|
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On 7/25/10 7:46 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:15:48 -0600, wrote: On 25/07/2010 9:41 AM, wrote: On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:13:42 -0400, wrote: gee. the germans have a world class export based economy that's HEAVILY unionized. the US, with NO unions, is not. Yeah, and such powerful unions they are. This union factory worker makes $22,000 a year and the government taxes more than half of that away for things like his "free" health care. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...M&refer=europe Amazing how many people think it is "free" and trust government to do it. guess he didn't notice this article is five years old And it is why Obama-democrat debt spending is so bad, actually it's the bush/paulson spending. obama is spending roughly what bush spent in his last year in office but, you see, bush is white and obama is black... I would say the US is in for Japans lost decades for decades to come. uh, hate to inform you but japan has LESS government spending as a percentage of GDP than we do http://www.tnr.com/blogs/jonathan-chait Until the leasons are learned, peoples standard of living will depreciate as governmetn gets bigger. Just like Cuba or Venezuela. lessons learned? let's see.... the right winger says because of high govt spending we're going to wind up like japan but he's too ****ing stupid to realize japan's govt spending is less than ours! the right wing is FILLED with incredible bull**** Paying any attention to Canuck's economic dribblings is no smarter than paying any attention to John Herring's boating dribblings. Neither of them have any understanding of the subjects on which they expound. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:50:09 -0400, Harry ?
wrote: Paying any attention to Canuck's economic dribblings is no smarter than paying any attention to John Herring's boating dribblings. Neither of them have any understanding of the subjects on which they expound. i generally would ignore the kluxer, but he's too representative of the tea baggers here in the states. they have their little myths, the fairy tales they tell to each other....like frightened school children they invent stories about evil liberals and ignore the sharp fanged monsters on wall street. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:37:35 -0400, Harry ?
wrote: Those who oppose providing decent quality healthcare and decent retirement possibilities for lower-income workers have no ideas that will improve the lives of these families. A large percentage of lower-income workers simply don't have the ability to climb up the ladder since they must devote all of their time to survival. Instituting higher tax rates on those who can afford them is a way to provide the poorer among us with a better quality of life. That, and cutting the military budget in half would do the job, I am sure. the right opposes ANY increase in the standard of living for the middle class it has never occurred to them that a richer middle class means a richer america in that, they are profoundly anti-american |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 12:48:37 -0400, Harry ?
wrote: What do you expect the working poor to do, w'hine, to help you hang onto more of your dollars? Get sick and die? Miss an entire day of work to sit in a hospital ER for a flu shot? Live in a cardboard box when they are pushed out of their job and there aren't any more jobs? What did they do 100 years ago ? |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:45:09 -0400, Harry ?
wrote: since the Constitution didn't discuss providing decent health care for the poor, there was no rationale for doing it...or something like that. There is no rationale for the federal government to do it. That is very clear. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On 7/25/10 8:18 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 12:48:37 -0400, Harry wrote: What do you expect the working poor to do, w'hine, to help you hang onto more of your dollars? Get sick and die? Miss an entire day of work to sit in a hospital ER for a flu shot? Live in a cardboard box when they are pushed out of their job and there aren't any more jobs? What did they do 100 years ago ? They got sick and they died, w'hine. Is that what you want to say to those who cannot afford decent medical care or a respectable retirement...just...die? Poor people are just a commodity to your type, eh? Use 'em up and then discard them by the side of the road. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On 7/25/10 8:22 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:45:09 -0400, Harry wrote: since the Constitution didn't discuss providing decent health care for the poor, there was no rationale for doing it...or something like that. There is no rationale for the federal government to do it. That is very clear. Sure there is...you just don't accept the concept of decency towards your fellow man and woman. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:22:18 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote: On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:45:09 -0400, Harry ? wrote: since the Constitution didn't discuss providing decent health care for the poor, there was no rationale for doing it...or something like that. There is no rationale for the federal government to do it. That is very clear. private industry hasn't. so they've failed. it's time for the american people to do what the rich refuse to do for us. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
wrote in message ... On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:24:25 -0500, Jim wrote: nom=de=plume wrote: yes. You're giving the gov't at least $7500/yr, and it's likely that the 15% is not going to be 15% in 15 years. It's going to be higher, almost certainly. You're speculating about future taxes with no basis for the speculation. But you're a speculator. The debt is 14 trillion, they will either have to raise taxes or monetize the debt and inflate this money away. ?? Not sure what you're trying to say. We're at historically low tax rates. Taxes will likely rise. Not sure what the national debt has to do with the strategy I outlined. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
