Anybody watch state of the union?

[brsnow]

millennials have saved more thus far than any other previous generations.

 

[HuntHarder]

At 2000 a year it will take 57 years. So if you retire at 75 then yes you’ll have a million dollars. Which in 57 years won’t be worth nearly as much.

I used 7% return. Retire at 65. That is 5% of your income if you made 40k a year from 18 years old until you are 65. Lots of assumptions there of course, but just a sample of how easy it is to save and have your money grow. If you lived on 40k a year for that long, you lived a TERRIBLE life. Struggled your whole entire life, but atleast you got some $$ when you retire. I am simply saying, starting early in life is the KEY. This helps avoid, the tough task for most, of saving 20k a year when you are 30-40 years old.

 

[5MilesBack]

Lets just say the average household does nothing for fun...just the basics, and we'll use the median household income for the example.

Lets see the math you use to pencil out how in the $#ck someone making that money can save nearly 1/3rd of their pre tax income for retirement, while paying taxes, ss, etc. and basic living expenses from what's left.

Good luck with your argument.

You ready for this? Here you go........

You're saying that $63k is the mean average income? OK, our income is barely just above that mean average, yet we both contribute the max $7k a year each to roth IRA's, have two kids in college and one still at home. We tithe 10% on that income and give even more to missions, in fact we're even able to itemize this year even with the $24k+ standard deduction. Yet we still invest even beyond retirement funds. We have a nice home in a nice neighborhood and we just refinanced at 2.5% for 15 years. That's the only debt we have, and we have over 60% equity in our home. We have five vehicles (more than we actually "need"). We never "lack" for anything we need......of course God promises that he will provide "all our NEEDS". That's the first step.......give God his share.......he demands the first fruits (i.e. 10%). It's all HIS, but he allows us to keep 90%, and blesses us through that. It never makes any financial spreadsheet sense, but we always come out ahead in the end. The more we give, the more that comes back to us.

Probably not what you wanted to hear, but it works.

Even our two kids in college that both work, they've both already started Roth IRA's (as everyone should) and contribute every month. It doesn't have to be $19k, but it does have to be something. I use a flip phone and my newest vehicle is 20 years old. That right there allows me to put away several hundred dollars every month.

 

[tdhanses]

Right...it is simple math. What isn't simple is when you're 18 years old finding a way to pay for college, eat, keep a jalopy of a vehicle running, and having a place to live...AND putting 2k away for retirement.

Ask me how I know...and yes, my wife and I are very fortunate to have both put ourselves through college over 25 years ago when it was actually affordable, land good professional jobs, and smart enough to save and make great investments.

I'm just not callous enough to believe everyone is in my situation and that we cant, as a country, do better for everyone, including those that aren't as fortunate.

I'm also not callous enough to claim that those without an education and have lowering payings jobs, that don't make enough to put money into retirement accounts are a bunch of drunks, yapping on the latest cell phone, wearing Gucci jeans, smoking cigarettes, while rolling through town in an escalade....

Well I did it and had zero help from my poor parents, it’s all in the choices you make. Yup I had to take out debt to do it but that debt was an investment in myself and paid off. I’ve been saving since I was 10 working on my relatives farms, worked a full time job while in college and made it work, graduated early from college because I didn’t party and took the max number of classes because at a certain point it didn’t cost more to take more, I didn’t complain that the rich kids were lucky their parents paid their way and I busted my butt.

 

[MattB]

New businesses in other states would be able to replace some businesses that are headquartered in CA, mainly tech jobs, which would reduce the hit to GDP. The revenue or GDP % CA earns can be shifted into other states as it related to interstate and global commerce as they are not creating all that $$ or their portion of the GDP within their borders from industries only within CA and only from CA resident to CA business,they need customers to earn that cash which is where interstate commerce comes into play. I get they are a major port state, which adds to its value unless we change to say WA. Wonder what our federal costs of funding CA are compared to most states, yes this doesn’t relate directly to GDP but does towards deficit spending, I would assume they get a substantial amount of federal dollars back as well.

So guess what I’m saying is new businesses/opportunities would develop and could replace the businesses within CA currently, the GDP hit wouldn’t be a 1/7th reduction as it would shift once business wasn’t done with CA. CA businesses make tons of money from services provided to the rest of the country, that could shift to other states. Also I’m sure many companies would leave CA to remain in the US.

All that said to say we would adjust and survive it just fine, CA isn’t the glue holding our country together.

It doesn't work that way. Existing tech companies have already built a moat through IP patent protection. You can't just create new companies doing essentially the same thing out of thin air.

Not to mention the US has done a really poor job in preparing its populous for the proliferation of tech jobs, hence the heavy reliance on the H1-B visa program for engineering talent. I doubt the folks who smile at the notion of jettisoning California would get comfortable with the massive influx of foreign workers who would be taking these newly created high income jobs required to kick-start the sort of effort you are suggesting.

