http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...196_story.html

``Nancy Lanza was a divorcee who got a good settlement from Adams
father, Peter, a General Electric executive who earned $445,000 in
2009. She didnt work and was scheduled to get nearly $300,000 in
alimony this year. She could have afforded good care for Adam if he
needed it.''

Am I the only person for whom the above makes no sense? How can the
ex-wife get alimony that was 67% of his pretax income? What is wrong
with that picture?

i

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:48:42 -0600, the renowned Ignoramus31296
wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...196_story.html

``Nancy Lanza was a divorcee who got a good settlement from Adams
father, Peter, a General Electric executive who earned $445,000 in
2009. She didnt work and was scheduled to get nearly $300,000 in
alimony this year. She could have afforded good care for Adam if he
needed it.''

Am I the only person for whom the above makes no sense? How can the
ex-wife get alimony that was 67% of his pretax income? What is wrong
with that picture?

i

http://www.lohud.com/article/2012121...nclick_check=1

"Beginning on Jan. 1, 2009, Peter Lanza’s annual alimony payments
started at $180,000, but grew yearly to $289,800 this year. Next year
they were to increase to $292,800 and to $295,800 in 2013." Plus the
house. Plus a bunch of other stuff. The alimony ends on her death.

Maybe if she'd had to go out and work...


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

On 2012-12-18, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:48:42 -0600, the renowned Ignoramus31296
wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...196_story.html

``Nancy Lanza was a divorcee who got a good settlement from Adam???s
father, Peter, a General Electric executive who earned $445,000 in
2009. She didn???t work and was scheduled to get nearly $300,000 in
alimony this year. She could have afforded good care for Adam if he
needed it.''

Am I the only person for whom the above makes no sense? How can the
ex-wife get alimony that was 67% of his pretax income? What is wrong
with that picture?

i

http://www.lohud.com/article/2012121...nclick_check=1

"Beginning on Jan. 1, 2009, Peter Lanza?s annual alimony payments
started at $180,000, but grew yearly to $289,800 this year. Next year
they were to increase to $292,800 and to $295,800 in 2013." Plus the
house. Plus a bunch of other stuff. The alimony ends on her death.

Maybe if she'd had to go out and work...

What I am saying is that I do not understand how such an alimony is
possible. Either Peter Lanza had a lot of unreported income, or else
someone is lying about the amount of her alimony.

It is beyond strange.

What exactly could happen between Peter and his ex-wife to make him
agree to such enormous alimony?

i

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:09:57 -0600, the renowned Ignoramus31296
wrote:

On 2012-12-18, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:48:42 -0600, the renowned Ignoramus31296
wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...196_story.html

``Nancy Lanza was a divorcee who got a good settlement from Adam???s
father, Peter, a General Electric executive who earned $445,000 in
2009. She didn???t work and was scheduled to get nearly $300,000 in
alimony this year. She could have afforded good care for Adam if he
needed it.''

Am I the only person for whom the above makes no sense? How can the
ex-wife get alimony that was 67% of his pretax income? What is wrong
with that picture?

i

http://www.lohud.com/article/2012121...nclick_check=1

"Beginning on Jan. 1, 2009, Peter Lanza?s annual alimony payments
started at $180,000, but grew yearly to $289,800 this year. Next year
they were to increase to $292,800 and to $295,800 in 2013." Plus the
house. Plus a bunch of other stuff. The alimony ends on her death.

Maybe if she'd had to go out and work...

What I am saying is that I do not understand how such an alimony is
possible. Either Peter Lanza had a lot of unreported income, or else
someone is lying about the amount of her alimony.

It is beyond strange.

What exactly could happen between Peter and his ex-wife to make him
agree to such enormous alimony?

i

Do you object to the (tax deductible) amount, or the life sentence?


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

On 2012-12-18, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:09:57 -0600, the renowned Ignoramus31296
wrote:

On 2012-12-18, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:48:42 -0600, the renowned Ignoramus31296
wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...196_story.html

``Nancy Lanza was a divorcee who got a good settlement from Adam???s
father, Peter, a General Electric executive who earned $445,000 in
2009. She didn???t work and was scheduled to get nearly $300,000 in
alimony this year. She could have afforded good care for Adam if he
needed it.''

Am I the only person for whom the above makes no sense? How can the
ex-wife get alimony that was 67% of his pretax income? What is wrong
with that picture?

i

http://www.lohud.com/article/2012121...nclick_check=1

"Beginning on Jan. 1, 2009, Peter Lanza?s annual alimony payments
started at $180,000, but grew yearly to $289,800 this year. Next year
they were to increase to $292,800 and to $295,800 in 2013." Plus the
house. Plus a bunch of other stuff. The alimony ends on her death.