"Califbill" wrote in message ... "Jim" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: Unless he's right at the line, he won't be bumped to a higher one. He won't be taxed at a higher rate, but he'll be withdrawing much less if he wants his money to last. So, what comes out will be taxed. So, let's say he's making $120K filing a joint return. We'll use the current tax table. That's near the top end of the 25% range. He'd have to earn more than $17K to put him into the next range, and he said that his employer does some matching. Worst case he'd pay another 3%, assuming the same deductions, etc. So, just quick figures means paying $39.2K vs. $30K (diff is $9.2K). No. Let's say he runs his actual income through a tax program with and without maxing his 401k, and sees the difference in the wealth he has locked into the 401k money market, which is the only part of a 401k that has a glimmer of guaranteeing his contributions. Now let's look at what he will be withdrawing after he retires. What's a reasonable number? No idea, but let's say $75K (about $25K from SS). So, $50K of taxable income. At the current rate, that's 15%, which means after tax money is $42.5K. Not too bad, but can he live on it? Let's say yes. You're giving the gov't at least $7500/yr, and it's likely that the 15% is not going to be 15% in 15 years. It's going to be higher, almost certainly. You're speculating about future taxes with no basis for the speculation. But you're a speculator. On the other hand, let's just take the $17K and put that it into a non-taxable insurance plan. $17K x 15 years = $255K plus a modest rate of return, say 6%. He'd have something on order of $400K cash surrender value. He's now 70 and stops paying the premiums. The longer he waits before withdrawing money, the bigger the surrender value grows. 6% "modest?" Where have you been? All of these investment/retirement vehicles are based on equity indices or government paper. The latter type might be safer, but forget about 6%. Besides that, you're paying billionaire insurance company execs to buy government paper you can buy yourself. TIPS should be looked into too. Treasurydirect.gov Inflation beater. snip Pretty simple. You can't lose your contribution money as you could in equity funds. Remember, this is retirement money. And you're earning hardly anything or nothing? Seems like a bad deal except for a mad money source. Money markets provide some return. I have some money in one that pays 1.3% But I repeat, if your listening. Many people have LOST their actual contributions into equities. LOST THEIR RETIREMENT MONEY. DIRECTLY FROM THEIR PAYCHECK. This comes down to philosophy about what income is desired in retirement, risk and sacrifice. bpuharic has already suggested he can't max his 401k because of expenses. He's 55, making a good buck, and can't max his 401k? Tough. He's either living beyond his means and is the biggest crybaby in rec.boats or has some problems he hasn't discussed here. You and him don't think how I do. The feds won't let MM go below par because the economy would collapse. That tax savings is money in the bank. ?? There tax savings of investing in a 401K is minimal at this point. Don't know what you're talking about there. I don't understand what you meant by "tax savings" is money in the bank. What tax savings? As I said, run his taxes with and without the $22k 401k contribution. Not guessing his salary, but running the facts through the tax mill. But only he can do that, and only he can see the money on the 401k bottom line. snip But, as I said, you'll have to pay the taxes at some point. See above. I can tell you I was paying 25% before I retired, and 10-15 now. And that 25% doesn't do justice to all the other taxes and hits I was taking on gross when employed. My standard of living is the same or better. But I'm not exactly a spendthrift and never have been. It's silly to compare gross taxable income when employed to what you live on when retired. You might look at your employed net and expenses, and expected retirement net get a handle on it. Some people expect to be spending all kinds of money when retired, and some don't. I'm the latter. It's plain old taxes that anybody can quickly test with TurboTax or tax tables. He didn't spend $22k and he didn't pay $5500 in taxes on it. That's $27,500 more he has for retirement - at a lower tax rate too. Nothing could be simpler. Not necessarily at a lower rate, and he won't be getting that much to live on. See above. You'd rather have him listen to someone on Usenet? Professionals are professionals. They have lots of suggestions. Thinking adults with a measure of math skill are better off looking on the internet than going to any financial adviser. snip If he's making $150K that would mean he's already in the 28% range, and he'd really have to boost his income to get into the next bracket. "Brackets" should be understood. Say $149,999 is the limit of the 25% bracket. Say $150k starts the 28% bracket. You made exactly $150k. How much extra did hitting that 28% bracket cost you? 3 cents. Only the dollar above the the 25% bracket gets taxed at 28%. And if the lowest bracket is 10% up to 15k, you only paid 10% on the first 15k of your 150k income. Maybe you knew that, but talk about bumping into the next "bracket" is often from the uninformed. I knew a guy who wouldn't work Saturdays at time and a half only because he feared being bumped into a higher tax "bracket." So he gave up a 50% hike for fear of losing 5% of the Saturday pay in taxes. I didn't know that myself back then, but still thought he was wacky turning down a Saturday. What he said didn't smell right. It's a common misunderstanding of the tiered tax system. I understand you perfectly, but I don't think you understand the tax benefits of paying now vs. paying later. That's the Roth idea, except this one would give him a guaranteed income (vs. at the whim of the market) and a death benefit. Tax tables and retirement income projections can answer those questions. And the tax exclusion benefit from maxing his 401k is easily found. I won't argue more about that. bpuharic can do as he pleases. And if he's subject to NJ tax law he better look at that too. One thing we haven't discussed about 401k deductions is psychology. Won't go into it, except to say once you make the contribution election, you've locked in savings and adjusted disposable income. And that simple commitment can be a big life style change for some. Never was for me though. Saving came naturally. My main point is savings is savings. Money ain't free, and doesn't materialize from thin air. In my world you work for