On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 16:24:10 +0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
wrote:

notbob wrote:


I'd actually forgotten all the bailouts we've seen. Now The Orange
One is attempting to "bailout" his donors with his tax plan.

Not just his "donors", don't forget all of his mar a lago customers /
members, himself, his heirs and of course all of the foreign investors
who stand to save a fortune in taxes.

I am an old guy living on a fixed income and I will see an extra $2400
from this tax cut. The idea that it only benefits millionaires is just
a lie.

On 12/28/2017 11:06 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 23:57:04 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 00:09:37 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 20:36:37 -0600, Terry Coombs
wrote:

Ed Zachary ! That money was supposed to be in a trust and invested
for our retirement . Instead the ****in' politicians stole it to buy
votes . Had that money I paid in been invested in something that had a
return similar to what I invested on my own I'd be getting about 3 times
what I draw from SS .

That is true. If my SS money had been put into the stocks of the dow I
would have about 2.5 million bucks and If I had the dividends
reinvested it would be more like 3.5 - 4 million depending on the
stock mix.

More likely the entire stock market industry would be entirely different.
Boom and bust, panic, vast corruption. Public revolts, lynch mobs.
Maybe we'd have a different form of government by now.
Probably would be lucky to get a dime back.
Unless the government was running the stock markets, which presents it own problems.

There are other investments, I just used that as an example. Besides,
having that much pension money in the market would tend to stabilize
it since most would actually be in funds.
I will agree that we might face the same fate as SS since the boomers
will be pulling that money out, never to return but that may still be
a problem when the wave hits the 401k money.

Besides, nobody stopped you from investing a similar percentage on your own.

I did. That is why I could afford to retire at 49.


I was 53 when I got the golden handshake. I still do a little
consulting from home but 25 years later have not worked full time.

On 12/28/2017 10:23 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 12/27/2017 9:27 PM, notbob wrote:
On 2017-12-28, Dean Hoffman wrote:

The number of people receiving some sort of SS benefit hit a record
high.

You gotta problem with that!?

I paid into it fer decades.Â* They're jes returning what they stole!

nb


Yes, I have a problem with it.Â* There are far more than retirees
collecting the money we paid into it.Â* Some 30 year old stubbed a toe
and claims disability to collect.Â* I have a big problem with that.

I knew a guy that made decisions on whether a kid was autistic or not
and had parents ****ed off at him when he said they were not autistic
because they could not collect for it.

On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 11:03:58 -0500, wrote:



I did not start saving early enough to get all of that money because
Sammy took his 13% off the top and I did not have enough income to
match that for a number of years. The money I was saving, I used to
buy big ticket items without having to borrow. The last time I
borrowed any money was in the Ford administration.

Probably more like 7% when you started paying in.

Six point 4 percent on my pay stub and another 6.4% of my labor, that
my employer got to write off as a business expense. (plus MC)
You pay both sides of that FICA tax as part of your compensation, the
employer just gets credit saying he paid for half of it.
When they are budgeting the value/cost of your labor, it is all in
there.

7.25% was the total when you started paying in, assuming 1964.
3.625% from you, and 3.625% from your employer.
It hit 6.2 each in 1990 where it remains. Never hit 6.4%


The exact percentage taken is not important.

I was just pointing out that it wasn't 13% off the top that prevented you from investing.
Since it was closer to 7% off the top.
You probably had no faith in the stock market anyway until it was pumped up with 401k
contributions. A working man could rely on a company pension for retirement.
All this "If I had taken the SS money and put it in the stock market..." is basically
"woulda, coulda, shoulda" talk after the race is over.

On Friday, December 29, 2017 at 1:19:21 PM UTC-5, Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 11:03:58 -0500, wrote:



I did not start saving early enough to get all of that money because
Sammy took his 13% off the top and I did not have enough income to
match that for a number of years. The money I was saving, I used to
buy big ticket items without having to borrow. The last time I
borrowed any money was in the Ford administration.

Probably more like 7% when you started paying in.

Six point 4 percent on my pay stub and another 6.4% of my labor, that
my employer got to write off as a business expense. (plus MC)
You pay both sides of that FICA tax as part of your compensation, the
employer just gets credit saying he paid for half of it.
When they are budgeting the value/cost of your labor, it is all in
there.

7.25% was the total when you started paying in, assuming 1964.
3.625% from you, and 3.625% from your employer.
It hit 6.2 each in 1990 where it remains. Never hit 6.4%


The exact percentage taken is not important.

I was just pointing out that it wasn't 13% off the top that prevented you from investing.
Since it was closer to 7% off the top.
You probably had no faith in the stock market anyway until it was pumped up with 401k
contributions. A working man could rely on a company pension for retirement.

I'd like to point out that men (and women) working at small companies have
never had pensions. Little machine shops, repair places, etc. My mother,
who worked all of her life, gets by on what she was able to save and on
Social Security.

Cindy Hamilton

On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 10:44:12 -0800 (PST), Cindy Hamilton
wrote:

On Friday, December 29, 2017 at 1:19:21 PM UTC-5, Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 11:03:58 -0500, wrote:



I did not start saving early enough to get all of that money because
Sammy took his 13% off the top and I did not have enough income to
match that for a number of years. The money I was saving, I used to
buy big ticket items without having to borrow. The last time I
borrowed any money was in the Ford administration.

Probably more like 7% when you started paying in.

Six point 4 percent on my pay stub and another 6.4% of my labor, that
my employer got to write off as a business expense. (plus MC)
You pay both sides of that FICA tax as part of your compensation, the
employer just gets credit saying he paid for half of it.
When they are budgeting the value/cost of your labor, it is all in
there.

7.25% was the total when you started paying in, assuming 1964.
3.625% from you, and 3.625% from your employer.
It hit 6.2 each in 1990 where it remains. Never hit 6.4%


The exact percentage taken is not important.

