Point taken @msf. And we know what happened to the ACA. The following numbers are a bit dated (2013), but I think they’re still relatively valid today and serve to make my point:
“ A smaller fraction of Americans owns state and local government bonds today than 25 years ago (2.4% in 2013 vs. 4.6% in 1989), and that ownership is more heavily concentrated among the very rich (the top 0.5% of Americans by wealth held 42.0% of all municipal bonds in 2013 vs. 23.8% in 1989) ...” . https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2016/08/18/a-smaller-share-of-americans-owns-municipal-bonds-does-that-matter/
The substantial majority of hired-guns occupying Senate seats have no incentive to take away the tax break on munis - or remove the tax-free status of Roths, for that matter. Many would disown their own mother first. Some day, after enough jello hits the fan, the tune might change - but not in the foreseeable future.

It doesn't exactly fit your parameters, but the ACA comes close. Medicare surtaxes of 0.9% on wages above $200K (single)/$250K (MFJ) and 3.8% on net investment income above those levels. Simultaneously, the ACA provided for tax credits (aka Obamacare subsidies) for low and middle income wage earners.

Treasuries are, at least on paper, less risky than CDs. The former are directly backed by the full faith and credit of the US Treasury which issues the bonds. CDs are issued by banks that can fail, and are usually insured (within limits) by the FDIC. Though it is the "sense of Congress" that the FDIC has the full faith and credit backing of the Treasury, this has not been tested.
Treasuries went up significantly in the 08_09 crash. As I suspect CDs did, if they were marked to market (though perhaps not). See chart comparing S&P 500 and Treasuries here. (S&P 500 down 43%, Treasury bonds and VUSTX up 9%.)

To me, a premium bond is a bond selling above face value. Often a good investment as some investors are loathe to pay a premium for what would yield at least as much as a par bond.
However, it seems that in the UK premium bonds are glorified lottery tickets. Instead of getting interest on the bond, you get entered into lotteries.
So I agree with the headline, at least in part. Forget about UK lotteries. If you want to play a lottery, at least toss your money toward a US state lottery where the proceeds often fund education (however inefficiently): "Lottery revenues are allocated differently in each state, with determinations made by state legislatures. In many states, the money goes to public education, but some states dedicate it to other good causes."
https://abcnews.go.com/US/mega-millions-lottery-lottery-money-states/story?id=58661412
Besides, I suspect Uncle Sam will have something different to say about those supposedly "tax-free £1m" prizes. And after all is said and done, is a lottery ticket, UK or otherwise, something that anyone here really cares about?

https://www.fool.co.uk/investing/2019/12/10/forget-premium-bonds-id-prefer-my-chances-with-this-ftse-250-stock/
Forget Premium Bonds! I'd prefer my chances with this FTSE 250 stock
Motley Fool UK
It's easy to see why Premium Bonds pull in so many investors. A chance to win a tax-free £1m certainly grabs your attention, especially when it seems .

If tariff goes up on 15th Dec, market will drop-drop-drop. Act if you can?

