Mexico, DACA, etc.

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

6 hours ago, TCUFrog said:

All of Romneys income was from capital gains which is taxed at a lower rate than income tax. He already paid income tax when he earned it and capital gains tax after he invested it, comes out a lot higher than you probably care to admit. 

As far as less border agents now, please link your article because that is the exact opposite of everything I have read.

That isn't valid logic. All earned money has already been taxed. Using that money to make more money is a separate transaction - it does not compound. 

My salary was taxed. I go to a casino. I win $20k. I get taxed on that $20 as income -- despite the fact that I earned it by using already taxed dollars. 

My salary was taxed. I go buy a house as my primary residence ($100k in cash). It appreciates $100k in 5 years. I sell my house and rent an apartment. I am taxed on that $100k (since it was not applied to a new primary residence) -- even though I used my already taxed salary to afford that house initially. 

All money is already taxed. 

Romney in particular worked in an industry that uses ludicrously corrupt style of tax dodging. He would get his 401k stacked each year to the $18k limit (like you and me) -- but since his company ran that 401k, they stack it with penny stocks that were going to 100% gain after their acquisition and sale of their companies. So 18,000 penny worthless stocks now worth $20M *effectively* avoids paying taxes.

That is how Romney ends up with a $106M size IRA/401k (and avoids taxes on it) with the same limits that you and I have (18k per year) -- when I would end up with nowhere near that amount of wealth if I were actually able to max every year of my working life. 

If I save 18k per year from age 20 - 40 and assume a 6% return over that 40 years -- I end up with: $2,952,858.30

That is hardly wealth in retirement. 

The game is rigged to avoid taxes and to select winners. 

On 10/2/2017 at 10:13 AM, FirefightnRick said:

Define super wealthy.

 

Rick

It's a good question Rick. 

I define it as having the ability to park income in some other vehicle that can remain untouched for however long it takes to turn it into a lesser|no taxed income.

If you can afford to turn investments into long term capital, or invest in real estate and assume (non-real losses) to then maximize your deductions over a decade to avoid paying taxes in the future -- then I think have crossed into the super wealthy category. I don't have an exact figure, since incomes spends and all different levels in various locales. $300k in Dallas goes a long way, but in Manhattan it doesn't. 

Either way, the rules are setup to allow a segment of the population to not pay taxes on gains while others have a higher rate. It values one type of work over the other by rewarding with lower taxes. 

[UNTFan23]

1 hour ago, SteaminWillieBeamin said:

Romney in particular worked in an industry that uses ludicrously corrupt style of tax dodging. He would get his 401k stacked each year to the $18k limit (like you and me) -- but since his company ran that 401k, they stack it with penny stocks that were going to 100% gain after their acquisition and sale of their companies. So 18,000 penny worthless stocks now worth $20M *effectively* avoids paying taxes.

That is how Romney ends up with a $106M size IRA/401k (and avoids taxes on it) with the same limits that you and I have (18k per year) -- when I would end up with nowhere near that amount of wealth if I were actually able to max every year of my working life. 

If I save 18k per year from age 20 - 40 and assume a 6% return over that 40 years -- I end up with: $2,952,858.30

That is hardly wealth in retirement. 

You can do the same thing in a RothIRA account and walk away a multi-millionaire if you wanted to. All profits made within a Roth IRA are made tax free if you take qualified distributions from the account.

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

3 hours ago, UNTFan23 said:

You can do the same thing in a RothIRA account and walk away a multi-millionaire if you wanted to. All profits made within a Roth IRA are made tax free if you take qualified distributions from the account.

I will go ahead and assume this means you are not in the super wealthy category. 

The Roth IRA is post tax -- so you already paid taxes going in. This is *not* how Romney avoids taxes. But let's continue. 

The yearly contribution limits on a Roth IRA is $5,500 for a married couple making less than $196k a year. Above that and you cannot contribute -- but you can back door money (legally) into a Roth IRA but you have to move money from 401k (tax on exit) to Roth IRA yearly on a schedule. It is a complete rule for rich people wanting to avoid taxes completely on money you put into the 401k (pre-tax).

So let's assume you max out your Roth IRA from age 20 to 65 and get an average of 6% return over that span.

You will walk away with (drumroll!!!!):  $1,264,967!  You'll then be able to withdraw $77,211 annually for 45 years.

Hardly walking away as a  'multi-millionaire' as you put it.  1.2 is not multiple millions. But I digress.

Let's take my other favorite 401k tax trick -- forming an s-corp and and doing an individual 401k. You pay yourself $75 a year. Max out 18k 401 limit then have your s-corp match up to $56k a year into the 401k (tax-free). Then you can backdoor it on a schedule to ROth IRA and pay 0 taxes. With this arrangement over the same period of time, you will have $12,139,528.58.

Back to your suggestion: 

So if you max out your 401k and end up with 2.9M OR you max out your Roth IRA and end up with 1.2M -- does that not point out how insane lopsided the wealth curve is? If you play by the rules of retirement accounts and max them out right out of college until you are 65 -- you will still not be in what most would call the 'really wealthy' category. Sure, $77k + Social Security will put you near $100k a year in retirement, but that is pre-inflation calculations. I can't say how long $100k a year will go in retirement 20 years from now -- not can we predict cost of healthcare on a fixed income.

 

Now.. tell me... Who can really afford to live off no income and pack it all away in tax advantaged accounts the build wealth over time...? Who? The super wealthy. Not the $250k household. Not the $100k household.  

How can Romney end up with $106M in his account when you physically can't? Rich rules.  

 

Edited October 4, 2017 by SteaminWillieBeamin

[UNTFan23]

47 minutes ago, SteaminWillieBeamin said:

I will go ahead and assume this means you are not in the super wealthy category. 

The Roth IRA is post tax -- so you already paid taxes going in. This is *not* how Romney avoids taxes. But let's continue. 

The yearly contribution limits on a Roth IRA is $5,500 for a married couple making less than $196k a year. Above that and you cannot contribute -- but you can back door money (legally) into a Roth IRA but you have to move money from 401k (tax on exit) to Roth IRA yearly on a schedule. It is a complete rule for rich people wanting to avoid taxes completely on money you put into the 401k (pre-tax).

So let's assume you max out your Roth IRA from age 20 to 65 and get an average of 6% return over that span.

You will walk away with (drumroll!!!!):  $1,264,967!  You'll then be able to withdraw $77,211 annually for 45 years.

Hardly walking away as a  'multi-millionaire' as you put it.  1.2 is not multiple millions. But I digress.

Let's take my other favorite 401k tax trick -- forming an s-corp and and doing an individual 401k. You pay yourself $75 a year. Max out 18k 401 limit then have your s-corp match up to $56k a year into the 401k (tax-free). Then you can backdoor it on a schedule to ROth IRA and pay 0 taxes. With this arrangement over the same period of time, you will have $12,139,528.58.

Back to your suggestion: 

So if you max out your 401k and end up with 2.9M OR you max out your Roth IRA and end up with 1.2M -- does that not point out how insane lopsided the wealth curve is? If you play by the rules of retirement accounts and max them out right out of college until you are 65 -- you will still not be in what most would call the 'really wealthy' category. Sure, $77k + Social Security will put you near $100k a year in retirement, but that is pre-inflation calculations. I can't say how long $100k a year will go in retirement 20 years from now -- not can we predict cost of healthcare on a fixed income.

 

Now.. tell me... Who can really afford to live off no income and pack it all away in tax advantaged accounts the build wealth over time...? Who? The super wealthy. Not the $250k household. Not the $100k household.  

How can Romney end up with $106M in his account when you physically can't? Rich rules.  

 

You went and said he did all these nifty trades inside his 401k account and I was just pointing out that you and I can do the same thing using a RothIRA account and then proceed to pull all the proceeds/profits out tax free.

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

No, you said that you can do the same as Romney and walk away a multi-millionaire.

When I clearly, maybe verbosely, pointed out that you cannot do the same thing as Romney. That is the point. If you max out and do everything you should do (minus tax dodges) you will end up with 1.2M or 2.9M at retirement in inflated money. You miss the whole context because you want to be right.

1. With a Roth IRA you will *not* walk away a multi-millionaire. (Nor will a million mean in 40 years what it means now)

2. You will have 2.9 if you max out 401k. Whew. Far from ultra rich. Also, not many people can afford to cut out 18k from their annual salary and still pay for private school, college funds or vacations... So...

If that is the best we can do as 'working' person ... how the hell do we working people justify all the super wealthy tax dodges? You are convinced that you can do the same thing, when you just can't at your income. 

[FirefightnRick]

Its a strange infatuation the left has with how people make their money.  You could tax the top 1 percent at a rate of 100 percent and it wouldn't matter to anyone or benefit a thing other than make a few people feel good that they somehow were able to punish someone else for having more than they do.

 

Rick.

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

1 hour ago, FirefightnRick said:

Its a strange infatuation the left has with how people make their money.  You could tax the top 1 percent at a rate of 100 percent and it wouldn't matter to anyone or benefit a thing other than make a few people feel good that they somehow were able to punish someone else for having more than they do.

 

Rick.

I can see how you may feel it is punitive in nature, but it really is all about revenue and the fairness of collection. 

If a person manages to earn $200k a year digging ditches (somehow) and ends up paying the tax bracket of 33%, then it makes no sense that a person who makes $200k on investments can pay 15% income tax. In my opinion, work is work. Money earned is money earned. 

It isn't punitive at all. It's just trying to stop the preferential treatment for the types of income that most the wealthy can maximize. 

There is this false economy that raising the taxes on investment income will stop investments -- which is completely not true. There is no other place to invest like the American economy. If you want to go to China and invest in their markets because you can pay 4% less taxes... have at it. You can take that risk. 

Bottom line: If you raise the revenue from other areas (tax havens/dodges) it is logical that you can then lower the other tax brackets or start offering more social programs for our aging population. 

[FirefightnRick]

1 hour ago, SteaminWillieBeamin said:

I can see how you may feel it is punitive in nature, but it really is all about revenue and the fairness of collection. 

If a person manages to earn $200k a year digging ditches (somehow) and ends up paying the tax bracket of 33%, then it makes no sense that a person who makes $200k on investments can pay 15% income tax. In my opinion, work is work. Money earned is money earned. 

It isn't punitive at all. It's just trying to stop the preferential treatment for the types of income that most the wealthy can maximize. 

There is this false economy that raising the taxes on investment income will stop investments -- which is completely not true. There is no other place to invest like the American economy. If you want to go to China and invest in their markets because you can pay 4% less taxes... have at it. You can take that risk. 

Bottom line: If you raise the revenue from other areas (tax havens/dodges) it is logical that you can then lower the other tax brackets or start offering more social programs for our aging population. 

....or fair share, right?

So what defines someone paying their fair share?  We don't know but wealthy individuals aren't skating out of paying their taxes regardless of what anyone says.  But for whatever reason, again it bothers the left.  I may be wrong but to me your talking points describe exactly what the left runs with every time the subject comes up.  And it's always from a punitive slant.

Here's a novel idea.  How bout we spend some energy finding out how life time politicians (name any of them)...end up amassing millions in wealth while working in jobs that dont pay millions.  I'd be down with that, or at least term limits.

 

 

Rick

Edited October 4, 2017 by FirefightnRick

[UNTLifer]

On 10/2/2017 at 9:41 PM, SCREAMING EAGLE-66 said:

 ..... as for the drug trade ... heroine does't come from Mexico nor does meth (home-produced mostly) .. Cocaine is mostly from South America and most gets here by boat. 

