The Trump Economy

Do you want to know how to get out of this situation. Stop borrowing money and start raising taxes!

To do that the government is going to have to raise revenues (income and corporate taxes) and cut spending (all government spending across the board including and especially military expenditures).

If we can get to a point where we have a budget surplus for the foreseeable future then we can start to pay down our debts. That may not bring in enough to swing the needle, but it sure would be symbolic.

It’s a good bet that we’ll have to start raising taxes on boomer estates as they begin to pass on. Estate taxes will have to rise. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Federal estate taxes don't apply until the total value of an estate hits $15mln. There are approximately 900,000 people in the US with estates over $10mln, so an even lower number of people are subject to an estate Tax. Those rates are already between 18% to 40% and I think there are ways like trusts to avoid even paying that.

If you want the government to pull money from estates, eliminating steps ups should work. It's a bummer, but it's hard to complain about having to pay capital gains taxes on money that wasn't yours until someone died.

Also figure out a way to combat billionaires just borrowing against their assets instead of ever having to pay capital gains taxes.

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+...hrome&ie=UTF-8

https://www.usbank.com/wealth-manage...ate-taxes.html

Ima having a Deja Vu moment here.
Could have sworn that I had this same convo.

But I don't have the best memory.

Only thing different is I don't think I did a googly about it.
And it sez:

"Based on historical data and projected trends leading into 2026, $100 invested in the stock market (S&P 500) would have a significantly higher return compared to $100 invested in gold, assuming both were held from the early days of Wall Street (roughly 1792) to 2026.
While gold is an effective long-term store of value and hedge against inflation, stocks generally offer superior growth through capital appreciation and reinvested dividends.
Historical Performance Breakdown
Stocks (Long-Term): Over the long term (100+ years), stocks have vastly outperformed gold. For example, $100 invested in 1928 would have grown to over $624,000 in the S&P 500 (with dividends) by 2022, while the same amount in gold would have only grown to approximately $8,800.
Gold (Short-Term/Crisis): Gold has outperformed stocks during specific periods of high inflation or market crashes (e.g., 2000–2010). As of late 2025/early 2026, gold has experienced a strong rally due to geopolitical tensions, but it is typically viewed as a portfolio stabilizer, not a primary growth engine. "

So, again, being a non $$$ guy, it seems both have their traits/qualities. But overall Stocks are the better performer on a broader scale. As with the market, gold does well on special circumstances. But I guess that is why a great number of simulations have to be done to find those where it is favoured. Sorta like that Capt Sulley thing landing a big bird in a body of water under his special circumstances.

The real world simulation, which is reality itself, my original statement of dumping same in one and than the other and let time take over, the market did much better than the metal sitting on a shelf.

Personally, I think investing in lead and powder is the safer hedge










CPT is correct in that this isn't a problem we have now that you can point at one person. Takes a village to burn it down But sitting on a bunch of metal waiting for the end of days isn't very productive. Seeing how the situation is today, going back to my $100 market/metal thing, i'd take that $$$$ from the market and leave the market behind. Ima sure at even a devalued face value, the cash is a better thing.

If you gotta invest in metal for bad times, *I* would put it into Lead and hedge with powder. Originally Posted by Precious_b

Preposterous! In the early days of America the price of gold was pegged to a specific price. Gold won over depreciating fiat currencies such as Colonial currencies, Continental currencies, and Confederate Democratic Southern currency of the civil war that got invested into early financial markets in America. The S&P 500 index was officially created on March 4, 1957 so the AI overview is making up it's own make believe world viewpoint. During 1957 Americans were not allowed to own physical gold and that is why I chose the year 1974, the year Americans were once again granted the privlege by their government to once again own gold. 1974 represented the most fair outcome of the experiment with gold being the winner. From 1933 until 1974 ownership was illegal.

You must not have a lot of faith in man if you feel that lead and powder is a better investment or you're preparing for civil war that the Democrats keep prepping their voter base for. While lead and powder is important there are better investments to invest in that will bring about a better tomorrow.

