On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 19:13:46 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

On 11/16/2019 03:00 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
I use a simple tax preparation package on my computer that does all
the calcs and what-ifs - and e-files for me.
I do mine. my wife's, both daughters, son-inlaw and stepmother for
about $30

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/tax...-doing-n736386

Yeah, but Canada isn't the bastion of free enterprise and the best
government money can buy. (if it were, you might want to return Trudeau
for a refund.)
Compared to Thumper and Bozo he's a gem!!!And as for "free
enterprise" I'll take the Canadian system over the Yankee system -
even with our higher taxes - ANY DAY.
Speakerg both as a private citizen and as a businessman.

Up here in Canada we still elect ourgovernment, we don't BUY it.

On 14/11/19 9:11 am, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 13:43:38 -0500, Ralph Mowery
wrote:

In article , "frank says...

Fixed income for many may be pensions or anything else that does not
keep pace with inflation. You might get more SS every year but it does
not keep pace with inflation.




Just like where I worked. For the first 10 years we got good raises,
then the business got bad. Some years we did not even get a raise, some
years we just got a small lump sum that was not even in pace with
inflation.

Ok on the pensions. That can be a fixed source of income. The one our
company had never goes up year to year so we loose out to inflation.

I went 27 years with no increase in pay. Went from being well paid for
the job to being grossly under-paid.

What sort of place did you work for and why did you stay?

--

Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 14:06:24 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 11/16/2019 10:23 AM, Frank wrote:
On 11/16/2019 3:44 AM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 01:53:23 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 15:39:02 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 20:42:55 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:16:28 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just crashed
and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to normal.
Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right.Â* Removing trump will fire up the market assuming his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their
politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations and
taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare investors
enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the market.

Nonsense.Â*Â* Corporations existed for seven decades with more
stringent restrictions and taxes than today and we did just fine.

We were not in a global economy then. There was no real competition
and moving your operation offshore was much harder, if not
impossible.


and it might not be one we recover from in my lifetime.
The middle class still hasn't recovered from the malaise
after they
removed Nixon. .

You're confused again.Â* The economic malaise had nothing to do
with
Nixon and everything to do with the embargo.

There are plenty of economists who say the middle class never
recovered.

Never recovered from _what_ exactly?Â*Â* From the embargo and
associated
economic malaise?Â*Â* Certainly not from the impeachment/resignation,
which nobody gave a **** about after 6 months.

It started the political divide that still exists today and that was
also when we decided deficits no longer mattered. The only thing
that
is holding down double digit inflation is the Fed's thumb on the
scale
and that can't last much longer. The only thing that is holding
up the
economy these days is the blind faith and credit of the US.
I am not going to say Trump did any better but it is a 45 year old
problem, not helped by a forced resignation and what will now be two
impeachments. That does not bode well for the republic.
The day the world markets decide we are really just another banana
republic selling worthless paper, interest rates will spike and we
won't be able to cover them with our revenue.
We take in about $2.4 trillion if you exclude FICA that is spent
before we even get it and at a Carter era interest rate (11-12%)
that
would barely cover the interest on the $22T debt.
That leaves nothing for anything else the government needs to spend
money on. Taxing the Forbes 400 at 90% won't even make a dent in
that
deficit. All it will do is make them move their money offshore
making
our problems worse.

Your saying it, doesn't make it true.Â* Provide some citations to
actual,
you know, research that supports your supposition.

Which part confuses you? That Carter had a 11-12% interest rate on
federal paper. That is fact
That the debt is $22T? Fact
That 12% of $22T is $2.64T? Fact
That the total revenue minus the FICA is $2.4T? Fact
That the fact that the FICA is not even covering the outlay for the
people we promised it to? Fact

You can't just say "NO" without being ready to tell me what part is
wrong. Tell me which one is not true.

Interest rates on govt debt arent going back to 11-12%

And you know this how?


Mortgage rates were 22% when I bought this house. Fortunately I was
able to assume the 6% existing mortgage on the property!!!!


Mine were 9% and they were heading up after that.Â* Smart thing I did was
take 20 year mortgage and pay it off in 18.

When I moved to CT in 1981 I was able to get a good deal at 15%.
Refinanced twice as the rates dropped.

I had an Excel spreadsheet from somewhere that showed you the savings if
you prepay. Every month I put the payment and extra payment and the
total savings showed. It was a visible incentive to pay it off quickly.

I did that with my condo. It was a 15 year note, paid off in 7 and the
saving was astounding. Just make sure the note is written such that
over payments come directly off the principle. That was originally a
refi, taking a 30 year note down to 15 with a lower interest rate. My
payment actually dropped a few bucks. I had to argue with them to get
the contract that had the overpayment thing defined as coming of the
principle but it was just a different form in his desk that they don't
pull out unless someone insists.
I have a good friend who was a real estate broker and she told me
about that.

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 15:03:25 -0500, Ralph Mowery
wrote:

In article ,
says...

I imagine the end result is about like the US but it seems more
complicated. Unusual for a place where the normal tax return seems to
be a one or 2 page document that should take 10-15 minutes to fill
out.
It takes me a couple hours and I have a pretty simple return. The
problem is the convoluted "work sheets" you need to run through to do
things like take 85% of your SS payments or figure out if your
dividends are taxable.



I believe that was another thing my man Trump was suppose to do and make
a very short tax return paper.

Mine is simple now. Just a few stocks, my and wifes IRA and SS. Just
the standard deductions and state and local taxes.

I use a tax program like Turbo Tax on the computer, and it still takes a
while to work through all the questions on it.

I have no idea if it is done right or not. Just hope for the best.
Seem to recall that Einstein said something like taxes are not for math
people, but philosophers.

I have heard and know of one man that has called the IRS and gotten
several answers to the same question about something relative simple
like his teachers pension and taxes.

I used Turbo Tax when I had my business but it is not worth it for my
individual return.

On 17/11/19 2:23 am, Frank wrote:
On 11/16/2019 3:44 AM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 01:53:23 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 15:39:02 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 20:42:55 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:16:28 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just crashed
and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to normal.
Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right.Â* Removing trump will fire up the market assuming his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their
politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations and
taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare investors
enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the market.

Nonsense.Â*Â* Corporations existed for seven decades with more
stringent restrictions and taxes than today and we did just fine.

We were not in a global economy then. There was no real competition
and moving your operation offshore was much harder, if not
impossible.


and it might not be one we recover from in my lifetime.
The middle class still hasn't recovered from the malaise
after they
removed Nixon. .

You're confused again.Â* The economic malaise had nothing to do
with
Nixon and everything to do with the embargo.

There are plenty of economists who say the middle class never
recovered.

Never recovered from _what_ exactly?Â*Â* From the embargo and
associated
economic malaise?Â*Â* Certainly not from the impeachment/resignation,
which nobody gave a **** about after 6 months.

It started the political divide that still exists today and that was
also when we decided deficits no longer mattered. The only thing
that
is holding down double digit inflation is the Fed's thumb on the
scale
and that can't last much longer. The only thing that is holding
up the
economy these days is the blind faith and credit of the US.
I am not going to say Trump did any better but it is a 45 year old
problem, not helped by a forced resignation and what will now be two
impeachments. That does not bode well for the republic.
The day the world markets decide we are really just another banana
republic selling worthless paper, interest rates will spike and we
won't be able to cover them with our revenue.
We take in about $2.4 trillion if you exclude FICA that is spent
before we even get it and at a Carter era interest rate (11-12%)
that
would barely cover the interest on the $22T debt.
That leaves nothing for anything else the government needs to spend
money on. Taxing the Forbes 400 at 90% won't even make a dent in
that
deficit. All it will do is make them move their money offshore
making
our problems worse.