Maybe if she'd had to go out and work...

What I am saying is that I do not understand how such an alimony is
possible. Either Peter Lanza had a lot of unreported income, or else
someone is lying about the amount of her alimony.

It is beyond strange.

What exactly could happen between Peter and his ex-wife to make him
agree to such enormous alimony?

i

Do you object to the (tax deductible) amount, or the life sentence?


I cannot possibly see, how it was possible to arrive to such a high
amount of alimony, supposedly, by mutual agreement.

i

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:33:53 -0600, the renowned Ignoramus31296
wrote:

On 2012-12-18, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:09:57 -0600, the renowned Ignoramus31296
wrote:

On 2012-12-18, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:48:42 -0600, the renowned Ignoramus31296
wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...196_story.html

``Nancy Lanza was a divorcee who got a good settlement from Adam???s
father, Peter, a General Electric executive who earned $445,000 in
2009. She didn???t work and was scheduled to get nearly $300,000 in
alimony this year. She could have afforded good care for Adam if he
needed it.''

Am I the only person for whom the above makes no sense? How can the
ex-wife get alimony that was 67% of his pretax income? What is wrong
with that picture?

i

http://www.lohud.com/article/2012121...nclick_check=1

"Beginning on Jan. 1, 2009, Peter Lanza?s annual alimony payments
started at $180,000, but grew yearly to $289,800 this year. Next year
they were to increase to $292,800 and to $295,800 in 2013." Plus the
house. Plus a bunch of other stuff. The alimony ends on her death.

Maybe if she'd had to go out and work...

What I am saying is that I do not understand how such an alimony is
possible. Either Peter Lanza had a lot of unreported income, or else
someone is lying about the amount of her alimony.

It is beyond strange.

What exactly could happen between Peter and his ex-wife to make him
agree to such enormous alimony?

i

Do you object to the (tax deductible) amount, or the life sentence?


I cannot possibly see, how it was possible to arrive to such a high
amount of alimony, supposedly, by mutual agreement.

i

http://www.divorcemediation.norwalk....e_outcomes.htm

Mostly the wife gets about half the family income. Since the wife had
no income, and no doubt little prospect of earning anything like that,
she got half of his. Fair, no?


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

"Ignoramus31296" wrote in message
...
On 2012-12-18, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:09:57 -0600, the renowned Ignoramus31296
wrote:

On 2012-12-18, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:48:42 -0600, the renowned Ignoramus31296
wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...196_story.html

``Nancy Lanza was a divorcee who got a good settlement from Adam???s
father, Peter, a General Electric executive who earned $445,000 in
2009. She didn???t work and was scheduled to get nearly $300,000 in
alimony this year. She could have afforded good care for Adam if he
needed it.''

Am I the only person for whom the above makes no sense? How can the
ex-wife get alimony that was 67% of his pretax income? What is wrong
with that picture?

i

http://www.lohud.com/article/2012121...nclick_check=1

"Beginning on Jan. 1, 2009, Peter Lanza?s annual alimony payments
started at $180,000, but grew yearly to $289,800 this year. Next year
they were to increase to $292,800 and to $295,800 in 2013." Plus the
house. Plus a bunch of other stuff. The alimony ends on her death.

Maybe if she'd had to go out and work...

What I am saying is that I do not understand how such an alimony is
possible. Either Peter Lanza had a lot of unreported income, or else
someone is lying about the amount of her alimony.

It is beyond strange.

What exactly could happen between Peter and his ex-wife to make him
agree to such enormous alimony?

i

Do you object to the (tax deductible) amount, or the life sentence?


I cannot possibly see, how it was possible to arrive to such a high
amount of alimony, supposedly, by mutual agreement.

i

First of all, the reporting on this whole story has been really sloppy from
the beginning, so I would not take anything you read as gospel. I would
assume that the $445k figure is what he made from GE. A lot of rich and
not-so-rich people put their investments in a trust to avoid inheritance
taxes, so his investment income may have technically stayed as part of the
trust and in tax-deferred retirement accounts. All this would have to be
disclosed on the divorce papers, but it would not be listed as income if he
did not withdraw money from the trust.