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1657267/000089418919008228/mhft_497e.htm
497 1 mhft_497e.htm SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS
Miller/Howard Drill Bit to Burner Tip® Fund
Class
Ticker Symbol
Class I
DBBEX
Adviser Share Class
DBBDX
(A series of Miller/Howard Funds Trust)
Supplement dated December 9, 2019 to the Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and
Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) dated February 28, 2019, as amended
Based upon a recommendation by MHI Funds, LLC (the “Adviser”), the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of Miller/Howard Funds Trust (the “Trust”) has approved a plan of liquidation for the Miller/Howard Drill Bit to Burner Tip® Fund (the “Fund”) as a series of the Trust, pursuant to which the Fund will be liquidated on or around December 31, 2019 (the “Liquidation” or the “Liquidation Date”). The Adviser has determined that the Fund has limited prospects for meaningful growth. As a result, the Adviser and the Board believe that the Liquidation of the Fund is in the best interests of shareholders.
In anticipation of the Liquidation, effective as of the close of trading on the New York Stock Exchange (“close of business”) on December 10, 2019, the Fund will be closed to new investments. In addition, effective December 9, 2019, the Adviser may begin an orderly transition of the Fund’s portfolio securities to cash and cash equivalents and the Fund may cease investing its assets in accordance with its investment objective and policies.
Shareholders may voluntarily redeem shares of the Fund, as described in the Fund’s Prospectus, before the Liquidation Date. Shareholders remaining in the Fund just prior to the Liquidation Date may bear increased transaction fees in connection with the disposition of the Fund’s portfolio holdings. If the Fund has not received your redemption request or other instruction by the close of business on December 31, 2019, your shares will be automatically redeemed on the Liquidation Date. Shareholders will receive a liquidating distribution in an amount equal to the net asset value of their Fund shares, less any required withholding. For shareholders that hold their shares in a taxable account, the redemption of Fund shares will generally be treated as any other redemption of shares (i.e., a sale that may result in a gain or loss for federal income tax purposes). Your net cash proceeds from the Fund, less any required withholding, will be sent to the address of record.
If you hold your shares in an individual retirement account (an “IRA”), you have 60 days from the date you receive your proceeds to reinvest or “rollover” your proceeds into another IRA in order to maintain their tax-deferred status. You must notify the Fund’s transfer agent at 1-845-684-5730 prior to December 31, 2019 of your intent to rollover your IRA account to avoid withholding deductions from your proceeds.
If the redeemed shares are held in a qualified retirement account, such as an IRA, the redemption proceeds may not be subject to current income taxation. You should consult with your tax advisor on the consequences of this redemption to you. Checks will be issued to all shareholders of record as of the close of business on the Liquidation Date.
Please contact the Fund at 1-845-684-5730 if you have any questions.
This supplement should be retained with your Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and SAI for future reference.

It only makes sense to hold a muni in an IRA is when you expect its total yield (cap gain plus interest) to exceed the total return of a taxable bond. That's because coming out of the IRA, both are taxed the same way. So which ever one wins on gross income also wins on net (after tax) income.
Say your tax bracket is 1/3 (33%). Consider three investments:
- A muni bond paying 2%
- A treasury bond paying 3%
- A utility stock that doesn't appreciate but pays qualified divs of 2.35%
In a taxable account, they'd all yield 2% after tax:
- The muni's 2% is tax-free
- The treasury gets taxed at 1/3, leaving 2/3 x 3% = 2%
- The stock div gets taxed at 15%, leaving 85% x 2.35% = 2%
In an IRA, all money coming out is treated as ordinary income (taxed 1/3):
- The muni earnings, taxed at 1/3, are reduced to 2/3 x 2% = 1531;%
- The treasury earnings again taxed down to 2%
- The stock divs, no longer treated as qualified, are reduced to 2/3 x 2.35% = 1.57%.

@dbryan2,
Here is a Forbes article link from 6/2018 concerning the fund:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lcarrel/2018/06/28/plumb-balanced-fund-is-beating-the-sp-500/#6d8f90857743

The idea that the president could make munis taxable is dubious at best. The executive branch (including the IRS) generally, and the president specifically, can change regulations and policies only to the extent that the changes remain consistent (do not contradict) existing laws.
The Internal Revenue Code, section 103 states succinctly that with three exceptions (in 103(b)), interest paid on state and local bonds must not be taxed.
Congress certainly has the power to pass legislation making some or all muni bonds taxable. It did this in creating Build America Bonds. Congress enacted Section 54AA of the IRC, which says that if not for Section 54AA, the bonds would be tax exempt under IRC 103, as described above. That is, BAB bonds are, by a specific law, not tax-exempt.
It would take an act of Congress to make muni bonds generally taxable. The president cannot do this by fiat.
From a strictly pragmatic perspective, Congress is barely able to pass appropriations bills before the government again runs out of money in a couple of weeks. And this is the legislative body you fear will proactively take away the tax-exempt status of muni bonds?
Even if, against all odds, Congress did come together and pass some such bill, what would it look like? Would it revoke the tax-exempt status of current muni bonds> Or would the possibility that such a change might be unconstitutional prod Congress into taxing only bonds issued in the future (as was done with advance refunding)?
If so, then what do you see as the risk to currently outstanding munis? ISTM that by preserving their tax exempt status but drying up the supply of future tax-exempt munis, Congress might make current munis even more valuable. A double win for current bond holders - tax exempt interest and capital appreciation. As an investor, I wouldn't mind getting stomped on by that elephant.
As a taxpayer, the prospect of having to pay 40% more to get infrastructure does not please me. But that's a different matter altogether.

