wrote:
On 11 Aug 2014 13:44:42 GMT, F.O.A.D. wrote:


You should change your handle to Mr. Apocalypse. ?

I heard the same thing when I was predicting the housing crash.

You seem to revel in it. 😧
--
Posted from my iPhone

wrote:
On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 15:30:01 -0500, amdx wrote:

On 8/10/2014 10:22 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 09:54:41 -0500, amdx wrote:

I want to clarify the method used to calculate the value of S.S. When
taken at 62yrs vs 66yrs.


I'll assume the following benefits $1,500 at 62 and $2,049 at 66.

1500 x 1nn% = yy or one month benefit plus interest
yy x 1nn% = yy or two months benefit plus interest
…....
…....
yy x 1nn% =yy or 12 months benefit plus interest

yy minus taxes paid = new yy

repeat for 4 years and save yearly values


""I will use this calculator to do this.""
http://www.thecalculatorsite.com/fin...calculator.php


Using 8% annual growth compounded monthly.

year one $18,799 minus 15% = $15,979
year two $36,105 minus 15% = $30,689
year three $52,036 minus 15% = $44,231
year four $66,702 minus 15% = $56,697

$56,697 x 0.08% = $4,536*
$4,536 is the interest earned on four years of savings.

$1,500 x 12 mo = $18,000 Yearly Benefit at 62.

If I add $4,536* to $18,000 = $22,436
Benefit at 62 plus interested earned on 4 years of savings.

$2,049 x 12mo = $24,588 Benefit at 66

$24,588 - $22,436 = ($2,052)

So the 62yr benefit saved for four years plus interest is $2052 less
than 66 yr benefit.
Or you could make up the difference for about 20 years by spending
enough of the savings to be even. This has to be calculated to find
exactly how many years, but it's not simple.


Ok this is my first iteration.
I think 8% interest is optimistic.
I know I could add in COLA, but it goes into both so I think it's a wash.
What should I change?

Mikek


All of these calculations assume SS will continue forever at the
current pace. (benefits ratio, COLAs, tax treatment etc)

That's about all we can do, my crystal ball works great except when
I use it to predict the future.

It is clear that there is a move to "reform" the program and that
means reduced benefits somewhere.
The last "reform" started taxing 85% of the benefits at normal tax
rates for anyone who has any other significant income.
Taking your required withdrawals from your 401k will put most people
over this threshold. A pension is a slam dunk.

I just hope they don't means test or asset test.
I suspect if you earned it and saved it, they'll find a way
to get it.
Mikek

Count on it. The millennials are going to throw grandma from the
(gravy) train as soon as they figure out how to vote.
The idea that the money in your 401k will be taxed at a lower rate
than when you were working is a joke.

SS is going to be a means tested welfare program.

This is funny no matter what side you're on...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9pqmW-D14I

On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 13:16:58 -0400, wrote:

The stocks are not
just paper, they represent actual ownership of some darn good
companies and a claim on their earnings and free cash flow.

I know that is the theory but there is a lot of air under most of the
stock prices these days.This has a certain Ponzi aspect too. As long
as more money coming in than is taken out, it does OK.
If there is a significant net loss of money coming into the market it
will crash pretty fast.

===

You're entitled to your opinion of course, and there are no doubt some
over inflated companies out there along with a handfull of outright
frauds not yet discovered. On the other hand there are also some
real captains of industry who make real products and sell them
worldwide. I'm thinking of names like GE, IBM, Intel, Apple, Cisco,
etc. These are companies that not only make solid products and sell
them well, but they also have provable positive cash flows and pay
dividends. There are many others of course, and there are also many
companies in sectors such as energy and transportation with very solid
fundamentals and positive cash flows. Cash flow is a good indicator
because it is real, easy to measure and not easily subject to
accounting slight of hand.

Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 13:16:58 -0400, wrote:

The stocks are not
just paper, they represent actual ownership of some darn good
companies and a claim on their earnings and free cash flow.

I know that is the theory but there is a lot of air under most of the
stock prices these days.This has a certain Ponzi aspect too. As long
as more money coming in than is taken out, it does OK.
If there is a significant net loss of money coming into the market it
will crash pretty fast.

