I agree with this. If you do the math, you will recognize that the end amount that you have in your pocket, given the same tax rate, is the same. That is true irrespective of the rate of return.
Yes. Again, he will have the exact same amount of money in both cases at the end of the day. Somehow you envision that finding opportunities to return 10.000x on investment are a tax loophole. If have such “loopholes” available simply let me know and I will fund them on a pre- or post-tax basis. Perhaps society should allow more people the freedom to find these lottery tickets on their own and grow instead of demanding the funds and investing them in things like abandoned military equipment in foreign countries.
This doesn’t make sense. You’re saying that adding a cost (taxes) makes the total cost lower. The opposite is true. If you live in California and rent, there is no reason to expect that raising property taxes would make rent go down. Any portion of any cost structure can be passed to any participant in a transaction. All dollars are completely fungible. There is no reason to expect that additional land taxes would not be completely borne by tenants.
I understand this very well and have know this all well before pro publica showed up. It’s not a loophole. It’s a qualified retirement account. Ho-hum, big time. Find some great ways to enable low income people to become wealthy instead of whining about how they have to eat dirt.
This is the best idea. Having employers involved in healthcare and retirement is really crummy. These vestiges of history have been corrupted into massive handouts to the insurance and financial industries, and there is no reason they need to exist.
This is true. It does align risks much better in the sense that US unions have always been far more antagonist, hyberbolic, and aggressive than their foreign counterparts, which lead to severe impairment/destruction once the protected industries they existed in were exposed to foreign competition. The most powerful unions now, of course, are the public sector unions, which have a similarly deleterious effect but are immune to competition, direct and indirect.
You’re missing the point. In all accounts you are either taxed now or later. The exact same amount of $ value in incremental capital gains are untaxed in all qualified accounts, by design and intent.
This entirely fails to explain how 1) this a loophole 2) how this has disparate impact, and the sad punchline of your statement is “pay your fucking fair share” which you say to people who have saved and invested successfully, without regard to those who would hope to do so in the future.
How exactly do you hope to create better opportunities for the low and middle income class? Here’s one idea: open up opportunities for them to invest in qualified accounts, like IRAs, silly.
You’re wrong and confusing people here. Roth’s are post-tax at investment, not taxed later. Traditional and 401k are pre-tax at investment, taxed on distribution. Economically equivalent.
This is just flat wrong. The income contributed to a Roth IRA is post-tax. It is a retirement account that is economically equivalent to a 401k. The only differences are 1) timing on when the gains are taxed and 2) whether you can self-direct it or not. Saying “not intended to allow” is simply nonsense that covers for the abusive 401k system that fleeces individuals at the benefit of the finance industry.
So your argument is: the law is restrictive enough that poor people are going to stay poor, thus you can safely ignore the consequences for them and create additional laws to restrict “rich” people. An extraordinary entitled and comfortable perspective shines through strongly here.
The modern 401k laws are a giveaway to the financial industry. They stipulate extraordinary restrictions on what investors can/must _invest_ in and fundamentally transfer tremendous economic power and influence to “advisors” and the financiers attached to them.
The income has already been taxed. The economics are identical to other qualified retirement plans. This is simply more about restricting freedoms and making excuses for targeting Peter Thiel personally.