Your saying it, doesn't make it true.Â* Provide some citations to
actual,
you know, research that supports your supposition.

Which part confuses you? That Carter had a 11-12% interest rate on
federal paper. That is fact
That the debt is $22T? Fact
That 12% of $22T is $2.64T? Fact
That the total revenue minus the FICA is $2.4T? Fact
That the fact that the FICA is not even covering the outlay for the
people we promised it to? Fact

You can't just say "NO" without being ready to tell me what part is
wrong. Tell me which one is not true.

Interest rates on govt debt arent going back to 11-12%

And you know this how?


Mortgage rates were 22% when I bought this house. Fortunately I was
able to assume the 6% existing mortgage on the property!!!!


Mine were 9% and they were heading up after that.Â* Smart thing I did was
take 20 year mortgage and pay it off in 18.

Mine started at 13%, rocketed up to 18% forcing me to do two jobs in
order to keep the house. It too was 20 years but paid it off in 13. Life
became easier after that - until I became sick in 2001 and, after a long
period on sick leave, was forced into very early retirement. All my
plans went just a little awry! :-(

--

Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 17/11/19 6:06 am, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 11/16/2019 10:23 AM, Frank wrote:
On 11/16/2019 3:44 AM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 01:53:23 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 15:39:02 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 20:42:55 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:16:28 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just crashed
and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to
normal. Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right.Â* Removing trump will fire up the market assuming
his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their
politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations and
taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare investors
enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the market.

Nonsense.Â*Â* Corporations existed for seven decades with more
stringent restrictions and taxes than today and we did just fine.

We were not in a global economy then. There was no real competition
and moving your operation offshore was much harder, if not
impossible.


and it might not be one we recover from in my lifetime.
The middle class still hasn't recovered from the malaise
after they
removed Nixon. .

You're confused again.Â* The economic malaise had nothing to
do with
Nixon and everything to do with the embargo.

There are plenty of economists who say the middle class never
recovered.

Never recovered from _what_ exactly?Â*Â* From the embargo and
associated
economic malaise?Â*Â* Certainly not from the
impeachment/resignation,
which nobody gave a **** about after 6 months.

It started the political divide that still exists today and that
was
also when we decided deficits no longer mattered. The only thing
that
is holding down double digit inflation is the Fed's thumb on the
scale
and that can't last much longer. The only thing that is holding
up the
economy these days is the blind faith and credit of the US.
I am not going to say Trump did any better but it is a 45 year old
problem, not helped by a forced resignation and what will now be
two
impeachments. That does not bode well for the republic.
The day the world markets decide we are really just another banana
republic selling worthless paper, interest rates will spike and we
won't be able to cover them with our revenue.
We take in about $2.4 trillion if you exclude FICA that is spent
before we even get it and at a Carter era interest rate (11-12%)
that
would barely cover the interest on the $22T debt.
That leaves nothing for anything else the government needs to spend
money on. Taxing the Forbes 400 at 90% won't even make a dent in
that
deficit. All it will do is make them move their money offshore
making
our problems worse.

Your saying it, doesn't make it true.Â* Provide some citations to
actual,
you know, research that supports your supposition.

Which part confuses you? That Carter had a 11-12% interest rate on
federal paper. That is fact
That the debt is $22T? Fact
That 12% of $22T is $2.64T? Fact
That the total revenue minus the FICA is $2.4T? Fact
That the fact that the FICA is not even covering the outlay for the
people we promised it to? Fact

You can't just say "NO" without being ready to tell me what part is
wrong. Tell me which one is not true.

Interest rates on govt debt arent going back to 11-12%

And you know this how?


Mortgage rates were 22% when I bought this house. Fortunately I was
able to assume the 6% existing mortgage on the property!!!!


Mine were 9% and they were heading up after that.Â* Smart thing I did
was take 20 year mortgage and pay it off in 18.

When I moved to CT in 1981 I was able to get a good deal at 15%.
Refinanced twice as the rates dropped.

I had an Excel spreadsheet from somewhere that showed you the savings if
you prepay.Â* Every month I put the payment and extra payment and the
total savings showed.Â* It was a visible incentive to pay it off quickly.

Yes indeed, I pumped every spare cent into paying off that loan.
Watching the principal start to fall, then accelerate downwards was bliss.

--

Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 15/11/19 12:09 am, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 7:47:07 PM UTC-5, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...

I look at it as "fixed" in the sense that I have no control re Social
Security and pension benefit amounts. I can't ask for a raise, get a
promotion, change "employer". And any COLAs don't begin to cover cost
increases.



Sure you can change jobs if you are physically able. Change from
retired to Wallmart. Saw a sign today at a Walmart in NC they are
starting out at $ 11 an hour.

For some of us a 40 hour week there would bring in less than SS.

That would only just cover my medication expenses and allow me a daily
cup of coffee.



After I retired I was offered 2 jobs. I could probably work part time
at another if I really wanted to. I did not need the money,so turned it
all down.

It happens, but it's certainly true that once you're into your 50s it
becomes hard to find a good, real job. Employers see some 55 year old
that was earning $150K and figure that they can hire a 30 year old
for $50K, give them raises over time, they will be happy. Even if the
55 year old takes the job for $50K, they figure they will only be there
until they find a higher paying job, won't be happy, etc, etc, etc.



--

Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 11/16/19 10:21 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
Up here in Canada we still elect ourgovernment, we don't BUY it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...dals_in_Canada

On 11/17/2019 12:01 AM, Xeno wrote:
On 17/11/19 2:23 am, Frank wrote:
On 11/16/2019 3:44 AM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 01:53:23 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 15:39:02 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 20:42:55 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:16:28 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just crashed
and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to
normal. Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right.Â* Removing trump will fire up the market assuming
his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their
politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations and
taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare investors
enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the market.

Nonsense.Â*Â* Corporations existed for seven decades with more
stringent restrictions and taxes than today and we did just fine.

We were not in a global economy then. There was no real competition
and moving your operation offshore was much harder, if not
impossible.


and it might not be one we recover from in my lifetime.
The middle class still hasn't recovered from the malaise
after they
removed Nixon. .

You're confused again.Â* The economic malaise had nothing to
do with
Nixon and everything to do with the embargo.

There are plenty of economists who say the middle class never
recovered.

Never recovered from _what_ exactly?Â*Â* From the embargo and
associated
economic malaise?Â*Â* Certainly not from the
impeachment/resignation,
which nobody gave a **** about after 6 months.

It started the political divide that still exists today and that
was
also when we decided deficits no longer mattered. The only thing
that
is holding down double digit inflation is the Fed's thumb on the
scale
and that can't last much longer. The only thing that is holding
up the
economy these days is the blind faith and credit of the US.
I am not going to say Trump did any better but it is a 45 year old
problem, not helped by a forced resignation and what will now be
two
impeachments. That does not bode well for the republic.
The day the world markets decide we are really just another banana
republic selling worthless paper, interest rates will spike and we
won't be able to cover them with our revenue.
We take in about $2.4 trillion if you exclude FICA that is spent
before we even get it and at a Carter era interest rate (11-12%)
that
would barely cover the interest on the $22T debt.
That leaves nothing for anything else the government needs to spend
money on. Taxing the Forbes 400 at 90% won't even make a dent in
that
deficit. All it will do is make them move their money offshore
making
our problems worse.

Your saying it, doesn't make it true.Â* Provide some citations to
actual,
you know, research that supports your supposition.

Which part confuses you? That Carter had a 11-12% interest rate on
federal paper. That is fact
That the debt is $22T? Fact
That 12% of $22T is $2.64T? Fact
That the total revenue minus the FICA is $2.4T? Fact
That the fact that the FICA is not even covering the outlay for the
people we promised it to? Fact

You can't just say "NO" without being ready to tell me what part is
wrong. Tell me which one is not true.

