you have an interest bearing account, then you are taking on risk. I think Cyprus was about 4 to 6%. No risk no return.
Precisely - it functions just as a bond does.
They are loans and thus you bare the risk per interest.
This is all very much beside the point.
Did you ever finally buy that mouthwash yet?
Kruggmann poor speller say:
Typical US 'american' citizenism citizen. Bear with it.
Made me laugh.
Classic 'american' inability to self-indict, and force blame to the exterior, ups Mr. Krudman as a parangong of offuscationalizing denialistic US 'american' citizenism.
This is certainly that. The crustiest bit of it.
Now, I feel stimulated. Must be Mr. Keynes touching me in my communaughty place.
So, to play by these rules/definitions, we mitigate 3rd party risk (bank, broker) by (a) keeping the cash at home instead of the bank, and (b) setting up an offshore IRA - in a jurisdiction not as indebted as the US (and its Fed-subservient friends in the EU). I'm on it. Call it WIP, Dr. K.
Yes, deposits in banks are not without risk. Please write a WSJ column on this important point so the masses will be aware of the risk they are taking at banks.
if a deposit is a loan (to) a depositor by
what attribute, authority or mechanism is
the depositor held responsible for maintenance
and satisfaction of the terms of this loan?
I will wait for and in eternity for a coherent
response, thank you in advance.
Like Bitch Streisand and her Hollywood Idiots did when Rebublicans won elections!!!!
Hot air ASS HOLES....
Seems you've been sniffin around for a new nest yurself!
http://www.gokunming.com/en/blog/item/2928/mystery_man_posing_as_beijing...
Krug visits China! Ne hai bitchinks!
FU U krugman,
You move to China.
To each according to his needs. Good plan.
Sya vlast sovyetam!
You that guy from the TV show "The Americans"? A trained commie, but an American at heart. I know, they all want to be like us, right? ;-)
Apparently it does, because you're about to get asshopped, dunbfuck.
The funny part will be watching you try to remove your Grammy from your sphincter.
Fuck you and fuck the majority
"Does it matter how much money I make?"
To me? No, it doesn't.
But it seems to make a difference to President Obama and many of those in Congress. And like a Snorg-Tee's ad showed on one of their shirts, "If Apocalypse Zombies start chasing us, I'm tripping you!" But their gaze is apparently fixed on Romney, for now. I'm sure you had nothing to do with that, pffft.
I think M. Romney should start chanelling Jaime Dimon, "That's why I'm richer than you." The fireworks would be fun.
Dr Paul Krugman: "This measure will benefit the majority of Americans and the people who have hoarded money will have to do their duty to society and help out."
Why should it be up to anyone how much money someone else should or should not be allowed to hoard(save)? If I save(hoard) enough money to go out and buy a car outright, is that a bad thing or a good thing? What if I hoarded enough to build a manufacturing plant and hire a bunch of people to start making products to sell at a profit? Would that be a good thing or a bad thing?
Again, why would it be up to anyone else but me to decide how much I save(hoard) and what I choose to spend it on? Dr Paul Krugman, do you believe in freedom and liberty, do you believe in individual choice, at all? Do you believe that people should have control of their own destiny the moment they walk out the front door? I don't see how it is helpful for anyone to make demands or dictate what someone else should do with their own damn money.
Or is it that it's not their money, their decision, and their destiny... but as a wannabe dictator, it's yours?
Peter, great workshop last w/e, eh?
So far the Gov taxes Income, money exchange (sales tax), and some assets (property tax, car registr.). Let's agree to ignore the fees they charge for a moment. Aside from these, they have not YET charged for accumulated savings ('hoarding') in their efforts to maintain the VOM (Vel. of Money). If they see that the VOMN is dropping, for whatever reason, they just might get desperate enough to tax directly savings also. Beyond the indirect taxation of money printing.
No wonder more and more people who still have liquid assets, are moving them offshore: "It's mine, and I'm using my rights to keep it!"
NO INVESTOR LEFT BEHIND. (C) My new motto.
+1 Kirk
I want to say that it sounds like what your are describing is what has started to go around... Corzine'd/Cyprus'ed.
...why would it be up to anyone else but me to decide how much I save(hoard) and what I choose to spend it on?
I'm appalled! How could you suggest that you'd keep your "hoard" out of a bank so that they can loan it out 100 times over? That's just selfish. You should be jailed for such heresy. Hell, there's probably already a law on the books that would apply somehow. We shall dig until we find it. Pack a bag, sucker.
