Current advice: The National Academy of Sciences sets 130 grams of carbohydrates as the minimum daily level needed to keep brain cells fueled. That works out to about two slices of whole-wheat bread, a bowl of shredded wheat, a banana, an apple and a cup of yogurt per day. Most Americans regularly eat two to three times the minimum recommended amount of carbohydrates. So there are good reasons to cut back on total carbs, and especially ones that are highly processed.
Often lumped into one large group, carbohydrates are actually a diverse group of foods, ranging from fruit, vegetables and whole-grain products to table sugar, white bread and other highly processed fare.
Perception: All carbs are bad - a notion that has led a growing number of consumers to avoid many carbohydrates in favor of high-fat, high-protein food such as burgers without the bun.
Fine points: Rather than lumping all carbohydrates into one demonized group, experts advise consuming carbs from fruit, vegetables, beans, whole-grain bread, pasta, crackers, wild or brown rice, or whole-grain cereals. Induction phases of low-carb diets provide just 20 grams of carbohydrates per day, less than one-sixth of the recommended dietary allowance.
I have copied the complete article to Pauls_Notes: Message 109.
Did you know that a TED is a Turtle exclusion device?
All seven species of sea turtles are listed as threatened or endangered, so it is illegal to harm or interfere with a sea turtle or its eggs. There are a few practices and use of special devices that have been established to protect sea turtles. For example, a Turtle Exclusion Device (TED) is a metal grid trapdoor inside a trawling net that allows shrimp to pass to the back of the next, while turtles can safely escape before becoming entrapped or entangled. Federal laws require that the TED be installed on nets of all U.S. fishing trawlers in areas populated by sea turtles.
You get out of SS in proportion to what you pay in.
If you paid into an account with your name on it and which you could control the investments, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it.
Unfortunately, you don't, and I doubt that current young payers will even receive 30 cents on the dollar for what they're paying in.
The bias isn't toward the poor, it's toward the young.
Because the poor pay a higher % of overall income, it hurts them even more.
This is not a retirement plan. Wealth redistribution is a corruptive societal disease.
Exactly. Wealth is being redistributed from the young, working poor to oftentimes wealthy, elderly retirees who are receiving far in excess from social security than what they put in.
The current retirees had far lower payroll tax rates and much lower ceilings. The trend will only get worse until the whole thing implodes.
True, but if you want to talk about illegal activities as the reason not to do something, we couldn't do anything. Bad people can be smarter than good people because their incentive is that they get their reward in this life, not the next. Instant gratification. No waiting.
Speaking of instant gratification, I'm stopping for a KKD this morning. Kreme filled. Gotta go.
You get out of SS in proportion to what you pay in. There is no bias toward the poor except that they put less in. (Of course, they are therefore not entitled to take as much out later). This is not a retirement plan. Wealth redistribution is a corruptive societal disease.
Yes, it is an intergenerational ponzi scheme. Maybe if it was disolved....
<<Then it will be taxed. If it's "never taken out" it didn't do it's owner any good, so why should it be taxed?>>
Not exactly. Suppose you bought 100 shares of BRK.A at 8000 in 1990. They are presently worth 90,000 per share giving you an unrealized profit of 8,200,000. You could margin those shares and SPEND 4,100,000 and let the gov't chase you into the next world to collect the taxes.
My point is that the poor face much higher marginal tax rates than is commonly understood.
We already have a tax system which taxes assets: property taxes.
My biggest complaint with the current tax code is that with FICA + Medicare taxes; the poor are hit far harder with this tax than are the rich (because at a certain income level you don't have to pay it any more, i.e. it's a smaller % of income for high wage earners). I don't pay into it at all because I don't have any W-2 income.
Furthermore, this intergenerational ponzi scheme is not likely to provide significant income for retirees 30 or 40 years down the road, i.e. the working poor/middle class who will need it the most.
The funding solution, in my opinion, is to significantly raise (or eliminate) the ceiling; this will allow the tax rate to be lowered significantly. While it will increase the tax load for high income taxpayers, those taxpayers already benefit by having low marginal tax rates (15% or lower) for dividend and long-term cap gains.
The benefit solution is to raise the retirement age.
Look at it this way. Because it is fairly easy to control the timing of income recognition with investments, I will not likely be a payer of federal income taxes for the next several years; I make sure that I have just enough capital gains to just barely make it to the 15% tax rate after deductions for property taxes, medical bills, etc...
Therefore, I very well may not pay federal income tax or contribute to FICA/Medicare for the forseeable future. Is that fair? I don't think so. Is it the tax law? Yep
A working stiff making $20,000 per year, on the other hand, while not paying federal or state income tax, will contribute about $3,000 to FICA/Medicare through payroll tax and employer matching (which I have argued previously is essentially a tax on the employee). Additionally, of the $17,000, at least 10% will disappear in sales tax and the other taxes that I have previously mentioned.
""Investment is not taxed (consumption is) until the investment is disposed of (which may be never).""
The money put into it was taxed. It isn't "more money" until it is taken out. Then it will be taxed. If it's "never taken out" it didn't do it's owner any good, so why should it be taxed? What was your point?
""The poor consume nearly all their income just to survive. The upper class saves much of its income.""
Again, what was your point? Redistribution of wealth is healthy? Ethical? Moral?
Different but related trick question -- are you in favor of changing the tax system to tax assets instead of income?
I'll grant that you're consistent.
The poor, actually, are brutally taxed. While they pay little in federal income tax, they pay vastly higher proportions of their income in
1) sales tax
2) FICA + Medicare
3) gasoline tax
4) sin tax (personal choice)
5) lottery (though that is voluntary)
6) property tax (through higher rents)
7) excise taxes (phone, utilities, etc...)
than do the upper class. Why? Investment is not taxed (consumption is) until the investment is disposed of (which may be never). The poor consume nearly all their income just to survive. The upper class saves much of its income.
Just the first two are around 25%. My guess is that the marginal tax rate for the poor is around 35%. For the high-income rich, it is the same. For the high-wealth/low income rich is around 15% or even less.
Only the income tax is progressive; the others are regressive. The net effect is regressive for the poor (bottoming somewhere in the upper middle class), then progressive for the rich (wherever the highest marginal tax rate kicks in and the amt removes all allowable deductions).