or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Daily CE Musings of Piob - Page 105

post #1561 of 5112
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post

I actually think state-funded post-secondary education is an idea worth exploring, so I wanted to wait until the details on this plan came out. Well, they have. The plan, apparently, is to tax earnings in 529 accounts upon withdrawal. In addition, those earnings would be taxed as ordinary income, not capital gains. This is a rollback to the way things were before 2001 reform made 529s actually worth using.

So, basically, Obama wants to remove the only federal-level tax benefit of college savings plans. He's managing to fuck the middle class in the ass and discourage saving in one fell swoop!

facepalm.gif

So much facepalm.gif.

In Obama's world anyone with a 529 is a baller and not middle class.

The real ass fucking is this is a retro-active tax if you think about it. People made decisions based on current legislation and now they might get fucked down the road because Obama wants to change the rules mid-game.
post #1562 of 5112
Can they move the trade school aspects back into high school technical programs and make them free that way?
post #1563 of 5112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

In Obama's world anyone with a 529 is a baller and not middle class.

The real ass fucking is this is a retro-active tax if you think about it. People made decisions based on current legislation and now they might get fucked down the road because Obama wants to change the rules mid-game.

Sweet. I've just been upgraded!

I thought about that after I made my post. I've got a not insubstantial amount of money sitting in a 529, and I might have just incurred a whole lot of tax liability I was told explicitly I could avoid. It's even worse when you think about the fact that paying taxes at the ordinary income rate makes 529s a de facto penalty over simply using some other investment vehicle to save for college.
post #1564 of 5112
I read that Roth IRAs can be a good savings vehicle for college. You can withdraw penalty free for education expenses, no taxes on the earnings, and they don't count as assets on the FAFSA.
post #1565 of 5112
Can you open a Roth for your kid even if you exceed the income limits?

Seems like a good loophole since even if the kid decides not to go the traditional college route (or scores a scholarship), you have instead gotten them started early saving for retirement.
post #1566 of 5112
Google-fu says you can hire the child for doing basic chores. Seems like a pain. Kid can only make contributions up to income earned, so if they have an outside job, you could gift them the money and they could contribute it.

Also, it appears the married income max for contributing to your own is $181k.

I'm no tax lawyer though.
post #1567 of 5112
Thread Starter 
This is disturbing. Apparently there was some doubt in Germany whether or not a man has a right to stand while taking a piss:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30937492
Quote:
But the Duesseldorf judge ruled that the man's method was within cultural norms, saying "urinating standing up is still common practice".

There is some debate in Germany about whether men should sit or stand to pee.

Some toilets have red traffic-style signs forbidding the standing position...

snip

"Despite growing domestication of men in this matter, urinating while standing up is still common practice," he added.
post #1568 of 5112
When I had my water turned off in law school I would often piss in the bathtub. Hell, I still do it sometimes. I do not generally piss in the sink, unless I'm really drunk.
post #1569 of 5112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

When I had my water turned off in law school I would often piss in the bathtub. Hell, I still do it sometimes. I do not generally piss in the sink, unless I'm really drunk.

They're pipes. They all go to the same place.
post #1570 of 5112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

When I had my water turned off in law school I would often piss in the bathtub. Hell, I still do it sometimes. I do not generally piss in the sink, unless I'm really drunk.
I only piss in your sink when you're really drunk too!
post #1571 of 5112
Thread Starter 
http://www.nber.org/papers/w20884

Republicans cutting unemployment extensions in December 2013 accounted for 1.8 million new jobs in 2014. I'm sure that's never going to fly with some folks.
post #1572 of 5112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

http://www.nber.org/papers/w20884

Republicans cutting unemployment extensions in December 2013 accounted for 1.8 million new jobs in 2014. I'm sure that's never going to fly with some folks.


There are plenty of jobs out there. So many that we have to "import" millions of foreigners to fill them.
post #1573 of 5112
Many of my FB friends are freaking out over this revelation that the Koch's and friends are planning to spend $900M+ on the 2016 election which will match the parties. I just don't see why that's a bad thing for several reasons. Maybe one of the more enlightened members can weigh in.

1. People often complain about the two party system and the inability of people to compete. If a group outside the parties is going to spend as much as the parties, it should allow independent candidates to get more exposure/access.

2. I know some of them posted articles after the 2012 election about how many of the candidates they funded didn't get elected. Is increasing their funding going to change anything (and that's assuming they support the same number of candidates)? This is especially because many of these posters claim they are "buying the election." The little economic research in this realm indicates money has little to no bearing on the outcome of an election.

3. How is this different than when media organizations or figures, such as Bill Maher, target a particular election?
post #1574 of 5112
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

Many of my FB friends are freaking out over this revelation that the Koch's and friends are planning to spend $900M+ on the 2016 election which will match the parties. I just don't see why that's a bad thing for several reasons. Maybe one of the more enlightened members can weigh in.

1. People often complain about the two party system and the inability of people to compete. If a group outside the parties is going to spend as much as the parties, it should allow independent candidates to get more exposure/access.

2. I know some of them posted articles after the 2012 election about how many of the candidates they funded didn't get elected. Is increasing their funding going to change anything (and that's assuming they support the same number of candidates)? This is especially because many of these posters claim they are "buying the election." The little economic research in this realm indicates money has little to no bearing on the outcome of an election.

3. How is this different than when media organizations or figures, such as Bill Maher, target a particular election?


At a certain point, money reaches a diminishing return. How many times can a person watch commercials?

I wish the Koch's would buy NBC instead, and maybe acquire the New York Times from the Flippyflopenheizer family before they run it all the way into the ground.
post #1575 of 5112
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

3. How is this different than when media organizations or figures, such as Bill Maher, target a particular election?

3. It's not, which is something the people railing against "Citizens United" don't seem to understand.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob