Jonathan Clements's Blog, page 6

Trump Accounts: A Deep Dive into Kids’ Savings

“TRUMP ACCOUNT” WAS created as part of the OBBBA signed on July 4, 2025. But is this account anything special? And how could we use it strategically to build wealth?

There’s been a lot of confusion about how it works, who qualifies, and whether they’re actually useful. I’ll walk through the rules, highlight key opportunities, and give my take on when (if ever) this account makes sense.

First and foremost, I want to point out that no contributions are allowed before 12 months after the date of the enactment of the OBBBA, meaning that you can't really use or invest in such an account before July 5, 2026.

General Treatment

A Trump Account is treated similarly to a traditional IRA under Section 408(a) (which is not Roth), with certain modifications.

This account is created or organized for the exclusive benefit of an eligible individual who hasn't reached age 18 before the end of the calendar year. When such an account is created, it must be designated as the "Trump account."

So, who is an eligible individual?

A person who has not attained the age of 18 before the close of the calendar year 
For whom a Social Security number is issued 
For whom an election is made by the Secretary (if they determine such an individual meets the requirements of #1 and #2) OR an election is made by a person other than the Secretary for the establishment of a Trump account. "Secretary" essentially means the IRS.

I believe #3 likely means that you can file some statement with the IRS that establishes such an account (perhaps as part of your tax return filing, or otherwise).

Contributions

First, no deduction is allowed for any contributions made before the first day of the calendar year in which the beneficiary turns 18.

Contributions made before the calendar year in which the beneficiary turns 18 should not be more than $5,000, with inflation adjustments starting in 2027 (using the cost-of-living formula).

It is important to note that this is called a "regular" (non-exempt) contribution. That will become important later on.

There are other ways that contributions could be made. The following three options are called "exempt" contributions:

1. IRC Section 129 - Employer Contributions
Employers can contribute up to $2,500 per employee (or dependent) annually to a Trump Account, excluded from the employee's gross income. $2,500 is increased with cost-of-living adjustment after 2027.

The program must meet requirements similar to dependent care assistance (Section 129(d)), such as non-discrimination and notification.

2. IRC Section 6434 - Pilot Program
Parents/guardians elect for an "eligible child" (U.S. citizen born Jan. 1, 2025, through Dec. 31, 2028, qualifying dependent under Section 152(c), no prior election was made) to receive $1,000 as a tax payment, refunded directly to the child's Trump account. The election requires the child's Social Security number. Payments are exempt from offsets/levies.

3. Qualified General Contributions
Contributions from governments or 501(c)(3) nonprofits are excluded from the beneficiary's gross income.


These must target a "qualified class" of beneficiaries, such as all under 18s, those in specific states/geographic areas, or birth-year cohorts. Essentially, this means philanthropic funding (e.g., a charity or governments donating to minors in some geographic area).

So, why is there a difference between exempt vs. non-exempt?

Distributions

For purposes of distributions, we have to discuss the "investment in the contract," or basis.

The investment in the contract does not include the exempt types of contributions.

This likely means we need to be aware of or track two things:

Basis of regular contributions (by parents, etc.) 
Basis of exempt contributions (pilot program, etc) which will become part of earnings

Note that trustees must report contributions (> $25 from non-Secretary sources), distributions, fair market value, and basis to the IRS and beneficiary until age 17.

Generally, no distributions are allowed before age 18 unless it’s an exception (rollover, qualified ABLE rollover, distribution of excess contributions.

If a beneficiary passes away, the account ceases to be a Trump Account. The fair market value (minus the basis, as described above) is includible in the acquirer's or estate's income.

Also, while the account beneficiary is under age 18, contributions to a Trump account do not count against the normal IRA contribution limits (like the $7,000 cap in 2025).