Interest rates on govt debt arent going back to 11-12%

And you know this how?


Mortgage rates were 22% when I bought this house. Fortunately I was
able to assume the 6% existing mortgage on the property!!!!


Mine were 9% and they were heading up after that.Â* Smart thing I did
was take 20 year mortgage and pay it off in 18.

Mine started at 13%, rocketed up to 18% forcing me to do two jobs in
order to keep the house. It too was 20 years but paid it off in 13. Life
became easier after that - until I became sick in 2001 and, after a long
period on sick leave, was forced into very early retirement. All my
plans went just a little awry!Â* :-(


I was forced to retire early too. I had accumulated enough vacation pay
to pay off the house and get a new kitchen floor. Son's had finished
college and all was paid for. Our eldest son who is the same age I was
when I retired has his house paid off and our youngest son is near there
too. I started consulting and still do a bit today. Never had any
financial woes.

You are lucky on your pension. Most businesses today are not offering
them. They give you extra for your 401k and when you are no longer
working there you are done with them.

On 18/11/19 12:19 am, Frank wrote:
On 11/17/2019 12:01 AM, Xeno wrote:
On 17/11/19 2:23 am, Frank wrote:
On 11/16/2019 3:44 AM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 01:53:23 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 15:39:02 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 20:42:55 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:16:28 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just
crashed and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to
normal. Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a
crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do
succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right.Â* Removing trump will fire up the market
assuming his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their
politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations and
taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare investors
enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the market.

Nonsense.Â*Â* Corporations existed for seven decades with more
stringent restrictions and taxes than today and we did just fine.

We were not in a global economy then. There was no real
competition
and moving your operation offshore was much harder, if not
impossible.


and it might not be one we recover from in my lifetime.
The middle class still hasn't recovered from the malaise
after they
removed Nixon. .

You're confused again.Â* The economic malaise had nothing to
do with
Nixon and everything to do with the embargo.

There are plenty of economists who say the middle class never
recovered.

Never recovered from _what_ exactly?Â*Â* From the embargo and
associated
economic malaise?Â*Â* Certainly not from the
impeachment/resignation,
which nobody gave a **** about after 6 months.

It started the political divide that still exists today and
that was
also when we decided deficits no longer mattered. The only
thing that
is holding down double digit inflation is the Fed's thumb on
the scale
and that can't last much longer. The only thing that is holding
up the
economy these days is the blind faith and credit of the US.
I am not going to say Trump did any better but it is a 45 year old
problem, not helped by a forced resignation and what will now
be two
impeachments. That does not bode well for the republic.
The day the world markets decide we are really just another banana
republic selling worthless paper, interest rates will spike and we
won't be able to cover them with our revenue.
We take in about $2.4 trillion if you exclude FICA that is spent
before we even get it and at a Carter era interest rate
(11-12%) that
would barely cover the interest on the $22T debt.
That leaves nothing for anything else the government needs to
spend
money on. Taxing the Forbes 400 at 90% won't even make a dent
in that
deficit. All it will do is make them move their money offshore
making
our problems worse.

Your saying it, doesn't make it true.Â* Provide some citations to
actual,
you know, research that supports your supposition.

Which part confuses you? That Carter had a 11-12% interest rate on
federal paper. That is fact
That the debt is $22T? Fact
That 12% of $22T is $2.64T? Fact
That the total revenue minus the FICA is $2.4T? Fact
That the fact that the FICA is not even covering the outlay for the
people we promised it to? Fact

You can't just say "NO" without being ready to tell me what part is
wrong. Tell me which one is not true.

Interest rates on govt debt arent going back to 11-12%

And you know this how?


Mortgage rates were 22% when I bought this house. Fortunately I was
able to assume the 6% existing mortgage on the property!!!!


Mine were 9% and they were heading up after that.Â* Smart thing I did
was take 20 year mortgage and pay it off in 18.

Mine started at 13%, rocketed up to 18% forcing me to do two jobs in
order to keep the house. It too was 20 years but paid it off in 13.
Life became easier after that - until I became sick in 2001 and, after
a long period on sick leave, was forced into very early retirement.
All my plans went just a little awry!Â* :-(


I was forced to retire early too.Â* I had accumulated enough vacation pay
to pay off the house and get a new kitchen floor.Â* Son's had finished
college and all was paid for.Â* Our eldest son who is the same age I was
when I retired has his house paid off and our youngest son is near there
too.Â* I started consulting and still do a bit today.Â* Never had any
financial woes.

I had financial woes until the house was paid off. Been Ok since then. I
was a teacher in a technical college but now I tutor PhD research
students from a non English speaking background to fill in time. My
current student of the past 9 years will graduate next month so I will
have to attend. That will entail a 2800 kilometre round trip by car. 15
solid hours of driving in each direction.

You are lucky on your pension.

I was indeed very lucky. It was a defined benefit super scheme indexed
to cost of living for life and, should I predecease her, 2/3rds to my wife.

Most businesses today are not offering them.

Same here. Totally different scene with super pensions these days.

They give you extra for your 401k and when you are no longer
working there you are done with them.

We don't have a 401k here so I am not sure what that is. A quick check
of Dr Google tells me it is much like the super schemes we now have here
with either a lump sum payout or a retirement income stream.

--

Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 11:46:16 PM UTC-5, Xeno wrote:
On 14/11/19 9:11 am, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 13:43:38 -0500, Ralph Mowery
wrote:

In article , "frank says...

Fixed income for many may be pensions or anything else that does not
keep pace with inflation. You might get more SS every year but it does
not keep pace with inflation.




Just like where I worked. For the first 10 years we got good raises,
then the business got bad. Some years we did not even get a raise, some
years we just got a small lump sum that was not even in pace with
inflation.

Ok on the pensions. That can be a fixed source of income. The one our
company had never goes up year to year so we loose out to inflation.

I went 27 years with no increase in pay. Went from being well paid for
the job to being grossly under-paid.

What sort of place did you work for and why did you stay?

--

Xeno



If Clare lived in the US, he'd be a Democrat. Isn't that enough of an
explanation?

In article ,
says...
We don't have a 401k here so I am not sure what that is. A quick check
of Dr Google tells me it is much like the super schemes we now have here
with either a lump sum payout or a retirement income stream.




In simple terms. The company you work for lets you start up a
retirement savings. They will often match what you put in , or a
percentage of it up to 3 to 5 % of your pay. Depending on the company
you may have several choices of where that money is sent. Such as
mutual funds, or a money market . A few companies made you put that
money in their stock. A very bad idea for some companies.

YOu can not take that money out before you reach 59 1/2 years old
without some very heavy tax on that money. There are some exceptions.

Usually after you retire you convert it directly to an IRA.

On 11/17/2019 9:08 AM, Xeno wrote:
On 18/11/19 12:19 am, Frank wrote:
On 11/17/2019 12:01 AM, Xeno wrote:
On 17/11/19 2:23 am, Frank wrote:
On 11/16/2019 3:44 AM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 01:53:23 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 15:39:02 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 20:42:55 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:16:28 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just
crashed and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to
normal. Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a
crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do
succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right.Â* Removing trump will fire up the market
assuming his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their
politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations and
taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare
investors enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the
market.

Nonsense.Â*Â* Corporations existed for seven decades with more
stringent restrictions and taxes than today and we did just
fine.

We were not in a global economy then. There was no real
competition
and moving your operation offshore was much harder, if not
impossible.


and it might not be one we recover from in my lifetime.
The middle class still hasn't recovered from the malaise
after they
removed Nixon. .

You're confused again.Â* The economic malaise had nothing to
do with
Nixon and everything to do with the embargo.

There are plenty of economists who say the middle class never
recovered.

