As featured in The Wall Street Journal, Money Magazine, and more!

Search: wealth

Whether you agree with it or not, the reason this country has supported programs like welfare, Social Security, the GI Bill, food stamps, Medicare, government-backed mortgages, FEMA insurance, and other social programs is because a modern society benefits when as many citizens as possible have opportunities to succeed financially. Social programs aren’t perfect and don’t always provide what they promise, and there’s always a small percentage who take advantage of the system.

The push-and-pull between the focus on the society and the focus on the individual existed even before the founding of the nation, and this particular Weeble that wobbles between left and right without falling down (yet) has allowed the United States to become the biggest economy in the world in a relatively short period of time, and that’s a good thing.

From an individual perspective, it might not be that intuitive that one needs to be concerned about the “very poor.” After all, with social safety nets, one might think that the “very poor” have little to worry about. Regardless of the existence of programs — both public and private — poverty is still an issue in this country, even if you don’t see it in your daily life as you shuffle in an office building from meeting to meeting or shuttle from city to city on business trips. It’s hard to be concerned about something if you aren’t faced with it every day.

If, however, you are concerned about the “very poor,” there are ways to help, even if you don’t believe that handouts are effective. The most popular rationalization for not caring about poverty is the idea that helping another individual teaches complacency rather than responsibility, interdependence rather than independence. The incorrect assumption is that families in destitute situations have no desire to work for their money like those who have built wealth for themselves and have earned the right to let their money do the work for them and receive income from dividends and interest rather than working in the middle-class and working-middle-class sense of the word.

The real problem is tied into that psychology 101 concept I turn to repeatedly, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. If most waking minutes in your day are spent worrying about your shelter, your food, and having a safe place to sleep, “income mobility” is a fantasy. You’re a victim of “class warfare,” but in your reality, you don’t have time or energy for political arguments about class warfare.

If you are concerned about the very poor, there are options. Helping bring attention to poverty can form provide opportunities to those without them without much sacrifice from those with opportunities.

  • Give money directly to organizations that run programs focusing on providing opportunities. The top-rated charities focusing on poverty according to Charity Navigator are Direct Relief International (although International is in the name, they also work to eliminate domestic poverty, particularly in disaster-stricken areas), SOME (So Others Might Eat, focusing on the D.C. area), and the People’s Resource Center (based in Chicago). If you prefer to give a hand-up rather than a hand-out, focus on organizations that provide job training and placement, programs that expand the reach of educational opportunities, and programs that present positive financial role models.
  • Volunteer with the organizations that run these programs. Build houses. Build schools. Help at a food bank. When you are actively involved, you get to experience the results of your work much more closely than if you were to send a check every month. No, you won’t get a tax deduction for volunteer work, but that’s not the point.
  • Become a community leader. When people from poor communities manage to succeed financially, they often don’t return to be the role model their community needs. This is the reason financial illiteracy is a problem that will continue from generation to generation, keeping low socio-economic status communities from thriving.

Are you concerned about the very poor? Does paying your taxes and being satisfied with existing social safety nets relieve you from any other possible responsibilities for how the country fares as a whole? Do we even have any responsibilities to anyone other than ourselves and our families?

Related: Here’s how you might be able to avoid poverty for your family. Also, could you survive at the poverty line?

{ 72 comments }

An elegant answer to the over-complicated tax system is to shift the basis of the system from income to spending. There have been a variety of proposals to make this happen. It’s the core of the so-called Fair Tax and Herman Cain incorporated its concept into his 9-9-9 tax plan. Other proposals have called for a value-added tax similar to the system in the United Kingdom.

FerrariWorking to earn a living contributes to society, as does investing in businesses. Taxes on income, whether wages or dividends, could discourage this type of economically-beneficial activity. Consumer spending also benefits the economy, though, and if this tax system discourages spending, it might have a negative effect on the economy initially.

Also, lower-income households and those who live paycheck-to-paycheck would bear a higher burden. When almost all of a family’s income is spent, this family would be taxed on a high percentage of their income. On the other hand, a corporate executive earning more than a million dollars does not need to spend all of his money. His tax burden is more affordable. Under today’s tax environment, someone with the means might put money into real estate, invest in businesses, and shelter assets in offshore accounts. Under the new system, a wealthy individual might stay away from buying houses if those transactions are taxed, while bringing more offshore assets back to the United States.

