The RICH are costing Social Security $150 Billion a year.

It's a crime to use a 401k account as collateral for a loan. So, I have serious doubts about your "loan it to yourself" theory.

Just like your auto insurance.

 

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe that is driven by the number of people who are poor that have shitty excuses?

 

Uh. Yes you can borrow against a 401k. I literally just did last year to purchase investment property.

 

No, lift the cap completely and make millionaires and billionaires prop up a government pyramid scheme. Why shouldn't they have to contribute, not for their benefit, but for mine.

There I fixed it for you.

 

Yes.

And, that is ABSOLUTE BS - obvious for anyone who cared to find an honest answer.

 

That is untrue,if corporate taxes were levied JUSTLY the corporate profits would be reduced and the wealthy shareholders would suffer the reduction, not TAXPAYERS!!If Amazon tried to pass the JUST taxes to the consumer they in turn could shop where they found lower prices for similar merchandise.

 

And what is wrong with fending for oneself? Many, many Americans do it every day. Maybe tossing out the poor will make them stand up and take care of themselves.

pull oneself up by one's bootstraps -
(idiomatic) To begin an enterprise or recover from a setback without any outside help; to succeed only by one's own efforts or abilities.

 

Isn't that what TAXATION is all about levying fees against the entire population for the benefit of the entire population.Police,military,fire department,libratries,sewer systems,publiceducation etc,etc,etc.

 

Thanks. I was looking at:
https://www.mysolo401k.net/borrowing-against-401k-can-you-pledge-401k-as-collateral/

Which says it is illegal to pledge your 401k as collateral for a loan.

I didn't read further to where it says you can borrow a certain amount from your own account - which seems absolutely ABSURD to me, as that is pre-tax dollars and the idea is to advantage retirement savings.

This seems like one of the general weaknesses of specialized accounts like this.

Since it is "your money" there can over time be found numerous reasons and ways for extracting the money and defeating the whole point of having conferred a tax advantage on the account principle.


So for example, why am I letting you pierce your 401k by borrowing money that was obtained under a tax advantage - an advantage that I had to make up for by paying additional taxes???

You say you don't like me paying for you. But, you figured out how to make that happen!!

 

Please use the "Quote" button so we know who you are addressing.

Thanks

Rich

 

The catch with that is that one has to have bootstraps.

You can't argue that too much is being given when people live paycheck to paycheck and miss meals.

These people ARE working.

 

So you believe that everybody that has an excuse is justified and that in none of their cases, their own personal decisions are the result of the economic condition they find themselves in?

 

If you borrow it, you have to pay it back within a certain amount of time or you will be assessed the income tax.

 

Actually I can argue with that. Too much is being given when I have given and given and they still want more. I don't have any more to give. I am afraid if I give more that one day I will be one of those missing meals and living paycheck to paycheck. If people are working and still living paycheck to paycheck then let them work harder. So many Americans don't see the opportunity right in front of them.

I have a friend who came here as an immigrant in the early 1980's. He spoke only a few words of English but he found a job in California. He worked hard, saved and moved to the Seattle area for a better job. He got married and he and his wife both worked full time jobs. He enjoyed photography and was finally able to afford a nice camera. He knew people who wanted him to take photographs and soon found he was making a little money taking pictures. He still felt he could use more money so he and his wife started an office cleaning business. He and his wife were both working full-time days, evenings they cleaned offices, on weekends he did photography. As their part time jobs were going good they decided they needed a location other than their home if they were to continue. They found a shop for rent than also fronted on a busy street in a commercial area. Working the cleaning and photography businesses out of the back offices. They found opportunity with the store front to operate a coffee shop on weekday mornings and hired their first employee to help run it after they both left for their day jobs. His wife finally quit her day job to concentrate on their businesses full time. He continued to work his way up through the ranks at his job, reaching top level management, and in 2015 at the age of 57 he retired from an $80,000 per year job. While all the working was going on he and his wife bought and paid off a three bedroom home in five years. They started a family and raised three children one of whom was accepted to attend the US Military Academy. Last time I visited him he was living in a modest 5 bdrm, 3 bath, 3 car garage home, with a view, in a Seattle suburb.

I realize it is a long story for a post but I wanted to use it to show what can be. This guy came to the US at 21, spoke almost no English, in five years he was better off than many Americans and 35 years he was better off than 90% of Americans. The opportunities are here, people just don't see them.

 

SS is an earned benefit, and PARTIALLY an entitlement/welfare.



2019 to 2034...…….Interest payments will no longer be deposited in the SS Trust Fund.....they have become benefits funded by the Treasury's General Account.

After 2034...………Payroll tax revenues will only cover 75% of benefits, thus, 25% of benefits will be funded by the Treasury's General Account.

NOTE; The top 10% earners pay most income taxes, and income tax revenue are deposited in the Treasury's General Account.

 

Ya. Outsourcing and automation are just really awful excuses. roughly 4 out of 5 jobs that have been "lost" were due to automation. Those lazy jerks deserve nothing!

Also, keep in mind, that the vast majority of benefit recipients HAVE JOBS. Often multiple jobs.

 

Nothing of course. But also, sometimes people just plainly need help. Glad to see your so full of compassion though, and would be willing to stand by while people suffer, and children die. Typical "Compassionate Conservative"

 

I'd ask you to submit a sound argument for the idea they are taxed unjustly, but you'd not understand the request.

 

Assume for the moment this is true
Why should the state force people to provide goods and services to these people, without compensation?

 

Because I believe it is in all of our best interests to live in a compassionate society where the most vulnerable are not left to the wayside to die. Because I believe we have a responsibility to each other as citizens to want a society that can respond to empathy. Because I do not believe that greed is a positive virtue.

 

Doesn't GOVERNMENT at all levels levy taxes against their citizenry to promote causes they feel are for the common good???In effect every government that taxes is SOCIALIST!!!

 

Ah.
Because you think its the right thing to do, you want the state to force your version of morality on others, and in doing so, place people in a condition of involuntary servitude.

Surely you can see where reasonable people might take exception to your idea.

 

I'm sorry - you don't have the capacity to meaningfully engage in this conversation.

 

?? Obviously not.

SS means that all who have worked will find some level of support coming from their work when they hit retirement age - regardless of how bad their personal decisions have been.

If that weren't there, I would be supporting them with my tax dollars that go to social safety net features.

I like that the most profligate and irresponsible of spenders are still contributing to their own support.

I like that those for whom some eventuality (health expenditures, market action, business failure, etc.) hit them too late in life for them to fully recover are still covered to some extent through SS - by their own efforts.

 

That's still a total cheat.

Those dollars are pre-tax dollars. The reason those accounts have pre-tax dollars is specific, determined by the legislature - in support of people working toward having adequate retirement.

That objective (which I pay for through my taxes) is not met by having recipients use that money for other personal reasons.

It's supposed to be building a nest egg, accruing interest ensuring that the recipient will be independent of social services at retirement - not supporting the recipient's desire for a nicer car, or larger house downpayment, or whatever.

What about other special purpose pre-tax accounts - healthcare accounts, education accounts, etc.? Should I be able to borrow from my kid's tax advantaged education account to buy a nicer car?