I was just pointing out that it wasn't 13% off the top that prevented you from investing.
Since it was closer to 7% off the top.
You probably had no faith in the stock market anyway until it was pumped up with 401k
contributions. A working man could rely on a company pension for retirement.

I'd like to point out that men (and women) working at small companies have
never had pensions. Little machine shops, repair places, etc. My mother,
who worked all of her life, gets by on what she was able to save and on
Social Security.


Point taken. Besides that job, hopping (intentional or not) would prevent vesting in a
company pension. And some company pensions are paltry.
SS is necessary if you don't want old folks starving in the streets.
Oddly, the only ones bitching about it are those fortunate enough not to need it. (-:

On 12/29/2017 1:44 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:



I was just pointing out that it wasn't 13% off the top that prevented you from investing.
Since it was closer to 7% off the top.
You probably had no faith in the stock market anyway until it was pumped up with 401k
contributions. A working man could rely on a company pension for retirement.

I'd like to point out that men (and women) working at small companies have
never had pensions. Little machine shops, repair places, etc. My mother,
who worked all of her life, gets by on what she was able to save and on
Social Security.

Cindy Hamilton


Or you could have worked for a large company where the pension vanished
when you were ready to retire and the company went belly up. Many people
got screwed like that.

On 12/29/17 10:48 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, December 29, 2017 at 10:10:29 AM UTC-5, Wade Garrett wrote:
On 12/29/17 9:42 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, December 28, 2017 at 2:00:46 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 12/28/2017 11:16 AM, notbob wrote:
On 2017-12-28, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Yes, I have a problem with it. There are far more than retirees
collecting the money we paid into it. Some 30 year old stubbed a toe
and claims disability to collect. I have a big problem with that.

Izzat like my last company? They made so much money during the
dot-com bubble, I was able to retire at age 53 (I was jes a tech), yet
our govt (DARPA) jes hadda hand 'em 75 million dollars, one year. Our
company was NOT even involved with any "Defense" projects. I think the
term is, "corporate welfare". Kinda like that huge "bailout" to our
slimy banking system. And you wanna blame it on some guy that
"stubbed a toe"?

Whatever works, for you, Ed.

nb


Different altogether. I'm not in favor of corporate welfare, nor am I
in favor of scamming SS with alleged disability. Leave that alone and
the real retired people can get what is due.

Just because one slimeball corporation gets a freebie does not make it
OK for others to cheat.

I watched Judge Judy yesterday. They had some skunk on there suing a
customer for unpaid bath renovation work. Turns out he had a public
works job, is out on medical disability, is collecting SS disability,
and I think pension too.
She quizzed him first on what kind of work he does, whether he does it
alone, etc. He said alone and he does siding, renovation, etc. Ain't
that nice? He looked about 45 or 50, fit, to me. You'd think they
would go after these shysters. If you can run a home improvement
business, including doing the work yourself, you're certainly capable
of holding down a job instead of collect SS disability. In the last
recession, the number of people collecting like that shot way up.
Sudden mass illness or fraud?

If you engage in what Social Security calls "substantial gainful
activity" (which is what the rest of us call work), by their definition
and regulation, you're not disabled and thus are not entitled to swill
at the public trough.


Yep, which is why I said you'd think the govt would go after these
frauds. That home renovator, when Judy had him on the grill, said
something about $765 a month or something. I think he was saying
that as long as that's all you make, it's allowed. That's kind of
a second problem. The first problem is people going on the disability
when they really could do some reasonable job. For example, just
because you have a bad back, doesn't mean in all cases that you can't
perform some kind of job.


For younger people, if you can do any kind of work, you're not disabled.

Even if you held a highly skilled position like a nuclear engineer or
brain surgeon and had now had an anxiety disorder that prevented you
from concentrating well enough to do your regular job, you could still
do routine, repetitive, unskilled work. An job example would be a
hand-packer- - the guy who puts the packages of six T-shirts in the
boxes that get shipped to Walmart.

Older workers only have to be able to do jobs comparable to their past
relevant work

--
The civil rights movement lost moral authority when it went from
demanding equal rights to demanding equal results.
- @larryelder

In article ,
says...


I'd like to point out that men (and women) working at small companies have
never had pensions. Little machine shops, repair places, etc. My mother,
who worked all of her life, gets by on what she was able to save and on
Social Security.



Only a few larger companies around where I live had pensions.

Even the company I worked for decided to do away with pensions for the
newer workeds. For the ones that worked there not long enough to be
vested got paid some for the years they worked and that ended their
pension. They changed the rules on me when they were bought out and
cost me around $ 500 per month.

Lots of places did not even have a 401k or the equal.


The SS and what they could save on their own ws all they had.

In article , says...

On 12/29/2017 1:44 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:





Or you could have worked for a large company where the pension vanished
when you were ready to retire and the company went belly up. Many people
got screwed like that.


I thought there was some kind of 'insurance' like that would pay a good
portion of the pension if the company went under.

Another was like the Enron (or whatever) that had the 401k tied into
their stock. When they went under, there went the 401k money. When the
stock started going down, they could not sell the stock. Like some
said, never buy much if any stock in the company you work for.

On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 13:13:16 -0500, Frank "frank wrote:

On 12/28/2017 11:06 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 23:57:04 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 00:09:37 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 20:36:37 -0600, Terry Coombs
wrote:

Ed Zachary ! That money was supposed to be in a trust and invested
for our retirement . Instead the ****in' politicians stole it to buy
votes . Had that money I paid in been invested in something that had a
return similar to what I invested on my own I'd be getting about 3 times
what I draw from SS .

