Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
I think there is an equally logical case for a 49% gain in stocks. It all depends on what statistics you look at and how you interpret that data. I'm not saying either extreme is likely. I prefer to look at the glass as half-full, although it's getting harder with each day of gloom-and-doom headlines.
Reply to @Maurice: I hear that some in Germany want to leave Euro and return back to DM. Their currency would be so strong that their exports would get a major hit. Germany has been benefiting from Euro. In fact, their economy is so strong because of Euro.
Germany is a major industrial export economy. With exports taking a hit, its economy will slow down and unemployment is going to increase. People should be careful for what they wish for.
Added: As for fair share, I do not see anyone arguing 100%. It is not even close... But since you would like to play politics there... Since 1980 top tax bracket came from 70% to 33% ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States ). Even Obama's proposed tax rate for top rate would have been 39.5%. ( http://taxes.about.com/od/2009taxes/a/obama_tax_proposals_2.htm ) While there was dramatic change in the top 2 tax rates over the last 3 decades, the rates for lower tax categories changed progressively less.
"By the way Investor, what is the tax rate for retiree's Social Security if they decide to keep working? According to the Social Security Administration website it is up to 85%."
You may want to go back and re-read--or perhaps actually READ-what the page you linked says and edit your rant appropriately.
It does NOT say that the tax RATE on a retiree's SS is up to 85%, it says that up to 85% may be TAXABLE.
There's a HUGE difference between paying one's nominal tax rate on up to 85% of one's benefits and being taxed at a nominal rate of 85% on one's benefits.
Then again, why let a little matter like accuracy stand in the way of a good rant?
Reply to @Maurice: I am not targeting you but 100% stood as an obvious distortion.
Your interpretation of tax rate for working retirees is wrong.
It is not up to 85% tax rate. It is 85% of your social security income will be included in your income tax calculations. Assuming you are taxed at the top rate in retirement it would have been 0.33 * 0.85 = 28% (which will be the amount of taxes you will pay out of your retirement income from Social Security). It is also possible that you might fall into a lower tax bracket than the top tax rate and 85% is the maximum, so taxes paid from SS income is very likely to be less for an average retiree deciding to take SS and continue working.
Regarding Home Mortgage Deduction: It actually benefits the rich more than the poor. It allows the rich to deduct more of their taxes in mansions. It's again something in tax code that benefits the rich more than middle class. One side effect of this deduction was that, It actually encouraged too many to leverage up to the point that fueled the mortgage crisis.
I actually favor eliminating mortgage deduction and child deduction (which I use both). To counter, the lower 2-3 tax rates could be adjusted down a bit.
Comments
Germany is a major industrial export economy. With exports taking a hit, its economy will slow down and unemployment is going to increase. People should be careful for what they wish for.
Added: As for fair share, I do not see anyone arguing 100%. It is not even close... But since you would like to play politics there... Since 1980 top tax bracket came from 70% to 33% ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States ). Even Obama's proposed tax rate for top rate would have been 39.5%. ( http://taxes.about.com/od/2009taxes/a/obama_tax_proposals_2.htm ) While there was dramatic change in the top 2 tax rates over the last 3 decades, the rates for lower tax categories changed progressively less.
You may want to go back and re-read--or perhaps actually READ-what the page you linked says and edit your rant appropriately.
It does NOT say that the tax RATE on a retiree's SS is up to 85%, it says that up to 85% may be TAXABLE.
There's a HUGE difference between paying one's nominal tax rate on up to 85% of one's benefits and being taxed at a nominal rate of 85% on one's benefits.
Then again, why let a little matter like accuracy stand in the way of a good rant?
Your interpretation of tax rate for working retirees is wrong.
It is not up to 85% tax rate. It is 85% of your social security income will be included in your income tax calculations. Assuming you are taxed at the top rate in retirement it would have been 0.33 * 0.85 = 28% (which will be the amount of taxes you will pay out of your retirement income from Social Security). It is also possible that you might fall into a lower tax bracket than the top tax rate and 85% is the maximum, so taxes paid from SS income is very likely to be less for an average retiree deciding to take SS and continue working.
Regarding Home Mortgage Deduction: It actually benefits the rich more than the poor. It allows the rich to deduct more of their taxes in mansions. It's again something in tax code that benefits the rich more than middle class. One side effect of this deduction was that, It actually encouraged too many to leverage up to the point that fueled the mortgage crisis.
I actually favor eliminating mortgage deduction and child deduction (which I use both). To counter, the lower 2-3 tax rates could be adjusted down a bit.