7.4 Trillion! 7.4!!!!
 

The bailout for 2008 is now 1/2 of the entire US GDP:

http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2...Drk&refer=home

7.4 trillion dollars!!!!!!!

A nice present for the future generations!

The Federal Reserve in action folks. A truly independent quasi government
agency bailing out the rich folks and those in political favor.

7.4 Trillion! 7.4!!!!
 

"Charles Momsen" wrote in message
...
The bailout for 2008 is now 1/2 of the entire US GDP:

http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2...Drk&refer=home

7.4 trillion dollars!!!!!!!

A nice present for the future generations!

The Federal Reserve in action folks. A truly independent quasi government
agency bailing out the rich folks and those in political favor.




Remember about two years ago during the mid-terms how the Democrats were
raising hell about a little old 300 billion dollar projected budget deficit?
Complaining like hell about the cost of the war in Iraq?

My, how times change. Put them in charge of the purse strings and they do
what Democrats always do - spend like there's no tomorrow. And, thanks to
them, there will be no tomorrow for the next generation or two who has to
foot the bill for their gluttonous, unsustainable socialist agenda.

Wilbur Hubbard

7.4 Trillion! 7.4!!!!
 

On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 12:56:16 -0500, Wilbur Hubbard wrote:


Remember about two years ago during the mid-terms how the Democrats were
raising hell about a little old 300 billion dollar projected budget
deficit? Complaining like hell about the cost of the war in Iraq?

My, how times change. Put them in charge of the purse strings and they
do what Democrats always do - spend like there's no tomorrow. And,
thanks to them, there will be no tomorrow for the next generation or two
who has to foot the bill for their gluttonous, unsustainable socialist
agenda.

Funny, doesn't look like the Democrats to me.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Looks like a Republican plan to bankrupt the country. I guess that's one
way to get a smaller government.

7.4 Trillion! 7.4!!!!
 

wrote in message
t...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 12:56:16 -0500, Wilbur Hubbard wrote:


Remember about two years ago during the mid-terms how the Democrats were
raising hell about a little old 300 billion dollar projected budget
deficit? Complaining like hell about the cost of the war in Iraq?

My, how times change. Put them in charge of the purse strings and they
do what Democrats always do - spend like there's no tomorrow. And,
thanks to them, there will be no tomorrow for the next generation or two
who has to foot the bill for their gluttonous, unsustainable socialist
agenda.

Funny, doesn't look like the Democrats to me.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Looks like a Republican plan to bankrupt the country. I guess that's one
way to get a smaller government.

Idiot! You're clueless. You don't even know the difference between a budget
deficit and the national debt.

Wilbur Hubbard

7.4 Trillion! 7.4!!!!
 

wrote in message
t...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 12:56:16 -0500, Wilbur Hubbard wrote:


Remember about two years ago during the mid-terms how the Democrats were
raising hell about a little old 300 billion dollar projected budget
deficit? Complaining like hell about the cost of the war in Iraq?

My, how times change. Put them in charge of the purse strings and they
do what Democrats always do - spend like there's no tomorrow. And,
thanks to them, there will be no tomorrow for the next generation or two
who has to foot the bill for their gluttonous, unsustainable socialist
agenda.

Funny, doesn't look like the Democrats to me.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Looks like a Republican plan to bankrupt the country. I guess that's one
way to get a smaller government.


It's pretty bad now, and it's going to get worse. Check out the following.
Click on the Economic Challenges link under Last Week's Show.

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/fareed.zakaria.gps/

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

7.4 Trillion! 7.4!!!!
 

Charles Momsen wrote:
The bailout for 2008 is now 1/2 of the entire US GDP:

http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2...Drk&refer=home

7.4 trillion dollars!!!!!!!

A nice present for the future generations!

The Federal Reserve in action folks. A truly independent quasi government
agency bailing out the rich folks and those in political favor.



We have already lost many times that in 401k, saving accounts, and
company and public pension funds. So while large in itself, it is a drop
in the bucket relative to the problem.

7.4 Trillion! 7.4!!!!
 

"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
...
troll sh*t removed

We have already lost many times that in 401k, saving accounts, and company
and public pension funds. So while large in itself, it is a drop in the
bucket relative to the problem.


You'll only lose in a 401K if you sell or reallocate. If you can wait, the
market will come back eventually.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

7.4 Trillion! 7.4!!!!
 

Capt. JG wrote:
"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
...
troll sh*t removed

We have already lost many times that in 401k, saving accounts, and company
and public pension funds. So while large in itself, it is a drop in the
bucket relative to the problem.


You'll only lose in a 401K if you sell or reallocate. If you can wait, the
market will come back eventually.

At the average rate of return of market growth for the last 40 years it
will take 10 to 15 years for a 401k to regain the 50% that was lost
since the start of this congress with pelosi "great" leadership. ie it
will have to grow 100% in 10 year. I will be dead before long before then.