Rather than adding a national sales tax to determine consumption, one solution is to report all income, as is currently done, as well as all contributions to savings, just like what is done for IRA and 401(k) accounts. The difference between income and savings would be the basis on which the government levies the consumption tax. There could be a high standard deduction applied to the difference, so that lower-income families who are struggling to save do not need to pay an unaffordable tax bill, and so that the system remains progressive.

Reforming the tax system away from income tax is a tall order. Thanks to deductions for tax-advantaged savings, the income tax system has already begun to shift towards a focus on spending, but if you believe that the system could be vastly improved by focusing solely on consumption, the system has a long way to go before workers and savers aren’t punished by a tax collection system.

Would you prefer a tax system based solely on consumption?

Photo: exfordy
New York Times, Slate

{ 16 comments }

It’s no surprise that politicians have difficulty relating to their constituents. When Mitt Romney was asked about his finances, he admitted two facts that would sound strange to most listeners.

  • Romney considers what he earned from speaking fees in one year, $362,000, as “not that much.”
  • Like most individuals who earn most of their income from investments, Romney’s effective tax rate is closer to 15 percent.

For Romney $362,000 may not be that much. His net worth is estimated to be between $85 million and $265 million. The most that income from speaking can increase his net worth each year is by 0.4%. That is a drop in a very large bucket. I can understand why Romney would say that this amount is not that much. For him, it’s practically nothing.

For most people, though, $362,000 is a significant amount of money. This small portion of Romney’s annual income could support ten families or more of four members for one year. “Not that much” is relative.

When President Obama proposed the Buffett Rule, a tax on millionaires to pay a representative share of the tax burden, he had people like Romney in mind. Buffett has pointed out that his effective tax rate is lower than his secretary’s, and this happens when most of an individual’s income comes from investments. Investment income, like dividends, as well as carried interest, is taxed at a 15 percent rate rather than the sliding scale used in the tax brackets for ordinary income. People who earn high enough salaries and wages pay higher tax rates than individuals who make a living off investments.

To compare Romney with his political peers and competitors, Governor Rick Perry has indicated his effective tax rate in 2010 was 23.4 percent, and that rate is closer to what most middle-class Americans might pay in any one year. Rick Perry is the least wealthy of all the presidential hopefuls, with a net worth between $1 million and $2.5 million. President Obama and his family paid an effective tax rate of 25 percent in 2010.

How does your effective tax rate compare to Mitt Romney’s?

Update: ABC News just broke the story that Mitt Romney has made judicious use of an offshore tax haven in the Cayman Islands to shelter his assets from the U.S. Treasury.

Tax experts agree that Romney remains subject to American taxes. But they say the offshore accounts have provided him — and Bain — with other potential financial benefits, such as higher management fees and greater foreign interest, all at the expense of the U.S. Treasury. Rebecca J. Wilkins, a tax policy expert with Citizens for Tax Justice, said the federal government loses an estimated $100 billion a year because of tax havens.

Christian Science Monitor, ABC News

{ 37 comments }

Financial planners just love promoting 401(k) retirement plans. They have quite a few benefits, notably a tax deduction for contributions as well as a tax deferral for contributions and earnings. They’re also one of the most popular vehicles for introducing the working middle class to the stock market, something that might not have been accessible to this group in the decades before the 401(k) plan was established.

In addition to financial planners, fund management firms and plan administrators love 401(k) plans, and their love knows no bounds. Companies pay significant fees to other companies that operate and manage 401(k) plans. More fees are embedded in the funds within the plans, benefiting each fund’s management team.

CubicleThe tax advantages, as well as a potential matching contribution if an employer offers one, offset some of the drawbacks of 401(k) plans.

1. Fees.

As already mentioned, most 401(k) plans are subject to fees, many of which are not immediately apparent to the investor. If you bother to read the prospectus associated with each fund you choose to invest in, you may find an expense ratio listed. If you do, there’s a good chance it’s higher than a comparable index fund. My former employer included investment choices that were annuity products disguised as mutual funds, and these didn’t have expense ratios listed. It was nearly impossible to determine how much of my investment I was losing to funds each year.

While fees are higher with 401(k) plans than with pensions, pensions offer a stable, predictable return. 401(k) performance depends on the investment choices and the associated markets. Pensions, when they are fully funded, tend to be more stable.

