Candidate wants to limit tax-advantaged retirement accounts and contributions?

[ArbitraryGuy]

I couldn't find anyone discussing this, either here or elsewhere.  I don't want to be political, either, but this seems like it could have an effect on my fellow FIREers and Mustachians.

Reading about both candidate's tax proposals, I found out that Secretary Clinton has tucked away in her plan the following:

- Set a cap on tax-advantaged retirement accounts by limiting contributions if the total of all accounts is greater than the maximum annuity allowed by defined benefit plans ($3.4 million for a 62 year old in 2016).

"Currently, limitations apply to annual contributions and benefits for each plan an individual holds. However, an individual with multiple retirement accounts may accumulate very large balances within those accounts. The proposal would prohibit account holders from making additional contributions to any account once the sum of all account balances reaches a level adequate to finance the maximum annuity currently permitted for defined benefit plans. The account balance limit for an individual age 62 in 2015 would have been approximately $3.4 million under this rule (US Treasury 2015)."

- Set a minimum itemized deduction of 28%, which (if I understand correctly) implies that tax-deferred contributions are capped at 28% of income along with many other important tax-advantaged items.

"In addition, Clinton would limit the tax benefit from specified deductions and exclusions to 28 percent. This cap reduces the value of deductions and exclusions for taxpayers in the 33 percent and higher tax brackets. The cap applies to all itemized deductions (except for charitable contributions), tax-exempt interest, excluded employer-provided health insurance, deductible contributions to tax-preferred retirement accounts, and certain other deductions.⁶"

"Footnote 6: The 28 percent limit would apply to: all itemized deductions (except for charitable contributions), tax-exempt state and local bond interest, employer-sponsored health insurance paid for by employers or with before-tax employee dollars, health insurance costs of self-employed individuals, employee contributions to defined contribution retirement plans and IRAs, the deduction for income attributable to domestic production activities, certain trade or business deductions of employees, moving expenses, contributions to health savings accounts and Archer MSAs, and interest on education loans."

I'm not sure if that means that the 28% limit only applies to people in the 33% marginal bracket or above.  I couldn't find any clarification on this.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/2000638-an-analysis-of-hillary-clintons-tax-proposals.pdf

[Gimesalot]

I'm not sure if that means that the 28% limit only applies to people in the 33% marginal bracket or above.  I couldn't find any clarification on this.

From the way it is written it means that the 28% limit applies to those in the 33 percent tax bracket or higher.

Honestly, I don't think that these changes will have a big impact on people on this board. I can't imagine that all accounts includes taxable investment accounts, so you can still save there.  Also, I don't see any reason to add to my retirement accounts after they have reached $1 million, so a $3.4 million limit is fine. 
 

[trek240]

This is mostly to take more money out of the pockets of the 1% (and I doubt they would be on a site like this).

[seattlecyclone]

Yeah, these proposals wouldn't affect us much if enacted.

The retirement account limitation would only really affect people who are able to exercise pre-IPO employee stock options inside their 401(k) or other shenanigans like that. Given existing contribution limits and normal investments (index funds, etc.), that $3.4 million mark is very difficult to hit. If you contribute the legal $53k max to a 401(k) and $5,500 to an IRA, and experience 7% average investment growth, you won't hit $3.4 million for 23 years. Anyway, once you're there, you're well past the level of wealth where you could retire early.

As to the limitation on certain deductions and exclusions, this would only affect very high earners. The top of the 28% bracket is currently at roughly $200k AGI for single people and $250k AGI for married people. Get yourself into the 33% bracket and you'll find yourself paying 5% tax to put money into a 401(k)...not great, but not the end of the world either. At that income level you should already be able to save up enough to FIRE within 10 years. Paying an extra 5% * $18,000 = $900 in annual taxes is not going to change your timeline by an appreciable amount.

[Cathy]

As we all know, under the Constitution of the United States, "[a]ll [federal] legislative Powers ... shall be vested in a Congress of the United States". Art I, § 1. Neither the President nor any other executive officer has any power by themselves to amend the Internal Revenue Code, and any attempt to do would be "a mere nullity". Manhattan General Equipment v. Commissioner, 297 US 129, 134 (1936).

Of course, if Clinton were elected President of the United States, she would possess the power to propose amendments to the Internal Revenue Code, which is a power that you and I also enjoy at the moment. And just like us, Clinton would not have the ability to enact her proposals into law by herself.

