On 14/06/2011 3:05 PM, I_am_Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...

In ,
says...


The employer is not going to be taxed but I bet those people taking
their 401k money out in the future will get their ass kicked on it.


Tax-sheltered retirement income is taxed as ordinary income when
distributed.
Always was, is, always will be.
It's expected that your income will be less when you retire.
You might be able to use Roth IRA's to some extent if you think working
vs. retirement yaxes will flip on you.
Normally it doesn't work that way.
Basically you've said if you're outside when it rains you'll get wet.

Right now a worker would be paying a very minimal tax on this money
but I bet those numbers will go up sharply as we try to dig our way
out of crushing debt.

Depends on income, but you have a point there.
Low income workers could lose by saving.
Here's the bright side.
Low income worker don't have any ****ing money to save.

What if everyone thinks the current tax on 401's is ok, tolerable so
they pump them up, and then "somebody" decides to say, triple the tax on
the 401's????

That is why I recommend a blended approach. Save inside and outside of
the 401K/IRA. So if you have a good investment year with gains, you
haul out less on the 401K. If you have a low year, haul out to the
lower tax rates. That is, use the 401K to control your total taxable
income.

If you are low income low tax already, unless the employer matches it,
you better of in a ROTH than 401K/IRA as you want only the high taxed
dollars into the 401K/IRA. That is, get a 30% deduction in, and
withdraw at 10% out.

--
Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem.

On 14/06/2011 3:03 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:26:07 -0600,
wrote:

On 14/06/2011 11:14 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:21:23 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:01:07 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:22:54 -0600,
wrote:

On 11/06/2011 6:31 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:40:36 -0600,
wrote:

meaningless.

and, of course, your method was tried

it was called the depression of 29

ever hear of it??

Actually, you dumbsh1t fleabaggers

says the right winger with a reader's digest view of economics


should read. In 1929 they tried to
spend out of it. In 1933 they realized after the 1932 crash that
fleabagger debt spend does not work. Took 6 years of restraint to cover
the debts and recovery was slow.

really?

uh...why did the depression end in 39?

did something happen in 39? uh yeah...the US started to spend for ww2

canuck's moronic view of economics is exceeded only by his ignorance
of history

It was something called lend lease that got the factories moving again.

So, money was spent by the US gov't. This stabilized the economy.
Thanks for the confirmation.

It was just like any other business deal. The corporations were told
that if they made and sold the items now they would get some money down
the road. This loaded up the companies billables and they could use that
to borrow against.

Which is exactly what happens when the gov't pumps money into the
economy for things like the STIM. Jobs are created and people pay
taxes. Same with the GM/Chrysler bailouts. All those people are still
employed and paying taxes.

The best bang for your buck (other than a war) are things like food
stamps. That money returns to the economy immediately, and is a net
positive, esp. in the short term.

Look up the fine print of lend lease. First, it was less than a
trillion dollars to end a decade long depression. Very, very cheap and
efficient compared to Obamanomics. And no government debt for it.

It was also precipitated by the ned for war munitions and goods for the
world. No such needs to that level are needed today. But could be why
Obama is war hungry. A bad mad debtor.

Third element, it didn't have a debt battered business base. Debt of
government, business and people were relatively low compared to today.
Some economists say the end of the depression may have occured anyways
and in fact had already started before WW II.

The US gov't was going broke during WWII. That's what the bond push
was all about.

For God's sake, look things up before you quack.

But that was for US weapons not forign weapons....look it up dough brain.
--
Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem.

On 14/06/2011 2:41 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:50:19 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 07:14:57 -0400, wrote:

On 6/14/2011 2:33 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 01:02:05 -0400, wrote:


spend out of it. In 1933 they realized after the 1932 crash that
fleabagger debt spend does not work. Took 6 years of restraint to cover
the debts and recovery was slow.

really?

uh...why did the depression end in 39?

did something happen in 39? uh yeah...the US started to spend for ww2

canuck's moronic view of economics is exceeded only by his ignorance
of history

It was something called lend lease that got the factories moving again.

That was when the rest of the world was borrowing from us.

Bob, do you see the difference?


Greg, do you see that the US gov't was injecting money into the
economy? Do you see why it doesn't make much difference how it does it
and that via a war isn't exactly the best way to do that... unless you
don't mind killing a lot of people in the name of profit of course.

Never mind. You're hiding. I forgot.

Greg isn't hiding.I see all of his posts. Check your filters.

I am just not engaging Plume. I got tired of every debate ending up in
an insult when she ran out of things to say

You got tired of have no facts. You started the insults, but you're
not going to admit it. Did I call you a moron or an asshole? Did I
claim you have a small ding dong? No. What was this terrible insult?
Oh, I think it was "you're delusional if you think...."

How terrible. You must have a very thin skin. I apologize.

That's very nice, if sincere.
If Greg bites there might be 2 intelligent people talking at once here.
When cannuck is one side that's impossible.

Why? Because I don't tolerate fleabagger whining, excuses, belly
aching, smear, fear and feed their need for denial of reality?

--
Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem.

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:01:26 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 13/06/2011 5:58 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 18:04:16 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In ,
says...

again, who controlled the presidency

the dems rarely controlled BOTH houses of congress like the GOP did
for 6 years under bush

and look what they did with it.

bankrupted the country.

