|
It looks like horses claimed another victim. http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/porn-star-amber-rayne-who-7688976 Died in her sleep. A few days after saying goodbye to her horse. I thought she just couldn't afford it, but the comments imply they are together again in heaven. I wonder if horses in heaven die at the same pace as terrestrial equines.
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:40 |
|
|
From just the markings of a Sharpie I can tell that someone is going to die poor and unloved http://imgur.com/eAO6yil
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:From just the markings of a Sharpie I can tell that someone is going to die poor and unloved That's like the biggest  ever
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Just buy brand name in bulk on sale.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Never had their soda, but wegmans brand other stuff is fine?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:Just buy brand name in bulk on sale. Yep. $1/two liter or $2.50 per 12 pack is my strike price
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
That seems penny-wise but pound-foolish, or to put in in thread terms: Slightly GWM: Saving money on soda by buying non-brand. Very BWM: Pissing off your partner so much by being a cheapskate that they break up with you and take their second income with them. Unless your partner doesn't bring in an income, then I guess it's just GWM all around. E: VVV Divorces are 100% BWM but usually worth it. WampaLord fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Apr 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:That seems penny-wise but pound-foolish, or to put in in thread terms: Wait a second, you need to properly PV your partner given statistical life events, it's not as simple as just having a second income if they cost you 50% of your assets in the future with a divorce.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
If you're not properly PIVing your partner maybe that's part of the grounds for divorce
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Divorcing a BWM spouse is +EV
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
i'm hedging and going to find a partner with a perfect -1 beta to my own life trajectory
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:i'm hedging and going to find a partner with a perfect -1 beta to my own life trajectory Hmm, so you'll be a high-flying lawyer in big law who burns out at 35, while your partner is a late-starting doctor completing residency at the same time? It's just crazy enough to work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:i'm hedging and going to find a partner with a perfect -1 beta to my own life trajectory Cruising for betas? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
Oh lord. MRAchat is now probateable in BFC
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
BEHOLD: MY CAPE posted:I think there's a really good chance that IRAs and 401k/403b accounts eventually end up means tested in such a way that significantly limits the tax advantage for people who accumulate millions in them either by religiously contributing the maximums or doing stuff like cramming them full of startup shares at $0.01/share or whatever
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
BEHOLD: MY CAPE posted:I think there's a really good chance that IRAs and 401k/403b accounts eventually end up means tested in such a way that significantly limits the tax advantage for people who accumulate millions in them either by religiously contributing the maximums or doing stuff like cramming them full of startup shares at $0.01/share or whatever I dont see that as being likely. There are too many people in that group who both vote and contribute to political campaigns for a Congress who made that change to survive. If they were going to do that, they'd have to do something corresponding where social security benefits were significantly increased essentially making the personal retirement accounts not as important. But that's socialism!  quote:I wouldn't say 'really good chance', but I agree to some extent, which is why I roth my 401k ...however if they *did* make a change along these lines, I think Roth withdrawals would be the ones most likely to be affected. Traditional withdrawals are just treated as income. What do you do, impose a 5% penalty on that income? But it's easier to say something like "only the first $30,000 withdrawn from a Roth in a year is not taxable." The biggest reason to go Roth with part of your income is in case tax brackets increase in the future (they're far lower right now than they have been historically). If you're really worried about the gubmint stealin yer IRA and 401k, you should probably just bury caches of gold on your land. Nail Rat fucked around with this message at 13:34 on Apr 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 13:09
|
|
|
http://pennstate.craigslist.org/acc/5525887710.htmlquote:Co-signer needed for refinance (State College Borough) I want to bold the good parts but then I'd just wind up bolding the entire thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
He's a delivery driver pulling down 3k a month? That's about 45k isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Renegret posted:compensation: Helping a young man who doesn't want to end up like his parents "Yeah I guess I can give you $500 to ruin your credit and save me more than $500, how could you refuse?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:He's a delivery driver pulling down 3k a month? That's about 45k isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
This is how favors for sex ads start...
