ex-President Trump

Why would allowing people, who presumably make a fairly high income, to keep more of the money they earn encourage them to retire?

If the US govt debt got to be 5x or 10x GDP the US govt debt would have to pay a higher risk premium than they are now and it would very likely lead to a situation where they couldn’t keep up with their debt obligations and they would go bankrupt. I would argue this would likely occur well before 10x GDP, but let’s not get stuck on where the downward spiral becomes uncontrollable and instead focus on this absurd idea that the govt can borrow their way to prosperity.

You are correct that a cut in tax rates don’t always lead to less tax revenue long-term. The same can be said about tax increases.

Because they could keep the same living standard without the need to work ?
I would presume the number 1 factor that prevent them from retiring is the lack of income ?

and its pretty much what happened early covid .
many baby-boomer with like 1-2 years left of work took an early retirement because they saw their retiring plans go up dramatically, thx to the stock market and so they retired a bit earlier.

Sums it up for you nicely. Repeating: handwaving away the info with "lol sources" is insufficient. I know you think you "ate" with your comment, but, well, no.

When you have enough for the rest of your life and the rest of your kids lives, people are more likely to stop working.

Lol didn’t you claim to be a financial advisor?

By financial advisor did you mean bank teller or something?

Hate to break it to you bud but saying someone should get a credit card while you take their deposit of a $25 savings bond isn’t really financial advice

The idea that lowering taxes provides a pure incentive for the Ubermensch to bless the hoi polloi with their productivity god work has been a core tenant of American conservative politics for like 50 years.

I read that $9 trillion was debt other countries owed us.

Lets say the national debt gets to $60 trillion. I think the US then starts charging other countries for protection. Like we sell them weapons and help protect their bases and they pay us.

I do not think the US will default cause nobody can make us pay. If the whole world turned on us then I guess the whole world would have to die :shrug:

So you are suggesting these people retired because now their retirement savings is enough to live on but wouldn’t have been if taxes weren’t lowered? Did you tell these people that taxes could go up? Is there plan then to go back to work if taxes go back up - I would assume that is the plan since you are suggesting they only were able to retire because taxes were lower.

Actually that is what happened little after Covid for some of them that retires a bit to early due to their higher stock market and their house value .
Not all of them , those who had their house already paid down or had a 30 years mortgage at 3% were fine .

That taxe was called inflation .

I don’t advise people on when to retire. No reason to go back to work if taxes go up, that income was earned in the past 6 years. When you exploit Roth rules, that was going on before and during Trump and get 20 million plus in one, future tax rates are not a huge concern.

You started the conversation by saying people you know retired because trump cut taxes and ended the conversation by saying taxes weren’t a factor.

How did someone get $20M into a Roth besides paying a shitload in taxes up front via an ira to Roth rollover or going all in and hitting big? $20M is tough to do by just maxing Roth contributions with normal investment returns.

Also your claim that people retired early because trump cut taxes sounds even less true now that you are saying they have that kind of money in a Roth.

You are typing words into a device that will tell you the answer.

I just tell them to say alexa out loud and then verbally ask their question.

.

No the tax cut for the wealthy was a factor.

No. The contribution limit on Roths is based on the current value. If you’re in private equity you have access to all sorts on investments that are worth X now, but will pretty obviously be 100x in a few years when

A big tax cut on the top marginal rate and ability to claim compensation at the capital gains rather than regular income rate was a big factor. Not saying we were all gonna work to 70 before, but longer than mid 30s.

I don't really care that rich aren't taxed enough.

They don't exactly hoard all of the money. Some of it is distributed in compensation to their expected workforce.

Taxing the lowest income earners is patently absurd though.

It seems like today more than ever, if you are in poverty you HAVE to gamble your way to get out of poverty.

Again, didn’t you say you’re a financial advisor?

Side note: stop telling people making credit card payments to open a savings account

I always liked https://letmegooglethat.com/.

Edit: the links it produces seem broken now, for me anyway.

Without looking - Mickey is talking about taxes again, isn't he?

guys, whether or not someone is a financial advisor is immaterial

very few do any financial advising, they are just doing client relations and feeding them pre-packaged offerings from the company

This is true if you’re sitting putzing around at a bank doing small net worth clients trying to get them into some nonsensical mutual fund strategy the company offers with $50k while you get some referral in the bank from someone who needed to reset their pin

Actual wealth management financial advisory is very much not what you’re describing

Anyway, the point is as always lol blahblah

They hoard so so much

https://youtu.be/qSOVBiEotaw?si=pBlSj1jX...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I had to think about this a bit.

I don't have any strong opinions on your naivity . It's nothing personal.

However, most of us are middle aged, which means we were bombarded with corporate propaganda in our formative years. E.g universal hc is extremely expensive and it's difficult to get treatment. The US annihilates countries to help them. Policies that exist in every other country and are favored by the majority of the GP are radical LW policies that would never work.

Like the NYT story you posted. Like 13 paragraphs on why no family leave. While I'm sure the reporter used facts, they used them to tell a fairy tail of DC as a high school debate club. Lobbyists, campaign contributions, etc just don't exist.

A large portion of people here seem to have never questioned this, as their own lives have gone well and they don't know or maybe don't care what life in the US is like for an Uber Driver or Home Depot worker. It's good for them, so it must be good in general.

To what degree this applies to you, IDK, except that ypu posted that propaganda piece. (IIRC).

I do know that discussing these subjects with you and Rob felt kinda like discussing the holy trinity with a catholic.

There are policies favored by 70 to 80% of the GP. And like 80 to 90% of people who would even consider voting for a democrat. Many of these policies are pretty obviously good and have succeded in dozens of other countries. It seems incredibly obvious to me that 28 million people with no vacation would be happy if they were given vacations.

Somehow the word "progressive" makes it so that Dems should be opposed to these policies, rather than leading on them, running on them and passing them. Or people say they want these things but really don't.

The way to win is with politicians who have 40 years of fighting for Wall Street to make sure those policies never pass.

Even though these candidates do poorly in elections and polls say they are hated. The shocking successes of Obama, Trump and Bernie tell us nothing. The polls saying Bernie would trounce Trump are also wrong.

I just cannot understand how a person can believe anything like this. I'm probably straw manning a little, but I don't see how one can conclude people like Hill, Biden, etc are the way to go unless you think some version of this.

I don't know who here has been saying that Hillary and Biden were the way to go. My point was just that I had never heard that no one running on those issues could win.

But it's not like some of the things haven't been attempted, even by mainstream democrats. Hillary was trying to get health care reform, maybe even universal health care, over 30 years ago, and it was a non-starter. I don't really know or remember enough to say why exactly it failed, but it certainly failed hard.

I really don't think the fact that Bernie Sanders wasn't wanted by the democratic mainstream leaders was mainly because of his policies. The guy was not even a member of the Democratic Party. I really don't understand the specifics of how he was even able to run in the primaries, but obviously a non-member is not going to be favored by the DNC. The guy spent his career mostly voting with the democrats but basically saying that he was too special to join them. It's pretty cheeky to then try to become their nominee for president after he realizes that running as a Socialist is never going to fly.