U.S. Debt Ceiling. 31.4 Trillion!

[antelopedundee]

That is the question I have been asking, and not getting an answer to. The MM will hold government debt, and if a default happens it has to market that debt down in price. That would "break the buck", the $1/shr price, for many of these funds. It would probably be short term, but I wonder if stocks tank and I decide to buy some, will I have to sell the MM at $0.94 to get the cash to buy the stocks. Good news is that everyone seems to agree not paying the debt payments would be last on the list...sorry Boomers on SS.

Hopefully it will be short term and eventually bounce back. If you want to use any of the money I'd probably transfer it to a house FDIC account before the end of May just to be safe. I expect that if the value is $0.94 that your account value would decrease by that much; i.e. a $500K account now would value at $470K. If you wanted to invest $100K of that and move it now that would leave $400K to reduce by .06 to $376K. If you transfer the $100K after the .06 decline that leaves $370K to recover so you'd be ahead by $6K minus any interest lost to do it before the default.

 

[SAJ-99]

Hopefully it will be short term and eventually bounce back. If you want to use any of the money I'd probably transfer it to a house FDIC account before the end of May just to be safe. I expect that if the value is $0.94 that your account value would decrease by that much; i.e. a $500K account now would value at $470K. If you wanted to invest $100K of that and move it now that would leave $400K to reduce by .06 to $376K. If you transfer the $100K after the .06 decline that leaves $370K to recover so you'd be ahead by $6K minus any interest lost to do it before the default.

Yeah, I just made up the number. you are probably right. You can look at he short end of the curve and see that MM avoided the 30day bills and bought 90day. Probably thinking that if a default really does occur, everything will be fixed rather quickly. Hopefully we don't have to sort through the rubble.

 

[antelopedundee]

Register to read | Financial Times

News, analysis and comment from the Financial Times, the worldʼs leading global business publication

www.ft.com

 

[VikingsGuy]

Nope, none of those confiscaing self enriching vote buying sunza's business what I or anyone does with net dough.

It's not about you. Spend whatever you want, however you want while you are alive.

But there is no need for our laws to set up rules and institutions so that you can control it from your grave, nor to shield your children's "income" dressed up as "inheritance".

Why should Timmy get $100m tax free income from grandpa for doing nothing, while Susie gets taxed at 24% on her $90,000 salary earned from work and effort? After someone is dead, they are dead. Of course, we have a societal interest in providing for surviving spouses and children, but $10m tax-free plus 50% of $10-$50m should fully cover that concern. There is simply no rational grounding for our current approach to billion-dollar inheritances.

One of our biggest problems is that ordinary income is highly taxed while billions sit in "unrealized gains" for lifetimes. It is bad fiscal policy, bad economic policy and bad social policy -- there is nothing morally or fiscally "right" about placing all tax burdens on the salaried workers and letting billionaires live tax-free off of "loans" against un-realized assets. Just and there is nothing inherently "right" about granting a few random children king-like wealth for zero effort.

 

[more_cowbell]

Inheritance tax, the only tax I like. It serves an important role in a meritocracy and a democracy, lest we stumble into "feudalism". If I were calling the shots there would be a first $10 million exclusion followed by 50% from $10m-$50m and then 90% from $50m up. I don't even care about the federal budget/revenue benefits, I would do it just for the societal benefits. I don't begrudge Bill Gates or Elon Musk a single dollar of their personal wealth. They earned it and made our lives better in the process. But their kids, grandkids, great grandkids, great great grandkids, etc did nothing to earn it. 99% of Americans wouldn't be effected and the 1% would still be able to pass 10's of millions to their kids. A simple solution to a lot of problems, but it will never happen -- cuz those with empire-type wealth have the votes and the average person still somehow thinks wealth at the level is the same as the humble earnings they have.

An interesting idea, as it would also alter the trajectory of a lot of families like Gates, Soros, Allen, Bloomberg, Murdoch, et al.

Ironically, I assume the descendants of Adolph Ochs (purchaser of the NYT), probably aren't hurting for money. Wikipedia says: "Of the two categories of stock, Class A and Class B, the former is publicly traded and the latter is held privately—largely (over 90% through The 1997 Trust) by the descendants of Adolph Ochs, who purchased The New York Times newspaper in 1896."

Seems a steep inheritance tax like this also penalize people such as professional athletes, some of whom can achieve generational wealth to ensure financial security for their kids, and their kids.

It'd also penalize people like some guy from a modest or poor background who in this day and age, invents a widget in his garage that nets him $200 million (not unlike Gates or Jobs). Would that be fair to heavily tax it just so he can't pass it on to his kids because his kids don't deserve it? If that sort of taxation was already in place, I suppose either there would be no Bill Gates Foundation (which a lot of people like), or else there would be a lot more offshore shell companies.