LSBIX is available at Schwab for an initial minimum investment of $2,500 for taxable and non-taxable accounts.

As a follow-up in supporting @msf's post,
Here is an excerpt from the 8/31/19 prospectus for Seafarer:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000139834419015471/fp0044912_485bpos.htm
..."Small Account Balances / Mandatory Redemptions
If at any time your account balance falls below the applicable minimum initial investment amount for the share class and type of account described under “Investment Minimums” in this Prospectus due to redemptions, a letter may be sent advising you to add to your account to meet the applicable minimum account balance, to transfer your shares to another share class of the Fund for which you are eligible, or to redeem the remaining shares in your account. If action is not taken within 30 days of the notice, the Fund may require mandatory redemption of shares, or the Fund may elect to transfer the shares to another share class of the Fund for which you are eligible. The Fund may adopt other policies from time to time requiring mandatory redemption of shares in certain circumstances, such as to comply with new regulatory requirements.
Each Fund reserves the right to waive or change investment minimums, and delegates such authority to Seafarer. Employees of the Adviser and their family members are not subject to any initial or subsequent investment minimums. "
Brokerages are a little hard to say, but probably follow the prospectus when in doubt.

Hard to say, for multiple reasons.
The prospectus says that: "If at any time your account balance falls below the applicable minimum initial investment amount [$2500, or $1,000 for IRA] ... in this Prospectus due to redemptions, a letter may be sent advising you to add to your account to meet the applicable minimum account balance, ... or to redeem the remaining shares in your account. If action is not taken within 30 days of the notice, the Fund may require mandatory redemption of shares"
So the fund itself may require you to keep at least $2500 (or $1K), but this is at its discretion. I've owned two funds at Vanguard where I dropped below Admiral level thresholds. Vanguard forced a downgrade conversion to Investor class shares for one of the fund. The other fund Vanguard left alone. Discretion.
Then there is the fact (I assume from your post) that you're investing through Fidelity. Fidelity generally sets a $2500 min for fund investments (except for its own funds). Whether it requires one to keep $2500 in a fund is something I don't know. Regardless, whether it would enforce such a rule is up to Fidelity. Then there is the question of whether Fidelity would tell Seafarer if you dropped below its minimum requirement.
In any case, it seems that $2500 would be safe. The actual minimum, however, could be lower. That's what is hard to say.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ladder-select-bond-fund-receives-211500859.html
Ladder Select Bond Fund Receives ‘4 Stars’ From Morningstar Upon 3 Year Anniversary
Business WireDecember 5, 2019, 3:15 PM CST
The Ladder Select Bond Fund (Institutional Class: LSBIX) Receives '4 Stars' Overall from Morningstar®, out of 491 Funds, respectively, in the US Fund Short-Term Bond Category, based on 3-years of historical risk-adjusted returns as of 10/31/2019.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-perfectly-orchestrates-the-stock-markets-rise-whenever-momentum-wanes-2019-12-05
Price action, internal momentum and volume aren’t great, but that doesn’t matter when the president wields his baton

At 59B AUM, it’s not that startling a discovery...

