Edwards nails it: Tax Fairness

DigitalDave said:
Usually they are better because the employer will match it to some degree. They also set it up so it comes out directly from your paychecks pre-tax.
Click to expand...

only if you are talking about a regular 401k. If comparing a Roth IRA to a Roth 401k the match is usually the main benefit to going with the 401k.
 
Darla said:
This from the guy who is blowing 1 billion a week on Iraq...and has no problem with passing the bill of to the next generation.

-2,000 cool points for you Cawacko!
Click to expand...


Ummm, Iraq is up to like 10 or 12 billion dollars a month. Of taxpayer money.

That over two billion dollars a week. And cawacko cheered it on for nearly 5 years.

And cawacko is whining over the budget for food stamps, or school lunch programs.


Pffftttttt.
 
Watermark said:
T, in Mississippi, we're pretty fucking high class ;). Our family income is like 100K a year. And we can't afford a vacation. I'm not going to worry about the 200K people having to fill up that hummer and do landscaping whenever there are people out there struggling to pay for groceries, honestly.
Click to expand...

The point is when you live in areas where the medium home price is $600k or higher making $200k/yr does not mean one is living a lavious lifestyle.
 
Cypress said:
Ummm, Iraq is up to like 10 or 12 billion dollars a month. Of taxpayer money.

That over two billion dollars a week. And cawacko cheered it on for nearly 5 years.

And cawacko is whining over the budget for food stamps, or school lunch programs.


Pffftttttt.
Click to expand...

Oh sorry, I didn't realize it was costing us quite that much.

I know. It drives me crazy.
 
Superfreak said:
Trog... everyone that has earned income can contribute to a Roth.... as long as they do not make too MUCH money. The wealthy tend to be excluded and forced into a standard IRA contribution rather than getting the bene's of a Roth.

Students who make $500 can put the entire $500 into a Roth if they choose to do so. Contribution limits on the Roth IRA are increasing every year. Right now I think the limit is $4k... $5k if you are over 50.
Click to expand...
You are confusing ROTH limits with 401 limits, mixing them. Roth limit $4k ($5k /50) this year while 401(k)/403(b) limits are $15,500 (with a $5000 catch-up for over 50). The wealthy tend to be forced OUT of a traditional IRA because AMT negates the contribution deductibility and turns the contribution into after tax dollars (Why would someone contribute after tax to a tax deferred account -traditional IRA, when they could contribute after tax to a tax FREE account -Roth.)

An Educational Roth IRA is a different critter than the Roth IRA because the rules allow certain unpenalized withdrawals, and can be funded in a student's name even without the student having an earned income.

My point is toward access. Many people do not have access to a 401k plan. I doubt the kid at the grocery running the register has access to one. Why not cut some slack and create simple accounts (open to everyone) which have minimal bureaucratic load?
 
Last edited:
Watermark said:
What spending? We don't have ANY loans to pay off and practically no credit card bills. In the modern world, I guess that's how it is if you don't live beyond your means.
Click to expand...
What the hell ARE you spending your money on, if you can't get a vacation in ten years? My cost of living is about the same as yours, you're just spendthrift.
 
Troglodyte27 said:
You are confusing ROTH limits with 401 limits, mixing them. Roth limit $4k ($5k /50) this year while 401(k)/403(b) limits are $15,500 (with a $5000 catch-up for over 50). "

I am not the one confused here trog. I specifically said the Roth limits were the 4k or so.... but that you could start one for LESS than that should you choose.

"The wealthy tend to be forced OUT of a traditional IRA because AMT negates the contribution deductibility and turns the contribution into after tax dollars (Why would someone contribute after tax to a tax deferred account -traditional IRA, when they could contribute after tax to a tax FREE account -Roth.)"

Because the wealthy are forced out of the Roth IRAs. They cannot make contributions once past a certain income level. They are NOT forced out of traditional IRAs. they can still contribute to them and have the money grow tax deferred... they just are typically unable to deduct the contributions.

"An Educational Roth IRA is a different critter than the Roth IRA because the rules allow certain unpenalized withdrawals, and can be funded in a student's name even without the student having an earned income. "

An educational IRA is different, yes. But with a Roth IRA you always have access to the principal you put in. Always.

"My point is toward access. Many people do not have access to these accounts. I doubt the kid at te grocery running the register has access to one. Why not cut some slack and create simple accounts (open to everyone) which have minimal bureaucratic load?
Click to expand...

As for your final comment... AGAIN... EVERYONE has access to them. It is as easy as going to your local bank. But you can also go online to open one or go to a brokerage firm.

