Sanders - Hit Everybody

[ShockBand]

Since it is taxed later, isn't the point you are trying to make kind of moot? The government is merely taxing the income at its point of use.

Roth IRA is the opposite of that, right? You contribute now after taxes, but when you use it in retirement it is tax-free, correct?

[SHOXAAC]

Hmmm.


No.

hypocrite!!!
:-)

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Since it is taxed later, isn't the point you are trying to make kind of moot? The government is merely taxing the income at its point of use.

No, it is not moot. Surely you know that tax deferred earnings in a traditional 401k allow the account to grow faster than they otherwise would in a standard, non-retirement based, account. Pre-tax does not mean zero tax, but it does reduce the overall tax liability to an extent.

A Roth IRA is similar. Investments are not pre-tax, but its earnings, just like a traditional 401k, are also not taxed each year.

Both types of retirement account are a government incentive to save. Both result in more money in the individual's pocket and less in the government's.

And yes, both are examples of the government incentivizing one behavior over another via taxation.

So, SHOCKvalue, back to the question. Are these accounts unreasonable?

[SHOCKvalue]

No, it is not moot. Surely you know that tax deferred earnings in a traditional 401k allow the account to grow faster than they otherwise would in a standard, non-retirement based, account. Pre-tax does not mean zero tax, but it does reduce the overall tax liability to an extent.

A Roth IRA is similar. Investments are not pre-tax, but its earnings, just like a traditional 401k, are also not taxed each year.

Both types of retirement account are a government incentive to save. Both result in more money in the individual's pocket and less in the government's.

And yes, both are examples of the government incentivizing one behavior over another via taxation.

So, SHOCKvalue, back to the question. Are these accounts unreasonable?

Golly, thanks for the lesson.

I'm not going to be dragged into one of your 10 page back and forths, so this will be my last comment here:

While almost anyone can find at least one incentive/deduction/credit via the tax code they would find positive or beneficial in their own life (myself included), I maintain the position that they should all go away, as at a fundamental level, the government should not be purposefully shaping the populace. There is a sinister element to it that I am not comfortable with.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Wait just a second. You said my example was not actually applicable. I responded with a little more detail proving you wrong and showing that it was indeed applicable, and your response is to sarcastically laugh that I bothered to correct you? Good grief.

I already said I can respect your viewpoint. I wasn't asking you to agree with mine. I was asking you to differentiate between disagreeing with my opinion and calling my opinion illogical and irrational. YOU are the one who asked "if anyone can explain on a logical level..." I gave my best explanation to YOUR question and you call that "dragging you into a back and forth"?

Why ask for a discussion and then refuse to have it?

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

The more I think about it, the more this conversation with SHOCKvalue seems like a good summary of the state of political discourse these days.

Person A: Why should the government be in the business of doing X?
Person B: Here is a specific example of X. I think this is a good thing. Do you disagree?
Person A: That's not an example of X.
Person B: Yes it is. Here is proof. So, what do you think?
Person A: Well, I knew that already. Why are you trying to drag me into a discussion? Goodbye!

It would be funny if it wasn't so frustratingly true.

[ShockerEngineer]

Jamar, I like you most of the time, but you should consider that some of us just don't want to debate things as thoroughly as you do. Stuff like that gets exhausting for me, quickly, and I know I've refrained from posting in a thread at least once or twice for that very reason.. Haha.

[wufan]

I agree that there should be no tax exemptions of any kind. This is despite the fact that I benefit heavily from tax deductions for marriage, mortgage, children, and student loans.

I am strongly opposed to social engineering through taxation or lack there of.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Jamar, I like you most of the time, but you should consider that some of us just don't want to debate things as thoroughly as you do. Stuff like that gets exhausting for me, quickly, and I know I've refrained from posting in a thread at least once or twice for that very reason.. Haha.

Thoroughly? He asked a question, I responded and asked him a question, and then he announced he was done talking. Ha

[pinstripers]

http://www.youngcons.com/bernie-sanders-says-something-unbelievably-stupid-on-twitter-instantly-gets-obliterate-by-responses/

[jdshock]

http://www.youngcons.com/bernie-sand...-by-responses/

Why is it unbelievably stupid to be opposed to high ATM fees? The transaction cost to the bank is zero since it is all electronic. The one person who said it's cheaper than paying someone $15/hour to stand in a lobby seems to have the most out of touch theory. I've never had to go into a bank lobby and personally pay the teller's hourly rate. Banks make loads on interest. Bernie has always been against banks nickel and diming people through the fees.

[Kel Varnsen]

Why is it unbelievably stupid to be opposed to high ATM fees? The transaction cost to the bank is zero since it is all electronic. The one person who said it's cheaper than paying someone $15/hour to stand in a lobby seems to have the most out of touch theory. I've never had to go into a bank lobby and personally pay the teller's hourly rate. Banks make loads on interest. Bernie has always been against banks nickel and diming people through the fees.

That's fine. But let the businesses make that decision. Some banks already restore that money to account holders' accounts and the government hasn't told them to. Telling banks (or any business) what they can and cannot charge for a service they provide is ridiculous.

[Kel Varnsen]

Some disillusioned folks, usually in the younger crowd, expect our government to solve every single problem in the world (racism, poverty, education, etc.). Truth is when government butts in and tries to solve the problem they usually make it worse. Education is a perfect example. Former students are riddled with federal loan debt they can't pay off because they can't get a job that pays well enough or they aren't qualified enough for that job. This was not a huge problem before federal student loans were offered (they were offered to solve the problem of not enough people being able to afford college, ironically, and look at it now).

[jdshock]

That's fine. But let the businesses make that decision. Some banks already restore that money to account holders' accounts and the government hasn't told them to. Telling banks (or any business) what they can and cannot charge for a service they provide is ridiculous.

Except no part of the tweet said that the government should make that decision for the banks. Also, "Telling banks (or any business) what they can and cannot charge for a service they provide is ridiculous" is just your political belief. Price ceilings are an incredibly common government regulation. This is particularly true in the banking industry. Have you ever heard of usury laws? I am just flabbergasted that someone would call that tweet "unbelievably stupid." The people reacting via Twitter are obviously very uninformed.

[jdshock]

Some disillusioned folks, usually in the younger crowd, expect our government to solve every single problem in the world (racism, poverty, education, etc.). Truth is when government butts in and tries to solve the problem they usually make it worse. Education is a perfect example. Former students are riddled with federal loan debt they can't pay off because they can't get a job that pays well enough or they aren't qualified enough for that job. This was not a huge problem before federal student loans were offered (they were offered to solve the problem of not enough people being able to afford college, ironically, and look at it now).

Just so I understand your post, you believe only disillusioned people believe that public education should exist?