4 ms·

>tax-sheltered accounts Buying growth stocks in a regular brokerage account is also "tax sheltered" in several ways, as I explained. What do you think high ear

>tax-sheltered accounts Buying growth stocks in a regular brokerage account is also "tax sheltered" in several ways, as I explained. What do you think high earners did for a hundred years before the the recent introduction of back door techniques? Your "actual point" has little basis in the facts.

stouset 3y ago
bangs head on desk I have no idea what "facts" you think are a hard counter this belief. That buy-and-hold has some positive tax implications in no way repudiates the reality that it underperforms doing the exact same with either a) pretax funds, or b) capturing 100% of the gains tax-free. Some Americans have the option to put over $75,000 a year into these types of accounts which are strictly better along virtually every axis. Most Americans are limited to $7,000. Many Americans who could put $7,000 in via a backdoor don't due to the various hurdles involved. This is patently indefensible. Every American should have access to the same level of tax sheltering regardless of employer. Please go find some other windmill to tilt at.
- PopAlongKid 3y ago
  You said "most Americans’ only retirement savings option is $7,000 into some form of IRA" The fact is, that statement is not true. Some 85% of taxpayers work for employers or are self-employed, and many millions of those have access to 401k plans. "Every American should have access to the same level of tax sheltering regardless of employer." Since you are talking about $75K annual amounts, I read that as only high-earning Americans should have access, because you don't acknowledge that most Americans cannot afford to put $75K or more into retiremement every year, they need the money to put food on the table and roof over heads. You are arguing for making a tax break for the rich more widely available but pretending like it is for the benefit of everyone.
  - stouset 3y ago
    You have no idea the point I’m making because you’re too busy being fixated on litigating pointless semantics to care.

stouset 3y ago

bangs head on desk I have no idea what "facts" you think are a hard counter this belief. That buy-and-hold has some positive tax implications in no way repudiates the reality that it underperforms doing the exact same with either a) pretax funds, or b) capturing 100% of the gains tax-free. Some Americans have the option to put over $75,000 a year into these types of accounts which are strictly better along virtually every axis. Most Americans are limited to $7,000. Many Americans who could put $7,000 in via a backdoor don't due to the various hurdles involved. This is patently indefensible. Every American should have access to the same level of tax sheltering regardless of employer. Please go find some other windmill to tilt at.

PopAlongKid 3y ago
You said "most Americans’ only retirement savings option is $7,000 into some form of IRA" The fact is, that statement is not true. Some 85% of taxpayers work for employers or are self-employed, and many millions of those have access to 401k plans. "Every American should have access to the same level of tax sheltering regardless of employer." Since you are talking about $75K annual amounts, I read that as only high-earning Americans should have access, because you don't acknowledge that most Americans cannot afford to put $75K or more into retiremement every year, they need the money to put food on the table and roof over heads. You are arguing for making a tax break for the rich more widely available but pretending like it is for the benefit of everyone.
- stouset 3y ago
  You have no idea the point I’m making because you’re too busy being fixated on litigating pointless semantics to care.