Preposterous! In the early days of America the price of gold was pegged to a specific price. Gold won over depreciating fiat currencies such as Colonial currencies, Continental currencies, and Confederate Democratic Southern currency of the civil war that got invested into early financial markets in America. The S&P 500 index was officially created on March 4, 1957 so the AI overview is making up it's own make believe world viewpoint. During 1957 Americans were not allowed to own physical gold and that is why I chose the year 1974, the year Americans were once again granted the privlege by their government to once again own gold. 1974 represented the most fair outcome of the experiment with gold being the winner. From 1933 until 1974 ownership was illegal.

You must not have a lot of faith in man if you feel that lead and powder is a better investment or you're preparing for civil war that the Democrats keep prepping their voter base for. While lead and powder is important there are better investments to invest in that will bring about a better tomorrow. Originally Posted by CPT Savajo

Hey! Don't kill the messenger. Just did a googly. But you are right about S&P.

So, that's fair assumption on your part.

Let's use 1957 and 1974 as start times to just dump and go to see which one does better with no oversight. I did say I was a dummy with money

1957:
"A $100 investment in the S&P 500 in 1957 (with dividends reinvested) would grow to approximately $105,407.74 by early 2026. While specific 1957-2026 gold data is less commonly cited in the same format, inflation-adjusted returns suggest stocks significantly outperformed gold over this long-term period, notes {Link: In2013Dollars https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1957}.
Investment Breakdown (1957-2026):
Stock Market ($100 in S&P 500): $105,407.74 (Nominal value), which is a 105,307.74% total return.
Gold ($100): While gold acted as a hedge against inflation, its total return,, is significantly lower than the compounding effect of reinvested dividends in the stock market over 69 years, notes {Link: In2013Dollars https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1957}.
Real Value (Adjusted for Inflation): The $105,407.74 stock investment has a real buying power of approximately $9,038.40 in 1957 dollars."

1974:
"If you invested $100 in the S&P 500 at the start of 1974 and reinvested dividends, it would be worth approximately $28,732 by early 2026. A $100 investment in gold in 1974 would have grown significantly less,, reaching approximately $5,300 to $5,500 by early 2026, assuming a price of roughly $100/oz in 1974 and ~$5,500/oz in 2026.
Stock Market ($100 in 1974): The S&P 500 experienced a compound annual growth rate of roughly
, leading to a total return of over
.
Gold ($100 in 1974): Gold was roughly
per ounce in 1974. With spot prices hovering around
per ounce in 2025-2026, the $100 investment (roughly
to
ounce) grew to over
.
The stock market heavily outperformed gold over this specific 50+ year period due to reinvested dividends and compound growth. "


So, the '57 response probably took into account what you said about the ownership of such. But still shows a shellacing.

Again, don't kill the messenger. *I* would still take those deflated market dollars since the amount still looks greater to *me*.

You jogged me memory. I'd like for you to stay around "this time". I seem to remember the last time you speculated about me and made guess and such you had a little vacay. Please stay around this time. And spare me such as you did last time to earn that.

Originally Posted by Precious_b View Post
Ain't a $$$ person.

But i'd lay odds that if you invested $100 day 1 Wall Street opened and $100 in gold, the Stock Market would have a better return on investment.

Not to say you shouldn't hedge your assets with a bit of coin there.

I used Claude.ai and asked about buying $100 worth of gold on May 17, 1792; in the stock market on May 17, 1792; and in the S&P 500 on March 4, 1957. Let's assume someone illegally kept the gold somewhere safe. : ).

Value today

Gold:
$26,140.56

Stock Market (keep in mind this is over 234 years):
Assuming a 7% return: $169 million
Assuming an 8% return $3.3 billion

S&P 500
Price Appreciation only: $15,750
Dividends reinvested: $30,000 to $40,000

The detail are broken out below and at the bottom are links to the actual Claude.ai results with reference links.

Claude includes the concerns raised about the Stock Market by CPT and admits that it's more of a mathematical exercise than a realistic scenario.

Gold

How much gold would $100 buy on May 17, 1792?

Based on the search results, the Coinage Act of 1792 established gold at $19.39 per fine ounce.

