|
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:15:24 -0400, Larry wrote:
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. Or Ninc de Poop in drag. -- John H |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:07:06 -0400, Larry wrote:
bpuharic wrote: On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:33:50 -0400, wrote: i'm NOT comparing I(middle class) to I(rich) i'm comparing dI(middle class)/dt to dI(rich)/dt wihich shows the middle class have grabbed every freakin' dime for themselves and STARVED the middle class WTF? typo...the rich have grabbed... |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:09:12 -0400, Larry wrote:
bpuharic wrote: On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:42:07 -0400, wrote: 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****. the term 'middle class' has a definition. i'm proud to be middle class. but the rich, of course, wont let us stay here... mexico, here we come... |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:11:18 -0400, Larry wrote:
bpuharic wrote: On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:39:16 -0400, wrote: bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:03:06 -0400, wrote: and what makes you think loan officers arent interested in money? I said, and I know I misspelled a word, that I realize that they can be liquidated. They are still of not interest to a loan officer as collateral. I'm quite bright. I have a large 401K/IRA. You, apparently don't. so you say. the average 401K is less than 50K. mine's bigger. and so is my 401K I'm far behind you in retirement age yet I have a large 401K/IRA. I know that bothers you. If you knew how much you might kill yourself. hey the fact you're rich bothers me not at all. good luck but when you're my age...watch your ass. wall street's gonna look at your 401K and decide it's too good for you to keep. bye bye!! |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:12:57 -0400, Larry wrote:
bpuharic wrote: On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 20:09:36 -0400, wrote: 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? notice how the right HATES the middle class?? they consider just and decent wages a form of welfare to them, the middle class should be starved to death. izzat right, henry? oh...by the by...how do you have a healthy economy w/o a middle class? the right wing just doesnt think these things through |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:15:24 -0400, Larry wrote:
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. did you have to lift your hood to type that? |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 22:14:09 -0400, John H
wrote: On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:15:24 -0400, Larry wrote: 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. Or Ninc de Poop in drag. you boys burn the cross yet? |
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
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:37:25 -0600, Canuck57 wrote: Number one reason people get in trouble is debt. More debt than they can manage. And always more debt than is good for them. more bull****. you guys are clueless ever wonder why, all of a sudden the ENTIRE middle class is having problems even though this was not a problem 10 years ago? gee...is it a change in the middle class OR a change in the policies of wall street. well, let's look at evideence, shall we? 1997 CDO's 1 trillion 2007 62 TRILLION yeah i'm sure the middle class had a BIG role in that... god...you guys would drown in the rain if seomeone didnt take you in bpuharics of the world, dime a dozen debt mongers in open denial of the facts. US houselhod wealth 2005 65 trillion 2009 55 trillion so tell me how the middle class caused this. you're such an idiot. No, you are the idiot. Always been a percentage of middle class on the verge of financial trouble or in financial trouble. Probably more now, as the mentality, was buy it now, as everything is going up in value, and I can turn the house for a $2-300k profit after 3 years and pay off the stuff. Ponzi. Lots got caught, probably you with your crying. Older daughter and son in law, got caught somewhat. Sold good, solid dividend paying stock and went 100% dot.com. Lost most of the money. Were pretty well to do on paper for about 2 years. CDO's would barely affect you if you did not invest in them and kept a decent portfolio. You would be affected, but not that much as the whole financial world was hit by it. But invest in good, basic industries that will survive as their products are always required. People will always buy toilet paper, oil will be required for ours and at least another lifetime. People will still buy beer, and tobacco products, probably more when they are sitting around on the dole. Buy a house you can afford. 3-4x your yearly income maximum. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On 7/24/10 3:52 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 13:33:53 -0500, Richard Casady wrote: On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:26:51 -0400, wrote: There are some BP middle managers who should go to jail over this. I am not really sure how they will get prosecuted tho, since this happened in international waters. The prescedent is piracy. It is not that nobody has jurisdiction, everyone does. Casady I doubt you could fit negligent homicide into the international piracy statutes. We are having enough trouble charging real pirates off the coast of Somalia. I suppose the only recourse is in civil court but that will only punish the BP stock holders and make a bunch of lawyers rich. The execs who killed those people probably won't even get fired. One of the problems with corporations is that our legal system pretty much gives them a free ride on liability, with limited fines. Criminal penalties are difficult to prosecute against corporate officers and high level staff. Some at BP should be prosecuted criminally and if convicted face long, long terms in federal slams, and the corporation itself should be fined billions and billions of dollars for the lives that were lost, the lives that have been ruined, and the damage to the environment. Perhaps if shareholders behaved a little differently, they'd push the companies they own to behave better. Perhaps sending BP down the toilet would teach shareholders a lesson... |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
"Jim" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: Unless he's right at the line, he won't be bumped to a higher one. He won't be taxed at a higher rate, but he'll be withdrawing much less if he wants his money to last. So, what comes out will be taxed. So, let's say he's making $120K filing a joint return. We'll use the current tax table. That's near the top end of the 25% range. He'd have to earn more than $17K to put him into the next range, and he said that his employer does some matching. Worst case he'd pay another 3%, assuming the same deductions, etc. So, just quick figures means paying $39.2K vs. $30K (diff is $9.2K). No. Let's say he runs his actual income through a tax program with and without maxing his 401k, and sees the difference in the wealth he has locked into the 401k money market, which is the only part of a 401k that has a glimmer of guaranteeing his contributions. Now let's look at what he will be withdrawing after he retires. What's a reasonable number? No idea, but let's say $75K (about $25K from SS). So, $50K of taxable income. At the current rate, that's 15%, which means after tax money is $42.5K. Not too bad, but can he live on it? Let's say yes. You're giving the gov't at least $7500/yr, and it's likely that the 15% is not going to be 15% in 15 years. It's going to be higher, almost certainly. You're speculating about future taxes with no basis for the speculation. But you're a speculator. On the other hand, let's just take the $17K and put that it into a non-taxable insurance plan. $17K x 15 years = $255K plus a modest rate of return, say 6%. He'd have something on order of $400K cash surrender value. He's now 70 and stops paying the premiums. The longer he waits before withdrawing money, the bigger the surrender value grows. 6% "modest?" Where have you been? All of these investment/retirement vehicles are based on equity indices or government paper. The latter type might be safer, but forget about 6%. Besides that, you're paying billionaire insurance company execs to buy government paper you can buy yourself. TIPS should be looked into too. Treasurydirect.gov Inflation beater. snip Pretty simple. You can't lose your contribution money as you could in equity funds. Remember, this is retirement money. And you're earning hardly anything or nothing? Seems like a bad deal except for a mad money source. Money markets provide some return. I have some money in one that pays 1.3% But I repeat, if your listening. Many people have LOST their actual contributions into equities. LOST THEIR RETIREMENT MONEY. DIRECTLY FROM THEIR PAYCHECK. This comes down to philosophy about what income is desired in retirement, risk and sacrifice. bpuharic has already suggested he can't max his 401k because of expenses. He's 55, making a good buck, and can't max his 401k? Tough. He's either living beyond his means and is the biggest crybaby in rec.boats or has some problems he hasn't discussed here. You and him don't think how I do. The feds won't let MM go below par because the economy would collapse. That tax savings is money in the bank. ?? There tax savings of investing in a 401K is minimal at this point. Don't know what you're talking about there. I don't understand what you meant by "tax savings" is money in the bank. What tax savings? As I said, run his taxes with and without the $22k 401k contribution. Not guessing his salary, but running the facts through the tax mill. But only he can do that, and only he can see the money on the 401k bottom line. snip But, as I said, you'll have to pay the taxes at some point. See above. I can tell you I was paying 25% before I retired, and 10-15 now. And that 25% doesn't do justice to all the other taxes and hits I was taking on gross when employed. My standard of living is the same or better. But I'm not exactly a spendthrift and never have been. It's silly to compare gross taxable income when employed to