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:09:57 -0600, Ignoramus31296
wrote:

On 2012-12-18, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:48:42 -0600, the renowned Ignoramus31296
wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...196_story.html

``Nancy Lanza was a divorcee who got a good settlement from Adam???s
father, Peter, a General Electric executive who earned $445,000 in
2009. She didn???t work and was scheduled to get nearly $300,000 in
alimony this year. She could have afforded good care for Adam if he
needed it.''

Am I the only person for whom the above makes no sense? How can the
ex-wife get alimony that was 67% of his pretax income? What is wrong
with that picture?

i

http://www.lohud.com/article/2012121...nclick_check=1

"Beginning on Jan. 1, 2009, Peter Lanza?s annual alimony payments
started at $180,000, but grew yearly to $289,800 this year. Next year
they were to increase to $292,800 and to $295,800 in 2013." Plus the
house. Plus a bunch of other stuff. The alimony ends on her death.

Maybe if she'd had to go out and work...

What I am saying is that I do not understand how such an alimony is
possible. Either Peter Lanza had a lot of unreported income, or else
someone is lying about the amount of her alimony.

It is beyond strange.

What exactly could happen between Peter and his ex-wife to make him
agree to such enormous alimony?


As a tax avoidance specialist for GE I think it's safe enough to
assume he knew what he was doing.

On 2012-12-18, GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:09:57 -0600, Ignoramus31296
wrote:

On 2012-12-18, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:48:42 -0600, the renowned Ignoramus31296
wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...196_story.html

``Nancy Lanza was a divorcee who got a good settlement from Adam???s
father, Peter, a General Electric executive who earned $445,000 in
2009. She didn???t work and was scheduled to get nearly $300,000 in
alimony this year. She could have afforded good care for Adam if he
needed it.''

Am I the only person for whom the above makes no sense? How can the
ex-wife get alimony that was 67% of his pretax income? What is wrong
with that picture?

i

http://www.lohud.com/article/2012121...nclick_check=1

"Beginning on Jan. 1, 2009, Peter Lanza?s annual alimony payments
started at $180,000, but grew yearly to $289,800 this year. Next year
they were to increase to $292,800 and to $295,800 in 2013." Plus the
house. Plus a bunch of other stuff. The alimony ends on her death.

Maybe if she'd had to go out and work...

What I am saying is that I do not understand how such an alimony is
possible. Either Peter Lanza had a lot of unreported income, or else
someone is lying about the amount of her alimony.

It is beyond strange.

What exactly could happen between Peter and his ex-wife to make him
agree to such enormous alimony?


As a tax avoidance specialist for GE I think it's safe enough to
assume he knew what he was doing.

Exactly my point, what was really going on, the ex-husband is not a
dumbo.

i

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 23:26:54 -0600, the renowned Ignoramus31296
wrote:

On 2012-12-18, GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:09:57 -0600, Ignoramus31296
wrote:

On 2012-12-18, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:48:42 -0600, the renowned Ignoramus31296
wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...196_story.html

``Nancy Lanza was a divorcee who got a good settlement from Adam???s
father, Peter, a General Electric executive who earned $445,000 in
2009. She didn???t work and was scheduled to get nearly $300,000 in
alimony this year. She could have afforded good care for Adam if he
needed it.''

Am I the only person for whom the above makes no sense? How can the
ex-wife get alimony that was 67% of his pretax income? What is wrong
with that picture?

i

http://www.lohud.com/article/2012121...nclick_check=1

"Beginning on Jan. 1, 2009, Peter Lanza?s annual alimony payments
started at $180,000, but grew yearly to $289,800 this year. Next year
they were to increase to $292,800 and to $295,800 in 2013." Plus the
house. Plus a bunch of other stuff. The alimony ends on her death.

Maybe if she'd had to go out and work...

What I am saying is that I do not understand how such an alimony is
possible. Either Peter Lanza had a lot of unreported income, or else
someone is lying about the amount of her alimony.

It is beyond strange.

What exactly could happen between Peter and his ex-wife to make him
agree to such enormous alimony?


As a tax avoidance specialist for GE I think it's safe enough to
assume he knew what he was doing.

Exactly my point, what was really going on, the ex-husband is not a
dumbo.

i

The increasing alimony year-by-year smells like something else (maybe
a trust) needed time to be unwound.



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

On 12/17/2012 7:48 PM, Ignoramus31296 wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...196_story.html

``Nancy Lanza was a divorcee who got a good settlement from Adam€„¢s
father, Peter, a General Electric executive who earned $445,000 in
2009. She didn€„¢t work and was scheduled to get nearly $300,000 in
alimony this year. She could have afforded good care for Adam if he
needed it.''