Never recovered from _what_ exactly?Â*Â* From the embargo and
associated
economic malaise?Â*Â* Certainly not from the
impeachment/resignation,
which nobody gave a **** about after 6 months.

It started the political divide that still exists today and
that was
also when we decided deficits no longer mattered. The only
thing that
is holding down double digit inflation is the Fed's thumb on
the scale
and that can't last much longer. The only thing that is
holding up the
economy these days is the blind faith and credit of the US.
I am not going to say Trump did any better but it is a 45 year
old
problem, not helped by a forced resignation and what will now
be two
impeachments. That does not bode well for the republic.
The day the world markets decide we are really just another
banana
republic selling worthless paper, interest rates will spike
and we
won't be able to cover them with our revenue.
We take in about $2.4 trillion if you exclude FICA that is spent
before we even get it and at a Carter era interest rate
(11-12%) that
would barely cover the interest on the $22T debt.
That leaves nothing for anything else the government needs to
spend
money on. Taxing the Forbes 400 at 90% won't even make a dent
in that
deficit. All it will do is make them move their money offshore
making
our problems worse.

Your saying it, doesn't make it true.Â* Provide some citations
to actual,
you know, research that supports your supposition.

Which part confuses you? That Carter had a 11-12% interest rate on
federal paper. That is fact
That the debt is $22T? Fact
That 12% of $22T is $2.64T? Fact
That the total revenue minus the FICA is $2.4T? Fact
That the fact that the FICA is not even covering the outlay for the
people we promised it to? Fact

You can't just say "NO" without being ready to tell me what part is
wrong. Tell me which one is not true.

Interest rates on govt debt arent going back to 11-12%

And you know this how?


Mortgage rates were 22% when I bought this house. Fortunately I was
able to assume the 6% existing mortgage on the property!!!!


Mine were 9% and they were heading up after that.Â* Smart thing I did
was take 20 year mortgage and pay it off in 18.

Mine started at 13%, rocketed up to 18% forcing me to do two jobs in
order to keep the house. It too was 20 years but paid it off in 13.
Life became easier after that - until I became sick in 2001 and,
after a long period on sick leave, was forced into very early
retirement. All my plans went just a little awry!Â* :-(


I was forced to retire early too.Â* I had accumulated enough vacation
pay to pay off the house and get a new kitchen floor.Â* Son's had
finished college and all was paid for.Â* Our eldest son who is the same
age I was when I retired has his house paid off and our youngest son
is near there too.Â* I started consulting and still do a bit today.
Never had any financial woes.

I had financial woes until the house was paid off. Been Ok since then. I
was a teacher in a technical college but now I tutor PhD research
students from a non English speaking background to fill in time. My
current student of the past 9 years will graduate next month so I will
have to attend. That will entail a 2800 kilometre round trip by car. 15
solid hours of driving in each direction.

You are lucky on your pension.

I was indeed very lucky. It was a defined benefit super scheme indexed
to cost of living for life and, should I predecease her, 2/3rds to my wife.

Most businesses today are not offering them.

Same here. Totally different scene with super pensions these days.

They give you extra for your 401k and when you are no longer working
there you are done with them.

We don't have a 401k here so I am not sure what that is. A quick check
of Dr Google tells me it is much like the super schemes we now have here
with either a lump sum payout or a retirement income stream.


I see you are in Oz. Our 401k savings can be held without taxing
interest. You cannot take it out without penalty until you are 70+ and
then withdrawals are taxed as income. We also have retirement cd's with
same rules. There is a required minimum withdrawal each year of about 4+%.

Pension burdens were killing some companies here. GM would have gone
bankrupt if not for government bail out. Pension burdens are also
bankrupting governments here like Detroit were the car industry left
leaving behind a bunch of retired government employees.

On 11/17/2019 10:27 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...
We don't have a 401k here so I am not sure what that is. A quick check
of Dr Google tells me it is much like the super schemes we now have here
with either a lump sum payout or a retirement income stream.




In simple terms. The company you work for lets you start up a
retirement savings. They will often match what you put in , or a
percentage of it up to 3 to 5 % of your pay. Depending on the company
you may have several choices of where that money is sent. Such as
mutual funds, or a money market . A few companies made you put that
money in their stock. A very bad idea for some companies.

YOu can not take that money out before you reach 59 1/2 years old
without some very heavy tax on that money. There are some exceptions.

Usually after you retire you convert it directly to an IRA.


My mistake was not selling more of the company stock in the plan and
putting into mutuals. Company split up and I got stock in 3 companies
total less than original. Fortunately less than 10% of the plan.

A family member has all his 401k in company stock and while it is a good
company it has had big problems.

In article , "frank says...
I see you are in Oz. Our 401k savings can be held without taxing
interest. You cannot take it out without penalty until you are 70+ and
then withdrawals are taxed as income. We also have retirement cd's with
same rules. There is a required minimum withdrawal each year of about 4+%.



Frank, the age to withdraw without penalty is 59 1/2 if you are talking
about the US 401k.

I started taking mine out at age 65 and there is no penalty.

It may be that you are thinking about the hit on social security.

On Sunday, November 17, 2019 at 10:27:50 AM UTC-5, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...
We don't have a 401k here so I am not sure what that is. A quick check
of Dr Google tells me it is much like the super schemes we now have here
with either a lump sum payout or a retirement income stream.




In simple terms. The company you work for lets you start up a
retirement savings. They will often match what you put in , or a
percentage of it up to 3 to 5 % of your pay. Depending on the company
you may have several choices of where that money is sent. Such as
mutual funds, or a money market . A few companies made you put that
money in their stock. A very bad idea for some companies.

YOu can not take that money out before you reach 59 1/2 years old
without some very heavy tax on that money. There are some exceptions.

It's only a ten percent early withdrawal tax penalty, if that's what you
call very heavy.





Usually after you retire you convert it directly to an IRA.

In article ,
says...
YOu can not take that money out before you reach 59 1/2 years old
without some very heavy tax on that money. There are some exceptions.

It's only a ten percent early withdrawal tax penalty, if that's what you
call very heavy.



I was thinking of the regular income tax you will have to pay on the
401k plus the extra 10 %. That could hit you for close to 40 % which I
call heavy.

On 11/17/2019 11:47 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article , "frank says...
I see you are in Oz. Our 401k savings can be held without taxing
interest. You cannot take it out without penalty until you are 70+ and
then withdrawals are taxed as income. We also have retirement cd's with
same rules. There is a required minimum withdrawal each year of about 4+%.



Frank, the age to withdraw without penalty is 59 1/2 if you are talking
about the US 401k.

I started taking mine out at age 65 and there is no penalty.

It may be that you are thinking about the hit on social security.




My mistake. You do have to start withdrawing and 70 and half which I
have been doing.

On Sunday, November 17, 2019 at 12:26:59 PM UTC-5, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...
YOu can not take that money out before you reach 59 1/2 years old
without some very heavy tax on that money. There are some exceptions.

It's only a ten percent early withdrawal tax penalty, if that's what you
call very heavy.



I was thinking of the regular income tax you will have to pay on the
401k plus the extra 10 %. That could hit you for close to 40 % which I
call heavy.

But you have to pay the regular tax regardless of whether you take it out
early or not. And you'd have to have taxable income of over $160K to wind
up in the 32% bracket. If you're a couple, take out $50K, the regular
tax would be minimal, maybe zero. It's only 12% up to $39K and that's
taxable income, after all the deductions.

In article ,
says...

I was thinking of the regular income tax you will have to pay on the
401k plus the extra 10 %. That could hit you for close to 40 % which I
call heavy.

But you have to pay the regular tax regardless of whether you take it out
early or not. And you'd have to have taxable income of over $160K to wind
up in the 32% bracket. If you're a couple, take out $50K, the regular
tax would be minimal, maybe zero. It's only 12% up to $39K and that's
taxable income, after all the deductions.