With that preface out of the way, I now turn to a dubious reply that this thread has attracted.

This is mostly to take more money out of the pockets of the 1% (and I doubt they would be on a site like this).

Not everybody is married, and, for an unmarried person, the threshold to attract the 33% marginal rate is only about $190,000 in taxable income. I can tell you that many members who frequent this site have income levels significantly in excess of that threshold (at least at the moment), and you could be one of them too if you wanted (if you aren't already). Putting aside the factual inaccuracy of your "top 1%" class warfare rhetoric, the fact of the matter is that "point-in-time income" has very little connection to socioeconomic class. Income is fleeting, and that applies with especial strength to higher levels of income. Applying additional taxes to people who earn more than $190,000 in taxable income in a taxable year will hit tons and tons of people who are not in the top 1% of wealth in the United States -- in fact, the vast majority of people affected will not be in the "top 1%" either by wealth or income.

A tax proposal could be narrowly targeted to affect only the "top 1%" by wealth, but this is not such a proposal. (And I express no view on the wisdom of such a proposal if one were to be advanced.)

I also note that the founder of this website has an income level that is actually in the top 1% by income (though he is probably not in the top 1% by wealth). If you intended to suggest that people who work hard and earn decent amounts of money are not welcome on this website, you would have to exclude MMM himself.

[aschmidt2930]

If either of those criteria apply to you, a limit on tax advantaged contributions isn't going to have a huge effect.

[Cathy]

If either of those criteria apply to you, a limit on tax advantaged contributions isn't going to have a huge effect.

This is the same consumerist thinking that keeps people poor and unable to retire by 30. I suggest you re-read this MMM classic: "A Millionaire is Made Ten Bucks at a Time". Every bit counts.

[MDM]

...(if I understand correctly) implies that tax-deferred contributions are capped at 28% of income along with many other important tax-advantaged items.

That's how I read what you quoted.  Could be the quote misstates what she actually intends, or it could be an "unintended consequence" brought on by forgetting that, for example, it's ok to put more than 10% of your salary into a 401k.

"Footnote 6: The 28 percent limit would apply to...employer-sponsored health insurance paid for...with before-tax employee dollars, health insurance costs of self-employed individuals, employee contributions to defined contribution retirement plans and IRAs, ..., contributions to health savings accounts...and interest on education loans."

Add those medical insurance costs, 401k, tIRA and HSA contributions, and student loan interest, and that could easily be more than 28% for many here.

[ooeei]

...(if I understand correctly) implies that tax-deferred contributions are capped at 28% of income along with many other important tax-advantaged items.

That's how I read what you quoted.  Could be the quote misstates what she actually intends, or it could be an "unintended consequence" brought on by forgetting that, for example, it's ok to put more than 10% of your salary into a 401k.

"Footnote 6: The 28 percent limit would apply to...employer-sponsored health insurance paid for...with before-tax employee dollars, health insurance costs of self-employed individuals, employee contributions to defined contribution retirement plans and IRAs, ..., contributions to health savings accounts...and interest on education loans."

Add those medical insurance costs, 401k, tIRA and HSA contributions, and student loan interest, and that could easily be more than 28% for many here.

I don't think that's what it means.  When you contribute to a 401k (or other tax deferred account) you get to avoid paying taxes on the amount you contribute.  If you're in the 15% tax bracket, you save 15% on the amount you contribute.  If you're in the 33% bracket, you save 33%. 

What this proposal is saying is the tax reduction is limited to the 28% bracket.  So if someone is in the 33% tax bracket, and contributes to a 401k, they only get to defer 28% of the amount on their taxes.  That means they still pay 5% in taxes on their 401k contributions.

Basically as of now, the higher your tax bracket, the more benefit a 401k gives you.  This would top out the benefit once you hit the 28% bracket.

[MDM]

I don't think that's what it means.

You may be correct.  I agree that it isn't clear.

When you contribute to a 401k (or other tax deferred account) you get to avoid paying taxes on the amount you contribute.  If you're in the 15% tax bracket, you save 15% on the amount you contribute.  If you're in the 33% bracket, you save 33%.

This isn't exactly true.  You avoid paying taxes at your Marginal tax rate, which may or may not be the same as your bracket.