Investments

The account also must be invested in an "eligible investment" which is defined as a mutual fund or ETF that:

Tracks a qualified index (like the S&P 500 or another broad U.S. equity index with regulated futures trading) 
Does not use leverage 
Has an expense ratio of 0.10% or less 
Meets any additional criteria set by the Secretary 

So, What Do We Do After Age 18?

That's the question most people want to know, and one I’ve thought a lot about.

Distributions after 18 are taxed under IRC Section 72.

This means that distributions are typically treated as ordinary income to the extent they exceed the "investment in the contract" (basis).

Generally, a distribution (or a conversion to a Roth IRA) will likely be applied pro-rata between the basis and earnings. This is because some of the amounts are contributed after-tax (regular contributions) and some are pre-tax (like earnings)

Example: Let’s say you contributed $5,000 to a Trump account. Your child also received $1,000 of pilot program contribution. Your child is now 18. The amount grew to $22,000.

Basis = $5,000
Earnings = $17,000

If we distribute the entire amount before age 59½, a 10% early withdrawal penalty will apply. Of course, there are some exceptions like:

Qualified higher education expenses 
First-time homebuyer (up to $10,000) 
Series of substantially equal periodic payments (72t) 

Let’s say we distribute the entire amount ($22,000) and pay for higher education. The $17,000 will be taxed at ordinary income rates.

If we distribute a portion of the account, say $10,000, the distribution will contain a pro-rata share of both, or around ~$2,272 of basis and $7,727 of earnings.

Interestingly, Section 408(d)(2) will be applied "separately with respect to Trump Accounts and other individual retirement plans." This means the Trump account's basis and value are not aggregated with any other traditional IRAs you might have for pro-rata calculations.

Conversion to Roth IRA

First, more guidance will be needed to clarify how Trump accounts will interact Roth IRAs, and whether a conversion is possible, but the big benefit I personally see with something like this is being likely able to convert to a Roth IRA and have a substantial amount without the need for earned income (assuming it's allowed)

This way, a child could have 40+ years of growth all tax-free assuming such a conversion will be allowed.

The main question is how it would be taxed. We cannot move only the after-tax dollars from a Trump account to a Roth IRA and keep the rest in a Traditional IRA, since partial distributions must be allocated pro-rata.

If we convert the entire $22,000 to a Roth IRA, $17,000 will be taxed. If we convert $10,000, a pro-rata share will be taxed, similarly to the example above.

This means that if you have a dependent child, and convert some amounts, the kiddie tax will likely apply if you convert above certain thresholds (i.e., standard deduction for a dependent child).

Of course, the IRS has a lot of work to do on clarifying all these details, and this is just my interpretation based on the text and by no means should be construed as financial or tax advice.

Benefits and Prioritization

Is this worth it?

I believe the only usefulness of such an account is the Roth IRA play, and I expect wealthier taxpayers will likely take advantage of it if allowed. I would certainly at least get the $1,000 pilot credit if qualified.

For someone who can allocate $300 a month to build a child's wealth, I think a 529 plan will likely come out ahead. Especially with the $35,000 Roth IRA rollover option in case a child doesn't attend a higher education institution.

This is because the withdrawals are tax-free for qualified higher education expenses, and you can get a state tax deduction (+ opportunity cost there). Also, OBBBA extended the definition of many expenses for 529 plans, like paying for SAT/AP exams or postsecondary credentials.

One thing I think is important to keep in mind with Trump accounts is liquidity. If distributions from a Trump account are taxable, and the 10% penalty can be avoided in a limited set of circumstances, how likely is the usefulness of such an account for a 22-to-30 year old?

This means that if you wanted to support your child with a down payment for a car or a house (beyond the $10,000 amount exception to the 10% penalty), I believe a better savings vehicle might be more appropriate.

Trump Account vs. UTMA

Taking aside the 529 plan, as I believe it's superior for most families, let’s look at UTMA vs Trump account. Both UTMA and Trump accounts are after-tax.

