Don White wrote:
wrote in message
...
Hey, Don, got a question. Why do you think Harry still posts here?
snip...


You'll have to ask him directly.
I might guess that he'd like to offer one final cleaning & fumigating before
abandoning the old site......... just for nostalgic purposes.



Now that's moronic!

"DK" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
wrote in message
...
Hey, Don, got a question. Why do you think Harry still posts here?
snip...


You'll have to ask him directly.
I might guess that he'd like to offer one final cleaning & fumigating
before abandoning the old site......... just for nostalgic purposes.

Now that's moronic!



Quit changing your personal info. I don't like being haunted.

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 11:28:57 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 09:45:03 -0400, "Lu Powell"
wrote:

Anyone who passes this stuff on without checking the facts is nuts.
While I am no fan of Pelosi nor her socialist fellow-travelers, truth is
paramount. No one is well served by passing this trash around. See:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/pelosi.asp


The fact still remains that the government is going to come after your
401k (and any other tax deferred investments) to cover their losses on
Social Security. When FDR proposed SS it was supposed to always be tax
free income. That is certainly not true now if you have any other
significant source of income.
The big lie on tax deferred investment was that your tax rate when you
cashed them in would be lower that it was when you invested the money.
I bet that won't be true unless you live well below the poverty level
in retirement.

Well, my tax rate is a *lot* lower when cashing out tax-deferred
retirement money. Not just the fed tax rate, but no FICA, Medicare,
and state tax. Huge difference.
If you've got a million bucks of 401k money you never paid taxes on
tucked away expect to pay the Fed tax piper when you cash out.
That's no surprise, or shouldn't be.
SS was never meant as anything more than subsistence, and that's
basically still what it is.
I have a buddy who just retired at 67 and gets about 25k a year SS.
But as you might suspect, that's the least of his retirement income.
What bothers me is the SS disability scams sucking money out of the
system. Don't know how much is involved, but when I see law firms
advertising on TV that they'll get you SS disability, it raises a red
flag.
Everybody's different, but I always expected my spending to decrease
drastically when I retired. And it has!
So have my taxes.

--Vic

I agree with that upper cap on SS needs to be removed, what kind of crap is
that, so anyone who makes more than like 92000 a year doesnt have to pay
anymore SS for that year, that had to be a republican bill. The government
probably is gonna go after more taxes in the future to pay for this dumb ass
3 trillion dollar war in Iraq. I mean its not free, the republicans answer
is lets live on credit and pass it on to the next generation, then we can
blame dems for raising taxes. What would that money have done for the
economy of the USA if it had been spent here in this country. Its called
infrastruture and we better start investing in our own country!
Brad
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 09:45:03 -0400, "Lu Powell"
wrote:

Anyone who passes this stuff on without checking the facts is nuts.
While I am no fan of Pelosi nor her socialist fellow-travelers, truth is
paramount. No one is well served by passing this trash around. See:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/pelosi.asp


The fact still remains that the government is going to come after your
401k (and any other tax deferred investments) to cover their losses on
Social Security. When FDR proposed SS it was supposed to always be tax
free income. That is certainly not true now if you have any other
significant source of income.
The big lie on tax deferred investment was that your tax rate when you
cashed them in would be lower that it was when you invested the money.
I bet that won't be true unless you live well below the poverty level
in retirement.


It's not "their" losses, it is *our* losses. The upper cap on wages
subject to SS needs to be removed, and should have been removed decades
ago.

What will you base the Social Security benefit calculation upon?

Social Security and other entitlement spending is putting this country
into far greater debt than the war in Iraq is by orders of magnitude.

The solution is is to get rid of entitlement programs at the federal
level and move them down to the states.

Brad Darnell wrote:
I agree with that upper cap on SS needs to be removed, what kind of crap is
that, so anyone who makes more than like 92000 a year doesnt have to pay
anymore SS for that year, that had to be a republican bill. The government
probably is gonna go after more taxes in the future to pay for this dumb ass
3 trillion dollar war in Iraq. I mean its not free, the republicans answer
is lets live on credit and pass it on to the next generation, then we can
blame dems for raising taxes. What would that money have done for the
economy of the USA if it had been spent here in this country. Its called
infrastruture and we better start investing in our own country!
Brad
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 09:45:03 -0400, "Lu Powell"
wrote:

Anyone who passes this stuff on without checking the facts is nuts.
While I am no fan of Pelosi nor her socialist fellow-travelers, truth is
paramount. No one is well served by passing this trash around. See:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/pelosi.asp

The fact still remains that the government is going to come after your
401k (and any other tax deferred investments) to cover their losses on
Social Security. When FDR proposed SS it was supposed to always be tax
free income. That is certainly not true now if you have any other
significant source of income.
The big lie on tax deferred investment was that your tax rate when you
cashed them in would be lower that it was when you invested the money.
I bet that won't be true unless you live well below the poverty level
in retirement.

It's not "their" losses, it is *our* losses. The upper cap on wages
subject to SS needs to be removed, and should have been removed decades
ago.

Brad Darnell wrote:
I agree with that upper cap on SS needs to be removed, what kind of crap is
that, so anyone who makes more than like 92000 a year doesnt have to pay
anymore SS for that year, that had to be a republican bill. The government
probably is gonna go after more taxes in the future to pay for this dumb ass
3 trillion dollar war in Iraq. I mean its not free, the republicans answer
is lets live on credit and pass it on to the next generation, then we can
blame dems for raising taxes. What would that money have done for the
economy of the USA if it had been spent here in this country. Its called
infrastruture and we better start investing in our own country!
Brad


The Republican plan for infrastructure is to sell it off to the private
sector, so we can be raped in additional ways for improvements we paid
for...

You think the $600 "economic stimulus" is going to do much for the
economy? I don't. Most of that will go to fill up the gas tank of
Working Joes and Janes a couple of times, further enriching the
rapacious oil companies, and filling up the refrigerator once.

wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:16:05 -0500, "Brad Darnell"
wrote:

I agree with that upper cap on SS needs to be removed,

If they did that they would have to admit it was a welfare program,
not "insurance".


Oh? Why is that?

Don White wrote:
"DK" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
wrote in message
...
Hey, Don, got a question. Why do you think Harry still posts here?
snip...


You'll have to ask him directly.
I might guess that he'd like to offer one final cleaning & fumigating
before abandoning the old site......... just for nostalgic purposes.
Now that's moronic!



Quit changing your personal info. I don't like being haunted.



There's nothing personal about what I changed and I could care less what
you think. Haunted? Don't flatter yourself, Donnie.