What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Business, Economics, and Taxes 2: That's Why We Fight to Take the Means Back

dxmnkd316 said:
Please do not take out 401k loans. The tail risk on them is extremely high. And you don’t really benefit much. “Paying interest to yourself” is dangerous marketing hogwash.

Anyways, if you lose your ability to pay this back, you could be both out of a job AND have this treated as a distribution on your 401k. Plus, you generally lose out on market returns when you take money out, so whatever you’re paying, you’re actually paying significantly more.

If it worked out for you, great. But this is a *very* risky plan.
Click to expand...
Wife didn't have much and I had a tiny amount in a rollover that was sitting from a previous job (who did a shit job of even telling us we had a 401k until they closed their broker and rolled us all over, it was a small, small company). So we just paid the early withdrawal penalties.

It worked out for us, and we're both sitting much better financially for our 401ks now after talking with a fiduciary.
 
Savannah Guthrie's mom is missing. You may wonder why I'm mentioning this here. Because the WSJ put this at the top of their business section, so apparently this is important business news.
 
Economy is solved everyone. Again. Boy, these Republicans. I am telling you, fucking genius.

bsky.app

Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com)

Dr Oz: "If we could get the average American to start working a year earlier, right out of high school, or a year later -- not retire -- or work better during their lifetime because they're healthy, it would generate about $3 trillion to the US economy. That would more than remove the debt."
bsky.app bsky.app
 
Hey, they're not wrong. All capitalist fortunes are built by squeezing laborers.

Longform: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/wages.htm

Eventually, however, this state of growth must sooner or later reach its peak. What is the worker’s position now?

(3) “In a country which had acquired that full complement of riches both the wages of labour and the profits of stock would probably be very low [...] the competition for employment would necessarily be so great as to reduce the wages of labour to what was barely sufficient to keep up the number of labourers, and, the country being already fully peopled, that number could never be augmented.” [Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Vol. I, p. 84.]

The surplus would have to die.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ScoobyDoo said:
bsky.app

Robert Reich (@rbreich.bsky.social)

Retiring Walmart CEO Doug McMillon made $27M last year, over 930 times the median Walmart worker's salary of just $29,469. Walmart's wages are so low that its workers are among the most likely to rely on SNAP and Medicaid to get by. Hello?
bsky.app bsky.app
Click to expand...
Seems fair to tax the leadership to pay for the SNAP benefits on their employees.
 
From the Cato Institute of all places: https://www.cato.org/blog/cato-study-immigrants-reduced-deficits-145-trillion-1994

Every year since 1994, when data collection began, immigrants have paid more in taxes than they received in benefits from the federal, state, and local governments. The fiscal benefits have continued to rise, reaching their highest level ever in 2023.

The fiscal surplus from all immigrants from 1994 to 2023 was $14.5 trillion, compared with a deficit of $48 trillion without immigrants. That means that immigrants cut deficits by nearly a third in real terms over the last three decades.

...

How can immigrants be so fiscally beneficial when the country overall is running such extreme deficits? The answer is that a big part of the US budget is pure public goods—primarily the military and interest payments on past debt accrued before the immigrants came—which don’t scale with population growth. These are essentially fixed costs or sunk obligations that the United States will have to cover whether immigrants come or not.

The figure below shows how, in most years, tax revenue exceeds the costs of providing benefits—that is, everything that requires scaling with population growth. Thus, immigrants will be fiscally positive so long as they are at least average in their revenue creation and benefits received. In fact, immigrants are significantly better than average in both aspects of the fiscal equation.

...

Immigrants pay more in taxes than the average person. This is counterintuitive because they have lower hourly wages, but because they work at much higher rates (the blue line), they end up with higher per capita incomes (the gray line) and pay more in taxes than their share of the population predicts (the dotted line). Thus, immigrants have been better at generating revenue for the government than the average person.

Are their tax revenues overwhelmed by the costs they impose? Here’s everything the federal, state, and local governments spent money on over the last 30 years in per capita dollar amounts. Immigrants did not create significantly higher costs for any items and saved the government enormously in two areas: old-age benefits and education costs.
Click to expand...
 
dxmnkd316 said:
Please do not take out 401k loans. The tail risk on them is extremely high. And you don’t really benefit much. “Paying interest to yourself” is dangerous marketing hogwash.

Anyways, if you lose your ability to pay this back, you could be both out of a job AND have this treated as a distribution on your 401k. Plus, you generally lose out on market returns when you take money out, so whatever you’re paying, you’re actually paying significantly more.

If it worked out for you, great. But this is a *very* risky plan.
Click to expand...

I have read the responses but I still think this is sage advice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top