UTMA could have some dividends taxed, but due to the standard deduction, and likely qualified nature of them, ~$2,700 of such income can be excluded (standard deduction of $1,350, the next $1,350 is taxed at the child's rate) per year.

So UTMA (taxable) vs Trump account (tax-deferred) will likely have similar tax drag in reality, unless your child has substantial assets in the UTMA.

Liquidity

Let’s say your child needs to buy a car at age 25, which they could use either UTMA vs Trump account for the down payment.

Let’s assume we invested $5,000 into each at their birth. By the time they are 25, let’s say they have $34,000.

For simplicity, assume no state taxes. With a UTMA account, parents could actually strategically do tax gain harvesting every single year to harvest long-term capital gains. They've increased the basis to ~$15,000.

Once withdrawals are allowed at 18, Trump accounts could also start getting converted into Roth. To stay below the kiddie tax, we can only harvest $1,350 (plus COL adjustment). The conversion could start a 5-year clock for withdrawing the taxable portion of the conversion.

At 25, we would only have very little to use with the Trump account that is accessible penalty-free.

Something to think about, though, is that UTMA money counts toward a child's assets, whereas IRAs don't for FAFSA.

A good approach, in my opinion, could be to have a small allocation to such an account solely for the purposes of Roth funding, while the majority of assets are prioritized in 529 and UTMA/brokerage in parents' names if possible.

Summary

A Trump account is an after-tax account (no tax deduction applies to contributions).
Parents or relatives can contribute up to $5,000 to the account
No withdrawals are allowed before the beneficiary turns 18.
Investment earnings grow tax-deferred (e.g dividends aren’t taxed)
At 18, the account becomes a traditional IRA, with ordinary income tax rates applied to withdrawals to the extent they exceed the basis in the account (contributions). The 10% penalty will also apply to withdrawals before age 59½ unless an exception applies ($10,000 for a down payment, education, 72(t) SoSEPP, etc.).
A $1,000 tax credit could be applied to a Trump account if your qualifying child is born between Jan 1, 2025, and Dec 31, 2028.

Is it really worth the hassle? Personally, I would at least get the $1,000 credit if your child qualifies, as it shouldn’t be too much effort to get it. It's still unclear who will administer the accounts, and likely all major “players” will be involved to some extent.

For most families, I'd likely prioritize 529 plans and UTMA/brokerage accounts first, but using a small allocation to a Trump Account could give a child a potential head start on tax-free growth at 18. But like with any new provision, there are details the IRS will need to clarify, and the above is just my interpretation of the current law.

Bogdan Sheremeta is a licensed CPA based in Illinois with experience at Deloitte and a Fortune 200 multinational. He shares insights on taxes and personal finance through his newsletter, helping thousands of readers to make smarter financial decisions. He has over 140,000 followers on X and 110,000 on Instagram.

The post Trump Accounts: A Deep Dive into Kids’ Savings appeared first on HumbleDollar.

Trading 24/7?

I was reminded recently of how far stock trading has come when I inherited a small stack of old stock certificates from my great-uncle Billy. They were dated between 1927 and 1931, right through the turbulent years of the Great Depression. One was for a railroad, issued by Citibank itself. And yes—I checked—they’re now completely worthless. But holding those fragile pieces of paper in my hands brought history to life. Back then, making a trade was slow, costly, and out of reach for most people. Orders were handled with paper tickets and phone calls, commissions often ran around one percent of the trade’s value, and it could take days before ownership was officially confirmed.

Over the decades, technology and regulation transformed both the cost and speed of trading. The first big shift came in the 1970s, when fixed commissions were abolished. For the first time, brokers could compete on price, and discount firms began offering lower-cost services. In the 1990s, the rise of online platforms allowed everyday investors to place their own orders with just a click, driving prices down further. By the 2000s, trades could be made for less than ten dollars and executed within seconds.

The final plunge in cost came in the 2010s, when new platforms introduced zero-commission trading. Established firms followed suit, and today buying or selling a stock can be done instantly and without any direct fee. What once cost the equivalent of thousands of dollars now costs nothing at all.

