There is joy in reading a compelling or interesting book, usually accompanied by some sadness when it is finished. We want more, but there is no more. But we have memory, and that must satisfy us. This is true of Money and Me.
My mother was a professional artist, and my daughter is highly talented in that area. I have a number of pieces done by each of them. No cost. They are priceless, and give me great pleasure. They get preferential placement. I also now collect fine art. I follow auction notices I receive through the site called Invaluable, and have favorite artists and favorite forms of art. I research what I like. I bid at auctions and have built quite a good collection. While I can tell you what pieces I paid too much for and what pieces I got at a bargain, the totals I've spent are not especially high. And I don't really care about whether my collection appreciates. What really drives me is a work that I know I will love to look at every day, and that I will never grow tired of. I am patient. I know every art owner's preferences are different. So I often see bidding on things I don't care for at all, and sometimes am surprised that there is little competition for things I really want. I tend to appreciate highly real artistic skills that are evident. Not everyone can accurately reproduce a specific human's face. Not everyone can throw a tall wide pot with a very thin wall. Not everyone can carve realistically in three dimensions. All of these things and more make art collection a special form of ownership. It may be worth a dip in the art auction market - it is far more fun than gambling or speculation.
I read this and thought for a while about what I learned and where. Mostly I kept returning to things I did with coworkers. I thought about how I learned to operate as a member of a team, being friendly and respectful to all, helping in my own way to build a cohesive unit by the way I interacted with every individual, giving credit to the people who deserved it (especially when their contributions weren't recognized), and accepting responsibility for my own errors or failings. No man is an island, and my career relied on many, many people.
The ability to select an annuity as a 401(k) option is in principle very positive. The devil is in the details. One issue with annuities in general is the prevalence of excessive (and prepaid) fees. Another issue is the discount rate/earnings expectations formula for calculating the payout. In the retail annuity world, both of these can abused to the point that they become predatory in nature. Where that occurs, they usually conspire to penalize the annuitant greatly. Only if these two negatives can be eliminated or made truly fair will the 401(k) annuity work.
The Joe Kennedy story really resonates with me. For a few years, I worked in the growing Sacramento area, and spent one of every three weeks there. I rented an apartment for cost and comfort advantages, and had a phone line. In 2007 and early 2008, I would fly in on a Sunday evening and prepare for work the next day. Over that period, I started to accumulate more and more phone messages waiting for me. At first there were five or six, but they grew to twenty or more each returning Sunday night. And all of them were invitations to me, an anonymous renter, to take out a low cost mortgage to buy a house, promising me I could qualify for a great deal, no questions asked. I had no interest in buying anything in California, but I also knew from these messages that there was trouble ahead, and I didn't need to wait long to see the crash. In the late summer and early fall, the subprime markets imploded, and the damage spread.
I find it hard to compare these three cases, since there are some things that are unclear. Social security payments mean that there was money paid for that in prior years. What are "taxes" in the third example, and does that include Social Security withheld? Should Medicare payments fit somewhere, especially IRMAA? Is the third example for someone who is also funding an IRA for the future? We have a complicated tax code, and it is always in one's interest to figure out how to pay the lowest tax once can, consistent with the law. I think someone in the third example might have ways to lower that tax. One of the lessons from the last bipartisan tax code revision - way back in 1986 - was that a "flat" tax may not serve all the purposes we need to serve in structuring income taxes, and that a "flatter" tax (as opposed to a flat one) is more achievable. And there is one economically important rule that strongly promotes that "flatter" income tax. The more credits, deductions and offsets the government can eliminate from the tax code, the lower that a "flatter" income tax rate can be. A lower rate is fundamentally good for everyone. It is also more likely that there can be a more level obligation across all taxpayers, though a group may wind up paying more. Is there anything that still should justify favoritism? Does capital gains deserve a lower rate than other income? Should we continue to incent retirement savings with deferrals of earned income for IRAs and 401(k)? How about charitable deductions? For every favored interest, there is a cost.
Excellent article. I found a way to answer that question by watching my monthy and annual "flow" and adjusting as necessary. I am lucky enough to have some fairly large RMDs now, and my budget leaves me with something extra at the end of each month. I am finding that I have a new question. It is: "What can I now afford to give to the institutions that gave me the perspectives, values, education and skills I needed to succeed?" I am grateful, and the need to show that gratitude tugs at me. And I am not just thinking of my college and law school, but older and smaller entities, like my Catholic grammar and high school, local public library, church, not-for-profit community organizations and the like. I'll never be able to thank the individuals I would like to honor, since they are mostly all gone. But these formative entities soldier on with new students, participants and members like me, and I think they deserve a share of what I've earned.