Am I the only person for whom the above makes no sense? How can the
ex-wife get alimony that was 67% of his pretax income? What is wrong
with that picture?

He's making closer to $1 million per year now.


--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs.

On 12/17/2012 8:33 PM, Ignoramus31296 wrote:
On 2012-12-18, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:09:57 -0600, the renowned Ignoramus31296
wrote:

On 2012-12-18, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:48:42 -0600, the renowned Ignoramus31296
wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...196_story.html

``Nancy Lanza was a divorcee who got a good settlement from Adam???s
father, Peter, a General Electric executive who earned $445,000 in
2009. She didn???t work and was scheduled to get nearly $300,000 in
alimony this year. She could have afforded good care for Adam if he
needed it.''

Am I the only person for whom the above makes no sense? How can the
ex-wife get alimony that was 67% of his pretax income? What is wrong
with that picture?

i

http://www.lohud.com/article/2012121...nclick_check=1

"Beginning on Jan. 1, 2009, Peter Lanza?s annual alimony payments
started at $180,000, but grew yearly to $289,800 this year. Next year
they were to increase to $292,800 and to $295,800 in 2013." Plus the
house. Plus a bunch of other stuff. The alimony ends on her death.

Maybe if she'd had to go out and work...

What I am saying is that I do not understand how such an alimony is
possible. Either Peter Lanza had a lot of unreported income, or else
someone is lying about the amount of her alimony.

It is beyond strange.

What exactly could happen between Peter and his ex-wife to make him
agree to such enormous alimony?

i

Do you object to the (tax deductible) amount, or the life sentence?


I cannot possibly see, how it was possible to arrive to such a high
amount of alimony, supposedly, by mutual agreement.

She originally was getting more like $12,500 per month, when he was
making about $450,000 per year. As his salary rose, so did the alimony.


--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs.

On 12/17/2012 9:11 PM, GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:09:57 -0600, Ignoramus31296
wrote:

On 2012-12-18, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:48:42 -0600, the renowned Ignoramus31296
wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...196_story.html

``Nancy Lanza was a divorcee who got a good settlement from Adam???s
father, Peter, a General Electric executive who earned $445,000 in
2009. She didn???t work and was scheduled to get nearly $300,000 in
alimony this year. She could have afforded good care for Adam if he
needed it.''

Am I the only person for whom the above makes no sense? How can the
ex-wife get alimony that was 67% of his pretax income? What is wrong
with that picture?

i

http://www.lohud.com/article/2012121...nclick_check=1

"Beginning on Jan. 1, 2009, Peter Lanza?s annual alimony payments
started at $180,000, but grew yearly to $289,800 this year. Next year
they were to increase to $292,800 and to $295,800 in 2013." Plus the
house. Plus a bunch of other stuff. The alimony ends on her death.

Maybe if she'd had to go out and work...

What I am saying is that I do not understand how such an alimony is
possible. Either Peter Lanza had a lot of unreported income, or else
someone is lying about the amount of her alimony.

It is beyond strange.

What exactly could happen between Peter and his ex-wife to make him
agree to such enormous alimony?


As a tax avoidance specialist for GE I think it's safe enough to
assume he knew what he was doing.

He undoubtedly does an excellent job helping GE Energy Financial
Services reduce the firm's tax liability, and he is well compensated for
it. That's all to the good.


--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs.

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:50:57 -0800, the renowned "Fred C. Dobbs"
wrote:


She originally was getting more like $12,500 per month, when he was
making about $450,000 per year. As his salary rose, so did the alimony.

How would he have known that his salary would increase at that rate?

Probably options vesting or a trust or something like that.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

On 12/17/2012 9:26 PM, Ignoramus31296 wrote:
On 2012-12-18, GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:09:57 -0600, Ignoramus31296
wrote:

On 2012-12-18, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:48:42 -0600, the renowned Ignoramus31296
wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...196_story.html

``Nancy Lanza was a divorcee who got a good settlement from Adam???s
father, Peter, a General Electric executive who earned $445,000 in
2009. She didn???t work and was scheduled to get nearly $300,000 in
alimony this year. She could have afforded good care for Adam if he
needed it.''

Am I the only person for whom the above makes no sense? How can the
ex-wife get alimony that was 67% of his pretax income? What is wrong
with that picture?

i

http://www.lohud.com/article/2012121...nclick_check=1

"Beginning on Jan. 1, 2009, Peter Lanza?s annual alimony payments
started at $180,000, but grew yearly to $289,800 this year. Next year
they were to increase to $292,800 and to $295,800 in 2013." Plus the
house. Plus a bunch of other stuff. The alimony ends on her death.