Funny, you get the facts wrong and blame the wrong group.

2006 congress had senate and congress democrats, they sat in January
2007, just when unemployment started rising. Later that year
congressional money for nothing scared a liquidity crisis. Democrats
ignored it and it lead to Sept 2008.

let's see how his facts stand up

CSE's ruined the economy. they allowed banks to run themselves

they were closed down after it became apparent banks could not
regulate themselves...in 2006 after a 10 year run

even canuck admits the dems had only taken office when the economy
collapsed

this is AFTER the GOP ran it for 6 years. and ran it into the ground
AFTER deregulating the banks

the right pushed deregulation

the right pushed MASSIVE tax cuts that bankrupted the country

the right started thw war in iraq that cost a trillion

and yet he blames the dems who had no role in this whatsoever

that's what the right does. lies.


But Obama 2008, was too stupid to realize Reagan was right, government
isn't the solution, government is the problem.

HAHAHAHAHA let's see...we deregulated the banks

how'd that work out??

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:10:16 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 14/06/2011 3:53 AM, wf3h wrote:

Just know how screwed up it left Canada and Obamacare is just a huge tax
grab. Dumbsh1t Obama doesn't seem to get it.

and medical care in the US is free, right? we spend less of a
proportion of our GDP on medical care than canada, right? our
healthcare is cheaper and more affordable than canada's right?

Nothing is free. That is a fleabag fantasy. The question is who and
how it is paid for.

and yet you think american healthcare is free.


Hell, even our premiers in charge of health care prefer the USA. While
it is nationalized, it is rationed, basic and long waits.

let's see. 1 guy goes here for healthcare

meanwhile milions dont have it in the US.

guess he doesnt know that.


oh. it's not. it's about twice as expensive

Yep, an no line ups and the best care. We have no choice, government
took it away from in hyper-taxation.

HAHAHAHA the best care?

proof?

well...none. none at all. life expectancy is higher in many countries
like japan with socialized medicine

but he has his fantasies

and line? uh...how long do you wait in the US if you have no
insurance?



For Canada, health care tuned out to be a government tax grab.

and yet it works

in the US it's an insurance grab. govt medcial care is better AND
cheaper than the free market

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:35:39 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 14/06/2011 3:55 AM, wf3h wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 23:37:20 -0600,
wrote:

they did that once before. they almost disappeared in the next
election.

So? Sometimes you have to do the RIGHT thing and not the GRREDY
fleabagger thing.

uh huh. more faith based economics.

But one thing they all got wrong, I strongly believe a woman owns her
own womb. Pro lifers, bunch of fanatics. Sad these zealots can't let
that go. But a small question.

yep. the prolife movement is just another big govt nanny program.

Don't worry, I am just bantering. I realize that DC and other debtor
governments at all levels have basically dug themselves a hole that none
have the guts to get out of. The only thing that will turn it around is
an eventual total collapse of government like Greece and beyond.

When people start refusing to pay taxes, it will start with civic and
state debt

guess the moron doesnt realize federal taxes are at a 40 year low

he's not too bright. he's right wing, which is another way of saying
'stupid'

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:51:52 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 14/06/2011 3:56 AM, wf3h wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 00:59:52 -0400, wrote:

and yet the whole program of the right is to continue to deregulate
this ponzi scheme to transfer MORE money to the least productive
members of our society.

You mean the left, leftie fleabag Obama is signing the checks...willingly.

guess the right wing lying sack of **** doesnt know the GOP authored
the deregulation of wall street

and that they fight reregulation even today. that's why he has to
issue a bald faced lie about the black president

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:56:46 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:



For lethargic companies yes. For others, they look 5 years down the
road and see tax liabilities and possible losses, so they move offshore.
Hip thing to do now is move offshore, more tax friendly place.r

what mythology the right spins. germany has a strongly unionized
workforce and has a higher percentage of people in manufacturing and
lower unemployment than the US

right wingers are filled with bull****

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:51:11 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:



Funny. Capital provides jobs, I don't see UAW coughing up $500K per
employee to buy equipment. It takes capital.


really? let's see...capital gains taxes were reduced from 70% under
reagan to 15% today

how's that working out? all that money we gave the rich

uh....did it lead to full employment? lots of middle class people have
stable employment and good jobs like the right wing said we would?


Key is stability, and the Obamanation is de-stabilizing fast.

proof?

oh. none. he's black so taht's proof enough.

Debt-corruption economics isn't working because government isn't the
solution, government is the problem. And it isn't just DC, it is state
side and even civic.

the right thinks we should turn the country over to wall street
because that's worked out so well in the past

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:40:38 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:



Wise. Many don't realize taxation is like growing chives.

and the US federal tax rate is at a 40 year low

how's that working out? everyone have a job?


You can see this in that government revenue has plummeted. Very
dangerious, as no jobs is no revenue. And while you can debt an
economy, smart money knows it is more future taxes and labour unrest.
That scares off investors creating jobs making problems worse and not
better.

yep. we cut taxes on the rich

and threw millions out of work. the right wing said that couldnt
happen