That is true. If my SS money had been put into the stocks of the dow I
would have about 2.5 million bucks and If I had the dividends
reinvested it would be more like 3.5 - 4 million depending on the
stock mix.

More likely the entire stock market industry would be entirely different.
Boom and bust, panic, vast corruption. Public revolts, lynch mobs.
Maybe we'd have a different form of government by now.
Probably would be lucky to get a dime back.
Unless the government was running the stock markets, which presents it own problems.

There are other investments, I just used that as an example. Besides,
having that much pension money in the market would tend to stabilize
it since most would actually be in funds.
I will agree that we might face the same fate as SS since the boomers
will be pulling that money out, never to return but that may still be
a problem when the wave hits the 401k money.

Besides, nobody stopped you from investing a similar percentage on your own.

I did. That is why I could afford to retire at 49.


I was 53 when I got the golden handshake. I still do a little
consulting from home but 25 years later have not worked full time.

Mine was a little more subtle. They just told me I could work as long
as I wanted if I was willing to drive to the other coast of Florida
every day. Then they told the retirement package was getting worse
next year and I could have full benefits if I left now. I was out of
there in a month. It took that long to clean out my office ;-)

On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 12:19:14 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 11:03:58 -0500, wrote:



I did not start saving early enough to get all of that money because
Sammy took his 13% off the top and I did not have enough income to
match that for a number of years. The money I was saving, I used to
buy big ticket items without having to borrow. The last time I
borrowed any money was in the Ford administration.

Probably more like 7% when you started paying in.

Six point 4 percent on my pay stub and another 6.4% of my labor, that
my employer got to write off as a business expense. (plus MC)
You pay both sides of that FICA tax as part of your compensation, the
employer just gets credit saying he paid for half of it.
When they are budgeting the value/cost of your labor, it is all in
there.

7.25% was the total when you started paying in, assuming 1964.
3.625% from you, and 3.625% from your employer.
It hit 6.2 each in 1990 where it remains. Never hit 6.4%


The exact percentage taken is not important.

I was just pointing out that it wasn't 13% off the top that prevented you from investing.
Since it was closer to 7% off the top.
You probably had no faith in the stock market anyway until it was pumped up with 401k
contributions. A working man could rely on a company pension for retirement.
All this "If I had taken the SS money and put it in the stock market..." is basically
"woulda, coulda, shoulda" talk after the race is over.

I was still saving 10% of my gross. I just ****ed it away buying
things like a house and a condo. I would be richer but I was very
generous to my ex and that made for a divorce that left us still
friends. In the end that was a great investment.

On Friday, December 29, 2017 at 12:57:32 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 08:23:09 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, December 29, 2017 at 11:04:33 AM UTC-5, wrote:

The exact percentage taken is not important. The relevant thing is
that money was immediately spent and an IOU was put in the box.

What happens if instead of putting the excess into US treasuries,
they put the excess into a new issue of Ford corporate bonds?
Ford gets the money, spends it, an IOU gets put in the box.
What happens if it was stock? It's always an IOU of some kind.

We just did this but the important difference is Ford makes the money
to pay back those bonds.

Who would buy bonds in a company that has not shown a profit in 63
years? In fact that company would be a distant memory.


Then US bonds should be trading at a deep discounts, but they are not.
Investors around the world think they are among the safest in the
world, safer than Ford.

posted for all of us...

Had that money I paid in been invested in something that had a
return similar to what I invested on my own I'd be getting about 3 times
what I draw from SS .



That's true, but that is very different from saying it wasn't invested, was stolen, etc. It was invested exactly as the original law required. And remember that while you and most people today realize equities are a better vehicle, people sure were not going to stand for that in the depths of the depression, when ss was
created.
And the main point, the promise, the plan was never one based on investment to begin with.


It was originally a pay as you go plan but demographics scuttled that
idea by the 60s when the boomer problem became apparent. Goldwater
tried to warn us in time to actually do something about it and was
roundly criticized about it.
Now it is just a Ponzi and the pyramid has already flattened out. When
the top of a pyramid is only 2.4x the base there is no point to it.


+1

Let's face it; did we have a choice to get the money taken from us? In my
case it was a big NO. Also remember employers have to pay into it.

--
Tekkie

On Friday, December 29, 2017 at 5:46:18 PM UTC-5, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article , says...

On 12/29/2017 1:44 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:





Or you could have worked for a large company where the pension vanished
when you were ready to retire and the company went belly up. Many people
got screwed like that.


I thought there was some kind of 'insurance' like that would pay a good
portion of the pension if the company went under.

Another was like the Enron (or whatever) that had the 401k tied into
their stock. When they went under, there went the 401k money. When the
stock started going down, they could not sell the stock. Like some
said, never buy much if any stock in the company you work for.

That would have been some great advice with Intel, MSFT, Apple, Google, Boeing, GE, etc. There have been a whole lot more winners, than the
Enron losers. You certainly don't want to have your whole retirement
fund in one stock, but having a fairly high exposure in the stock of
a company you know and work for as part of a total financial picture,
can be an excellent idea.

On 12/30/2017 02:18 PM, Tekkie® wrote:
Let's face it; did we have a choice to get the money taken from us? In my
case it was a big NO. Also remember employers have to pay into it.

Unless you are self employed and have to pay the 'self employment tax'.

On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 15:08:29 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, December 29, 2017 at 5:46:18 PM UTC-5, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article , says...

On 12/29/2017 1:44 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:





Or you could have worked for a large company where the pension vanished
when you were ready to retire and the company went belly up. Many people
got screwed like that.


I thought there was some kind of 'insurance' like that would pay a good
portion of the pension if the company went under.

Another was like the Enron (or whatever) that had the 401k tied into
their stock. When they went under, there went the 401k money. When the
stock started going down, they could not sell the stock. Like some
said, never buy much if any stock in the company you work for.

