Favorite team:Auburn 
Location:Daphne, AL
Biography:
Interests:
Occupation:Drives and PLC Guy (Mechanical Engineer)
Number of Posts:1133
Registered on:1/13/2022
Online Status:Not Online

Recent Posts

Message
quote:

When do we, and the West in general, start to accept the fact that Democracy failed?


I would suggest you start with googling "Republic".
quote:

Well, we did. And the cancer is growing.


Exactly which form of cancer? The cancer that was in the Dem party before was somehow more benign? This was always the goal.

This is so simple. Anyone with an "anchor baby" must have broken numerous laws to get in that situation. Natural born US citizens who routinely break laws often lose their parental rights. Illegal aliens who have willfully violated our laws should lose their parental rights. A family court should then decide what happens to their minor children. Many natural born citizens go through this because of choices they made. Illegal aliens should know that the minute they choose to violate our laws they could lose everything, including their own family.

All we need to do is make intentionally breaking our immigration laws a felony, WITH SEVERE PENALTIES.
Make if a felony to intentionally enter the US illegally. Make a heavy fine for falsifying VISA applications, for intentionally overstaying a VISA, etc. Make it a felony for a GOV official to accept and process incomplete documentation in regards to VISA, immigration, and GOV benefits, make it a felony to knowingly employ an illegal alien.

They come here because it is easy to break our laws and live a good life here. Let's make it so it isn't, and make it so that anyone who tries to or facilitates it is punished.

etc, etc.
quote:

I reckon these energy weapons are pretty cool, but they lose a bit of their awe-inspiring appeal when one realizes that they are "line-of-sight" weapons that cannot engage a target that is over the horizon from their view.


I would suspect most priority targets are airborne targets, like missiles and drones, or possibly even artillery shells. Ground targets would probably be a lower priority.


re: Mike Johnson is a clown

Posted by CharlesUFarley on 6/20/26 at 12:13 am to
quote:

It wasn’t meant to last 20-30years.



It eats 12.4% of your income over your entire working life, for most people. In 1937, it was 2% of your first $3000.

You shouldn't ever talk about what it was to do without talking about how much it eats now vs what it ate in 1937.

Everyone would be better off if that money went into an IRA.
Field testing of our weapons in actual combat.
A related question: Why don't Socialists love Indexed Funds?
Japan did not have the fuel or the supply lines to bring the war any further than Midway. Even if they had destroyed our carriers there, they probably wouldn't have been able to resupply the island, and even at that time of the war, couldn't replace lost air crews. They would have certainly lost many of their air crews even it they occupied Midway.

The Navy that destroyed Japan was appropriated by Congress in 1940, before the US was at war with Japan. They couldn't stop it and they knew it. Midway was a last ditch effort to make the US negotiate peace after a decisive victory. It wouldn't have happened.

What would have changed is the War in Europe. The US would have stopped supplying Europe and sent more resources to the Pacific.
If still working, the tax rate on all conversion strategies is likely the same except in the case that you contribute to trad 401K, which kind of defeats the purpose.

Math works better if you can live on zero income for a few years after retirement and convert as much as possible then, but sometimes it is reasonable to just have a number in mind for how much Roth you want. It's not always about the best math.

re: Converting IRA to Roth

Posted by CharlesUFarley on 5/29/26 at 12:39 pm to
If you are still working, convert an amount each month and adjust your state and fed tax withholding at work to pay the taxes on it. A consistently executed plan probably wins this game.

If not working, maybe put off SS for a few years, maybe withdraw a little more from your IRA's some years and a little less the next to leave room for conversions, if you can make the math work.

If you are over 59.5 and still working and have a Roth 401K, maybe max that out and draw down your trad IRA accounts. It's the same math as a conversion.
I bought one for my mother's house. I won't do iit again. The electronics in the transfer switch got fried and she wouldn't pay to fix it and ants took over the generator. Now it is useless. She couldn't work it if I wasn't there anyway.

You are better off to get a manual transfer switch and a couple of portables. Get one tri-fuel that can run most of the house, and another high quality portable to back it up sized for just essentials, but make sure it has a minimal amount of electronics on it. Also, even with a battery minder on them, the batteries go dead. Make sure you can pull start it.

Get portable air conditioners. Move them from room to room if you have an extended outage.
quote:

The house is a rental with a long-term tenant inside.


Aren't these the type you want to take care of? I would do that first, but I don't own rental property and don't want to.
quote:

But saying frick it I'll just pick a random percentage is probably far from optimal.


I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. I think if you do the basic math on the typical 401K investor who maybe only does the max that the employer will match, a typical 3:1 ratio between deferred and Roth is probably within a small percentage of what you'd arrive at after many hours of calculations. Note that I said "typical". This is the typical person earning typical wages using the typical 4% rule and typical assumptions about growth.

Other situations would vary depending on how far away or how close retirement is, and what your situation is, how much you were investing, etc, but the truth is that no recommendation is going to match what is ideal in the future, it just lays a foundation for you to build on.

Most people don't think about this as much as we do and don't want to.

I think that is a good ratio for many people. I didn't have the Roth option for most of my career but that is about what I would have done.
quote:

Why doesn’t Trump intervene in Haiti?


Maybe he's trying to keep the virus contained
It really is a case by case situation, and sometimes it just really depends on what you want to do.

I am contributing to Roth 401K even though cautious math (say future growth is low, <3%) points to trad beating Roth, I still want more Roth. I am also doing some conversions even though I will be doing them at 24% and will probably only be at 22% when I need the money. I want more Roth.

Every situation is different and there just isn't a one size fits all answer to Roth Conversions.
My first impression is that the Vanguard calculation uses the tax free results of the Roth Conversion but compares it to the after tax result of the alternative, which is investing the money that would have paid the conversion taxes in a taxable account in this case. They don't compare those outcomes to a very valid real world scenario: many people who are working also have the option of putting those conversion taxes in their tax deferred 401K instead of a taxable account. So a real world comparison for many would be something like converting $10K to Roth vs adding say $2.7K to your trad 401K in addition to the $10K that you would have converted. In that case, if your future tax bracket is lower, trad wins, usually. If they are the same, the math works out the same: do what you want. If you've got all 401K avenues maxed, the Vanguard analysis holds water.

However, there are many other ways of looking at this, and the benefits of Roth go beyond just the math.
quote:

She politicized intelligence


yeah, that NEVER happened when the DEMS were in charge:

quote:

But when, in 2009, the Department of Homeland Security reported that white supremacy is the US’s biggest threat for domestic terror, it was met with harsh criticism.


LINK