This is an interesting and helpful post, Ed. Usually, when economics is discussed, my eyelids suddenly become very heavy. But this was good. I guess the only thing that gave me pause was saying that everyone in the top 40 percent should be taxed more. I am retired now, but before retirement I was a professor of philosophy and humanities, and you know how lavishly they are paid. So, I was within the top 40 percent. Now, I would have been happy to pay as much in taxes as they do in Denmark and Norway If I could have gotten what they get. What bugged me was that we have to pay as much as we do and often what we get is meager and given grudgingly. Case in point: A member of my family was diagnosed with a rare and debilitating disease. She applied for Social Security and, though she supplied copious medical evidence, the application was denied. She appealed to a judge who found in her favor, but Social Security still refused her, and they appealed to their headquarters in D.C. Finally, after much red tape and foot dragging, Social Security payments (which were pretty small) were approved. Clearly, Social Security hoped that they could delay long enough that she would die before they had to pay anything. I am glad she disappointed them. Crummy bastards.
For what it's worth, in 2021, the upper limit of the middle quintile was $89,774.
One problem I see with a blanket policy such as this is that a single person bringing in that much money in, say, Clear Lake, TX (average house price $302K) and a family of four making bringing in that much money in Brooklyn (average house price $845K) or Seattle (average house price $895K) are very differently situated.
OK. I do feel a duty to point out the difficulties in all these simple-seeming plans that create false hope that there is some simple thing that can be done to -- poof -- solve the problem, or that if, say, Bernie!, were elected Congress would miraculously pass hi program within the first 100 days.
Oh, I absolutely want benefits raised before—or at least not after—taxes are! And I emphasize I want truly progressive rates. He who takes in $20 million a month should pay a helluva lot higher rate than he who takes in $259,876 a year
Very well explained. I'm a Capital-Socialist myself. A person/society won't advance if it has no capital to invest in itself. I have also coined from the word sustenance, Sustenal, as living wages, to differentiate from all moneys. After all the sustenal is acquired that's needed, any money that is extra is capital to invest or sadly waste. Sharing to Facebook.
Choosing a mutual fund company with a good track record and following their basic advice without getting fancy generally works. Yes, they'll steer you only to their funds, but you chose them because you trust them. Read their prospecti and look them up on Morningstar. And whenever you start thinking, hey, this looks like a great sector fund for a bet, go for a walk.
This is an interesting and helpful post, Ed. Usually, when economics is discussed, my eyelids suddenly become very heavy. But this was good. I guess the only thing that gave me pause was saying that everyone in the top 40 percent should be taxed more. I am retired now, but before retirement I was a professor of philosophy and humanities, and you know how lavishly they are paid. So, I was within the top 40 percent. Now, I would have been happy to pay as much in taxes as they do in Denmark and Norway If I could have gotten what they get. What bugged me was that we have to pay as much as we do and often what we get is meager and given grudgingly. Case in point: A member of my family was diagnosed with a rare and debilitating disease. She applied for Social Security and, though she supplied copious medical evidence, the application was denied. She appealed to a judge who found in her favor, but Social Security still refused her, and they appealed to their headquarters in D.C. Finally, after much red tape and foot dragging, Social Security payments (which were pretty small) were approved. Clearly, Social Security hoped that they could delay long enough that she would die before they had to pay anything. I am glad she disappointed them. Crummy bastards.
For what it's worth, in 2021, the upper limit of the middle quintile was $89,774.
One problem I see with a blanket policy such as this is that a single person bringing in that much money in, say, Clear Lake, TX (average house price $302K) and a family of four making bringing in that much money in Brooklyn (average house price $845K) or Seattle (average house price $895K) are very differently situated.
Oh if I could actually dictate tax policy, I’d be careful to take such matters into account somehow
OK. I do feel a duty to point out the difficulties in all these simple-seeming plans that create false hope that there is some simple thing that can be done to -- poof -- solve the problem, or that if, say, Bernie!, were elected Congress would miraculously pass hi program within the first 100 days.
Oh, I absolutely want benefits raised before—or at least not after—taxes are! And I emphasize I want truly progressive rates. He who takes in $20 million a month should pay a helluva lot higher rate than he who takes in $259,876 a year
Very well explained. I'm a Capital-Socialist myself. A person/society won't advance if it has no capital to invest in itself. I have also coined from the word sustenance, Sustenal, as living wages, to differentiate from all moneys. After all the sustenal is acquired that's needed, any money that is extra is capital to invest or sadly waste. Sharing to Facebook.
All prudent and sound advice!
Choosing a mutual fund company with a good track record and following their basic advice without getting fancy generally works. Yes, they'll steer you only to their funds, but you chose them because you trust them. Read their prospecti and look them up on Morningstar. And whenever you start thinking, hey, this looks like a great sector fund for a bet, go for a walk.