On 12/06/2010 2:20 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 11:09:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Bush was the one who wanted to privatize social security.
Thank GOD that didn't go through. He's the one who went on a spending and
tax give-away for 7 years.

Privatizing SS would actually take money away from the government.
Taxing the hell out of your 401k gives the government money.

The real issue is, would your money have done better in a decent
portfolio of investments over 40 years, than it would in a PAID FOR
social security plan. I understand SS is a great deal but it is
unsustainable and far more generous for the amount invested because
politicians sold out our kids to the voters.(see Tyler). Unfortunately
I still say the whole idea of 62 year old retirees is unsustainable.
The Clinton era thinking that said people should be downsized into
company pension programs at 50 pretty much killed the private pension
system.

There is no doubt it would do better in your hands than the government.
Unless you do something stupid like cash it out.

Governemtns, as do corporate pension plans play the game of slight.
Pension managers not in your interest can use said funds to invest in
stuff no on else would. Another way of skiming is add executives to the
plan but not with the contributions to support their take. Case in
point, Paul Stern of nortel fame, got almost $1M a year but NorTel never
put the millions needed to support his take. Washing out the rank and
file. Most pension plans will not tell you what it is worth to you in cash.

In may case when I left Nortel in 1995, I put the money in my own
account. I am not 65 yet, but it already cranks out more than they
predicted. And it hasn't taken two depreciation hits and is not at risk
as if it was in NorTel.

Pensions are often scams when you look at them closely, someone is
always skiming them.
--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 9:48 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 09:37:25 -0600,
wrote:

On deduction that should be phased out is mortgage tax deductability as
you get older. Say at 20 you get the full benefit, but as you get older
say to 50 it disappears. Encouraging people to have their homes 100%
paid for in due time. That is, reduce mortgage deductabiltiy
encouraging equity in the home.

So when the economy tiffs, they are less likely to toss the keys to the
repo man. And be in a hell of a lot better position for retirement.
But this would be progressive and will not happen as the US economy is
now built on debt that is going delinquent.

The other deduction that should go is the "2d home" mortgage
deduction. That is what fueled the "want house" market at the expense
of the taxpayer.

Don't know what the 2d was. But if BMBO (Big Mouth Barrack Obama) wanted
to solve the problems:

1) Declining benefits of mortgage deducability with age. Ok as a start,
but designed to encourage home equity not big debt.

2) If you don't have 20% down, pretty darned good chance you can't afford
it.

3) Factor in kids and lifestyle. There is more to good finances than how
much you can pay. Kids eat crap as parents are "house poor".

4) If a loan puts you over $20k total debt, then you need to graduate a
personal debt and finace course test first. Or no debt.

5) Stop the Fed banks from undervaluing cost of debt, reward depositors.
Stop slighting people who do it right for the losers.

Obama however is a spend crazy jack ass. Selling out USA...

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

The key word is Jackass. That's how history will remember him.

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 18:23:42 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

Actually, stuff like SS was wel funded. But skimed by the
government.
And often invested in losers because of politics. If all the 30+
years
a working types has SS (employer and employee) in their 401k they
would
retire early.

The problem is the government has no vehicle to actually save money
since we got off the gold standard. SS was always pay as you go and
the trust fund was just a scam to collect more taxes for other
things.
mostly wars. Originally it was WWII (lend lease)when the trust fund
was established (1939-40) and it was put on budget to hide the cost
of
the Vietnam war (1968-69).

The concept of 401ks is flawed too looking forward because 83 million
boomers pulling their money out of the stock market and spending it
will crash the market.

The real problem is you can't have a third of the adult population
living off the work of the other two thirds without a revolt.

The gov't doesn't need to "save" money as much as it needs to have
money available. The gold standard was highly flawed and died an
appropriate death.

Boomers will not be pulling money out en masse. In fact, some of the
boomer generation has already hit retirement age. It's a spread of
about 15 years... something like that. Most with substantial 401K-like
savings will likely pull it out in drips and drabs. Only someone
foolish would pull it out at once, esp. given the tax consequences.


Obie's lickin his chops waiting to get at our 401k money. If we don't
start spending it he'll find another way to grab it. Rest assured on
that, little lady.


You're stupid. Bush was the one who wanted to privatize social security.
Thank GOD that didn't go through. He's the one who went on a spending
and tax give-away for 7 years.


You sound like Obie. Blame everything on the "previous administration".
Obie doesn't have the balls to say W's name.
Got any job prospects Emily?


Yeah, Bush was so wonderful... just about ruined the economy, the
environment, a war for no reason. What a great guy!