 

[noharleyyet]

It's not about you. Spend whatever you want, however you want while you are alive.

But there is no need for our laws to set up rules and institutions so that you can control it from your grave, nor to shield your children's "income" dressed up as "inheritance".

Why should Timmy get $100m tax free income from grandpa for doing nothing, while Susie gets taxed at 24% on her $90,000 salary earned from work and effort? After someone is dead, they are dead. Of course, we have a societal interest in providing for surviving spouses and children, but $10m tax-free plus 50% of $10-$50m should fully cover that concern. There is simply no rational grounding for our current approach to billion-dollar inheritances.

One of our biggest problems is that ordinary income is highly taxed while billions sit in "unrealized gains" for lifetimes. It is bad fiscal policy, bad economic policy and bad social policy -- there is nothing morally or fiscally "right" about placing all tax burdens on the salaried workers and letting billionaires live tax-free off of "loans" against un-realized assets. Just and there is nothing inherently "right" about granting a few random children king-like wealth for zero effort.

Where did I say it was about me...net dough is net dough already allocated as the earner sees/saw fit. A thousand, million, or a billion legally earned...nobody's business. I didn't mention investment chicanery but if they were purchased legit why change the game because dot.gov can't run a lemonade stand?

..without printing more lemons and sugar.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

It'd also penalize people like some guy from a modest or poor background who in this day and age, invents a widget in his garage that nets him $200 million (not unlike Gates or Jobs). Would that be fair to heavily tax it just so he can't pass it on to his kids because his kids don't deserve it? If that sort of taxation was already in place, I suppose either there would be no Bill Gates Foundation (which a lot of people like), or else there would be a lot more offshore shell companies.

You don't pay gift taxes (inheritance) on charitable trusts. So in-fact this kind of tax measure would likely increase the number of Gates foundations. Personally I don't have an issue with the Carnegie endowment, Nobel Peace Prize, etc.

why change the game because dot.gov can't run a lemonade stand?

it's not about that... it's because there is a direct correlation between gini index and revolution.

More plainly when wealth inequality becomes too great there is always an armed uprising... so this is more tempering it to insure the survival of the country.

 

[TOGIE]

More plainly when wealth inequality becomes too great there is always an armed uprising... so this is more tempering it to insure the survival of the country.

the GOP may not care about causing an armed uprising, but at least they care mightily about ensuring we are armed for our uprising.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Where did I say it was about me...

To be fair . . . you did say "I"

 

[Deleted member 28227]

the GOP may not care about causing an armed uprising, but at least they care mightily about ensuring we are armed for our uprising.

So the US is closer to Columbia than Scandinavia... rad

 

[homers]

It’s all about the growth of government spending.

 

[noharleyyet]

To be fair . . . you did say "I"

You got me there counsellor, and I can appreciate your altruistic sensitivities this fine Monday morning...but we disagree.

You don't pay gift taxes (inheritance) on charitable trusts. So in-fact this kind of tax measure would likely increase the number of Gates foundations. Personally I don't have an issue with the Carnegie endowment, Nobel Peace Prize, etc.


it's not about that... it's because there is a direct correlation between gini index and revolution.

More plainly when wealth inequality becomes too great there is always an armed uprising... so this is more tempering it to insure the survival of the country.

More plainly for the win...now queu Monty Python.

 

[SAJ-99]

An interesting idea, as it would also alter the trajectory of a lot of families like Gates, Soros, Allen, Bloomberg, Murdoch, et al.

Ironically, I assume the descendants of Adolph Ochs (purchaser of the NYT), probably aren't hurting for money. Wikipedia says: "Of the two categories of stock, Class A and Class B, the former is publicly traded and the latter is held privately—largely (over 90% through The 1997 Trust) by the descendants of Adolph Ochs, who purchased The New York Times newspaper in 1896."

Seems a steep inheritance tax like this also penalize people such as professional athletes, some of whom can achieve generational wealth to ensure financial security for their kids, and their kids.

It'd also penalize people like some guy from a modest or poor background who in this day and age, invents a widget in his garage that nets him $200 million (not unlike Gates or Jobs). Would that be fair to heavily tax it just so he can't pass it on to his kids because his kids don't deserve it? If that sort of taxation was already in place, I suppose either there would be no Bill Gates Foundation (which a lot of people like), or else there would be a lot more offshore shell companies.

I don't think it penalizes either person in your example. It would mean their kids only get $12.5m, or $25m if married. Poor souls. How will they make ends meet?

Some great great great Rockefeller heir reading this thread, after never have to work a day in his life.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I don't think it penalizes either person in your example. It would mean their kids only get $12.5m, or $25m if married. Poor souls. How will they make ends meet?