what you live on when retired. You might look at your employed net and expenses, and expected retirement net get a handle on it. Some people expect to be spending all kinds of money when retired, and some don't. I'm the latter. It's plain old taxes that anybody can quickly test with TurboTax or tax tables. He didn't spend $22k and he didn't pay $5500 in taxes on it. That's $27,500 more he has for retirement - at a lower tax rate too. Nothing could be simpler. Not necessarily at a lower rate, and he won't be getting that much to live on. See above. You'd rather have him listen to someone on Usenet? Professionals are professionals. They have lots of suggestions. Thinking adults with a measure of math skill are better off looking on the internet than going to any financial adviser. snip If he's making $150K that would mean he's already in the 28% range, and he'd really have to boost his income to get into the next bracket. "Brackets" should be understood. Say $149,999 is the limit of the 25% bracket. Say $150k starts the 28% bracket. You made exactly $150k. How much extra did hitting that 28% bracket cost you? 3 cents. Only the dollar above the the 25% bracket gets taxed at 28%. And if the lowest bracket is 10% up to 15k, you only paid 10% on the first 15k of your 150k income. Maybe you knew that, but talk about bumping into the next "bracket" is often from the uninformed. I knew a guy who wouldn't work Saturdays at time and a half only because he feared being bumped into a higher tax "bracket." So he gave up a 50% hike for fear of losing 5% of the Saturday pay in taxes. I didn't know that myself back then, but still thought he was wacky turning down a Saturday. What he said didn't smell right. It's a common misunderstanding of the tiered tax system. I understand you perfectly, but I don't think you understand the tax benefits of paying now vs. paying later. That's the Roth idea, except this one would give him a guaranteed income (vs. at the whim of the market) and a death benefit. Tax tables and retirement income projections can answer those questions. And the tax exclusion benefit from maxing his 401k is easily found. I won't argue more about that. bpuharic can do as he pleases. And if he's subject to NJ tax law he better look at that too. One thing we haven't discussed about 401k deductions is psychology. Won't go into it, except to say once you make the contribution election, you've locked in savings and adjusted disposable income. And that simple commitment can be a big life style change for some. Never was for me though. Saving came naturally. My main point is savings is savings. Money ain't free, and doesn't materialize from thin air. In my world you work for your money, save it and then protect it. That's what I did, and I'm doing just fine. It's all about moderation. Wall Street and equities never directly entered into it. Nor did financial advisers or insurance company annuities. It was always a simple spending versus savings equation. Not saying financial institutions and their effects on the economy didn't play into it, just that I didn't speculate and always took the safest and most guaranteed course in protecting my retirement money. The money grew from simple accretion and prevailing interest rates. I've always avoided debt, and always thought about effect on savings before spending. It was never hard to do. Never. And I never made the salary bpuharic says he makes. But I'm content and secure and happy to just be alive. Maybe that's the difference. What you expect from life. Hard for me to understand him whining about his 401k. But I don't believe he never heard "A sucker is born every minute." And he's not naive. So he's just using the 401k BS to make his larger political point about wealth redistribution, with which I agree. That's my conclusion for now. Jim - Speculation of my sort. As correct, 6% is pie in the sky. And Annuities come out as ordinary income. If any is left when you die, your heirs pay ordinary income on the remainder and you may be able to balance that against inheritance taxes. Buy a good dividend paying stock. PM for example. Pays 4.6% and is taxed as a dividend which is about capitol gains rate. You have the advantage of price appreciation likely also. When you die, the stock is valued as the day you die for your estate and your heirs get it at the new value. If your estate is less than the exemption, no taxes are due on the money. Annuities grow tax free, but get the maximum rate you pay. And if you die, that tax is on an amount as if you made that every year. Maximum rate. 35% now, 50% or more if congress raises the max rate. 70% goes to the government if they roll the max rate back to Ike's time. annuities are good for about one thing. Make the financial planner a huge commision. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 13:09:20 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:37:25 -0600, Canuck57 wrote: gee...is it a change in the middle class OR a change in the policies of wall street. well, let's look at evideence, shall we? 1997 CDO's 1 trillion 2007 62 TRILLION yeah i'm sure the middle class had a BIG role in that... US houselhod wealth 2005 65 trillion 2009 55 trillion so tell me how the middle class caused this. you're such an idiot. No, you are the idiot. Always been a percentage of middle class on the verge of financial trouble or in financial trouble what's amazing is that this SKYROCKETED in the last 3 years...and wall street, according to you, had nothing to do with it! the rich are good. greed is good. greed purifies and clarifies... or is that gordon gecko? I get you guys mixed up. Older daughter and son in law, got caught somewhat. Sold good, solid dividend paying stock and went 100% dot.com. Lost most of the money he just jabbers on about the family...not following the news, you see. he swills his cheap beer, listens to rush tell him everything's OK and just ignores the news... tell you what. try reading some news websites, OK? why not let me know what shape the economy is in...courtesy of your rich buddies on wall street. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:11:18 -0400, Larry wrote: bpuharic wrote: On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:39:16 -0400, wrote: bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:03:06 -0400, wrote: and what makes you think loan officers arent interested in money? I said, and I know I misspelled a word, that I realize that they can be liquidated. They are still of not interest to a loan officer as collateral. I'm quite bright. I have a large 401K/IRA. You, apparently don't. so you say. the average 401K is less than 50K. mine's bigger. and so is my 401K I'm far behind you in retirement age yet I have a large 401K/IRA. I know that bothers you. If you knew how much you might kill yourself. hey the fact you're rich bothers me not at all. good luck but when you're my age...watch your ass. wall street's gonna look at your 401K and decide it's too good for you to keep. bye bye!! Actually it is the government looking at all that 401k money to take. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On 24/07/2010 3:07 PM, Califbill wrote:
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:11:18 -0400, Larry wrote: bpuharic wrote: On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:39:16 -0400, wrote: bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:03:06 -0400, wrote: and what makes you think loan officers arent interested in money? I said, and I know I misspelled a word, that I realize that they can be liquidated. They are still of not interest to a loan officer as collateral. I'm quite bright. I have a large 401K/IRA. You, apparently don't. so you say. the average 401K is less than 50K. mine's bigger. and so is my 401K I'm far behind you in retirement age yet I have a large 401K/IRA. I know that bothers you. If you knew how much you might kill yourself. hey the fact you're rich bothers me not at all. good luck but when you're my age...watch your ass. wall street's gonna look at your 401K and decide it's too good for you to keep. bye bye!! Actually it is the government looking at all that 401k money to take. Which is why this fall is going to be brutal on the markets. Say you are over 65, have a loaded 401k/IRA -- and taxes are going to go up sharply for 2011...might want to withdraw this year at a better federal/state rate than next year. I will predict, December is going to see some real down swings if not sooner. -- Government has liberals, idealists and lawyers, but where is the common sense? |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 14:07:48 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:11:18 -0400, Larry wrote: so you say. the average 401K is less than 50K. mine's bigger. and so is my 401K I'm far behind you in retirement age yet I have a large 401K/IRA. I know that bothers you. If you knew how much you might kill yourself. hey the fact you're rich bothers me not at all. good luck but when you're my age...watch your ass. wall street's gonna look at your 401K and decide it's too good for you to keep. bye bye!! Actually it is the government looking at all that 401k money to take. ROFLMAO!! the govt did not cause the 35% drop in my 401K in the last 3 years. that was WALL STREET but, of course, this doesnt fit with right wing mythology which holds up gordon gecko as its patron saint.... repeat after me: 'greed is good....' |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 15:52:32 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 13:33:53 -0500, Richard Casady wrote: On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:26:51 -0400, wrote: There are some BP middle managers who should go to jail over this. I am not really sure how they will get prosecuted tho, since this happened in international waters. The prescedent is piracy. It is not that nobody has jurisdiction, everyone does. Casady I doubt you could fit negligent homicide into the international piracy statutes. We are having enough trouble charging real pirates off the coast of Somalia. I suppose the only recourse is in civil court but that will only punish the BP stock holders and make a bunch of lawyers rich. The execs who killed those people probably won't even get fired. I didn't say it was piracy, just that, as it is in that case, everyone is a victim and therefore everyone has jurisdiction. There is nowhere beyond the reach of the law, the lawyers saw to that. Casady |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:07:06 -0400, wrote: bpuharic wrote: On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:33:50 -0400, wrote: i'm NOT comparing I(middle class) to I(rich) i'm comparing dI(middle class)/dt to dI(rich)/dt wihich shows the middle class have grabbed every freakin' dime for themselves and STARVED the middle class WTF? typo...the rich have grabbed... Not a typo. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:12:57 -0400, wrote: bpuharic wrote: On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 20:09:36 -0400, wrote: 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? notice how the right HATES the middle class?? they consider just and decent wages a form of welfare to them, the middle class should be starved to death. izzat right, henry? oh...by the by...how do you have a healthy economy w/o a middle class? the right wing just doesnt think these things through You are out of your mind. Try reading the post that you are responding to. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:15:24 -0400, wrote: 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. did you have to lift your hood to type that? Again...WTF? |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 22:00:52 -0400, Larry wrote:
bpuharic wrote: On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:12:57 -0400, wrote: 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? notice how the right HATES the middle class?? they consider just and decent wages a form of welfare to them, the middle class should be starved to death. izzat right, henry? oh...by the by...how do you have a healthy economy w/o a middle class? the right wing just doesnt think these things through You are out of your mind. Try reading the post that you are responding to. i did. he called the middel class losers. that seems to be the theme for the upcoming political debate on taxex. we already have sharron angle and others telling us the unemployed are just lazy, worthless losers, but that the rich deserve tax cuts the right hates the middle class |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 22:01:24 -0400, Larry wrote:
bpuharic wrote: On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:15:24 -0400, wrote: 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. did you have to lift your hood to type that? Again...WTF? keeps going over your head...you just can't believe the right is racist |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 22:01:24 -0400, wrote: bpuharic wrote: On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:15:24 -0400, wrote: 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. did you have to lift your hood to type that? Again...WTF? keeps going over your head...you just can't believe the right is racist That type of hood? Again, you are as wrong as you are dumb. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 13:09:20 -0700, "Califbill" wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:37:25 -0600, Canuck57 wrote: gee...is it a change in the middle class OR a change in the policies of wall street. well, let's look at evideence, shall we? 1997 CDO's 1 trillion 2007 62 TRILLION yeah i'm sure the middle class had a BIG role in that... US houselhod wealth 2005 65 trillion 2009 55 trillion so tell me how the middle class caused this. you're such an idiot. No, you are the idiot. Always been a percentage of middle class on the verge of financial trouble or in financial trouble what's amazing is that this SKYROCKETED in the last 3 years...and wall street, according to you, had nothing to do with it! the rich are good. greed is good. greed purifies and clarifies... or is that gordon gecko? I get you guys mixed up. Older daughter and son in law, got caught somewhat. Sold good, solid dividend paying stock and went 100% dot.com. Lost most of the money he just jabbers on about the family...not following the news, you see. he swills his cheap beer, listens to rush tell him everything's OK and just ignores the news... tell you what. try reading some news websites, OK? why not let me know what shape the economy is in...courtesy of your rich buddies on wall street. Number one, I do not drink much and 2nd never cheap beer. |
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. which means i'll be a great candidate for GOP office |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On 7/25/10 11:41 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:13:42 -0400, wrote: gee. the germans have a world class export based economy that's HEAVILY unionized. the US, with NO unions, is not. Yeah, and such powerful unions they are. This union factory worker makes $22,000 a year and the government taxes more than half of that away for things like his "free" health care. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...M&refer=europe What's *your* solution for providing workers who don't earn tons of money a good health care and retirement program? |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:51:02 -0400, Harry ?
