ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:32:25 -0400, wrote:

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?

that's the problem. there is none.


The whole basis for everyone's pension, 401k and IRA is that Wall
Street sector you seem to hate.

gee. that's why i'll have to work, like millions of others, until i'm
70

so you're right. wall street has our money for retirement

which means no one can retire. thanks. i already knew that

Retirees are by definition not adding
anything to the economy, they are living off of it.
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.

bull****. wall street produces nothing. there is no value added in
trading CDO's

you know **** about business. if what you say is true, then why is the
economy a disaster?

answer: because too many people believe as you do.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:42:56 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:28:20 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:


NOBODY in the middle class has had a raise; NOBODY

dooes the ENTIRE middle class suck at their jobs?

WHY is this ONLY in the US? is it ONLY the US middle class that sucks?


Wall streets and the big banks
were greedy so they insured the loans and sold them for even more
profit.
That was criminal, but all started because government gave away the
house.

EXACTLY!! right wing BULL**** said 'smaller govt and less regulation
will give the free market a chance to work'

and THAT destroyed the US economy. the middle class was NOT at fault


Man you'd better slow down. All this ranting will take its toll on your
health.

gee. imagine what i'm gonna be like when i still have to work at 70 to
support wall street.


BTW.....many of your "middle class" Americans have had increases over the
past ten years. They are called merit increases.

more incredibly stupid bull****.

INFLATION ADJUSTED wages have not risen in 30 years

are you naturally stupid or do you practice?


No I'm not stupid. When you say that ALL middle class workers have not had
a raise above inflation YOU are patently WRONG. Don't you believe that
qualified workers get "merit increases"?

I'll be 70 next month and I'm doing just fine. I truly feel for you and you
negative outlook. I'm serious, with your attitude you will probably not
make 70.

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

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

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


"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:42:56 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:



more incredibly stupid bull****.

INFLATION ADJUSTED wages have not risen in 30 years

are you naturally stupid or do you practice?


No I'm not stupid. When you say that ALL middle class workers have not had
a raise above inflation YOU are patently WRONG. Don't you believe that
qualified workers get "merit increases"?

really? where's your proof? because here's mine.

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

WHERE ARE THE REAL INCREASES IN WAGES??

you scream that they exist

where are they??


I'll be 70 next month and I'm doing just fine.

when you become the entire middle class, let me know.

I truly feel for you and you
negative outlook. I'm serious, with your attitude you will probably not
make 70.

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.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:42:56 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:28:20 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:


NOBODY in the middle class has had a raise; NOBODY

dooes the ENTIRE middle class suck at their jobs?

WHY is this ONLY in the US? is it ONLY the US middle class that sucks?


Wall streets and the big banks
were greedy so they insured the loans and sold them for even more
profit.
That was criminal, but all started because government gave away the
house.

EXACTLY!! right wing BULL**** said 'smaller govt and less regulation
will give the free market a chance to work'

and THAT destroyed the US economy. the middle class was NOT at fault


Man you'd better slow down. All this ranting will take its toll on your
health.

gee. imagine what i'm gonna be like when i still have to work at 70 to
support wall street.


BTW.....many of your "middle class" Americans have had increases over the
past ten years. They are called merit increases.

more incredibly stupid bull****.

INFLATION ADJUSTED wages have not risen in 30 years

are you naturally stupid or do you practice?


Why should someone get a raise above inflation? Did they improve the bottom
line? Those that get raises get merit raises. I got those when I worked,
but I also help produce increases in income. Just because you were there a
year, you do not deserve a raise above inflation, maybe not a raise at all.
If you are doing the same amount of work and producing the same amount of
widgets per year, and the cost of widgets went down, you should get a
decrease in pay. Raises are not an entitlement!

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:36:49 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:



"bpuharic" wrote in message


there's a reason CDO's went from 1 trillion in 97 to SIXTY TWO
TRILLION in 2007

greed of the rich. it had NOTHING to do with the middle class


you dont know **** about anything, let alone the middle class

I may be dumb, but not anywhere as dumb as you. I have bought several
houses, I own my house.

no one cares. you're not the entire middle class. you simply think
you're rich so it MUST be god on your side

go ahead. sell that attitude to the millions who cant make mortgage
payments, or lose their jobs.

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!

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:58:08 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:


doesn't Obama also employ Paulson?

No he is teaching now.(Johns Hopkins)
insert joke here

I was never a fan of his, but I'll give him credit that he actually tried to
do the right thing and got Bush to listen. Sort of on the order of Nixon,
who also opened up China.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:42:39 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 22/07/2010 4:21 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:36:49 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:
s. you simply think
you're rich so it MUST be god on your side

go ahead. sell that attitude to the millions who cant make mortgage
payments, or lose their jobs.

Bill's stopy is not quique. Those that are "conservative" and don't
worship debt do far better than liberal debt mongers.

gee. that biggest spenders in history are conservatives.


Maybe previously, but the liberals in charge have spent more in the last 18
months than almost all the conservatives combined.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:29:12 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

You keep talking about unions, form one.

in the US you can't form a union without getting fired.

You missed the whole concept of unions. The point used to be that the
workers were so important to the operation that you couldn't fire them
all. Are you saying that you are so expendable that if your whole
office walked out, the company could replace you immediately?
We may be touching on why you haven't had a raise in 30 years.

I know the world thinks unions are all just take but I grew up around
the people who built the Teamsters union (yes I knew Hoffa) and there
was a lot of pain in that process.
BTW the biggest union busters in government were democrats.
I also understand in a NAFTA/GATT world, unions are not really going
to work until you can organize China, India, Mexico and Vietnam. It is
not an American problem.

Thanks for the perspective.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

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.

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.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:32:25 -0400, wrote:

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?

that's the problem. there is none.


The whole basis for everyone's pension, 401k and IRA is that Wall
Street sector you seem to hate.

gee. that's why i'll have to work, like millions of others, until i'm
70

so you're right. wall street has our money for retirement

which means no one can retire. thanks. i already knew that

Retirees are by definition not adding
anything to the economy, they are living off of it.
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.

bull****. wall street produces nothing. there is no value added in
trading CDO's

you know **** about business. if what you say is true, then why is the
economy a disaster?

answer: because too many people believe as you do.


Not sure how old you are, but if you're in your late 40s, there's still time
to have a shot at a decent retirement income. You might want to consider
alternative instruments, such as a modified whole-life insurance policy.
They're not just about death benefits. There are some that will give you a
payout that is tax-free income between say 70 and 85, and still leave you
some cash balance without taking away from the death benefit over much. I'd
suggest talking to a reputable agent, e.g., New York Life or another of the
biggies.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:06:33 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:58:08 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:


doesn't Obama also employ Paulson?

No he is teaching now.(Johns Hopkins)
insert joke here

I was never a fan of his, but I'll give him credit that he actually tried to
do the right thing and got Bush to listen. Sort of on the order of Nixon,
who also opened up China.

actually i agree. he recognized that the banks would need to be
rescued. unlike the far right, he knew allowing them to fail would
repeat 1929

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:01:59 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:



"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:42:56 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:


more incredibly stupid bull****.

INFLATION ADJUSTED wages have not risen in 30 years

are you naturally stupid or do you practice?


Why should someone get a raise above inflation?

ladies and gentlemen...there's a name for this question. it's called
'backpedaling'.

he shrieked that the middle class was doing fine. great! perfect! we
were all getting these huge merit based wage increases.

NOW that i've shoved the truth up his...ahem...nose...he's reduced to
pleading that the middle class doesnt deserve squat.

the reason we deserve increases is the following

1. productivity has increased about 30% in the last 10 years alone.
sharing NONE of this with america's middle class is GREED. pure and
simple.

we've seen WALL STREET greed. and now we see CORPORATE
greed...balanced on the backs of america's middle class

2. and this is a critical point...