The name is Em, not Emily.

No. No job prospects. I own my own company. How about your job prospects?
Sorry, we're not hiring.


Who's we. You and your cat?
I doubt if you two are much competition for the Salvation Army or the Red
Cross in the used clothing marketplace.
BTW: Decent people donate their used clothing to charity.

Where do you get your merchandise? I hope you don't dumpster dive for it.

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 12:09 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 18:23:42 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

Actually, stuff like SS was wel funded. But skimed by the
government.
And often invested in losers because of politics. If all the 30+
years
a working types has SS (employer and employee) in their 401k they
would
retire early.

The problem is the government has no vehicle to actually save money
since we got off the gold standard. SS was always pay as you go and
the trust fund was just a scam to collect more taxes for other
things.
mostly wars. Originally it was WWII (lend lease)when the trust fund
was established (1939-40) and it was put on budget to hide the cost
of
the Vietnam war (1968-69).

The concept of 401ks is flawed too looking forward because 83 million
boomers pulling their money out of the stock market and spending it
will crash the market.

The real problem is you can't have a third of the adult population
living off the work of the other two thirds without a revolt.

The gov't doesn't need to "save" money as much as it needs to have
money available. The gold standard was highly flawed and died an
appropriate death.

Boomers will not be pulling money out en masse. In fact, some of the
boomer generation has already hit retirement age. It's a spread of
about 15 years... something like that. Most with substantial
401K-like savings will likely pull it out in drips and drabs. Only
someone foolish would pull it out at once, esp. given the tax
consequences.


Obie's lickin his chops waiting to get at our 401k money. If we don't
start spending it he'll find another way to grab it. Rest assured on
that, little lady.


You're stupid. Bush was the one who wanted to privatize social security.
Thank GOD that didn't go through. He's the one who went on a spending
and tax give-away for 7 years.

Ah, delerious denialism... Just a paracite. So how does it feel to be a
paracite?

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

So, Bush did a good job? You're really an idiot!

It's spelled parasite not paracite. IDIOT


Hold that thought. There's some other spelling errors, nearby, you need to
tag with your "IDIOT" logo.

On 12/06/2010 2:33 PM, Moose wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 9:48 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 09:37:25 -0600,
wrote:

On deduction that should be phased out is mortgage tax deductability as
you get older. Say at 20 you get the full benefit, but as you get older
say to 50 it disappears. Encouraging people to have their homes 100%
paid for in due time. That is, reduce mortgage deductabiltiy
encouraging equity in the home.

So when the economy tiffs, they are less likely to toss the keys to the
repo man. And be in a hell of a lot better position for retirement.
But this would be progressive and will not happen as the US economy is
now built on debt that is going delinquent.

The other deduction that should go is the "2d home" mortgage
deduction. That is what fueled the "want house" market at the expense
of the taxpayer.

Don't know what the 2d was. But if BMBO (Big Mouth Barrack Obama) wanted
to solve the problems:

1) Declining benefits of mortgage deducability with age. Ok as a start,
but designed to encourage home equity not big debt.

2) If you don't have 20% down, pretty darned good chance you can't afford
it.

3) Factor in kids and lifestyle. There is more to good finances than how
much you can pay. Kids eat crap as parents are "house poor".

4) If a loan puts you over $20k total debt, then you need to graduate a
personal debt and finace course test first. Or no debt.

5) Stop the Fed banks from undervaluing cost of debt, reward depositors.
Stop slighting people who do it right for the losers.

Obama however is a spend crazy jack ass. Selling out USA...

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

The key word is Jackass. That's how history will remember him.

Yep. As history hasn't been written yet. People in 3 years will get to
do that.

Are you going spekll crazy too?

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 2:33 PM, Moose wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 9:48 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 09:37:25 -0600,
wrote:

On deduction that should be phased out is mortgage tax deductability
as
you get older. Say at 20 you get the full benefit, but as you get
older
say to 50 it disappears. Encouraging people to have their homes 100%
paid for in due time. That is, reduce mortgage deductabiltiy
encouraging equity in the home.

So when the economy tiffs, they are less likely to toss the keys to
the
repo man. And be in a hell of a lot better position for retirement.
But this would be progressive and will not happen as the US economy is
now built on debt that is going delinquent.

The other deduction that should go is the "2d home" mortgage
deduction. That is what fueled the "want house" market at the expense
of the taxpayer.

Don't know what the 2d was. But if BMBO (Big Mouth Barrack Obama)
wanted
to solve the problems:

1) Declining benefits of mortgage deducability with age. Ok as a start,
but designed to encourage home equity not big debt.