Maybe if she'd had to go out and work...

What I am saying is that I do not understand how such an alimony is
possible. Either Peter Lanza had a lot of unreported income, or else
someone is lying about the amount of her alimony.

It is beyond strange.

What exactly could happen between Peter and his ex-wife to make him
agree to such enormous alimony?


As a tax avoidance specialist for GE I think it's safe enough to
assume he knew what he was doing.

Exactly my point, what was really going on, the ex-husband is not a
dumbo.

I'm beginning to doubt you have any ability to learn things for yourself.


--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs.

On Dec 17, 9:48*pm, Ignoramus31296 ignoramus31...@NOSPAM.
31296.invalid wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...-leaves-burnin...

``Nancy Lanza was a divorcee who got a good settlement from Adam’s
father, Peter, a General Electric executive who earned $445,000 in
2009. She didn’t work and was scheduled to get nearly $300,000 in
alimony this year. She could have afforded good care for Adam if he
needed it.''

Am I the only person for whom the above makes no sense? How can the
ex-wife get alimony that was 67% of his pretax income? What is wrong
with that picture?

i

Ig...the well to do live in a different world than most of the rest of
the living.

The number you see is base salary.

Executives make MUCH more in bonuses and stock options.

There may be more in family trusts, investments, etc.

Courts are rather good about spliting assets.

They do crap with child custody...as we see in this sad case.

TMT

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:53:59 -0800, "Fred C. Dobbs"
wrote:

On 12/17/2012 9:11 PM, GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:09:57 -0600, Ignoramus31296
wrote:

On 2012-12-18, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:48:42 -0600, the renowned Ignoramus31296
wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...196_story.html

``Nancy Lanza was a divorcee who got a good settlement from Adam???s
father, Peter, a General Electric executive who earned $445,000 in
2009. She didn???t work and was scheduled to get nearly $300,000 in
alimony this year. She could have afforded good care for Adam if he
needed it.''

Am I the only person for whom the above makes no sense? How can the
ex-wife get alimony that was 67% of his pretax income? What is wrong
with that picture?

i

http://www.lohud.com/article/2012121...nclick_check=1

"Beginning on Jan. 1, 2009, Peter Lanza?s annual alimony payments
started at $180,000, but grew yearly to $289,800 this year. Next year
they were to increase to $292,800 and to $295,800 in 2013." Plus the
house. Plus a bunch of other stuff. The alimony ends on her death.

Maybe if she'd had to go out and work...

What I am saying is that I do not understand how such an alimony is
possible. Either Peter Lanza had a lot of unreported income, or else
someone is lying about the amount of her alimony.

It is beyond strange.

What exactly could happen between Peter and his ex-wife to make him
agree to such enormous alimony?


As a tax avoidance specialist for GE I think it's safe enough to
assume he knew what he was doing.

He undoubtedly does an excellent job helping GE Energy Financial
Services reduce the firm's tax liability, and he is well compensated for
it. That's all to the good.

I doubt the poor devil cares much about any of it now.

"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:33:53 -0600, the renowned Ignoramus31296
wrote:

On 2012-12-18, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:09:57 -0600, the renowned Ignoramus31296
wrote:

On 2012-12-18, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:48:42 -0600, the renowned Ignoramus31296
wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...196_story.html

``Nancy Lanza was a divorcee who got a good settlement from Adam???s
father, Peter, a General Electric executive who earned $445,000 in
2009. She didn???t work and was scheduled to get nearly $300,000 in
alimony this year. She could have afforded good care for Adam if he
needed it.''

Am I the only person for whom the above makes no sense? How can the
ex-wife get alimony that was 67% of his pretax income? What is wrong
with that picture?

i

http://www.lohud.com/article/2012121...nclick_check=1

"Beginning on Jan. 1, 2009, Peter Lanza?s annual alimony payments
started at $180,000, but grew yearly to $289,800 this year. Next year
they were to increase to $292,800 and to $295,800 in 2013." Plus the
house. Plus a bunch of other stuff. The alimony ends on her death.

Maybe if she'd had to go out and work...

What I am saying is that I do not understand how such an alimony is
possible. Either Peter Lanza had a lot of unreported income, or else
someone is lying about the amount of her alimony.

It is beyond strange.

What exactly could happen between Peter and his ex-wife to make him
agree to such enormous alimony?

i

Do you object to the (tax deductible) amount, or the life sentence?