your money, save it and then protect it. That's what I did, and I'm doing just fine. It's all about moderation. Wall Street and equities never directly entered into it. Nor did financial advisers or insurance company annuities. It was always a simple spending versus savings equation. Not saying financial institutions and their effects on the economy didn't play into it, just that I didn't speculate and always took the safest and most guaranteed course in protecting my retirement money. The money grew from simple accretion and prevailing interest rates. I've always avoided debt, and always thought about effect on savings before spending. It was never hard to do. Never. And I never made the salary bpuharic says he makes. But I'm content and secure and happy to just be alive. Maybe that's the difference. What you expect from life. Hard for me to understand him whining about his 401k. But I don't believe he never heard "A sucker is born every minute." And he's not naive. So he's just using the 401k BS to make his larger political point about wealth redistribution, with which I agree. That's my conclusion for now. Jim - Speculation of my sort. As correct, 6% is pie in the sky. And Annuities come out as ordinary income. If any is left when you die, your heirs pay ordinary income on the remainder and you may be able to balance that against inheritance taxes. Buy a good dividend paying stock. PM for example. Pays 4.6% and is taxed as a dividend which is about capitol gains rate. You have the advantage of price appreciation likely also. When you die, the stock is valued as the day you die for your estate and your heirs get it at the new value. If your estate is less than the exemption, no taxes are due on the money. Annuities grow tax free, but get the maximum rate you pay. And if you die, that tax is on an amount as if you made that every year. Maximum rate. 35% now, 50% or more if congress raises the max rate. 70% goes to the government if they roll the max rate back to Ike's time. annuities are good for about one thing. Make the financial planner a huge commision. Not an annuity, so perhaps you should read what I wrote and try again. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 18:28:29 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: wrote in message .. . On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:24:25 -0500, Jim wrote: nom=de=plume wrote: yes. You're giving the gov't at least $7500/yr, and it's likely that the 15% is not going to be 15% in 15 years. It's going to be higher, almost certainly. You're speculating about future taxes with no basis for the speculation. But you're a speculator. The debt is 14 trillion, they will either have to raise taxes or monetize the debt and inflate this money away. ?? Not sure what you're trying to say. We're at historically low tax rates. Taxes will likely rise. Not sure what the national debt has to do with the strategy I outlined. he doesnt have a clue either. he just mouths the aphorism rush tells him to. he's a sock puppet for the right |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:41:14 -0400, Harry ?
wrote: Sure there is...you just don't accept the concept of decency towards your fellow man and woman. Decency is admirable. That doesn't make it the job of the federal government however. You can't legislate decency and government is absolutely the wrong place to try and provide it. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:55:52 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote: On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:41:14 -0400, Harry ? wrote: Sure there is...you just don't accept the concept of decency towards your fellow man and woman. Decency is admirable. That doesn't make it the job of the federal government however. it HAS to be the job of the federal govt. that's why we are a nation of laws. You can't legislate decency and government is absolutely the wrong place to try and provide it. you can't 'legislate' decency. but you can legislate decent behavior. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
wrote in message ... On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 18:28:29 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: You're speculating about future taxes with no basis for the speculation. But you're a speculator. The debt is 14 trillion, they will either have to raise taxes or monetize the debt and inflate this money away. ?? Not sure what you're trying to say. We're at historically low tax rates. Taxes will likely rise. Not sure what the national debt has to do with the strategy I outlined. I am saying the same thing you just said. Taxes are going to go up. It would behoove people to lock in their gains at the lower rate but if many people try to do it, the gains will go away. That is the classic game of chicken. I just think the cliff is in December so the question is only, "when do you jump out of the car"? Firstly, it's not much of a speculation that taxes will likely go up... as I said, several times, and again... they are at historic lows. There's no way to "lock in your gains" at the lower rate, unless you're talking about a Roth conversion, and not everyone can do that or should do that. There are other strategies, one of which I outlined that can reduce tax payout. The "cliff" in December will likely be for those over $250K/year. It's highly doubtful that a Democrat would vote for a tax increase for lower and middle class taxpayers just prior to an election. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
|
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
|
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
|
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:48:50 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:55:34 -0400, bpuharic wrote: There is no rationale for the federal government to do it. That is very clear. private industry hasn't. so they've failed. it's time for the american people to do what the rich refuse to do for us. Are all of those out of work people going to form large corporations that can compete in a global market? That is how you are going to get good jobs again. nope. because the world financial managers packaged the same lies and sold them to each other. the meltdown is pretty much worldwide except in some of the more unionized countries like australia which has full employment. you right wingers just keep ignoring this. so i'm going to ram it down your throats over and over again in the last 10 years, productivity went up 30%. and NONE of that went to the middle class so you tell me: how does the middle class spend money it does not have? What is you job in the semi industry. Does it have anything at all to with with increasing productivity or otherwise reducing cost? |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