7.4 Trillion! 7.4!!!!
 

"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
...
troll sh*t removed

We have already lost many times that in 401k, saving accounts, and
company and public pension funds. So while large in itself, it is a drop
in the bucket relative to the problem.


You'll only lose in a 401K if you sell or reallocate. If you can wait,
the market will come back eventually.

At the average rate of return of market growth for the last 40 years it
will take 10 to 15 years for a 401k to regain the 50% that was lost since
the start of this congress with pelosi "great" leadership. ie it will have
to grow 100% in 10 year. I will be dead before long before then.


If you're trying to blame the Dems in the last two years for what Bush did
to the economy in the last eight, you've probably got a brain tumor that's
disrupting your cognitive function. Take a look at this. Looks like you'll
have plenty of time, assuming senility hasn't set it.

http://genxfinance.com/2007/11/26/a-...rom-1996-2007/

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

7.4 Trillion! 7.4!!!!
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 11:50:50 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

You'll only lose in a 401K if you sell or reallocate.

Nonsense. You're fooling yourself. If today you have an asset that could
be
sold for x, and yesterday it could have been sold for 2x, you've lost half
the value of the asset since yesterday. You might hope it will again be
saleable for 2x some day, but that's just a hope.


Incorrect. You've lost nothing until you sell it. It's funny money unless
you sell or reallocate. Did you actually attend accounting 101? LOL

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

7.4 Trillion! 7.4!!!!
 

On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:56:41 -0500, Wilbur Hubbard wrote:


Funny, doesn't look like the Democrats to me.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Looks like a Republican plan to bankrupt the country. I guess that's
one way to get a smaller government.

Idiot! You're clueless. You don't even know the difference between a
budget deficit and the national debt.

Uh, let me take a wild guess. The national debt is the accumulation of
our budget deficits.

7.4 Trillion! 7.4!!!!
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...
"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
...
troll sh*t removed

We have already lost many times that in 401k, saving accounts, and
company and public pension funds. So while large in itself, it is a
drop in the bucket relative to the problem.


You'll only lose in a 401K if you sell or reallocate. If you can wait,
the market will come back eventually.

At the average rate of return of market growth for the last 40 years it
will take 10 to 15 years for a 401k to regain the 50% that was lost since
the start of this congress with pelosi "great" leadership. ie it will
have to grow 100% in 10 year. I will be dead before long before then.


If you're trying to blame the Dems in the last two years for what Bush did
to the economy in the last eight, you've probably got a brain tumor that's
disrupting your cognitive function. Take a look at this. Looks like you'll
have plenty of time, assuming senility hasn't set it.

http://genxfinance.com/2007/11/26/a-...rom-1996-2007/


And if one looks he

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/history.gif

It's plain to see the largest percentage increase in national debt occured
under Clinton!

And takes off again under the Democratic controlled Congress!!!

Don't worry though, our kids and their kids and their kids will pay for it
all!!

Deficit spending - It's for the children!

7.4 Trillion! 7.4!!!!
 

Clinton: Highest debt to GDP in over 50 years!

http://www.economicshelp.org/uploade...GDP-748639.gif

7.4 Trillion! 7.4!!!!
 

Capt. JG wrote:
"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
...
troll sh*t removed

We have already lost many times that in 401k, saving accounts, and
company and public pension funds. So while large in itself, it is a drop
in the bucket relative to the problem.

You'll only lose in a 401K if you sell or reallocate. If you can wait,
the market will come back eventually.

At the average rate of return of market growth for the last 40 years it
will take 10 to 15 years for a 401k to regain the 50% that was lost since
the start of this congress with pelosi "great" leadership. ie it will have
to grow 100% in 10 year. I will be dead before long before then.


If you're trying to blame the Dems in the last two years for what Bush did
to the economy in the last eight, you've probably got a brain tumor that's
disrupting your cognitive function. Take a look at this. Looks like you'll
have plenty of time, assuming senility hasn't set it.

http://genxfinance.com/2007/11/26/a-...rom-1996-2007/

If you will look at your reference January 4, 2007 when the new congress
took office and add 100 days. That is the end of pelosi's 100 days when
she accomplished "wonders and changed the world". Add time for the
market to realize she was going to block any legislation to correct the
bad paper for worthless mortgages, and you will be at the peak before
the current slide. Thanks for publishing the data to support my point.

7.4 Trillion! 7.4!!!!
 

"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
...
troll sh*t removed

We have already lost many times that in 401k, saving accounts, and
company and public pension funds. So while large in itself, it is a
drop in the bucket relative to the problem.

You'll only lose in a 401K if you sell or reallocate. If you can wait,
the market will come back eventually.

At the average rate of return of market growth for the last 40 years it
will take 10 to 15 years for a 401k to regain the 50% that was lost
since the start of this congress with pelosi "great" leadership. ie it
will have to grow 100% in 10 year. I will be dead before long before
then.


