15% on all forms for income (wages, cap gains, rents, interest, etc.) with zero deductions. None. Give every person (including corporations) a $25,000 personal exemption. This would mean a family of four wouldn't start paying taxes until they hit $100,000. Very easy - just pay at the window.
rono

Nice. I would add a deduction (childcare credit for working parents) or stay at home credit for parents with kids under 5 years of age. If you choose to stay home, a credit. SS and Medicare deductions worked into that credit to recognize that staying at home raising kids is a job. Stay at home requirement - both the child and the parent participant in Pre-K /Adult Training offered in the same facility.
Corporations and small businesses offer a paid / government supported entry level work program for graduating parents. This offers offers full-time pay of $50K / year.
Which leads me to the question of how do we get a handle the welfare side of government programs? Can this be simplified as well?

Howdy folks,
Right now, the dems are imploding in DC proving the adage, that the democrats are stupid and the republicans are mean. Being a 3rd term elected republican, I take it further to state that most republicans are dirty old white men who are racist sexist religinazi creeps that should even be allowed in public off leash and without a handler.
As for taxes, rono rolls out his solution. 15% on all forms for income (wages, cap gains, rents, interest, etc.) with zero deductions. None. Give every person (including corporations) a $25,000 personal exemption. This would mean a family of four wouldn't start paying taxes until they hit $100,000. Very easy - just pay at the window.
and so it goes,
peace and keep wearing the damn mask,
rono

His allocation fund HSAFX isn't all that great, but at least it's up 7% ytd and was up 11% in 2020 (M* figures).

Your post helps tremendously in understanding what you're thinking about. Much appreciated.
My head is full of loosely connected thoughts that would take too long to organize coherently now, so I'll just toss out a few for the moment.
I like BLS's idea of separating out expenses from investments. Just as we don't include stock prices in inflation, OER is designed to exclude the cost of a home as an appreciating asset. At the same time, it attempts to count the costs (including operating costs) of the shelter aspect of one's home. While we can debate how well it accomplishes this, it is a reasonable approach.
Side note: my property taxes are based not on the selling price of comps, but on the theoretical value of my home as rental property. Take market rental rates, and use current interest rates to work backward to compute the "correct" assessment, regardless of what my home would currently fetch. This has got its own set of problems, but serves to show that using OER is not limited to CPI calculations.
Side note: the fact that homes can be viewed as a potentially appreciating asset is something that differentiates homes from vehicles. Except for antique vehicles, which BLS explicitly excludes from the CPI. They're viewed as pure investments, not transportation.
Similar to homes, education has attributes of daily expenses and attributes of an investment. (Perhaps I've been listening too much to Build Back Better's expression of education as an investment in human "capital.") Thinking about this it seems that the two categories of expenses could be treated similarly.
Amortizing the expenses over several years, as a homeowner does with monthly PITI payments could be a reasonable way to incorporate home prices directly and smooth some of the price volatility. Just as students wind up carrying college debt for many years.
Not only do different people experience inflation differently, but inflation on the national level can be different from the way individuals experience inflation. For example, last year the cost (premium) of Medicare insurance went up $3.90, but it should have gone up roughly four times that to cover projected expenses.
From a national perspective medical costs rose by some given amount; it didn't matter who was paying the increase. However, as a result of the subsidy, individuals experienced a lower rate of inflation in 2021. Of course now that this subsidy has expired, Medicare recipients feel like there's a higher rate of inflation. This, despite medical costs having stabilized from a national perspective.
Regarding Forsyth, I haven't really read him. But I did read the cited Carson blog that has much of the same flavor. I tend to tune out things like that because people are good at complaining about perceived wrongs, but tend to be silent when the same measures work out in their favor.
For example, the Senior Citizens League is very good at banging the drum for using CPI-E as opposed to CPI-W for COLAs. But we haven't heard a peep from them this year, not since CPI-W came out a percent higher than CPI-E. What will Fosyth say the next time housing prices fall?

sma3- thanks for your input!! Anna, I too have too much money in the bank, and I dont blame you for moving some of it- thats what I want to do-Im taking another look at Tax managed capital Appreciation- Good Luck to all!~!

