There are so many different ways this issue might be addressed by Congress that my plan is to sit back and react, if necessary, once the final approach is legislated. It's very possible that none of the changes that are ultimately made even apply to current SS recipients.
For me, this issue is less about whether we should have property taxes than it is about spending responsibly. There are countless posts here about the need for people to plan responsibly for retirement and to live within their means throughout their lives. I agree with that. I’m also fine with paying property taxes. They fund necessary public services. That said, I think the people and institutions spending those tax dollars have an obligation to exercise the same kind of fiscal discipline we expect from individuals. Take my county's schools. Enrollment has been declining modestly, yet school spending continues to increase substantially—a roughly 5% increase was just approved for FY2027, following a 4.7% increase the year before. That doesn't mean those increases are unjustified. But taxpayers are entitled to ask whether staffing and programs are producing results commensurate with their cost, whether every requested increase is necessary, and whether enough effort is being made to find efficiencies before asking taxpayers for more. So why don't we exhort those managing public money to live within reasonable means with the same vigor that we exhort individuals of all ages to do so? Fiscal responsibility shouldn't apply only to the people paying the bills. It should apply to the people spending the money as well.
I think the situation needs addressing, but I think you have prescribed the wrong tool. Congress can regulate AI through ordinary legislation. Legislation is vastly easier to change as technology evolves. Constitutional provisions are intentionally difficult to change. And we have very little idea what "AI" will mean 30, 50 or 100 years from now.
While I agree with much of what you say, here, Mark, I would add that not all the goods that people might purchase have a fixed supply, and wages would likely increase year to year in the face of the inflation you describe. And in the case, particularly, of low income families, the $5K kicker would certainly be better to receive than not. All that said, not a proposal I can get behind - the costs would exceed the benefits.
I have two children. One who makes a lot more than the other. Whenever we front them for something, and require reimbursement, the one who earns 3x as much as the other takes 3x as much time to pay us back. I can assure you, the delay is not due any liquidity issues. The other child, the one who earns much less, routinely pays at their first opportunity. We make assumptions about situations that aren't always based in fact.
The suggestion that Roth account holders are higher income earners who accumulate large Roth balances is painting with too broad a brush. My son has been working for a non-profit for three years, earning less than $40,000 each year. But he has been funding a company sponsored Roth 403(b). I don't know what he will earn in the future, and I don't know how much that Roth will grow in the next 30 years. I DO know at this point, he is not a high income earner. Let's say he continued to work at that job for the next 30 years. And that he averaged a 3% merit increase raise each year. In 2056, he is earning about $97K. Of course, inflation will take a huge bite out of that along the way. Let's further say he sets aside $4K each of those years in his Roth paying and it grows 7% year. In 2056, he has about $500,000 in there. Is this the profile of a person for whom Roth distributions should count as income for the for the purpose of taxing his Social Security benefits?
Some good reasons in this chain to consider dropping my company's retiree Medicare Advantage sponsored plan (Employer PPO). But I can't find one. Figures below solely for Medicare Advantage piece of things; does not include Medicare. Combined premiums for my wife and me annually are $1100. Maximum out of pocket for each is $1500. Seems prudent to roll with it unless I'm missing something. Am I?
Part of the solution isn't stripping away benefits from seniors—it's making it easier for them to share their wealth while they're still around. And I mean seniors at all income levels. You don't need to give $500K or more to a younger person to make a difference in their life. If we actually want intergenerational equity, one clear path is fixing the tax code's hoarding incentive. Right now, the 'step-up in basis' rule means if older folks give assets to their kids while alive, those assets carry a heavy future capital gains tax bill. But if they hold them until they die? Poof—the capital gains taxes vanish entirely. The tax code literally penalizes passing wealth down early, rewards hoarding it until death, and undermines intergenerational equity.
Mark, I have been using Chat and Gemini extensively to help with my personal finance issues. Like you, I don't use them to make decisions for me, but I do use them to provide me with information/insights/perspectives that helps me make decisions. Today is as incompetent as Claude, Chat, Gemini, etc., will ever be-- and it's hardly incompetent. it will only get better each day. I'm persuaded that at least 50% of routine financial planning work done today by professionals today will disappear within five years. I do somewhat disagree with you on your conclusion: You say that Claude rarely 'solved' anything. You then go on to say that the greatest value of advisors is knowing which questions matter. Yet what Claude is doing for you and what advisors do for you are essential to you 'solving' whatever problem you're trying to solve. You ultimately solve issues by deciding what action to take given inputs from Claude, your advisor, your experiences, or from a dozen other sources. Claude sounds like it is becoming an essential partner in your financial world. Your experience mirrors mine: Knowing what questions to pose to Claude and advisors - and for Claude and advisors to ask of you - rapidly gets you to a range of solutions to consider. It's the speed, accessibility (24/7, 365 days/year), cost, objectivity, and rapidly improving quality of answers from Claude and other Large Language Models that should have the attention of financial advisors everywhere.
Comments
Once you've flown in the first class section of a plane, it's a long, doleful trudge back into coach again.
Post: Jonathan’s Parting Thoughts: No. 6
Link to comment from October 2, 2026
There are so many different ways this issue might be addressed by Congress that my plan is to sit back and react, if necessary, once the final approach is legislated. It's very possible that none of the changes that are ultimately made even apply to current SS recipients.
Post: Is your retirement plan counting on a Social Security COLA in the future?