I cannot possibly see, how it was possible to arrive to such a high
amount of alimony, supposedly, by mutual agreement.

i

http://www.divorcemediation.norwalk....e_outcomes.htm

Mostly the wife gets about half the family income. Since the wife had
no income, and no doubt little prospect of earning anything like that,
she got half of his. Fair, no?


Plus she was taking care of their nutty kid.

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 06:50:53 -0500, "ATP"
wrote:


"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:33:53 -0600, the renowned Ignoramus31296
wrote:

On 2012-12-18, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:09:57 -0600, the renowned Ignoramus31296
wrote:

On 2012-12-18, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:48:42 -0600, the renowned Ignoramus31296
wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...196_story.html

``Nancy Lanza was a divorcee who got a good settlement from Adam???s
father, Peter, a General Electric executive who earned $445,000 in
2009. She didn???t work and was scheduled to get nearly $300,000 in
alimony this year. She could have afforded good care for Adam if he
needed it.''

Am I the only person for whom the above makes no sense? How can the
ex-wife get alimony that was 67% of his pretax income? What is wrong
with that picture?

i

http://www.lohud.com/article/2012121...nclick_check=1

"Beginning on Jan. 1, 2009, Peter Lanza?s annual alimony payments
started at $180,000, but grew yearly to $289,800 this year. Next year
they were to increase to $292,800 and to $295,800 in 2013." Plus the
house. Plus a bunch of other stuff. The alimony ends on her death.

Maybe if she'd had to go out and work...

What I am saying is that I do not understand how such an alimony is
possible. Either Peter Lanza had a lot of unreported income, or else
someone is lying about the amount of her alimony.

It is beyond strange.

What exactly could happen between Peter and his ex-wife to make him
agree to such enormous alimony?

i

Do you object to the (tax deductible) amount, or the life sentence?


I cannot possibly see, how it was possible to arrive to such a high
amount of alimony, supposedly, by mutual agreement.

i

http://www.divorcemediation.norwalk....e_outcomes.htm

Mostly the wife gets about half the family income. Since the wife had
no income, and no doubt little prospect of earning anything like that,
she got half of his. Fair, no?


Plus she was taking care of their nutty kid.


Indeed. As it turns out, he really got the better end of the deal -
the cost of taking care of the kid was higher than either anticipated.

On 12/18/2012 1:15 AM, GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:53:59 -0800, "Fred C. Dobbs"
wrote:

On 12/17/2012 9:11 PM, GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:09:57 -0600, Ignoramus31296
wrote:

On 2012-12-18, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:48:42 -0600, the renowned Ignoramus31296
wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...196_story.html

``Nancy Lanza was a divorcee who got a good settlement from Adam???s
father, Peter, a General Electric executive who earned $445,000 in
2009. She didn???t work and was scheduled to get nearly $300,000 in
alimony this year. She could have afforded good care for Adam if he
needed it.''

Am I the only person for whom the above makes no sense? How can the
ex-wife get alimony that was 67% of his pretax income? What is wrong
with that picture?

i

http://www.lohud.com/article/2012121...nclick_check=1

"Beginning on Jan. 1, 2009, Peter Lanza?s annual alimony payments
started at $180,000, but grew yearly to $289,800 this year. Next year
they were to increase to $292,800 and to $295,800 in 2013." Plus the
house. Plus a bunch of other stuff. The alimony ends on her death.

Maybe if she'd had to go out and work...

What I am saying is that I do not understand how such an alimony is
possible. Either Peter Lanza had a lot of unreported income, or else
someone is lying about the amount of her alimony.

It is beyond strange.

What exactly could happen between Peter and his ex-wife to make him
agree to such enormous alimony?


As a tax avoidance specialist for GE I think it's safe enough to
assume he knew what he was doing.

He undoubtedly does an excellent job helping GE Energy Financial
Services reduce the firm's tax liability, and he is well compensated for
it. That's all to the good.

I doubt the poor devil cares much about any of it now.

As any good person and parent would, I'm sure he's grieving over the
deaths, and has taken a leave from his job. After some interval, he'll
go back to work and continue to do good work helping GE Energy Financial
Services reduce its tax liability, for which he'll be well paid, as he
should be. Of course, if the state and federal governments in the US
had the good sense - which they never will have - not to tax business in
the first place, he wouldn't have that job at all.


--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs.

On 12/17/2012 10:33 PM, Ignoramus31296 wrote:
....

I cannot possibly see, how it was possible to arrive to such a high
amount of alimony, supposedly, by mutual agreement.