Interesting Forbes Commentary Article:

The supply lines of February 2020 were impossibly complicated structures that no politician could ever hope to design. Think billions of individuals around the world pursuing their narrow work specialization on the way to enormous global plenty. Put another way, the shelves in economically free countries were heaving with all manner of products based on economic cooperation that was staggering in scope. Brilliant as some experts claim to be, and brilliant as some politicians think they are as they look in the mirror, they could never construct the web of trillions of economic relationships that prevailed before the lockdowns. But they could destroy the web. And they did; that, or they severely impaired it.

theres-no-supply-chain-shortage-or-inflation-theres-just-central-planning

If you had the stomach hang on to IOFIX from 3/2020 to now it is almost back to even. But there are those 2 weeks when it lost half of it's value.
I don't understand exactly why, other than they had a lot of thinly traded bonds that before the Covid crash were being priced only "mathematically as they were almost never traded.
The lesson I took from this is to be very very cautious about funds that buy things you don't completely understand ( ie black box) , especially without a track record to see how the same strategy withstood earlier crashes. Funds with lots of below investment grade bonds will do poorly in an equity correction, as they have in the past.

@msf said,
"- Inherited Roth IRAs have RMDs."
There is no Require Minimum Distribution for Inheirted IRAs, but instead, a Required Full Withdrawal following the 5 or 10 year rule. One could wait 10 years before making that one full required withdrawal providing an additional 10 years of tax free growth from the date of inheritance.
This article does a good job of explaining Inherited (Roth) IRAs:
https://fool.com/retirement/plans/inherited-iras/
1. A spouse (as a beneficiary) can rollover an Inherited Roth IRA (from a deceased spouse) and continue to enjoy no RMDs.
2. Withdraw the funds as a lump sum. You may withdraw all of the money from the original owner's IRA as a single lump sum. Doing so gives you a lot of money now, but also results in a high tax bill for the current year, unless you're withdrawing the funds from a Roth IRA that the original owner held for at least five years. In that case, you won’t owe any taxes on these withdrawals. However, if the owner didn’t have the account for at least five years, then you could owe income taxes on the Roth IRA earnings.
3. Use the five- or 10-year withdrawal method. The five- or 10-year withdrawal method enables you to withdraw money as often as you'd like and in whatever increments you choose, as long as the money is completely withdrawn within five or 10 years. If you fail to withdraw all the funds in time, then you'll pay a 50% penalty on whatever remains in the account.
You have five years to withdraw all the money from an inherited IRA if the account owner died in 2019 or earlier, and 10 years if they died in 2020 or later.
For all of us, this can be very confusing. If you have a specific scenario (question). I would suggest reader's ask their questions on the Ed Slott (Discussion Forum). It is a great IRA resource.
https://irahelp.com/phpBB

My initial objection was to the assertion as to the reasons for the removal of home prices, nothing more.

You not only objected but offered an alternative explanation regarding the CPI-U calculation. My comments pertained to that alternative explanation, nothing more.
Accepting that explanation, then rather than reintegrate housing prices into the CPI-U as Carson did, we should remove vehicles from the CPI-U. Thus the 2021/2020 (Y/Y) CPI-U increase is actually significantly lower than reported.
That's not being contradictory. That's working with your thesis and exploring its implications. I didn't say whether vehicles should be excluded from the CPI-U. I did ask whether you agreed with where your thesis led - that vehicle price increases should not be counted in calculating the CPI-U.
Maybe, despite the statistics, your gut tells you that on some continuum car purchases resemble day-to-day expenses more closely than do home acquisitions which are "rare years-apart purchases." Perhaps looking at different inflation component will help clarify what you have in mind with this continuum.
College educations, rather than being rare year-apart, are often one time purchases. On average, people tend to attend college once in a lifetime. Many never attend college. Some may attend even multiple times without attaining a degree. Others may make multiple "purchases", i.e. earn multiple degrees.
Regardless of the precise average number of college education purchases per lifetime, the purchasing of college educations would seem to share many attributes with home purchases - infrequent, not a day-to-day type of expense, something one budgets for years in advance, something that is paid for over a period of years, something that is "consumed" over multiple years.
Help us understand whether the reason you gave for excluding home prices from the CPI-U also excludes the cost of college educations.