THE MIDDLE CLASS IS THE BACKBONE OF THE ECONOMY.

yes, that's right folks. the right wing, as he admitted...wants to
destroy the middle class by denying them any wage increases at all

BUT when you do this, you wind up with a middle class that has NO
spending power. consumer spending accounts for about 70% of GDP

you right wingers want ALL the money to go to the rich without
realizing that, when you do this, you destroy 70% of the GDP

THEN you're shocked...SHOCKED when we go into a depression because the
middle class can't spend.

THIS is why you guys are clueless. you work like ants to do EVERYTHING
to destroy middle class wage earners THEN cant understand when
consumers stop spending!!


Did they improve the bottom
line? Those that get raises get merit raises. I got those when I worked,
but I also help produce increases in income. Just because you were there a
year, you do not deserve a raise above inflation, maybe not a raise at all.
If you are doing the same amount of work and producing the same amount of
widgets per year, and the cost of widgets went down, you should get a
decrease in pay. Raises are not an entitlement!

you keep bleating on with your bizarre cult questions as if what I am
doing affects 100,000,000 other americans.

face it rush-boy. the middle class is being wrecked by exactly the
policies you advocate.

and it blows your fuses to see that the middle class cant spend, and
cant drive the economy because we have no money

it's quite straightforward to anyone but the far right

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:07:32 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:



"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:42:39 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 22/07/2010 4:21 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:36:49 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:
s. you simply think
you're rich so it MUST be god on your side

go ahead. sell that attitude to the millions who cant make mortgage
payments, or lose their jobs.

Bill's stopy is not quique. Those that are "conservative" and don't
worship debt do far better than liberal debt mongers.

gee. that biggest spenders in history are conservatives.


Maybe previously, but the liberals in charge have spent more in the last 18
months than almost all the conservatives combined.

you DO realize that the spending in the first year of obama's
govt...was determined by george bush...bush raised the deficit to 9%
of GDP.

so, again, you give us proof of your racism

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:06:26 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:



"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:36:49 -0700, "Califbill"

I may be dumb, but not anywhere as dumb as you. I have bought several
houses, I own my house.

no one cares. you're not the entire middle class. you simply think
you're rich so it MUST be god on your side

go ahead. sell that attitude to the millions who cant make mortgage
payments, or lose their jobs.

I am not rich. A long ways from rich.

gee. i get the rich mixed up with their right wing sock puppets. sorry

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.

which is irrelevant to 100M americans trying to make a living and
being wrecked by wall street

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!

yeah. who needs food and clothing for the kids! let 'em starve! if
they're not rich, screw 'em

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:10:02 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:



"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:03:21 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

you be sure and let me know

Sensationizing are we? Advertising how big of a loser you are?

yeah. me and 100M other americans.

And yet
you vote Obama who blows Trillions on corruption....LMAO

notice he hates the middle class THEN blames the black president for
what the white rich boy president caused?

you're probably the only canadian who flies a klan flag on his front
porch

Capitol gains is partly so people will invest for the long term.

which is bull****. it costs about 50 cents for every dollar we give to
the rich in captial gains

check out the chart about half way down the page here

http://www.tnr.com/blogs/jonathan-chait

giving the rich more money COSTS the economy money.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:14:04 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:32:25 -0400, wrote:


you know **** about business. if what you say is true, then why is the
economy a disaster?

answer: because too many people believe as you do.


Not sure how old you are, but if you're in your late 40s, there's still time
to have a shot at a decent retirement income.

that's true. unfortunately i'm 55. it's going to be a long hot summer

You might want to consider
alternative instruments, such as a modified whole-life insurance policy.
They're not just about death benefits. There are some that will give you a
payout that is tax-free income between say 70 and 85, and still leave you
some cash balance without taking away from the death benefit over much. I'd
suggest talking to a reputable agent, e.g., New York Life or another of the
biggies.

i'd thought about that but the matching from my employer's 401K is
pretty good...i also have been talking with my funds manager about the
slowing of the economy to see where we go from here.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

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


"bpuharic" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:42:56 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:



more incredibly stupid bull****.