As an European, I'd like to congratulate you, fellow capitalist American - I see you've finally accepted your destiny and embraced socialism; fear not, my friend, for we're all here to help you in this transition; you'll see it won't look so bad, after a while... come, my child, come into the light...
Beat me to it.
Perhaps if the good "Doctor" Krugman would divest himself of his condo on St Croix he would have more appeal to the middle class ;-)
"When it is cold at home, or he has a couple of weeks with nothing to do but write his Times column, or when something unexpectedly stressful happens, like winning the Nobel Prize (lol), the Princeton economist Paul Krugman and his wife, Robin Wells, go to St. Croix."
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/03/01/100301fa_fact_macfarquhar
That's not fair! He earned that condo!
Yes, in the same manner all statists earn them ;-)
That's a revealing article. Now we know that Krugman's wife sort of ghost writes bits of his column. Mostly to make them read more angry and aggressive. And all this time I thought women were such peaceful creatures.
It's been a fairly well-kept secret, but perhaps one whose time has come to go public. That's right, insiders have known for a long time that Dr. Paul... is HENPECKED! Bok-bok-buGAWWWWWKKKK!!!
DCRB: au contraire, mon ami!
"Granny Warren would disagree!!!"
Don't cha' know.
- Ned
Having a vacation home is different from hoarding millions of dollars from the economy to buy gold and silver. And I don't have tens of millions of dollars stashed in Cyprus like a Russian oligarch, either.
Maybe you should read one of their books...or take a class on it.
You rather we should HOARD debt instruments???
So you have no objection to me using the condo. Or are you going to hoard it for yourself?
Forget it nmewn, the good Doctor's "offshore" property is not accessible to your share of his hoard.
Yes, it would seem the "good doctor" is having an issue separating property rights in his mind. I know, big shock right?...lol. Everyone knows (or should know) bankers loan the base of their deposits out 10:1...fractional reserve. My deposit equaling one against its ten in liabilities. Which is upside down wrong.
But the bank can confiscate the item which was the object of the loan...I can't. I was not consulted nor did I give my consent by contract. My deposit does not constitute my agreement for the bank to make loans and therefore wipe me out to cover bank incompetence. My deposit was put there for safe keeping and if its not, it is the bank who has engaged in fraud by marketing my deposit (and their bank) as safe.
He's having a serious problem with on demand access to my property, that is, my money and seems to think that because I have entrusted another (the bank) to keep it safe...I'm the liable party should the bank fail to do so.
It would be like him granting me access to his property (his condo on the beach-o) and me leasing it out to another without his affirmative consent and it burning to the ground...then him turning to me for his loss and me saying tough shit I'm taking your Manhattan pad too so I can build another on the beach for myself.
I don't think he would think that fair...but it is a good thought, from my point of view ;-)
(Disclaimer...I have $30.00 bucks left in the bank, every pay day, at closing time)
That's right! Stashing and hoarding are what's wrong! Having that condo meant US jobz, bitchez!
I'd bet that some of the walls in that condo aren't as "hollow" as they seem.
Buying gold ensures that many of the world's less-priveleged have jobs in the mining sector, it also ensures people are employed in the transportation and security of those metals. Those people are not rich, they are living paycheck to paycheck.
Having more homes than one needs is also hoarding. A person needs but one home, most americans only have a single home or rent their dwelling. Having a vacation home should not be allowed, confiscate it for the poor and make a free place to tend to the needy people of the island.
Guess what, neither do they....
PK is stigmatizing assets that leave the US (lawfully) as "hoarding" because it reduces the money supply and Velocity of Money. If you hoarded it with people "doing God's work", you would not be 'hoarding' it. If GS has it: "It's all Double-plus Good!"
Dr Kuggman,
Terrible answer.........Tell that to the Rothschilds............
That makes no sense. So all the gold should just sit in one big pile until industry wants to use it? Makes your whole view on PM very suspicious.
That said I think PM are a crappy investment because the Fed is destroying the monetary base with their actions. Deflation will be the rule if prices are actually allowed to be set on supply / demand. I think in the end every dollar printed will be needed to pay off debt, so we end up with no net money. A spendable dollar will be worth an ounce of gold in those times.math says it must be so.
