Slashdot Mirror

>> Actually, because that million is earning interest while you are drawing down on it, even at 5%API, you should be able to draw around $80K/yr for 20 years

Most advisors recommend calculating return at 4% (not that you can get that today in CDs)...and trying to avoid completely eroding the principal in twenty years. By the time you get through that math, you end up with the popular "rule-of-twenty". E.g.,
http://www.getrichslowly.org/b...
http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/2...

but the tax preparer doesn't contribute as much and hence, the rich tend to pay less in tax preparation as well as in taxes.

Seriously?
Somehow, lowering the tax bracket (which they were already avoiding completely according to you) lowers the price of tax preparation advisers' services or the time it takes them to do their job?

1 - lowering the tax bracket would actually make their services more expensive.
Getting 20% off on your taxes from 90% is only 70%, but a same cut from 70% means you're now paying ONLY half.
Which makes the tax cuts more valuable the lower you cut them.
You could have just thought about it for a few minutes and get this far.

Or if that's confusing, take 20% off of different tax brackets and watch as the difference goes down - you get less and less for the same cut the lower you go.
I.e. the price of a tax percentage goes up.
Not that any of it matters.

2 - being motivated by the need to pay less, they are naturally aiming at 0% tax or as close to it as possible.
As such, any cut is not enough and tax prep advisers are hired regardless of the height of taxes.
Not that any of that matters either.

3 - being needed regardless of the current tax bracket, tax prep advisers have no reason to lower the price of their services.
You wanna keep your millions, give them thousands. Only thing that matters in lowering their prices is competition.

4 - prices of tax prep advisers are peanuts compared to actual taxes.

And last but not least...
5 - full price of services is based on the input and complexity of one's tax situation.
It's NOT about the current maximum tax bracket, but about HOW MUCH IS there to be TAXED.

Having more stuff means you have more stuff to pay taxes on. Paying less taxes means you get to have more stuff... etc. etc.

http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2008/09/23/research-reveals-credit-cards-encourage-spending/ Good information. I like the part where McDonalds customers started spending dramatically more when they started accepting CC's. People weren't getting hungrier, they were using plastic instead of cash. ...OH, and you aren't getting ahead when you try to take advantage of companies with "same as cash" deals either (this one is easily researched...understand that when you come in WITH CASH, you get discounts right up front because you can now barter a better deal).

It can be cheaper to buy outright, depending on the carrier and plans. For example: http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2011/08/02/how-to-save-on-your-cell-phone-plan-with-secret-no-contract-deals/

(note that I'm not American, so I don't know much about T-Mobile, but I came across that article recently and thought it might help)

I hit reply when I meant to hit preview.

While 2.2% of all hourly workers earn minimum wage or less, just 1.4% of workers over the age of 25 are paid at or below the Federal minimum wage. http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2007/10/09/who-earns-the-minimum-wage/

I assert the minimum wage is the target of ideologues and not a real factor in the economy, nor a factor in how many jobs there are. It is there to prevent a life akin to slavery, not to artificially inflate wages.

Think back a little further--the post that makes you so mad isn't talking about 2009. It describes when income tax, medicare, and social security were founded--long before Obama or Bush.

With income tax, when the 16th amendment was passed in 1913, it was sold as a tax on the rich. If you made $100,000 in 1913 you were mighty wealthy:

http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2007/02/05/original-income-tax-form-from-1913/

I presume the post is also talking about Medicare's original passage in 1965. And if you don't understand the profound mission creep social security numbers have endured, then you must be very new to /. and the entire IT world.

If only people like you would occasionally shut off your outrage generators--and recognize that not everything is about modern partisanship.

I see this point, which is why I prefixed my post with "While I appreciate your point ... "

But when a new user asks for advice, I prefer to ask them a few questions and tell them about a single, specific distribution, even a specific version. When I don't know anything about the user except that he is a newbie, I advice to use the most popular. Telling them that use what YOU like, breeds confusion. And, perfect is the enemy of the good enough, paradox of choice:
http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2007/04/23/the-perfect-is-the-enemy-of-the-good/
http://tedblog.typepad.com/tedblog/2006/09/paradox_of_choi.html

However, in mine, nobody says you have to try Ubuntu or FlavorX

Then, the users do not switch at all. Because they are presented with so much choice, they take no action at all. Do read and watch the links I have posted above. This is not a joke.

I also debate your assumption that somebody who tries several distros is not a "new user."

