Besides, President Bush gave a huge tax cut to the wealthiest
families... $150 billion per year to families with $1 million per
year income... aren't you one of them?


Dave wrote:
Nice populist rhetoric

Is "rhetoric" a fancy word for "plain fact that I wish weren't true
because it makes my favorite candidate look bad?"

... but it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

??? You were griping about taxes. I pointed out that your favorite
candidate has already cut taxes so much the budget is busted and likely
to stay that way. Didn't you get yours?


.... How about we make savings and investment deductible
when deposited or invested, and taxable at a lower rate when withdrawn, or
not at all after some age?

Already done, several ways. How about a plan where if you save $1, you
not only get to deduct it but your employer matches it? Oh wait, we got
that too.


All of the present arrangements are hedged about with rules designed to be
sure that those in a position to save the most don't get any tax break if
they do.

??? AFAIK everybody can save the same amount, $2500 (or did it go up
again already?).


... I'm thinking of a much simpler system where you don't have to have
a ton of actuaries calculating the "annual deferral percentage" of the
highest X% of a company's workforce each year, and a ton of lawyers jiggling
the plan and going hat in hand to the IRS for a ruling every time the plan
is changed. (Been there. Done that.)

??? Been there done that... in fact I am still doing it... sort of (I
hate committees). We don't have any actuaries and we darn sure don't
have any lawyers.

I'd be very much in favor of simplifying the rules for funding company
retirement benefits, and also in favor of simplifying private accounts.
But I don't see it happening any time soon.



In a country where obesity is one of the biggest health threats, and
people buy SUVs when gas prices are headed through the roof (and these
are just two of the most obvious examples of how profligate consumerism
has replaced old fashioned common sense), it is hard to explain why the
savings rate is so low.


Agreed. But it is. One of the things that makes it worse is that in the past
it was common for children to care for their parents at home when the parent
got too old and infirm to live on his own. Now the custom seems to be to
dump them in a nursing home, making sure that they get rid of all their
assets three years in advance, so the guvmint will pay the bill.

Ah yes, those darn families refusing to take responsibilities... what do
you expect, we have a Responsibility-Dodger-In-Chief who should set a
better moral example... but I digress.

If only those darn old people didn't get Alzheimer's and need
professional care... or any of those other geriatric conditions
requiring care that the average person cannot provide. If only people
didn't live so darn long... that'd help the Social Security problem too.

How dare poor and middle-class people live past 65! What gall! Too bad
there isn't a centralized area or state where poor old people live, we
could invade and end this threat!

DSK