Taxes and early 401(k) withdrawal penalty
There also is an immediate cost to cashing out. For one, it can generate
a large tax bill. Your plan administrator is typically required to
automatically withhold 20% of your withdrawal and send it directly to
the IRS to cover the federal income taxes you may need to pay on that
withdrawal. "That means you just gave the IRS a huge chunk of the money
you've been saving for years," says Hevert. "That's money you're no
longer saving for retirement." In addition to federal and state income
tax, investors younger than 59? who cash out may have to pay a 10% early
withdrawal penalty.

https://www.fidelity.com/viewpoints/...nt/cashing-out

On 11/17/2019 11:47 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article , "frank says...
I see you are in Oz. Our 401k savings can be held without taxing
interest. You cannot take it out without penalty until you are 70+ and
then withdrawals are taxed as income. We also have retirement cd's with
same rules. There is a required minimum withdrawal each year of about 4+%.



Frank, the age to withdraw without penalty is 59 1/2 if you are talking
about the US 401k.

I started taking mine out at age 65 and there is no penalty.

It may be that you are thinking about the hit on social security.




If you did NOT take 401K or IRA funds out there is a penalty at age 70
1/2. The government wants to start taxing you.

I worked to 71 so did not want or need the money but had to take a
minimum at 70 1/2. I've still not touched my IRA but Fidelity sends me
a check every year from age 70.

Penalty is 50%.
https://www.thebalance.com/required-...utions-2388780

On Sunday, November 17, 2019 at 1:31:06 PM UTC-5, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...

I was thinking of the regular income tax you will have to pay on the
401k plus the extra 10 %. That could hit you for close to 40 % which I
call heavy.

But you have to pay the regular tax regardless of whether you take it out
early or not. And you'd have to have taxable income of over $160K to wind
up in the 32% bracket. If you're a couple, take out $50K, the regular
tax would be minimal, maybe zero. It's only 12% up to $39K and that's
taxable income, after all the deductions.






Taxes and early 401(k) withdrawal penalty
There also is an immediate cost to cashing out. For one, it can generate
a large tax bill. Your plan administrator is typically required to
automatically withhold 20% of your withdrawal and send it directly to
the IRS to cover the federal income taxes you may need to pay on that
withdrawal. "That means you just gave the IRS a huge chunk of the money
you've been saving for years," says Hevert. "That's money you're no
longer saving for retirement." In addition to federal and state income
tax, investors younger than 59? who cash out may have to pay a 10% early
withdrawal penalty.

https://www.fidelity.com/viewpoints/...nt/cashing-out

Nothing there that deviates from what I said. Withholding isn't equal to actually paying tax. Early withdrawal results in an additional ten percent tax. If that is what you call huge, then that's what it is.

On 11/17/2019 11:46 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 11/17/2019 11:47 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article , "frank says...
I see you are in Oz. Our 401k savings can be held without taxing
interest. You cannot take it out without penalty until you are 70+ and
then withdrawals are taxed as income. We also have retirement cd's with
same rules. There is a required minimum withdrawal each year of
about 4+%.



Frank, the age to withdraw without penalty is 59 1/2 if you are talking
about the US 401k.

I started taking mine out at age 65 and there is no penalty.

It may be that you are thinking about the hit on social security.




If you did NOT take 401K or IRA funds out there is a penalty at age 70
1/2. The government wants to start taxing you.

I worked to 71 so did not want or need the money but had to take a
minimum at 70 1/2. I've still not touched my IRA but Fidelity sends me
a check every year from age 70.

Penalty is 50%.
https://www.thebalance.com/required-...utions-2388780

I'm in the same boat, but even worse I am still working. The RMD is
automatic and I have money withheld from both that and the SSI payments.
This state also taxes SSI income so April isn't a happy time for me.

The theory is your income will be less overall so the tax rate will be
better but it doesn't always work that way.

On 11/17/2019 2:44 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 11/17/2019 11:46 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 11/17/2019 11:47 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article , "frank says...
I see you are in Oz. Our 401k savings can be held without taxing
interest.Â* You cannot take it out without penalty until you are 70+ and
then withdrawals are taxed as income.Â* We also have retirement cd's
with
same rules.Â* There is a required minimum withdrawal each year of
about 4+%.



Frank, the age to withdraw without penalty is 59 1/2 if you are talking
about the US 401k.

I started taking mine out at age 65 and there is no penalty.

It may be that you are thinking about the hit on social security.




If you did NOT take 401K or IRA funds out there is a penalty at age 70
1/2.Â* The government wants to start taxing you.

I worked to 71 so did not want or need the money but had to take a
minimum at 70 1/2.Â* I've still not touched my IRA but Fidelity sends me
a check every year from age 70.

Penalty is 50%.
https://www.thebalance.com/required-...utions-2388780

I'm in the same boat, but even worse I am still working. The RMD is
automatic and I have money withheld from both that and the SSI payments.
This state also taxes SSI income so April isn't a happy time for me.

The theory is your income will be less overall so the tax rate will be
better but it doesn't always work that way.


This years should be easy for me. Last year was a PITA with my former
state. In the past I usually owed them a small amount. Last year I got
a huge refund. I don't know the cut-off but I got extra scrutiny since
it was over 10K. Took 4 months to get, but the guy I spoke to a couple
of times was truly a helpful person and gentleman.

"Xeno" wrote in message
...
On 18/11/19 12:19 am, Frank wrote:
On 11/17/2019 12:01 AM, Xeno wrote:
On 17/11/19 2:23 am, Frank wrote:
On 11/16/2019 3:44 AM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 01:53:23 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 15:39:02 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 20:42:55 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:16:28 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just crashed
and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to normal.
Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a
crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do succeed
in
removing Trump

Yeah, right. Removing trump will fire up the market assuming
his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their
politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations and
taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare investors
enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the
market.

Nonsense. Corporations existed for seven decades with more
stringent restrictions and taxes than today and we did just
fine.

We were not in a global economy then. There was no real
competition
and moving your operation offshore was much harder, if not
impossible.


and it might not be one we recover from in my lifetime.
The middle class still hasn't recovered from the malaise
after they
removed Nixon. .

You're confused again. The economic malaise had nothing to do
with
Nixon and everything to do with the embargo.

There are plenty of economists who say the middle class never
recovered.

Never recovered from _what_ exactly? From the embargo and
associated
economic malaise? Certainly not from the
impeachment/resignation,
which nobody gave a **** about after 6 months.

It started the political divide that still exists today and that
was
also when we decided deficits no longer mattered. The only thing
that
is holding down double digit inflation is the Fed's thumb on the
scale
and that can't last much longer. The only thing that is holding
up the
economy these days is the blind faith and credit of the US.
I am not going to say Trump did any better but it is a 45 year
old
problem, not helped by a forced resignation and what will now be
two
impeachments. That does not bode well for the republic.
The day the world markets decide we are really just another
banana
republic selling worthless paper, interest rates will spike and
we
won't be able to cover them with our revenue.
We take in about $2.4 trillion if you exclude FICA that is spent
before we even get it and at a Carter era interest rate (11-12%)
that
would barely cover the interest on the $22T debt.
That leaves nothing for anything else the government needs to
spend
money on. Taxing the Forbes 400 at 90% won't even make a dent in
that
deficit. All it will do is make them move their money offshore
making
our problems worse.

Your saying it, doesn't make it true. Provide some citations to
actual,
you know, research that supports your supposition.

Which part confuses you? That Carter had a 11-12% interest rate on
federal paper. That is fact
That the debt is $22T? Fact
That 12% of $22T is $2.64T? Fact
That the total revenue minus the FICA is $2.4T? Fact
That the fact that the FICA is not even covering the outlay for the
people we promised it to? Fact

You can't just say "NO" without being ready to tell me what part is
wrong. Tell me which one is not true.

