<beliavsky[at]aol.com> wrote
- quote -

I seriously doubt all sober budget analysts from both
parties say this. Lower taxes on the lower income also can
have the effect of increasing their income and so their
spending, pushing up company earnings. Kick in that a more
universal health care plan overall may cost everyone less,
and things are not as gloomy as this obvioiusly politically
biased article suggests.

So one should not count on higher taxes ruining one's
personal financial plan.

Here is a depressing article about how taxes are likely to rise a lot.

2020 Vision: Prepare yourself: No matter what the politicians promise,
long term, the government is going to grab more of your money.
Forbes
October 29, 2008
by Janet Novack
http://www.forbes.com/home/forbes/2008/1117/064.html

If you make more than $250,000 you are perhaps fretting about how much
the bailout and the fiscal stimulus will cost and how much you will
pay for them. Tune out these dark thoughts. There is something much
bigger to think about: the rising cost of government over the next 15
years. This should be on the minds not just of the upper class, who
already pay half of the income tax, but of the vast middle class. If
we define the larger group as those in families with incomes between
$25,000 and $250,000, we're talking about three-fourths of the
country. The government is destined to extract a pound of flesh from
the middle class because this is where the money is; there simply
aren't enough millionaires around to pay for everything. The pain will
take the form of both taxation and broken promises.

Here's what sober budget analysts (from both parties) see when they
focus on 2020 and beyond: The well-off will pay higher federal taxes,
for sure. But ordinary folks will pay more, too. They will pay as tax
burdens diffuse into the costs of things they buy. They will likely
pay more for fuel and electricity, as the costs of carbon permits and
renewable-fuels mandates get built in. They may be asked to pay a
European-style value-added tax. And they will pay on the other side of
the ledger: Their retirement benefits will get clipped.

The federal government will get bigger, but not big enough to keep all
the promises Washington has made. So the normal age to receive Social
Security retirement benefits, already rising in steps to 67 for those
born in 1960 or later, will increase further, perhaps to 69. High
earners will pay more in and get less back in retirement. Call it a
"tax" or call it "means testing"—it's government, and it will make you
poorer.

Meanwhile, the need to contain Medicare costs and to cover the
uninsured will also result in the better-off paying more, either
through taxes, insurance premiums or both. "Whether we call it
premiums or whether we call it taxes, it's going to be income
related," says John Rother, executive vice president of policy and
strategy for the AARP, the 40-million-member old folks' lobby.

[...]

Your taxes are going up, your benefits down. There's nothing to do but
save more, spend less and work longer. You're already doing this to
put your kids through college. Now you'll be doing it to pay for your
own bacon.

************************************************** **********************************************

I disagree with the final paragraph. If taxes, both explicit and
implicit (through means-testing) rise too high, it may be rational for
many people to work less, save less, enjoy their money, and just
accept that they will poor in old age.

I think that as the Federal Government becomes primarily a dispenser
of handouts to individuals rather than a means of providing public
goods such as national defense, "tax evasion" on the part of people
who are already paying more than their fair share will no longer be
unethical. The argument that the people are taxing themselves through
their elected representatives breaks down when a small fraction of the
populations is paying the bulk of the taxes, and many voter are not
paying any taxes.

This is no surprise to boomers.
ANyone who has been investing since the 70s and 80s has
seen income and gain tax rates yo-yo a few times.
Some pundits advocate "tax diversification" that is
investing in different taxable instruments to
antiicipate change.

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

To correct a typo - 95% of Venezuela's economy was oil, not 05%.
Ninety-five percent, not five percent.

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

On Oct 23, 2:16*pm, Igor Chudov <ichu...[at]algebra.com> wrote:
- quote -


The populist movement began in the late 1970's with Carlos Andres
Perez' call to nationalize oil, and stop the Americans from stealing
Venezuela's non-renewable natural resources, "the nation's legacy to
our children". Prior to that nationalization, the Bolivar (pronounced
Boe-lee-var, with accent on 'lee'), was Bs.4.5 to the dollar. A true
middle class was forming at that time, with condos and rental high-
rises being built for young Venezuelans (not just for the wealthy
foreigners and rich nationals).

Following the nationalization, productivity took a nose-dive (05% of
the economy was oil). Industry supported by oil scaled back as well.
American's and their work-ethic management know-how exited. The
emergence of the middle class was snipped off at the bud, and the
Bolivar began its long slide to the current what? Bs. 700 to the $US?
The price of a cup of coffee went from Bs.0.50 to Bs.1,500 - and the
price of rice, milk, and beans followed. Chavez was merely the latest,
living conditions have deteriorated the most under his reign, and he
is still attempting to conolidate the death-grip on the economy and
the people.

