"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 22/07/2010 3:07 PM, Jim wrote:
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.

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.

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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

nin-de-poope likes to think she-it has knowledge on how to management
money. But it shows...not even an amature.
--

Government has liberals, idealists and lawyers, but where is the common
sense?

No habla STUPID. Speak English... PLEASE

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 18:08:03 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Yup. Obama's off-the-chart spending will certainly increase taxes. He
can't keep printing money forever.

You're truly stupid. The fact is that Bush lowered taxes for no damn good
reason, and they were already at historic lows. This isn't sustainable.
Even
a moron like you should know that. Keep blaming Obama for all your
troubles,
but they're definitely self-made.

Bush lowered taxes because that was what they thought you did to
stimulate the economy. The Dow did go over 11,000 and a lot of people
thought they were rich enough to buy a couple of McMansions, so it may
have done something.
As we are now demonstrating, it was an across the board tax cut that
you agree helps the bottom.

Bush lowered taxes because he wanted to enrich his friends. The DOW reached
11K in 2000 or so. Bush had NOTHING to do with it. That would be Clinton.
Facts are facts my friend. You don't just get to pull them out of thin air.

The across the board tax cut did some good for the regular people, but it
did far more for the rich.

wrote in message
news
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:10:23 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:30:16 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

it's greed. there's a reason the financial sector accounted for 40% of
GDP in 2007 while the US did NOT become more competitive in world
markets. the financial sector added NOTHING to US assets

Where do you think the money for your retirement will be coming from?

The whole basis for everyone's pension, 401k and IRA is that Wall
Street sector you seem to hate. Retirees are by definition not adding
anything to the economy, they are living off of it.

Well, that's not really true. They're spending their money in many ways
that
contribute. If they just hoarded their money, the economy would be much
worse off.

I agree the retirees are great about distributing existing money but
they do not produce anything. It is a transfer of money from the young
to the old.

It is not as simple as that. They go on vacation, they spend money. That
creates jobs.

The best example is Social Security where you have retirees spending
money their kids make and have taxed away. My parents spent my FICA
taxes and I just started spending my kid's FICA money. Too bad we
didn't have an exponentially larger number of kids than our parents.

That's the way SSI works... one generation pays for the previous.

The same is true of everyone on Social Security. You better hope Wall
Street stays 40% of the economy if you want your 401k to be worth
anything when you start sucking off the public tit.

Unfortunately, 401Ks and IRAs (except Roths) aren't really great for
retirement instruments. People forget about the tax consequences of
withdrawing money. Tax rates are at historic lows. They will rise, and one
needs to factor that in when planning for retirement.


I have been saying that forever. Anyone who really thinks the
government is not coming for that 401k money is just naive.
It is why I did not really hit my 401k contribution that hard. I took
what they matched.
I am really thinking about rolling it over before the taxes reset. A
little fall rally would cinch it for me.

Huh? They'll get it in taxes when you take it out.

wrote in message
news
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:10:23 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:30:16 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

it's greed. there's a reason the financial sector accounted for 40% of
GDP in 2007 while the US did NOT become more competitive in world
markets. the financial sector added NOTHING to US assets

Where do you think the money for your retirement will be coming from?

The whole basis for everyone's pension, 401k and IRA is that Wall
Street sector you seem to hate. Retirees are by definition not adding
anything to the economy, they are living off of it.

Well, that's not really true. They're spending their money in many ways
that
contribute. If they just hoarded their money, the economy would be much
worse off.

I agree the retirees are great about distributing existing money but
they do not produce anything. It is a transfer of money from the young
to the old.
The best example is Social Security where you have retirees spending
money their kids make and have taxed away. My parents spent my FICA
taxes and I just started spending my kid's FICA money. Too bad we
didn't have an exponentially larger number of kids than our parents.

The same is true of everyone on Social Security. You better hope Wall
Street stays 40% of the economy if you want your 401k to be worth
anything when you start sucking off the public tit.

Unfortunately, 401Ks and IRAs (except Roths) aren't really great for
retirement instruments. People forget about the tax consequences of
withdrawing money. Tax rates are at historic lows. They will rise, and one
needs to factor that in when planning for retirement.


I have been saying that forever. Anyone who really thinks the
government is not coming for that 401k money is just naive.
It is why I did not really hit my 401k contribution that hard. I took
what they matched.
I am really thinking about rolling it over before the taxes reset. A
little fall rally would cinch it for me.

If you roll it into a Roth, you'll need to pay taxes on the money when you
do that. The Roth is only good from then on. I'm not sure it would make
sense for someone in their 60s, but I don't know your situation.

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 23:22:04 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 21:10:22 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


NAFTA was negotiated by GEORGE BUSH. it was laid out in great detail
by GEORGE BUSH. clinton signed it because it's destructive to a
nation's reputation to go back on a treaty that's about to be signed.

christ. dont you guys know ANYTHING??

Yup blame it on Bush, the standard democrat answer for 2 decades

IOW you dont like the facts...

uh OK


Your argument would have had more merit if Clinton had tried to stop
it but the fact is he was a huge fan when he signed the bill into law.
That is not surprising because Clinton admits now, he is the 4th Bush
brother.

how do you stop an international treaty that's been 4 years in the
making, involved negotiations with dozens of countries, without losing
credibility in the international arena?

let me know.

you guys just aren't very bright

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:57:44 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:


Actually, not long. There are strong indications serious money is
exiting USD.

uh no. european money is flowing INTO the US as the euro sinks

you're just not very bright

Will not be long before a big tilt happens on the US and
inflation will skyrocket. I figure it is going to be this fall or winter.

uh huh. you guys have been fighting inflation for 30 years. just
like some on the far left are still fighting vietnam.

you're just not very bright

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 21:45:09 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 22/07/2010 8:12 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 18:43:12 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:



i'm not 100M americans who are in the same boat. you right wingers
hate the middle class so jus ignore EVERYONE in the middle class is
having the same problems

admitting this would blow your fuses. so you just ignore it

You are destined to be poor and certainly hopelessly stupid.

i agree. the middle class is on its way out in the US, courtesy of the
right wing. we'll be like mexico soon...a small group of rich
families and the other people in poverty

yep. thats the right wing plan

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 20:20:49 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 22/07/2010 11:06 AM, Califbill wrote:

I am not rich. A long ways from rich. I do not own a G5 airplane, or a
mega yacht. Comfortable, but that is because I lived on 75% of my income
and saved the rest. You should be in the lower rich or the super
comfortable range. engineer and wife who is an attorney. My wife only
worked part time while the girls were in college. She was a stay at home
mom when they were in primary schools. 100's of thousands can not make
mortgage payments because they bought more house than they could afford!

You are deemed "rich" but the left because you did things right.

really? hedgefund managers and bankers on wall street are very rich

so the things they did 'right'...uh, how'd that work out for the
economy in the last 3 years?

you guys are truly blindingly dumb


To the left, you should be 60 years old and in debt up to your butt. Or
destitute.

to the right, if you're not rich, then god hates you and you deserve
poverty

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 21:12:33 -0400, wrote:




It was an education. I went to several Joint Council 65 summer outings
at the Lake of the Ozarks. Seeing these old guys who were building a
union during a depression talk about "old times" will really give you
perspective. That was when unions actually dealt with employer abuses
of the employees instead of the other way around.

uh huh. we have no unions today

and how's the economy doing under radical free market capitalism?

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 20:24:29 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:



Today you have to worry about union abuses to the employee.

since the US has no unions, your tin foil hat paranoia is noted