That would have been some great advice with Intel, MSFT, Apple, Google, Boeing, GE, etc. There have been a whole lot more winners, than the
Enron losers. You certainly don't want to have your whole retirement
fund in one stock, but having a fairly high exposure in the stock of
a company you know and work for as part of a total financial picture,
can be an excellent idea.

For the average person, an index fund is probably the right way to go.

On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 18:23:29 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

On 12/30/2017 02:18 PM, Tekkie® wrote:
Let's face it; did we have a choice to get the money taken from us? In my
case it was a big NO. Also remember employers have to pay into it.

Unless you are self employed and have to pay the 'self employment tax'.

That is simply you recognizing who was paying that tax all along. It
was always part of your salary, the employer just skimmed it off and
sent it to the government for you. The main advantage is it is untaxed
money.

On 12/29/2017 8:14 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 13:13:16 -0500, Frank "frank wrote:

On 12/28/2017 11:06 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 23:57:04 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 00:09:37 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 20:36:37 -0600, Terry Coombs
wrote:

Ed Zachary ! That money was supposed to be in a trust and invested
for our retirement . Instead the ****in' politicians stole it to buy
votes . Had that money I paid in been invested in something that had a
return similar to what I invested on my own I'd be getting about 3 times
what I draw from SS .

That is true. If my SS money had been put into the stocks of the dow I
would have about 2.5 million bucks and If I had the dividends
reinvested it would be more like 3.5 - 4 million depending on the
stock mix.

More likely the entire stock market industry would be entirely different.
Boom and bust, panic, vast corruption. Public revolts, lynch mobs.
Maybe we'd have a different form of government by now.
Probably would be lucky to get a dime back.
Unless the government was running the stock markets, which presents it own problems.

There are other investments, I just used that as an example. Besides,
having that much pension money in the market would tend to stabilize
it since most would actually be in funds.
I will agree that we might face the same fate as SS since the boomers
will be pulling that money out, never to return but that may still be
a problem when the wave hits the 401k money.

Besides, nobody stopped you from investing a similar percentage on your own.

I did. That is why I could afford to retire at 49.


I was 53 when I got the golden handshake. I still do a little
consulting from home but 25 years later have not worked full time.

Mine was a little more subtle. They just told me I could work as long
as I wanted if I was willing to drive to the other coast of Florida
every day. Then they told the retirement package was getting worse
next year and I could have full benefits if I left now. I was out of
there in a month. It took that long to clean out my office ;-)


Mine was not subtle. DuPont company was shrinking and shedding
employees. I was offered 75% of pension because of age and 2 years
salary. If I did not take it my job was disappearing and I might have
to take less. I was able to stretch the retirement period for a few
months to get it into the new year and collect 5 weeks vacation to add
to the 5 I had in the bank. With vacation pay alone I was able to pay
off my mortgage and put in a new kitchen floor. Company paid extra
education cost so I took a real estate course to work as a realtor for a
while.

A year later those forced to retire had to leave in one month and got
one year pay put in their 401k plan. The final wave had to pack up and
leave the day they were told that their job no longer exists. It was
brutal.

DuPont employment dropped from about 20,000 in the area to about 5,000
and now the company is basically gone with sell offs and merger with Dow.

Companies, like people, mature, grow old and die.

On Sun, 31 Dec 2017 08:13:52 -0500, Frank "frank wrote:

On 12/29/2017 8:14 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 13:13:16 -0500, Frank "frank wrote:

I was 53 when I got the golden handshake. I still do a little
consulting from home but 25 years later have not worked full time.

Mine was a little more subtle. They just told me I could work as long
as I wanted if I was willing to drive to the other coast of Florida
every day. Then they told the retirement package was getting worse
next year and I could have full benefits if I left now. I was out of
there in a month. It took that long to clean out my office ;-)


Mine was not subtle. DuPont company was shrinking and shedding
employees. I was offered 75% of pension because of age and 2 years
salary. If I did not take it my job was disappearing and I might have
to take less. I was able to stretch the retirement period for a few
months to get it into the new year and collect 5 weeks vacation to add
to the 5 I had in the bank. With vacation pay alone I was able to pay
off my mortgage and put in a new kitchen floor. Company paid extra
education cost so I took a real estate course to work as a realtor for a
while.

A year later those forced to retire had to leave in one month and got
one year pay put in their 401k plan. The final wave had to pack up and
leave the day they were told that their job no longer exists. It was
brutal.

DuPont employment dropped from about 20,000 in the area to about 5,000
and now the company is basically gone with sell offs and merger with Dow.

Companies, like people, mature, grow old and die.

We had people pushed out like that but they tried to give them
something. They had a 5 year "bridge" to retirement for some that
allowed you to look like you had worked for up to 5 years when you
started collecting so that helped people who were close but you still
were on your own for that 5 years. That usually came with a 1 year
salary gift and a health plan for that 5 years.
Those were limited time offers when they started the downsizing.
Because of the way I separated, I didn't get anything but my pension.
I could have kissed some ass and received the $2500 education deal and
maybe an offer for a contractor job but I was done with them. I
already had another gig lined up it a totally different industry.

As for the result, our 3 county "office" went from 58 full time in 2
floors of a building to 3 guys working from home in about 7 years. The
whole company went the same way. They now have a lot of contractors
and few employees compared to the 80s and before.

On Friday, December 29, 2017 at 12:59:20 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 16:24:10 +0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
wrote:

notbob wrote:


I'd actually forgotten all the bailouts we've seen. Now The Orange
One is attempting to "bailout" his donors with his tax plan.

Not just his "donors", don't forget all of his mar a lago customers /
members, himself, his heirs and of course all of the foreign investors
who stand to save a fortune in taxes.

