ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

"Harry ?" wrote in message
m...
On 7/22/10 3:06 PM, D.Duck wrote:

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:39:34 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 12:41:31 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:


neither will 100,000,000 other middle class americans.


Now I'm off to the Hard Rock casino to enhance my lifestyle.

yeah. tell us again about all those raises we got.


I never claimed that a majority received raises. It's you that claim
all
over this news group that EVERY member of the class have not received
increases.

fine. you go show me where the data is showing the middle class has
gotten a raise.

i've shown you data that they didnt. AND that the rich got a 500%
increase in 30 years

where's your data?


We're beating a very dead horse. It's kind like what the meaning of is
is.


I'm glad I skipped most of this endless "financial" thread. Reading the
investment advice and discussions here should be enough to send any
prudemt investor to the race track.

The stock market has been built on little more than fraud and bull****
since the 1980s. Except for shares in two companies, I've been out of the
market for years, and spend no nights losing sleep over my retirement
funds.


Now you know how we feel about your political bull****.

--
Harold

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

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

"Jim" wrote in message


Bad advice. With catch-up he can put $22k this year in the 401k.
He should be maxing that to shelter it from taxes.

Nope. Right now, taxes are low, so it's doubtful that a it'll push him
into a higher bracket, and even if it does, you're talking about a couple
of percent. The future is much more uncertain, but it's very clear that
taxes will likely go up, and as a retired person, he should be minimizing
his tax exposure.


From what he's said he's in the 25-28% range already.
Why do you suppose he'll be in a higher bracket when retired?
The flies against most experience.

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).

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.

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.

Now, let's look at when he starts withdrawing money. He could pull out
$50K/yr for quite a while, have use of more of his money, and still have a
cash surrender amount available for the last years of his life. His heirs
would still get a decent chunk upon his death.

Even if it's money market with no return.

?? That makes no sense at all.

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.


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?


Maybe about 5 grand for him.
When he takes it out upon retirement he'll be in a lower or no-tax
bracket.

Actually, that's doubtful and thee money he'll be taking out will be much
less than he's likely to be used to living on. By putting money into
something that basically gives you back your own money, you can take it
tax free and mitigate what will have to come out of your 401k/ira and be
taxed.


Not doubtful at all. It's all very simple.
Put $22k in the 401k and pay no taxes on it.
Or don't and give the feds 25% ($5500.)
That's not financial advice, and it's not voodoo economics, or financial
adviser mumbo jumbo.

But, as I said, you'll have to pay the taxes at some point. See above.

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.

Save, save, save. Then you die.

Amend this with, save, save, save, spend, spend, spend, die, get a death
bene for your heirs.

Or you could gamble with equity funds. But don't cry about it.

Jim - Financial whiz kid. Hey, I ain't broke or complaining.

I'd suggest talking to a qualified financial advisor who gets a fee vs. a
percentage, and not listen to me or anyone else on this newsgroup. I also
wouldn't rely on "fund" managers. They've got an axe to grind also.


You don't need to pay a financial adviser to make simple risk decisions
for you. None of this is rocket science.

You'd rather have him listen to someone on Usenet? Professionals are
professionals. They have lots of suggestions.

The way he talks he listened to people who told him Wall Street equity
mutual funds were a sure way to get rich.
So he got suckered.
But since he's part of the "middle class" he can probably do simple math
and see the tax savings in maxing 401k contributions at his stated
income level, which I think was about $150k.


Jim - Surprised I'm having trouble getting this understood.

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.

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.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 19:04:59 -0400, wrote:


John H wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 23:10:30 -0400, wrote:




Seriously, Bob, do you really think all the conservatives here, or anywhere, are
rich? Do you not think a bunch of us might be middle class? Yet you are the one
doing all the whining because you paid little attention to your investment.

I asked if your 401K had a money market fund. By putting your money in same, you
could have prevented the losses you took.


Don't they all? If he has/had a company match - it would be free money,
too!

gee. if only you guys sold time on your crystal balls BEFORE the
collapse


I can change mine anytime I want - 24/7 online.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On 7/22/10 7:20 PM, Larry wrote:


I can change mine anytime I want - 24/7 online.

Your socks? Phew.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

Canuck57 wrote:
On 21/07/2010 6:03 PM, Larry wrote:
bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 19:06:17 -0400, wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 05:03:58 -0400, "Charles C."
wrote:

if, however, you're a baby boomer, well that's a different story


CC

So, in other words, I should be screaming and bitching about the
"loss" of
money that I never earned or had. I see. Starting to understand how
the
left thinks.

go ahead and try to get a loan using your 401K as collateral

see what happens


CC

When would any lender accept a 401K account as collateral?
since it's a standard part of a loan applcation. that's when

been renting all your life, i see

I'm going to try to guess what you meant to say...

Loan applications usually are interested in liquid assets. 401K accounts
don't count. I ralize they can be liquidated but loan officers aren't
interested in that.

