Interest Rate and Credit Score

[DCLMP]

In no world is Warren Buffet paying less in taxes than his secretary. He may have a lower effective tax rate but that is not the same as paying less. He is likely paying more in taxes every year than his secretary will earn in their life.

I have family members that are in the top 1% and they pay more than I make in a year. You'll never convince them they don't pay their fair share.

 

[DCLMP]

Well, IMHO those kind of channels in general are what has lead to the crisis in information we currently have. People can't tell what is legit and what is not.

You definitely can't tell what's legit on cable news. I know that going to offend some people on here. People get super defensive about the media.

 

[tvguy]

You definitely can't tell what's legit on cable news. I know that going to offend some people on here. People get super defensive about the media.

I think my concern is people don't question things that are pretty clearly are not true.

 

[DCLMP]

I think my concern is people don't question things that are pretty clearly are not true.

That's been the case since the beginning of time. We often don't find out the truth until decades later. I like that these days we can get different points of view on just about anything. This forum is a perfect example of that.

 

[tvguy]

That's been the case since the beginning of time. We often don't find out the truth until decades later. I like that these days we can get different points of view on just about anything. This forum is a perfect example of that.

Well, it was a lot easier when the primary sources of news were people like Edward R. Murrow, Huntley and Brinkley and Walter Cronkite.

 

[DCLMP]

Well, it was a lot easier when the primary sources of news were people like Edward R. Murrow, Huntley and Brinkley and Walter Cronkite.

You are really aging yourself. They we’re never held accountable back then and the biases existed then just like they do today. People don’t change.

 

[tvguy]

You are really aging yourself. They we’re never held accountable back then and the biases existed then just like they do today. People don’t change.

You could be right. I remember watching a Frontline show on PBS interviewing the White House Reporters who covered Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK and LBJ. Their sexploits were well known but never reported because the mindset back then was that a President's personal life had nothing to do with the job he was doing as President.

 

[RamblingMad]

You could be right. I remember watching a Frontline show on PBS interviewing the White House Reporters who covered Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK and LBJ. Their sexploits were well known but never reported because the mindset back then was that a President's personal life had nothing to do with the job he was doing as President.

Lots of misinformation back then as well. I’m fairly certain we entered Vietnam based on bad information. The difference today is that social media allows it to be dispersed quickly. You can also set up your social media, so it’s a bubble of your ideas. The world is a very interesting place.

What I’m excited about is how AI impacts this in the near future. I build models as my day job. And it’s nearly impossible to remove all bias.

 

[tvguy]

Lots of misinformation back then as well. I’m fairly certain we entered Vietnam based on bad information. The difference today is that social media allows it to be dispersed quickly. You can also set up your social media, so it’s a bubble of your ideas. The world is a very interesting place.

What I’m excited about is how AI impacts this in the near future. I build models as my day job. And it’s nearly impossible to remove all bias.

Well based on recent demos of AI, that seems to be a terrifying way to disguise lies as truth.

 

[sam_gordon]

I have family members that are in the top 1% and they pay more than I make in a year. You'll never convince them they don't pay their fair share.

Find out what their tax RATES are (that they actually pay after deductions/writeoffs) . I swear if we got rid of all deductions, even with a staggered rate based on income, everyone's effective rate would go down and we'd have enough money to run the country.

Of course, I'm not smart enough to prove that.

 

[DCLMP]

Lots of misinformation back then as well. I’m fairly certain we entered Vietnam based on bad information. The difference today is that social media allows it to be dispersed quickly. You can also set up your social media, so it’s a bubble of your ideas. The world is a very interesting place.

What I’m excited about is how AI impacts this in the near future. I build models as my day job. And it’s nearly impossible to remove all bias.

Vietnam, World War 2. just about every war. Who can forget the weapons of mass destruction? It's just continuing today with Ukraine. As they say, the first casualty of war is always the truth. When all else fails they take you to war. I expect that's where we're headed in the next decade.

 

[DCLMP]

Find out what their tax RATES are (that they actually pay after deductions/writeoffs) . I swear if we got rid of all deductions, even with a staggered rate based on income, everyone's effective rate would go down and we'd have enough money to run the country.

Of course, I'm not smart enough to prove that.

We will never have enough money to run the country because they won't cut spending. The debt is too far gone at this point. We will have another default. Even though they don't refer to previous times as defaults.

