Not to get into your pockets but:

[MxB]

13 hours ago, Vegas_Millennial said:

 

 

I am at the beginning of this transition as we speak.  I retire in less than 2 years (timing dictated by pension, not my personal savings), and my retired friends and I have just booked several back-to-back cruises together for the 6 months immediately after I retire.

I'm looking at how I'm going to pay for this travel, and it dawned on me that I'm going to have to stop contributing to my Roth accounts my last year on the job to cash flow the cruise payments.  I really should stop contributing to the Roth accounts now, but mentally I'm trying to squeeze in "just one more year!" of robust retirement savings while I can take advantage of the tax free growth.  The financial forecast shows virtually no difference to my retirement income whether I contribute any more to my Roth accounts this year or next, but it is very hard psychologically to stop saving after I've been doing it for so long.

I watched a video last night advocating exactly that.  Once your portfolio is "enough" (which is not easy to calculate, but it's just math), redirect retirement savings to spending.  The transition to spending on things like travel or long-delayed home projects, or other "someday" items, is less stressful if you do them while still drawing a paycheck.  In that situation, you're not jeopardizing any part of your portfolio.

My retirement planning didn't allow for that.  My plan was to work until age 70 after hitting The Number.  However, the stress became overwhelming a few months before I turned 66.  I looked at my portfolio on Saturday, spoke to my financial dudes early Monday morning (confirming my assessment), said "FUCK IT!", got my boss on the phone and resigned.  I was short of The Number, but it was still do-able.

I've been lucky.  You know that old adage, "A rising tide raises all boats"?  Two years in, I've not only blasted past The Number, my portfolio is growing faster than I can spend it.  I plan to take a few major trips over the next three or four years mostly because I can.

[Thelatin]

On 8/11/2026 at 7:11 PM, Jay17403 said:

My father was a very successful homophobic asshole.  I enjoy spending the money I was left on escorts.  

When that day comes lol - a portion will be going towards that too

[Wings246]

If I'm anywhere near 62 or 65, I'd retire immediately.  You need to jump into the Social Security and Medicare pools, respectively, (and possibly get grandfathered in) before the last penny is gone.

I feel like I'm being forced to pay into something (isn't that the quintessential definition of being robbed?) that I can never, ever get back.  By the time I'm "theoretically" eligible for either one of the above, I'm sure the eligibility age will be pushed to over 80, assuming the funds are still available at that point of US history.  I need to spend it today, for there's quite likely no tomorrow.

Edited yesterday at 12:22 AM by Wings246

[+ KensingtonHomo]

2 hours ago, Wings246 said:

If I'm anywhere near 62 or 65, I'd retire immediately.  You need to jump into the Social Security and Medicare pools, respectively, (and possibly get grandfathered in) before the last penny is gone.

I feel like I'm being forced to pay into something (isn't that the quintessential definition of being robbed?) that I can never, ever get back.  By the time I'm "theoretically" eligible for either one of the above, I'm sure the eligibility age will be pushed to over 80, assuming the funds are still available at that point of US history.  I need to spend it today, for there's quite likely no tomorrow.

The only way for social security to run out of money is for everyone younger to stop working. Those working cover those currently retired. A simple way to ensure its solvency would be to lift the cap (currently $184k). If that’s insufficient, they could start taxing some kinds of capital gains as income. Right now the ultra rich are not paying any taxes, nor are most multinational corporations. All that’s lacking is the political will but that’s changing. 

[Decatur Guy]

I can afford it, but I have to limit myself. I don't hire as often as I'd like to. Financial stability is more important. 

[rickster]

6 hours ago, Wings246 said:

If I'm anywhere near 62 or 65, I'd retire immediately.  You need to jump into the Social Security and Medicare pools, respectively, (and possibly get grandfathered in) before the last penny is gone.

I feel like I'm being forced to pay into something (isn't that the quintessential definition of being robbed?) that I can never, ever get back.  By the time I'm "theoretically" eligible for either one of the above, I'm sure the eligibility age will be pushed to over 80, assuming the funds are still available at that point of US history.  I need to spend it today, for there's quite likely no tomorrow.

Since US life expectancy is just under 80 and doesn't seem to be in any danger of going much higher, I doubt that the full retirement age will be set anywhere near that.  I suppose it could increase by a year or two but that would presumably be done gradually as the last increase was.  

Also, what seems more likely than complete collapse is that Social Security benefits could be reduced or grow less quickly and that Medicare could become more expensive.  Medicare costs are already higher for people with higher incomes and it has been suggested that Social Security benefits should be means-tested as well.  Whatever happens, Social Security was never intended to, and never has, fully funded retirement.

