|
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
"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 |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
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. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
wrote in message ... 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. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
wrote in message ... 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. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
|
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
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 |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
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 |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
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 |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
|
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
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 |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On 7/23/10 6:21 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:57:44 -0600, 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 Translation of Canuckistan: The one share of stock he inherited dropped in value again, and he won't have the U.S. cash he needs to order a couple of Snickers bars from the 7-11 across the border. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
|
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
|
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
"Harry ?" wrote in message
... On 7/23/10 8:16 AM, I am Tosk wrote: In , says... 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. Do you disagree that every tax hike is "across the board"? Really, if a "rich guy" is making a million dollars a year and paying a quarter million in taxes, next year he has to pay half a million in taxes, do you doubt that he will find a way to increase his bottom line (coming directly out of everyones pocket) to make up for it? When the price of Widgets goes up, who pays the difference, only the rich? No, it's you and me, and proportionally, we pay more than the so called "rich"... You have no job and no income. You pay nothing in federal income tax. You appear to be a stalker Krowsie. -- Harold |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
|
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
In article ,
says... "Harry ?" wrote in message ... On 7/23/10 8:16 AM, I am Tosk wrote: In , says... 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. Do you disagree that every tax hike is "across the board"? Really, if a "rich guy" is making a million dollars a year and paying a quarter million in taxes, next year he has to pay half a million in taxes, do you doubt that he will find a way to increase his bottom line (coming directly out of everyones pocket) to make up for it? When the price of Widgets goes up, who pays the difference, only the rich? No, it's you and me, and proportionally, we pay more than the so called "rich"... You have no job and no income. You pay nothing in federal income tax. You appear to be a stalker Krowsie. I make and pay more than our resident pedophile, Harry. I have offered several times to match tax returns to prove it, but he won't. Can you guess why??? ;) -- Rowdy Mouse Racing - We race for cheese! |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
|
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
"I am Tosk" wrote in message
... In article , says... "Harry ?" wrote in message ... On 7/23/10 8:16 AM, I am Tosk wrote: In , says... 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. Do you disagree that every tax hike is "across the board"? Really, if a "rich guy" is making a million dollars a year and paying a quarter million in taxes, next year he has to pay half a million in taxes, do you doubt that he will find a way to increase his bottom line (coming directly out of everyones pocket) to make up for it? When the price of Widgets goes up, who pays the difference, only the rich? No, it's you and me, and proportionally, we pay more than the so called "rich"... You have no job and no income. You pay nothing in federal income tax. You appear to be a stalker Krowsie. I make and pay more than our resident pedophile, Harry. I have offered several times to match tax returns to prove it, but he won't. Can you guess why??? ;) -- Rowdy Mouse Racing - We race for cheese! Is he one of those dumbocrats that forgets to file year after year? -- Harold |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
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. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
|
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
|
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
|
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On 7/23/10 5:21 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:38:36 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:27:19 -0400, wrote: doesnt do much for the right wing bull**** that american workers earn the fruits of their labors OSHA is far from a slap on the wrist. really? what was the fine for the workers BP killed in houston? what was the fine for the mine workers killed in WVA? What would a union do? unions were the driving force behind most worker protection legislation of today. that includes vacations and weekends. if you ever had a vacation or a weekend thank the unions The Bush Administration almost totally destroyed OSHA in terms of its ability to go after employers in order to protect workers. Many modern European nations provide far more protection for their workers. Another failure is workers' comp. Employers hide behind it, knowing the amount of money they'll have to pay