Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Naked Greed?

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Tom Gross

unread,
Mar 25, 1986, 10:19:08 AM3/25/86
to

> That is not the way the bill works. As it stands, all it does is to
> prevent a person from putting $2000 in an IRA and also putting $7000 in
> a 401(k) plan. The total of his two contributions must be less than or
> equal to $7000. Therefore he may put $2000 in his IRA and $5000 in his
> 401(k), or $1000 and $6000, or $0 and $7000, and so on.
>
> Now, let's show a social conscience here. Which of us is complaining
> that this is a trespass on our rights? Who can afford to sock away
> $2000+$7000 each year? Whoever you are, don't you think this attitude
> is Marie Antoinette-ish? Face it, you are arguing for naked greed.


First of all, I think a LOT of people can afford to "sock away"
a LOT more than $7000, especially married professionals or
even single wage earners. Especially considering it's "socked away"
off the top, i.e. from the most highly taxed part of your income.

I thought the whole point of the government initiating these
programs was to get people to SAVE which is supposed to be good
for the economy, somehow. To then turn around and accuse people
who exhibit common sense and thriftiness as being "greedy" seems
more than a little unfair. I am sure there are people in my
tax bracket who do not take advantage of their 401k and IRA and
I suspect they are the same people who somehow can afford to drive
Audi Quattros. I'm waiting until I retire; then I'll buy a Ferrari.


Tom Gross
Apollo Computer, Inc.
Chelmsford, MA

Lawrence J. Mazlack

unread,
Mar 26, 1986, 5:23:33 PM3/26/86
to
>> Now, let's show a social conscience here. Which of us is complaining
>> that this is a trespass on our rights? Who can afford to sock away
>> $2000+$7000 each year? Whoever you are, don't you think this attitude
>> is Marie Antoinette-ish? Face it, you are arguing for naked greed.

Are you suggesting that all people should make the same income? Or that all
people spend their money the same. Realistically, people in the $35-50K range
(typical computer types) have vast differences in disposable income. For one
thing, a lot of people are "house poor". (spending most of their disposable
income on housing.) Maybe those people shouldn't be allowed to deduct
interest? Other people have new, shiny automobiles - others do not.

> First of all, I think a LOT of people can afford to "sock away"
> a LOT more than $7000, especially married professionals or
> even single wage earners. Especially considering it's "socked away"
> off the top, i.e. from the most highly taxed part of your income.
>
> I thought the whole point of the government initiating these
> programs was to get people to SAVE which is supposed to be good
> for the economy, somehow. To then turn around and accuse people
> who exhibit common sense and thriftiness as being "greedy" seems
> more than a little unfair. I am sure there are people in my
> tax bracket who do not take advantage of their 401k and IRA and
> I suspect they are the same people who somehow can afford to drive
> Audi Quattros. I'm waiting until I retire; then I'll buy a Ferrari.
>

Right on.

Larry Mazlack
maz...@ernie.berkeley.edu

0 new messages