Having said that, any change at all in these benefits is a third rail in US politics.  So the whole can could just be kicked down the road again while the US sells more T-bills for as long as it can find willing buyers.

[+ glutes]

When I hit 62 I am going to start taking my Social Security.

I don't no whether I'll be around much longer, I don't know whether Social Security will be around much longer.

[+ Charlie]

I retired at 62 and started taking SS immediately, mainly because my spouse was 8 years old than I was, and I figured if we were going to have any fun in retirement (travel, etc.), I had better do it as soon as possible.

[+ PhileasFogg]

12 hours ago, KensingtonHomo said:

The only way for social security to run out of money is for everyone younger to stop working.

A government that issues its own currency can’t literally run out of dollars. The real constraints are inflation, available resources, and the laws governing Social Security—not solvency in the household sense.
 

12 hours ago, KensingtonHomo said:

Right now the ultra rich are not paying any taxes, nor are most multinational corporations

This is also not true.   Everytime I see it asserted, it only takes a search of but a few SEC files to see it’s false.  

While many large corporations use deductions, credits, and international tax planning strategies that can significantly reduce their effective tax rates, they still generally pay corporate taxes in the countries where they operate. The extent of taxation varies widely by jurisdiction and company, but “not paying taxes” is an overstatement.

[+ KensingtonHomo]

5 minutes ago, PhileasFogg said:

A government that issues its own currency can’t literally run out of dollars. The real constraints are inflation, available resources, and the laws governing Social Security—not solvency in the household sense.
 

This is also not true.   Everytime I see it asserted, it only takes a search of but a few SEC files to see it’s false.  

While many large corporations use deductions, credits, and international tax planning strategies that can significantly reduce their effective tax rates, they still generally pay corporate taxes in the countries where they operate. The extent of taxation varies widely by jurisdiction and company, but “not paying taxes” is an overstatement.

If you want to cape for the worst people in our country, by all means do so. But let's stick to facts: 

https://itep.org/tesla-reported-zero-federal-income-tax-in-2025/

https://americansfortaxfairness.org/musks-11-billion-tax-bill-big-news-just-10-wealth-increase-far-year/

https://americansfortaxfairness.org/based-wealth-growth-26-top-billionaires-paid-average-income-tax-rate-just-4-8-6-recent-years/

https://itep.org/jeff-bezos-taxes-amazon-corporate-subsidies/

For comparison, my husband and I pay about 35% in annual taxes. And my consultancy pays about 30%. How do I get the 0 percent rate? 

[+ PhileasFogg]

7 minutes ago, KensingtonHomo said:

If you want to cape for the worst people in our country, by all means do so. But let's stick to facts: 

https://itep.org/tesla-reported-zero-federal-income-tax-in-2025/

https://americansfortaxfairness.org/musks-11-billion-tax-bill-big-news-just-10-wealth-increase-far-year/

https://americansfortaxfairness.org/based-wealth-growth-26-top-billionaires-paid-average-income-tax-rate-just-4-8-6-recent-years/

https://itep.org/jeff-bezos-taxes-amazon-corporate-subsidies/

For comparison, my husband and I pay about 35% in annual taxes. And my consultancy pays about 30%. How do I get the 0 percent rate? 

Interesting, you said “any” and “most” and then you refute your own statement with links you’ve provided under the “guise” of factual support

aren’t you in fact stating a politically hyped position better not discussed under the rules of this forum?   Your sources say it all… 😉

and also, please don’t confuse marginal tax rates with effective tax rates.

Edited yesterday at 04:11 PM by PhileasFogg

[Mark_fl]

13 hours ago, KensingtonHomo said:

 Right now the ultra rich are not paying any taxes

That's a great talking point, but it's simply not true. The top 1% of earners pay 40% of all taxes. The top 5% pay 60%. The lowest earners have a negative tax rate, as they get refundable credits far above what they put in.  Those might be the ones to have a problem with. 

[rickster]

1 hour ago, PhileasFogg said:

A government that issues its own currency can’t literally run out of dollars. The real constraints are inflation, available resources, and the laws governing Social Security—not solvency in the household sense.
 

Governments that just print money recklessly can easily destroy their currencies, as in Germany after WW I and Argentina this century.  The resulting inflation is corrosive and can plunder the value of any retirement benefit.  The United States typically has not gone that route and, as I noted above, has the luxury of being able to sell government bonds (in great part to foreign governments and people) because the dollar for the time being is the world's reserve currency.  So solvency is an issue unless the US government embarks on such a fiscal policy (although some would argue it already has started down that road).