What this proposal is saying is the tax reduction is limited to the 28% bracket.  So if someone is in the 33% tax bracket, and contributes to a 401k, they only get to defer 28% of the amount on their taxes.  That means they still pay 5% in taxes on their 401k contributions.
Basically as of now, the higher your tax bracket, the more benefit a 401k gives you.  This would top out the benefit once you hit the 28% bracket.

Maybe, maybe not.  Form 1040 would need significant alteration, because as things stand now your 401k contribution doesn't appear anywhere on that form.  It has already been subtracted from your gross income (along with HSA contributions, pre-tax commuter expenses, FSA contributions, etc.) and the net appears on Form W-2 and then line 7 of Form 1040. 

One plausible reading of the proposal would be that gross income, before any pre-tax deductions (e.g., before HSA, 401k, etc. are deducted) gets entered on Form 1040, and then your 401k, etc. deductions are limited to 28% of that amount.  E.g., for a person earning $50K, the most that could be contributed to all the above would be $14K.

[seattlecyclone]

Maybe, maybe not.  Form 1040 would need significant alteration, because as things stand now your 401k contribution doesn't appear anywhere on that form.  It has already been subtracted from your gross income (along with HSA contributions, pre-tax commuter expenses, FSA contributions, etc.) and the net appears on Form W-2 and then line 7 of Form 1040.

One way it could be implemented is just one line on Form 1040 for "Additional tax on payroll deductions" or some similar name. The Form 1040 instructions would then tell people to fill out new Form 9876 to compute this amount if their taxable income happens to be higher than the top of the 28% bracket for their filing status, and put down 0 otherwise.

[MDM]

One way it could be implemented is just one line on Form 1040 for "Additional tax on payroll deductions" or some similar name. The Form 1040 instructions would then tell people to fill out new Form 9876 to compute this amount if their taxable income happens to be higher than the top of the 28% bracket for their filing status, and put down 0 otherwise.

Possibly.

I finally read the linked article.  In it, one finds

The 28 percent limit on the value of certain deductions and exclusions would be another form of minimum tax on selected tax preferences.
Specifically, higher-income filers would need to compute their income tax liability with and without various excluded forms of income —
including the value of employer contributions to health insurance, contributions to retirement plans, and tax-exempt bond interest —
plus itemized deductions other than charitable contributions and certain other deductions added to taxable income.

If the difference is greater than 28 percent of the value of those items, they would add the difference to tax liability.

In other words, this would impose a 28% upper limit on marginal savings rates from those "various excluded forms of income."  That would affect more than those in the 33% bracket.  E.g., anyone nominally in the 25% bracket who is also in the child tax credit phaseout zone now gets a 30% marginal savings rate on 401k contributions.  Also, single people receiving social security can have marginal rates of 46% and, as written, this could affect them also.

There is a good chance that some of these things would be rewritten should this proposal move forward, but who knows...?

[CBnCO]

Sorry, it's election season and somebody needs to be political.

I think the entire tax code is a scam. Thousands of pages of exemptions and loopholes that are there to benefit the political donor class. We all know it could be much simpler; but, for some reason we let the scam persist. Bottom line is that we must start bringing in the amount we spend plus an excess to start paying down our accumulated national debt (just like any individual or family would do).

Why any politician would get one single vote without having a coherent plan to balance the budget and pay down the debt is beyond me. Could you imagine a MMM-like blog that told people to keep spending above their means and buying whatever the F&$% they wanted without worry by just getting more credit cards. Well that's the country we live in (for those in the U.S.)

What I want to know is how many MMM followers are planning to vote for a candidate who hasn't addressed fiscal responsibility with a specific plan? If so, what is the justification as it seems entirely inconsistent with the core set of values that exist here?

[Frugalman19]

Without reading through it too heavily this doesnt look like it will effect a 401(k) much. I think this is to attack the very complex define benefit plans that the wealth business owners are allowed to contribute to. My coworker makes very very good money and he has his own s-corp in which he contributes upwards of $250,000 per year tax deferred. The typical 401(k) participant is going to have a hard time getting to $3.4 million.

[Guses]

I think the capping of amount of room you can have in sheltered account is probably a prudent move.