===

You're entitled to your opinion of course, and there are no doubt some
over inflated companies out there along with a handfull of outright
frauds not yet discovered. On the other hand there are also some
real captains of industry who make real products and sell them
worldwide. I'm thinking of names like GE, IBM, Intel, Apple, Cisco,
etc. These are companies that not only make solid products and sell
them well, but they also have provable positive cash flows and pay
dividends. There are many others of course, and there are also many
companies in sectors such as energy and transportation with very solid
fundamentals and positive cash flows. Cash flow is a good indicator
because it is real, easy to measure and not easily subject to
accounting slight of hand.

Probably a lot more over inflated than is healthy. Like during the
dot.bomb when Cisco was $80. My co workers were telling me to buy at that
price. Where i was saying it was an $18-25 company. Where I screwed up
when getting laid off at TI was not taking my options money and buying
Cisco puts. They were Canceling semiconductor orders right and left.
Where do you invest are the current time. Banks are paying 0point zip.
Bonds are a looming disaster. With any bump in the interest rate bonds
present value will tank. The administration is pretty much driving the
market, via zero interest rates, and trillions of faux money.

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 02:23:59 -0400, wrote:

if you have 30 million boomers liquidating their 401ks

===

I don't think liquidate is the right description. Those who have
made good investment decisions can do well with the just dividend
stream and capital gains, leaving the principal amount mostly
untouched.

On 8/10/2014 11:41 PM, Califbill wrote:
BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 15:30:01 -0500, amdx wrote:

On 8/10/2014 10:22 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 09:54:41 -0500, amdx wrote:


I want to clarify the method used to calculate the value of S.S. When
taken at 62yrs vs 66yrs.


I'll assume the following benefits $1,500 at 62 and $2,049 at 66.

1500 x 1nn% = yy or one month benefit plus interest
yy x 1nn% = yy or two months benefit plus interest
?....
?....
yy x 1nn% =yy or 12 months benefit plus interest

yy minus taxes paid = new yy

repeat for 4 years and save yearly values


""I will use this calculator to do this.""
http://www.thecalculatorsite.com/fin...calculator.php


Using 8% annual growth compounded monthly.

year one $18,799 minus 15% = $15,979
year two $36,105 minus 15% = $30,689
year three $52,036 minus 15% = $44,231
year four $66,702 minus 15% = $56,697

$56,697 x 0.08% = $4,536*
$4,536 is the interest earned on four years of savings.

$1,500 x 12 mo = $18,000 Yearly Benefit at 62.

If I add $4,536* to $18,000 = $22,436
Benefit at 62 plus interested earned on 4 years of savings.

$2,049 x 12mo = $24,588 Benefit at 66

$24,588 - $22,436 = ($2,052)

So the 62yr benefit saved for four years plus interest is $2052 less
than 66 yr benefit.
Or you could make up the difference for about 20 years by spending
enough of the savings to be even. This has to be calculated to find
exactly how many years, but it's not simple.


Ok this is my first iteration.
I think 8% interest is optimistic.
I know I could add in COLA, but it goes into both so I think it's a wash.
What should I change?

Mikek



All of these calculations assume SS will continue forever at the
current pace. (benefits ratio, COLAs, tax treatment etc)

That's about all we can do, my crystal ball works great except when
I use it to predict the future.

It is clear that there is a move to "reform" the program and that
means reduced benefits somewhere.
The last "reform" started taxing 85% of the benefits at normal tax
rates for anyone who has any other significant income.
Taking your required withdrawals from your 401k will put most people
over this threshold. A pension is a slam dunk.

I just hope they don't means test or asset test.
I suspect if you earned it and saved it, they'll find a way
to get it.
Mikek


Count on it. The millennials are going to throw grandma from the
(gravy) train as soon as they figure out how to vote.
The idea that the money in your 401k will be taxed at a lower rate
than when you were working is a joke.

SS is going to be a means tested welfare program.

There is nothing stopping you from pulling money out of your 401k/IRA
when you are 59 1/2 and investing it in other investment vehicles.

You pay taxes now or later. I go later. And all my 401k's are now IRAs.