2) If you don't have 20% down, pretty darned good chance you can't
afford
it.

3) Factor in kids and lifestyle. There is more to good finances than
how
much you can pay. Kids eat crap as parents are "house poor".

4) If a loan puts you over $20k total debt, then you need to graduate a
personal debt and finace course test first. Or no debt.

5) Stop the Fed banks from undervaluing cost of debt, reward depositors.
Stop slighting people who do it right for the losers.

Obama however is a spend crazy jack ass. Selling out USA...

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

The key word is Jackass. That's how history will remember him.

Yep. As history hasn't been written yet. People in 3 years will get to
do that.

Are you going spekll crazy too?

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.
Who Me?

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 18:23:42 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

Actually, stuff like SS was wel funded. But skimed by the
government.
And often invested in losers because of politics. If all the 30+
years
a working types has SS (employer and employee) in their 401k they
would
retire early.

The problem is the government has no vehicle to actually save money
since we got off the gold standard. SS was always pay as you go and
the trust fund was just a scam to collect more taxes for other
things.
mostly wars. Originally it was WWII (lend lease)when the trust fund
was established (1939-40) and it was put on budget to hide the cost
of
the Vietnam war (1968-69).

The concept of 401ks is flawed too looking forward because 83
million
boomers pulling their money out of the stock market and spending it
will crash the market.

The real problem is you can't have a third of the adult population
living off the work of the other two thirds without a revolt.

The gov't doesn't need to "save" money as much as it needs to have
money available. The gold standard was highly flawed and died an
appropriate death.

Boomers will not be pulling money out en masse. In fact, some of the
boomer generation has already hit retirement age. It's a spread of
about 15 years... something like that. Most with substantial
401K-like savings will likely pull it out in drips and drabs. Only
someone foolish would pull it out at once, esp. given the tax
consequences.


Obie's lickin his chops waiting to get at our 401k money. If we don't
start spending it he'll find another way to grab it. Rest assured on
that, little lady.


You're stupid. Bush was the one who wanted to privatize social
security. Thank GOD that didn't go through. He's the one who went on a
spending and tax give-away for 7 years.


You sound like Obie. Blame everything on the "previous administration".
Obie doesn't have the balls to say W's name.
Got any job prospects Emily?


Yeah, Bush was so wonderful... just about ruined the economy, the
environment, a war for no reason. What a great guy!

The name is Em, not Emily.

No. No job prospects. I own my own company. How about your job prospects?
Sorry, we're not hiring.


Who's we. You and your cat?
I doubt if you two are much competition for the Salvation Army or the Red
Cross in the used clothing marketplace.
BTW: Decent people donate their used clothing to charity.

Where do you get your merchandise? I hope you don't dumpster dive for it.

Sounds like you're trying to beat her down on her prices.
Just tell her what you need and I'm sure she'll do something for you.

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 2:33 PM, Moose wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 9:48 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 09:37:25 -0600,
wrote:

On deduction that should be phased out is mortgage tax deductability
as
you get older. Say at 20 you get the full benefit, but as you get
older
say to 50 it disappears. Encouraging people to have their homes 100%
paid for in due time. That is, reduce mortgage deductabiltiy
encouraging equity in the home.

So when the economy tiffs, they are less likely to toss the keys to
the
repo man. And be in a hell of a lot better position for retirement.
But this would be progressive and will not happen as the US economy
is
now built on debt that is going delinquent.

The other deduction that should go is the "2d home" mortgage
deduction. That is what fueled the "want house" market at the expense
of the taxpayer.

Don't know what the 2d was. But if BMBO (Big Mouth Barrack Obama)
wanted
to solve the problems:

1) Declining benefits of mortgage deducability with age. Ok as a
start,
but designed to encourage home equity not big debt.

2) If you don't have 20% down, pretty darned good chance you can't
afford
it.

3) Factor in kids and lifestyle. There is more to good finances than
how
much you can pay. Kids eat crap as parents are "house poor".

4) If a loan puts you over $20k total debt, then you need to graduate a
personal debt and finace course test first. Or no debt.

5) Stop the Fed banks from undervaluing cost of debt, reward
depositors.
Stop slighting people who do it right for the losers.

Obama however is a spend crazy jack ass. Selling out USA...

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

The key word is Jackass. That's how history will remember him.

Yep. As history hasn't been written yet. People in 3 years will get to
do that.

Are you going spekll crazy too?

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.
Who Me?

~~ Snerk ~~
You two trying out an Abbott & Costello routine? Don't quit your day jobs.