You also cannot replicate CA's climate, so say goodbye to a very large % of the domestically produced tree nuts, tree fruits, and row crops. But I am sure that shifting the reliance of a significant % the country's food supply to other countries would be worth it.

 

[Shrek]

I know it’s hard for bleeding hearts to see but smart hard work and discipline pays off and stupid hurts. It did in the past , it does in the present , and will in the future.
My sons mother and I have never been wealthy. A truck driver and a bank clerk. Our son graduated from college a little under three years ago with $5200 in debt. He worked 30 hours a week , got good grades in major that would pay , and graduated on time. He’s paid off all his debt and is saving 1/3rd of his take home pay. He works hard and smart. He lives frugally , has lots of cheap fun , and has a plan to retire by 50. If you want it in America you can do it. If your goal is to chase instant gratification , drugs , and loose women it’s going to hurt. It should ! I have no sympathy for myself or anyone else for the bad decisions.
Kids can’t save on X income...BS !

 

[tdhanses]

It doesn't work that way. Existing tech companies have already built a moat through IP patent protection. You can't just create new companies doing essentially the same thing out of thin air.

Not to mention the US has done a really poor job in preparing it populous for the proliferation of tech jobs, hence the heavy reliance on the H1-B visa program for engineering talent. I doubt the folks who smile at the notion of jettisoning California would get comfortable with the massive influx of foreign workers who would be taking these newly created high income jobs required to kick-start the sort of effort you are suggesting.

You also cannot replicate CA's climate, so say goodbye to a very large % of the domestically produced tree nuts, tree fruits, and row crops. But I am sure that shifting the reliance of a significant % the country's food supply to other countries would be worth it.

Yes but nothing says those companies have to stay in CA, many companies have an HQ in various countries etc. We are seeing new small tech companies pop up all over the country in the last 5 years, not just CA. Again, the CA companies only make money because they have customers outside CA, if that went away where do they make their money? Also most of the CA companies that are large would create an operation in the US, we’d still get our GDP from that and tax revenue, doubt many wouldn’t bring their profits back to the CA operations as the taxation would inhibit this. There always a way to make it work.

Also you can have new companies use patents, royalties are all that’s required.

Where will CA get it’s water from? Last I checked CA had a major shortage and that they get their main fresh water sources from other states.

All I’m saying is CA is replaceable, it isn’t as high and mighty as it thinks, other areas can become major areas of commerce.

Also CA would export goods (crops) and still make money, it will have to, so it’s not like a trade deal wouldn’t happen. But they just can keep their goofy ideal separate.

 

[realunlucky]

There's so much bullshit building on this thread it's awesome.

We need more personal experiences on why everyone is so above the average American. No wonder you relate to a above average president. Let's all twit about it.

I don't make my 10 year old start saving for college and still believe it should be affordable in another 10 years for him. Am I bleeding heart?

I don't honestly believe ANYONE that is middle class saves 33% of thier take home pay that's just a ridiculous assumption for me.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[tdhanses]

There's so much bullshit building on this thread it's awesome.

We need more personal experiences on why everyone is so above the average American. No wonder you relate to a above average president. Let's all twit about it.

I don't make my 10 year old start saving for college and still believe it should be affordable in another 10 years for him. Am I bleeding heart?

I don't honestly believe ANYONE that is middle class saves 33% of thier take home pay that's just a ridiculous assumption for me.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

Only Buzz had that high of a savings rate, but there‘s no reason anyone can’t save something and keep increasing that, especially if they start young.

I save for my kids college as well, fully knowing the states will keep allowing the increasing of tuition to pay for all the over priced professors, R&D programs and new campus improvements. The university tuition problem is on the states, take away the funding until a reasonable rate is charged for a good education not a crap one. Don’t forget these are all mainly state universities that get tons of state funding.

Truthfully 10 to 15 years from now the trades is where the money will be, we are losing these people left and right and it’s sad how some think this is beneath them. Most plumbers in a populated area make a great living and had zero debt taken to learn their skill.

 

[EastMT]

I know it’s hard for bleeding hearts to see but smart hard work and discipline pays off and stupid hurts. It did in the past , it does in the present , and will in the future.
My sons mother and I have never been wealthy. A truck driver and a bank clerk. Our son graduated from college a little under three years ago with $5200 in debt. He worked 30 hours a week , got good grades in major that would pay , and graduated on time. He’s paid off all his debt and is saving 1/3rd of his take home pay. He works hard and smart. He lives frugally , has lots of cheap fun , and has a plan to retire by 50. If you want it in America you can do it. If your goal is to chase instant gratification , drugs , and loose women it’s going to hurt. It should ! I have no sympathy for myself or anyone else for the bad decisions.
Kids can’t save on X income...BS !

