If that's full-time work, it's more than 75K USD/year, which sounds more than okay to me, provided that there weren't hefty expenses to get there, such as a law or medical degree.
This is not a big deal. All the other rating agencies did the same thing years ago. Moody's is now the same as everyone else.
Let’s be careful here - if you were withdrawing 4%/yr *(to live on) there have been a few starting years that would have you zeroing out before you die. Even worse if you have sudden unexpected expenses in a year when the market is way down. I’ve not read the paper yet, but all investors (who plan to live on their investments some day) should think about volatility drag. The first decade of retirement is critical to maintaining spending power. And plan for a reserve in case your foundation cracks or you need long-term-care and don’t have coverage.
elmwealth.com
And if you lose 50% you have to make 100% return to break even. Having some bonds that give you 5% in 30% of your portfolio might ease the pain. This easily done in the US without tax consequences in an IRA.
That, specifically, is false.
1999-2009 was -0.9% for S&P, so a slight loss. Got back to the Great Depression and you probably have a 10-year loss period. So I will correct myself to say in almost all instances.
2008 and 1979 were also bad period ends for the market, but the contention was that it would outperform 60-40, and there are several other periods where the balanced portfolio outperformed. Even 25 year.
Quite correct.
Well there is also increase revenue as the US has the 5th lowest tax to GDP ratios of the 38 largest economies.The goal is to reduce the burden of $36 trillion in foreign-held U.S. Treasury debt. This can be achieved in two main ways: devaluing the currency and devaluing the Treasuries, or both. To devalue a bond portfolio, you increase its yields. To devalue a currency you create inflation (tariffs). But at least there's intention to repay the debt rather than default on it which is positive
Not really comparable.... need to look at GDP per capita first.
Looks like Ireland is doing something right. Skyrocketing GDP per capita and low tax rates. That is pretty much the definition of prosperity.
My personal experience, there is a lot of high tech medical manufacturing there by foreign companies and other things as well as a huge tourist industryIreland is the entrance of overseas digital markets into EU ...
www.aqr.com
Please don't quote Zucman, you're much smarter than that. Zucman calculates income as including unrealized gains in wealth, which is not a legal means of calculating income for taxation in the US. And I hope it never is. Wealth taxes are dumb, and that includes most US property taxes.One has to find a very pliant IRA trustee for that, but they exist. That was roughly how Mitt Romney ended up with a $25mm IRA.
Another other good trick is borrowing against your appreciated stock. You avoid the capital gains but have use of the money. As long as the stock goes up you are ok.
Certain start-up shares are also tax free if held for 5 yrs. I own some in a biotech startup.
Generally speaking, if you are a business owner, you have many tools to structure your income to optimize and defer taxation. Earned income (salary, bonus, option grants) not so much. But people oven over-estimate the degree to which this avoids taxation.
View attachment 452078
View attachment 452079
America's Progressive Tax and Transfer System: Federal, State, and Local Tax and Transfer Distributions
The overall U.S. tax and transfer system is overwhelmingly progressive, and understanding the extent—and source—of that progressivity is essential for lawmakers considering the trade-offs associated with each tax policy decision.taxfoundation.org
These tricks are why I am very much in favor of flat taxes. Enough with the tricks meted out to special interest groups, like private equity executives.