Interest rates on govt debt arent going back to 11-12%

And you know this how?


Mortgage rates were 22% when I bought this house. Fortunately I was
able to assume the 6% existing mortgage on the property!!!!


Mine were 9% and they were heading up after that. Smart thing I did
was take 20 year mortgage and pay it off in 18.

Mine started at 13%, rocketed up to 18% forcing me to do two jobs in
order to keep the house. It too was 20 years but paid it off in 13. Life
became easier after that - until I became sick in 2001 and, after a long
period on sick leave, was forced into very early retirement. All my
plans went just a little awry! :-(


I was forced to retire early too. I had accumulated enough vacation pay
to pay off the house and get a new kitchen floor. Son's had finished
college and all was paid for. Our eldest son who is the same age I was
when I retired has his house paid off and our youngest son is near there
too. I started consulting and still do a bit today. Never had any
financial woes.

I had financial woes until the house was paid off. Been Ok since then. I
was a teacher in a technical college but now I tutor PhD research students
from a non English speaking background to fill in time. My current student
of the past 9 years will graduate next month so I will have to attend.
That will entail a 2800 kilometre round trip by car. 15 solid hours of
driving in each direction.

Makes more sense to fly and cheaper too.

You are lucky on your pension.

I was indeed very lucky. It was a defined benefit super scheme indexed to
cost of living for life and, should I predecease her, 2/3rds to my wife.

Most businesses today are not offering them.

Same here. Totally different scene with super pensions these days.

They give you extra for your 401k and when you are no longer working
there you are done with them.

We don't have a 401k here so I am not sure what that is.

Basically the same as our self managed super.

A quick check of Dr Google tells me it is much like the super schemes we
now have here with either a lump sum payout or a retirement income stream.

Its actually close to our self managed super with some differences.

In article ,
says...

I'm in the same boat, but even worse I am still working. The RMD is
automatic and I have money withheld from both that and the SSI payments.
This state also taxes SSI income so April isn't a happy time for me.

The theory is your income will be less overall so the tax rate will be
better but it doesn't always work that way.




I retired at 62. Did not need the IRA money as I was ok with the SS and
pension so did not take any out. Looking at it at age 65 I decided to
take a small ammount of the IRA money as I may be in a lesser tax
bracket than when the RMD kicked in. Next year the RMD starts and I
will be making more than I was when working 8 years ago. Not sure how
that will work out with the taxes. That is not counting some money I
have been making with about $ 50,000 worth of stock I am playing around
on my own.
This year may not be too bad, but I think the next year will be because
of the RMD.

Those tax laws are just too complicated for me to work to the best of my
advantage. My man Trump was suppose to simplify the taxes.

Last time the government wanted to simplify taxes was the form that had
about 3 lines.

How much did you make ?
Send it all to the IRS
We will send you back what we want ou to have.

On 11/17/19 3:12 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 11/17/2019 2:44 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 11/17/2019 11:46 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 11/17/2019 11:47 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article , "frank says...
I see you are in Oz. Our 401k savings can be held without taxing
interest.Â* You cannot take it out without penalty until you are 70+ and
then withdrawals are taxed as income.Â* We also have retirement cd's with
same rules.Â* There is a required minimum withdrawal each year of
about 4+%.



Frank, the age to withdraw without penalty is 59 1/2 if you are talking
about the US 401k.

I started taking mine out at age 65 and there is no penalty.

It may be that you are thinking about the hit on social security.




If you did NOT take 401K or IRA funds out there is a penalty at age 70
1/2.Â* The government wants to start taxing you.

I worked to 71 so did not want or need the money but had to take a
minimum at 70 1/2.Â* I've still not touched my IRA but Fidelity sends me
a check every year from age 70.

Penalty is 50%.
https://www.thebalance.com/required-...utions-2388780

I'm in the same boat, but even worse I am still working. The RMD is automatic and I have money withheld from both that and the SSI payments. This state also taxes SSI income so April isn't a happy time for me.

The theory is your income will be less overall so the tax rate will be better but it doesn't always work that way.


This years should be easy for me.Â* Last year was a PITA with my former state.Â* In the past I usually owed them a small amount. Last year I got a huge refund. I don't know the cut-off but I got extra scrutiny since it was over 10K.Â* Took 4 months to
get, but the guy I spoke to a couple of times was truly a helpful person and gentleman.

Stop complaining.Â* You should be happy to fund the lazy useless welfarecrats.

On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 07:17:01 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Basically the same as our

"Our", again, you deluded sociopathic swine? NOBODY identifies with you, you
quarrelsome senile pest! NOBODY!!!!

--
FredXX to Rot Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shipped the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID:

On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 15:46:12 +1100, Xeno
wrote:

On 14/11/19 9:11 am, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 13:43:38 -0500, Ralph Mowery
wrote:

In article , "frank says...

Fixed income for many may be pensions or anything else that does not
keep pace with inflation. You might get more SS every year but it does
not keep pace with inflation.




Just like where I worked. For the first 10 years we got good raises,
then the business got bad. Some years we did not even get a raise, some
years we just got a small lump sum that was not even in pace with
inflation.

Ok on the pensions. That can be a fixed source of income. The one our
company had never goes up year to year so we loose out to inflation.

I went 27 years with no increase in pay. Went from being well paid for
the job to being grossly under-paid.

What sort of place did you work for and why did you stay?
Contract work and competition just kept getting worse and worse. I
stayed because I could live on it.Until I retired

On 18/11/19 2:27 am, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...
We don't have a 401k here so I am not sure what that is. A quick check
of Dr Google tells me it is much like the super schemes we now have here
with either a lump sum payout or a retirement income stream.




In simple terms. The company you work for lets you start up a
retirement savings. They will often match what you put in , or a
percentage of it up to 3 to 5 % of your pay. Depending on the company
you may have several choices of where that money is sent. Such as
mutual funds, or a money market . A few companies made you put that
money in their stock. A very bad idea for some companies.

Yes, pretty much what I had except I was in a state government super
scheme. $ for $ matching up to the limit I was able to put in, 9% IIRC.
Difference was, I had *no control* over how and where it was invested.
That said, the investment management was extremely good.

YOu can not take that money out before you reach 59 1/2 years old
without some very heavy tax on that money. There are some exceptions.

For us it was 55 though for some it was beneficial to retire at 54/11.
That is age 54 and 11 months. I didn't get the option as I was fully
retired at 50 and off work on sick leave for some 2 years prior.

Usually after you retire you convert it directly to an IRA.

We had the option of converting it to part lump sum, part pension.
Everyone's circumstances are different so the ratio varied. Mine, for
instance, was 100% pension and I had no choice in that due my reason for
retirement - disability. It worked out well for me except now I have
difficulty getting any govt benefits at all.

--

Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 18/11/19 7:17 am, Rod Speed wrote:


"Xeno" wrote in message
...
On 18/11/19 12:19 am, Frank wrote:
On 11/17/2019 12:01 AM, Xeno wrote:
On 17/11/19 2:23 am, Frank wrote:
On 11/16/2019 3:44 AM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 01:53:23 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 15:39:02 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 20:42:55 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:16:28 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT,
(Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just
crashed and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to
normal. Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a
crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do
succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right.Â* Removing trump will fire up the market
assuming his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that
trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their
politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations
and taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare
investors enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the
market.

Nonsense.Â*Â* Corporations existed for seven decades with more
stringent restrictions and taxes than today and we did just
fine.

We were not in a global economy then. There was no real
competition
and moving your operation offshore was much harder, if not
impossible.


and it might not be one we recover from in my lifetime.
The middle class still hasn't recovered from the malaise
after they
removed Nixon. .