Not everybody is married, and, for an unmarried person, the threshold to attract the 33% marginal rate is only about $190,000 in taxable income. I can tell you that many members who frequent this site have income levels significantly in excess of that threshold (at least at the moment), and you could be one of them too if you wanted (if you aren't already). Putting aside the factual inaccuracy of your "top 1%" class warfare rhetoric, the fact of the matter is that "point-in-time income" has very little connection to socioeconomic class. Income is fleeting, and that applies with especial strength to higher levels of income. Applying additional taxes to people who earn more than $190,000 in taxable income in a taxable year will hit tons and tons of people who are not in the top 1% of wealth in the United States -- in fact, the vast majority of people affected will not be in the "top 1%" either by wealth or income.

A tax proposal could be narrowly targeted to affect only the "top 1%" by wealth, but this is not such a proposal. (And I express no view on the wisdom of such a proposal if one were to be advanced.)

I also note that the founder of this website has an income level that is actually in the top 1% by income (though he is probably not in the top 1% by wealth). If you intended to suggest that people who work hard and earn decent amounts of money are not welcome on this website, you would have to exclude MMM himself.

This post belongs in the Antimustachian hall of shame.

"Whaaa whaaaaaa, I only have more than 190,000$ per year in income in the richest country in the world! Woe is me!"

I don't necessarily agree that more taxation is what we need but I don't feel one iota of pity in my cold heart for people earning many, many times the median income.

Applying additional taxes to people who earn more than $190,000 in taxable income in a taxable year will hit tons and tons of people who are not in the top 1%

Hum...What?! 190,000$ individual income represents the 98.3th percentile of income distribution in the US.

If you intended to suggest that people who work hard and earn decent amounts of money are not welcome on this website, you would have to exclude MMM himself.

It does not follow that disagreeing with a statement implies ostracizing those affected by the statement.

[Jack]

Bottom line is that we must start bringing in the amount we spend plus an excess to start paying down our accumulated national debt (just like any individual or family would do).

Why any politician would get one single vote without having a coherent plan to balance the budget and pay down the debt is beyond me. Could you imagine a MMM-like blog that told people to keep spending above their means and buying whatever the F&$% they wanted without worry by just getting more credit cards. Well that's the country we live in (for those in the U.S.)

What I want to know is how many MMM followers are planning to vote for a candidate who hasn't addressed fiscal responsibility with a specific plan? If so, what is the justification as it seems entirely inconsistent with the core set of values that exist here?

If you think the government should act "just like any individual or family" then you don't understand the difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics. Debt works differently when you control the money supply and have the power to tax.

[Cathy]

This post belongs in the Antimustachian hall of shame.

Maximising income is consistent with Mustachianism, not contrary to it. You and I have been over this in countless past threads already.

"Whaaa whaaaaaa, I only have more than 190,000$ per year in income in the richest country in the world! Woe is me!"

This is not an accurate paraphrase of what I said. I can almost guarantee that I am significantly more frugal than you and virtually everybody who frequents these forums, given that I try to avoid spending money at all. I have never once suggested that it is difficult to survive on $190,000, but you have a habit of acting as though I've said that.

If you intended to suggest that people who work hard and earn decent amounts of money are not welcome on this website, you would have to exclude MMM himself.

It does not follow that disagreeing with a statement implies ostracizing those affected by the statement.

Dude, this part of my post was a response to trek240 saying that "I doubt they would be on a site like this". It's true that trek240 only suggested that "they" are not here, not that they shouldn't be here, but if "they" are welcome here, there's no reason why they wouldn't be here (in fact, they actually are here, as I noted in my post), so by negative implication, it's unclear what trek240 was saying if not that this was not the right community for people earning relatively high income -- so that's the proposition that I responded to.

[FIPurpose]

I completely agree with capping retirement account contributions after you've hit a certain number. And ~$3 mil is enough for anyone just about anywhere in the country to live comfortably. And with a married couple ~$6mil is definitely more than anyone needs. Though it would be good to mandate an alternative to company 401k matches if you're not eligible to contribute. Something like a company stock match.

But really, the US government doesn't need to be funding the super luxurious retirement of the ultra wealthy. It's almost bad enough that their SS taxes don't even apply for over half their income.

[Guses]

Maximising income is consistent with Mustachianism, not contrary to it. You and I have been over this in countless past threads already.

Yeah, I know, but I just like discussing this with you. :)

ETA: The fastest way to financial independence is not increasing income, it's reducing expenses. You can easily retire right this moment if you reduce your expenses.