If you're trying to blame the Dems in the last two years for what Bush
did to the economy in the last eight, you've probably got a brain tumor
that's disrupting your cognitive function. Take a look at this. Looks
like you'll have plenty of time, assuming senility hasn't set it.

http://genxfinance.com/2007/11/26/a-...rom-1996-2007/

If you will look at your reference January 4, 2007 when the new congress
took office and add 100 days. That is the end of pelosi's 100 days when
she accomplished "wonders and changed the world". Add time for the market
to realize she was going to block any legislation to correct the bad paper
for worthless mortgages, and you will be at the peak before the current
slide. Thanks for publishing the data to support my point.


?? You're ranting. Are you seriously trying to claim that the Democrats are
responsible for the financial debacle??? If so, you're not the brightest
bulb in the room.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

7.4 Trillion! 7.4!!!!
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 14:11:09 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Nonsense. You're fooling yourself. If today you have an asset that could
be
sold for x, and yesterday it could have been sold for 2x, you've lost
half
the value of the asset since yesterday. You might hope it will again be
saleable for 2x some day, but that's just a hope.


Incorrect. You've lost nothing until you sell it.

Ever hear of mark to market treatment of financial instruments? FAS 115?
FAS
157?

No. I thought not.

It's funny money unless
you sell or reallocate. Did you actually attend accounting 101? LOL

The difference apparently is that my learning on the topic didn't end 35
years ago.


Your rant has absolutely nothing to do with losing or not losing money on a
401K portfolio. The only ways to lose money is for the underlying companies
to go belly up, you sell when the stocks are down, or similarly reallocate
your portfolio, e.g., into bonds from stocks, when the stocks are down.

As I said, you need to either take an updated class or read the original
post.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

7.4 Trillion! 7.4!!!!
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:08:51 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

It's funny money unless
you sell or reallocate. Did you actually attend accounting 101? LOL

The difference apparently is that my learning on the topic didn't end 35
years ago.


Your rant has absolutely nothing to do with losing or not losing money on
a
401K portfolio.

It did, however, have something to do with your suggestion that I don't
know
anything about accounting.

True. You do know something about accounting.


The only ways to lose money is for the underlying companies
to go belly up, you sell when the stocks are down, or similarly reallocate
your portfolio, e.g., into bonds from stocks, when the stocks are down.

What you paid for securities is a historical accident, just as the book
value of plant and equipment on an enterprise's balance sheet is a
historical accident. It has no current relevance. Securities you hold
today
are worth whatever a willing buyer would pay for them in an orderly sale.
Period.

Correct.

The decision to account for various assets at cost, market or some other
basis is the result of resolving the conflicting accounting concepts of
certainty and relevance. The accounting convention calling for PPE to be
valued at depreciated cost represents a tilt toward certainty, since cost
is
easily determined, and market value is less so. In the case of securities
held for sale, and having a readily determinable market value, the balance
is tilted the other way.

The key phrase is "for sale." If you're not selling the items in your 401K,
you're not making a profit or a loss.

I will tell you that during the current year I have discovered errors by
two
major bank accounting firms requiring a restatement of the numbers they
had
previously audited and given a clean report on. When I analyzed the
accounting treatment for them they agreed and restated.

And your point?

But you just go ahead and tell yourself you haven't lost anything if that
makes you feel better.

Please show me how I would account for my supposed 401K losses when it comes
time to file my return. Should I deduct the $100K? LOL

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

7.4 Trillion! 7.4!!!!
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...

Your rant has absolutely nothing to do with losing or not losing money on
a 401K portfolio. The only ways to lose money is for the underlying
companies to go belly up, you sell when the stocks are down, or similarly
reallocate your portfolio, e.g., into bonds from stocks, when the stocks
are down.


The portfolio could go up and one can still lose by paying the tax burden.

7.4 Trillion! 7.4!!!!
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 17:21:26 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Please show me how I would account for my supposed 401K losses when it
comes
time to file my return. Should I deduct the $100K?

Different question entirely. There are significant differences between the
way things are reported for tax purposes and the way they are accounted
for
under generally accepted accounting principles. Else there would be no
such
thing as loss carry-forwards and deferred tax assets. So you report the
losses the same way you accounted for the gains, if any, you had before
the
market decline.

There are also major differences between cash accounting and accrual
accounting. Accrual accounting is generally designed to eliminate the
effect
of the accident of when cash is received or paid, and reflect the
underlying
economic impact of events occurring during a period. On a cash basis, you
wouldn't record a gain or loss on an asset until the asset is sold. But if
you let that fact obscure the underlying economic reality you are simply
fooling yourself..


