BoatBanter.com - ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)

- - ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/116600-ah-yes-latest-my-company-401k.html)

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:37:25 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

Number one reason people get in trouble is debt. More debt than they
can manage. And always more debt than is good for them.

more bull****. you guys are clueless

ever wonder why, all of a sudden the ENTIRE middle class is having
problems even though this was not a problem 10 years ago?

gee...is it a change in the middle class OR a change in the policies
of wall street. well, let's look at evideence, shall we?

1997 CDO's 1 trillion
2007 62 TRILLION

yeah i'm sure the middle class had a BIG role in that...

god...you guys would drown in the rain if seomeone didnt take you in

bpuharics of the world, dime a dozen debt mongers in open denial of the
facts.

US houselhod wealth 2005 65 trillion
2009 55 trillion

so tell me how the middle class caused this.

you're such an idiot.

No, you are the idiot. Always been a percentage of middle class on the
verge of financial trouble or in financial trouble. Probably more now, as
the mentality, was buy it now, as everything is going up in value, and I can
turn the house for a $2-300k profit after 3 years and pay off the stuff.
Ponzi. Lots got caught, probably you with your crying. Older daughter and
son in law, got caught somewhat. Sold good, solid dividend paying stock and
went 100% dot.com. Lost most of the money. Were pretty well to do on paper
for about 2 years. CDO's would barely affect you if you did not invest in
them and kept a decent portfolio. You would be affected, but not that much
as the whole financial world was hit by it. But invest in good, basic
industries that will survive as their products are always required. People
will always buy toilet paper, oil will be required for ours and at least
another lifetime. People will still buy beer, and tobacco products,
probably more when they are sitting around on the dole. Buy a house you can
afford. 3-4x your yearly income maximum.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K

"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.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K

On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 13:09:20 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:37:25 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

gee...is it a change in the middle class OR a change in the policies
of wall street. well, let's look at evideence, shall we?

1997 CDO's 1 trillion
2007 62 TRILLION

yeah i'm sure the middle class had a BIG role in that...

US houselhod wealth 2005 65 trillion
2009 55 trillion

so tell me how the middle class caused this.

you're such an idiot.

No, you are the idiot. Always been a percentage of middle class on the
verge of financial trouble or in financial trouble

what's amazing is that this SKYROCKETED in the last 3 years...and wall
street, according to you, had nothing to do with it!

the rich are good. greed is good. greed purifies and clarifies...

or is that gordon gecko? I get you guys mixed up.

Older daughter and
son in law, got caught somewhat. Sold good, solid dividend paying stock and
went 100% dot.com. Lost most of the money

he just jabbers on about the family...not following the news, you see.
he swills his cheap beer, listens to rush tell him everything's OK and
just ignores the news...

tell you what. try reading some news websites, OK? why not let me
know what shape the economy is in...courtesy of your rich buddies on
wall street.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:11:18 -0400, Larry wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:39:16 -0400, wrote:

bpuharic wrote:

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

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.

so you say. the average 401K is less than 50K.

mine's bigger.

and so is my 401K

I'm far behind you in retirement age yet I have a large 401K/IRA. I
know that bothers you. If you knew how much you might kill yourself.

hey the fact you're rich bothers me not at all. good luck

but when you're my age...watch your ass. wall street's gonna look at
your 401K and decide it's too good for you to keep.

bye bye!!

Actually it is the government looking at all that 401k money to take.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K

On 24/07/2010 3:07 PM, Califbill wrote:

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:11:18 -0400, Larry wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:39:16 -0400, wrote:

bpuharic wrote:

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

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.

so you say. the average 401K is less than 50K.

mine's bigger.

and so is my 401K

I'm far behind you in retirement age yet I have a large 401K/IRA. I
know that bothers you. If you knew how much you might kill yourself.

hey the fact you're rich bothers me not at all. good luck

but when you're my age...watch your ass. wall street's gonna look at
your 401K and decide it's too good for you to keep.

bye bye!!

Actually it is the government looking at all that 401k money to take.

Which is why this fall is going to be brutal on the markets. Say you
are over 65, have a loaded 401k/IRA -- and taxes are going to go up
sharply for 2011...might want to withdraw this year at a better
federal/state rate than next year. I will predict, December is going to
see some real down swings if not sooner.

--

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

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K

On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 14:07:48 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:11:18 -0400, Larry wrote:

so you say. the average 401K is less than 50K.

mine's bigger.

and so is my 401K

I'm far behind you in retirement age yet I have a large 401K/IRA. I
know that bothers you. If you knew how much you might kill yourself.

hey the fact you're rich bothers me not at all. good luck

but when you're my age...watch your ass. wall street's gonna look at
your 401K and decide it's too good for you to keep.

bye bye!!

Actually it is the government looking at all that 401k money to take.

ROFLMAO!! the govt did not cause the 35% drop in my 401K in the last 3
years. that was WALL STREET

but, of course, this doesnt fit with right wing mythology which holds
up gordon gecko as its patron saint....

repeat after me:

'greed is good....'

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K

bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:07:06 -0400, wrote:

bpuharic wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:33:50 -0400, wrote:

i'm NOT comparing I(middle class) to I(rich)

i'm comparing

dI(middle class)/dt to dI(rich)/dt

wihich shows the middle class have grabbed every freakin' dime for
themselves and STARVED the middle class

WTF?

typo...the rich have grabbed...

Not a typo.