If you read my post more carefully, I had mentioned that "trying" is quite an involved activity when you want to figure out a good linux distribution for yourself. I.e., you have to "spend a few release cycles with it". Trying, in that sense, a single distribution takes about a year or more of complete usage, upgradation/migration to new version when it comes out, reconfiguring the new version to suit your own needs, testing new features of this version and taking advantage of them if possible. If trying be defined thus, I maintain that the user is no more a "new user" by the time he has tried more than one distribution. You have introduced the phrase "seasoned veteran" here, which I didn't use and I see this as an attempt to beat a strawman.

you can determine if you like or do not like a distro. When you have "Why won't it do XYZ with my monitor?" or "How come I can't use my 7th mouse button?"

No linux distribution tests its releases on all possible hardware. So these observations will vary release-by-release. Would you suggest them to switch distros every release?

A distro is a dynamic thing. When you choose a distro, you don't just choose a few working features over a few non-working features and work-out a compromise between them. You choose a philosophy, a work ethic the distro maintainers will stick to etc. One release which does not work well with some particular hardware of yours is not a good reason to switch distros: you always have the choice to not upgrade and wait for another release. Long support cycles, live CD/USB come handy in doing this.

Ok, but the parent does have a point. 30 year ago, people dreamed of having their own car. Now they dream of having 2 luxury cars and a monster SUV for when there's 1/2 inch of snow on the ground. And of course you have 3 garages for those cars.

See also a recent post from "Get Rich Slowly": http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2008/08/25/the-psychology-of-happiness-13-steps-to-a-better-life/

Specifically the quote from the Washington Times article:

Easterlin attributes the phenomenon of happiness levels not keeping pace with economic gains to the fact that people's desires and expectations change along with their material fortunes. Where an American in 1970 may have once dreamed about owning a house, he or she might now dream of owning two. Where people once dreamed of buying a new car, they now dream of buying a luxury model.

"People are wedded to the idea that more money will bring them more happiness," Easterlin said. "When they think of the effects of more money, they are failing to factor in the fact that when they get more money they are going to want even more money. When they get more money, they are going to want a bigger house. They never have enough money...

Is it really that people don't have enough money for retirement, or do people simply have greater expectations for what retirement life is like? I'm paying into social security to help retirees subsist, not travel and play golf. Is there a health care system problem? Yes, absolutely. But that is not the whole picture. I don't think it's as simple as that. No one wants to turn 62 1/2 and have to seriously change their lifestyle for the "worse".

I love David Allen's GTD, and I've a few productivity RSS feeds that I follow;
David Allen Co.'s official RSS feed has a lot of interesting GTD-centric tips.
43Folders is Merlin Mann's productivity feed with a little more unrelated noise.
Lifehacker has a lot of productivity tips, but again, more noise. On the other hand, Lifehacker is also a lot more down to earth.
Get Rich Slowly isn't directly productivity--related, but it's a good reminder to mind your finances.

(I've linked to the sites and not the feeds so that new readers can get a glimpse of the content before choosing whether or not to grab the RSS feed)

The unemployment rate itself means nothing if the income is not stated for the employment.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2006- 02-23-fed-incomes_x.htm

The statements about the stock market are meaningless without knowing where the indexes come from, how they are derived, and most importantly: using multiple specific indexes centered around economic health stock indicators.
http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2007/04/13/savin g-and-investing-what-is-a-stock-market-index/

Gas prices are around $3.20/Gal here and have been going up. It is getting to the point that it is no longer news worthy to report on the astronomic gas prices because they are becomming a standard. With the major gas companies all reporting record profits and bonuses for the upper management, there is a disconnect between the welfare of the people and the inherrant corporate goals of making a profit for such a vital infrastructure as gasoline. I hope I'm not alone in thinking that some services should be regulated by the government. If only to limit the maximum percentage of personal profit from sales of a vital infrastructure.

If we don't need to push alternative fuel souorces right now with aggressive legislation, then we should have the resources to keep our country running without sending additional billions overseas for oil. Paying the areas of the world that supposedly harbor terrorists. They have an economy just like ours, if there is an influx of money in a region then they prosper. "Trickle down" to the enemy is a bad way to support our troops. This government has reversed and hobbled legislation that could have kept us in the front running technology to become independant. No specific technology will help us now. It must be a multifacited environmental/political/economic push to be better at providing and distributing what we consume. Trash, electricity, and commuting fuel all need to be addressed a whole lot better than they are now. The political grandstanding and photo ops don't cut it. Real action and real commitment from the people in charge (automakers and elected officials) will keep this country a world power, or let it fall into mockery on the world stage, their actions will lead us, and we are responsible for our complicity.