The Roth 401k is new and will be in more places in time. But the Roth IRA is equally accessible everywhere with minimal bureaucratic crap. Typically it is just an application for the account and a bene form.
 
Watermark said:
I guess it's more because we never really wanted a vacation. It marks Trog as the retard that he is to call us wasty spenders.
Click to expand...
Caught in your own misrepresentations and forced to change your tune by a 'retard.'

To quote the robdawg: OWED!
 
Last edited:
Superfreak said:
As for your final comment... AGAIN... EVERYONE has access to them. It is as easy as going to your local bank. But you can also go online to open one or go to a brokerage firm.

The Roth 401k is new and will be in more places in time. But the Roth IRA is equally accessible everywhere with minimal bureaucratic crap. Typically it is just an application for the account and a bene form.
Click to expand...
You can even set them up online very easily.
 
Superfreak said:
As for your final comment... AGAIN... EVERYONE has access to them. It is as easy as going to your local bank. But you can also go online to open one or go to a brokerage firm.

The Roth 401k is new and will be in more places in time. But the Roth IRA is equally accessible everywhere with minimal bureaucratic crap. Typically it is just an application for the account and a bene form.
Click to expand...
Yes everyone can get a Roth, many can not access a 401/403. Furthermore, the money is sequestered until age 59 1/2 (minimum). I am talking about a non-sequestered tax exempt acct. Plain simple no muss no fuss.
 
Troglodyte27 said:
Yes everyone can get a Roth, many can not access a 401/403. Furthermore, the money is sequestered until age 59 1/2 (minimum). I am talking about a non-sequestered tax exempt acct. Plain simple no muss no fuss.
Click to expand...

The whole point of the retirement account is to make sure you don't spend it until you are near retirment age. Hence the 59.5 age limit.

non-sequestered? Are you saying you want complete control of the investments or that you want access to the money any time you want? I am not following this part of your post...
 
LadyT said:
I definitely don't think its rich. Especially if you are trying to buy a home in these parts for the first time. If you purchased a house 10 years ago when the market was down considerably, then yes, you are living pretty well. But if you're a first time homebuyer, with kids, a car note, mortgage, and other bills, I think it presumptious to think that an additional $1000 or whatever the amount he wants to raise it is marginal. That's significant. Now you could argue that those individuals could take it out of a vacation fund or do with out a particular luxury or have it creep into their savings but why the hell should they? Congress needs to stop spending like drunken sailors.
the burden shouldn't be on us.........no....you know what it is on us. We need to start electing people that know how to balance a budget and pinch a few penny's.
Click to expand...

Tiana, a presidential candidate is only going to make promises that they think realistically they might be able to keep. Only snake oil salesmen are going to make promises that are unrealistic.

It’s unrealistic to presume that we can address our fiscal mess by cutting spending. Now, if I were a dictator, I would cut Defense by 50%, eliminate pork spending, and withdraw from Iraq. But, that’s not going to happen. No President or senator is ever going to get elected by promising to gut the pentagon. At best, we can expect to see someone freeze pentagon spending, or marginally cut it. At very best.

Edwards job is to offer proposals that are realistic. Not pie-in-the-sky.

We have a ten trillion dollar debt and a $300 billion a year account deficit.

I mean, what would you realistically cut to address that? Probably 90% of the federal budget is Defense, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest payments on the national debt:

-SS and Medicare: No one is realistically going to make any significant cuts to that. There are entitlements. Tens of millions of millions of Americans spent a lifetime paying into those programs, and they can be expected to be paid for that lifetime investment

-Defense: No one is going to get elected proposing draconian cuts to Defense spending. At best, it can be frozen.

-National Debt interest payments: We’re not going to default on interest payments. We have to make these.

-Iraq War: Yes, it would be great to withdraw and stop the hemorrhaging. But let’s face it – the horse has left the barn: we’ve already incurred a trillion dollar liability, and we have to pay it.

-Medicaid: I don’t believe in balancing the budget by cutting healthcare to children, the disabled, and the poor.


I mean, what realistically are you proposing gets cut to address a ten trillion dollar deficit? And a $300 billion a year account deficit?


I think Edwards is being pragmatic, and promising only what he thinks he can realistically deliver on. Yes, it is important to restrain spending, get out of Iraq, monitor fraud and waste, and create efficiencies. But, at best, were talking maybe tens of billions of dollars here. You have to address the revenue side to really deal with the fiscal mess bush left. Realistically speaking.

I’m not interested in candidates who make empty promises about 50% cuts to the Pentagon. They aren’t going to get elected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top