wrote in message ... On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 23:15:15 -0400, bpuharic wrote: On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:48:50 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:55:34 -0400, bpuharic wrote: There is no rationale for the federal government to do it. That is very clear. private industry hasn't. so they've failed. it's time for the american people to do what the rich refuse to do for us. Are all of those out of work people going to form large corporations that can compete in a global market? That is how you are going to get good jobs again. nope. because the world financial managers packaged the same lies and sold them to each other. the meltdown is pretty much worldwide except in some of the more unionized countries like australia which has full employment. you right wingers just keep ignoring this. so i'm going to ram it down your throats over and over again in the last 10 years, productivity went up 30%. and NONE of that went to the middle class Productivity went up because they laid off so many people. That makes the ones left look more productive. No, that's not accurate. Those who remain are required to increase their productivity to make up for those who've been laid off. It's not about appearance, it's about an actual increase in their productivity. Of course some of that is simply the fact that computer controlled equipment replaced workers. Robots don't complain, don't call in sick and don't file grievances because of working conditions. Ummm.... that happened and will continue to happen. The guys who operate them don't need near as much skill as the worker they replaced and the robot does a more consistent job. Not necessarily. The person who now controls a whole production line from a control room has to be highly skilled. so you tell me: how does the middle class spend money it does not have? You are starting to see why I fear for out future. The idea that you can get employers to pay workers more when the product cost can't go up is not going to happen. Well, fear is the operative word. Product cost can go up if the quality is better and/or it has better features/functionality. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
wrote in message ... On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:13:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 18:28:29 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: You're speculating about future taxes with no basis for the speculation. But you're a speculator. The debt is 14 trillion, they will either have to raise taxes or monetize the debt and inflate this money away. ?? Not sure what you're trying to say. We're at historically low tax rates. Taxes will likely rise. Not sure what the national debt has to do with the strategy I outlined. I am saying the same thing you just said. Taxes are going to go up. It would behoove people to lock in their gains at the lower rate but if many people try to do it, the gains will go away. That is the classic game of chicken. I just think the cliff is in December so the question is only, "when do you jump out of the car"? Firstly, it's not much of a speculation that taxes will likely go up... as I said, several times, and again... they are at historic lows. Speculation was your word. Nope. I never used that word. I said it's likely that taxes will rise. There's no way to "lock in your gains" at the lower rate, unless you're talking about a Roth conversion, and not everyone can do that or should do that. There are other strategies, one of which I outlined that can reduce tax payout. I have equities too but even if I simply cashed out my 401k it might be better than waiting to see what the tax man would do to me down the road. Feel free. I doubt you'll be doing that. I do believe I can roll into a roth tho. Well, you can. The question is, is it worth it. Are you going to make up for the taxes you'll have to pay when you front-load... that's the question. Usually, that sort of move is best for fairly young people. I am not sure I am going to mess with my 401k but I will have my finger on the trigger for a few of my stocks. Investing in individual stocks is a very risky business. It can be a full-time job to time things properly. The "cliff" in December will likely be for those over $250K/year. It's highly doubtful that a Democrat would vote for a tax increase for lower and middle class taxpayers just prior to an election. I have already said, my real guess is they will just extend the cuts, unaltered for a year and deal with it next year after the election. It is in the GOP's interest to do that and there are enough blue dogs to make it stick. Yes, it's possible. It's in the GOP's interest to protect their rich benefactors. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On 7/25/10 10:55 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:41:14 -0400, Harry wrote: Sure there is...you just don't accept the concept of decency towards your fellow man and woman. Decency is admirable. That doesn't make it the job of the federal government however. You can't legislate decency and government is absolutely the wrong place to try and provide it. Government is nothing more than people and their policies. I still haven't seen any reasonable ideas from you that would help low-income workers secure decent health care coverage or a decent retirement, when every dime they earn goes to feed and shelter themselves and their families. The days of upward mobility for tens of millions of workers are pretty much over. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
"Harry ?" wrote in message
