The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

Storekeeper

You're right about itemized deductions (Schedule A). You're wrong about the standard deduction. The standard deduction for 2005:

* Single or marrried filing separately: $ 4,850
* Married filing jointly: $ 9,700
* Head of household: $ 7,150

This is based on filing status and has nothing to do with income.

Look at the Form 1040 ... line 41 ... the standard deduction even applies to those making $107,025 per year. If that's a low income to you then you're probably in the top 1% of posters in this forum.

__________________
"England forever; the USA one day longer"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Storekeeper

Many of the posters in this forum think Americans are a total box of rocks ... so there is no way they think seppos are smart enough to plan for retirement.

As Snaffied sez, "I Just don't know".

stroller

The point is, you'd be free to take risks with your own investment and might lose it all, the other concept at play here is that we are not isolated individuals in our own space, but live in our nation as part of the community, so national pension schemes are a way of supporting the previous working generation in their retirement, whereas we will be supported by our childrens generation.
And yes, this system needs to be adjusted for demoghraphic reasons now.

Storekeeper

Stroller,

I support the current SS system and think everything possible should be done to keep the program solvent. Like it or not the original intent is gone but the program has evolved to the point in the US that most look at it as their retirement plan ... and that's good enough for them.

But I don't think the rich should have their asses chafed to support the program or any other social program.

And poor people shouldn't be having more kids than they can afford to raise and the rich shouldn't be squeezed for anything more than their equal fair share.

That doesn't mean we should squeeze corporations or conglomerates though ...

Storekeeper

Bushonomics

By Matt Margolis

President Bush talked about the economy yesterday, and there were plenty of good things to say about it... the federal deficit is being cut faster than expected, and should be cut in half by 2009. We've seen 18 quarters of growth. To put it simply, "The tax cuts we passed work."

Still, in the media, stories about job creation often refer to the numbers as "weak" or lower than expected... Never mind the fact that since Bush got us out the recession, we've seen nothing but growth. But there's more to the story than that... An editorial in the Wall Street Journal notes that while the media labeled the 121,000 jobs created last month as a disappointment, "the labor report shows remarkable strength."

The unemployment rate stayed at a very low 4.6%, despite the addition of 330,000 new entrants into the labor market. The jobless rate is determined by another separate measure called the "household survey," which found that 387,000 new jobs were created in June after increasing by 288,000 in May. Both surveys have their uses, but the household survey captures self-employment that the business survey doesn't.
Economist Michael Darda of MKM Partners notes that averaging the two surveys yields a gain of close to 250,000 jobs in June, "which is much closer to the reality of America's very tight labor market." Meanwhile, the increase in total hours worked in June was itself the equivalent of a half-million new jobs. And the number of Americans who have been without a job for more than six months sank by 217,000 in June to its lowest level in more than five years. The average jobless spell is now less than six weeks.

Now, what about the left-wing myth that all the jobs being created are burger flipping jobs? Well, no one really has believed that, but, as the editorial notes, the jobs people are getting are good jobs with good wages. And speaking of wages, the went up "4.6% in this year's second quarter, the fastest quarterly pace since 1997."

The Bush economy is a good economy, no matter how much the Democrats and their allies in the media pretend it isn't. Still, I expect that the next time a jobs report comes out saying we've experiencec even more job growth the Democrats will still call that the "wrong direction."

Covertjay

What about the EEENNNOOORRRMMMOOOUUUSSSS debt spaz???

Storekeeper

Not really a problem. Could easily be wiped out in a couple of years.

Marmite the Dog

It hasn't gone the right way in over a hundred years, so why do you think it could be wiped out in a couple of years?

U.S. Govt Debt US$ billions
1910 2.6
1920 25.9
1930 16.2
1940 43.0
1950 257.4
1960 290.2
1970 389.2
1980 930.2
1990 3,233.3
2000 5,674.2
2005 7,932.7

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Where do we go from here? The words are coming out all weird. Where are you now when I need you?