And yet, one part of the old system remains: settlement. While an order today executes in milliseconds, the official transfer of ownership and cash still takes time. The United States recently shortened the process from two business days to just one. The next step being discussed is “T+0,” or same-day settlement, and eventually real-time settlement, where the trade, cash, and ownership all exchange hands immediately.

The Journey in Perspective



Era
Typical Cost of a Trade
Time for Execution / Settlement
Context


1900
~1% of trade value (≈ $100 per $10k; $10k then ≈ $380k today; $100 then ≈ $3.8k today)
2–3 days
Manual tickets, phone calls, mailed confirms


1975
$30–$100 per trade
Hours to next day
Fixed commissions abolished; price competition begins


1995
$15–$20 per trade
Minutes to an hour
Online trading for retail investors


2005
$5–$10 per trade
Seconds to minutes
Electronic exchanges and direct access


2015
$0–$5 per trade
Seconds
Zero-commission models proliferate


Today
$0 per trade
Milliseconds (execution), 1 day (settlement)
Instant fills; ownership transfer still lags



Why Settlement Still Takes Time

Liquidity buffers: Firms need time to marshal the cash or shares.
Error correction: Short delays catch mismatches and mistakes.
Global coordination: Different time zones and rules complicate instant transfers.
Legacy systems: The financial “plumbing” that handles trillions wasn’t built for real-time.

History suggests these barriers will fall. Experiments with new technology, including distributed ledgers and tokenized assets, are testing ways to move securities and cash instantly. Regulators are encouraging shorter cycles to reduce risk. It may take years, but just as commissions collapsed from $100 to zero, settlement time is on a path from days to seconds. And if trades can settle instantly, markets could even move toward 24/7 access, much like digital assets already do.

Do you think 24/7 stock trading would be a good idea, or would it create more problems than it solves?

*Research and editing was assisted by AI

The post Trading 24/7? appeared first on HumbleDollar.

Paper Certificates to Real-Time

I was reminded recently of how far stock trading has come when I inherited a small stack of old stock certificates from my great-uncle Billy. They were dated between 1927 and 1931, right through the turbulent years of the Great Depression. One was for a railroad, issued by Citibank itself. And yes—I checked—they’re now completely worthless. But holding those fragile pieces of paper in my hands brought history to life. Back then, making a trade was slow, costly, and out of reach for most people. Orders were handled with paper tickets and phone calls, commissions often ran around one percent of the trade’s value, and it could take days before ownership was officially confirmed.

Over the decades, technology and regulation transformed both the cost and speed of trading. The first big shift came in the 1970s, when fixed commissions were abolished. For the first time, brokers could compete on price, and discount firms began offering lower-cost services. In the 1990s, the rise of online platforms allowed everyday investors to place their own orders with just a click, driving prices down further. By the 2000s, trades could be made for less than ten dollars and executed within seconds.

The final plunge in cost came in the 2010s, when new platforms introduced zero-commission trading. Established firms followed suit, and today buying or selling a stock can be done instantly and without any direct fee. What once cost the equivalent of thousands of dollars now costs nothing at all.

And yet, one part of the old system remains: settlement. While an order today executes in milliseconds, the official transfer of ownership and cash still takes time. The United States recently shortened the process from two business days to just one. The next step being discussed is “T+0,” or same-day settlement, and eventually real-time settlement, where the trade, cash, and ownership all exchange hands immediately.