... On 7/25/10 10:55 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:41:14 -0400, Harry wrote: Sure there is...you just don't accept the concept of decency towards your fellow man and woman. Decency is admirable. That doesn't make it the job of the federal government however. You can't legislate decency and government is absolutely the wrong place to try and provide it. Government is nothing more than people and their policies. I still haven't seen any reasonable ideas from you that would help low-income workers secure decent health care coverage or a decent retirement, when every dime they earn goes to feed and shelter themselves and their families. The days of upward mobility for tens of millions of workers are pretty much over. If only them thar people up there in Washington would start acting decently and responsibly to serve the needs of ALL the people. The first thing the Govt. needs to do is get out of the jobs and cars and healthcare businesses and plant the seeds for entrapanerial ventures that create products and jobs. Earn a dollar, then spend a dollar. That's the way it should be done. -- Harold |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On 7/26/10 10:28 AM, Harold wrote:
"Harry wrote in message ... On 7/25/10 10:55 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:41:14 -0400, Harry wrote: Sure there is...you just don't accept the concept of decency towards your fellow man and woman. Decency is admirable. That doesn't make it the job of the federal government however. You can't legislate decency and government is absolutely the wrong place to try and provide it. Government is nothing more than people and their policies. I still haven't seen any reasonable ideas from you that would help low-income workers secure decent health care coverage or a decent retirement, when every dime they earn goes to feed and shelter themselves and their families. The days of upward mobility for tens of millions of workers are pretty much over. If only them thar people up there in Washington would start acting decently and responsibly to serve the needs of ALL the people. The first thing the Govt. needs to do is get out of the jobs and cars and healthcare businesses and plant the seeds for entrapanerial ventures that create products and jobs. Earn a dollar, then spend a dollar. That's the way it should be done. Right...because the private sector has been doing so much of late to create jobs... Actually, I'd prefer we get the health care insurers out of the health care insurance business altogether...they serve no useful purpose. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
"Harry ?" wrote in message
... On 7/26/10 10:28 AM, Harold wrote: "Harry wrote in message ... On 7/25/10 10:55 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:41:14 -0400, Harry wrote: Sure there is...you just don't accept the concept of decency towards your fellow man and woman. Decency is admirable. That doesn't make it the job of the federal government however. You can't legislate decency and government is absolutely the wrong place to try and provide it. Government is nothing more than people and their policies. I still haven't seen any reasonable ideas from you that would help low-income workers secure decent health care coverage or a decent retirement, when every dime they earn goes to feed and shelter themselves and their families. The days of upward mobility for tens of millions of workers are pretty much over. If only them thar people up there in Washington would start acting decently and responsibly to serve the needs of ALL the people. The first thing the Govt. needs to do is get out of the jobs and cars and healthcare businesses and plant the seeds for entrapanerial ventures that create products and jobs. Earn a dollar, then spend a dollar. That's the way it should be done. Right...because the private sector has been doing so much of late to create jobs... Actually, I'd prefer we get the health care insurers out of the health care insurance business altogether...they serve no useful purpose. It's guys like you who are dead set against the private sector succeeding. The ability to conceive and deliver a product or service the consumer needs or wants, leads to job creation and often great wealth to the creator of the jobs. Win-Win for everyone. Until the union creeps in and removes the incentive to work hard and EARN merit increases. Do you insure your car, your gentleman's estate, your boat, your life? Why not your health? -- Harold |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On 7/26/10 10:45 AM, Harold wrote:
"Harry wrote in message ... On 7/26/10 10:28 AM, Harold wrote: "Harry wrote in message ... On 7/25/10 10:55 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:41:14 -0400, Harry wrote: Sure there is...you just don't accept the concept of decency towards your fellow man and woman. Decency is admirable. That doesn't make it the job of the federal government however. You can't legislate decency and government is absolutely the wrong place to try and provide it. Government is nothing more than people and their policies. I still haven't seen any reasonable ideas from you that would help low-income workers secure decent health care coverage or a decent retirement, when every dime they earn goes to feed and shelter themselves and their families. The days of upward mobility for tens of millions of workers are pretty much over. If only them thar people up there in Washington would start acting decently and responsibly to serve the needs of ALL the people. The first thing the Govt. needs to do is get out of the jobs and cars and healthcare businesses and plant the seeds for entrapanerial ventures that create products and jobs. Earn a dollar, then spend a dollar. That's the way it should be done. Right...because the private sector has been doing so much of late to create jobs... Actually, I'd prefer we get the health care insurers out of the health care insurance business altogether...they serve no useful purpose. It's guys like you who are dead set against the private sector succeeding. The ability to conceive and deliver a product or service the consumer needs or wants, leads to job creation and often great wealth to the creator of the jobs. Win-Win for everyone. Until the union creeps in and removes the incentive to work hard and EARN merit increases. Do you insure your car, your gentleman's estate, your boat, your life? Why not your health? Health insurers do not deliver a product the consumer needs or wants. Health care is already out there...it exists. Health insurance adds an unnecessary middle-man factor. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
"Harry ?" wrote in message