Even if you can't touch a 401k in bankruptcy, a healthy for your age
401k or IRA balance shows your not a fly by night loser. That is, if
you were 50 and didn't have a 401k/IRA, I would count that against you
big time.

The only long-term debt I have is my home and I refinanced it in the
past 12 months. They specifically excluded retirement money as declared
assets and they didn't even ask for reference purposes. 4.125%! I took
5 years off and dropped my payment by over $400/month. It cost me less
than $1000 for closing costs.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

Harry  wrote:
On 7/21/10 8:24 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 20/07/2010 11:25 PM, D.Duck wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 21:46:25 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 19:20:56 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:07:55 -0400, bpuharic
wrote:

and there as many HF managers who saw this coming as economists

MOST hedge fund managers were betting against housing in 2007,
that is
what hedge funds do.

except, of course, they told no one. the fine against goldman sachs
that depressed their first quarter earnings was for exactly this type
of screwing around


BTW I was reading an old Fortune magazine at Jury duty today
(jan/feb
2010) and they had a list of the funds that did get it right this
year, one was up 265%. They also listed 1000 with their results
for a
year and 3 years. I was looking at the Fidelity funds and most of
them
were up this year, about half up over the last 3.
I guess I will dig out my 401k statement and see how it really did.
I know the last time I looked it was double what it was when I
stopped
contributing in 1996.

too bad the right wing destroyed the pension system in this country
and let the rich replace it with 401k's.


This is the summary of my 401k from the web site

Average Annual Total Returns1 (%)
as of 06/30/2010

1 Year 3.63
3 Year 4.23
5 Year 4.80
10 Year 5.15
Life 6.84

Life is as of inception date 07/01/1985.


When I consider the fees the manager is skimming this is not bad.


You'd better recheck your numbers. I read somewhere that NO 401Ks had a
positive return over the past three years. 8)

Mine sure did, over the last 3 years, 89%. Yep, for each $1 in it is now
$1.86.


That's surely the value of your portfolio... $1.86....Canadian.
Surely.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:09:47 -0400, wrote:



From the same psycho who said no one in the middle class has had a
raise in ten years?

you are SUCH an idiot

i'm sure you'll check this website. it'll blow your fuses when you
realize you're full of ****.

then you'll turn on rush, he'll tell you all the little lies that the
right uses to comfort themselves

and you'll stick your thumb in your mouth and go to sleep, confident
that the rich are doing well


http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...the-day-6.html

go ahead. tell me how the middle class hasnt had a raise in 27 years
while, in the same time, the wealthiest 1% has had a 500% increase.

go head. i'll wait

Look up "inflation adjusted" and get back to me. You are also comparing
the entire "middle class" to the wealthiest *1%*!?!?

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:11:33 -0400, wrote:


bpuharic wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 22:27:41 -0400, wrote:




When would any lender accept a 401K account as collateral?


since it's a standard part of a loan applcation. that's when

been renting all your life, i see



I may be wrong but I believe 401Ks are untouchable in bankruptcy
proceedings. You may have to list them on a loan app but they are
untouchable to a loan holder.


unless, of course, you're able to waive that...which many middle class
people did since it was a source of wealth that the rich wanted to get
their greedy hands on.


WTF?

because you can sign an agreeement to give them access to your 401K. i
didnt have to because my credit score is VERY high...but it's an
option

but you're living at motel 6 so you're unaware of this


I've never heard of that. Who are you giving access to your 401K? The
rich? WTF (again)??

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:03:06 -0400, wrote:


bpuharic wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 19:06:17 -0400, wrote:





go ahead and try to get a loan using your 401K as collateral

see what happens




CC



When would any lender accept a 401K account as collateral?


since it's a standard part of a loan applcation. that's when

been renting all your life, i see



I'm going to try to guess what you meant to say...

Loan applications usually are interested in liquid assets. 401K
accounts don't count. I ralize they can be liquidated but loan officers
aren't interested in that.

401k's are liquid assets if you take a tax penalty

not too bright, are you?

and what makes you think loan officers arent interested in money?


I said, and I know I misspelled a word, that I realize that they can be
liquidated. They are still of not interest to a loan officer as
collateral. I'm quite bright. I have a large 401K/IRA. You,
apparently don't.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:05:16 -0400, wrote:


On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:18:40 -0400, wrote:


let's see....there are 115,000,000 working americans. about 80% make
less than 100K.

looks good to me.

Most of those people are not "middle class". Half of them don't even
make enough money to pay income tax.

ah yes, the right wing mantra...they dont pay 'income' taxes....so
they're worthless

Where do you get these things?

let's see...capital gains is 15%

then they get to write off their losses. deduct business
expenses...yadda yadda...



*Get* to write off losses? Like that's a good thing? Business expenses
are expenses, not income, so they should be deductible.
I simply pointed half of the people you are lumping into the middle
class are not making enough to pay income taxes so they are hardly
middle class.

?? what makes you think not paying income taxes means you're not
middle class?