@crash - it's not for everyone but
IOFIX - 1yr.: +18.29% although after last year there really wasn't much place to go but up.
YTD: +13.7%
Yield: 3.98%

IOFIX generated excellent category returns from inception (05/28/2015) through 2019.
IIRC correctly, volatility was low and the Sharpe ratio was high during this period.
The fund then delivered an unpleasant surprise when it returned -36.18% during Q1 2020.
IOFIX seemed like a safe fund for years...

Drawdown on junk bonds in March 2020 is over 10% until the Fed’s rescue. Junk bonds are up this year while the quality bonds, government and corporate, are all in red.
I have shifted to bank loans and short-term TIPs. Next year could be even more challenging with higher rates.

Rather than spend a fair amount of time searching for an ratings agency (NRSRO) default report, I'll just refer you to M*'s figures. In Exhibit 2 on p. 4 of this M* paper is a table that includes "default score" by credit rating. Those aren't default rates, but represent relative rates of default. BBB has a score of 5.0, BB has a score of 17.78, meaning that BB bonds default at roughly 3½ times the rate of BBB defaults.
There really is a big difference, which is why M* doesn't simply score A's as 1, B's as 2, C's as 3 and so on when calculating a portfolio's average quality.
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/354597/credit-quality-demystified
PTIAX may be a mere poseur. Between 2012 and 2020 it was classified as a multisector bond fund, typically meaning that it had even more junk than a core plus bond fund. In 2021 it was classified as an intermediate core plus fund, and in 2011 it had been classified as an intermediate core fund (before core plus funds were given their own category).
As the linked article (about the new core plus category) states, the median amount of junk in a core plus fund is (or was, at the time) about 8%. DODIX has 11%, all BB (including NR bonds). PTIAX has more than that (12½%) in bonds rated lower than that (or NR). Plus another 5% rated BB. Then there's BCOIX, with less than 4% junk (including NR), nearly all at BB.
I suspect you'll find a fair degree of correlation between funds' YTD performance and the amount of junk in their portfolios. PTIAX > DODIX > BCOIX.
Note:edited to fix typo, per @BaluBalu's suggestion.

“What if the discount rate is higher or we lower the assumed yield to reflect the uncertainty surrounding buybacks? Today’s market would appear overvalued. On the other hand, perhaps the pandemic has temporarily depressed dividends and buybacks—and the buyback yield will jump sharply in the year ahead, making stocks seem relatively cheap.”
Reminds one of the line about “a one-handed economist.”
That’s a very thoughtful piece overall. And Yikes - Mentions that the S&P fell 34% in early 2020. I’d sure like another crack at those prices.
@Old_Joe - What you say is true. But inflation’s probably averaged 5-7% annually in recent years. Equity prices seem way out ahead of that (by S&P and other averages). If inflation were to catch up to the market gains of recent years we’d be looking at much worse than present level.
-
One thought …
I’ve been taught that in investing there exists a rough correlation between risk and reward. So how does one reconcile 1-2% returns on “safe” bonds now for several years along with double-digit gains in equities over many of those same years? Do today’s investors in the S&P index (or similar fund) really feel like they’re taking 5 or 10 times the amount of risk that’s inherent in an AAA rated corporate or government bond? That’s where I’m having some trouble reconciling all this. Risk / reward seems out-of-whack.

Um, yeah, and I'm kinda thinking EVs and Future Transportation are a wee bit more than just the next "hot" investment idea. I'm kinda thinkin' EV's (and whatever else comes next/with them) are gonna be a HUGE part of the LT future of transportation. To wit, CA and 2035 legislation.

