CharlesUFarley

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.

Field testing of our weapons in actual combat.

Now do Roosevelt and Pearl Harbor.

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.

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:

---

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.

quote:

---

Why doesn’t Trump intervene in Haiti?

---

Maybe he's trying to keep the virus contained

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:

---

eternally grateful

---

I don't believe this part

quote:

---

It is the reality that the modern Republican Party is an authoritarian cult.

---

Joel Lieberman is holding on line 2.

He should state how much of that $12000 is Federal and how much is state and local.

A single person making $75K and taking the standard deduction only pays about $7K Federal. If he's including SS, State and Local in his 12K he's being dishonest.