Only thing that can save us is to attack consumer debt, buy it, slash it, and let the households bring this country back to prosperity - temporary funny money from the Fed will not do it.
WTF???
We can't all be deep thinkers. How would we know who the smart ones are if a good cross-section didn't speak up now and then?
YOU are a FUCKING IDIOT!
FUCK YOU KRUGMAN!!!
Paul,
I love you like a step brother.
Peace and hugs
You must not have many acquaintances beyond Forbes 500...
>>>>The only thing to like about gold and silver is its industrial use.
If this were truly the case, there would be no need for price manipulation.
Or, perhaps DR. Paul Craig Roberts is FOS.
After QE implodes, 205K ought to buy dinner and a movie, not enough for any KY though. Just bend over and take it.
Jump! You Fuckers!
The inflationistas are wrong about their theory - inflation has stayed low throughout this depression.
My God! We are in a depression? Who would have thought?
I wrote a book about it - you should read it.
It ws an NYTimes bestseller, right? And you wrote that book!
Inflation has stayed low, Paul, because you keep changing how its calculated, to your own benefit. You are trying to tell us that if you get half as much coffee, but the price stays the same there is no inflation. Sorry, we aren't fooled.
Dumbfuck Krugman, we're seeing substantial inflation through wage deflation. This is in addition to the prices that are actually rising.
As long as you don't buy food or gas.
statistics about inflation have stayed low throughout this depression...
Complicit statisticians have arranged this cost of livin suppression.
You know that be so, as well as do I, for fairytale finance, you're the goto guy...
But unlike our best spoofers, though you try to be witty, your schtick just ain't wry.
But thanks for comin out Doc.
Fuck You Krugman you mealy mouthed cocksucker. Hope to meet you one day so I can pummel you
You got that right--KY is petroleum based.
$205,000 is more than plenty. Think of the new program as Obama's way of making America the fairest country in the world. It is just NOT FAIR that we have anyone with a retirement income of more.
Excess monies won't be seized. They just become taxable investments. It will have zero effect on the retiremnt incomes of those included. Heirs of such accounts would be very happy, because that would mean less money they are forced to withdrawal each year from the Beneficiary IRA they inherit.
Yes, the wealthy should pay their share. So many times they avoid it through loopholes and dividends.
They should raise dividend rates to the same as regular income. It was that way before. The tax revenue can certainly be used!
The should also tax High frequency trading system to capitalize on the enourmous profits and decrease the possibility of flash-crashes.
Your premise is flawed by the argument that the federal government having more money is a good thing.
Have you ever tried to fill a sieve with water?
The money flows to democrat constituencies, like teachers union members, who buy stuff and services they've becom accustomed to, and feed election campaign coffers with a tiny fraction of that. It also flowed to UAW Motors a while back, and Obama backing TBTF banks. It's is a fascist sieve.
What anybody thinks anybody else needs is completely irrelevant. If I want to roll around naked in billions of dollars that's my business. We're supposedly a free country. All this arbitrary talk about what someone really needs is complete idiocy, spewed by those who claim to have a monopoly on smart.
But, then again, I haven't read all them fancy books or taken them there economix classes.
In order to live in this country and benefit from it you must pay some dues.
+ $205,000
Necessary for the betterment of all our citizens and all.
I am glad we share the same views. Please feel free to join my blog and comment there, too.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
It will be MY PLEASURE to drop over some time...
EDIT:
Oh, I have to open an account there and all. Hey! It's not fair that the NYTimes makes us do stuff and all. Just to say to Dr Krugman's blog readers what great posts he makes at zerohedge.com...
Sorry about the people on this site. On this matter at least they are not the brightest lights in the room.
I think many more would be on board with you if the Fed printed to help the people in any way except the current "trickle-down" mentality.
Talk about a dim bulb- you're the stupid sonofabitch who thinks its actually Paul Krugman.
I agree, a flat tax for all would make sure everyone pays their "fair share" of the dues.
Hahahaha, for a few posts I believed this might really be Krugman.
you gotta admit he/she plays it well....like MDB
Dr Paul Krugman is a he. Do not believe the trolls here calling him derogatory things like Krug-girl, etc.
dr kill - with you on this; he can't be the "real thing" ... the real PK would never go against party line and admit we are in a depression.
edit: this guy is more slick than MDB, a true thread troll, MDB is entertainment
You must not read my articles, listen to my lectures, or read my books.