Just a note:
Many accountants think that tax rates will be higher in the future
because of the huge debt we have. Because of this they are suggesting
Roth IRAs instead of the traditional tax deductible IRA.
Mikek

On 8/12/14, 8:59 AM, amdx wrote:
On 8/10/2014 11:41 PM, Califbill wrote:
BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 15:30:01 -0500, amdx wrote:

On 8/10/2014 10:22 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 09:54:41 -0500, amdx wrote:


I want to clarify the method used to calculate the value of
S.S. When
taken at 62yrs vs 66yrs.


I'll assume the following benefits $1,500 at 62 and $2,049 at 66.

1500 x 1nn% = yy or one month benefit plus interest
yy x 1nn% = yy or two months benefit plus interest
?....
?....
yy x 1nn% =yy or 12 months benefit plus interest

yy minus taxes paid = new yy

repeat for 4 years and save yearly values


""I will use this calculator to do this.""
http://www.thecalculatorsite.com/fin...calculator.php



Using 8% annual growth compounded monthly.

year one $18,799 minus 15% = $15,979
year two $36,105 minus 15% = $30,689
year three $52,036 minus 15% = $44,231
year four $66,702 minus 15% = $56,697

$56,697 x 0.08% = $4,536*
$4,536 is the interest earned on four years of savings.

$1,500 x 12 mo = $18,000 Yearly Benefit at 62.

If I add $4,536* to $18,000 = $22,436
Benefit at 62 plus interested earned on 4 years of savings.

$2,049 x 12mo = $24,588 Benefit at 66

$24,588 - $22,436 = ($2,052)

So the 62yr benefit saved for four years plus interest is $2052 less
than 66 yr benefit.
Or you could make up the difference for about 20 years by
spending
enough of the savings to be even. This has to be calculated to find
exactly how many years, but it's not simple.


Ok this is my first iteration.
I think 8% interest is optimistic.
I know I could add in COLA, but it goes into both so I think it's
a wash.
What should I change?

Mikek



All of these calculations assume SS will continue forever at the
current pace. (benefits ratio, COLAs, tax treatment etc)

That's about all we can do, my crystal ball works great except when
I use it to predict the future.

It is clear that there is a move to "reform" the program and that
means reduced benefits somewhere.
The last "reform" started taxing 85% of the benefits at normal tax
rates for anyone who has any other significant income.
Taking your required withdrawals from your 401k will put most people
over this threshold. A pension is a slam dunk.

I just hope they don't means test or asset test.
I suspect if you earned it and saved it, they'll find a way
to get it.
Mikek


Count on it. The millennials are going to throw grandma from the
(gravy) train as soon as they figure out how to vote.
The idea that the money in your 401k will be taxed at a lower rate
than when you were working is a joke.

SS is going to be a means tested welfare program.

There is nothing stopping you from pulling money out of your 401k/IRA
when you are 59 1/2 and investing it in other investment vehicles.

You pay taxes now or later. I go later. And all my 401k's are now IRAs.

Just a note:
Many accountants think that tax rates will be higher in the future
because of the huge debt we have. Because of this they are suggesting
Roth IRAs instead of the traditional tax deductible IRA.
Mikek


So your accountants think the tax codes on the various forms of IRAs
can't change?

On Tuesday, 12 August 2014 11:33:16 UTC-3, wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 07:59:23 -0500, amdx wrote:





Just a note:

Many accountants think that tax rates will be higher in the future

because of the huge debt we have. Because of this they are suggesting

Roth IRAs instead of the traditional tax deductible IRA.

Mikek



That assumes the government would not change the tax code on a Roth. I

am old enough to remember when they said Social Security would never

be taxed ... because you already paid taxes on that money ... just

like a Roth.

When it comes to the government ****ing you, just plan on it.

Wow!
We pay both federal and provincial income tax on anything over our basic exemption, which is around 11k and another $2K if on pension plus I get another $7K because I turn 65 this month.
After that everything is taxed at the rate of the income category you fall in... and yes that's all pensions, interest received on investments, monies taken out of RRSPs etc.

Y'all have been spoiled down there and the chickens are coming home to roost.