 

 

 

 

Hmmm.

Heroin: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/06/12/sophisticated-smuggling-rings-supply-heroin-surge/9713909/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/13/donald-trump/trump-right-heroin-coming-through-southern-border/

Meth: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/11/mexico-cartels-meth/1626383/

 

[ntmeangreen11]

I work with a crew of guys who came here from Mexico. You guys have no idea what they go through to provide for their families. You don't want them here because they don't share your skin color, simple as that. No need to hide behind the lie that they are taking billions of dollars from hard working white Americans.

Just the same way you see it as Kaepernick pissing on the graves of veterans and not someone protesting the way minorities are treated in this country. & LOL at speculation on where specific drugs are coming from. I will stick to the football forums...

 

 

 

 

 

[GTWT]

16 hours ago, TCUFrog said:

I don't know one person that resents them being here because of the color of their skin, it's because they broke the law and are here illegally. There is a right way to do it but it takes time and effort.

That "right way" is almost impossible for the typical immigrant from Mexico.  Come up with a reasonable process & a reasonable time-frame and then complain if it isn't followed.

[GTWT]

58 minutes ago, TCUFrog said:

I agree but as long as it's a law, you gotta follow it. I can't drive 150 down the highway and not expect dire consequences when I get caught just because I don't agree with the speed limit laws. There are a lot of people in line doing it the right way, cant punish them by letting others cut in front of them.

The wealthy (it's a relative term) do it the 'right way'.  The poor do it the way it's been done for generations.  Crossing the river is a fact of life on the border - it has been for hundreds of years.  They come here, they work, some stay but most go back sooner or later.  They're good for us & we're good for them.

[HoustonEagle]

On 10/4/2017 at 4:25 PM, FirefightnRick said:

....or fair share, right?

So what defines someone paying their fair share?  We don't know but wealthy individuals aren't skating out of paying their taxes regardless of what anyone says.  But for whatever reason, again it bothers the left.  I may be wrong but to me your talking points describe exactly what the left runs with every time the subject comes up.  And it's always from a punitive slant.

Here's a novel idea.  How bout we spend some energy finding out how life time politicians (name any of them)...end up amassing millions in wealth while working in jobs that dont pay millions.  I'd be down with that, or at least term limits.

 

 

Rick

Finally something political  we agree on.  Term limits must happen in this country, 

 

Edited October 16, 2017 by HoustonEagle

[EagleMBA]

On 10/7/2017 at 11:18 AM, GTWT said:

The wealthy (it's a relative term) do it the 'right way'.  The poor do it the way it's been done for generations.  Crossing the river is a fact of life on the border - it has been for hundreds of years.  They come here, they work, some stay but most go back sooner or later.  They're good for us & we're good for them.

Not always, amigo! Here is one of many recent examples to the contrary.

http://www.conservativezone.com/articles/daca-recipient-accused-of-murdering-teenage-girl/

[GTWT]

16 hours ago, EagleMBA said:

Not always, amigo! Here is one of many recent examples to the contrary.

http://www.conservativezone.com/articles/daca-recipient-accused-of-murdering-teenage-girl/

Really, EagleMBA?  You're better than this.  Citing a single bad apple to indict thousands of innocent people?

[EagleMBA]

7 hours ago, GTWT said:

Really, EagleMBA?  You're better than this.  Citing a single bad apple to indict thousands of innocent people?

I don't have time to research the thousands of crimes, nor am I inclined to do so. I did a quick search and grabbed an article from September citing 2,139. If those slime have behaved themselves for a month, we're only up to 2,140. I don't think a large percentage of them are thugs, and have some sympathy for those who are now students and behaving themselves.  I do think we need to look at them all...very closely.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/05/2139-daca-recipients-convicted-or-accused-of-crimes-against-americans/

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

By your logic we should switch illegals for legals and have lower crime incidents. You know, since illegal immigrants are 44% less likely to commit a crime that a native. 

http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/aug/03/antonio-villaraigosa/mostly-true-undocumented-immigrants-less-likely-co/

 

 

[GTWT]

22 minutes ago, EagleMBA said:

 I did a quick search and grabbed an article from September

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/05/2139-daca-recipients-convicted-or-accused-of-crimes-against-americans/

You did a quick search & cited an article from Breitbart?