You're confused again.Â* The economic malaise had nothing
to do with
Nixon and everything to do with the embargo.

There are plenty of economists who say the middle class never
recovered.

Never recovered from _what_ exactly?Â*Â* From the embargo and
associated
economic malaise?Â*Â* Certainly not from the
impeachment/resignation,
which nobody gave a **** about after 6 months.

It started the political divide that still exists today and
that was
also when we decided deficits no longer mattered. The only
thing that
is holding down double digit inflation is the Fed's thumb on
the scale
and that can't last much longer. The only thing that is
holding up the
economy these days is the blind faith and credit of the US.
I am not going to say Trump did any better but it is a 45
year old
problem, not helped by a forced resignation and what will now
be two
impeachments. That does not bode well for the republic.
The day the world markets decide we are really just another
banana
republic selling worthless paper, interest rates will spike
and we
won't be able to cover them with our revenue.
We take in about $2.4 trillion if you exclude FICA that is spent
before we even get it and at a Carter era interest rate
(11-12%) that
would barely cover the interest on the $22T debt.
That leaves nothing for anything else the government needs to
spend
money on. Taxing the Forbes 400 at 90% won't even make a dent
in that
deficit. All it will do is make them move their money
offshore making
our problems worse.

Your saying it, doesn't make it true.Â* Provide some citations
to actual,
you know, research that supports your supposition.

Which part confuses you? That Carter had a 11-12% interest rate on
federal paper. That is fact
That the debt is $22T? Fact
That 12% of $22T is $2.64T? Fact
That the total revenue minus the FICA is $2.4T? Fact
That the fact that the FICA is not even covering the outlay for
the
people we promised it to? Fact

You can't just say "NO" without being ready to tell me what
part is
wrong. Tell me which one is not true.

Interest rates on govt debt arent going back to 11-12%

And you know this how?


Mortgage rates were 22% when I bought this house. Fortunately I was
able to assume the 6% existing mortgage on the property!!!!


Mine were 9% and they were heading up after that.Â* Smart thing I
did was take 20 year mortgage and pay it off in 18.

Mine started at 13%, rocketed up to 18% forcing me to do two jobs in
order to keep the house. It too was 20 years but paid it off in 13.
Life became easier after that - until I became sick in 2001 and,
after a long period on sick leave, was forced into very early
retirement. All my plans went just a little awry!Â* :-(


I was forced to retire early too.Â* I had accumulated enough vacation
pay to pay off the house and get a new kitchen floor.Â* Son's had
finished college and all was paid for.Â* Our eldest son who is the
same age I was when I retired has his house paid off and our youngest
son is near there too.Â* I started consulting and still do a bit
today.Â* Never had any financial woes.

I had financial woes until the house was paid off. Been Ok since then.
I was a teacher in a technical college but now I tutor PhD research
students from a non English speaking background to fill in time. My
current student of the past 9 years will graduate next month so I will
have to attend. That will entail a 2800 kilometre round trip by car.
15 solid hours of driving in each direction.

Makes more sense to fly and cheaper too.

It doesn't. Been there, checked it all out. Works out quite a bit more
expensive and would require a car rental at the other end.

You are lucky on your pension.

I was indeed very lucky. It was a defined benefit super scheme indexed
to cost of living for life and, should I predecease her, 2/3rds to my
wife.

Most businesses today are not offering them.

Same here. Totally different scene with super pensions these days.

They give you extra for your 401k and when you are no longer working
there you are done with them.

We don't have a 401k here so I am not sure what that is.

Basically the same as our self managed super.

It would appear so.

A quick checkÂ* of Dr Google tells me it is much like the super schemes
we now have here with either a lump sum payout or a retirement income
stream.

Its actually close to our self managed super with some differences.

It's a bit different to what I had, a defined benefit scheme, and I had
no control over fund management, not even risk management.


--

Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

"Xeno" wrote in message
...
On 18/11/19 7:17 am, Rod Speed wrote:


"Xeno" wrote in message
...
On 18/11/19 12:19 am, Frank wrote:
On 11/17/2019 12:01 AM, Xeno wrote:
On 17/11/19 2:23 am, Frank wrote:
On 11/16/2019 3:44 AM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 01:53:23 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 15:39:02 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 20:42:55 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:16:28 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just
crashed and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to
normal. Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a
crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do
succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right. Removing trump will fire up the market
assuming his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that
trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their
politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations and
taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare investors
enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the
market.

Nonsense. Corporations existed for seven decades with more
stringent restrictions and taxes than today and we did just
fine.

We were not in a global economy then. There was no real
competition
and moving your operation offshore was much harder, if not
impossible.


and it might not be one we recover from in my lifetime.
The middle class still hasn't recovered from the malaise
after they
removed Nixon. .

You're confused again. The economic malaise had nothing to
do with
Nixon and everything to do with the embargo.

There are plenty of economists who say the middle class never
recovered.

Never recovered from _what_ exactly? From the embargo and
associated
economic malaise? Certainly not from the
impeachment/resignation,
which nobody gave a **** about after 6 months.

It started the political divide that still exists today and
that was
also when we decided deficits no longer mattered. The only
thing that
is holding down double digit inflation is the Fed's thumb on
the scale
and that can't last much longer. The only thing that is holding
up the
economy these days is the blind faith and credit of the US.
I am not going to say Trump did any better but it is a 45 year
old
problem, not helped by a forced resignation and what will now
be two
impeachments. That does not bode well for the republic.
The day the world markets decide we are really just another
banana
republic selling worthless paper, interest rates will spike and
we
won't be able to cover them with our revenue.
We take in about $2.4 trillion if you exclude FICA that is
spent
before we even get it and at a Carter era interest rate
(11-12%) that
would barely cover the interest on the $22T debt.
That leaves nothing for anything else the government needs to
spend
money on. Taxing the Forbes 400 at 90% won't even make a dent
in that
deficit. All it will do is make them move their money offshore
making
our problems worse.

Your saying it, doesn't make it true. Provide some citations to
actual,
you know, research that supports your supposition.

Which part confuses you? That Carter had a 11-12% interest rate
on
federal paper. That is fact
That the debt is $22T? Fact
That 12% of $22T is $2.64T? Fact
That the total revenue minus the FICA is $2.4T? Fact
That the fact that the FICA is not even covering the outlay for
the
people we promised it to? Fact

You can't just say "NO" without being ready to tell me what part
is
wrong. Tell me which one is not true.

Interest rates on govt debt arent going back to 11-12%

And you know this how?


Mortgage rates were 22% when I bought this house. Fortunately I was
able to assume the 6% existing mortgage on the property!!!!


Mine were 9% and they were heading up after that. Smart thing I did
was take 20 year mortgage and pay it off in 18.

Mine started at 13%, rocketed up to 18% forcing me to do two jobs in
order to keep the house. It too was 20 years but paid it off in 13.
Life became easier after that - until I became sick in 2001 and, after
a long period on sick leave, was forced into very early retirement.
All my plans went just a little awry! :-(


I was forced to retire early too. I had accumulated enough vacation
pay to pay off the house and get a new kitchen floor. Son's had
finished college and all was paid for. Our eldest son who is the same
age I was when I retired has his house paid off and our youngest son is
near there too. I started consulting and still do a bit today. Never
had any financial woes.

I had financial woes until the house was paid off. Been Ok since then. I
was a teacher in a technical college but now I tutor PhD research
students from a non English speaking background to fill in time. My
current student of the past 9 years will graduate next month so I will
have to attend. That will entail a 2800 kilometre round trip by car. 15
solid hours of driving in each direction.

Makes more sense to fly and cheaper too.

It doesn't. Been there, checked it all out. Works out quite a bit more
expensive

Bull**** with fuel alone.

and would require a car rental at the other end.