wrote: What's *your* solution for providing workers who don't earn tons of money a good health care and retirement program? And what is your rationale for believing that they have an inalienable right to either ? Traditionally good health care and good retirement plans were fringe benefits that employers used to attract and retain a top notch labor force. When did that become a "right" ? I find nothing in the constitution. Our ancestors grew up and proliferated without these "rights". How did they manage? Perhaps by being productive and thrifty? |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On 7/25/10 12:36 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:51:02 -0400, Harry wrote: What's *your* solution for providing workers who don't earn tons of money a good health care and retirement program? And what is your rationale for believing that they have an inalienable right to either ? Traditionally good health care and good retirement plans were fringe benefits that employers used to attract and retain a top notch labor force. When did that become a "right" ? I find nothing in the constitution. Our ancestors grew up and proliferated without these "rights". How did they manage? Perhaps by being productive and thrifty? My rationale is that they are fellow human beings, and therefore are entitled as an inalienable right to good health care and a reasonable retirement after a lifetime of working, *even if* they never earn enough money to do so on their own. The "I find nothing in the Constitution" is a vacuous argument. As a nation, we do many things and undertake many activities that are not strictly or even loosely defined in the Constitution. What do you expect the working poor to do, w'hine, to help you hang onto more of your dollars? Get sick and die? Miss an entire day of work to sit in a hospital ER for a flu shot? Live in a cardboard box when they are pushed out of their job and there aren't any more jobs? Be productive and thrifty is a wonderful aphorism for a time when such made a better life possible for workers trying to claw a step or two up the ladder. Nowadays, it takes to incomes to support even a small family. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On 25/07/2010 9:41 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:13:42 -0400, wrote: gee. the germans have a world class export based economy that's HEAVILY unionized. the US, with NO unions, is not. Yeah, and such powerful unions they are. This union factory worker makes $22,000 a year and the government taxes more than half of that away for things like his "free" health care. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...M&refer=europe Amazing how many people think it is "free" and trust government to do it. On the whole, China is "tax efficient" and that means that while the Chinese worker makes less, they can purchase services and items that do not have the high tax load associated with them and has a much lower cost of living. Lets use a dentist comparison. If a dentist is taxed at a combined total rate (civic, provincial/state, federal/sales/etc) of say 50% taxes. They also pay more for supplies because they have componded taxes in them, the Chinese have the advantage as: $1200 for a crown in Canada $900 for a crosn in US $200 for a crown in China. Taxation componds, if I product a product for the dentist, I have to make more to to pay taxes thus charge more to the dentist. The dentist in turn has to charge me more. All said and done, the governemtn is the big winner. It is why the question: Does the governments work for us, or do we work for the government? What has really happened in this depression is people, primarily middle class people do not have the purchasing power to drive the economy. Taxes have inflated costs and reduced net incomes. Real goods producers no longer see the value. Highly paracitical. And it is why Obama-democrat debt spending is so bad, it is government on it's last gasp trying to preserve itself in a system it has botched up completely with too much statist government and debt. I would say the US is in for Japans lost decades for decades to come. Until the leasons are learned, peoples standard of living will depreciate as governmetn gets bigger. Just like Cuba or Venezuela. -- Government has liberals, idealists and lawyers, but where is the common sense? |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On 7/25/10 1:01 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:51:02 -0400, Harry wrote: On 7/25/10 11:41 AM, wrote: On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:13:42 -0400, wrote: gee. the germans have a world class export based economy that's HEAVILY unionized. the US, with NO unions, is not. Yeah, and such powerful unions they are. This union factory worker makes $22,000 a year and the government taxes more than half of that away for things like his "free" health care. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...M&refer=europe What's *your* solution for providing workers who don't earn tons of money a good health care and retirement program? I think workers need to go get the skills to compete in a 21st century labor market. That is not really being provided by our K-12 and secondary education system. The reality is I am not really sure what the middle class in all of the Western Democracies are going to do to maintain the lifestyle they desire. I blame a lot of it on the greed of the consumer. Nom summed it up when she said "why should she pay moreto support American manufacturers". I blame most of it on the greed of multi-national corporations. I remember when a good quality RTW men's shirt cost less than $10...from brands like Gant, Hathaway, Arrow, et cetera. The shirts were made in the USA by members of garment workers unions. The workers made a living wage, the manufacturer made a profit, and so did everyone else in the retail chain. Now, those same style shirts, but with lower quality materials, are made in sweatshops in Vietnam and China by workers who are paid pennies a day, and the shirts sell in U.S. stores for $70. It isn't the consumer or the now-gone U.S. garment workers. The corporation are the profiteers. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