So, according to the IRS no loss took place. According to my regular bank
balance, no loss took place. According to my ability to buy bread with cash
on hand or with my credit card, no loss took place. So, according to my
credit score, nothing has changed. So, how is it a loss? If the value of the
stock will likely increase (assuming the company doesn't go bust) over time,
I'm not relying on my 401K to live, and I'm not selling it any time soon,
how is it a loss? Answer: it isn't unless I sell or the company goes
worthless, after which I can then call it a loss.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

7.4 Trillion! 7.4!!!!
 

wrote in message
t...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:56:41 -0500, Wilbur Hubbard wrote:


Funny, doesn't look like the Democrats to me.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Looks like a Republican plan to bankrupt the country. I guess that's
one way to get a smaller government.

Idiot! You're clueless. You don't even know the difference between a
budget deficit and the national debt.

Uh, let me take a wild guess. The national debt is the accumulation of
our budget deficits.

Guess again!

7.4 Trillion! 7.4!!!!
 

"Charles Momsen" wrote in message
...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...
"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
...
troll sh*t removed

We have already lost many times that in 401k, saving accounts, and
company and public pension funds. So while large in itself, it is a
drop in the bucket relative to the problem.


You'll only lose in a 401K if you sell or reallocate. If you can wait,
the market will come back eventually.

At the average rate of return of market growth for the last 40 years it
will take 10 to 15 years for a 401k to regain the 50% that was lost
since the start of this congress with pelosi "great" leadership. ie it
will have to grow 100% in 10 year. I will be dead before long before
then.


If you're trying to blame the Dems in the last two years for what Bush
did to the economy in the last eight, you've probably got a brain tumor
that's disrupting your cognitive function. Take a look at this. Looks
like you'll have plenty of time, assuming senility hasn't set it.

http://genxfinance.com/2007/11/26/a-...rom-1996-2007/


And if one looks he

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/history.gif

It's plain to see the largest percentage increase in national debt occured
under Clinton!

And takes off again under the Democratic controlled Congress!!!

Don't worry though, our kids and their kids and their kids will pay for it
all!!

Deficit spending - It's for the children!


That "for the children" argument doesn't wash when you're talking to a known
homosexual.

--
Gregory Hall

7.4 Trillion! 7.4!!!!
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:27:38 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

it isn't unless I sell or the company goes
worthless, after which I can then call it a loss.

You just keep telling yourself that. You'll sleep better.


So, you're claiming that it's a loss, yet you haven't yet substantiated that
with one thing. I sleep just fine.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

7.4 Trillion! 7.4!!!!
 

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:02:48 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:27:38 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

it isn't unless I sell or the company goes
worthless, after which I can then call it a loss.

You just keep telling yourself that. You'll sleep better.


So, you're claiming that it's a loss, yet you haven't yet substantiated that
with one thing. I sleep just fine.

All in the timing.
Got a buddy about to retire who will roll his mostly equity 401k into
FDIC insured IRA's to lock in his future retirement funds.
Can't get that money out of the 401k until he retires.
He says he'll get less than the contributions that came out of his pay
checks.
There's a reason the guv put a 1.00 par guarantee on 401k money
market funds as one of the first acts of the current bailouts.
Otherwise the entire 401k rationale could be destroyed.
There would be no safe haven for your 401k retirement funds.
I thought 401k's would be kaput before I heard of the guarantee.
Always resented the non-free market nature of the 401k system.
For fiscal conservatives like me, the money markets weren't
competitive with what was available in the open market.
Of course I'm only talking about my company's 401k offerings, but
that fact is just more reinforcement of my notion.

--Vic

7.4 Trillion! 7.4!!!!
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:02:48 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:27:38 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

it isn't unless I sell or the company goes
worthless, after which I can then call it a loss.

You just keep telling yourself that. You'll sleep better.


So, you're claiming that it's a loss, yet you haven't yet substantiated
that
with one thing. I sleep just fine.

All in the timing.
Got a buddy about to retire who will roll his mostly equity 401k into
FDIC insured IRA's to lock in his future retirement funds.
Can't get that money out of the 401k until he retires.
He says he'll get less than the contributions that came out of his pay
checks.
There's a reason the guv put a 1.00 par guarantee on 401k money
market funds as one of the first acts of the current bailouts.
Otherwise the entire 401k rationale could be destroyed.
There would be no safe haven for your 401k retirement funds.
I thought 401k's would be kaput before I heard of the guarantee.
Always resented the non-free market nature of the 401k system.
For fiscal conservatives like me, the money markets weren't
competitive with what was available in the open market.
Of course I'm only talking about my company's 401k offerings, but
that fact is just more reinforcement of my notion.

--Vic



You're right Vic. It's all about timing. One of the major problems is that
older people are forced to withdraw money, which means they do take a loss.
This needs to be addressed in my and others' opinions.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

7.4 Trillion! 7.4!!!!
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:35:08 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

One of the major problems is that
older people are forced to withdraw money, which means they do take a
loss.
This needs to be addressed

Well, at least you got it partly right.