The Journey in Perspective



Era
Typical Cost of a Trade
Time for Execution / Settlement
Context


1900
~1% of trade value (≈ $100 per $10k; $10k then ≈ $380k today; $100 then ≈ $3.8k today)
2–3 days
Manual tickets, phone calls, mailed confirms


1975
$30–$100 per trade
Hours to next day
Fixed commissions abolished; price competition begins


1995
$15–$20 per trade
Minutes to an hour
Online trading for retail investors


2005
$5–$10 per trade
Seconds to minutes
Electronic exchanges and direct access


2015
$0–$5 per trade
Seconds
Zero-commission models proliferate


Today
$0 per trade
Milliseconds (execution), 1 day (settlement)
Instant fills; ownership transfer still lags



Why Settlement Still Takes Time

Liquidity buffers: Firms need time to marshal the cash or shares.
Error correction: Short delays catch mismatches and mistakes.
Global coordination: Different time zones and rules complicate instant transfers.
Legacy systems: The financial “plumbing” that handles trillions wasn’t built for real-time.

History suggests these barriers will fall. Experiments with new technology, including distributed ledgers and tokenized assets, are testing ways to move securities and cash instantly. Regulators are encouraging shorter cycles to reduce risk. It may take years, but just as commissions collapsed from $100 to zero, settlement time is on a path from days to seconds. And if trades can settle instantly, markets could even move toward 24/7 access, much like digital assets already do.

Do you think 24/7 stock trading would be a good idea, or would it create more problems than it solves?

*Research and editing was assisted by AI

The post Paper Certificates to Real-Time appeared first on HumbleDollar.

Legacy Decisions: What Should the Sandwich Generation Pass on?

I don't have much choice as a baby boomer. My generation has been predicted to usher in the largest intergenerational wealth transfer in the next decade. In the meantime, we carry the honor and burden of taking care of our frail, elderly parents. People call us "the sandwich generation" - and I'd like to think we've made the best sandwich ever.

My parents came from a deeply patriarchal culture in which the parents dictated nearly every aspect of their children's lives - education, marriage, even living arrangement. Being the head of the household meant carrying the heavy responsibility of ensuring family tradition, social order, and family's sustenance. Entering modern American society turned their world upside down, and calling the adjustment "difficult" hardly captures the magnitude of their struggle.

My own struggle was different. I faced the choice between finding any paying job as soon as I earned by B.S degree to support the family or following my career passion wherever it might lead. A dear friend shared my dilemma with his mother, and her perspective has stayed with me ever since: "All parents, in every culture, want the best for their children, not the best for themselves."

As my parents aged, however, their patriarchal mindset did not change much - they held on to the values they grew up with. My father at times asked me to hand over all my salaries and savings, so he could return to me as my allowance. I resisted with the reason that I need to save for his grandchildren's education. He quipped "I had no money for your college and look how you turned out!" They also refused to live with any of the children, fearing it would mean loss of control or dignity. For years, we had to travel long distance to visit them, until we eventually relocated to live nearby and make caring easier before their passing.

Having embraced the American value of self-reliance, we do not want our children to experience the same care giving challenges.  With independence in mind, we've made our own retirement plans. Our children are free to pursue their careers and choose their living arrangement, whether to rent or to own their home. We've told them that our house could be theirs should they wish to move back to the expensive Bay Area. Meanwhile, my 100-year-old mother in-law is nearing the end of her life, and her house near us will soon raise the question of whether to sell or to keep for the Millennial generation.

Since more than half of our assets are tied up in home equities, we are weighing how best to transfer wealth to our children: should we prioritize liquid assets invested in the markets, real estate in the Bay Area, or some of both?  Money provides the flexibility to relocate easily, allowing us to live near our children, continue at a Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC), or pursue more affordable international options as expatriates or repatriates, or support charitable causes with broader community impact. Spending for our own pleasure or new experiences just isn't who we are. Real estate like ours in the Bay Area is becoming out of reach for younger generations, yet holding onto these properties comes with significant maintenance costs and responsibilities - challenges that go beyond simple financial planning.

It is delicious to be sandwiched between such choices - while we still have the freedom to make them. But then again, as John Lennon beautifully sang, "Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."

The post Legacy Decisions: What Should the Sandwich Generation Pass on? appeared first on HumbleDollar.