Link to comment from September 25, 2026
For me, this issue is less about whether we should have property taxes than it is about spending responsibly. There are countless posts here about the need for people to plan responsibly for retirement and to live within their means throughout their lives. I agree with that. I’m also fine with paying property taxes. They fund necessary public services. That said, I think the people and institutions spending those tax dollars have an obligation to exercise the same kind of fiscal discipline we expect from individuals. Take my county's schools. Enrollment has been declining modestly, yet school spending continues to increase substantially—a roughly 5% increase was just approved for FY2027, following a 4.7% increase the year before. That doesn't mean those increases are unjustified. But taxpayers are entitled to ask whether staffing and programs are producing results commensurate with their cost, whether every requested increase is necessary, and whether enough effort is being made to find efficiencies before asking taxpayers for more. So why don't we exhort those managing public money to live within reasonable means with the same vigor that we exhort individuals of all ages to do so? Fiscal responsibility shouldn't apply only to the people paying the bills. It should apply to the people spending the money as well.
Post: Shouldn’t property taxes be a realistic part of retirement planning? Sorry, I think this is a major financial and social issue.
Link to comment from September 24, 2026
I think the situation needs addressing, but I think you have prescribed the wrong tool. Congress can regulate AI through ordinary legislation. Legislation is vastly easier to change as technology evolves. Constitutional provisions are intentionally difficult to change. And we have very little idea what "AI" will mean 30, 50 or 100 years from now.
Post: The Ultimate Tail Risk
Link to comment from September 16, 2026
While I agree with much of what you say, here, Mark, I would add that not all the goods that people might purchase have a fixed supply, and wages would likely increase year to year in the face of the inflation you describe. And in the case, particularly, of low income families, the $5K kicker would certainly be better to receive than not. All that said, not a proposal I can get behind - the costs would exceed the benefits.
Post: The $5,000 Thought Experiment
Link to comment from September 10, 2026
I have two children. One who makes a lot more than the other. Whenever we front them for something, and require reimbursement, the one who earns 3x as much as the other takes 3x as much time to pay us back. I can assure you, the delay is not due any liquidity issues. The other child, the one who earns much less, routinely pays at their first opportunity. We make assumptions about situations that aren't always based in fact.
Post: Behind The Finery
Link to comment from September 4, 2026
The suggestion that Roth account holders are higher income earners who accumulate large Roth balances is painting with too broad a brush. My son has been working for a non-profit for three years, earning less than $40,000 each year. But he has been funding a company sponsored Roth 403(b). I don't know what he will earn in the future, and I don't know how much that Roth will grow in the next 30 years. I DO know at this point, he is not a high income earner. Let's say he continued to work at that job for the next 30 years. And that he averaged a 3% merit increase raise each year. In 2056, he is earning about $97K. Of course, inflation will take a huge bite out of that along the way. Let's further say he sets aside $4K each of those years in his Roth paying and it grows 7% year. In 2056, he has about $500,000 in there. Is this the profile of a person for whom Roth distributions should count as income for the for the purpose of taxing his Social Security benefits?
Post: Income taxes on retirees with Social Security
Link to comment from August 18, 2026
Some good reasons in this chain to consider dropping my company's retiree Medicare Advantage sponsored plan (Employer PPO). But I can't find one. Figures below solely for Medicare Advantage piece of things; does not include Medicare. Combined premiums for my wife and me annually are $1100. Maximum out of pocket for each is $1500. Seems prudent to roll with it unless I'm missing something. Am I?
Post: Medicare Advantage Part C — Not too soon to start planning for 2027
Link to comment from August 14, 2026
Part of the solution isn't stripping away benefits from seniors—it's making it easier for them to share their wealth while they're still around. And I mean seniors at all income levels. You don't need to give $500K or more to a younger person to make a difference in their life. If we actually want intergenerational equity, one clear path is fixing the tax code's hoarding incentive. Right now, the 'step-up in basis' rule means if older folks give assets to their kids while alive, those assets carry a heavy future capital gains tax bill. But if they hold them until they die? Poof—the capital gains taxes vanish entirely. The tax code literally penalizes passing wealth down early, rewards hoarding it until death, and undermines intergenerational equity.
Post: “Gerontocracy” in America
Link to comment from August 7, 2026
Mark, I have been using Chat and Gemini extensively to help with my personal finance issues. Like you, I don't use them to make decisions for me, but I do use them to provide me with information/insights/perspectives that helps me make decisions. Today is as incompetent as Claude, Chat, Gemini, etc., will ever be-- and it's hardly incompetent. it will only get better each day. I'm persuaded that at least 50% of routine financial planning work done today by professionals today will disappear within five years. I do somewhat disagree with you on your conclusion: You say that Claude rarely 'solved' anything. You then go on to say that the greatest value of advisors is knowing which questions matter. Yet what Claude is doing for you and what advisors do for you are essential to you 'solving' whatever problem you're trying to solve. You ultimately solve issues by deciding what action to take given inputs from Claude, your advisor, your experiences, or from a dozen other sources. Claude sounds like it is becoming an essential partner in your financial world. Your experience mirrors mine: Knowing what questions to pose to Claude and advisors - and for Claude and advisors to ask of you - rapidly gets you to a range of solutions to consider. It's the speed, accessibility (24/7, 365 days/year), cost, objectivity, and rapidly improving quality of answers from Claude and other Large Language Models that should have the attention of financial advisors everywhere.
Post: Better Questions
Link to comment from July 13, 2026