... On 7/26/10 10:45 AM, Harold wrote: "Harry wrote in message ... On 7/26/10 10:28 AM, Harold wrote: "Harry wrote in message ... On 7/25/10 10:55 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:41:14 -0400, Harry wrote: Sure there is...you just don't accept the concept of decency towards your fellow man and woman. Decency is admirable. That doesn't make it the job of the federal government however. You can't legislate decency and government is absolutely the wrong place to try and provide it. Government is nothing more than people and their policies. I still haven't seen any reasonable ideas from you that would help low-income workers secure decent health care coverage or a decent retirement, when every dime they earn goes to feed and shelter themselves and their families. The days of upward mobility for tens of millions of workers are pretty much over. If only them thar people up there in Washington would start acting decently and responsibly to serve the needs of ALL the people. The first thing the Govt. needs to do is get out of the jobs and cars and healthcare businesses and plant the seeds for entrapanerial ventures that create products and jobs. Earn a dollar, then spend a dollar. That's the way it should be done. Right...because the private sector has been doing so much of late to create jobs... Actually, I'd prefer we get the health care insurers out of the health care insurance business altogether...they serve no useful purpose. It's guys like you who are dead set against the private sector succeeding. The ability to conceive and deliver a product or service the consumer needs or wants, leads to job creation and often great wealth to the creator of the jobs. Win-Win for everyone. Until the union creeps in and removes the incentive to work hard and EARN merit increases. Do you insure your car, your gentleman's estate, your boat, your life? Why not your health? Health insurers do not deliver a product the consumer needs or wants. Health care is already out there...it exists. Health insurance adds an unnecessary middle-man factor. You want to pay for your healthcare out of your own pocket? I suppose that's fair. -- Harold |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
|
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
|
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On 7/26/10 12:04 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:49:23 -0400, Harry wrote: On 7/26/10 11:43 AM, wrote: On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:52:05 -0400, Harry wrote: Health insurers do not deliver a product the consumer needs or wants. Health care is already out there...it exists. Health insurance adds an unnecessary middle-man factor. ... and a huge government bureaucracy wouldn't? It wouldn't have to, would it? Remember, I am an advocate of the swiss system, in which the basic plans offered are all the same, and could easily be administered (claims received, claims paid) by a non-profit third party, since procedures and medications would be covered or not, and lists would be circulated and coded. If you want additional coverages, and many would, private insurance companies could sell those separately through a regulated process. I advocate dumping the current health care payment process and coming up with something entirely different. I guess my problem with the government is their vulnerability to fraud. Medicare is the shining example of a low overhead way to pay bills, when you ask but their fraud rate is a lot higher than the private insurers. For some reason our government is very susceptible to getting robbed. (Medicare, DoD procurement, USDA programs, whatever) Perhaps the Swiss are just more honest. Sadly, we tolerate fraud. Look at government defense contracting. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
wrote in message
... On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:02:09 -0400, "Harold" wrote: Health insurers do not deliver a product the consumer needs or wants. Health care is already out there...it exists. Health insurance adds an unnecessary middle-man factor. You want to pay for your healthcare out of your own pocket? I suppose that's fair. I am curious, who's pocket do you think health care gets paid out of? Do you really think it is sustainable to have an insurance premium or tax that is less than the cost of care? It is true that healthy people pay for the sick, the ones with unhealthy lifestyles and the hypochondriacs but that is the plan isn't it? Medical insurance has been a huge loser for me. I suppose I will get sick some day but so far I would have been a lot better off if I had my premiums back and just paid my bills. Subscribers spread the risk with a little left over to build insurance company sky scrapers. I hope that satisfies your curiosity. For the average person who doesn't get sick Health Insurance isn't necessary. But WHAT IF something un foreseen happens and you don't have the cash to pay the expenses? That's how insurance companies, all insurance companies, hook you. Now, thanks to Bam Bam, you get to pay for insuring the heretofore uninsured and uninsurable. Many of whom probably subscribe to unhealthy lifestyles such as Alcohol-Tobacco-Drug-Firearm abuse and or obesity. -- Harold |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
"Harry ?" wrote in message
m... On 7/26/10 12:04 PM, wrote: On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:49:23 -0400, Harry wrote: On 7/26/10 11:43 AM, wrote: On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:52:05 -0400, Harry wrote: Health insurers do not deliver a product the consumer needs or wants. Health care is already out there...it exists. Health insurance adds an unnecessary middle-man factor. ... and a huge government bureaucracy wouldn't? It wouldn't have to, would it? Remember, I am an advocate of the swiss system, in which the basic plans offered are all the same, and could easily be administered (claims received, claims paid) by a non-profit third party, since procedures and medications would be covered or not, and lists would be circulated and coded. If you want additional coverages, and many would, private insurance companies could sell those separately through a regulated process. I advocate dumping the current health care payment process and coming up with something entirely different. I guess my problem with the government is their vulnerability to fraud. Medicare is the shining example of a low overhead way to pay bills, when you ask but their fraud rate is a lot higher than the private insurers. For some reason our government is very susceptible to getting robbed. (Medicare, DoD procurement, USDA programs, whatever) Perhaps the Swiss are just more honest. Sadly, we tolerate fraud. Look at government defense