"Whaaa whaaaaaa, I only have more than 190,000$ per year in income in the richest country in the world! Woe is me!"

This is not an accurate paraphrase of what I said. I can almost guarantee that I am significantly more frugal than you and virtually everybody who frequents these forums, given that I try to avoid spending money at all. I have never once suggested that it is difficult to survive on $190,000, but you have a habit of acting as though I've said that.

Whether you are more frugal is irrelevant. Besides, everybody knows I am way more frugal than you. I forage for food and I haven't spent a red cent on personal items since 1994!!!!

Your have made many statements in this thread and others to the effect that 190,000$ per year is not a lot of money where in reality it is a MASSIVE amount.

I think my humorous paraphrasing does this justice.

If you intended to suggest that people who work hard and earn decent amounts of money are not welcome on this website, you would have to exclude MMM himself.

It does not follow that disagreeing with a statement implies ostracizing those affected by the statement.

Dude, this part of my post was a response to trek240 saying that "I doubt they would be on a site like this". It's true that trek240 only suggested that "they" are not here, not that they shouldn't be here, but if "they" are welcome here, there's no reason why they wouldn't be here (in fact, they actually are here, as I noted in my post), so by negative implication, it's unclear what trek240 was saying if not that this was not the right community for people earning relatively high income -- so that's the proposition that I responded to.

Did you just assume my gender?!

[FIPurpose]

If you intended to suggest that people who work hard and earn decent amounts of money are not welcome on this website, you would have to exclude MMM himself.

It does not follow that disagreeing with a statement implies ostracizing those affected by the statement.

Dude, this part of my post was a response to trek240 saying that "I doubt they would be on a site like this". It's true that trek240 only suggested that "they" are not here, not that they shouldn't be here, but if "they" are welcome here, there's no reason why they wouldn't be here (in fact, they actually are here, as I noted in my post), so by negative implication, it's unclear what trek240 was saying if not that this was not the right community for people earning relatively high income -- so that's the proposition that I responded to.

Did you just assume my gender?!

In the States, "Dude" is gender neutral.

[Jack]

ETA: The fastest way to financial independence is not increasing income, it's reducing expenses. You can easily retire right this moment if you reduce your expenses.

Technically, this is not always true: no amount of expense reduction (even to $0) would allow you to retire on a negative net worth.

However, under more reasonable assumptions, I agree.


I also agree that complaining about this (or similar) proposals is unjustified because anybody affected will have plenty of money (i.e., maybe not "1%" but at least much more than the median income and/or wealth) regardless. I hesitate to characterize Cathy's statements as "complaining," though, because of her habit of using weasel-words disclaiming the idea that her posts represent her actual opinion.

[Scandium]

If you intended to suggest that people who work hard and earn decent amounts of money are not welcome on this website, you would have to exclude MMM himself.

It does not follow that disagreeing with a statement implies ostracizing those affected by the statement.

Dude, this part of my post was a response to trek240 saying that "I doubt they would be on a site like this". It's true that trek240 only suggested that "they" are not here, not that they shouldn't be here, but if "they" are welcome here, there's no reason why they wouldn't be here (in fact, they actually are here, as I noted in my post), so by negative implication, it's unclear what trek240 was saying if not that this was not the right community for people earning relatively high income -- so that's the proposition that I responded to.

Did you just assume my gender?!

In the States, "Dude" is gender neutral.

Oh yeah? They why do we have the word "dudette"?!

[Jack]

Did you just assume my gender?!

In the States, "Dude" is gender neutral.

Oh yeah? They why do we have the word "dudette"?!

In English, the male gendered word is used either when the object being referenced is known to be male, or when its gender is unknown. (Or, said another way, you could say that the male and neuter words both separately exist, but normally happen to be identical.) The female gendered word is used only when the object being referenced is known to be female.

[Hotstreak]

The tax benefits of a 401k encourage people to save for retirement.  Having enough money to retire on helps keep you off assistance from the government, charity, and your family, reducing the burden you cause for society.  If someone has $3,000,000+ in their 401k they have enough money to retire comfortably and not live off assistance.  Since there is no additional benefit to society if they save more, there is no more need to encourage them to save.  It seems obvious that there should be a cap.

For the cap on deductions to 28%, the same reasoning applies.  Tax deductions for charity, home ownership, 401k, etc. encourages people to spend money on those things.  A 28% tax deduction should be enough encouragement to keep people paying mortgage interest and buying health insurance.

