What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

Kepler said:
Thank you. I was under the impression that you could not move from the company 401(k) to a Rollover IRA unless you had left that company. I had 401(k)s from 2 former employers. I moved one into a Rollover IRA and I left the other (the significantly larger one) in the company plan. I've actually gotten really good notification about changes from the old company one -- I guess I was just lucky (it's Vanguard and I guess they're good).
Click to expand...

Not sure this is the right string for this discussion.

I don't know whether or not you can withdraw funds from an employer 401(k) while you're still employed and/or contributing. I'm guessing that varies a lot from plan to plan, and that there are a lot of factors to consider, for example if it affects an employer match. If I were you, I'd check with your benefits administration department or HR. One thing you might check is, since you're happy with Vanguard as your funds manager, is if you can withdraw funds from the company 401(k) and retain Vanguard as the funds manager.I fear that aggregating the old company 401(k) with the Rollover IRA will make eventually withdrawals from that IRA a nightmare because the source contributions spread across very different periods and factoring the tax will be complex. In your opinion (you are not being QFT), is that fear justified? I would prefer to simplify but, like I said, I worry.
Click to expand...

Not sure what your concern about "factoring the tax" is. Unless you're trying to figure out what the tax you <i>would have paid</i> on money you contributed to your 401(k) for analysis purposes, it's really irrelevant. When you withdraw money from an IRA, you pay tax at the rate that's applicable when you withdraw it, not the tax rate that was in effect when you contributed. If you look at your form 1040, it's entered on lines 15a and 15b.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

CLS said:
Not sure this is the right string for this discussion.



Not sure what your concern about "factoring the tax" is. Unless you're trying to figure out what the tax you <i>would have paid</i> on money you contributed to your 401(k) for analysis purposes, it's really irrelevant. When you withdraw money from an IRA, you pay tax at the rate that's applicable when you withdraw it, not the tax rate that was in effect when you contributed. If you look at your form 1040, it's entered on lines 15a and 15b.
Click to expand...

I'll end with this; I'll start a personal finance thread if we want to go on (might not be a bad idea actually). I thought there was an issue with pre-tax dollars for cap gains for the duration that the money is in your account. But if it doesn't care and plops the simple cap gains tax on any withdrawal regardless of the time it's been accruing value, then that doesn't matter and I was "misinformed."
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

The Sicatoka said:
Even it that's the only board in his platform, he should be ready for questions that don't hit it. Seriously, last night even a simple, ...

"I'm not interested in talking about foreign leaders right now. Why? Simple. Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Mr. Mathews, I'm not here to be a small mind. This country has enough internal problems that must be dealt with. I'm running for President of the United States. I will focus on US problems first and foremost. Let's talk about ideas to fix those."

OK, maybe that wasn't so simple, and maybe I should be doing something different.
Click to expand...

Despite my perceived jerkiness ;) I can appreciate the allure of a hypothetical middle of the road 3rd party candidate unbound by party doctrine to say and do what's right for the country. Ross Perot came closest to filling that void and looking back on it I give him tremendous credit for bagging about 20% of the vote with no help from an organized party apparatus. The problem is before and since him 3rd party candidates are usually unserious loons with poorly thought out positions or single issue candidates. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein aren't in the conversation or the debates because they're both nuts. If you want ridiculous conspiracy theories like vaccinations cause autism (Stein) or zero workable knowledge of foreign affairs (Johnson) just vote Trump.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

Does Trump win or did Hillary lose if the GOP pulls it off?

The amount of papers that will be published on this election will be monstrous.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

joecct said:
Does Trump win or did Hillary lose if the GOP pulls it off?

The amount of papers that will be published on this election will be monstrous.
Click to expand...

South Park last night (or was it Monday's debate :D ):

GD: "I'm not qualified. Don't vote for me."
TS: "My opponent is a liar. Don't believe him."


GD - Giant ****** / Mr. Garrison / Donald Trump
TS - Turd Sandwich / Hillary Clinton / Hillary Clinton
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

The Sicatoka said:
Was it this guy? That guy against a Gustavus woman wrestler I'll say the woman pins him (and leaves him crying on the mat) in the second.
Click to expand...

Nah. Guys who work out to look like that are usually pretty strong.

One of the funniest things about the phobes is the "sissy boys" they snicker about could throw them through a brick wall. There are as many weak bodies as weak minds on the right.
 
Last edited:
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

Kepler said:
Nah. Guys who work out to look like that are usually pretty strong.

One of the funniest things about the phobes is the "sissy boys" they snicker about could throw them through a brick wall. There are as many weak bodies as weak minds on the right.
Click to expand...

Apparently you ain't met the Gustavus women's wresting team. I stand by prior statement. ;)
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

Kepler said:
Nah. Guys who work out to look like that are usually pretty strong.

One of the funniest things about the phobes is the "sissy boys" they snicker about could throw them through a brick wall. There are as many weak bodies as weak minds on the right.
Click to expand...

For every powerful there's at least one poser. :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptvTVAE5Wx8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofehqbuIue4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-llaWwZqVg
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

Rover said:
Not a big fan of RCP as they aggregate even that ridiculous LA Times/USC poll
Click to expand...

Nate devoted an entire piece to that poll, its problems, and whether it's useful data.

tl; dr:

The problem: Every poll takes crosstabs and then weights the responses by party affiliation. This has turned out to be very useful and predictive. The problem with the LAT poll is it weights based on how people say they voted in 2012 rather than their current party affiliation. While we're still stuck with a SSS, that is probably an unwarranted methodological error or, in technical terms, bullsh-t.

Overall usefulness: However, the poll also does some good stuff that other polls don't both in sampling and in questionnaire construction.

The solution: It's actually pretty simple. The LAT poll is probably a really good poll if you just add 6 points to Hillary. That normalizes the methodological difference without sacrificing the good features.

My criticism of Nate's solution: OK, that really sets off alarm bells for me, because that 6% number doesn't have any theoretical justification, it just happens to true up the results with the other polls -- something called "herding" which is Double Plus Ungood. If Nate offered mathematical reasons why 6% is the magic number, rather than say 5 or 8, then I'd be more comfortable, but he doesn't -- he's reasoning back from results, and that is atypically bad process for him. He of all people knows you don't "unskew" the polls by quantifying how much they differ from the herd, because the outlier poll could actually be right.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top