contracting. Why stop there. -- Harold |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:02:09 -0400, "Harold" wrote: Health insurers do not deliver a product the consumer needs or wants. Health care is already out there...it exists. Health insurance adds an unnecessary middle-man factor. You want to pay for your healthcare out of your own pocket? I suppose that's fair. I am curious, who's pocket do you think health care gets paid out of? Do you really think it is sustainable to have an insurance premium or tax that is less than the cost of care? It is true that healthy people pay for the sick, the ones with unhealthy lifestyles and the hypochondriacs but that is the plan isn't it? Medical insurance has been a huge loser for me. I suppose I will get sick some day but so far I would have been a lot better off if I had my premiums back and just paid my bills. Because you can predict the future? The point of insurance is to have a hedge against the future. All it takes is one catastrophic illness to destroy your savings. And, as far as basic coverage goes, it's a hell of a lot cheaper to pay for checkups and such and deal with minor problems than have people show up in the ER requiring heroic/expensive procedures. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
"Harold" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:02:09 -0400, "Harold" wrote: Health insurers do not deliver a product the consumer needs or wants. Health care is already out there...it exists. Health insurance adds an unnecessary middle-man factor. You want to pay for your healthcare out of your own pocket? I suppose that's fair. I am curious, who's pocket do you think health care gets paid out of? Do you really think it is sustainable to have an insurance premium or tax that is less than the cost of care? It is true that healthy people pay for the sick, the ones with unhealthy lifestyles and the hypochondriacs but that is the plan isn't it? Medical insurance has been a huge loser for me. I suppose I will get sick some day but so far I would have been a lot better off if I had my premiums back and just paid my bills. Subscribers spread the risk with a little left over to build insurance company sky scrapers. I hope that satisfies your curiosity. For the average person who doesn't get sick Health Insurance isn't necessary. But WHAT IF something un foreseen happens and you don't have the cash to pay the expenses? That's how insurance companies, all insurance companies, hook you. Now, thanks to Bam Bam, you get to pay for insuring the heretofore uninsured and uninsurable. Many of whom probably subscribe to unhealthy lifestyles such as Alcohol-Tobacco-Drug-Firearm abuse and or obesity. -- Harold Thanks to you, we get an example of a congenital moron on a daily basis. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:52:05 -0400, Harry ? wrote: Health insurers do not deliver a product the consumer needs or wants. Health care is already out there...it exists. Health insurance adds an unnecessary middle-man factor. ... and a huge government bureaucracy wouldn't? The "huge gov't bureaucracy" has much lower overhead than private companies. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:49:23 -0400, Harry ? wrote: On 7/26/10 11:43 AM, wrote: On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:52:05 -0400, Harry wrote: Health insurers do not deliver a product the consumer needs or wants. Health care is already out there...it exists. Health insurance adds an unnecessary middle-man factor. ... and a huge government bureaucracy wouldn't? It wouldn't have to, would it? Remember, I am an advocate of the swiss system, in which the basic plans offered are all the same, and could easily be administered (claims received, claims paid) by a non-profit third party, since procedures and medications would be covered or not, and lists would be circulated and coded. If you want additional coverages, and many would, private insurance companies could sell those separately through a regulated process. I advocate dumping the current health care payment process and coming up with something entirely different. I guess my problem with the government is their vulnerability to fraud. Medicare is the shining example of a low overhead way to pay bills, when you ask but their fraud rate is a lot higher than the private insurers. For some reason our government is very susceptible to getting robbed. (Medicare, DoD procurement, USDA programs, whatever) Perhaps the Swiss are just more honest. Right. It's higher, but that's fixable. The Medicare system works pretty well for most people. But, it sure is easier to decry all gov't and tell people to fend for themselves. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
wrote in message ... On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 23:23:25 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: The guys who operate them don't need near as much skill as the worker they replaced and the robot does a more consistent job. Not necessarily. The person who now controls a whole production line from a control room has to be highly skilled. That is said by a person who doesn't understand how long it takes to learn to be a machinist or even a good welder. The computer operator can learn his job in a week. Most of the processes are actually monitored by another computer. There are usually a couple of techs around who have a bit of training but not as much as you would suspect. These machines are like most of the computer industry. It is cheaper to replace whole assemblies than to fix them. We called it "cut open the box" technology. I don't think you know me well enough to make such a statement. There is extensive training for many, many professions, including computer "operator" (sounds like you're not to familiar with those requirements). so you tell me: how does the middle class spend money it does not have? You are starting to see why I fear for out future. The idea that you can get employers to pay workers more when the product cost can't go up is not going to happen. Well, fear is the operative word. Product cost can go up if the quality is better and/or it has better features/functionality. That has not been the trend. The American public does not appreciate quality, nor demand service. In the late 80s, IBM and most other industries started a "quality quest" with quality circles, Six Sigma and ISO 9000. The holy grail was to emulate Sony. Actually, that has been the trend, whatever that