As in all matters of law, the _specific_ circumstances control. It will
have been based on total mutual assets, not just an annual payroll and
other factors including projected earnings, etc., etc., etc., ...

And, of course, the circumstances and how badly did he want the heck out
can be the controlling factor over mere monies if the situation were bad
enough. Or, otoh, how badly he may have behaved may have given her a
great deal of leverage.

I'm sure each was well represented...

--

Yes, that was an expensive alimony, a real
shot to the head. If the boy had a man in his
life, he may have been a lot better off.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 06:50:53 -0500, "ATP"
wrote:

Mostly the wife gets about half the family income. Since the wife had
no income, and no doubt little prospect of earning anything like that,
she got half of his. Fair, no?


Plus she was taking care of their nutty kid.


Indeed. As it turns out, he really got the better end of the deal -
the cost of taking care of the kid was higher than either anticipated.

Ignoramus31296 wrote:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...196_story.html

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:48:42 -0600, Ignoramus31296
wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...196_story.html

``Nancy Lanza was a divorcee who got a good settlement from Adams
father, Peter, a General Electric executive who earned $445,000 in
2009. She didnt work and was scheduled to get nearly $300,000 in
alimony this year. She could have afforded good care for Adam if he
needed it.''

Am I the only person for whom the above makes no sense? How can the
ex-wife get alimony that was 67% of his pretax income? What is wrong
with that picture?

Hey, _you're_ the Democrat (whose party made that possible.) The rest
of us don't like that, either. I'm guessing that some liberal judge
gave her 50% of his income -plus- a bunch to support the kid and his
doctor? (when $100k would have served them better than they likely
deserve. I hate alimony results. They're crazy. "One more reason to
stay single!" says I.) sigh

--
It is characteristic of all deep human problems that they are
not to be approached without some humor and some bewilderment.
-- Freeman Dyson

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:09:57 -0600, Ignoramus31296
wrote:

On 2012-12-18, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:48:42 -0600, the renowned Ignoramus31296
wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...196_story.html

``Nancy Lanza was a divorcee who got a good settlement from Adam???s
father, Peter, a General Electric executive who earned $445,000 in
2009. She didn???t work and was scheduled to get nearly $300,000 in
alimony this year. She could have afforded good care for Adam if he
needed it.''

Am I the only person for whom the above makes no sense? How can the
ex-wife get alimony that was 67% of his pretax income? What is wrong
with that picture?

i

http://www.lohud.com/article/2012121...nclick_check=1

"Beginning on Jan. 1, 2009, Peter Lanza?s annual alimony payments
started at $180,000, but grew yearly to $289,800 this year. Next year
they were to increase to $292,800 and to $295,800 in 2013." Plus the
house. Plus a bunch of other stuff. The alimony ends on her death.

Maybe if she'd had to go out and work...

What I am saying is that I do not understand how such an alimony is
possible. Either Peter Lanza had a lot of unreported income, or else
someone is lying about the amount of her alimony.

It is beyond strange.

What exactly could happen between Peter and his ex-wife to make him
agree to such enormous alimony?

A judge saying "Do it or go to jail."?

--
It is characteristic of all deep human problems that they are
not to be approached without some humor and some bewilderment.
-- Freeman Dyson

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:53:59 -0800, "Fred C. Dobbs"
wrote:

On 12/17/2012 9:11 PM, GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:09:57 -0600, Ignoramus31296
wrote:

On 2012-12-18, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:48:42 -0600, the renowned Ignoramus31296
wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...196_story.html

``Nancy Lanza was a divorcee who got a good settlement from Adam???s
father, Peter, a General Electric executive who earned $445,000 in
2009. She didn???t work and was scheduled to get nearly $300,000 in
alimony this year. She could have afforded good care for Adam if he
needed it.''

Am I the only person for whom the above makes no sense? How can the
ex-wife get alimony that was 67% of his pretax income? What is wrong
with that picture?

i

http://www.lohud.com/article/2012121...nclick_check=1

"Beginning on Jan. 1, 2009, Peter Lanza?s annual alimony payments
started at $180,000, but grew yearly to $289,800 this year. Next year
they were to increase to $292,800 and to $295,800 in 2013." Plus the
house. Plus a bunch of other stuff. The alimony ends on her death.

Maybe if she'd had to go out and work...

What I am saying is that I do not understand how such an alimony is
possible. Either Peter Lanza had a lot of unreported income, or else
someone is lying about the amount of her alimony.

It is beyond strange.

What exactly could happen between Peter and his ex-wife to make him
agree to such enormous alimony?