[EagleMBA]

28 minutes ago, GTWT said:

You did a quick search & cited an article from Breitbart?

Here's one from "Education News", whoever that is... https://www.educationviews.org/plenty-daca-recipients-dream-crime/

Just search " News DACA Crime Students" or any variation of that and you will come up with lots of sources. Do you consider Janet Napolitano in the NY Times to be "fair and balanced"?

Edited October 24, 2017 by EagleMBA

[GTWT]

1 hour ago, EagleMBA said:

Here's one from "Education News", whoever that is... https://www.educationviews.org/plenty-daca-recipients-dream-crime/

Just search " News DACA Crime Students" or any variation of that and you will come up with lots of sources. Do you consider Janet Napolitano in the NY Times to be "fair and balanced"?

From your "Education News" article:

Quote

Over 2,000 have lost their status due to crime

Since news broke of President Donald Trump’s plan to end the DACA amnesty for roughly 800,000 illegal immigrants, a sympathetic media has trotted out endless sob stories about so-called “Dreamers"

EagleMBA, that comes out to 0.25%.  I doubt that members of the UNT Baptist Student Union have that low of a crime rate.

 

Edited October 24, 2017 by GTWT

[ADLER]

On 9/7/2017 at 1:38 PM, GTWT said:

Source?

Banco de Mexico 

http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/20/news/economy/mexico-remittances-trump/index.html

[Rudy]

On ‎10‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 9:41 PM, SCREAMING EAGLE-66 said:

as for the drug trade ... heroine does't come from Mexico nor does meth (home-produced mostly) ..

 

 

 

 

Again, you're wrong.

[GTWT]

7 hours ago, ADLER said:

Banco de Mexico 

http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/20/news/economy/mexico-remittances-trump/index.html

<6% increase from 2006 to 2016?  Wow!

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

--- NAFTA is good for us for an odd but not so obvious  reason ..... The better the economy and job situation is in Mexico ... the less illegal immigration will occur.. If they have jobs and a decent life there they will not be needing to leave to survive.  Why do people usually leave the countries where their families are and go elsewhere...??  Usually one of two reasons... They are not safe there (such as is the case in Syria and others now) or they have a very poor standard of living... That has always been true.... that is likely why your family came here.... the Irish were staving to death and many other groups similar as well..  A lot of the Hispanic  illegal immigration now is not Mexico now but Central American and both reasons apply.  

--- Anyone who thinks a wall will stop illegal immigration is kidding themselves.(excluding a highly urban area) .. There is always air, oceans, tunnels, and lots come in through legal entry points, hidden of just don't go back after crossing legally. Plus if you  have ever been along the Rio Grande area especially the western part you would understand that immediately.. ... Walls did work for the USSR .... but they were manned with guard towers and machines guns a few 100 yards apart and they shot people caught between "fences".. 

Edited February 9, 2018 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[UNTLifer]

On 10/6/2017 at 2:13 PM, ntmeangreen11 said:

I work with a crew of guys who came here from Mexico. You guys have no idea what they go through to provide for their families. You don't want them here because they don't share your skin color, simple as that. No need to hide behind the lie that they are taking billions of dollars from hard working white Americans.

Just the same way you see it as Kaepernick pissing on the graves of veterans and not someone protesting the way minorities are treated in this country.

 

 

 

 

 

Such a line of b.s.  That is the lazy way out.  Play the race card and sit on it until people get tired of hearing it and shut up.

Kaepernick just provided funding to a cop killer.  He may have good intentions but he is a fool in the manner he is carrying ojt his "mission."