INFLATION ADJUSTED wages have not risen in 30 years

are you naturally stupid or do you practice?


No I'm not stupid. When you say that ALL middle class workers have not
had
a raise above inflation YOU are patently WRONG. Don't you believe that
qualified workers get "merit increases"?

really? where's your proof? because here's mine.

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

WHERE ARE THE REAL INCREASES IN WAGES??

you scream that they exist

where are they??


I'll be 70 next month and I'm doing just fine.

when you become the entire middle class, let me know.

I truly feel for you and you
negative outlook. I'm serious, with your attitude you will probably not
make 70.

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.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

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?

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:08:43 -0500, Jim wrote:


Channels 401k to equities, because money markets pay squat.
Only early boomers made out in the Wall Street Ponzi scheme.
Now it's a sucker's bet. But the gov is keeping it alive because Wall
Street owns them.
Won't last too much longer.
bpuharic is right about the redistribution of wealth.
He has no idea about what "middle class" means.

since i'm in it, that's like saying a fish has no idea about water

The "wealth" disparity is getting crazy and the economy HAS been
manipulated by the "rich" to their benefit.

yep. and it's turning the US into mexico. we're wrecking the engine
of driving our economy. and the right just applauds

But he still doesn't get it that Clinton and Obama are in the Wall
Street pocket as much as anybody.

to a certain extent, that's true. unfortunately, our electoral system
leaves us no choices. elections are financed by the wealthy for their
benefit. until we break that cycle, there's little hope of doing
anything

BUT at least the dems are less prone to the free market fundamentalism
that's taken over the GOP


Maybe Obama not so deep.
Real capitalism has nothing to do with Wall Street socialism.
Unfortunately, real capitalism probably flourishes best in Commie China
and Somalia. It's run it's course here unless consumer and labor
markets get protected by the gov. We're going downhill fast.

Jim - Removing my thinking cap now.

i actually have no problem with capitalism. in my teen years, i WAS a
socialist. but socialism does not work. the only system that does is
capitalism

BUT it n eeds to be regulated and controlled so that its fruits can
grow the economy.

starving the middle class to enrich the already rich is a recipe for
disaster

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:14:04 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:32:25 -0400, wrote:


you know **** about business. if what you say is true, then why is the
economy a disaster?

answer: because too many people believe as you do.


Not sure how old you are, but if you're in your late 40s, there's still
time
to have a shot at a decent retirement income.

that's true. unfortunately i'm 55. it's going to be a long hot summer

You might want to consider
alternative instruments, such as a modified whole-life insurance policy.
They're not just about death benefits. There are some that will give you a
payout that is tax-free income between say 70 and 85, and still leave you
some cash balance without taking away from the death benefit over much.
I'd
suggest talking to a reputable agent, e.g., New York Life or another of
the
biggies.

i'd thought about that but the matching from my employer's 401K is
pretty good...i also have been talking with my funds manager about the
slowing of the economy to see where we go from here.



Finally....a rational thought.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:14:04 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:32:25 -0400, wrote:


you know **** about business. if what you say is true, then why is the
economy a disaster?

answer: because too many people believe as you do.


Not sure how old you are, but if you're in your late 40s, there's still
time
to have a shot at a decent retirement income.

that's true. unfortunately i'm 55. it's going to be a long hot summer

You might want to consider
alternative instruments, such as a modified whole-life insurance policy.
They're not just about death benefits. There are some that will give you a
payout that is tax-free income between say 70 and 85, and still leave you
some cash balance without taking away from the death benefit over much.
I'd
suggest talking to a reputable agent, e.g., New York Life or another of
the
biggies.

i'd thought about that but the matching from my employer's 401K is
pretty good...i also have been talking with my funds manager about the
slowing of the economy to see where we go from here.