As a tax avoidance specialist for GE I think it's safe enough to
assume he knew what he was doing.

He undoubtedly does an excellent job helping GE Energy Financial
Services reduce the firm's tax liability, and he is well compensated for
it. That's all to the good.

No it isn't. GE didn't pay ANY taxes last year so difference is added
to our public debt. Nobody but GE won that one.

--
It is characteristic of all deep human problems that they are
not to be approached without some humor and some bewilderment.
-- Freeman Dyson

her alimony really does seem like a big chunk of his income. However, considering his line of work, he very likely had commissions, bonuses, cash incentives, even stock payments or options, that were part of his total compensation package. The number thrown out by the media was just salary. these folks were very very well off.

On 12/19/2012 10:20 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
....

No it isn't. GE didn't pay ANY taxes last year so difference is added
to our public debt. Nobody but GE won that one.
....

Well, that's likely not so, either...it ain't as simple as the NYT
initial story implied. And, of course, stockholders benefit, and if you
have a 401K or IRA or any other investment mutuals, etc., in all
likelihood that includes you.

And, just to add some relevance, you don't reduce your personal tax bill
to the best of your ability within the scope of the laws? It's only
prudent.

Now that there are unintended (or primarily unforeseen is probably more
likely) consequences of current tax law that have been devised since the
laws were last modified significantly is just a fact of life--it's what
corporations do. As far being "outraged" one might consider Apple
instead of GE...

Read the following and look at the links...

http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2011/04/04/the-truth-about-ges-tax-bill/

--

On 12/20/2012 1:09 AM, wrote:
her alimony really does seem like a big chunk of his income. However, considering his line of work, he very likely had commissions, bonuses, cash incentives, even stock payments or options, that were part of his total compensation package. The number thrown out by the media was just salary. these folks were very very well off.

No commissions - he was a tax specialist, looking for ways to reduce the
firm's tax liability. Bonuses, probably.

The main thing to remember is they were married 24 years, and she worked
to put him through business school. She had not worked as a stockbroker
in years. A judge would look at that situation and say there was no way
she could ever go back to work and attain anything close to the
lifestyle she had helped her husband be able to provide to the family,
so the spousal support naturally is going to be very generous. I expect
Peter Lanza had some expectations of significant compensation increases
over the next few years.

--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs.

On 12/19/2012 8:20 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:53:59 -0800, "Fred C. Dobbs"
wrote:

On 12/17/2012 9:11 PM, GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:09:57 -0600, Ignoramus31296
wrote:

On 2012-12-18, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:48:42 -0600, the renowned Ignoramus31296
wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...196_story.html

``Nancy Lanza was a divorcee who got a good settlement from Adam???s
father, Peter, a General Electric executive who earned $445,000 in
2009. She didn???t work and was scheduled to get nearly $300,000 in
alimony this year. She could have afforded good care for Adam if he
needed it.''

Am I the only person for whom the above makes no sense? How can the
ex-wife get alimony that was 67% of his pretax income? What is wrong
with that picture?

i

http://www.lohud.com/article/2012121...nclick_check=1

"Beginning on Jan. 1, 2009, Peter Lanza?s annual alimony payments
started at $180,000, but grew yearly to $289,800 this year. Next year
they were to increase to $292,800 and to $295,800 in 2013." Plus the
house. Plus a bunch of other stuff. The alimony ends on her death.

Maybe if she'd had to go out and work...

What I am saying is that I do not understand how such an alimony is
possible. Either Peter Lanza had a lot of unreported income, or else
someone is lying about the amount of her alimony.

It is beyond strange.

What exactly could happen between Peter and his ex-wife to make him
agree to such enormous alimony?


As a tax avoidance specialist for GE I think it's safe enough to
assume he knew what he was doing.

He undoubtedly does an excellent job helping GE Energy Financial
Services reduce the firm's tax liability, and he is well compensated for
it. That's all to the good.

No it isn't. GE didn't pay ANY taxes last year

Bull****.


so difference is addedto our public debt.

No, that's not true, either. That's not how budgeting works.


Nobody but GE won that one.

Business shouldn't pay any taxes at all.


--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs.

On 12/20/2012 9:49 AM, Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
....

Business shouldn't pay any taxes at all.

Well, strictly speaking they don't--they simply serve as collectors from
their clients/customers and pass them on as a cost of doing business.

That there should be no collection mechanism there I'd have to mull over
at some length--the alternative would be the VAT I suppose. I've always
been somewhat opposed to it as a general principle.

--