On May 17, 1792, $100 would buy approximately 5.16 troy ounces of gold (100 ÷ 19.39 = 5.157 ounces).

This price remained fixed for over 40 years until 1834, when it was raised to $20.67 per ounce.

How much would 5.16 troy ounces of gold be worth, today, February 12, 2026?

Based on today's gold price, gold is currently trading at around $5,066 per ounce as of this morning, though prices have been volatile today with gold falling 2.77% to drop below $4,900 per ounce at some point.

Using the current price of approximately $5,066 per ounce, your 5.16 troy ounces of gold would be worth:

5.16 × $5,066 = $26,140.56

That represents a roughly 261-fold increase from the original $100 investment in 1792 — quite an impressive return over 234 years! This shows gold's role as a long-term store of value, though it's worth noting that gold prices have been particularly elevated recently, reaching record highs in recent weeks.

(It's worth noting this amount would have been worth about half of the above amount at the end of 2025, which is $13,070.28. It took 234 years to reach approximately $13,070.28.)

The Stock Market

How much would $100 be worth today, February 12, 2026, if it was invested in the stock market on May 17, 1792?

Based on the search results, I can provide a calculation, but with important caveats. May 17, 1792 is an interesting date choice—it's right around when the Buttonwood Agreement was signed (May 17, 1792), which established what would become the New York Stock Exchange.

However, reliable stock market data from 1792 is extremely limited. According to the sources, trustworthy price and dividend records only begin from January 1793. Even then, the market was very different from today—it consisted primarily of a few bank stocks and the 1st Bank of the United States.

Using the most comprehensive long-term data available (from 1825-2019), the average annual total return was approximately 9.56%. For an even longer period from 1793 onwards, various sources suggest returns in the range of 6-8% annually when accounting for the numerous crises, bank failures, and wars of the early period.

If we use a conservative estimate of 7% annual return (accounting for dividends reinvested) over 233.74 years (May 17, 1792 to February 12, 2026):

$100 × (1.07)^233.74 ≈ $169 million

With a more optimistic 8% return:

$100 × (1.08)^233.74 ≈ $3.3 billion

Important caveats:

There was no real "stock market" to invest in on May 17, 1792—only a handful of bank stocks

This assumes perfect reinvestment of all dividends and surviving multiple market crashes

Early returns (1790s-1860s) were highly volatile with many bank failures

This ignores transaction costs, taxes, and the practical impossibility of maintaining such an investment

The calculation demonstrates the extraordinary power of compound returns over very long periods, but it's more of a mathematical exercise than a realistic scenario.

S&P 500

How much would $100 invested in using the S&P Index on March 4, 1957, be worth today, February 12, 2026?

The S&P 500 opened at 44.06 on March 4, 1957, and as of February 11, 2026, it closed at 6,941.47.

Price appreciation only (excluding dividends):

Starting value: $44.06

Current value: $6,941.47

Price return: 157.5x or 15,650%

$100 invested would be worth approximately $15,750

However, this calculation only accounts for price appreciation. The actual total return including 58 years of dividends would be significantly higher. With dividends reinvested over this 69-year period, the total return would likely be in the range of $30,000-$40,000 or more, though the exact amount depends on dividend reinvestment assumptions.

The compound annual growth rate for price appreciation alone has been approximately 7.6% per year over this nearly 69-year period, which aligns with the historical compounded annual growth rate of just over 7% Begin To Invest for the index.

https://www.google.com/search?q=when...hrome&ie=UTF-8

https://claude.ai/chat/1be1f2c7-6637...d-a4d16931b721

https://claude.ai/chat/cdbf7078-32fa...9-18b5ec1cf008

https://claude.ai/chat/29be2d47-bcb9...7-ec5b195e1e06

Well then, why don't you just do the calculations yourself? They're not difficult.

Our current national debt (gross) is $38.6 trillion. Can you compute 1% of that? Good! Now try to compute 2% as well.

Gee, I hope I don't fuck this up... wouldn't the numbers be $386 billion and $772 billion, respectively?