Your conclusion is incorrect, of course, if one accepts the proposition
that
there is no loss until assets are sold. The distribution rules are
designed
to make sure Uncle gets his cut. They require that once the taxpayer
reaches
70 1/2 a minimum amount of assets be taken from the 401K each year and
put
somewhere else, and taxes are owed when the assets are taken out of the
401K. But there is no requirement that the assets be sold. They can be
transferred to a taxable account, and held in that account however long
you
like.

The problem is not the requirement to withdraw money, but the fact that
the
amount that must be withdrawn is based on the balance as of the close of
the
prior year. So if the total in the account is halved following the end of
the last year, the withdrawal requirement of 5% becomes 10% of the current
value of the account solely by operation of the formula. That wasn't what
was intended when the Congress critters decided it was critical for Uncle
Sam get its cut from all those rich oldsters.


If the assets are "taken out" and the taxes are paid, then what becomes of
the reduced assets is a loss.

It's nice to know that you've finally agreed with me.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

7.4 Trillion! 7.4!!!!
 

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:38:10 -0800, "Capt. JG" said:

If the assets are "taken out" and the taxes are paid, then what becomes of
the reduced assets is a loss.

Why? You haven't sold them. Under your theory, no sale, no loss. And what's
with this "reduced assets?" You moved $10,000 in assets, let's say, from
your 401K to a taxable account at your broker's, wrote a check from your
checking account at the bank for the taxes on that $10,000, and continued to
hold the $10,000 in assets in your account at the broker's. No loss, right?
Another way of looking at it is if you must withdraw say 1000 a year
from you 10000 retirement fund to live. Your 1000 is 10% of you
retirement account. If the market drops by half you must now with draw
20% of the account to get the same 1000 required to live. If the market
has historically returned 10% per year the return on the first scenario
will match what you need to live. In the second scenario the return is
only half of the 20% you need to with draw. In this scenario your
retirement fund runs out in less than 10 years. Who is going to support
these people when their retirement is gone.

7.4 Trillion! 7.4!!!!
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:38:10 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

If the assets are "taken out" and the taxes are paid, then what becomes of
the reduced assets is a loss.

Why? You haven't sold them. Under your theory, no sale, no loss. And
what's
with this "reduced assets?" You moved $10,000 in assets, let's say, from
your 401K to a taxable account at your broker's, wrote a check from your
checking account at the bank for the taxes on that $10,000, and continued
to
hold the $10,000 in assets in your account at the broker's. No loss,
right?


?? If I had stock that was worth $100K, then, after the drop in stock
market, it would be worth say 1/2 that; however, no actual loss happens
unless I move the reduced assets to another set of instruments. If I do
that, I have built in the loss. If I don't move them, and the stock market
comes back, nothing changes except time. Are you really confused or just
trying to cover yourself?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

7.4 Trillion! 7.4!!!!
 

"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:38:10 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

If the assets are "taken out" and the taxes are paid, then what becomes
of the reduced assets is a loss.

Why? You haven't sold them. Under your theory, no sale, no loss. And
what's
with this "reduced assets?" You moved $10,000 in assets, let's say, from
your 401K to a taxable account at your broker's, wrote a check from your
checking account at the bank for the taxes on that $10,000, and continued
to
hold the $10,000 in assets in your account at the broker's. No loss,
right?
Another way of looking at it is if you must withdraw say 1000 a year from
you 10000 retirement fund to live. Your 1000 is 10% of you retirement
account. If the market drops by half you must now with draw 20% of the
account to get the same 1000 required to live. If the market has
historically returned 10% per year the return on the first scenario will
match what you need to live. In the second scenario the return is only
half of the 20% you need to with draw. In this scenario your retirement
fund runs out in less than 10 years. Who is going to support these people
when their retirement is gone.


You've identified the problem, basically. Now, I don't know your situation,
but for me, I don't have to touch anything. I can wait out the return in
value without taking a loss, since nothing in my portfolio will change.

Who's going to support these people? The taxpayers of course! We already do
that for millions of people. We do that via programs like welfare, medicare,
social security, etc. It's a good and bad thing. It's good because we (well,
most of us) care about our fellow citizens. It's a bad thing (especially
now) because the price is so high and we can't continue forever at such a
high price.

We need to find solutions, and claiming, as Dave does, that it's solely the
function of the private sector is a fantasy at best. The ultimate "private
sector" scenario transfers all social programs, including police and fire to
those who can afford them, which is a non-serious argument.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

7.4 Trillion! 7.4!!!!
 

Capt. JG wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 17:21:26 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Please show me how I would account for my supposed 401K losses when it
comes
time to file my return. Should I deduct the $100K?
Different question entirely. There are significant differences between the
way things are reported for tax purposes and the way they are accounted
for
under generally accepted accounting principles. Else there would be no
such
thing as loss carry-forwards and deferred tax assets. So you report the
losses the same way you accounted for the gains, if any, you had before
the
market decline.