Be careful who you decide to make fun of. That I know of, no one here
posts irresponsibly without some firm knowledge to back up their
opinions.

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

On 2008-10-23, dapperdobbs <GeorgeCFL[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
- quote -

I am not quite sure where you get your facts (maybe Fox News?)

Venezuelan bolivar's exchange rate to dollar has been relatively
stable, certainly not collapsing:

http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/co...VEB&amt=1&t=5y

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...s/ve.html#Econ

- 37% below poverty line

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/A...la-INCOME.html
It was estimated that in 1997 about 67% of the population had incomes
below the poverty line.

Probably, a large role in their relative prosperity is oil prices,
but badmouthing Venezuela would be better done with actual facts.

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

On Oct 22, 11:28*am, Ron Peterson <r...[at]shell.core.com> wrote:
- quote -

I believe the point is that the only person in the wide universe
capable of making your life fair to you is: you. And almost all of us
have less than perfect lives. (Thus, the wisdom of the kind moderators
of this forum who advocate personal miscellaneous financial
planning :-)

Otherwise ... I can plan your finances for you!! :-} Just send me a
check, Box XXX, Charter Bank Hedge Fund, Belize, Central America.
Trust me!

Perverted human psychology of "fairness" was seen in the USSR - the
property excesses of the rich were seized (and that did not solve "the
problem"). Then the property excesses of the well-to-do were seized,
then the property excesses of the upper-middle class were seized. And
then, the trap was sprung - the middle and lower-middle class were
expropriated. Finally, the poor lost everything to the State. Only
when there were no property excesses did the system collapse.

Beware the government man bearing gifts. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela
promised the poor refrigerators and houses. One such Chavez voter, an
elderly woman living in one of the shanty-towns that still surround
the capital city (as they have since the 1940's), said
(approximately), "No, I don't have my refrigerator yet, and I still
live on a dirt floor, but I still have faith! I am still going to wait
for my refrigerator!" In the meantime, the currency has collapsed,
people are shooting each other for cars, and neighborhoods are self-
policed with barbed-wire barricades.

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

"Ron Peterson" <ron[at]shell.core.com> wrote in message
news:a317b220-2003-446a-af94-4fcdac251323[at]64g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
- quote -

I think he made his point rather clear.

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

On Oct 22, 10:13*am, beliav...[at]aol.com wrote:
- quote -

So, what is your point?

--
Ron

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

As the article explains, the inexorable logic of "tax the rich" is to
extend the definition of "rich" to lower and lower incomes.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463231048556587.html
Obama and the Tax Tipping Point
by Adam Lerrick
Wall Street Journal
October 22, 2008
What happens when the voter in the exact middle of the earnings
spectrum receives more in benefits from Washington than he pays in
taxes? Economists Allan Meltzer and Scott Richard posed this question
27 years ago. We may soon enough know the answer.

Barack Obama is offering voters strong incentives to support higher
taxes and bigger government. This could be the magic income-
redistribution formula Democrats have long sought.

Sen. Obama is promising $500 and $1,000 gift-wrapped packets of money
in the form of refundable tax credits. These will shift the tax
demographics to the tipping point where half of all voters will
receive a cash windfall from Washington and an overwhelming majority
will gain from tax hikes and more government spending.

In 2006, the latest year for which we have Census data, 220 million
Americans were eligible to vote and 89 million -- 40% -- paid no
income taxes. According to the Tax Policy Center (a joint venture of
the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute), this will jump to
49% when Mr. Obama's cash credits remove 18 million more voters from
the tax rolls. What's more, there are an additional 24 million
taxpayers (11% of the electorate) who will pay a minimal amount of
income taxes -- less than 5% of their income and less than $1,000
annually.

In all, three out of every five voters will pay little or nothing in
income taxes under Mr. Obama's plans and gain when taxes rise on the
40% that already pays 95% of income tax revenues.

The plunder that the Democrats plan to extract from the "very rich" --
the 5% that earn more than $250,000 and who already pay 60% of the
federal income tax bill -- will never stretch to cover the expansive
programs Mr. Obama promises.

What next? A core group of Obama enthusiasts -- those educated
professionals who applaud the "fairness" of their candidate's tax
plans -- will soon see their $100,000-$150,000 incomes targeted. As
entitlements expand and a self-interested majority votes, the higher
tax brackets will kick in at lower levels down the ladder, all the way
to households with a $75,000 income.

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.