Meanwhile, the CBO is predicting a federal budget deficit of $1.9 trillion for the current fiscal year ending 9/30/26.

So... if interest rates drop by two full percentage points (or 200 basis points) and we assume this would allow the US Treasury to save accordingly on what it spends to service our national debt, then the deficit would shrink by 40% to around $1.1 trillion.

Hey, that wasn't so hard, was it? You could've laid out the actual numbers and showed everyone exactly how much Trump was off. I would call him an idiot too, but at least he is drawing everyone's attention to the problem. That's more than Biden ever did.

But wait - not so fast! The story doesn't end there. That would be too simple. Isn't anyone going to ask what is the current weighted-average interest rate paid by the US Treasury on its outstanding debt? I'll tell you anyway - it's 3.4%. Anyone want to know the average maturity of this debt? Just short of 6 years.

Why is that important? Because the Treasury has to pay the coupon rate on its debt, not the current market yield, which means any general reduction in rates won't translate fully or immediately into interest savings. Another reason to fault trump's logic.

Now I'll let Tiny and Texas Contrarian weigh in on the topic. I know Tiny prefers to track our net debt, which is lower. I prefer to emphasize the gross debt, because it's scarier. Plus I don't want to suggest it's ok and doesn't really count whenever other government agencies (especially the Federal Reserve) buy & own big chunks of this debt. Originally Posted by lustylad

Hi LustyLad, I'm dealing with a posting addiction and am trying to hold my activity to one post a day. I'd dearly love to correct/admonish TxDot and Turner about their view of the estate tax. And TxDot about his belief that higher taxes are the solution to all our problems. But that will have to wait.

Trump as we know exaggerates. In Trump Speak, $386 billion, or $300 billion (1% of the $30 trillion federal debt held by the public) is the same as $600 billion.

Yeah, it's crazy, that half the federal deficit is interest on the debt. Trump's right, that if you were able to cut the weighted average interest rate on the debt to 1% or lower, it would bring down the deficit to manageable levels. That's a large part of the reason why Japan was able to support massive government debt without running into severe problems, although the economy has been stagnant for decades. When you have negative interest rates all the way out to 10 years, as was the case at one time, it makes life a lot easier!

But Japan had some things going for it that the USA doesn't. Its debt was mostly owned by Japanese people and institutions, not foreigners. Japanese households and, I believe, corporates are prolific savers. Japan was experiencing very low inflation or deflation, in part because of a shrinking population.

None of those are true of the USA, except maybe a shrinking population if Stephen Miller keeps having his way. We don't have deflation, like Japan did. Do you really want interest rates at 1% when inflation is 3%? That's great if you're a real estate developer (e.g. Donald Trump), but if you're a spendthrift government, not so much in the long term. Asset prices would go up, and I believe inflation would too, if you continue to keep interest rates below inflation. At some point unless another Paul Volcker came along you're screwed. And when/if he does and interest rates go to 15% on a $50 trillion debt, you're doubly screwed.

Second theory: On the other hand, maybe Trump's crazy like a fox. The federal politicians aren't ever going to get serious about controlling spending or deficits. They're not going to raise taxes on most Americans (aside: actually I agree with them on that.) So the only way out is through inflation. Not piddly ass, high-single-digit deflation. We need to MALV, Make America Like Venezuela! Get Maduro out of his jail cell and into the White House! Have him replace Scott Bessent. That's the ticket

I favor the first theory.

I used Claude.ai and asked about buying $100 worth of gold on May 17, 1792; in the stock market on May 17, 1792; and in the S&P 500 on March 4, 1957. Let's assume someone illegally kept the gold somewhere safe. : ).

Value today

Gold:
$26,140.56

Stock Market (keep in mind this is over 234 years):
Assuming a 7% return: $169 million
Assuming an 8% return $3.3 billion

S&P 500
Price Appreciation only: $15,750
Dividends reinvested: $30,000 to $40,000

The detail are broken out below and at the bottom are links to the actual Claude.ai results with reference links.