There are also major differences between cash accounting and accrual
accounting. Accrual accounting is generally designed to eliminate the
effect
of the accident of when cash is received or paid, and reflect the
underlying
economic impact of events occurring during a period. On a cash basis, you
wouldn't record a gain or loss on an asset until the asset is sold. But if
you let that fact obscure the underlying economic reality you are simply
fooling yourself..


So, according to the IRS no loss took place. According to my regular bank
balance, no loss took place. According to my ability to buy bread with cash
on hand or with my credit card, no loss took place. So, according to my
credit score, nothing has changed.

This I would argue, say you want to start up a nifty new
environmentally friendly business recycling used (insert whatever here),
you need 750K to start up your plant.

You don't have 750K on hand, so you want to borrow it. A year ago you
had a house with market value of 400K and a 401 with a value of 600K,,,
if you put these up as a collateral, the loan should be a cinch.

This year your house has a market value of 200K and your 401 is now only
worth 400K,,, the bank may well think a bit differently about lending
you 750K....

Cheers
Martin

7.4 Trillion! 7.4!!!!
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...

?? If I had stock that was worth $100K, then, after the drop in stock
market, it would be worth say 1/2 that; however, no actual loss happens
unless I move the reduced assets to another set of instruments. If I do
that, I have built in the loss. If I don't move them, and the stock market
comes back, nothing changes except time. Are you really confused or just
trying to cover yourself?


At the age of 18 one puts $10,000 away in a retirement account. By age 58 it
is worth $1,000,000. The market crashes and at age 68 upon withdrawal it is
worth $10,000.

No loss eh?

Inflation?

Time value of money?

"Nothing changes except time". All right, loan me 100K$ today, I'll pay it
all back in 25 years, every cent and you wouldn't have lost anything. It's
only time.

Here's an MBA prep power point slide. Maybe you zoning out that day in
class:

itc.utk.edu/spotlight/archive/murphy/MBA_Prep_Summer_Tech.ppt

7.4 Trillion! 7.4!!!!
 

"Marty" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 17:21:26 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Please show me how I would account for my supposed 401K losses when it
comes
time to file my return. Should I deduct the $100K?
Different question entirely. There are significant differences between
the
way things are reported for tax purposes and the way they are accounted
for
under generally accepted accounting principles. Else there would be no
such
thing as loss carry-forwards and deferred tax assets. So you report the
losses the same way you accounted for the gains, if any, you had before
the
market decline.

There are also major differences between cash accounting and accrual
accounting. Accrual accounting is generally designed to eliminate the
effect
of the accident of when cash is received or paid, and reflect the
underlying
economic impact of events occurring during a period. On a cash basis,
you
wouldn't record a gain or loss on an asset until the asset is sold. But
if
you let that fact obscure the underlying economic reality you are simply
fooling yourself..


So, according to the IRS no loss took place. According to my regular bank
balance, no loss took place. According to my ability to buy bread with
cash on hand or with my credit card, no loss took place. So, according to
my credit score, nothing has changed.

This I would argue, say you want to start up a nifty new environmentally
friendly business recycling used (insert whatever here), you need 750K to
start up your plant.

You don't have 750K on hand, so you want to borrow it. A year ago you had
a house with market value of 400K and a 401 with a value of 600K,,, if you
put these up as a collateral, the loan should be a cinch.

This year your house has a market value of 200K and your 401 is now only
worth 400K,,, the bank may well think a bit differently about lending you
750K....

Cheers
Martin


Right. I agree with you. I don't believe you can use your 401K as collateral
on a business loan, but that aside, the fact that you don't have the asset
value to borrow against isn't the same as a direct dollar loss. It's a
separate decision to start a business. The value of the house and 401K has
certainly declined, but it can't be counted as a loss until you try to cash
out at a lower value. We've seen housing prices fluctuate quite a bit. Let's
say the original cost of my house was $300K. Let's say I put down $100K with
a $200K loan. Over the years it appreciated in value (on paper) to $1M. Wow.
I feel rich. I "made" $700K. Except, I didn't make anything. Not yet. I
decide to sell and get $1M. I made $700K. Cool. Or, I don't sell. I wait,
thinking it'll go higher still, but it goes down in value. Now, it's worth
$200K. Bummer. I feel poor. But, I haven't lost any money. Unless I'm
desperate because I can't make the mortgage payments... I refinanced when
the house was up in value. I lost my job. Whatever. Now, I have to sell so I
can feed and clothe my seven kids. Now, I've lost money.

Sure, there's a lost opportunity cost. I couldn't start that business. Bad
for me, bad for the economy. But, if I hold onto the property and wait out
the downturn in the stock market, I have a good chance of feeling rich
again. Maybe next time I'll sell or cash out. Or, I might not do anything
and they'll plant me in the yard when I'm done, although I'd prefer
scattering my ashes at sea. LOL

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

7.4 Trillion! 7.4!!!!
 

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:34:20 -0500, Keith nuttle
wrote:

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:38:10 -0800, "Capt. JG" said:

If the assets are "taken out" and the taxes are paid, then what becomes of
the reduced assets is a loss.