Yes sir, the middle class of America is capable of way more than they believe. I’m a strict follower of the Dave Ramsey plan. I’m 42, debt free except the house. I have a 2014 2500HD I saved and paid cash for 4 years ago while driving a 1992 F250 junker for years. Bought the wife a 2014 RAV4 with cash while driving an old 2005 $2500 Buick for 5 years saving up cash.

Most people are broke (as I was buying new trucks every few years) because their household income is $100k, have $100k in vehicle and toy payments, on top of Credit cards, student loans, expensive houses, etc. I should get another 150-200k miles out of my truck, hopefully 10 years. That’s 10 years without a $500 truck payment on top of 4 years until now so $84,000 in payments if I kept upgrading and staying in payments. That’s a whole lot of hunting and family trips I can enjoy with no guilt.

The house should be paid for in 7 years. It’s tough and takes some serious sacrifice to get to that point, man I cussed that old truck a lot, some hunts I wanted to do I just couldn’t go because it started hard in cold weather and likely end up stranded.

It sounds hard but once you get in the groove with a strict budget, it gets easier with a change of habits. Hell I even used a cheap beat up eberlestock for years(talk about sacrifice!)

One restaurant per week max, used production guns, used scopes, used spotters, used packs.

Dave Ramsey has about 11,000 free podcasts, I encourage anyone who wants to be debt free and work your way out of a hole to listen. Hearing other success stories and the holes people get them selves into is a huge motivator! It’s hard to get started, but there is no feeling like getting a check and you have to decide what to do with it because there’s no place it has to go!

 

[MattB]

One? Here you go. I’m sure this is just “fake news” right?
BTW I never said “rich.” I said corporate America.

Just because your taxes went down doesn’t mean you’re not paying for corporate America’s tax cuts.

How Big Companies Won New Tax Breaks From the Trump Administration (Published 2019)

As the Treasury Department prepared to enact the 2017 Republican tax overhaul, corporate lobbyists swarmed — and won big.

www.nytimes.com

Twice as many companies paying zero taxes under Trump tax bill

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lowered the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent. In its first year, the number of companies paying no taxes went from 30 to 60.

www.nbcnews.com

Business Insider. Surely they aren’t fake?

Trump handed big business a massive tax cut, and all he got in return was embarrassment

President Trump and the GOP promised their tax cuts would drive business investment and economic growth. Instead, companies kept the windfall.

www.businessinsider.com

The GOP tax law’s lopsided giveaway to corporations, explained in one sentence

Congress’s official think tank finds the Republican tax cuts helped corporations, not workers.

www.vox.com

You should really educate yourself on the corporate tax cut issue. Prior to the cut, most large corporations had offshore tax structures through which they were billing for revenue generated outside the U.S. through an offshore subsidiary. The US Treasury received $0 tax revenue from that income. Corporates were instead being charged local corporate income tax rates, which are generally lower across the globe.

You can go to the SEC website and look at corporate filing to learn the blended tax rate they were paying was in the high teens to low 20% range.

As a result of this, many US corporates were building massive balances offshore, but these funds were not available to the companies or its shareholders domestically. Many borrowed domestically to partially match the funds held offshore for corporate needs (called synthetic repatriation), which was driving an elevation in corporate leverage in an unsustainable manner.

The corporate tax cut basically offered the same blended tax rate these corporates were already receiving through tax structure strategies at the US level, which made them indifferent as to where they booked the revenue. This allowed the corporations to shift the billing/revenue generation the US without significant consequence. So while US corporate are now paying a lower rate, they will be paying it on a larger amount of revenue. Not only did this make the profits available to de-lever, invest and hire domestically, it also has the potential to bring back some of the jobs that were offshored.

The big question is the degree to which these funds will benused for those purposes, rather than stock repurchase or dividends? When Bush offered a tax holiday, somewhere around 90% of repatriated funds were returned to shareholders, so only ~10% was re-invested.

 

[realunlucky]

Most plumbers in a populated area make a great living and had zero debt taken to learn their skill.

They invest in themselves when they start in the trades also by living on unskilled labor rates. You can't borrow against those four years either and pay it back (or choose maybe not) like college.

 

[MattB]

Yes but nothing says those companies have to stay in CA, many companies have an HQ in various countries etc. We are seeing new small tech companies pop up all over the country in the last 5 years, not just CA. Again, the CA companies only make money because they have customers outside CA, if that went away where do they make their money? Also most of the CA companies that are large would create an operation in the US, we’d still get our GDP from that and tax revenue, doubt many wouldn’t bring their profits back to the CA operations as the taxation would inhibit this. There always a way to make it work.

Also you can have new companies use patents, royalties are all that’s required.

Where will CA get it’s water from? Last I checked CA had a major shortage and that they get their main fresh water sources from other states.