"End this Depression Now" -
http://www.amazon.com/End-This-Depression-Paul-Krugman/dp/0393088774
You must not read my articles, listen to my lectures, or read my books.
"End this Depression Now" -
http://www.amazon.com/End-This-Depression-Paul-Krugman/dp/0393088774
Hmmm. Double-post. Maybe it is Krugman.
Yeah... that's a double book plug; maybe it is him. In that case enjoy the opportunity to debate a true professional socialist economist.
2 x 0 = 0
Attention whoreing again Krugman. Thats femminine behavior.
That's the book where you say we need to spend a few trillion more to "end this depression"? I might pick it up if you included more of your highly entertaining theory on how an invasion by space aliens would save us. Poor Fareed, he really was out of his league. You should give him sidekick money for playing the stooge for you. You can't pay for entertainment that good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhMAV9VLvHA
Everything is arbitrary. People have always been talking about what arbitrary measures should be implemented and how... it's the way humans work. Maybe you should read a book or two.
Subject to taxes, FICA, etc, you stupid fuck.
That's not what you are allowed to spend, it is what you are allowed to contribute. If the total in your retirement plan is $3 million, and you get 2% on your money, that means you are allowed up to $60,000 a year in retirment.
I'd say it depends... for someone with a home, owned clear and free, children, who got their own income, from which they can afford their complete needs, that may be a lot of money to spend ...
mr. Krugman you are not a god that can know what someone else needs or deserves but a mere thief. your arrogance blinds you but there will come a day you will unmistakinly know how wrong you are.
"$205,000 sounds like plenty to spend in one year."
Based on what?
Did you know a brand new top of the line pontiac auto cost less than. $ 600
The volkswagen of the future will cost $205, 000
And exactly who the fuck are you to decide that?
Not if it's on hookers and blow...
How much do you spend?
This has to stop
Why the surprise?
Everybody I know was aware that the deposit insurance provided by the government was limited to the first 100,000 Euros or the first 80,000 £ or I believe, the first 120,000 US$.
We all knew that if your bank crashed that you would lose everything above that amount. What's different with the Cypriot problem. Did they not do their homework?
Did you not know about the protected limit and spread your savings over different banks. If not, then high time you did!
R.
Fuck you! blindman you fagot spammer
Hell, I know people with cash value life insurance contracts that have well over $5 million in them. Take loans against them and it comes out tax free......not considered an IRA either......nice loophole.
A more accurate description would be a whole life policy specifically an IUL (Indexed Universal Life). Structured properly (minimum death benefit - maximum cash value) it becomes ones own personal bank (take loans on it to buy a car, house or send the kids to college and then pay yourself back). Then, if an individual has the net worth to qualify for a "Premium Financing" option the tax free numbers are beyond awesome. Not a loophole. Anyone wanting to opt out of the tax system legaly would be wise to utilize this strategy keeping in mind that there are good and bad IUL contracts the same as there are good and bad insurance companies.
They are not 'tax free' at all.
Tax is deducted via corporation tax on the insurer.Just compare the ROI to
a true tax free investment.Tax free is a BS selling point.
There is no free lunch.
"Just compare the ROI to a true tax free investment.Tax free is a BS selling point."
You mean like a City of Stockton, CA 3.50% 06/30/23?????
No.
Like a self directed pension fund.
The insurers life funds profits are fully taxable at the corp. tax rate BEFORE
apportionment.Plus the hidden charges on those UL are horrific.
"Plus the hidden charges on those UL are horrific."
As said, there are good and bad IUL contracts. Some are "front loaded" (your costs are less in the early years of the contract as its overall value is less) and some are "back loaded". Back loaded looks good on the front end but is a rip off overall. But you certainly want your insurance company to be making a profit (and thus stay in business) - just not an obscene one. There are good companies, products and agent/planners out there and today more and more "consumer friendly" products are becoming available.
Taxes have been paid on the premiums going in. A loan is not considered income by the IRS.
I have been structuring these for clients well over 15 years. You have been misinformed.
In that case I stand corrected. I assumed the UK model was fairly standard.
That is definitely the case there.I'm sure they will get around to it here in that case,
along with compulsory purchase annuitys, invested in Govt. bonds of course.
I dont understand the benefits of these. If you are paying taxes on the premium going in and you can take a loan out against cant you just do the same thing with a savings account? I've heard there are law suit protections in the insurance thing, otherwise I'm missing the value of it.