Why? You haven't sold them. Under your theory, no sale, no loss. And what's
with this "reduced assets?" You moved $10,000 in assets, let's say, from
your 401K to a taxable account at your broker's, wrote a check from your
checking account at the bank for the taxes on that $10,000, and continued to
hold the $10,000 in assets in your account at the broker's. No loss, right?
Another way of looking at it is if you must withdraw say 1000 a year
from you 10000 retirement fund to live. Your 1000 is 10% of you
retirement account. If the market drops by half you must now with draw
20% of the account to get the same 1000 required to live. If the market
has historically returned 10% per year the return on the first scenario
will match what you need to live. In the second scenario the return is
only half of the 20% you need to with draw. In this scenario your
retirement fund runs out in less than 10 years. Who is going to support
these people when their retirement is gone.

Sounds like a very good argument for keeping Social Security as strong
as possible.

7.4 Trillion! 7.4!!!!
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:46:14 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

The ultimate "private
sector" scenario transfers all social programs, including police and fire
to
those who can afford them, which is a non-serious argument.

You do indeed love straw men, Jon.



Totally not strawman argument. Those services are part of the social safety
net. Do you dispute this? If not, then why is privatizing them wrong? You
seem to think that social security is a bad thing.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

7.4 Trillion! 7.4!!!!
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:39:50 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

If I had stock that was worth $100K, then, after the drop in stock
market, it would be worth say 1/2 that; however, no actual loss happens
unless I move the reduced assets to another set of instruments. If I do
that, I have built in the loss. If I don't move them, and the stock market
comes back, nothing changes except time. Are you really confused or just
trying to cover yourself?

Not at all confused. Just trying to straighten out your muddled thinking.
Take this example:

Case 1: Your GM stock has fallen 80%. You sell all your GM stock and put
the
proceeds into a money market fund. 2 days later the price of GM is the
same
and you decide that selling was a mistake, and you buy the stock back,
using
funds from the money market fund.

Case 2: Your GM stock has fallen 80%, but you decide it will come back, so
you decide not to sell.

Assume there's no tax on the transactions, because the stock is in a 401k.
Under your theory, you lost money in Case 1, but didn't lose money in Case
2. Yet in both cases the value of your GM stock on day 4 is precisely the
same.

An absurd conclusion? It should be obvious to anyone it is.


?? There is NO theory involved. If there's no sale transaction, how can
there possibly be a loss unless the business goes out completely??? Case 2:
I decide it will come back, I'm right, it does. My stock has the same or
greater value.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

7.4 Trillion! 7.4!!!!
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:09:24 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

The ultimate "private
sector" scenario transfers all social programs, including police and
fire
to
those who can afford them, which is a non-serious argument.

You do indeed love straw men, Jon.



Totally not strawman argument. Those services are part of the social
safety
net. Do you dispute this? If not, then why is privatizing them wrong? You
seem to think that social security is a bad thing.

It seems you don't understand what a straw man argument is, Jon.

A straw man argument consists in setting forth an argument no one has made
and then knocking it down, rather than dealing with an argument actually
made. The above is a classic example. You set forth the argument that
police
and fire protection should not be provided by government--an argument no
one
has made. You then proceed to knock down that argument rather than
addressing whether other programs should be run by the guvmint.

I suspect that if you can't understand the previous paragraph, others can,
so I'll try not to belabor the point when you come back with the
inevitable
reply.


Really? Try google. You'll like it.

http://mediafilter.org/CAQ/CAQ54p.police.html

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archive...te_police.html

http://eclecticdem.blogspot.com/2008...ze-police.html


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

7.4 Trillion! 7.4!!!!
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:12:07 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Case 1: Your GM stock has fallen 80%. You sell all your GM stock and put
the
proceeds into a money market fund. 2 days later the price of GM is the
same
and you decide that selling was a mistake, and you buy the stock back,
using
funds from the money market fund.

Case 2: Your GM stock has fallen 80%, but you decide it will come back,
so
you decide not to sell.

Assume there's no tax on the transactions, because the stock is in a
401k.
Under your theory, you lost money in Case 1, but didn't lose money in
Case
2. Yet in both cases the value of your GM stock on day 4 is precisely
the
same.

An absurd conclusion? It should be obvious to anyone it is.


?? There is NO theory involved. If there's no sale transaction, how can
there possibly be a loss unless the business goes out completely??? Case
2:
I decide it will come back, I'm right, it does. My stock has the same or
greater value.

The absurdity of that view has been conclusively demonstrated above to any
reasonable observer.


