KaskadskyjKozak

Everything in my fridge now tastes like Smoked Salmon. Including the tomatoes and the milk try putting an open box of baking soda in there

I buy 'em in bulk at CostCo and freeze 1/2. They stay fresher, and last longer. I make my own. bread maker?

I buy 'em in bulk at CostCo and freeze 1/2. They stay fresher, and last longer.

Any recommendations on resources for detailed route descriptions? I've done lots of web searches, and not found too much info except for the AG route. How much further? An hour or two?

Sat: easy hike with family (Baker River). Mostly sunny but chilly. Nice views of Shuksan/Sulphide Glacier. Sun: checked out REI sale. Bought snowshoes.

Montana looks like a black hole sucking the country in upon itself.

I do own a home - never moved out (yet). I considered moving to San Diego the summer before last. At the time, my realtor did not mention the caveats that you describe - he just said I would be taxed at something like 2.5% on the sale price. If what you say is true, then I feel a bit better about it. Although if I move to a less-expensive house it will likely be for reasons financial hardship in which case I will miss those taxed dollars on the price difference (better than the full amount).

Why not have the government provide a software package for people to file with - input raw data, it spits out how much you owe (or get back) and files electronically for you. Quicken and M$ would be pissed, but them As long as we don't have to pay to use the software, and it is easier to use than the forms, I think it is a good idea.

I think there are tax-neutral alternatives for the average taxpayer in line with what I suggest. I fill out forms right now with little affect on what I pay - better to eliminate the forms and have a simpler formula for including the taxable earnings.

For me tax simplication means at least two things: 1) closing loopholes and shelters that are typically taken advantage of by higher income earners. 2) reducing the number of forms typical taxpayers have to fill out. I'm not talking about itemized deductions here, but things like the AMT form - I've had to fill this out 3 years straight even though the result is the same - it didn't apply to me. Ditto for making a little cash on 1099's. I've had to fill out 2-3 schedules for minimal consulting I have done (like < $1000). There should be a way to just add this into wages on the 1040 if you only consult part-time.

This is what I think of the plan:

NICE!

Easier said that done. You missed the point. The increase in "wealth" that causes property taxes to rise is on paper only. It is useless if the costs of "cashing in" offset the "increase" in wealth. Meanwhile actual spending power goes down the shit-hole. I'd take 0% housing growth if it comes with 0% tax increase any day over no net increase in salary, and rising prices/taxes.

I read somewhere that the Icelanders (sic?) are the most happy people on the planet. I'm not sure I remember what the specific criteria were, or how they were weighed, but recall it was interesting. I'm not sure how open they are to foreigners though. I believe they have strict rules about preserving their culture (like naming children with traditional icelandic names).

Fair enough. I get the impression that most people considering this "move" are young and single, or at least single. I'd like to see some discussion of where is a great place to move if you have families. As a single guy, I didn't worry too much about living in a small apartment with roomates, or worry about crime, the quality of schooling, corruption (police, legal system) etc. Once you get a house and a couple of kids, all this changes...

I said that I wanted to grandfather out social security. That would take many years to accomplish. I would receive less than 100% of my benefits under such a plan, and would be transferring money to current (and future) recipients. But there would be an end to the program eventually. Hopefully this could be done such that my contributions would taper off and I could invest in my own retirement concurrently. The question of "dying elderly" that I was addressing was for those people who did not save for SS as the program tapered off and eventually went away. They would be my peers and younger people, who, in 30 or 40 years would have reduced benefits - eventually no benefits (i.e. an 18 year old kid today). The challenge was raised that this was not fair - the government needs to "force" people to be responsible and save for their future, and make sure they do it safely (not on volatile markets). So, we are arguing two things: 1) people who think they are going to get benefits because they paid in to the program. Yes, I think they should get them - proportional to their age as the program winds down 2) people who know that the program is going away and refuse to save for their own retirement, or "lose" their savings in volatile investments My "problem" with SS is that I do not have the freedom to invest (or not) as I wish. I am forced to contribute to some fund, and other people decide what to do with it. The money is mismanaged - and there is constant talk of needing to fix it, before it goes bankrupt. If other people like it, cool. I want to opt out.

You do realize that SS is money you put away for yourself, right? It is not a transfer payment. In other words, you are promised to get back every cent you put into SS plus interest.

Don't put words in my mouth. I support some taxes, but they need to be lower in the aggregate. As for taxing wealth - a lot of good it does me to have my house's value go up, if selling said house, and moving will incur a prohibitive cost, resulting in a net loss (tax on sales price, %-age to real-estate agent, closing costs, etc). Moreover, if the housing market as a whole is on the up, I can't buy anything with the money I have left. The wealth is on paper only. You are taxed on what you earn. You are taxed for sitting on property whose value goes up. If you sell your house you are taxed on the sales price. And there are probably some hidden taxes on top of that through the financing of the new home. Enslavement.

You say it is our moral responsibility to care for our elderly, yet you call for removal of the system that does exactly this thing? How do you reconcile this? I'm not sure why you want to abolish social security, but I suspect it has to do with you not wishing to subsidize others. If this is the case, then where is the moral responibility there? Any statements of "local charities" or "let families care for their own" are just dodges of not wanting to care for what you consider someone else's burden. Where is the moral responsibility there? Those who feel a moral obligation to care for those in need can and should do so. Privately. It is not the government's role. And I reject the notion that throwing money at government social programs is an act of compassion and care. It seems that many people in support of these big government social programs think that by supporting them, they've done their part. And they don't have to make any personal sacrifices to do so - how convenient. And the best part of all - make some one else pay for it ("those selfish/rich/whatever" people). I characterize this attitude as indifference not compassion, and find it hypocritical, especially in light of continuous demagoguery about how conservatives supposedly don't care about the "less fortunate".

School vouchers are not a handout but a reclamation of money confiscated from taxpayers by the government - at least for those of us who have been paying property taxes. And these taxes are raised arbitrarily by the government from year to year according to their whim (property value assessments), irrespective of whether a home owner has more income or not. One more step towards enslavement...

Considering what one's parents sacrifice in raising you, it doesn't seem too unreasonable to return the care, when the time comes. And your children will be watching what you do to grandma and grandpa (and learning...)

This is the status quo in many other nations. It is not begging but merely taking care of your parents. It is simply what is done. It is not begging at all. It used to be the status quo in the US as well (not just before SS existed). In today's America, people are too willing to abandon their parents because it's too "inconvenient" or "expensive" to do otherwise.

I don't want SS privatized, I want it eliminated forever. I am not counting on getting a single red cent from my contributions. If someone "dies" then that is everyone's problem, and moral responsibility to prevent. People need to stop using the government as a surrogate for them. This whole discussion is all just mental masturbation anyway; nothing will be changing for the better anytime soon. Time to have some and forget about it. Hasta!

1. I am talking about grandfathering social security - people over the age of say 60 would get 100% of their benefits, between 50 and 60 say 85%, and so on down to our 20 year olds who get nothing. The program would end, but not starve out those who are counting on it already. 2. Families need to take care of eachother. When an aging parent needs financial assistance, their relatives need to chip in. 3. Some people who do not have family who can (or will) help. It is our moral responsibility to help them - but this is appropriate through private charities, not wasteful government programs.