On 8/12/2014 8:49 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 8/12/14, 8:59 AM, amdx wrote:
On 8/10/2014 11:41 PM, Califbill wrote:
BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 15:30:01 -0500, amdx wrote:

On 8/10/2014 10:22 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 09:54:41 -0500, amdx wrote:


I want to clarify the method used to calculate the value of
S.S. When
taken at 62yrs vs 66yrs.


I'll assume the following benefits $1,500 at 62 and $2,049 at
66.

1500 x 1nn% = yy or one month benefit plus interest
yy x 1nn% = yy or two months benefit plus interest
?....
?....
yy x 1nn% =yy or 12 months benefit plus interest

yy minus taxes paid = new yy

repeat for 4 years and save yearly values


""I will use this calculator to do this.""
http://www.thecalculatorsite.com/fin...calculator.php




Using 8% annual growth compounded monthly.

year one $18,799 minus 15% = $15,979
year two $36,105 minus 15% = $30,689
year three $52,036 minus 15% = $44,231
year four $66,702 minus 15% = $56,697

$56,697 x 0.08% = $4,536*
$4,536 is the interest earned on four years of savings.

$1,500 x 12 mo = $18,000 Yearly Benefit at 62.

If I add $4,536* to $18,000 = $22,436
Benefit at 62 plus interested earned on 4 years of savings.

$2,049 x 12mo = $24,588 Benefit at 66

$24,588 - $22,436 = ($2,052)

So the 62yr benefit saved for four years plus interest is $2052
less
than 66 yr benefit.
Or you could make up the difference for about 20 years by
spending
enough of the savings to be even. This has to be calculated to find
exactly how many years, but it's not simple.


Ok this is my first iteration.
I think 8% interest is optimistic.
I know I could add in COLA, but it goes into both so I think it's
a wash.
What should I change?

Mikek



All of these calculations assume SS will continue forever at the
current pace. (benefits ratio, COLAs, tax treatment etc)

That's about all we can do, my crystal ball works great except
when
I use it to predict the future.

It is clear that there is a move to "reform" the program and that
means reduced benefits somewhere.
The last "reform" started taxing 85% of the benefits at normal tax
rates for anyone who has any other significant income.
Taking your required withdrawals from your 401k will put most people
over this threshold. A pension is a slam dunk.

I just hope they don't means test or asset test.
I suspect if you earned it and saved it, they'll find a way
to get it.
Mikek


Count on it. The millennials are going to throw grandma from the
(gravy) train as soon as they figure out how to vote.
The idea that the money in your 401k will be taxed at a lower rate
than when you were working is a joke.

SS is going to be a means tested welfare program.

There is nothing stopping you from pulling money out of your 401k/IRA
when you are 59 1/2 and investing it in other investment vehicles.

You pay taxes now or later. I go later. And all my 401k's are now
IRAs.

Just a note:
Many accountants think that tax rates will be higher in the future
because of the huge debt we have. Because of this they are suggesting
Roth IRAs instead of the traditional tax deductible IRA.
Mikek


So your accountants think the tax codes on the various forms of IRAs
can't change?

Taxes and tax codes are not subjects you should be discussing openly,
unless, of course, you would care to enlighten us on your tax
delinquencies and difficulties with the IRS and the courts.

--
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the
government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of
taking care of them".
Thomas Jefferson

On 8/12/2014 9:12 AM, True North wrote:
On Tuesday, 12 August 2014 11:33:16 UTC-3, wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 07:59:23 -0500, amdx wrote:





Just a note:

Many accountants think that tax rates will be higher in the future

because of the huge debt we have. Because of this they are suggesting

Roth IRAs instead of the traditional tax deductible IRA.

Mikek



That assumes the government would not change the tax code on a Roth. I

am old enough to remember when they said Social Security would never

be taxed ... because you already paid taxes on that money ... just

like a Roth.

When it comes to the government ****ing you, just plan on it.

Wow!
We pay both federal and provincial income tax on anything over our basic exemption, which is around 11k and another $2K if on pension plus I get another $7K because I turn 65 this month.
After that everything is taxed at the rate of the income category you fall in... and yes that's all pensions, interest received on investments, monies taken out of RRSPs etc.

Y'all have been spoiled down there and the chickens are coming home to roost.


No one is forcing you to stay there.

--
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the
government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of
taking care of them".
Thomas Jefferson