As I understand it, there has been a large excess of natural diamonds for years. The price of diamonds was carefully controlled because one supplier dominated the market, and it was able to control that world supply, stockpiling diamonds to keep them off the market. With the availability of diamonds kept low, the market-clearing price of diamonds could be kept much higher than would be merited in a freely competitive market, and the profits to the dominant supplier would be maximized. The stranglehold of that single supplier has eroded, though not completely. Artificial diamonds also carried a stigma for a while, because there was a view that "if you really loved me, you'd buy me a real diamond regardless of the price." But that stigma has eroded, too. People seem finally to be recognizing that love shouldn't be measured by the price paid for the ring.
While the author and I may agree that only realized income should be taxed, there is a growing movement to tax wealth - what is simply owned, rather than earned. The state of Washington twisted its Constitution last year to pass what is a wealth tax, and California may soon have the issue on its ballot. The end goal is not just to get more tax money, but to get tax money sooner. Government doesn't want to wait for a "taxable event" any more. It needs more money now. And so it follows Willie Sutton - it goes where the money is. But if one pays on wealth one year, should they get a credit the next year if wealth declines, or they sell an asset for less than it was taxed? The deviation from settled principles of taxation will upend the tax laws in many places, and make life even more complicated. The anomalies and contradictions will eventually impact us all. By the way, 1,000 people with a billion dollars means wealth of only a trillion dollars. Even with the multi-billionaires thrown in, the tax on their wealth will barely begin to dent the deficit. The solution is to spend less than the government collects.
Nice piece. The travel anecdote in "15 ways to happiness" is right on. I spent two months researching Japan before going last year, and enjoyed every minute. I know Jonathan read every comment I ever posted, and he taught me some things with his responses. I didn't always agree with him, but it wasn't because he was wrong - it was usually because I was committed to a "minority view". Mine. I do miss the guy.
Comments
There is joy in reading a compelling or interesting book, usually accompanied by some sadness when it is finished. We want more, but there is no more. But we have memory, and that must satisfy us. This is true of Money and Me.
Post: Reminded of Jonathan’s Grace
Link to comment from July 5, 2026
My mother was a professional artist, and my daughter is highly talented in that area. I have a number of pieces done by each of them. No cost. They are priceless, and give me great pleasure. They get preferential placement. I also now collect fine art. I follow auction notices I receive through the site called Invaluable, and have favorite artists and favorite forms of art. I research what I like. I bid at auctions and have built quite a good collection. While I can tell you what pieces I paid too much for and what pieces I got at a bargain, the totals I've spent are not especially high. And I don't really care about whether my collection appreciates. What really drives me is a work that I know I will love to look at every day, and that I will never grow tired of. I am patient. I know every art owner's preferences are different. So I often see bidding on things I don't care for at all, and sometimes am surprised that there is little competition for things I really want. I tend to appreciate highly real artistic skills that are evident. Not everyone can accurately reproduce a specific human's face. Not everyone can throw a tall wide pot with a very thin wall. Not everyone can carve realistically in three dimensions. All of these things and more make art collection a special form of ownership. It may be worth a dip in the art auction market - it is far more fun than gambling or speculation.
Post: Mr Market visits Art Basel
Link to comment from July 5, 2026
I read this and thought for a while about what I learned and where. Mostly I kept returning to things I did with coworkers. I thought about how I learned to operate as a member of a team, being friendly and respectful to all, helping in my own way to build a cohesive unit by the way I interacted with every individual, giving credit to the people who deserved it (especially when their contributions weren't recognized), and accepting responsibility for my own errors or failings. No man is an island, and my career relied on many, many people.
Post: Lessons Learned Along the Way
Link to comment from June 29, 2026
The ability to select an annuity as a 401(k) option is in principle very positive. The devil is in the details. One issue with annuities in general is the prevalence of excessive (and prepaid) fees. Another issue is the discount rate/earnings expectations formula for calculating the payout. In the retail annuity world, both of these can abused to the point that they become predatory in nature. Where that occurs, they usually conspire to penalize the annuitant greatly. Only if these two negatives can be eliminated or made truly fair will the 401(k) annuity work.
Post: Automatic Income stream? How important to you?