I am an old guy living on a fixed income and I will see an extra $2400
from this tax cut. The idea that it only benefits millionaires is just
a lie.

Maybe you could add that up for us. If you're single, you get an additional
$6K std deduction, $12K for a couple. Meanwhile you lose $4100 for each
personal exemption, which would be -$4100 for single, -$8400 for a couple.
So, for a couple you come out $3600 in your favor in reducing the taxable
INCOME. You'd have to be in the 70% income tax bracket to turn that into a
$2500 cut, but there is no such bracket. If you're in the 28% bracket,
it's more like $1000. I guess it could be via changes to the AMT or
something else.

On Mon, 1 Jan 2018 06:25:22 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, December 29, 2017 at 12:59:20 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 16:24:10 +0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
wrote:

notbob wrote:


I'd actually forgotten all the bailouts we've seen. Now The Orange
One is attempting to "bailout" his donors with his tax plan.

Not just his "donors", don't forget all of his mar a lago customers /
members, himself, his heirs and of course all of the foreign investors
who stand to save a fortune in taxes.

I am an old guy living on a fixed income and I will see an extra $2400
from this tax cut. The idea that it only benefits millionaires is just
a lie.

Maybe you could add that up for us. If you're single, you get an additional
$6K std deduction, $12K for a couple. Meanwhile you lose $4100 for each
personal exemption, which would be -$4100 for single, -$8400 for a couple.
So, for a couple you come out $3600 in your favor in reducing the taxable
INCOME. You'd have to be in the 70% income tax bracket to turn that into a
$2500 cut, but there is no such bracket. If you're in the 28% bracket,
it's more like $1000. I guess it could be via changes to the AMT or
something else.

I just know what the consensus of those online calculators tell me for
a couple making around $100k in Florida. Run it yourself. You also
need to add $1300 more onto that standard deduction for one over 65.

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 12:11:03 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jan 2018 06:25:22 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, December 29, 2017 at 12:59:20 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 16:24:10 +0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
wrote:

notbob wrote:


I'd actually forgotten all the bailouts we've seen. Now The Orange
One is attempting to "bailout" his donors with his tax plan.

Not just his "donors", don't forget all of his mar a lago customers /
members, himself, his heirs and of course all of the foreign investors
who stand to save a fortune in taxes.

I am an old guy living on a fixed income and I will see an extra $2400
from this tax cut. The idea that it only benefits millionaires is just
a lie.

Maybe you could add that up for us. If you're single, you get an additional
$6K std deduction, $12K for a couple. Meanwhile you lose $4100 for each
personal exemption, which would be -$4100 for single, -$8400 for a couple.
So, for a couple you come out $3600 in your favor in reducing the taxable
INCOME. You'd have to be in the 70% income tax bracket to turn that into a
$2500 cut, but there is no such bracket. If you're in the 28% bracket,
it's more like $1000. I guess it could be via changes to the AMT or
something else.

I just know what the consensus of those online calculators tell me for
a couple making around $100k in Florida. Run it yourself. You also
need to add $1300 more onto that standard deduction for one over 65.

If you know so much about the tax bill and how fair and wonderful it is,
then you should be able to explain it. I looked specifically at what
they changed, not what is already there. Did they change the std deduction
so that you get a larger one if you're over 65? First time I heard that.
The way to discuss tax policy is what the facts are, not out of what
comes out of some dubious online calculator, with no knowledge of how
it's calculated.

On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 06:24:04 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 12:11:03 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jan 2018 06:25:22 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, December 29, 2017 at 12:59:20 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 16:24:10 +0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
wrote:

notbob wrote:


I'd actually forgotten all the bailouts we've seen. Now The Orange
One is attempting to "bailout" his donors with his tax plan.

Not just his "donors", don't forget all of his mar a lago customers /
members, himself, his heirs and of course all of the foreign investors
who stand to save a fortune in taxes.

I am an old guy living on a fixed income and I will see an extra $2400
from this tax cut. The idea that it only benefits millionaires is just
a lie.

Maybe you could add that up for us. If you're single, you get an additional
$6K std deduction, $12K for a couple. Meanwhile you lose $4100 for each
personal exemption, which would be -$4100 for single, -$8400 for a couple.
So, for a couple you come out $3600 in your favor in reducing the taxable
INCOME. You'd have to be in the 70% income tax bracket to turn that into a
$2500 cut, but there is no such bracket. If you're in the 28% bracket,
it's more like $1000. I guess it could be via changes to the AMT or
something else.

I just know what the consensus of those online calculators tell me for
a couple making around $100k in Florida. Run it yourself. You also
need to add $1300 more onto that standard deduction for one over 65.

If you know so much about the tax bill and how fair and wonderful it is,
then you should be able to explain it. I looked specifically at what
they changed, not what is already there. Did they change the std deduction
so that you get a larger one if you're over 65? First time I heard that.
The way to discuss tax policy is what the facts are, not out of what
comes out of some dubious online calculator, with no knowledge of how
it's calculated.

Since 2 separate calculators came up with essentially the same number,
I tend to believe it. Yes the extra deduction for blind people and
seniors did make into the bill.

On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 12:10:35 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 06:24:04 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 12:11:03 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jan 2018 06:25:22 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, December 29, 2017 at 12:59:20 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 16:24:10 +0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
wrote:

notbob wrote:


I'd actually forgotten all the bailouts we've seen. Now The Orange
One is attempting to "bailout" his donors with his tax plan.

Not just his "donors", don't forget all of his mar a lago customers /
members, himself, his heirs and of course all of the foreign investors
who stand to save a fortune in taxes.

I am an old guy living on a fixed income and I will see an extra $2400
from this tax cut. The idea that it only benefits millionaires is just
a lie.