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
At least he bought a relatively sensible car. 21% though, god drat. Couldn't he get an unsecured personal loan at a lower rate?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:At least he bought a relatively sensible car. This is like a pampered CEO guessing that a gallon of milk costs $10. If you're being offered 21% APR for a secured loan, it means no reputable financial institution in the country would offer you unsecured debt at any rate. Payday loans and loansharks excepted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:I dont see that as being likely. There are too many people in that group who both vote and contribute to political campaigns for a Congress who made that change to survive. I suspect some of the rumors about the government moving to change the rules on tax advantaged retirement accounts may have come from the President's 2014 budget and comments in the State of the Union. There's good coverage of the difficulties of implementing the specific proposal are covered well here: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/022414/obamas-retirement-cap-could-hit-middle-class.asp I think the most interesting thing pointed out in that article is that the folks with huge traditional IRAs will actually end up paying more in taxes once RMDs kick in then they would have if they had held the investments in a regular brokerage account and paid long term capital gains taxes: "Theyve got these cases of people who have developed these fantastic accounts, Schieber says of Turner and his colleagues. The people with very high balances were placing assets in tax-deferred plans, often when they were young at the start-up of a company. Then they had these fantastic results and all of sudden these assets became worth a lot of money, Schieber says. You can portray that as some kind of device to avoid taxes, Schieber says, and maybe there is something here I am not seeing in terms of how people can liquidate their accounts when they get to retirement age. Even so, from his own analysis, Schieber disagrees with Turner and his colleagues that there is a tax subsidy for the wealthy. Schieber makes his case by calculating the tax for distributions from an IRA or 401(k) account with $100 million in investments. The owner of the account, be it Romney or anyone else, would at age 70 be required under current law to begin withdrawing an amount equal to the balance divided by 27.4. For this $100 million account, the amount of the first annual distribution would be $3,649,635 in tax year 2013, according to Schieber's calculations. At the highest income tax bracket, the owner of this account would be taxed $1,455,255 for tax year 2013. If the money had been in a non-tax-preferred account instead, the tax in 2013 on the same $3,649,635 would have been only $729,927, based on the 20% capital gains tax rate. The government clearly comes out ahead in this example if the money were socked away in the IRA with the tax deferral rather than saved outside the IRA without the tax deferral" danielski fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Apr 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
Interesting comparison, but it appears they are only accounting for tax at time of withdrawal and neglecting all of the taxable dividend events that would be occurring in a non-sheltered account on the long road to accruing that $100M.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:He's a delivery driver pulling down 3k a month? That's about 45k isn't it? For a moment I was going to ridicule your math skills, then I realized you were assuming the 3k is post-tax.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Gray Matter posted:Interesting comparison, but it appears they are only accounting for tax at time of withdrawal and neglecting all of the taxable dividend events that would be occurring in a non-sheltered account on the long road to accruing that $100M. Fair enough. But the government still gets their money. The whole article is a good read and I think a balanced review of the proposal and some more reasonable approaches to limiting IRA/401(k) balances to avoid the really crazy balances without creating a tax and reporting nightmare. One would have to assume that if the guys with >$50 Million in their IRAS knew how big those investments were going to grow, they would have put them in a trust rather than an IRA so they could pass them on while avoiding estate taxes and the brutal RMDs that will hit at age 70.5.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Ornamented Death posted:For a moment I was going to ridicule your math skills, then I realized you were assuming the 3k is post-tax. Any job where you get tips you should automatically assume, at least in this thread, that they're evading taxes via nonreporting
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
Ornamented Death posted:For a moment I was going to ridicule your math skills, then I realized you were assuming the 3k is post-tax. considering he stated "almost 3k" and is posting on craigslist, I'm going to guess that he's also completely full of poo poo and it's far less than that on a regular basis.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Ornamented Death posted:For a moment I was going to ridicule your math skills, then I realized you were assuming the 3k is post-tax. Renegret posted:considering he stated "almost 3k" and is posting on craigslist, I'm going to guess that he's also completely full of poo poo and it's far less than that on a regular basis. And I bet business in "College Town" drops a bit during the summer and winter. Maybe he hasn't experienced that yet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
danielski posted:Fair enough. But the government still gets their money. Fortunately I've been locking in my 0% effective tax rate on my retirement savings for the last few years in Roths 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 13:46
|
|
|
Inverse Icarus posted:And I bet business in "College Town" drops a bit during the summer and winter. Maybe he hasn't experienced that yet. State College, PA turns into a ghost town in the summer. The student population is 40,000+ and outnumbers the local population. A lot of these student centered business basically go into hibernation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Gray Matter posted:The gubmint is always going to get their cut of course. My point was more that for an article trying to denigrate the use of an IRA in favor of taxable accounts, their figures weren't calculated fairly and would in actuality be significantly closer together. Another thing to consider is that X amount of nominal tax dollars paid in a lump sum 30 years from now (IRA scenario) is likely to cost you less in terms of real value and the lost opportunity of compounding interest than spreading that same X amount of tax payments out over the next 30 years. Although who knows what the tax brackets are going to look like in 30 years compared to today. I'm guessing you only read the quote I cut and pasted rather than the whole article. The article wasn't trying to denigrate the use of an IRA in favor of taxable accounts, they were pointing out that even in the extreme edge cases of huge IRA balances, the government wasn't really losing revenue overall.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
"Mom vs Debt"
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
danielski posted:I'm guessing you only read the quote I cut and pasted rather than the whole article. The article wasn't trying to denigrate the use of an IRA in favor of taxable accounts, they were pointing out that even in the extreme edge cases of huge IRA balances, the government wasn't really losing revenue overall.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
i'm going to marry the @dril candles tweet. i say it every time i see it, but this time i mean it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
I wonder if the $3600 on candles a month is from some MLM like scentsy where this wint person is trying to beome someone's 'upline'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 10:41
|
|
|
wint's a goon. His tweets always have some comedy going on. The candle one was peak BWM.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 10:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:40 |
|
|
You mean the candles thing isn't a parody or joke?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 14:01
|
|