out in case fo worker injury is not substantial. It's not easy to pursue tort cases against employers when workers' comp is involved. Employers consider their employees just another cheap commodity when it comes to their safety. From Reuters, today: Key rig alarm disabled before blast -rig worker Fri Jul 23, 2010 5:07pm EDT * Alarm could have alerted crew to dangerous gas buildup * Some key rig witnesses decline to appear before panel By Chris Baltimore and Alyson Zepeda HOUSTON, July 23 (Reuters) - An emergency alarm that could have warned workers aboard the doomed Deepwater Horizon Gulf of Mexico drilling rig was intentionally disabled, a rig engineer told U.S. investigators on Friday. Mike Williams, chief engineer technician aboard Swiss-based Transocean Ltd's RIGN.S (RIG.N) rig, said the general alarm that could have detected the cloud of flammable methane gas that enveloped the rig's deck on April 20 was "inhibited." "They (rig managers) did not want people woke up at three o'clock in the morning from false alarms," Williams told a six-member federal board in the New Orleans suburb of Kenner, Louisiana. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
|
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On 7/23/10 5:45 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:28:39 -0400, Harry wrote: The Bush Administration almost totally destroyed OSHA in terms of its ability to go after employers in order to protect workers. How did they do that? I know OSHA scares the hell out of the people around here. When a "go team" shows up in an area they inspect every job site they see and the fines start at $1000 going up to $10,000 per violation and they always find violations, no matter how trivial they may be. If a guy on the job has an "expired" hard hat ... $1000. Stuff like that. (yes hard hats have a date on them). You can start he Controversies OSHA Under Bush Investigations by the New York Times and Washington Post have pointed out that the Bush administration has consistently scaled back OSHA regulations and enforcement efforts during this decade. The changes reflect President Bush’s vow to limit new rules and roll back what it considered cumbersome regulations that imposed unnecessary costs on businesses. According to the New York Times, OSHA has issued the fewest significant standards in its history during Bush’s two terms in office. It has imposed only one major safety rule, and the only significant health standard it issued was ordered by a federal court. http://allgov.com/agency/Occupationa...ation__OSH A_ There are many well-researched articles on how the Bush Admin gutted agencies that were supposed to help protect workers and consumers. Bush made OSHA into a "business friendly" outfit. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On 7/23/10 5:48 PM, I am Tosk wrote:
In , says... On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:28:39 -0400, Harry wrote: The Bush Administration almost totally destroyed OSHA in terms of its ability to go after employers in order to protect workers. How did they do that? I know OSHA scares the hell out of the people around here. When a "go team" shows up in an area they inspect every job site they see and the fines start at $1000 going up to $10,000 per violation and they always find violations, no matter how trivial they may be. If a guy on the job has an "expired" hard hat ... $1000. Stuff like that. (yes hard hats have a date on them). Harry is trying real hard to justify Unions, and deflect from the fact that Corps need more protection from Unions than Workers need from Corps. This is a fact he really can't dispute so he keeps throwing up whatever talking point he thinks will stick! You're a funny guy. You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground on just about any matter relating to politics, history, or current events, and you keep on proving it, over and over and over, ad nauseum. You're an uneducated, ignorant, easily manipulated dumb****, Scotty. You're precisely the sort of viewer that Fox News loves. Hell, you parrot its lies and made up stories here. You're just another right-wing, unemployed, racially stirred up bum. If you lived in Montana or Wyoming, you'd be on a white man's hate compound, holding up a semi-auto weapon and fornicating with sheep, just like the rest of those boys. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
|
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:48:02 -0400, I am Tosk
wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:28:39 -0400, Harry ? wrote: The Bush Administration almost totally destroyed OSHA in terms of its ability to go after employers in order to protect workers. How did they do that? I know OSHA scares the hell out of the people around here. When a "go team" shows up in an area they inspect every job site they see and the fines start at $1000 going up to $10,000 per violation and they always find violations, no matter how trivial they may be. If a guy on the job has an "expired" hard hat ... $1000. Stuff like that. (yes hard hats have a date on them). Harry is trying real hard to justify Unions, and deflect from the fact that Corps need more protection from Unions than Workers need from Corps. This is a fact he really can't dispute so he keeps throwing up whatever talking point he thinks will stick! gee. is that why the germans have such a competiive economy even though thier workforce is heavily unionize? and the US has no unions... and what protection do companies need from unions? unions have NO power at all. none. corporations run the govt. let's see...who destroyed wall street...corporations like lehman bros or unions?? |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 20:05:43 -0400, wrote: bpuharic wrote: On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:42:56 -0400, wrote: INFLATION ADJUSTED wages have not risen in 30 years are you naturally stupid or do you practice? Wow! You finally caught on about the "adjusted for inflation" part of the graph you posted a dozen times gee. so did you.. more backpedaling? You really are dumb. Based on that graph the middle class had a rather large increase in income. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