 

[RamblingMad]

We will never have enough money to run the country because they won't cut spending. The debt is too far gone at this point. We will have another default. Even though they don't refer to previous times as defaults.

There isn't much left to cut. Better cut defense spending. It's a gigantic piece of the budget.

https://am.jpmorgan.com/us/en/asset-management/adv/insights/market-insights/guide-to-the-markets/

It's slide 22.

And we do need to spend more on infrastructure. It's at the point, where older infrastructure is failing.

 

[tvguy]

Find out what their tax RATES are (that they actually pay after deductions/writeoffs) . I swear if we got rid of all deductions, even with a staggered rate based on income, everyone's effective rate would go down and we'd have enough money to run the country.

Of course, I'm not smart enough to prove that.

I have advocated for decades a 10% Federal Income Tax on every dollar over $20,000 a person earns. No deductions. Make a dollar, send in that dime.
I know it will never work because the tax industry is a major employer. IRS staff. CPAs. Enrolled Agents. Tax Preparers, millions would go on unemployment.

 

[DCLMP]

There isn't much left to cut. Better cut defense spending. It's a gigantic piece of the budget.

https://am.jpmorgan.com/us/en/asset-management/adv/insights/market-insights/guide-to-the-markets/

It's slide 22.

And we do need to spend more on infrastructure. It's at the point, where older infrastructure is failing.

You know there are people on both sides of the aisle that love war. The military-industrial complex is a big money maker. They are not concerned with the loss of life

I'm in my early 50"s and other than the 80's we have been involved in some conflict in some far-off land. Man is a warring animal ...that has been the case throughout all of history. I doubt it will ever change.

 

[Colleen27]

Well, here's something we can agree on. Journalists need to become journalists again and report the facts. It would be nice if it would happen and on all networks.

Journalists who want to report the facts are fighting a two-front war - against companies that know feeding people what they want to hear makes for a bigger bottom line and against consumers who insist that anything they disagree with isn't a fact at all. We have nothing more, or less, than the mass media our culture demands.

I doubt we listen to the same people. Mine aren't cringy. There are millions of channels out there. You can't make a blanket statement like that.

There are millions of channels out there... so that anyone looking for a "news source" that agrees with what they already "know" can find what they're looking for. But even the good ones have no real vetting, fact checking, editing or accountability, no one to tell them that their source is not credible or the study they're talking about has been discredited. YouTube is, IMO, the worst of what's become of cable news as a whole - just one person or a like-minded group of people, sharing their take on the information that catches their attention with little interest in balance or context or depth.

You know there are people on both sides of the aisle that love war. The military-industrial complex is a big money maker. They are not concerned with the loss of life

I'm in my early 50"s and other than the 80's we have been involved in some conflict in some far-off land. Man is a warring animal ...that has been the case throughout all of history. I doubt it will ever change.

Yep. It is the one issue that transcends politics - dumping ever more money into defense and dreaming up ways to put all that spending to use. No one even talks about peace or demilitarization or even responsible defense spending. It is just more-more-more, bigger-bigger-bigger, and only the boogeyman we're building up to guard against changes.

 

[Ms.Minnie]

Journalists who want to report the facts are fighting a two-front war - against companies that know feeding people what they want to hear makes for a bigger bottom line and against consumers who insist that anything they disagree with isn't a fact at all. We have nothing more, or less, than the mass media our culture demands.



There are millions of channels out there... so that anyone looking for a "news source" that agrees with what they already "know" can find what they're looking for. But even the good ones have no real vetting, fact checking, editing or accountability, no one to tell them that their source is not credible or the study they're talking about has been discredited. YouTube is, IMO, the worst of what's become of cable news as a whole - just one person or a like-minded group of people, sharing their take on the information that catches their attention with little interest in balance or context or depth.



Yep. It is the one issue that transcends politics - dumping ever more money into defense and dreaming up ways to put all that spending to use. No one even talks about peace or demilitarization or even responsible defense spending. It is just more-more-more, bigger-bigger-bigger, and only the boogeyman we're building up to guard against changes.

I agree with your first two points but not the last. I do believe that in recent history we did have a commander and chief who wanted more peace.