Claude includes the concerns raised about the Stock Market by CPT and admits that it's more of a mathematical exercise than a realistic scenario.



https://www.google.com/search?q=when...hrome&ie=UTF-8

https://claude.ai/chat/1be1f2c7-6637...d-a4d16931b721

https://claude.ai/chat/cdbf7078-32fa...9-18b5ec1cf008

https://claude.ai/chat/29be2d47-bcb9...7-ec5b195e1e06 Originally Posted by Turner2099

Well, that's 3 for 3 if we call them simulations.

Doesn't matter what you invest in, if you watch all parameters like a hawk, you can get bigger returns than the lazy guy (me).

Hell, years ago a guy parlayed a paperclip into a house. But that was alot of work.

I'll just take the market.

Hi LustyLad, I'm dealing with a posting addiction and am trying to hold my activity to one post a day. I'd dearly love to correct/admonish TxDot and Turner about their view of the estate tax. And TxDot about his belief that higher taxes are the solution to all our problems. But that will have to wait. Originally Posted by Tiny

I’m not looking to raise taxes to historic levels but they certainly can go up to at least what we had under Clinton.

Revenue and spending cuts. Both will be required to dig our way out of the mess that Republicans tax cuts have caused in the last 26 years.

^^+1 sir..

you solve deficits-and eventually debt-when revenue> expenditures. there are no shortcuts or workarounds. it's called, math..

or we can monetize the debt-print greenbacks our way out of debt-and expect inflation in the 15-20% range. ya, no thanks..

finally, we can slowly choke on our own debt and interest payments alone. also, not a plan going forward, although, interestingly and pathetically, our present trajectory..

Trump is in no way helping. he gives a grand total of zero fucks about future Americans.

Do you want to know how to get out of this situation. Stop borrowing money and start raising taxes!

To do that the government is going to have to raise revenues (income and corporate taxes) and cut spending (all government spending across the board including and especially military expenditures).

If we can get to a point where we have a budget surplus for the foreseeable future then we can start to pay down our debts.

It’s a good bet that we’ll have to start raising taxes on boomer estates as they begin to pass on. Estate taxes will have to rise. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

The One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) does the exact opposite.
- Higher Exemptions: The new law increases the federal estate and gift tax exemption to $15 million per individual and $30 million per married couple, starting January 1, 2026.
- Permanent Status: Unlike the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), which had a "sunset" provision set to expire at the end of 2025, this new bill makes the higher exemption amounts permanent and eliminates the looming drop back to pre-2017 levels.
- Inflation Adjustment: The $15 million threshold will continue to be adjusted annually for inflation starting in 2027.

A tidbit of good news
(I'll even put aside my slight cynicism of the new folks in DoL)
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/infla...133531279.html

Inflation cooled more than expected in January, data released Friday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed.

The Consumer Price Index showed that consumer prices increased 0.2% in January from a month earlier and 2.4% on an annual basis, down from 2.7% last month. Economists surveyed by Bloomberg had expected a 0.3% monthly increase in consumer prices and an annual bump of 2.5%.

On a "core" basis — which excludes volatile categories like energy and food — prices rose 0.3% over the past month and 2.5% over the prior year in January. Both met expectations. This also marked the slowest annual increase in core inflation since March 2021.

Now I'll let Tiny and Texas Contrarian weigh in on the topic. I know Tiny prefers to track our net debt, which is lower. I prefer to emphasize the gross debt, because it's scarier. Plus I don't want to suggest it's ok and doesn't really count whenever other government agencies (especially the Federal Reserve) buy & own big chunks of this debt. Originally Posted by lustylad

Well, you have a point there! The gross number surely is scarier. But the debt held by the public (net) number is pretty fucking scary, too! I prefer to use the latter when considering policy implications, although many of my colleagues over the years, like you, have preferred the former.

We urgently need to slash federal spending across-the-board if we really want bond-market yields to come down. Originally Posted by lustylad

Yes -- but, unfortunately, I don't think there's even the slightest chance of that, as we discussed in another thread last month.

There's also no chance anytime soon of tax increases that will come remotely close to reducing the deficit to a sustainable level.