@156256Wenaha if you're using @VikingsGuy tax scheme



expanded, let's say we take your guy who nets 200MM and Vikings system. Let's say the inheritor spends $200,000 a year of the money they inherit for 50 years, makes nothing, then passes along the rest.

Under vikings system the kids, grandkids, and great grand kids still never have to work and the great great grandkids are getting a big chunk of change.

 

[BigHornRam]

Gotta smokem while you gottem

Wllm just got scratched from my will.....

 

[SAJ-99]

@156256Wenaha if you're using @VikingsGuy tax scheme

View attachment 275981

The debate on this tax in Washington never involves how much money Elon Musk or Lebron James can gift their children. It is typically on the family farm, which tugs at the heartstrings a bit more, and affects far more voters.

What is clear is that no one wants to actually fix the problem.

 

[more_cowbell]

I don't think it penalizes either person in your example. It would mean their kids only get $12.5m, or $25m if married. Poor souls. How will they make ends meet?

That involves someone drawing a line in the sand saying what $ amount is "too much" for someone to receive, who didn't deserve it. Figuring out how to redistribute wealth to such an extent seems fraught with difficulty. Do "the people" vote on how much money someone should inherit? Or do we just implement more regulations and see how it goes (including whether more charitable trusts are set up, or money and innovation is moved elsewhere). It would probably alter the course of a lot of private money being used to fund certain political agendas in various states.

In reply to some other comments, sure, the French got upset with the aristocracy in the late 18th century and initiated the reign of terror, and Lenin and the boys helped social engineer Russia into the USSR -- which eventually included people reporting their neighbors to the authorities, if they thought the neighbor was had too much, or was too successful. Then the neighbor would get shipped off to the Gulag.

Obviously I'm being over dramatic. In any event, I don't want to be VikingsGuy who would have to tell Kirk Cousins that his kids aren't deserving of all he's earned (jk).

 

[SAJ-99]

That involves someone drawing a line in the sand saying what $ amount is "too much" for someone to receive, who didn't deserve it. Figuring out how to redistribute wealth to such an extent seems fraught with difficulty. Do "the people" vote on how much money someone should inherit? Or do we just implement more regulations and see how it goes (including whether more charitable trusts are set up, or money and innovation is moved elsewhere). It would probably alter the course of a lot of private money being used to fund certain political agendas in various states.

In reply to some other comments, sure, the French got upset with the aristocracy in the late 18th century and initiated the reign of terror, and Lenin and the boys helped social engineer Russia into the USSR -- which eventually included people reporting their neighbors to the authorities, if they thought the neighbor was had too much, or was too successful. Then the neighbor would get shipped off to the Gulag.

Obviously I'm being over dramatic. In any event, I don't want to be VikingsGuy who would have to tell Kirk Cousins that his kids aren't deserving of all he's earned (jk).

We draw those types of lines in the sand all the time.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

The debate on this tax in Washington never involves how much money Elon Musk or Lebron James can gift their children. It is typically on the family farm, which tugs at the heartstrings a bit more, and affects far more voters.

What is clear is that no one wants to actually fix the problem.

This "family farm" can currently be passed down and pay $0 in taxes

2831 W Shore Dr, Helena, MT 59602 | Zillow

2831 W Shore Dr, Helena MT, is a Single Family home that contains 17533 sq ft and was built in 2013.It contains 10 bedrooms and 8 bathrooms. The Zestimate for this Single Family is $11,007,100, which has increased by $11,007,100 in the last 30 days.The Rent Zestimate for this Single Family is...

www.zillow.com

same with this 4,200 acre "farm"

41763 Road H, Cahone, CO 81320 | MLS #178458 | Zillow

This 3201 square feet Single Family home has 4 bedrooms and 4 bathrooms. It is located at 41763 Road H, Cahone, CO.

www.zillow.com

This 5000 acre family farm + 1MM in cattle could be passed down under vikings system with $0 taxes

1954 Highway 26, Guernsey, WY 82214 | Zillow

1954 Highway 26, Guernsey WY, is a Vacant Land home that contains 2500 sq ft and was built in 1930.It contains 3 bathrooms. The Rent Zestimate for this Vacant Land is $1,200/mo, which has increased by $386/mo in the last 30 days.

www.zillow.com

The family farm schtick is a joke.

 

[more_cowbell]

Sure, but who would draw this one? Either through regulation or vote, I think things could get cringey.

And then on the other end, where does the "donated" money go? Do we set up an agency called, "The Collection and Re-allocation of Too Much Money from Un-Deserving People So we Can Build Centers for Kids Who Can't Read Good and Who Wanna Learn to Do Other Stuff Good Too Bureau"?

A lot of people might want assurance that all that extra money isn't being shopvac'd up into a black hole.