I don't doubt that. What I question is how green it is (which is the topic of this thread). Adding lots of cars, regardless of their source of power, is an inefficient way to transport people. The second largest equity holding (4.88%) is Uber. Lyft is not far behind at 2.59%.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, ride-hailing trips today result in an estimated 69 percent more climate pollution on average than the trips they displace. In cities, ride-hailing trips typically displace low-carbon trips, such as public transportation, biking, or walking. Uber and Lyft could reduce these emissions with a more concerted effort to electrify its fleet of vehicles or by incentivizing customers to take pooled rides, the group recommends.
“However, those strategies alone will address neither the increases in vehicle miles traveled nor rising congestion concerns,” the report says. “For ride-hailing to contribute to better climate and congestion outcomes, trips must be pooled and electric, displace single-occupancy car trips more often, and encourage low-emissions modes such as mass transit, biking, and walking.”
...
A more systemic effort to address climate pollution has yet to emerge from either Uber or Lyft. And the solutions they’ve proposed so far are unlikely to address the core problem with ride-hailing: it is often more convenient and less expensive than other, less-polluting transportation options.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/25/21152512/uber-lyft-climate-change-emissions-pollution-ucs-study
Here's an October 2021 op-ed piece going though the myriad of broken green "pledges" by Uber and Lyft: NYTimes original (with embedded links), SF Examiner reprint (free w/o links)
Aside from their green failures, the piece also notes:

Lyft’s president, John Zimmer, once claimed the majority of rides would be in autonomous vehicles by 2021, but the company has largely backed away from its self-driving efforts, including selling its developmental unit to a Toyota subsidiary this year. Uber, which once characterized robot cars as “existential” to its future, sold off its autonomous vehicle division last year after mounting safety and cost concerns.

(Not relevant to the question of green investing, but it is relevant to the ETF's stated strategy of investing in companies "engaged in the production of electric and/or autonomous vehicles".)
Since others here have mentioned ESG, and you suggested looking at California statutes, one can hardly mention Uber and Lyft without also mentioning Prop 22. IMHO fortunately the courts just overturned it (thus moving closer to restoring employee rights and protections to Uber and Lyft drivers).
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/10/can-anyone-stop-the-uberization-of-the-economy.html

PAWZ lost less than SPY XLP and XLU in 1Q 2020-so could it be classified as a consumer staples etf ?

"The dollar could depreciate sharply thereby making those “nominal” paper gains worth less in real purchasing power."
That's already happening... it's called "inflation", which our leaders would have you believe doesn't exist in the "core", whatever that is. Evidently this "core" doesn't include food, housing, or transportation because they are "volatile", but then, who really needs those anyway?
Orwell would understand.

And you certainly do not want to mis this article:
The ESG Movement: The 'Goodness' Gravy Train Rolls On

I agree with the given caveat, not only in this context but generally, "For any variable, no matter how intuitive and obvious its connection to value might be, to generate 'excess' returns, you have to consider whether it has been priced in already."
I strongly disagree with the statement that "Milton Friedman, the bête noire of ESG advocates, would stand vindicated, and companies would do good, because it made them more profitable and valuable." Friedman, like most economists, ignored behavioral economics and started with the assumption that actors are rational. If businesses acted rationally there would be no need for anti-discrimination laws.
If businesses were focused on long term results and not quarterly profits, they would invest in producing less waste (saving material costs). They would plan better for having to pay for the pollution that they emitted in the past "for free".
That said, fund sponsors also tend to focus on what's currently hot. Like electric, self-driving cars, "FDV ... Fidelity Electric Vehicles & Future Transportation ETF, one of four new ETFs launched in October 2021."
Vehicles, Future Transportation - that's not just cars, though you wouldn't know it from this fund. Efficient transportation? That's mass transit.

while EVs do decrease emissions compared with conventional vehicles, we should be comparing them to buses, trains and bikes. When we do, their potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions disappears because of their life cycle emissions and the limited number of people they carry at one time.