means. There are lots of American made, high quality products that sell fine. That was quickly replaced with a philosophy of "market driven quality" and the model became WalMart. We were all marched into a room, given a bag of M&Ms and told to evaluate them. It turned out there were not even the same number in each bag and there were defects in at least half of them,. (true story) Everyone was still happy with the quality and was not interested in paying more for better quality control. The whole company was moving in that direction. We even got new hats http://gfretwell.com/electrical/mdq.jpg It's easy to id an anecdote and claim that is the general case, but that doesn't make it so. The lesson was clear. The American public values a lower price more than quality, service or even saving American jobs. I ask you, do you go to Sam's/BJs/Costco? It is certainly not for the service or even the quality. It is for the price. Actually, I go to Costco because of the customer service. If something breaks, they don't hassle you at all. The quality is pretty much the same as you would find elsewhere, especially for things like cameras/computers, even some clothing. Most people go there for the wholesale quantities. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
wrote in message ... On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 23:27:04 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:13:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message m... On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 18:28:29 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: You're speculating about future taxes with no basis for the speculation. But you're a speculator. The debt is 14 trillion, they will either have to raise taxes or monetize the debt and inflate this money away. ?? Not sure what you're trying to say. We're at historically low tax rates. Taxes will likely rise. Not sure what the national debt has to do with the strategy I outlined. I am saying the same thing you just said. Taxes are going to go up. It would behoove people to lock in their gains at the lower rate but if many people try to do it, the gains will go away. That is the classic game of chicken. I just think the cliff is in December so the question is only, "when do you jump out of the car"? Firstly, it's not much of a speculation that taxes will likely go up... as I said, several times, and again... they are at historic lows. Speculation was your word. Nope. I never used that word. I said it's likely that taxes will rise. Who wrote the top quote here? "You're speculating about future taxes with no basis for the speculation. But you're a speculator." There's no way to "lock in your gains" at the lower rate, unless you're talking about a Roth conversion, and not everyone can do that or should do that. There are other strategies, one of which I outlined that can reduce tax payout. I have equities too but even if I simply cashed out my 401k it might be better than waiting to see what the tax man would do to me down the road. Feel free. I doubt you'll be doing that. I do believe I can roll into a roth tho. Well, you can. The question is, is it worth it. Are you going to make up for the taxes you'll have to pay when you front-load... that's the question. Usually, that sort of move is best for fairly young people. I am not sure I am going to mess with my 401k but I will have my finger on the trigger for a few of my stocks. Investing in individual stocks is a very risky business. It can be a full-time job to time things properly. What else do I have to do? I am retired. It is really not that hard to track 4 or 5 stocks. These days with the internet you can find out things used to take days to dig out in seconds. The "cliff" in December will likely be for those over $250K/year. It's highly doubtful that a Democrat would vote for a tax increase for lower and middle class taxpayers just prior to an election. I have already said, my real guess is they will just extend the cuts, unaltered for a year and deal with it next year after the election. It is in the GOP's interest to do that and there are enough blue dogs to make it stick. Yes, it's possible. It's in the GOP's interest to protect their rich benefactors. The GOP are not the only ones taking big money contributions. Both parties are beholden to essentially the same people. The whole idea of small individual contributors falls apart when you learn about bundlers. The GOP aren't the only ones, but they are certainly the most strident when it comes to protecting those big money interests. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
wrote in message ... On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 23:18:00 -0400, bpuharic wrote: On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:53:40 -0400, wrote: I am saying the same thing you just said. Taxes are going to go up. It would behoove people to lock in their gains at the lower rate but if many people try to do it, the gains will go away. That is the classic game of chicken. I just think the cliff is in December so the question is only, "when do you jump out of the car"? in the last 30 years the richest 1% have had a 500% REAL increase in income. any reason they SHOULDNT pay more taxes? I think they should but as long as they are pumping close to a billion into an election cycle, the whores in DC are not going to do it. I only have to point to the health care bill. After lots of promises to help the little guy, the Senate let a couple of UHC lobbyists write a bill that simply handed 20-30 million new customers into the existing system ... at the point of a government gun. UHC lobbyists didn't write the bill. They had too much input, but it's a right-wing conspiracy that they wrote it. Is the bill perfect? No. Can it be improved? Yes. Will it be improved? Yes. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:28:09 -0400, "Harold"
wrote: If only them thar people up there in Washington would start acting decently and responsibly to serve the needs of ALL the people. The first thing the Govt. needs to do is get out of the jobs and cars and healthcare businesses and plant the seeds for entrapanerial ventures that create products and the govt IS out of the healthcare business for most people that's why healthcare is so expensive and doesnt cover everyone. it's known as a 'market failure |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:53 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com