2. Employers are hands-off.

As the popularity of 401(k) plans grew, pension plans disappeared. A 401(k) is considered a “defined contribution” plan, while pensions are considered a “defined benefit” plan. That comes from the idea that the 401(k) balance is affected each payroll period by a contribution from the employee, while the pension balance increases at regular intervals by a contribution from the employer — a benefit of working at the company.

The value of a pension also tends to increase as the length of service at one company increases. As the popularity of pensions and other loyalty benefits decreased over the last couple of decades, employees had a decreasing incentive to stay at one company for their entire career. With pensions being a smaller part of most employers’ benefits, they do not need to worry as much about the solvency of these accounts. At the same time, it is up to the employee to make the right investment choices in a 401(k).

3. Automatic enrollment.

The advent of 401(k) programs brought on an increase of the nation’s wealth tied up in the stock market. That’s more income for money managers. It also creates a higher demand for investments, raising prices somewhat artificially. But there has also been a more recent increasing trend of employers automatically enrolling new employees into 401(k) plans once they are eligible. It’s a great idea to stimulate a better possible retirement outcome, considering many employees might not bother to elect to invest in a 401(k) immediately, even if they intend to.

Usually, any mechanism that automates your finances is a good thing. But too much automation can create complacency. It’s important to be aware and know what’s going on with your finances rather than blindly accepting what someone creates for you. You might be better off with an increased deferral rate than the default, or you may need to cancel your 401(k) contribution before it begins to improve your cash flow for necessary expenses.

4. Automatic allocation.

Like automatic investment, automatic allocation can be a trap. Some plans will, if the employee doesn’t elect specific investments, direct all contributions to a money market fund. Any investor could probably be better off in a high-yield savings account than a money market fund managed by a large investment house, even taking into the tax benefit of a 401(k) plan.

Furthermore, some plans will automatically invest your funds in a mix of stocks and bonds, with the percentages based on your age or your expected retirement date. This may or may not be appropriate for your situation, and importantly, it doesn’t take your outside investments into account. For example, if you plan on retiring 35 years from now, your 401(k) plan might recommend an investment of 90 percent stock funds and 10 percent bond funds, but if you already have a significant investment in stocks, your overall portfolio may be closer to 95 percent stocks and 5 percent bonds.

5. Loans.

With a 401(k) plan, you can loan yourself money. This sounds like it should be a benefit. In some cases it is, but often 401(k) loans end up being detrimental to someone’s finances. If there is an emergency and you cannot pay back the loan either on time or at all, you can face fees and penalties. If you lose your job with a loan outstanding, the entire remaining loan balance could become due immediately.

Overall, 401(k) plans can help the working middle class retire somewhat comfortably. And there is the possibility for investors to succeed financially significantly more than they might have with a comparable pension. The burden for performance has shifted from the employer to the employee, and that requires a little bit of financial education that might not have been as necessary (though still beneficial) in the heyday of pensions.

Photo: Yo Spiff

{ 21 comments }

How to Solve the Financial Literacy Problem

by Flexo
Kid with money

Opinions are generally clear about why such a large percentage of the American population winds up in financial jeopardy. There’s no formalized way to learn how to use money properly and with the best results; most people learn by experience. It would save a lot of headaches if we could somehow warn people in advance ... Continue reading this article…

22 comments Read the full article →

Weekend Reading

by Flexo

Here are a few articles I’ve spotted recently. Are you superstitious? Superstitions can extend into your finances; the belief that the stock market’s performance on January 1 signals the performance for the entire year can be classified as a superstition. Frugal Zeitgeist offers a compilations of several superstitions and their origins. I’m a customer of ... Continue reading this article…

6 comments Read the full article →

How Rich Are the Presidential Candidates?

by Flexo
Mitt Romney

When politicians are campaigning, some try to reinforce the idea that they are similar to most Americans. Candidates for President of the United States try to avoid being labeled as elitist, because some sort of connection and kinship with their constituency is important for winning the favor of voters who aren’t already entrenched with a ... Continue reading this article…

14 comments Read the full article →

Schwab Creates Low-Cost 401(k) Fund Choices

by Flexo

I used to work for a company in the financial services industry. Another branch of the corporation I worked for is involved with institutional money management. This department manages institutional investments like company retirement plans and pensions. This is a service they provided to other companies of various types, much like Fidelity and Schwab offer ... Continue reading this article…

10 comments Read the full article →
Page 1 of 4012345···Last »