Maybe you could add that up for us. If you're single, you get an additional
$6K std deduction, $12K for a couple. Meanwhile you lose $4100 for each
personal exemption, which would be -$4100 for single, -$8400 for a couple.
So, for a couple you come out $3600 in your favor in reducing the taxable
INCOME. You'd have to be in the 70% income tax bracket to turn that into a
$2500 cut, but there is no such bracket. If you're in the 28% bracket,
it's more like $1000. I guess it could be via changes to the AMT or
something else.

I just know what the consensus of those online calculators tell me for
a couple making around $100k in Florida. Run it yourself. You also
need to add $1300 more onto that standard deduction for one over 65.

If you know so much about the tax bill and how fair and wonderful it is,
then you should be able to explain it. I looked specifically at what
they changed, not what is already there. Did they change the std deduction
so that you get a larger one if you're over 65? First time I heard that.
The way to discuss tax policy is what the facts are, not out of what
comes out of some dubious online calculator, with no knowledge of how
it's calculated.

Since 2 separate calculators came up with essentially the same number,
I tend to believe it. Yes the extra deduction for blind people and
seniors did make into the bill.

You must be a very conflicted person. On the one hand you complain about
the national debt and how we're headed for imminent disaster. On the
other hand, give you $2K while increasing the debt, borrowing to give
it to you and that's just swell.

On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 09:15:03 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 12:10:35 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 06:24:04 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 12:11:03 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jan 2018 06:25:22 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, December 29, 2017 at 12:59:20 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 16:24:10 +0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
wrote:

notbob wrote:


I'd actually forgotten all the bailouts we've seen. Now The Orange
One is attempting to "bailout" his donors with his tax plan.

Not just his "donors", don't forget all of his mar a lago customers /
members, himself, his heirs and of course all of the foreign investors
who stand to save a fortune in taxes.

I am an old guy living on a fixed income and I will see an extra $2400
from this tax cut. The idea that it only benefits millionaires is just
a lie.

Maybe you could add that up for us. If you're single, you get an additional
$6K std deduction, $12K for a couple. Meanwhile you lose $4100 for each
personal exemption, which would be -$4100 for single, -$8400 for a couple.
So, for a couple you come out $3600 in your favor in reducing the taxable
INCOME. You'd have to be in the 70% income tax bracket to turn that into a
$2500 cut, but there is no such bracket. If you're in the 28% bracket,
it's more like $1000. I guess it could be via changes to the AMT or
something else.

I just know what the consensus of those online calculators tell me for
a couple making around $100k in Florida. Run it yourself. You also
need to add $1300 more onto that standard deduction for one over 65.

If you know so much about the tax bill and how fair and wonderful it is,
then you should be able to explain it. I looked specifically at what
they changed, not what is already there. Did they change the std deduction
so that you get a larger one if you're over 65? First time I heard that.
The way to discuss tax policy is what the facts are, not out of what
comes out of some dubious online calculator, with no knowledge of how
it's calculated.

Since 2 separate calculators came up with essentially the same number,
I tend to believe it. Yes the extra deduction for blind people and
seniors did make into the bill.

You must be a very conflicted person. On the one hand you complain about
the national debt and how we're headed for imminent disaster. On the
other hand, give you $2K while increasing the debt, borrowing to give
it to you and that's just swell.

I have said many times, I think the tax cut, any tax cut, is a bad
idea but I also understand the real middle class, between 50% and 90%
will do well by it. This really does shaft the top 2 or 3% who live in
such a bubble that they think they are in the middle.

On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 3:41:45 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 09:15:03 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 12:10:35 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 06:24:04 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 12:11:03 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jan 2018 06:25:22 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, December 29, 2017 at 12:59:20 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 16:24:10 +0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
wrote:

notbob wrote:


I'd actually forgotten all the bailouts we've seen. Now The Orange
One is attempting to "bailout" his donors with his tax plan.

Not just his "donors", don't forget all of his mar a lago customers /
members, himself, his heirs and of course all of the foreign investors
who stand to save a fortune in taxes.

I am an old guy living on a fixed income and I will see an extra $2400
from this tax cut. The idea that it only benefits millionaires is just
a lie.

Maybe you could add that up for us. If you're single, you get an additional
$6K std deduction, $12K for a couple. Meanwhile you lose $4100 for each
personal exemption, which would be -$4100 for single, -$8400 for a couple.
So, for a couple you come out $3600 in your favor in reducing the taxable
INCOME. You'd have to be in the 70% income tax bracket to turn that into a
$2500 cut, but there is no such bracket. If you're in the 28% bracket,
it's more like $1000. I guess it could be via changes to the AMT or
something else.

I just know what the consensus of those online calculators tell me for
a couple making around $100k in Florida. Run it yourself. You also
need to add $1300 more onto that standard deduction for one over 65.

If you know so much about the tax bill and how fair and wonderful it is,
then you should be able to explain it. I looked specifically at what
they changed, not what is already there. Did they change the std deduction
so that you get a larger one if you're over 65? First time I heard that.
The way to discuss tax policy is what the facts are, not out of what
comes out of some dubious online calculator, with no knowledge of how
it's calculated.

Since 2 separate calculators came up with essentially the same number,
I tend to believe it. Yes the extra deduction for blind people and
seniors did make into the bill.

You must be a very conflicted person. On the one hand you complain about
the national debt and how we're headed for imminent disaster. On the
other hand, give you $2K while increasing the debt, borrowing to give
it to you and that's just swell.

I have said many times, I think the tax cut, any tax cut, is a bad
idea

Well, for someone that thinks it's a bad idea, you sure spend a lot
of time defending it.



but I also understand the real middle class, between 50% and 90%
will do well by it. This really does shaft the top 2 or 3% who live in
such a bubble that they think they are in the middle.

