Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Water Bill
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. |
#82
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Water Bill
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) |
#84
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Water Bill
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. |
#85
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Water Bill
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) |
#86
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Water Bill
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) |
#87
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Water Bill
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) |
#88
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Water Bill
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 |
#89
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Water Bill
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. |
#90
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Water Bill
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) |
#91
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Water Bill
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? |
#92
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Water Bill
|
#93
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Water Bill
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. |
#94
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Water Bill
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. |
#95
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Water Bill
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. |
#96
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Water Bill
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. |
#97
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Water Bill
|
#98
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Water Bill
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. |
#99
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Water Bill
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. |
#100
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Water Bill
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 |
#101
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Water Bill
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 |
#102
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Water Bill
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. |
#103
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Water Bill
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. |
#104
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Water Bill
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. |
#105
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Water Bill
"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. |
#106
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Water Bill
|
#107
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Water Bill
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. |
#108
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Lonely Auto-contradicting Psychotic Senile Ozzie Troll Alert!
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: |
#109
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Water Bill
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 |
#110
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Water Bill
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) |
#111
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Water Bill
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) |
#112
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Water Bill
"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. |
#113
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Lonely Auto-contradicting Psychotic Senile Ozzie Troll Alert!
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: |
#114
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Water Bill
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) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Can leaking hot water lead to high gas bill? | Home Repair | |||
water cooler, water coolers, water dispenser, water dispensers,bottleless water cooler,bottleless water coolers,bottleless water dispenser,bottleless water dispensers | UK diy | |||
water heater and spike in electric bill? | Home Repair | |||
hot water recirculator, instant hot water but not a water heating unit, saves water, gas, time, money | Home Repair | |||
Huge water bill; freeze; meter failure; who should pay? | Home Repair |