Jonathan Clements Initiative at the Bogle Center for Financial Literacy

I heard Christine Benz talk about this initiative (details at https://boglecenter.net/gettinggoing/) in which young adults (particularly from low income backgrounds) are given $1000 for a Roth IRA.

I started to donate, and then the 'mind chatter' started- is this the best way to help? how will they track whether this approach actually helps young people to become better savers and investors?, etc. ( I'm sure I'm not the only person here with many voices in our heads chiming in on financial decisions.) I donated to the Initiative and hope it will prove useful and life-changing in many ways. But my final reasons for donating were: I have benefitted greatly from Jonathan Clements' writings. If he thinks this is a worthy effort to try, then I want to support it out of gratitude and respect.  And I'll pay attention to what happens, and make further donations based on what is learned from this effort.

I find making donations to charitable efforts challenging. Charity Navigator is one tool that helps, but I also support some smaller organizations that are still in the 'start up' phase and don't (yet) have good track records and are still working out metrics to evaluate effectiveness. I would be curious to know how others make charitable donation decisions and what they've learned in this area (including how to work with mind chatter!).

 

The post Jonathan Clements Initiative at the Bogle Center for Financial Literacy appeared first on HumbleDollar.

Does Social Security work?

I say it does, but that does not stop it from being attacked. The words Ponzi Scheme are being thrown about. The fact it is underfunded is being used as a argument that it doesn’t work. Some in government are calling for it to be replaced with private accounts.  I read one official say there is plenty of money to pay all the benefits to those now collecting, but we can’t continue. Well, that’s not true on either point.

No doubt Social Security is underfunded, but that is the fault of every Congress since the 1990s and of the Americans they fear will not support higher taxes or other changes. That is not a valid reason to claim the system can no longer work. 

It’s true the worker to retiree ratio is shrinking-fewer workers to support a growing number of retirees and that needs to be considered as well and can be over time by increasing the tax paying base - another discussion. 

The irony is that making Social Security sustainable requires relatively minor changes and increases in funding. If changes had been made gradually over the years, they would hardly be noticed. For example, today just increasing the payroll tax by 3% (1.5% each on employer and worker) and applying FICA to employer cafeteria plans results in 97% of funding covered for the next 75 years (Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget SS calculator.) That amounts to about $17.00 a week for the median wage earner - meaning half would pay less. That seems a small price for future retirement income. The increase would be considerably lower had it been applied ten years ago. 

The challenge now is a general anti-government anti-tax ideology in favor of individual empowerment and responsibility. 

What’s missing is a realistic understanding of human behavior- in this case related to finances and long-term planning. Americans are not even adequately saving and managing money for their share of retirement income, let alone all the required income. 

I used to joke that there was no reason to worry about Social Security, it will always be there. My confidence is waning. 

The post Does Social Security work? appeared first on HumbleDollar.

Are Bank Loan funds the same as private credit?

I have invested in the Fidelity Floating Rate High Income Fund (FFRHX) for many years. Morningstar classifies it as a bank loan fund. The expense ratio is 0.73% and it is yielding 7.78%. It loans money to BB and B rated companies and adjusts the interest charges every few months so duration is minimal. Is there any significant difference between a fund like this and private credit?

The post Are Bank Loan funds the same as private credit? appeared first on HumbleDollar.

Bah Humbug! It’s Not Even September Yet

I was in a large discount retailer yesterday with my grandson, picking up some school supplies for his return to school after the summer break. Bearing in mind it's late August, around 20% of the store was roped off while staff were busy unboxing and displaying Christmas merchandise. Unbelievable!

I overheard a few people asking staff when the display would be open for business, and you could sense a general excitement within the store about this new buying opportunity. I think the tills will be busy when it is.

As is my habit, this got me thinking. While most of us use these types of stores, they really target individuals with lower disposable incomes and can be a lifeline for families on a tight budget. This is the very demographic that research constantly shows is failing to save enough into retirement accounts; an often-cited figure is that around 35% have no savings at all.