Link to comment from June 29, 2026
The Joe Kennedy story really resonates with me. For a few years, I worked in the growing Sacramento area, and spent one of every three weeks there. I rented an apartment for cost and comfort advantages, and had a phone line. In 2007 and early 2008, I would fly in on a Sunday evening and prepare for work the next day. Over that period, I started to accumulate more and more phone messages waiting for me. At first there were five or six, but they grew to twenty or more each returning Sunday night. And all of them were invitations to me, an anonymous renter, to take out a low cost mortgage to buy a house, promising me I could qualify for a great deal, no questions asked. I had no interest in buying anything in California, but I also knew from these messages that there was trouble ahead, and I didn't need to wait long to see the crash. In the late summer and early fall, the subprime markets imploded, and the damage spread.
Post: Investment Wisdom
Link to comment from June 27, 2026
I find it hard to compare these three cases, since there are some things that are unclear. Social security payments mean that there was money paid for that in prior years. What are "taxes" in the third example, and does that include Social Security withheld? Should Medicare payments fit somewhere, especially IRMAA? Is the third example for someone who is also funding an IRA for the future? We have a complicated tax code, and it is always in one's interest to figure out how to pay the lowest tax once can, consistent with the law. I think someone in the third example might have ways to lower that tax. One of the lessons from the last bipartisan tax code revision - way back in 1986 - was that a "flat" tax may not serve all the purposes we need to serve in structuring income taxes, and that a "flatter" tax (as opposed to a flat one) is more achievable. And there is one economically important rule that strongly promotes that "flatter" income tax. The more credits, deductions and offsets the government can eliminate from the tax code, the lower that a "flatter" income tax rate can be. A lower rate is fundamentally good for everyone. It is also more likely that there can be a more level obligation across all taxpayers, though a group may wind up paying more. Is there anything that still should justify favoritism? Does capital gains deserve a lower rate than other income? Should we continue to incent retirement savings with deferrals of earned income for IRAs and 401(k)? How about charitable deductions? For every favored interest, there is a cost.
Post: …..taxes and you
Link to comment from June 14, 2026
Excellent article. I found a way to answer that question by watching my monthy and annual "flow" and adjusting as necessary. I am lucky enough to have some fairly large RMDs now, and my budget leaves me with something extra at the end of each month. I am finding that I have a new question. It is: "What can I now afford to give to the institutions that gave me the perspectives, values, education and skills I needed to succeed?" I am grateful, and the need to show that gratitude tugs at me. And I am not just thinking of my college and law school, but older and smaller entities, like my Catholic grammar and high school, local public library, church, not-for-profit community organizations and the like. I'll never be able to thank the individuals I would like to honor, since they are mostly all gone. But these formative entities soldier on with new students, participants and members like me, and I think they deserve a share of what I've earned.
Post: Defining Enough
Link to comment from June 14, 2026
As I understand it, there has been a large excess of natural diamonds for years. The price of diamonds was carefully controlled because one supplier dominated the market, and it was able to control that world supply, stockpiling diamonds to keep them off the market. With the availability of diamonds kept low, the market-clearing price of diamonds could be kept much higher than would be merited in a freely competitive market, and the profits to the dominant supplier would be maximized. The stranglehold of that single supplier has eroded, though not completely. Artificial diamonds also carried a stigma for a while, because there was a view that "if you really loved me, you'd buy me a real diamond regardless of the price." But that stigma has eroded, too. People seem finally to be recognizing that love shouldn't be measured by the price paid for the ring.
Post: Gold and Diamonds
Link to comment from June 14, 2026
While the author and I may agree that only realized income should be taxed, there is a growing movement to tax wealth - what is simply owned, rather than earned. The state of Washington twisted its Constitution last year to pass what is a wealth tax, and California may soon have the issue on its ballot. The end goal is not just to get more tax money, but to get tax money sooner. Government doesn't want to wait for a "taxable event" any more. It needs more money now. And so it follows Willie Sutton - it goes where the money is. But if one pays on wealth one year, should they get a credit the next year if wealth declines, or they sell an asset for less than it was taxed? The deviation from settled principles of taxation will upend the tax laws in many places, and make life even more complicated. The anomalies and contradictions will eventually impact us all. By the way, 1,000 people with a billion dollars means wealth of only a trillion dollars. Even with the multi-billionaires thrown in, the tax on their wealth will barely begin to dent the deficit. The solution is to spend less than the government collects.
Post: Billionaires, taxes and you
Link to comment from May 31, 2026
Nice piece. The travel anecdote in "15 ways to happiness" is right on. I spent two months researching Japan before going last year, and enjoyed every minute. I know Jonathan read every comment I ever posted, and he taught me some things with his responses. I didn't always agree with him, but it wasn't because he was wrong - it was usually because I was committed to a "minority view". Mine. I do miss the guy.
Post: Money and Me
Link to comment from May 31, 2026