Is it true that if I work 6 months per year, it is better than to work for 1 calendar year and take a break for 1 year?
In many cases spanning across years will indeed be beneficial. Deductions: You get to take twice as much in deductions (twice the standard deduction, or itemizing - if you can) when you span over two years than in one.  IRA: You can only contribute in years when you have earned income. You have all the income in year 1 and none in year 2 - you can only contribute in year 1. You have half of the income in year 1 and half of the income in year 2 - you can contribute in both years (up to the limit/earned income, whichever is less). Social Security: You get 4 credits for each year you earned ~16K in. You earned 32K in year 1, and nothing in year 2 - you get 4 credits. You split it in half for each year - you get 8 credits. The list can go on. If you can do the planning ahead of time and can chose the time periods of your work freely (which is not something most people can do), you can definitely plan ahead with taxes in mind. This is called Tax Planning. Yes, if you can split your income up over multiple years it will be to your advantage over earning it all in one year.  The reasons are as you mentioned, you get to apply multiple deductions/credits/exemptions to the same income. Rather than just 1 standard deduction, you get to deduct 2 standard deductions, you can double the max saved in an IRA, you benefit more from any non-refundable credits etc. This is partly due to the fact that when you are filing your taxes in Year 1, you can't include anything from Year 2 since it hasn't happened yet. It doesn't make sense for the Government to take into account actions that may or may not happen when calculating your tax bill. There are factors where other year profit/loss can affect your tax liability, however as far as I know these are limited to businesses. Look into Loss Carry Forwarded/Back if you want to know more. Regarding the '30% simple rate', I think you are confusing something that is simple to say with something that is simple to implement.  Are we going to go change the rules on people who expected their mortgage deduction to continue? There are few ways I can think of that are more sure to cause home prices to plummet than to eliminate the Mortgage Interest Deduction. What about removing Student Loan Interest? Under a 30% 'simple' rate, what tools would the government use to encourage trade in specific areas? Will state income tax deduction also be removed? This is going to punish those in a state with a high income tax more than those in states without income tax. Those are all just 'common' deductions that affect a lot of people, you could easily say 'no' to all of them and just piss off a bunch of people, but what about selling stock though? I paid $100 for the stock and I sold it for $120, do I need to pay $36 tax on that because it is a 'simple' 30% tax rate or are we allowing the cost of goods sold deduction (it's called something else I believe when talking about stocks but it's the same idea?) What about if I travel for work to tutor individuals, can I deduct my mileage expenses? Do I need to pay 30% income tax on my earnings and principal from a Roth IRA? A lot of people have contributed to a Roth with the understanding that withdrawals will be tax free, changing those rules are punishing people for using vehicles intentionally created by the government. Are we going to go around and dismantle all non-profits that subsist entirely on tax-deductible donations? Do I need to pay taxes on the employer's cost of my health insurance? What about 401k's and IRA's? Being true to a 'simple' 30% tax will eliminate all 'benefits' from every job as you would need to pay taxes on the value of the benefits. I should mention that this isn't exactly too crazy, there was a relatively recent IRS publication about businesses needing to withhold taxes from their employees for the cost of company supplied food but I don't know if it was ultimately accepted. At the end of the day, the concept of simplifying the tax law isn't without merit, but realize that the complexities of tax law are there due to the complexities of life. The vast majority of tax laws were written for a reason other than to benefit special interests, and for that reason they cannot easily be ignored.
This doesn't really make sense, as the small cap indices have a similar rate of growth as the s&amp;p 500. The global scale has some relevance, but exports are included in GDP as well, so it's not the full story.  A better answer, as is noted in comments lower down, is that the S&amp;P does not **grow** at 6%. It *returns* 6% per year. The dividend yield of the s&amp;p is a bit over 2%. Dividends are not growth, they are simply income; they may also grow themselves, but rarely by 6% per year (in real terms). Additional income that's not paid out in dividends probably amounts to another 1-2%. Growth is the final 1-3%, which makes it roughly match GDP. "To calculate the balance (not just principal) remaining, type into your favorite spreadsheet program: It is important that the periods for ""Periods"" and ""Rate"" match up.  If you use your annual rate with quarterly periods, you will get a horribly wrong answer. So, if you invest $1000 today, expect 6% interest per year (0.5% interest per month), withdraw $10 at the end of each month, and want to know what your investment balance will be 2 years (24 months) from now, you would type: And you would get a result of $872.84. Or, to compute it manually, use the formula found here by poster uart:   This is often taught in high-school here as a application of geomentric series. The derivation goes like this.  Using the notation :  r = 1 + interest_rate_per_term_as_decimal p = present value a = payment per term eot1 denotes the FV at end of term 1 etc.  eot1: rp + a   eot2: r(rp + a) + a = r^2p + ra + a   eot3: r(r^2p + ra + a) + a = r^3p + r^2a + ra + a ...   eotn: r^np + (r^(n-1) + r^(n-2) + ... 1)a = p r^n + a (r^n - 1)/(r-1)  That is, FV = p r^n + a (r^n - 1)/(r-1).   This is precisely what exel [sic] computes for the case of payments made at the end of each term (payment type = 0). It's easy enough to repeat the calculations as above for the case of payments made at the beginning of each term. This won't work for changing interest rates or changing withdrawal amounts.  For something like that, it would be better for you (if you don't want online calculators) to set up a table in a spreadsheet so you can adjust different periods manually." CD Laddering is a process of buying multiple CDs at longer terms to take advantage of better interest rates while still having liquidity. The benefit of a CD ladder is based on this assumption.  