All I’m saying is CA is replaceable, it isn’t as high and mighty as it thinks, other areas can become major areas of commerce.

Also CA would export goods (crops) and still make money, it will have to, so it’s not like a trade deal wouldn’t happen. But they just can keep their goofy ideal separate.

The reason most tech companies are located in the bay area is due to the nexus of engineering talent here. It has been that way for decades, and I highly doubt anything will change that.

Companies can't just use patents and pay royalties, the patent holder would need to license it to them. Companies simply don't do that with core IP.

You have alot of ideas that don't bear out which you might want to take back to the drawing board to help you refine your world view.

 

[tdhanses]

They invest in themselves when they start in the trades also by living on unskilled labor rates.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

Everything takes time and work, we can’t all start at the top. But if you work hard it all pays off if you make good choices and don’t blame anyone but yourself for where you are at. We have a country of people that like to blame others for their choices.

 

[Trial153]

This tread brings to mind something David McRaney wrote


The misconception: Your opinions are the result of years of rational, objective analysis.

The truth: Your opinions on the results of years of paying attention to the information that confirmed what you believed, while ignoring information to challenge your preconceived notion's.

 

[tdhanses]

The reason most tech companies are located in the bay area is due to the nexus of engineering talent here. It has been that way for decades, and I highly doubt anything will change that.

Companies can't just use patents and pay royalties, the patent holder would need to license it to them. Companies simply don't do that with core IP.

You have alot of ideas that don't bear out which you might want to take back to the drawing board to help you refine your world view.

Haha, I just have a mentality that anything can be done, just because something has always been doesn’t mean it has to stay that way. I’m not a tech nerd by any means but I do know that new tech comes out constantly making much of what was key 5 years ago obsolete with new patents coming out daily.

Does Google have any foreign operations? Does it provide the same level of services there that it does here? There is no reason these companies wouldn’t open up operations outside of CA to gain/retain market share but that doesn’t mean the earnings from these operations go back to CA.

Think of Apple and Google having billions in cash sitting overseas from their operations there, they wouldn’t bring back that cash until the recent changes.

If CA separated it is highly likely the Corp tax rate would skyrocket there, over 50%, all you have to do is see the direction their politicians are going with this.

The businesses in CA aren’t just going to stop making money off the US consumers but it’s highly unlikely their only operation will be in CA.

 

[brsnow]

All these budgeting and savings idea are great, until someone gets sick or injured.

 

[Savagenut]

You should really educate yourself on the corporate tax cut issue. Prior to the cut, most large corporations had offshore tax structures through which they were billing for revenue generated outside the U.S. through an offshore subsidiary. The US Treasury received $0 tax revenue from that income. Corporates were instead being charged local corporate income tax rates, which are generally lower across the globe.

You can go to the SEC website and look at corporate filing to learn the blended tax rate they were paying was in the high teens to low 20% range.

As a result of this, many US corporates were building massive balances offshore, but these funds were not available to the companies or its shareholders domestically. Many borrowed domestically to partially match the funds held offshore for corporate needs (called synthetic repatriation), which was driving an elevation in corporate leverage in an unsustainable manner.

The corporate tax cut basically offered the same blended tax rate these corporates were already receiving through tax structure strategies at the US level, which made them indifferent as to where they booked the revenue. This allowed the corporations to shift the billing/revenue generation the US without significant consequence. So while US corporate are now paying a lower rate, they will be paying it on a larger amount of revenue. Not only did this make the profits available to de-lever, invest and hire domestically, it also has the potential to bring back some of the jobs that were offshored.

The big question is the degree to which these funds will benused for those purposes, rather than stock repurchase or dividends? When Bush offered a tax holiday, somewhere around 90% of repatriated funds were returned to shareholders, so only ~10% was re-invested.

You mean the pennies that were brought back to the US economy? Give me a break it wasn’t even close to being revenue neutral. Total loss for US revenue.

Trump promised to bring back $4 trillion in offshore cash. He missed by $3.3 trillion

Corporate America brought $664.9 billion of offshore profits back to the U.S. last year, falling short of the $4 trillion President Donald Trump said would return as a result of the 2017 tax overhaul.

www.accountingtoday.com

 

[tdhanses]

All I can say is I’m glad I have a positive outlook vs negative. Roadblocks constantly present themselves but don’t give up, seems some have.

 

[HuntHarder]

All these budgeting and savings idea are great, until someone gets sick or injured.

I am from the I can or glass is half full campaign. I think you are looking for any reason to fail. This is the way a lot of people think and I believe it contributes to failure. Sure stuff comes up in life, but to use that as an absolute or reason to fail is absurd. There are lots of scenarios where saving money is not possible, but getting on the right track early on and NOT relying on the Gov't, will help someone get thru these tough times.