There's nothing absurd about it, and the only thing you've demonstrated is
your inability to accept when you've lost an argument. It's a fact. If you
can't handle facts, then I think you need to find another profession.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

7.4 Trillion! 7.4!!!!
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:16:36 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

A straw man argument consists in setting forth an argument no one has
made
and then knocking it down, rather than dealing with an argument actually
made. The above is a classic example. You set forth the argument that
police
and fire protection should not be provided by government--an argument no
one
has made. You then proceed to knock down that argument rather than
addressing whether other programs should be run by the guvmint.

I suspect that if you can't understand the previous paragraph, others
can,
so I'll try not to belabor the point when you come back with the
inevitable
reply.


Really? Try google. You'll like it.

Now you're simply making yourself look foolish.


QED

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

7.4 Trillion! 7.4!!!!
 

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:32:12 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:12:07 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Case 1: Your GM stock has fallen 80%. You sell all your GM stock and put
the
proceeds into a money market fund. 2 days later the price of GM is the
same
and you decide that selling was a mistake, and you buy the stock back,
using
funds from the money market fund.

Case 2: Your GM stock has fallen 80%, but you decide it will come back,
so
you decide not to sell.

Assume there's no tax on the transactions, because the stock is in a
401k.
Under your theory, you lost money in Case 1, but didn't lose money in
Case
2. Yet in both cases the value of your GM stock on day 4 is precisely
the
same.

An absurd conclusion? It should be obvious to anyone it is.


?? There is NO theory involved. If there's no sale transaction, how can
there possibly be a loss unless the business goes out completely??? Case
2:
I decide it will come back, I'm right, it does. My stock has the same or
greater value.

The absurdity of that view has been conclusively demonstrated above to any
reasonable observer.


There's nothing absurd about it, and the only thing you've demonstrated is
your inability to accept when you've lost an argument. It's a fact. If you
can't handle facts, then I think you need to find another profession.

Are you kidding? Lawyers avoid truth at all costs, unless they think
they can somehow use it to their advantage without getting too
involved with it on a permanent basis. Accountants can make figures do
all sorts of things, and lawyers have a similar apptitude with "facts"

7.4 Trillion! 7.4!!!!
 

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:32:12 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:12:07 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Case 1: Your GM stock has fallen 80%. You sell all your GM stock and
put
the
proceeds into a money market fund. 2 days later the price of GM is the
same
and you decide that selling was a mistake, and you buy the stock back,
using
funds from the money market fund.

Case 2: Your GM stock has fallen 80%, but you decide it will come
back,
so
you decide not to sell.

Assume there's no tax on the transactions, because the stock is in a
401k.
Under your theory, you lost money in Case 1, but didn't lose money in
Case
2. Yet in both cases the value of your GM stock on day 4 is precisely
the
same.

An absurd conclusion? It should be obvious to anyone it is.


?? There is NO theory involved. If there's no sale transaction, how can
there possibly be a loss unless the business goes out completely??? Case
2:
I decide it will come back, I'm right, it does. My stock has the same or
greater value.

The absurdity of that view has been conclusively demonstrated above to
any
reasonable observer.


There's nothing absurd about it, and the only thing you've demonstrated is
your inability to accept when you've lost an argument. It's a fact. If you
can't handle facts, then I think you need to find another profession.

Are you kidding? Lawyers avoid truth at all costs, unless they think
they can somehow use it to their advantage without getting too
involved with it on a permanent basis. Accountants can make figures do
all sorts of things, and lawyers have a similar apptitude with "facts"



I'm trying to be solicitous, and I'm accounting for Dave's behavior as best
as I am able. LOL - sorry for the puns.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

7.4 Trillion! 7.4!!!!
 

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:14:00 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:32:12 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:12:07 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Case 1: Your GM stock has fallen 80%. You sell all your GM stock and
put
the
proceeds into a money market fund. 2 days later the price of GM is the
same
and you decide that selling was a mistake, and you buy the stock back,
using
funds from the money market fund.

Case 2: Your GM stock has fallen 80%, but you decide it will come
back,
so
you decide not to sell.

Assume there's no tax on the transactions, because the stock is in a
401k.
Under your theory, you lost money in Case 1, but didn't lose money in
Case
2. Yet in both cases the value of your GM stock on day 4 is precisely
the
same.

An absurd conclusion? It should be obvious to anyone it is.


?? There is NO theory involved. If there's no sale transaction, how can
there possibly be a loss unless the business goes out completely??? Case
2:
I decide it will come back, I'm right, it does. My stock has the same or
greater value.

The absurdity of that view has been conclusively demonstrated above to
any
reasonable observer.


There's nothing absurd about it, and the only thing you've demonstrated is
your inability to accept when you've lost an argument. It's a fact. If you
can't handle facts, then I think you need to find another profession.

Are you kidding? Lawyers avoid truth at all costs, unless they think
they can somehow use it to their advantage without getting too
involved with it on a permanent basis. Accountants can make figures do
all sorts of things, and lawyers have a similar apptitude with "facts"



I'm trying to be solicitous, and I'm accounting for Dave's behavior as best
as I am able. LOL - sorry for the puns.

You should be sorry!