The same consumer who relies on a store to stretch their budget for essentials is being enticed by highly effective marketing to spend on non-essential, holiday-themed items months in advance. The psychological triggers that make us excited to buy tinsel in August are often at odds with the discipline required for long-term financial planning.

The desire for immediate gratification—the thrill of a new purchase—can overshadow the need for delayed rewards, such as saving for a secure retirement. While a single holiday purchase may not seem significant, the cumulative effect of a culture that encourages constant spending can make it even harder for vulnerable populations to break the cycle of living paycheck to paycheck.

It may be easy for me, from a position of financial security, to have these thoughts, and I might come across as judgmental. But that's not how I feel at all. I look at this from a place of true concern for the unpreparedness many people face as they move toward retirement.

The best early Christmas gift for a lot of people wouldn't be more baubles and shiny plastic novelty presents. Instead, it would be the gift of opening a 401(k) and sending their future self a thoughtful and worthwhile treasure to be enjoyed for many years to come.

Happy early holidays, and bah humbug to you all on this sunny August morning.

The post Bah Humbug! It’s Not Even September Yet appeared first on HumbleDollar.

Do taxes paid from a qualified annuitized annuity offset RMDs from another ira account?

I recently read that something in the secure 2.0 act allows taxes paid on annuity

income from a qualified, annuitized annuity will count toward a rmd from

a separate ira account. Is this accurate?

The post Do taxes paid from a qualified annuitized annuity offset RMDs from another ira account? appeared first on HumbleDollar.

The Tax Man Cometh, and I Think It’s Okay.

Suzie and I recently spent a few days in London, while there we grabbed the opportunity to visit a few great museums. We thoroughly enjoyed hours wandering the halls and displays of the Natural History Museum and the equally impressive Science Museum. Though I suspect it should have been obvious, I've only just discovered that both these world class institutions are funded by public tax receipts. In my mind, that's a wonderful illustration of the tangible benefits of paying income tax.

Solid examples like this of our hard-earned income being reduced by that “nasty tax man” can make the abstract concept of "tax benefits" feel concrete and real. On a personal level, I have never had any concerns with paying my fair share of tax. I know many people who work “cash only” with a portion of their income and others who really struggle with the idea of being subject to this basic fact of life. I've given up debating with them. I find it challenging to sympathize with the viewpoint that one should be exempt from this civic duty .

I sometimes wonder to myself if these people follow their tax opinions to a logical conclusion? I feel that tax isn't just an optional fee; it's an investment in the roads I drive on, the schools my grandkids attend, and the safety we often take for granted. It’s the cost of living in a well-ordered society. By paying our taxes, we ensure that the benefits—from the inspiring museums I visited to the police force that protects us—are available to everyone, not just those who can afford them. It’s not just a burden; it's a shared investment in a modern country.

I don't have to, if you excuse the pun, tax my brain for other examples . The streetlights that make Suzie and my evening walks safe, for example. The coast guard that protects our shores and saves lives. Research Grants that fund breakthroughs in science and medicine. These are not just funded by a handful of philanthropists, they are also funded by the contributions of millions of taxpayers. When we begrudge paying tax, we’re essentially begrudging these hidden benefits.

I'm sure many will disagree, but it seems to me that a reluctance to contribute can lead to an unfair system, where some want to enjoy the benefits of a nation's infrastructure and resources without sharing the cost. This perspective taken to the extreme, I believe, could undermine the collective foundation of a civilized society. I'm very industrious and meticulous with legally reducing my tax bill to the minimum and hold a healthy skepticism about government spending. But It's a simple fact that the cost of living in a modern country must include a collective tax contribution. This shared burden is what ensures the well-being and security of everyone, without exception.

The post The Tax Man Cometh, and I Think It’s Okay. appeared first on HumbleDollar.