Returning all income tax rates to Clinton-era levels would not only be a much bigger tax increase on middle class families than on high income earners and the wealthy (thus is a political non-starter in today's climate); it wouldn't eliminate most of the deficit since spending has risen so much over the last 26 years (from about 18% of GDP to roughly 23%.)

Raising the estate tax to levels proposed by the progressive policy think tanks, as proposed in a couple of recent posts, would raise no more than 100-125 billion per year according to most budget analysts -- certainly not nothing, but hardly a game-changing plan in a $2-trillion deficit world.

Speaking of bond yield issues, Desmond Lachman pointed up some serious concerns just a couple of days ago:

https://www.aei.org/economics/the-10...rket-question/

(There are some links to other pertinent articles in the dark blue box on that page, as well.)

How does the Fed get us through the next couple of years without implementing some form of yield-curve control? That's one of the biggest questions in my mind nowadays.

So the only way out is through inflation. Not piddly ass, high-single-digit deflation. We need to MALV, Make America Like Venezuela! Get Maduro out of his jail cell and into the White House! Have him replace Scott Bessent. Originally Posted by Tiny

Well, hot damn! That may be the only workable plan. And, we at least have the technical know-how to extract all the oil efficiently. So we'd be an improved Venezuela writ large! (And then we could offer better job opportunities to all of their hot 20-something Latinas!)

Preposterous! In the early days of America the price of gold was pegged to a specific price. Gold won over depreciating fiat currencies such as Colonial currencies, Continental currencies, and Confederate Democratic Southern currency of the civil war that got invested into early financial markets in America. The S&P 500 index was officially created on March 4, 1957 so the AI overview is making up it's own make believe world viewpoint. During 1957 Americans were not allowed to own physical gold and that is why I chose the year 1974, the year Americans were once again granted the privlege by their government to once again own gold. 1974 represented the most fair outcome of the experiment with gold being the winner. Originally Posted by CPT Savajo

Incorrect. I pointed that out in my previous post, which you apparently didn't read or didn't understand.

Recall that the gold price was set by fiat to $35 (by FDR). Americans were prohibited from investing in gold bullion until January of 1975. In late 1974, gold was traded in London and Zurich at prices in the $175-200/oz range. (About 5X the 1930s fiat price established by FDR). Thus, if you loaded up on gold on 1/2/75 and held it until today, you would have have enjoyed roughly a 28X price appreciation (very roughly a 7% compounded annual rate of return.) Certainly not terrible, but nothing to get overly excited about.

On the other hand, the S&P 500 was sitting at just above $70 in early 1975, so today the index is almost 100X that of 51 years ago. And you'd be getting dividend income the whole time as well, while your gold would just be sitting there taking up space in your vault, looking pretty but paying you nothing.

Raising the estate tax to levels proposed by the progressive policy think tanks, as proposed in a couple of recent posts, would raise no more than 100-125 billion per year according to most budget analysts -- certainly not nothing, but hardly a game-changing plan in a $2-trillion deficit world. Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

I thought eliminating step ups would help, but no, not by much.

Tax Foundation (2025): Eliminating step-up in basis would increase revenues by $130 billion over 10 years on a static basis, and $111 billion on a dynamic basis Bipartisan Policy Center.

Biden Administration Proposals:

The Treasury Department estimated that eliminating stepped-up basis (with a $1 million exemption per person) combined with raising the capital gains rate to 39.6% would raise $322 billion over ten years Georgetown Law.

The Obama administration's proposal to replace stepped-up basis with taxation of unrealized gains at death (with a $100,000-$200,000 exemption) combined with raising capital gains to 28% would have raised $210 billion over 10 years Tax Policy Center.

Annual Cost of Current Policy

Some estimates suggest the U.S. Treasury loses over $40 billion annually due to this provision.

https://claude.ai/chat/22dfc37c-61e2...7-2c9861a84986

Undoubtedly TxDot's been around long enough to have heard me say this already, like a broken record. So I'll address it to Pxmcc and RX792P.

The most prosperous first-world countries, once you kick out small places and petrostates, have the lowest government revenues as a % of GDP. I define "prosperous" as highest per capita GDP. Those countries are Singapore, Switzerland, Ireland, and the USA. Hong Kong's in 7th or 8th place, depending on which list you look at.