On 12/06/2010 3:39 PM, YukonBound wrote:


"Moose" wrote in message
...

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 2:33 PM, Moose wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 9:48 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 09:37:25 -0600,
wrote:

On deduction that should be phased out is mortgage tax
deductability as
you get older. Say at 20 you get the full benefit, but as you get
older
say to 50 it disappears. Encouraging people to have their homes 100%
paid for in due time. That is, reduce mortgage deductabiltiy
encouraging equity in the home.

So when the economy tiffs, they are less likely to toss the keys
to the
repo man. And be in a hell of a lot better position for retirement.
But this would be progressive and will not happen as the US
economy is
now built on debt that is going delinquent.

The other deduction that should go is the "2d home" mortgage
deduction. That is what fueled the "want house" market at the expense
of the taxpayer.

Don't know what the 2d was. But if BMBO (Big Mouth Barrack Obama)
wanted
to solve the problems:

1) Declining benefits of mortgage deducability with age. Ok as a
start,
but designed to encourage home equity not big debt.

2) If you don't have 20% down, pretty darned good chance you can't
afford
it.

3) Factor in kids and lifestyle. There is more to good finances
than how
much you can pay. Kids eat crap as parents are "house poor".

4) If a loan puts you over $20k total debt, then you need to
graduate a
personal debt and finace course test first. Or no debt.

5) Stop the Fed banks from undervaluing cost of debt, reward
depositors.
Stop slighting people who do it right for the losers.

Obama however is a spend crazy jack ass. Selling out USA...

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

The key word is Jackass. That's how history will remember him.

Yep. As history hasn't been written yet. People in 3 years will get
to do that.

Are you going spekll crazy too?

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.
Who Me?

~~ Snerk ~~
You two trying out an Abbott & Costello routine? Don't quit your day jobs.

Nope, three stooges and a drunken ally cat.

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 11:07:57 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The gov't doesn't need to "save" money as much as it needs to have money
available. The gold standard was highly flawed and died an appropriate
death.

The point was, with a metal standard they could have extra money in
reserve. With the federal reserve model it is just what you have in
tax revenue and what you print or borrow. There is no reserve. The
"trust fund" is a huge lie. It is just a promise to raise taxes that
the population will not tolerate.


Boomers will not be pulling money out en masse. In fact, some of the
boomer
generation has already hit retirement age. It's a spread of about 15
years... something like that. Most with substantial 401K-like savings
will
likely pull it out in drips and drabs. Only someone foolish would pull
it
out at once, esp. given the tax consequences.


That is yet to be seen isn't it? If a person is in debt and sees that
pile of money, they will cash it in. The only boomers who are retired
are the ones who are not in debt.

It's not needed. The "money in reserve is in the form of treasury notes,
which are invested in the general economy. Storing a lot of metal doesn't
really do much and it's certainly not readily usable.

Treasury notes are really nothing but paper that represents whatever
the fed says the money supply should be. It is like electricity in the
grid, you can't really store money if you are the guy who prints it.
It would only result in a decrease in the money supply.
When metal was the standard, your government was as rich as the metal
they held. Everything else was an IOU. We abandoned the metal standard
and made all of our money IOUs. I can understand the justification but
it comes with the danger of simply printing money and that can degrade
into hyper-inflation. These days they call that "monetizing the debt".
You balance the books but your money becomes worthless.
That is the fear in the EU with the P.I,G.S. They are writing checks
they do not have the money to cash and dragging down the Euro for the
countries who do have fiscal responsibility.

Metal is metal. It's not a good measure of wealth, esp. today. The T-notes
represent "value" as best as can be determined by global markets. The Fed
has limited control over that. Inflation is the danger you're talking about.
It's the job of the Fed not to let it get out of control. They're doing a
pretty good job. No reason to think that'll change.


Not really... there are always foolish people, but there are lots of
people
already in debt who don't pull out their money. As I said, the tax
consequences alone usually give people pause. Many boomers are in debt in
one form or another... mortgages are a good example. Most people think of
their home as an asset, but if you owe money, it's really a liability...
certainly one kind of liability that's easy to live with, even in
retirement.


The tax consequences disappear at 59.5 years old. If you are carrying
a big balance on a 29.99% credit card, that 10-15% you will have to
give Sam starts looking very attractive.

Completely untrue. If you liquidate a regular IRA, you have to pay taxes on
whatever you receive over some base amount. There are certainly going to be
people with a 30% rate, but the vast majority won't be in that situation.
And, as I said, it's not going to happen all at once. Where are the ones who
have that rate now? I don't see any run on the banks happening.