[Guses]

ETA: The fastest way to financial independence is not increasing income, it's reducing expenses. You can easily retire right this moment if you reduce your expenses.

Technically, this is not always true: no amount of expense reduction (even to $0) would allow you to retire on a negative net worth.

However, under more reasonable assumptions, I agree.

The pugnatious side in me would point out that having a negative net worth does not, in fact, stop you from retiring if your expenses are 0$.

Most debts are discharged in bankruptcy and those that aren't send you to debtor's prison (aka where they feed and house you for free).

:P

[Jack]

ETA: The fastest way to financial independence is not increasing income, it's reducing expenses. You can easily retire right this moment if you reduce your expenses.

Technically, this is not always true: no amount of expense reduction (even to $0) would allow you to retire on a negative net worth.

However, under more reasonable assumptions, I agree.

The pugnatious side in me would point out that having a negative net worth does not, in fact, stop you from retiring if your expenses are 0$.

Most debts are discharged in bankruptcy and those that aren't send you to debtor's prison (aka where they feed and house you for free).

:P

But if the debt is discharged, your net worth becomes exactly $0, not negative. Also, I'm less than convinced that being in prison counts as retirement!

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[GetItRight]

A liberal proposing higher taxes? No surprise there. At $3.4 mil it won't affect most, but taxation is theft no matter which way you slice it so add it to the list as to why not to vote for this Statist candidate.

[Cathy]

ETA: The fastest way to financial independence is not increasing income, it's reducing expenses. You can easily retire right this moment if you reduce your expenses.

Technically, this is not always true: no amount of expense reduction (even to $0) would allow you to retire on a negative net worth.

However, under more reasonable assumptions, I agree.

Under "more reasonable assumptions", increasing income will lead to retirement faster than decreasing expenses, because under "more reasonable assumptions" (including an assumption that a person will be spending more than zero dollars in retirement), decreasing expenses may already be impossible.

An example set of "more reasonable assumptions" might be a person just starting at age 18 with a net worth of zero and a salary of $20,000 per year (net of tax), and who currently spends and plans to retire spending $10,000 per year. If the person refrains from increasing income, and assuming they keep their money in cash and plan to retire when they hit $250,000 (25 times their expenses), they can retire after 25 years of work. By contrast, if they simply increase their income to $260,000 (net of tax), then they can retire in 1 year of work. This is nothing new though; I've explained this in countless posts and we are all well aware of it.

In order for decreasing expenses to lead to a faster retirement time, there has to be room for decrease. As I've pointed out myself, it's possible to get expenses pretty low and retire on a relatively small sum, but if you plan to do anything at all in your retirement, you are likely going to need some money, and, therefore, increasing income is going to enable you to reach retirement faster, whereas decreasing expenses can't help if you are already spending the minimum (which is a reasonable assumption for a Mustachian).

Dude, ...

Did you just assume my gender?!

Your other points are without merit, but here you raise a fair complaint.

As you know, I didn't actually make an assumption about your gender; rather, I was using "dude" in a gender-neutral sense to mean something to the effect of "you can't be serious", but, as you point out, that was actually problematic of me, because notwithstanding common usage, the term "dude" clearly has a masculine origin. It is at least arguably kyriarchal to subsume the feminine into the masculine in the English language. As Jack points out, this tradition has a long history, but sexism also has a long history so that isn't much of a defence. I retract my use of "dude".

[libertarian4321]

Reading about both candidate's tax proposals, I found out that Secretary Clinton has tucked away in her plan the following

Hillary SUCKS BALLS (and I'm being gentle here).  She's a typical tax and spend liberal, who wants to punish achievement and reward failure.  She will screw over anyone who has worked hard, saved, and managed to achieve wealth.

In other words, in that respect, she's a typical Democrat.

She's also corrupt as the day is long, and has notoriously poor judgment.

That said, Trump is BAT SHIT CRAZY.  The guy scares the Hell out of me.  Who knows what that crazy, egotistical, narcissistic bastard might do as President?

I despise Hillary Clinton.  I despise her politics and find her to be a corrupt and vile human being.  I wouldn't trust her to walk my dog.  I think she'd make a bloody awful President.  Easily the worst in my lifetime (going back to Kennedy).