It doesn't hurt the top income earners either. They get a reduction in
the top tax rate. You didn't think Trump was going to screw himself,
did you? If you have a million in income, you save $26K. Who get screwed? People who had combined deductions, including
state and local taxes and charity and health care costs that were worth
more than the few
hundred bucks tossed to them in the tax cut. Or the poor ******* who's
house burns down with no insurance, because that's not deductible anymore.
Unless you happen to be in an area that's declared a disaster area.
So much for fairness. And the poor stiffs who have to
pay alimony. Merry Xmas!

BTW, I see one of the great GOP minds that came up with this awful tax
cut just announced he's done too. Orin Hatch won't run. That clears
the way for Mitt Romney, who I'm sure the Trump will just love to have
in the Senate. I bet Mitt would never have signed this piece of crap.

On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 14:04:28 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 3:41:45 PM UTC-5, wrote:



but I also understand the real middle class, between 50% and 90%
will do well by it. This really does shaft the top 2 or 3% who live in
such a bubble that they think they are in the middle.

It doesn't hurt the top income earners either. They get a reduction in
the top tax rate. You didn't think Trump was going to screw himself,
did you? If you have a million in income, you save $26K. Who get screwed? People who had combined deductions, including
state and local taxes and charity and health care costs that were worth
more than the few
hundred bucks tossed to them in the tax cut. Or the poor ******* who's
house burns down with no insurance, because that's not deductible anymore.
Unless you happen to be in an area that's declared a disaster area.
So much for fairness. And the poor stiffs who have to
pay alimony. Merry Xmas!


I am sure you can cherry pick out the losers on any legislation if you
want. The only reason you care is because you assume you are one of
them.
"few hundred bucks"? They added $1300 to the child tax credit which is
worth at least five times as much as a deduction or exemption for most
people. They also adjusted the tables down.
If someone doesn't insure their home, why is it something the tax
payer should be on the hook for?
I don't want to pay for their uninsured car or their uninsured medical
bills either. If I understand the alimony thing, they just shifted the
tax burden to the payer and away from the receiver. If they weren't
screwing around, there probably wouldn't be any alimony.
If you are making a million, aren't you the ones the democrats want to
screw?
You still are crying about rich white people's problems, not the real
middle class.

BTW, I see one of the great GOP minds that came up with this awful tax
cut just announced he's done too. Orin Hatch won't run. That clears
the way for Mitt Romney, who I'm sure the Trump will just love to have
in the Senate. I bet Mitt would never have signed this piece of crap.

Hard to say about Mitt. I have not heard his opinion but wasn't he the
one you folks were complaining about for using accounting tricks not
to pay taxes? I bet he is doing OK

On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 8:25:11 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 14:04:28 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 3:41:45 PM UTC-5, wrote:



but I also understand the real middle class, between 50% and 90%
will do well by it. This really does shaft the top 2 or 3% who live in
such a bubble that they think they are in the middle.

It doesn't hurt the top income earners either. They get a reduction in
the top tax rate. You didn't think Trump was going to screw himself,
did you? If you have a million in income, you save $26K. Who get screwed? People who had combined deductions, including
state and local taxes and charity and health care costs that were worth
more than the few
hundred bucks tossed to them in the tax cut. Or the poor ******* who's
house burns down with no insurance, because that's not deductible anymore.
Unless you happen to be in an area that's declared a disaster area.
So much for fairness. And the poor stiffs who have to
pay alimony. Merry Xmas!


I am sure you can cherry pick out the losers on any legislation if you
want. The only reason you care is because you assume you are one of
them.

That;s a lie. I cited specific things that are totally unfair,
disgusting and inconsistent with conservatism. For example, telling
a family who;s house burned down and all or part of their loss was
not covered, screw you. I don't have a burned down house, nor do I
need to have one, to know it's fundamentally wrong. So too is eliminating
the charitable deduction, while claiming that charity should feed the
poor, provide them healthcare. I'd submit that it's YOU that's only
interested in what's in it for you. You're the one that keeps saying
how happy you are that you're getting $2500. Yet at the same time,
you say the country is going broke because of the deficit. Go figure.



"few hundred bucks"? They added $1300 to the child tax credit

No they didn't. They added $1000. The $1300 is the max total amount you
can get refunded if your tax credit exceeds the tax you owe. In other
words, they give you up to $1300. I thought you were against welfare?
That's what it is, a handout if you pay no taxes at all.
And in another thread here, you claimed the big problem with pollution
and the state of the earth was too many people, so why are we incentivizing
people, especially poor people, to have more kids? It should work
the other way, the more kids you have the more you cost society,
eg for schools, so the more you should pay in tax.



which is
worth at least five times as much as a deduction or exemption for most
people.

Again, you only focus on the positives and completely ignore the major
negatives, eg they eliminated the $4100 per person exemptions! For a
family of four, that's a minus $16,4000.





They also adjusted the tables down.
If someone doesn't insure their home, why is it something the tax
payer should be on the hook for?

Why should we be on the hook for your extra senior deduction?
Maybe you can answer that. Especially if you're well off, have
assets, why do you deserve a break every year, but the guy who's
house burns down, should pay up? Further, as pointed out many
times, if you're in a disaster area as declared by the president,
only then can you deduct the loss of your house. Explain to us
why the family in Houston gets a break, while the family in Ohio,
gets to pay full taxes? It's simply disgusting and indefensible,
but welcome to the new Trump Amerika. There was more than enough
bad in that bill to vote no.





I don't want to pay for their uninsured car or their uninsured medical
bills either.

Yet you want them to pay for your extra senior deduction, every year.



If I understand the alimony thing, they just shifted the
tax burden to the payer and away from the receiver. If they weren't
screwing around, there probably wouldn't be any alimony.
If you are making a million, aren't you the ones the democrats want to
screw?
You still are crying about rich white people's problems, not the real
middle class.