Edited yesterday at 05:30 PM by rickster

[DMonDude]

1 hour ago, Mark_fl said:

That's a great talking point, but it's simply not true. The top 1% of earners pay 40% of all taxes. The top 5% pay 60%. The lowest earners have a negative tax rate, as they get refundable credits far above what they put in.  Those might be the ones to have a problem with. 

To be fair, many of them are taking loans out against their assets and using that money and it is not taxed. Then they take out another loan to pay the prior loan. People like Elon Musk take no/low income from their companies and do this loan method instead. It's so common it has a nick name. "Buy Borrow Die". You'd be right if they weren't exploiting every possible tax loophole and implementing every cheat they possibly could. We unfortunately live in a society where just because a rule is on the books doesn't mean it's being followed or enforced. And similarly, those on the bottom are being squeezed in other ways that aren't sustainable either.

Edited yesterday at 06:41 PM by DMonDude

[+ KensingtonHomo]

2 hours ago, Mark_fl said:

That's a great talking point, but it's simply not true. The top 1% of earners pay 40% of all taxes. The top 5% pay 60%. The lowest earners have a negative tax rate, as they get refundable credits far above what they put in.  Those might be the ones to have a problem with. 

LOL - tell me you don't understand capitalism without telling me.... 

The whole reason you have your money, never mind the top 1%, is because the vast majority of people are exploited workers. They're barely able to pay their bills but you're worried about Mark Zuckerberg's ill-gotten gains. Today's oligarchs would have zero dollars without taxpayers funding their initial operations and continued government largesse (look at where Amazon Web Services gets its money). 

[+ KensingtonHomo]

3 hours ago, PhileasFogg said:

aren’t you in fact stating a politically hyped position better not discussed under the rules of this forum?   Your sources say it all… 😉

and also, please don’t confuse marginal tax rates with effective tax rates.

An appeal to authority is a very common sign you're losing an argument. Even claiming a conversation about economics is "political." Don't confuse me for the little boys you play tricks on. 

[+ PhileasFogg]

2 hours ago, KensingtonHomo said:

An appeal to authority is a very common sign you're losing an argument. Even claiming a conversation about economics is "political." Don't confuse me for the little boys you play tricks on. 

Economics is not political - it’s the dismal science and has many empirically supported theories.  Taxation is inherently political by its nature.  Citation of incomplete data on taxation as fact in support of a stated position is political debate.

I’ve appealed to no authority but you and you double down without addressing the errancy in support for your contention or the point that I’ve made  

Yet, you’ve still not supported your position of “any” and “most”.   It’s simply not true and your diversionary response is the one revealing weakness.

This is a topic on personal spending and not taxation or political will 

Edited 21 hours ago by PhileasFogg

[+ PhileasFogg]

6 hours ago, KensingtonHomo said:

https://americansfortaxfairness.org/based-wealth-growth-26-top-billionaires-paid-average-income-tax-rate-just-4-8-6-recent-years/

Let’s talk about this one.  YOUR OWN SOURCE states that those billionaires paid an effective tax rate of 18.2% ON AVERAGE. The only way they get to the conclusion that they pay 4.8% is to include unrealized capital gains.  A politically charged issue that is a fabrication to make a headline.  But the fact that they say they pay ANYthing rebuts your argument 

Why do they only pay 18.2%.  Dividends…and dividends are double taxed - at the corporate level and then again at the 15% recipient level  

YOU are suggesting I have a weak argument?   Sir, you have no argument when your own sources refute your assertion.  So, this isn’t political?

Edited 21 hours ago by PhileasFogg

[Mark_fl]

I'm not sure tax rate is the relevant part of the equation.  Why should a fair amount to pay be dependent on earnings anyway? Is someone making 2 million a year getting more services than someone making 50 million? Or 20K? 

One could logically argue that if someone pays a million a year in taxes, they paid "their fair share" regardless of their income. 

[+ Vegas_Millennial]

On 8/9/2026 at 11:47 AM, Reggyreg56 said:

I don't know how you guys can afford to dabble in this indulgence. After paying my mortgage, car payment, other financial obligations and retirement I got very little left to pursue this endeavor (Believe me I wish I could!). Some of you must be pretty financially fortunate. Lol

I've said it elsewhere on Company of Men, but hiring for companionship is often cheaper than dating or marrying.  I can afford to hire and travel so much because I stay single and don't live full time in a high-cost city.