Storekeeper

1. Raise taxes, especially on guys like Gates and Buffet
2. Cut the Defense budget
3. Use some of Snaffie's creative accounting 101 techniques.

man with no head

No, what I meant was that low income filers can't qualify for itemized deductions because the tax burden isn't high enough. Thus the standard deduction is better for them.

Storekeeper

OK. I understand now. Thanks for your patience.

Marmite the Dog

You are a cad, Sailor Boy!

man with no head

I should be the one to choose the retirement plan that's right for me...not the government. If I don't want to pay gasoline tax I simply don't drive. But I cannot choose not to pay into mandatory retirement without threat of prison or other penalties. I am not my brother's keeper and neither is he mine.

It's immoral to forcibly take my earnings and hand it over to someone else and prevent me from possibly even getting my money back if the ponzi scheme fails (which in all likelihood it will before I can get a chance to get anything back). The other option to keep it solvent is to raise taxes. Great, that reduces my ability to save for my retirement.

If you want to help people in retirement then give them free housing, medical, and necessities. Don't give them cash.

Tippaporn

You're dreaming, SK. For one, it wouldn't be easy - extremely painful at best, if at all possible. Secondly, it just ain't gonna happen - and you damn well know it. Statements like the above - completely reducing the severity of an enormous issue to a mere anthill - loses you credibility not only with the above issue but with anything you say.

__________________
- Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
- Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing.
- Many people die at twenty five and aren't buried until they are seventy five.

Benjamin Franklin

man with no head

Sometimes it makes sense to go into debt...for example, if an opportunity to make money presents itself and the profit potential exceeds the cost of borrowing money then by all means go into debt.

But are we getting more than we are losing out of continually piling up the debt in the US? I don't think so. And it's quickly getting out of control.

stroller

It's not about "helping" the retired, that's a different issue in European nations at least, those who need help can fall back on social security which is given independent of what one has paid into the pot. Part of the objectives for compulsory pension schemes is to enable people to retire with dignity, and keep the social security (which is financed from taxes rather than contributions) for those who've come to hardship.

Historically, compulsory pension schemes were introduced to minimise the damage a capitalist free market would cause to individuals and society - i.e. workers accepting wages designed for survival not for saving for future needs.

Pensions are an entitlement for those who have paid the premiums, and if you have saved and finance housing, medical etc yourself, you'll have a nice reward for a productive working life on top of everything else.

man with no head

People should be able to retire with dignity. But let me decide my retirement plan...I don't think it should be mandatory for the government to take care of me when I reach 65. I don't think the government should be taking almost 13% of my income for 'my' retirement when the money I'm paying now won't be tehre when I reach 65. That's the objection I have.

If the government wants to mandate retirement schemes then let the person have individual accounts which aren't tied to a general fund. As it is now people who don't pay in can collect money, people are living longer and taking more money in benefits than projected, and, peolpe who are paying into the system now to 'support' past generations are going to get screwed.

Why can't I have the choice to take my money that I earned and invest it on my own?

stroller

I really don't know the situation in the US, but in Europe the issue is similar. The trend is towards a 2-tier system, i.e. you have the choice of directing a part or all of your contributions to approved private schemes of your choice.

Note that all this only applies to people in dependency, i.e. with employment contract -it's regarded as a protection. As an employer or self-employed person you're under no obligation, but have no entitlement in return.

man with no head

In the US it's mandatory to contribute to the social welfare system (Social Security). The tax rate currently is 12.4%. If one is employed then the worker pays half and the employer pays half (that's a 6.2% cost of doing business per worker in addition to standard costs). Self-employed people pay the entire 12.4% in special taxes in addition to their regular income taxes. There's a lot of resistance here to anything other than the status quo because of fear mongering. The largest retiree lobby, the AARP, opposes anything that might possibly cut benefits for current