|
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:33:50 -0400, wrote: bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:09:47 -0400, wrote: 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%*!?!? uh no. let I be income let t be time 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? |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:47:19 -0400, wrote: bpuharic wrote: Only the dumb ones. I retired when I was 49 but I did have a little hobby job for a few years after that. so 100M americans are dumb you right whiners think your little fairy tales have an impact on the middle class. wrong Your problem is you don't read well and come up with these crazy knee-jerk responses. You have blinders on and, apparently, they have been on your whole life. folks generally do make that complaint when they get bitch slapped You were "bitch slapped"? You're nuts, dude. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:42:07 -0400, wrote: bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:02:38 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:06:53 -0400, wrote: I asked if your 401K had a money market fund. By putting your money in same, you could have prevented the losses you took. gee. where was your crystal ball in 2006? I sold a lot of stock in 2006, you should have asked me. I sold off my home builder stock in 2004. I am actually swimming in that money (my pool) gee. too bad most m iddle class americans will have to work 'til they're 70 Not if they applied themselves, worked hard, and saved money. ROFLMAO!! so it's the middle class's fault?? HAHAHAHAHA!! How dumb are you? You talk about the middle class as if everyone in it were the same. They're not, dip****. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
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. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 20:09:36 -0400, wrote: bpuharic wrote: On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:10:02 -0700, "Califbill" wrote: 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. Who is giving the rich money? Obama wants to give the losers *our* money. correct. because we h ave no choice but it's time to pass a few bux to the mddle class So why should the middle class, or anyone, hand over hard earned money to the losers who choose not to work or get an education? |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:41:04 -0400, wrote: bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:05:16 -0400, wrote: 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. uh no. you dont understand the difference between an expense and a loss Of course I do. You covered both in your lousy statement and I responded accordingly. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 20:13:47 -0400, wrote: Yup. Obama's off-the-chart spending will certainly increase taxes. He can't keep printing money forever. actually it's bush. obama's first year budget was a carry over from bush. and it had a 9% GDP deficit. but he's black... You are nothing but a ****ing troll or a remarkably dumb person. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
Canuck57 wrote:
On 22/07/2010 5:52 PM, Larry wrote: Canuck57 wrote: On 21/07/2010 8:51 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:36:22 -0600, wrote: On 21/07/2010 7:53 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:35:19 -0400, wrote: Only the dumb ones. I retired when I was 49 but I did have a little hobby job for a few years after that. so 100M americans are dumb you right whiners think your little fairy tales have an impact on the middle class. wrong Nope, many of them become lillionaires! And before they are 50... Only the portion that is not thinking correctly end up losers and without raises. why not check the GINI coefficient? the US has the least social mobility of 10 western democracies, except for the UK Because many have lost the American way, trading it in for envy, greed and entitlement -- which do not work. Plus, your born much better off than 80% of the world to start with. In in Afganistan, less than a 50% chance you can read when you are 20. The room to grow their is high. Bum to Saddam or Obama, sorry, Osama in a lifetime is real and fewer people to compete with. more facts to blow your bull**** away. and those without raises? that's the ENTIRE MIDDLE CLASS http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...the-day-6.html I actually don't entirely disagree with you in that being middle class is now tougher than ever before. But I disagree with the reason. Big fat corruptive government is the cause. Track total government revnue against wages...you will see government outsrips income. And you can't keep having government grow like a cancer. At some point, DC will go bankrupt. And Obama will have the dubious honor of kicking DC past the tipping point. DC will tip over? Like Guam? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9R-cQ_A_6w I would look up his constituancy, but at least 50% of the people there are dumber than nails for voting for jack ass. What an imbecile. Should give him a drug test. You never saw that before? |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
bpuharic wrote:
you're just not very bright Now *that's* funny! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:41 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com