[DMonDude]

48 minutes ago, Mark_fl said:

Why should a fair amount to pay be dependent on earnings anyway? Is someone making 2 million a year getting more services than someone making 50 million? Or 20K?

Because percentage of income is more fair than a flat rate for all. Everyone is paying an equal amount they can afford to pay for services everyone uses and benefits from. The person making 2 million a year is also able to make that much because they are generally benefiting from tax breaks for the wealthy or rule bending that benefits them disproportionately. So it's not crazy that they should contribute back to help keep society going. The fact they don't is why things are how they are now.

The wealthy used to do this voluntarily by building parks or Observatories or other things that made things better for themselves and everyone, they don't do that anymore and instead hoard their wealth. The wealthy are also increasingly funding their own privatized versions of services. Leaving the poor to not have access to the private services while also having the public services decrease in scale and quality as they get less funding.

So even more so, it benefits everyone if the wealthy paid proportional to what they're taking out of circulation via their wealth hoarding. Having tax rates be flat for everyone just guarantees only a few could afford to pay the tax if it was high, or that everyone paying a low flat tax rate wouldn't be enough to fund services we're all used to. And because of all the tax cheating and wealth hoarding, and cutting of services, we're basically already getting the worst of both of those scenarios.

Edited 19 hours ago by DMonDude

[+ PhileasFogg]

36 minutes ago, DMonDude said:

making 2 million a year is also able to make that much because they are generally benefiting from tax breaks for the wealthy

Sir, you are wrong.  Completely wrong.

A w-4 employee making $2MM has very few “tax breaks” emanating from those earning activities.  You can ask me how I know.   The marginal tax rate at that level of income makes wealth creation at that level very difficult. 

Assuming you take someone in NY, with a $1MM house, social security, state tax, Medicare, Medicare surtax…they will pay 48% of their income in taxes.   In TN, where I lived before retirement, it would have been 19% less    And this is EFFECTIVE tax rates, not Marginal 

So, what were you saying about tax breaks?

Edited 19 hours ago by PhileasFogg

[nomad]

On 8/10/2026 at 7:01 AM, KensingtonHomo said:

we didn't see Beyoncé or Madonna because those tickets were crazy.

Don't see them in the states.  Fly over the pond.  Ticket prices are capped and much more reasonable.  Even with the cost of the flight and hotel, you would be surprised how much less it costs than trying to buy tix here to see high demand shows.  Doing this for both Ariana and Celine.  The other benefit is that it's much cheaper to hire over there also and the quality is top notch with many who can't enter US cuz of the current gov restrictions tightening.  FIRM believer in tasting and experiencing new things.  

[+ KensingtonHomo]

3 hours ago, PhileasFogg said:

Let’s talk about this one.  YOUR OWN SOURCE states that those billionaires paid an effective tax rate of 18.2% ON AVERAGE. The only way they get to the conclusion that they pay 4.8% is to include unrealized capital gains.  A politically charged issue that is a fabrication to make a headline.  But the fact that they say they pay ANYthing rebuts your argument 

Why do they only pay 18.2%.  Dividends…and dividends are double taxed - at the corporate level and then again at the 15% recipient level  

YOU are suggesting I have a weak argument?   Sir, you have no argument when your own sources refute your assertion.  So, this isn’t political?

It’s called hyperbole. If it permissible to actually discuss politics and political economy, I’d smoke you. But alas…

Anyway, I’m glad you won capitalism (or think you did). 😂😂😂

I can also see why you find dating an 18 year old acceptable. 🤢

[+ PhileasFogg]

3 hours ago, KensingtonHomo said:

It’s called hyperbole. If it permissible to actually discuss politics and political economy, I’d smoke you. But alas…

Anyway, I’m glad you won capitalism (or think you did). 😂😂😂

I can also see why you find dating an 18 year old acceptable. 🤢

There you go…making a personal attack while actually admitting you’re wrong.  
But thank you for admitting you’re wrong with an eloquence that would make all judgmental gay men proud.  You do “you” so good…but whoever it was who told you to “just be yourself” gave you very bad advice.

You’re “mature” enough to know that hyperbole is an exaggeration like “I’m so hungry, I could eat a horse.”  
It not hyperbole to say that rich people don’t pay any taxes.   It’s a LIE.  
But bless your sweet little heart, you actually think I might believe you meant it as a rhetorical tool 

Please don’t bring crayons to the debate next time.