StrangeSox

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 01:23 PM) I was going to say the bolded as well...this is a survival skill that goes back to the beginning of time. 401(k) management isn't a survival skill that goes back farther than three decades. Aside from a relatively small number of investors, very few people have ever provided for their family based on financial investment management.

1) We (the Western world) haven't been living in "hunter/gatherer" societies for a few thousand years now, but those societies and even many agrarian societies tended to be heavily egalitarian. Very few people actually provide for their family via investment income anyway. Most people provide for their family by selling their labor. Saying "that's how you provide for [your retirement]" is just a tautology. I'm asking why is that the current (and relatively recent) system, and should it be that way? What's the societal benefits of that? What are the costs and risks? Saving a small portion of your yearly salary without investing it isn't going to result in that much savings. Take the median income, $50k, at %5 a year (which might be more than your typical family of four can reasonably afford to set aside). That's only $75,000 after 30 years of working. You don't have to be a Harvard business grad to realize that having money set aside in retirement is a good idea, and you don't have to be a Harvard business grad to realize that many people can't actually afford to set aside all that much. And that you need it to grow with compounding interest over time for it to amount to anything, which is an assumption the whole model is built on but isn't working out in actual practice very well. 2) But aren't there risks with annuities? Aren't there high fees? Why should we structure our retirement plans around a system that enables a huge amount of rent-seeking and little social good? And what if you just aren't that financially savvy? Should dumb people or people without a background in personal investment be left to suffer? 3) Again, this requires some level of financial investment savvy. Why should our retirements be so dependent on that? What good comes of it? It's not the "governments" responsibility, it's society's. The government is a tool that can be used to accomplish social goals. It's particularly effective at this one and more reliable than charity or "lol, enjoy your cat food, grandma!" personal investment outcomes. There are substantial healthcare costs for seniors that aren't covered by Medicare. Prescription drugs are particularly expensive (no negotiating prices!) and any form of routine care can wipe out savings quickly. Continuing to pay rent or upkeep on an old house is a significant expense. Even if you're living in a small, affordable apartment, that could easily take over half of your monthly income. Maintaining a car is expensive. Food is expensive. Yeah, you can get by, but you'd be grinding by very meagerly and things would be awfully tight. One unexpected expense could sink your budget and throw you back into debt.

Three things, first one most important. 1) Why should your ability to retire be tied to your financial investing aptitude (and ability to set aside current earnings for investment)? Why should we prize that as the most important skill someone could have, and why should we funnel so much of our economy towards the financial sector? 2) "safe" investments can turn to s***, too. That's why the 2008 collapse was so bad. 3) Even if you aren't near retirement when the investments take a s***, it could still mean a "lost decade" that destroys any sort of annual compounding projections. You could be stuck with a 401(k) plan with s***ty high-fee options with terrible returns. You can have no 401(k) option at all.

I don't identify as a Democrat but would as a socialist. You've expressed a "live and let live" attitude wrt to your beliefs in the past and I respect that. But I think you're an outlier in that regard, so when most people start expressing strong conservative religious beliefs, it's not a bad assumption to believe that they'd like to see those beliefs put into law. No, I don't think a church should be forced to hold the ceremonies if they don't want to.

CBO has some new debt projections out: can we please get back to worrying about the 5% GDP output gap and the +7% unemployment now??

this might givesome insight: http://www.lacrossglass.com/MGA/pdfs/IRSArticleSept04.pdf Here, an insurance adjuster gets gift cards as a referral bonus from an auto body shop. That's taxable income. I'd imagine your cut of the finder's fee would be seen in a similar manner. A tax lawyer could tell you more, but is it really worth the hassle and risk exposure?

Just pay your taxes.

Well, there's also plenty of examples we can point to of Christians actually trying to implement those beliefs into laws. Abortion restrictions have been through the roof since 2011. Several states are still trying to pass bills that are antagonistic towards LGBT, and there still isn't marriage equality in most states. There's still significant efforts to restrict sexual education and access to contraceptives.

