@Jaxk Then my 401k and the one I had at my last job (both with company matching) were/are vastly underperforming :p
That doesn’t stop me from shoving 5% of my gross income (maxing out my company match, resulting in a net contribution of $100–150/month) into it anyways, but unless something changes in the numbers soon, I see only a small fraction of that amount being around when the time comes. The stock market over the last few years has returned less and it appears that it is in the downward portion of a cycle. Regular savings accounts and CDs have interest rates a small fraction of what they were; low enough that compound interest won’t work the magic that it used to.
I do have a slight advantage in that I have spent the last 14 years in states with no income tax though; maybe you should consider moving. Home prices are reasonable here; the median price for a 2-bedroom is only $294k. Come on over, we could be neighbors! Of course, the combined state/county sales tax of 9.5% makes up for that and makes me sometimes wish I had stayed in NH where it was also zero… but I digress.
One misconception I wish to clear up though. I really have no problem with people being rich either. It’s partly a matter of not having a rising tide lift all boats (compare the income growths of various levels) and partly the fact that some seem to think that the solution to our economic problems is to amplify them.
Trust me, I know that what some people consider “rich” really isn’t. Some consider my folks rich because they earned five times what my wife and I did and spent a couple of weeks a year in Europe. Sounds like something only rich people do, but they drove cars over a decade old, took a beating on their stock portfolio a few years ago, and also had to deal with some major home-related expenses (septic systems are not cheap!). That is why I feel that some people considering $250k/yr “rich” is a little… unwarranted (I think that is the word I am looking for).
When I look at the economic growth and record profits and incomes, then compare them to wage stagnation (despite increased productivity per worker), unemployment, and rising poverty levels though, that is where I get a little touchy.
Now, taxes are kind of a stupid way to try and fix things. I still think the more sensible way would be to have more Americans have more disposable income to do some combination of spending and investing (yes, people in the lower 90% invest too) and to have more Americans able to live self-sufficiently instead of either at taxpayer expense or not living at all. More money circulating amongst more people means a higher standard of living for all instead of a few, more consumer spending (and thus, indirectly, higher employment due to demand), and leads to a more robust and more sustainable economy. That coupled with the reduced government spending while, at the same time, having many of the people that used to get government money now paying taxes will turn an expense into a revenue stream… increased revenue plus reduced overhead sounds like a win to me!
Thing is, that won’t happen. There is too much pressure to not only maintain the status quo, but to give the inequality issues we have a cocktail of steroids and PCP.