At 55 you'd still see some benefit but it wouldn't be as good. I'd
definitely fund your 401K with the match but no more. The problem is that
taxes will increase, and you're going to have to take the money out at some
point. Even if you can offset somewhat, it'll still help.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

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

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.

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.



Well put. That's why I've been slowly removing money from my traditional
IRA for the past ten years to minimize the tax implications as much as I
can.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:49:19 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:14:04 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


i'd thought about that but the matching from my employer's 401K is
pretty good...i also have been talking with my funds manager about the
slowing of the economy to see where we go from here.



At 55 you'd still see some benefit but it wouldn't be as good. I'd
definitely fund your 401K with the match but no more. The problem is that
taxes will increase, and you're going to have to take the money out at some
point. Even if you can offset somewhat, it'll still help.

yeah i've been doing the minimum for awhile. lots of managers
recommend putting 10-20% in but no one has that kind of money and it's
nonsense to do that when it's far from certain wall street has a clue
about anything

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

"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.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

nom=de=plume wrote:

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:14:04 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:32:25 -0400, wrote:


you know **** about business. if what you say is true, then why is the
economy a disaster?

answer: because too many people believe as you do.


Not sure how old you are, but if you're in your late 40s, there's
still time
to have a shot at a decent retirement income.

that's true. unfortunately i'm 55. it's going to be a long hot summer

You might want to consider
alternative instruments, such as a modified whole-life insurance policy.
They're not just about death benefits. There are some that will give
you a
payout that is tax-free income between say 70 and 85, and still leave
you
some cash balance without taking away from the death benefit over
much. I'd
suggest talking to a reputable agent, e.g., New York Life or another
of the
biggies.

i'd thought about that but the matching from my employer's 401K is
pretty good...i also have been talking with my funds manager about the
slowing of the economy to see where we go from here.



At 55 you'd still see some benefit but it wouldn't be as good. I'd
definitely fund your 401K with the match but no more. The problem is
that taxes will increase, and you're going to have to take the money out
at some point. Even if you can offset somewhat, it'll still help.


Bad advice. With catch-up he can put $22k this year in the 401k.
He should be maxing that to shelter it from taxes.
Even if it's money market with no return.
The feds won't let MM go below par because the economy would collapse.
That tax savings is money in the bank.
Maybe about 5 grand for him.
When he takes it out upon retirement he'll be in a lower or no-tax bracket.
Save, save, save. Then you die.
Or you could gamble with equity funds. But don't cry about it.

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

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

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.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

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

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:14:04 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:32:25 -0400, wrote:


you know **** about business. if what you say is true, then why is the
economy a disaster?

answer: because too many people believe as you do.


Not sure how old you are, but if you're in your late 40s, there's still
time
to have a shot at a decent retirement income.

that's true. unfortunately i'm 55. it's going to be a long hot summer

You might want to consider
alternative instruments, such as a modified whole-life insurance
policy.
They're not just about death benefits. There are some that will give
you a
payout that is tax-free income between say 70 and 85, and still leave
you
some cash balance without taking away from the death benefit over much.
I'd
suggest talking to a reputable agent, e.g., New York Life or another of
the
biggies.

i'd thought about that but the matching from my employer's 401K is
pretty good...i also have been talking with my funds manager about the
slowing of the economy to see where we go from here.



At 55 you'd still see some benefit but it wouldn't be as good. I'd
definitely fund your 401K with the match but no more. The problem is that
taxes will increase, and you're going to have to take the money out at
some point. Even if you can offset somewhat, it'll still help.


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.

Even if it's money market with no return.

?? That makes no sense at all.

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.

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.

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.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

"D.Duck" wrote in message
...

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

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.

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.



Well put. That's why I've been slowly removing money from my traditional
IRA for the past ten years to minimize the tax implications as much as I
can.

Exactly. I know a couple of people who got a doubt whammy. They need the
money, which is taxed, but there's less of it because of the downturn.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

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.

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?