https://theconversation.com/the-myth-of-electric-cars-why-we-also-need-to-focus-on-buses-and-trains-147827
Where are the investments in electric rail, in fully automated (GoA level 4) systems? For example,

“[Siemens Mobility's] state of the art CBTC signaling at GoA 4 [for the Bangalore Metro] will allow trains to operate driverless, as they will be automatically controlled and supervised without any onboard intervention. This will deliver a truly modern system featuring superior availability, reliability and passenger experience.”

https://railway-news.com/siemens-mobility-wins-bangalore-metro-contract/

GoA 4 is also termed as an Unattended Train Operation (UTO) system. Therefore, the safe departure of the train from a station, including door closing, must be done automatically. The UTO system can detect and manage the hazardous conditions and emergency conditions by introducing guideway intrusion detection, platform, and onboard CCTV, etc. UTO is only possible for systems with GoA 4.

Global Automatic Train Control (GoA 1, GoA 2, GoA 3, GoA 4) Market Forecast to 2023 - ResearchAndMarkets.com (2019)
https://apnews.com/press-release/pr-businesswire/7dd0aca732d347389a6ab8d383ff18ff
Here's the updated report:
https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5300830/global-autonomous-trains-market-2020-2030-by

The following excerpts are from a current column by Paul Krugman, in The New York Times: "Is China in Big Trouble?"
(That link will only work for NYT subscribers.)

China’s economic growth has been gradually slowing. Here’s a five-year moving average of the country’s growth rate:

Basically, China has masked underlying imbalances by creating an immense housing bubble. And it’s hard to see how this ends well.

Now that’s a housing bubble. Kenneth Rogoff and Yuanchen Yang

Rogoff and Yang also show both that housing prices in China are extremely high relative to incomes and that the real estate sector has become an incredibly large share of China’s economy.
None of this looks sustainable, which is why many observers worry that the debt problems of the giant property developer Evergrande are just the leading edge of a broader economic crisis.
China, which maintains controls on the flow of capital into and out of the country, isn’t deeply integrated with world financial markets. So the fall of Evergrande isn’t likely to provoke a global financial crisis in the same way that the fall of Lehman Brothers did in 2008. A Chinese slowdown would have some economic spillover via reduced Chinese demand, especially for raw materials. But in purely economic terms, the global economic risks from China’s problems don’t look all that large.

What measurement, metric, guide or guru (if any) do you observe?
I don’t have any particular monitor - except I follow trends by looking at charts and can’t help thinking about the half-dozen or so serious corrections I’ve witnessed in my lifetime. I try and listen to all the educated pundits. But they appear largely largely clueless. Opinions are all over the place. There’s long time bear Shiller, of course. And Howard Marks sounds concerned. Ray Dalio was big into gold (defensively) a year ago. It’s finally starting to move. Even David Giroux has voiced concerns.
Here’s an October article on the Buffett Indicator
Following the media is, of course, counter-productive. In a downward markets the general tenor becomes bearish and the bearish prognosticators get rolled out. But in an up market, reasons abound why the bull will continue. I do feel Barrons comes closest to providing an accurate perspective - though both bulls and bears appear there.
Biggest concern? All the sharp downturns I’ve lived through began with higher prevailing interest rates. This did two things: (1) It buffered the downside for investors who held some bonds and (2) It allowed for the monetary authorities (ie “Fed”) to stimulate by lowering rates. With rates as low as they are now, the game has changed.
A second concern is all the “hot” money that has entered in recent years thru forums like Robinhood. Could make things interesting in a 20-30% selloff. Could exacerbate the problem.
One thought that occurs to me is that ultra low bond yields have pushed everybody and his neighbor into riskier assets. (TINA). One possible “out” here. The dollar could depreciate sharply thereby making those “nominal” paper gains worth less in real purchasing power. - in a sense justifying the higher prices. In that case, investors would be well served hanging tight.