It's hard to save up a significant amount of money for your future when wages have been stagnant for decades but COL hasn't, and when the markets take a huge s*** right as you happen to approach retirement. Nor can you rely on friends and family if they're going through the same situation. You can responsibly plan for the future and still have your plans go to s*** through no fault of your own. Or maybe through fault of your own, but nobody's perfect, and people shouldn't be made to suffer because our experiment in "everyone's an investor! (minus management fees!)" didn't work out so well. I'd much rather have a robust social safety net than rely on everyone to be their own little savers and investors.

They'd charge him interest at a minimum and most likely a penalty. Otherwise people would always try that play-dumb excuse for unreported income.

My dad is an IRS agent, I have already reported jenks to the appropriate authorities.

Life expectancy bifurcates with wages along "blue collar/white collar" lines. Blue-collar and lower-income workers have actually seen life-expectancy fall lately. http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/09/life-s22.html The people that will be struggling the most are actually living shorter lives.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 09:45 AM) Why would you need more than 1200+ a month, plus whatever you have saved for retirement? By 65 you shouldn't have any debt. House, loans, cars, etc should all be paid off. You don't have to worry about healthcare costs or prescription drug costs. What else is there? A significant number of Americans don't live in a house that they own and healthcare costs are still a huge financial burden, and a significant number of those that do live in their own house still have debt tied to it. That's a result of having stagnant wages for decades but increasing cost-of-living. Cars break down and don't last 20-30 years without extensive maintenance. Are you really advocating for a society were most seniors have to scrape by on $1200 a month?

401Ks are a disaster

McDonalds has actually switched all of their sfish to sustainable pollock http://blogs.edf.org/edfish/2013/01/29/mcd...-were-lovin-it/ http://environmentalheadlines.com/ct/2013/...o-labeled-fish/

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 08:50 AM) I could have had all my paperwork to the accountant a week ago, but Schwab still hasn't released 1099's. Everyone else in the world gets stuff out by end of January, but every year, Schwab is at least a week behind. same with TD ameritrade

protip: those challenges exist because of bigotry.

postal service ending saturday mail: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/06...-to-trim-costs/

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 08:08 AM) I'm reminded of a discussion I had a long time ago with StrangeSox, where I mentioned that I would not want a gay son. Would I love him any less? Of course not. But I don't think it's an unreasonable thing to not want a son to face any additional challenges. As far as I'm concerned, only a serious activist would want that, and likely at the expense of his own child. I think it's worth noting that want and accept are two very different things. I remember the context of the conversation very differently. If you honestly only mean that you wouldn't actively want a gay son, that's different. I wouldn't actively want a gay son any more than I'd want a straight son--I would not care one way or the other. I believe you brought up "shame" and the idea that any 'real red-blooded American' would be devastated. That's quite a bit different from saying that you wouldn't desire or prefer a gay son.

having sex, duh! I don't know if the smartest move for conservatives is to go down the road equating gun magazines to a woman's control of her own reproductive organs. But if that's the argument they want to make, enjoy an even-tougher 2016.

The End of Cod This is why I'm highly skeptical of relying on technology for any sort of long-term ecological/environmental solutions--more often than not, technological advances have just made it easier and more profitable to strip ever-more resources out of the environment. And it's a labor/economic problem as well as the industry that a lot of these small New England towns relied on is simply gone and not coming back, just like Midwest manufacturing towns, a lot of mining towns and PNW logging towns.

sorry to hear about the injury/glad to hear it's still working out

thank god this dumb bulls*** is going to waste the court's time, though.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 5, 2013 -> 05:02 PM) No that isnt true. if Bill Maher had said: "I will give trump $5mil if he can prove he is not the son of an oraguntan by January 1, 2013, and if he can not prove that he owes me $5mil." If trump wrote a letter accepting that offer, it would be binding and maher would be on the hook. But when you start a comment as a hypothetical its completely different. Words have meaning "suppose" means something. You cant parse the comment. if maher also signed that letter, sure. if he only ever made his TV joke offer?

That he made it about an orangutan is why it's so clearly a joke.