WakeandBake
Well-known member
no man that means liberal entitlements zapped their desire to work hard get with it lazy commielib
I am not sure of the correlation between my 401k spending and corporate profits and adding a tax cut. is the idea that the stock market will continue to climb? certain publications indicate "As of 2013, the 10 percent of households with the highest wealth owned more than 80 percent of all stock shares. The bottom 80 percent of all households owned just 8 percent." all i can say is thank you Obama for 7 years of a bull market (without the tax cuts). more and more for the rich!
but answer this...why are middle class (and lower) wages falling as corporate profits are rising? in your example they should be growing linearly?
i found this interesting:
"It is no coincidence the market nearly tripled under President Bill Clinton and again under President Barack Obama while it declined under President George W. Bush and nearly crashed (Black Monday) toward the end of the trickle-down-economics of the Reagan era.
The stock market rises and falls with return on investment of its constituents.The Democrat increases benefits to the poor and reduces taxes on the middle class. The poor are able to buy food, clothing and education for their children, and the middle class are able to buy better computers, automobiles and housing. With more customers, business prospers. The stock market and retirement plans go up.
The Republican reduces taxes on the rich and reduces benefits to the poor. The rich already have all the houses, cars and computers money can buy. The only thing the rich man can do is invest his excess money in the stock market. With increased investment and fewer customers, return on investment falls. The stock market and retirement plans go down."
We tried SS as the primary retirement vehicle and it has eroded itself.
All by itself it just eroded?
Basically. It's own math never worked without the assumptions of perpetually increasing birth rates and stagnant life expectancy, which were incorrect assumptions.
I think you ready my post wrong regarding ILITs, ILITs get used for sure (hence why I referenced drafting one in the next sentence). But I wouldn't go near an FLP at this point in time. Can get generally the same effect with an LLC structure that doesn't draw the same level of tax-avoidance scrutiny.
To your question, not really, it is not a linear relationship, there are a plethora of variables involved, most notably in this case the relative cost of offshore production. That said, to my earlier point, it is everyone's best interest for the market to continue to do well. We tried SS as the primary retirement vehicle and it has eroded itself. When it became clear that it was not sustainable as the primary method, most people shifted to market-based alternatives. Whether the bottom 80% owns 8% or 0.8% is generally irrelevant to its critical nature as the primary retirement vehicle for the population; the value of whatever that percentage is needs to grow for it to work. And the good news is that aligns perfectly with whatever the other 20% want to have happen with their 92% or 99.2%.
So then why keep it? It is a big topic for theoretical arguments with minimal logic behind it and minimal fiscal impact, that causes major heartburn and planning expense for people who likely will never need it but have to act like they will. It isn't worth the trouble of defending it, hence why plenty of states (NC included, thanks gridlock Obama and commielib Bev Perdue) got rid of it at the state level.
Agree wholeheartedly on the use of LLCs as opposed to LPs, but not for tax scrutiny purposes - I don't think there is a bit of difference on that front. We like the LLC form for simplicity of one entity, rather than a second entity for the GP. I guess we use FLP colloquially to mean any tax partnership, rather than the state law structure.
Many upper-middle-class households would not benefit from Trump’s proposal at all, and many would see their taxes go up. By 2027, about one in three taxpayers earning between $50,000 and $150,000 a year would be paying more, as would about 60 percent of families making between $150,000 and $300,000 a year. That is in part because the plan, as written, would replace personal exemptions that are indexed to inflation with credits for children and other dependents that are not, and because the plan would get rid of the state and local tax deduction.
Facepalm
I don't know that facepalm is correct here. What he said is basically true, we all need the market to continue to do well.