That said, Trump might be worse.  I really don't know what that clown is capable of.

As an investor, I think Hillary, despicable as she is, is the "lesser evil."  She's bought and paid for by Wall Street.  She will don nothing to upset the apple cart.

The choices offered to us by the major parties are nothing short of a national embarrassment.

Thank GOD I don't have to choose between those two a$$hats.  Libertarian Governor Gary Johnson will be on the ballot in all 50 states, and will get my money and my vote.

I will vote for Libertarian Gary Johnson proudly and with a clear conscience!

(BTW, I suspect this thing is over.  Trump is dead meat.  He has essentially no chance of winning.)

I'll leave the rest of you to choose between Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dumber.

[Jack]

Hillary SUCKS BALLS (and I'm being gentle here).

She's married to Bill Clinton, so that should have been obvious.

[Guses]

Under "more reasonable assumptions", increasing income will lead to retirement faster than decreasing expenses, because under "more reasonable assumptions" (including an assumption that a person will be spending more than zero dollars in retirement), decreasing expenses may already be impossible.

Impossible?! Preposterous! You are claiming to spend 0$ on food in the "how much do you spend on grocery" thread. Why would spending nothing or a very small amount be impossible? If you are resourceful, nothing is impossible.

An example set of "more reasonable assumptions" might be a person just starting at age 18 with a net worth of zero and a salary of $20,000 per year (net of tax), and who currently spends and plans to retire spending $10,000 per year. If the person refrains from increasing income, and assuming they keep their money in cash and plan to retire when they hit $250,000 (25 times their expenses), they can retire after 25 years of work. By contrast, if they simply increase their income to $260,000 (net of tax), then they can retire in 1 year of work. This is nothing new though; I've explained this in countless posts and we are all well aware of it.

I think it's as unreasonable (or as reasonable if we want to go there) to expect someone currently earning 20,000$ per year at 18 (presumably without a degree or skills) to earn 260,000$ after taxes the following year, as it is for that same person to cut their spending by a factor of 13. A more reasonable scenario is a 30 something years old earning 60-90K year and spending 30-90K.

In order for decreasing expenses to lead to a faster retirement time, there has to be room for decrease. As I've pointed out myself, it's possible to get expenses pretty low and retire on a relatively small sum, but if you plan to do anything at all in your retirement, you are likely going to need some money, and, therefore, increasing income is going to enable you to reach retirement faster, whereas decreasing expenses can't help if you are already spending the minimum (which is a reasonable assumption for a Mustachian).

I don't agree that a set "minimum" in how much you can spend, much like there is not a ceiling on how much you can earn.

Is it harder to earn more or spend less? Depends on the circumstances and the individual.

I retract my use of "dude".

Thank you deeply.

[BoonDogle]

Reading about both candidate's tax proposals, I found out that Secretary Clinton has tucked away in her plan the following

Hillary SUCKS BALLS (and I'm being gentle here).  She's a typical tax and spend liberal, who wants to punish achievement and reward failure.  She will screw over anyone who has worked hard, saved, and managed to achieve wealth.

In other words, in that respect, she's a typical Democrat.

She's also corrupt as the day is long, and has notoriously poor judgment.

That said, Trump is BAT SHIT CRAZY.  The guy scares the Hell out of me.  Who knows what that crazy, egotistical, narcissistic bastard might do as President?

I despise Hillary Clinton.  I despise her politics and find her to be a corrupt and vile human being.  I wouldn't trust her to walk my dog.  I think she'd make a bloody awful President.  Easily the worst in my lifetime (going back to Kennedy).

That said, Trump might be worse.  I really don't know what that clown is capable of.

As an investor, I think Hillary, despicable as she is, is the "lesser evil."  She's bought and paid for by Wall Street.  She will don nothing to upset the apple cart.

The choices offered to us by the major parties are nothing short of a national embarrassment.

Thank GOD I don't have to choose between those two a$$hats.  Libertarian Governor Gary Johnson will be on the ballot in all 50 states, and will get my money and my vote.

I will vote for Libertarian Gary Johnson proudly and with a clear conscience!

(BTW, I suspect this thing is over.  Trump is dead meat.  He has essentially no chance of winning.)

I'll leave the rest of you to choose between Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dumber.

Libertarian man, we can always count on you to jump in and start throwing grenades.  That said, I couldn't have said it better myself!