Nope, you can use uber.

You are lucky on your pension.

I was indeed very lucky. It was a defined benefit super scheme indexed
to cost of living for life and, should I predecease her, 2/3rds to my
wife.

Most businesses today are not offering them.

Same here. Totally different scene with super pensions these days.

They give you extra for your 401k and when you are no longer working
there you are done with them.

We don't have a 401k here so I am not sure what that is.

Basically the same as our self managed super.

It would appear so.

A quick check of Dr Google tells me it is much like the super schemes
we now have here with either a lump sum payout or a retirement income
stream.

Its actually close to our self managed super with some differences.

It's a bit different to what I had, a defined benefit scheme, and I had no
control over fund management, not even risk management.

Yes but you didnt have self managed super.

On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 20:11:20 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH another 222 !!! lines of troll****

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On 18/11/19 8:11 pm, Rod Speed wrote:


"Xeno" wrote in message
...
On 18/11/19 7:17 am, Rod Speed wrote:


"Xeno" wrote in message
...
On 18/11/19 12:19 am, Frank wrote:
On 11/17/2019 12:01 AM, Xeno wrote:
On 17/11/19 2:23 am, Frank wrote:
On 11/16/2019 3:44 AM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 01:53:23 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 15:39:02 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 20:42:55 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:16:28 GMT,
(Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT,
(Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just
crashed and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to
normal. Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from
a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do
succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right.Â* Removing trump will fire up the market
assuming his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that
trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to
their politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations
and taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare
investors enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the
market.

Nonsense.Â*Â* Corporations existed for seven decades with more
stringent restrictions and taxes than today and we did
just fine.

We were not in a global economy then. There was no real
competition
and moving your operation offshore was much harder, if not
impossible.


and it might not be one we recover from in my lifetime.
The middle class still hasn't recovered from the
malaise after they
removed Nixon. .

You're confused again.Â* The economic malaise had nothing
to do with
Nixon and everything to do with the embargo.

There are plenty of economists who say the middle class
never
recovered.

Never recovered from _what_ exactly?Â*Â* From the embargo
and associated
economic malaise?Â*Â* Certainly not from the
impeachment/resignation,
which nobody gave a **** about after 6 months.

It started the political divide that still exists today and
that was
also when we decided deficits no longer mattered. The only
thing that
is holding down double digit inflation is the Fed's thumb
on the scale
and that can't last much longer. The only thing that is
holding up the
economy these days is the blind faith and credit of the US.
I am not going to say Trump did any better but it is a 45
year old
problem, not helped by a forced resignation and what will
now be two
impeachments. That does not bode well for the republic.
The day the world markets decide we are really just another
banana
republic selling worthless paper, interest rates will spike
and we
won't be able to cover them with our revenue.
We take in about $2.4 trillion if you exclude FICA that is
spent
before we even get it and at a Carter era interest rate
(11-12%) that
would barely cover the interest on the $22T debt.
That leaves nothing for anything else the government needs
to spend
money on. Taxing the Forbes 400 at 90% won't even make a
dent in that
deficit. All it will do is make them move their money
offshore making
our problems worse.

Your saying it, doesn't make it true.Â* Provide some
citations to actual,
you know, research that supports your supposition.

Which part confuses you? That Carter had a 11-12% interest
rate on
federal paper. That is fact
That the debt is $22T? Fact
That 12% of $22T is $2.64T? Fact
That the total revenue minus the FICA is $2.4T? Fact
That the fact that the FICA is not even covering the outlay
for the
people we promised it to? Fact

You can't just say "NO" without being ready to tell me what
part is
wrong. Tell me which one is not true.

Interest rates on govt debt arent going back to 11-12%

And you know this how?


Mortgage rates were 22% when I bought this house. Fortunately I was
able to assume the 6% existing mortgage on the property!!!!


Mine were 9% and they were heading up after that.Â* Smart thing I
did was take 20 year mortgage and pay it off in 18.

Mine started at 13%, rocketed up to 18% forcing me to do two jobs
in order to keep the house. It too was 20 years but paid it off in
13. Life became easier after that - until I became sick in 2001
and, after a long period on sick leave, was forced into very early
retirement. All my plans went just a little awry!Â* :-(


I was forced to retire early too.Â* I had accumulated enough
vacation pay to pay off the house and get a new kitchen floor.
Son's had finished college and all was paid for.Â* Our eldest son
who is the same age I was when I retired has his house paid off and
our youngest son is near there too.Â* I started consulting and still
do a bit today.Â* Never had any financial woes.

I had financial woes until the house was paid off. Been Ok since
then. I was a teacher in a technical college but now I tutor PhD
research students from a non English speaking background to fill in
time. My current student of the past 9 years will graduate next
month so I will have to attend. That will entail a 2800 kilometre
round trip by car. 15 solid hours of driving in each direction.

Makes more sense to fly and cheaper too.

It doesn't. Been there, checked it all out. Works out quite a bit more
expensive

Bull**** with fuel alone.

I was *planning* to fly. With two people, just doesn't compete, tickets
aren't cheap in December. Had I been able to book early, I *might* have
been able to pick up a few cheap air tickets but I needed to wait until
my student in Thailand was (a) definite about attending and (b) had
booked Bkk-Mel-Bkk tickets on dates we could work around. I had a number
of alternate possibilities available but, one by one, they vanished as
time passed and driving the distance became to only viable option - and
it was and is the cheapest. The cost of the fuel for the entire 2800
kilometres I've calculated at $270 @ between 7-8 litres per hundred
kilometres. 2 fares from our local airport to Melbourne work out close
to $800, airport transfers, etc. not included. And, yes, I have been
working on fuel pricing at the cheapest places en route according to a
fuel price app.
Even flying out of Coolangatta, where flight tickets are a little
cheaper, requires a 600 kilometre round trip by car and heading in the
opposite direction. I have sat here doing all the sums Rod,

The other advantage of driving the route is that we are not limited as
to what we can take or return home with - as long as it fits in the car.
Planes, as you might have noticed, are a little more restrictive. Also,
whilst in Melbourne I will have an extra person in the car who I will
pick up at the airport on Monday and will need to drop off at the
airport on Friday.

and would require a car rental at the other end.

Nope, you can use uber.

Simply not economical for the distances around Melbourne I need to
travel. Used Uber in Brisbane, no problem there. Melbourne is a
different kettle of fish.

I have done all the sums, the car wins out by a considerable margin.
Your mileage may vary but for us, the car is the way to go based on
economics and convenience.

I do the trip a couple of times a year anyway so I know what's involved.
A friend here does the trip 4 times a year minimum. By the end of this
month I will have done the drive to Brisbane and return (800km) 3 times
this November alone - and there is a stretch of 100 kilometres of
*roadworks* where speeds are highly restricted. Took me an extra couple
of hours last Tuesday to get home as the Pacific Highway at New Italy
was closed due to bushfires forcing me to do a very long detour on minor
roads. I am no stranger to very long road trips.

You are lucky on your pension.

I was indeed very lucky. It was a defined benefit super scheme
indexed to cost of living for life and, should I predecease her,
2/3rds to my wife.

Most businesses today are not offering them.

Same here. Totally different scene with super pensions these days.

They give you extra for your 401k and when you are no longer
working there you are done with them.

We don't have a 401k here so I am not sure what that is.

Basically the same as our self managed super.

It would appear so.

A quick checkÂ* of Dr Google tells me it is much like the super
schemes we now have here with either a lump sum payout or a
retirement income stream.

Its actually close to our self managed super with some differences.

It's a bit different to what I had, a defined benefit scheme, and I
had no control over fund management, not even risk management.

Yes but you didnt have self managed super.

Yes, that was my point. Glad to see you picked up on it.

--

Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)