How lame. Now only rich people get divorced? Generally, the spouse
paying alimony is going to be in a higher tax bracket than the spouse
receiving it. It's going to cost middle class people thousands in
extra tax, sending more money to the govt, instead of leaving it with
people struggling financially after a divorce. And again, was this
ever an issue? Ever brought up during a campaign? No, it's just
another evil thing Trump and the GOP did so that they could raise
money to give a $260K tax cut to someone making $10 mil.

Unlike you, I don't have to be divorced to know that this is totally
wrong.





BTW, I see one of the great GOP minds that came up with this awful tax
cut just announced he's done too. Orin Hatch won't run. That clears
the way for Mitt Romney, who I'm sure the Trump will just love to have
in the Senate. I bet Mitt would never have signed this piece of crap.

Hard to say about Mitt. I have not heard his opinion but wasn't he the
one you folks were complaining about for using accounting tricks not
to pay taxes? I bet he is doing OK

Again, with the lame "you folks". I'm not a lib, just an honest conservative
who isn't worshipping at the cult of Trump and who won't sell out my sole
for a clown act and $500.

On Wed, 3 Jan 2018 06:40:42 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 8:25:11 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 14:04:28 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 3:41:45 PM UTC-5, wrote:



but I also understand the real middle class, between 50% and 90%
will do well by it. This really does shaft the top 2 or 3% who live in
such a bubble that they think they are in the middle.

It doesn't hurt the top income earners either. They get a reduction in
the top tax rate. You didn't think Trump was going to screw himself,
did you? If you have a million in income, you save $26K. Who get screwed? People who had combined deductions, including
state and local taxes and charity and health care costs that were worth
more than the few
hundred bucks tossed to them in the tax cut. Or the poor ******* who's
house burns down with no insurance, because that's not deductible anymore.
Unless you happen to be in an area that's declared a disaster area.
So much for fairness. And the poor stiffs who have to
pay alimony. Merry Xmas!


I am sure you can cherry pick out the losers on any legislation if you
want. The only reason you care is because you assume you are one of
them.

That;s a lie. I cited specific things that are totally unfair,
disgusting and inconsistent with conservatism. For example, telling
a family who;s house burned down and all or part of their loss was
not covered, screw you. I don't have a burned down house, nor do I
need to have one, to know it's fundamentally wrong. So too is eliminating
the charitable deduction, while claiming that charity should feed the
poor, provide them healthcare. I'd submit that it's YOU that's only
interested in what's in it for you. You're the one that keeps saying
how happy you are that you're getting $2500. Yet at the same time,
you say the country is going broke because of the deficit. Go figure.



"few hundred bucks"? They added $1300 to the child tax credit

No they didn't. They added $1000. The $1300 is the max total amount you
can get refunded if your tax credit exceeds the tax you owe. In other
words, they give you up to $1300. I thought you were against welfare?
That's what it is, a handout if you pay no taxes at all.
And in another thread here, you claimed the big problem with pollution
and the state of the earth was too many people, so why are we incentivizing
people, especially poor people, to have more kids? It should work
the other way, the more kids you have the more you cost society,
eg for schools, so the more you should pay in tax.



which is
worth at least five times as much as a deduction or exemption for most
people.

Again, you only focus on the positives and completely ignore the major
negatives, eg they eliminated the $4100 per person exemptions! For a
family of four, that's a minus $16,4000.





They also adjusted the tables down.
If someone doesn't insure their home, why is it something the tax
payer should be on the hook for?

Why should we be on the hook for your extra senior deduction?
Maybe you can answer that. Especially if you're well off, have
assets, why do you deserve a break every year, but the guy who's
house burns down, should pay up? Further, as pointed out many
times, if you're in a disaster area as declared by the president,
only then can you deduct the loss of your house. Explain to us
why the family in Houston gets a break, while the family in Ohio,
gets to pay full taxes? It's simply disgusting and indefensible,
but welcome to the new Trump Amerika. There was more than enough
bad in that bill to vote no.





I don't want to pay for their uninsured car or their uninsured medical
bills either.

Yet you want them to pay for your extra senior deduction, every year.



If I understand the alimony thing, they just shifted the
tax burden to the payer and away from the receiver. If they weren't
screwing around, there probably wouldn't be any alimony.
If you are making a million, aren't you the ones the democrats want to
screw?
You still are crying about rich white people's problems, not the real
middle class.

How lame. Now only rich people get divorced? Generally, the spouse
paying alimony is going to be in a higher tax bracket than the spouse
receiving it. It's going to cost middle class people thousands in
extra tax, sending more money to the govt, instead of leaving it with
people struggling financially after a divorce. And again, was this
ever an issue? Ever brought up during a campaign? No, it's just
another evil thing Trump and the GOP did so that they could raise
money to give a $260K tax cut to someone making $10 mil.

Unlike you, I don't have to be divorced to know that this is totally
wrong.





BTW, I see one of the great GOP minds that came up with this awful tax
cut just announced he's done too. Orin Hatch won't run. That clears
the way for Mitt Romney, who I'm sure the Trump will just love to have
in the Senate. I bet Mitt would never have signed this piece of crap.

Hard to say about Mitt. I have not heard his opinion but wasn't he the
one you folks were complaining about for using accounting tricks not
to pay taxes? I bet he is doing OK

Again, with the lame "you folks". I'm not a lib, just an honest conservative
who isn't worshipping at the cult of Trump and who won't sell out my sole
for a clown act and $500.

You really need to make up your mind. Either tax treatment is unfair
or it's welfare. You have said both in one rant.
I don't like Trump and I am not a big fan of this tax cut but I also
don't like the lies rich coastal people tell about it,
You live in a bubble and you din't have a clue about the real
"middle".

OUT