![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
Wow, I cannot be happier I just moved my funds out of a Countrywide Money Market account into HSBC's 3.5% online savings.
On a side note, is it that time yet when the rich bastards who brought about this neigh-apocalypse \"trickle-down\" some of their outrageous salaries to the people who need the cash to survive? They abused the free market; they should have to answer for that.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-49032-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-17937-100x100.png\")
@blackmage439: No, sadly, it's time for the executives who insider-traded their way to millionaire/billionairehood collect on their golden parachutes so they can land unscathed amongst the evaporating financial futures of millions of Americans.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-158781-100x100.png\")
@blackmage439: I'm always confused by the philosophy that rich people should give away their money to people who should have known better.
Yes, there are some rich people who took advantage of the system. But most rich people I know didn't get rich by giving money away; they did it by saving and spending wisely.
I'm in the lower-middle class and not a rich bastard. But I'm smart enough to know that I should save money instead of spend it, even when times are tight.
I would refuse any tax on the uber-rich just because they have a lot of money. Why should they be punished for doing the right thing?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1504-100x100.png\")
@linus: True, smart people shouldn't be punished just for being smart, but they do need to pay their fair share. A couple of years ago, Warren Buffett discovered that he was paying 17% of his income in fed taxes and his secretary was paying 31%. The people who set the rules at the top end up enriching themselves at the expense of others.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-203062-100x100.png\")
@RandomHookup: I agree that is not an ideal way to tax, however, the more you tax the markets, the less people invest. It's very counter-productive for this country. Fair or not is debatable, but necessary, very.
A secretary making 31% cant be right, unless she is the richest secretary in the world.
According to these article, she's only making $60k (I figured Buffett's admin would make more than that):
The percentage seems a little high, but there may be some things she is paying taxes on that have a higher marginal rate (maybe she cashed in 1 share of Berkshire Hathaway).
Anyway, WB thinks he doesn't pay enough in taxes which works for me...Once upon a time we had marginal tax rates in the 90% range. While I don't advocate that, there has to be something that mitigates unbridled greed.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-224192-100x100.png\")
@Bladefist: 31% is very possible, after deductions and credits, if she's really more of an \"executive assistant\" and makes quite a bit of money on salary.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-76659-100x100.png\")
@RandomHookup:
What would be his \"fair share\" and who would decide it? Even at 17%, you can be sure he was paying a lot more in taxes than his secretary. Your argument leads to an excellent point about why the fair tax would be superior to our current system.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-469220-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-68204-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-63807-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-326882-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-60778-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-237394-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-131723-100x100.png\")
My fund is at 2.35%, which is more then half of what it was when this all started. I would say most money market funds are fine, they are so diversified in so many markets. I hope we don't go through the doom/gloom and recession stuff again. It just ain't gonna happen.
On a positive note, oil is less then $100 per barrel.
@Bladefist:
\"I hope we don't go through the doom/gloom and recession stuff again. It just ain't gonna happen.\"
Are you oblivious to reality? Economics happen in cycles. When is the last time we had a serious down turn or a recession?
This kind of news necessitates a cyclic shrinking of the economy to make the markets reflect the reality of the value of investments.
@Bladefist: But do you actually know that that is true that they're safe? The bottom line is, like with any other uninsured investment, is to know what you are investing in. KNOW, don't assume or guess, what underlying securities your money market fund is invested in. Be wary of \"mortgage-backed securities\", in many cases, and be careful even with commercial paper. Make sure they're investing only in high-quality stuff, although even that isn't a guarantee since a lot of the subprime problems supposedly came from securities that contained risky loans and yet somehow were rated as very high quality credit risks.
I'm pretty happy with the Vanguard one because they seem to have anticipated this crap and steered clear of all the toxic paper out there by actually researching in depth what they were investing in.
@Bladefist: Yeah, but gas is still almost $4. How is that possible?