As far as a flat tax goes, why wouldn't all income including interest and dividend income be included in the flat rate? Isn't that point of a flat tax, to make all income taxable at the same rate effectively simplifying the whole process? Remember the idea of being able to file your tax return on a postcard? Eliminating the need for all those schedules? I think it would be great if our government would adopt this plan but I'm sure it will never happen because the upper class would have to pay too much.

 

[DCLMP]

Journalists who want to report the facts are fighting a two-front war - against companies that know feeding people what they want to hear makes for a bigger bottom line and against consumers who insist that anything they disagree with isn't a fact at all. We have nothing more, or less, than the mass media our culture demands.



There are millions of channels out there... so that anyone looking for a "news source" that agrees with what they already "know" can find what they're looking for. But even the good ones have no real vetting, fact checking, editing or accountability, no one to tell them that their source is not credible or the study they're talking about has been discredited. YouTube is, IMO, the worst of what's become of cable news as a whole - just one person or a like-minded group of people, sharing their take on the information that catches their attention with little interest in balance or context or depth.



Yep. It is the one issue that transcends politics - dumping ever more money into defense and dreaming up ways to put all that spending to use. No one even talks about peace or demilitarization or even responsible defense spending. It is just more-more-more, bigger-bigger-bigger, and only the boogeyman we're building up to guard against changes.

I have my economists and financial analyst I follow. I’m not looking for someone that agrees with me. I like to get a wide variety of opinions on topics that interest me. I learn a lot from communicating with other people. I don’t go to youtube for you basic news. There are plenty of news websites out there. The comment sections are the best.

In my opinion main stream media is very controlled and is always pushing a narrative. That’s my opinion and many will disagree with that.

In a democracy “we the people” would vote on war. Ironically they want us to send our kids to fight for democracy in other countries. How has that worked out.
It’s going to be very hard for them to drum up support for another war People are waking up to the lies and I think we social media and alternative news sources to thank for that.

 

[DCLMP]

I agree with your first two points but not the last. I do believe that in recent history we did have a commander and chief who wanted more peace.

As far as a flat tax goes, why wouldn't all income including interest and dividend income be included in the flat rate? Isn't that point of a flat tax, to make all income taxable at the same rate effectively simplifying the whole process? Remember the idea of being able to file your tax return on a postcard? Eliminating the need for all those schedules? I think it would be great if our government would adopt this plan but I'm sure it will never happen because the upper class would have to pay too much.

The lower class would also have to pay taxes which they don’t do now. Is that feasible for them? Is there an income a cut off? The upper class currently pays a lot more than 10% it would benefit them.
I think it’s a good idea that’s been floated around. I’m not sure it would work.

They did simplify taxes. Many people just take the standard deduction.

 

[Colleen27]

I agree with your first two points but not the last. I do believe that in recent history we did have a commander and chief who wanted more peace.

As far as a flat tax goes, why wouldn't all income including interest and dividend income be included in the flat rate? Isn't that point of a flat tax, to make all income taxable at the same rate effectively simplifying the whole process? Remember the idea of being able to file your tax return on a postcard? Eliminating the need for all those schedules? I think it would be great if our government would adopt this plan but I'm sure it will never happen because the upper class would have to pay too much.

So the tax thing is really complicated because our system of government is really complicated.

First, it isn't just the wealthy that oppose a flat tax. It is also anyone engaged in advocacy for the working poor and struggling middle. Because to be revenue-neutral, a flat tax rate would have to sit somewhere between 17 and 25%, depending on whose analysis you read and how the poverty carve-out is handled. How many families living on $50K can afford a new $10,000 tax burden without utterly destroying their standard of living? Or even $6000, if there is an exemption for the first $20K of earnings as some have proposed? The reason a flat tax hasn't gotten more traction is because no politician wants to go back to their voters and try to justify the tax law changes that mean that working, middle class people can't afford to keep their home or their car.

Second, when you zoom out to look at our tax system as a whole, rather than just at the very narrow slice that is the federal income tax, we already have a flat to somewhat regressive system. Higher earners pay a higher percentage of their income in federal, and in some places state, income tax. Lower earners pay higher percentages of their income in payroll, gas, sales, and property taxes. So a shift to a flat income tax would actually mean that the lowest earners have the highest total tax rates... exactly the problem a flat tax is meant to "solve" (though even that's a bit of a unicorn - most high earners do earn a large share of their income as salary and therefore wouldn't fall into the Buffett paradox or the secretary paying a higher rate than the CEO).