Harry  wrote:
On 7/25/10 11:41 AM, wrote: On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:13:42 -0400, wrote: gee. the germans have a world class export based economy that's HEAVILY unionized. the US, with NO unions, is not. Yeah, and such powerful unions they are. This union factory worker makes $22,000 a year and the government taxes more than half of that away for things like his "free" health care. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...M&refer=europe What's *your* solution for providing workers who don't earn tons of money a good health care and retirement program? Me and gfretwell don't need a solution to that because we got our money. Now a more important issue is keeping it. The nation's wealth was redistributed to us years ago, and we kept what we got safe. That's how we retired early. First you got a fat salary by being in the right place at the right time. A defined pension plan helps. Living within your means helps. A lot of that is an accident of birth year, some is personal characteristics of birth, some is personally developed. Nobody can question the difference in opportunities then versus now. From 1990 until maybe 5 years ago was boom times. The middle class got wealthy and the working class went backwards. Those middle class who managed to keep their money are doing fine. Those who didn't save are no longer middle class. Don't know what middle class is really, but I thought it was $60-100k during my work years. Hard work was mostly optional, but whether true or not you claim that. For many people of our age and doing well, it was mostly just showing up. Those who don't show up don't have a chance in hell. Anyway, you always claim hard work, or at the very least that you're just smarter than everybody else about money. If you're smart and not deficient about money matters, you don't have to work hard really. Keep in mind some who think they worked hard have no concept of what hard work is. Poor working and middle class people do nearly all the hard work. You can see some "hard work" by watching "Dirty Jobs." If you get up all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed rarin' and happy to get to work instead of going fishing, you probably ain't "hard working." Now you can slice and dice that how you want, but that's how I always saw it. Since I would always prefer fishing, I was a hard worker. But not the dirty jobs hard worker, so I knew I was lucky. Smart folks either saved their money, or invested it in Wall Street companies that made them more money by destroying the dumb part of the middle class and getting their money. All the time after early retirement you don't work to contribute to the economy, but if you have "investment"s you can claim that it's you keeping the economy alive. That satisfies latent American Calvinistic "work ethic" instincts. Weak as hell, but some don't need strong arguments. Pretty sweet, retiring early and doing nothing really productive, but still being able to claim your "money is working for you." Personally, I just consider myself a bum since I retired. Hey, bums are people too. In the meantime you draw SS and take advantage of every gov giveaway that's within view. Just as you did with taxes when working. See, by talking about unions and labor and all that stuff, you're missing the point. It's really about simple money management and looking out for yourself, and justifying your life of leisure, or whining about not having one. Those smart enough to have accumulated wealth by being born at the right time, or smart enough to have picked the family they inherited it from, or who just plain worked hard and saved, will whine any argument to keep from losing it, or losing their position as "smart" or "hard-working." Those without wealth because they were too dumb to be born at the right time, and too dumb to inherent any, or too lazy to work hard, will whine about their having to work to get by. That's the general rules, and of course they're many exceptions. There are wealthy people who are willing to give some away. And there are poor hard-working people who look at the wealthy as their benefactors. The "solution" will be found by the winners in the battle over wealth. That's a very large battle and you won't find the solution here, except by a random happenstance in predictions. The battle is fought in the larger political arena. With 5 million bpuharics it goes one way, with 5 million gfretwells it goes another way. And as always, the winners will be determined by who shows up. So far, it looks like the Tea Party is winning the "show up" war. They probably have the wealth to traipse around the country or are getting paid expenses by the wealthy. Hard to understand why they support politicians who would take away their SS and Medicare. I suspect they're just dumb, since that's not a prudent fiscal direction for them. Money can't buy smarts. I like the hell out of my SS and am looking forward to Medicare. My view is everybody with more wealth than me should pay more taxes to support my retirement. I bet I'm in the majority. But I won't show up. Got mine, got no complaints, and choose to remain neutral. Jim - My Sunday ruminations done, I begin painting the living room. Won't feel like a bum if I'm doing that. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:41:03 -0400, wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:13:42 -0400, bpuharic wrote: gee. the germans have a world class export based economy that's HEAVILY unionized. the US, with NO unions, is not. Yeah, and such powerful unions they are. This union factory worker makes $22,000 a year and the government taxes more than half of that away for things like his "free" health care. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...M&refer=europe german purchasing power parity is on a level with US PPP when compared on a per hour basis the difference is that europeans go more for quality of life. americans, slaves to their companies, have no choice but to work at least 200 more hours per year than their european counterparts |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 12:36:49 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote: On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:51:02 -0400, Harry ? wrote: What's *your* solution for providing workers who don't earn tons of money a good health care and retirement program? And what is your rationale for believing that they have an inalienable right to either ? uh because this is america...of, by and for the people? who says the rich have rights to money they haven't earned. Traditionally good health care and good retirement plans were fringe benefits that employers used to attract and retain a top notch labor force. or used to control the work force. loss of healthcare can keep employees subservient and in line. When did that become a "right" ? I find nothing in the constitution. Our ancestors grew up and proliferated without these "rights". How did they manage? Perhaps by being productive and thrifty? the constitution talks about 'unenumerated rights'. integrated marriage wasnt a right either until the courst said it was. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On 7/25/10 7:27 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:41:03 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:13:42 -0400, wrote: gee. the germans have a world class export based economy that's HEAVILY unionized. the US, with NO unions, is not. Yeah, and such powerful unions they are. This union factory worker makes $22,000 a year and the government taxes more than half of that away for things like his "free" health care. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...M&refer=europe german purchasing power parity is on a level with US PPP when compared on a per hour basis the difference is that europeans go more for quality of life. americans, slaves to their companies, have no choice but to work at least 200 more hours per year than their european counterparts Those who oppose providing decent quality healthcare and decent retirement possibilities for lower-income workers have no ideas that will improve the lives of these families. A large percentage of lower-income workers simply don't have the ability to climb up the ladder since they must devote all of their time to survival. Instituting higher tax rates on those who can afford them is a way to provide the poorer among us with a better quality of life. That, and cutting the military budget in half would do the job, I am sure. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
|
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
Wow! i couldnt' resist and jsut had to get in on this thread.
Mine is post #423 |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On 7/25/10 7:41 PM, Tim wrote:
Wow! i couldnt' resist and jsut had to get in on this thread. Mine is post #423 It's been pretty humorous, with most of the righties offering up the "it's ok for everyone except the rich to be ****ed." W'hine offered up a classic rightie response earlier today, saying that since the Constitution didn't discuss providing decent health care for the poor, there was no rationale for doing it...or something like that. |
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:15:48 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 25/07/2010 9:41 AM, wrote: On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:13:42 -0400, wrote: gee. the germans have a world class export based economy that's HEAVILY unionized. the US, with NO unions, is not. Yeah, and such powerful unions they are. This union factory worker makes $22,000 a year and the government taxes more than half of that away for things like his "free" health care. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...M&refer=europe Amazing how many people think it is "free" and trust government to do it. guess he didn't notice this article is five years old And it is why Obama-democrat debt spending is so bad, actually it's the bush/paulson spending. obama is spending roughly what bush spent in his last year in office but, you see, bush is white and obama is black... I would say the US is in for Japans lost decades for decades to come. uh, hate to inform you but japan has LESS government spending as a percentage of GDP than we do http://www.tnr.com/blogs/jonathan-chait Until the leasons are learned, peoples standard of living will depreciate as governmetn gets bigger. Just like Cuba or Venezuela. lessons learned? let's see.... the right winger says because of high govt spending we're going to wind up like japan but he's too ****ing stupid to realize japan's govt spending is less than ours! the right wing is FILLED with incredible bull**** |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:56 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com