Without higher rates for longer terms, I wouldn't ladder CDs.  So, let's assume you have $10,000 to invest.   And let's say you have a 12 month CD at 1% and a 24 month CD at 2% available to purchase. You could lock all of your money up for 2 years and buy the 24 month CD at 2%.   This is a good rate of return, but locks up your money for longer than you might otherwise have planned. The laddering approach is to buy longer term CDs over a regular interval.   In this case, we could buy a 2 year CD at 2% every 6 months.   Your ladder would look like this: This gives you the 2 year rate (2%) but you are always less than 6 months until your next CD matures giving you some liquidity. When each CD matures, you then purchase another 2 year CD at the more beneficial rate.  You'll always have something maturing every 6 months. Now, if you want to start with your money immediately, you can seed your ladder by buying partial terms like this: The two year time maturity time frame and the interest rates are all examples.  You could have 12 CDs with one maturing every month, one maturing every quarter, etc. The benefits of CD Laddering are that a portion of your money is never far from maturity and that your interest rate is better than it otherwise would be. The risks of CD Laddering are the same as the risks of buying CDs.  If you think CDs are a good investment, CD Laddering is a good way to invest at higher rates. "The question ""do they?"" is a fair one, but the answer, ""we can only observe the past, and that's what they did,"" may not be so satisfying to you.  It's safe to say that any longer term view of any market will show far less volatility than a short one. It only takes a glance at the return of the 2000's  2009 27.11   2008 -37.22  2007      5.46  2006  15.74 2005  4.79   2004 10.82   2003  28.72  2002    -22.27  2001 -11.98 2000     -9.11 (for the S&P) to see that in an awful decade containing -37% and -22% that the full decade was ""only"" down 9% in total or just less than 1% per year compounded. I'm not predicting any particular returns forward, just noting this is how the math works.  DCA performs well through such a decade, better than in a rising one. You are offered the opportunity to buy into a market selling below the long term trend.  Added note in response to Enno's answer below - On rereading the linked article, I see where the author cites Zvi Bodie who clearly made a logical error. He concludes that since a 20 month S&P put costs triple what a 2.3 mo put costs, that there's more risk the market falls over the longer period, not less. American options can be sold or exercised at any time. If a 2 year option were cheaper than a 2 month option, no one would buy the shorter term. It's pretty simple that the Options Pricing Models take time into account and their value, put or call, increases along with the time till expiration.  On a lighter note, when I take the S&P data for 1871-2012 (I know, no S&P back then, but it's Schiller's data) I get average 40 year returns of 44X, similar to the author's conclusion, $1K growing to $44K. But, the Standard deviation is 28. So the high end of +1 STDEV is $72K, not the author's $166K. Although, the low end 44-28=16 comes close to his $14K figure. $16K is a 7.18% long term return which today doesn't look bad. When the article was written, the author was looking at a 6% short term risk free rate." Title is incorrect. $1000 every ten years, or $100 per year.   The author puts the calculations in the article, and while I think the methodology is dubious it is at least transparent. The $1000 was the cost over the next decade applied to the number of workers, which means the annual cost is one tenth of that, or $100.  Edit: I said number of households and I should’ve said number of workers. Saving money for the future is a good thing. Whether spending those savings on a business venture makes sense, will depend on a few factors, including: (1) How much money you need that business to make [ie: will you be quitting your job and relying on the business for your sole income? Or will this just be a hobby you make some pocket change from?] (2) How much the money the business needs up front [some businesses, like simple web design consulting, might have effectively $0 in cash startup costs, where starting a franchise restaurant might cost you $500k-$1M on day 1] (3) How risky it is [the general stat is that something like 50% of all new businesses fail in their first year, and I think for restaurants that number is often given as 75%+] But if you don't have a business idea yet, and save for one in the future but never get that 'perfect idea', the good news is that you've saved a bunch of money that you can instead use for retirement, or whatever other financial goals you have. So it's not the saving for a new business that is risky, it's the spending. Part of good personal financial management is making financial goals, tracking your progress to those goals, and changing them as needed. In a simpler case, many people want to own their own home - this is a common financial goal, just like early retirement, or starting your own business, or paying for your kids' college education. All those goals are helped by saving money, so your job as someone mindful of personal finances, is to prioritize those goals in accordance to what is important for you. People can take off 15 minutes (some of my co worker even take off 1 hour early) early if they want as long as it didn't affect their works. They can also go to doctor appointment  or any personal function if they tell their manager about it.  Look, I don't know or care what you are trying to get it. If you are trying to imply that OMG! Euro is so much better than U.S. or whatever. I don't really care. I replied to your comment regarding working less than 40 hours as I stated it depend on the company that you work for. Good company doesn't care as long as it didn't affect your work.  Regarding common/regular, yes. It is very common/regular in a good company. Like I said if you work for a shitty company. It doesn't matter where the company is located. US or otherwise. So to translate that to US English: taking an early retirement in lieu of impending layoffs.  If you have a layoff you're saying you have no need for the work and if you replace the workers then they come back to sue you (which seems to be what you're saying, and we have the same concept) but an early retirement is a voluntary exit with a compensation package such that any right to sue is forfeit because it was a consensual exit rather than mandatory.  Got it.  Thanks. :)