The private sector is the engine of growth. Leave more money in the hands of the people and businesses and we're better off.

Added to that, the U.S. federal government is inefficient and wasteful compared to many other countries. We get less out of our federal government than we should. Our private sector is world class. Our federal government is not. If infrastructure were mostly financed at the local and state level, and federal healthcare support reformed, we could have better outcomes for less money.

The problem though is that the gap between the USA's revenues and expenditures is now much higher than the other countries I mentioned. Our federal, state and local governments take in about 29.5% of GDP but spend 36% of GDP. I strongly agree with LustyLad, that the best way to remedy this, and bring down interest rates, is spend less. Unfortunately, Texas Contrarian though is probably right. Our politicians, and for that matter the voters, don't have the backbone to see that through.

I’m not looking to raise taxes to historic levels but they certainly can go up to at least what we had under Clinton.

Revenue and spending cuts. Both will be required to dig our way out of the mess that Republicans tax cuts have caused in the last 26 years. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Marginal federal tax rates on upper income owners were lower under Clinton than they are now. Right now the highest bracket for long term capital gains and certain dividend income is 23.8% and, for the majority of other income, 40.8%. If you're receiving salary income and aren't self employed, it would "only" be 39.35%. Under Clinton the rates were 20% for long term capital gains and 39.6% for other income. The corporate tax rate under Clinton was 35%. Everyone except the Bernie Sanders/AOC crowd agrees the current corporate rate or at least a rate lower than 35% makes more sense.

Good to see you agree about spending cuts.

The One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) does the exact opposite.
- Higher Exemptions: The new law increases the federal estate and gift tax exemption to $15 million per individual and $30 million per married couple, starting January 1, 2026.
- Permanent Status: Unlike the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), which had a "sunset" provision set to expire at the end of 2025, this new bill makes the higher exemption amounts permanent and eliminates the looming drop back to pre-2017 levels.
- Inflation Adjustment: The $15 million threshold will continue to be adjusted annually for inflation starting in 2027. Originally Posted by RX792P

There's about a snowball's chance in hell that Democrats wouldn't have "cut" tax rates for most individuals to the levels in the One Big Beautiful Bill. Yeah, they would have let rates for upper income taxpayers go up. Some Democratic Congressmen are under the illusion that the wealthy can pay for their wish list without others pitching in. Others realize that's not the case, but pretending it is plays well come election time.

Good posts gentlemen. I'm cramming this all into one reply as I've vowed not to post more than once a day here.

...

Incorrect. I pointed that out in my previous post, which you apparently didn't read or didn't understand.

Recall that the gold price was set by fiat to $35 (by FDR). Americans were prohibited from investing in gold bullion until January of 1975. In late 1974, gold was traded in London and Zurich at prices in the $175-200/oz range. (About 5X the 1930s fiat price established by FDR). Thus, if you loaded up on gold on 1/2/75 and held it until today, you would have have enjoyed roughly a 28X price appreciation (very roughly a 7% compounded annual rate of return.) Certainly not terrible, but nothing to get overly excited about.

On the other hand, the S&P 500 was sitting at just above $70 in early 1975, so today the index is almost 100X that of 51 years ago. And you'd be getting dividend income the whole time as well, while your gold would just be sitting there taking up space in your vault, looking pretty but paying you nothing. Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

That's 4 for 4 in those *simulations*

Thanks guys for confirming what this lazy-in-the-finances guy speculated.

That's 4 for 4 in those *simulations*

Thanks guys for confirming what this lazy-in-the-finances guy speculated. Originally Posted by Precious_b

Allow me to correct you. You're 0 for 4. The S&P 500 wasn't around in 1792 like you stated. The colonial currency collapsed, the continental currency collapsed, and the Democratic Confederate States of the South collapsed with the USD dying a painful death at an accelerated rate today. Gold won everytime. You forget you're in a manipulated game. The AI that you asked cannot account for market manipulation and outright rigging of commodities markets, which you have today.