Hi guys,
iforno: I like Wellington......anything. Mainly, Wellsley.
johnN: Good job! I only drive on Michelins. They're on the GT also.
Gary: I also have FNSTX. Also look at FIFNX. It's also new.....I like it. Just saying.......
Hi Skeeter - Yeah, looks like a good AA fund with ETFs and Blackrock funds....I like it.
Me? I sold FSENX this week. It's just too volatile with Armco coming. It's a pump job, I believe.....just saying. Have added to ADEVX. The MLP----MLPFX is at a 52-week low and pays a great dividend......just saying....
God bless
the Pudd

Lewis makes an excellent point about percentage change in rates (e.g. a change from 0.25% to 0.50% is a doubling). Since you'll get the face value of a bond back at maturity, the market price of a bond won't be cut by anything near a half. Still, you'll take quite a haircut if rates double.
A 30 year bond with a coupon of 0.25% will lose nearly 7% (6.96%) so that its yield to maturity (YTM) matches the new market rate of 0.50%.
In contrast, a 30 year bond with a coupon of 4.00% will lose "just" 4.22% given the same 0.25% increase in market rates. So at "normal" rates, you'd just about break even (interest minus capital loss) in a year's time.
Calculator for bond price given coupon and market rates:
https://dqydj.com/bond-pricing-calculator/

Also, the examples provided didn't go back prior to 1986. (I find the reasoning for this--that some fixed income categories didn't exist prior to 1986--a bit dubious, but nevertheless.) I believe most of the rate increases after that period were gradual and modest ones allowing fixed income to catch up with its yield payments to compensate for losses. The real test would be a period of rapid rate and inflation increases like in the 1970s--what is known as a "rate shock." I doubt Wellesley income or many funds to be honest would hold up too well in such a period. Also, because rates are so low now, as has already been pointed out, a small increase actually can be more significant. Going say from a 0.25% rate to 0.50% is actually a doubling of rates. That is more uncharted territory. Also, income-oriented stocks that Wellesley owns might do particularly poorly in a rate shock environment because unlike bonds they essentially have an infinite duration as they never mature. Then again, they could do better if they have a growth component to compensate for rising rates. It's hard to predict how it would do. Yet here is some useful information: https://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/105544/0000893220-95-000089.txt
If you go to page 6, you can see how Wellesley performed in the 1970s. Other than 1973 and 1974, it held up pretty well. So there's that. I wonder how it would do in a rate shock today when we're starting from such low rates.

Try this link instead:
https://www.icmarc.org/x3333.html?RFID=W1582&usg=AOvVaw2I9Vd-WRuW_zIiwp1pxMzJ
A solid piece, pretty much textbook (longer duration = greater loss with rising rates, junk = less sensitive to rates).
A few curiosities:

• It is interesting to note that contrary to conventional wisdom, all fixed income sectors experienced positive returns during the four rate hikes.
  I thought conventional wisdom said that historically NAV losses were more than compensated for by high coupons. Vanguard certainly makes this point in writing that buying bond funds in rising rate environments can still be profitable. (Not checking for citation now.)
  The problem is that with interest rates at historical lows, the coupons will likely not fully mitigate capital losses. The Vantage Point article alludes to this as well: "it is possible that the next upturn in rates would not result in positive returns for fixed income sectors due to unique factors, which may not have been present in the last four rate hikes."
• It gives as its rationale for not studying rising rate periods earlier than 1986 that "many fixed income sectors did not exist prior to 1986." So presumably it excludes securitized assets prior to the 1999 period of rising rates for the same reason. Yet MBSs (a major portion of secutized assets) certainly did exist then. FMSFX dates to 12/31/1984 and VFIIX got its start 6/27/1980.
• It explains that in the fourth rising rate period it studied, intermediate term bonds (actually aggregate bond portfolios) outperformed short term bonds in part because "short-term rates [rose] much more than longer-term rates, as shown by the flattening of the yield curve ". These days, there's not much more flattening to be had. Just a ¾% difference between a 3 month T-bill and a 30 year T-bond. Short term rates could again rise faster than long term rates, but that would result in an inversion not a flattening.

.