On 2024-01-02 17:14, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 5:54:46 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-12-31 14:22, Thomas E. wrote:
>>> On Friday, December 29, 2023 at 4:27:34 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
>>>> Finally getting around to an upgrade...
>>>>
>>>> <http://huntzinger.com/photo/2024/pre-install.jpg>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -hh
>>>
>>> You call that an upgrade? The screen is tiny. Just get a newer
>>> Porsche with a real OEM screen or at least something bigger than
>>> this. Heck, my 2015 CRV with its retrofit has a 6.8" screen Pioneer
>>> radio/CarPlay unit. Smaller than the 2022 Accord, but still very
>>> useable. If you can't afford another Porsche get a mount for your
>>> phone. That would work as well as than your unit I found on
>>> "https://www.thedrive.com/news/33144/porsche-finally-offers-an-upgrade-to-its-eyesore-early-infotainment-units"
>>> that shows a $1550 price tag. A good phone mount is 5% of that.
>> What an absolutely consistent, shallow asshole you are!
>>
>> "Mine's bigger than yours" is the highest level of discourse you possess.
>
> LOL, HH has been saying that to me for years. Paybacks are a bitch.

What I've seen is his game is "tit for tat". He only gives after he's
received.

On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 10:49:39 AM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 11:54:02 AM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 11:12:33 AM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 10:30:57 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 8:30:33 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 10:03:50 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > > > > > Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2024-01-01 15:34, -hh wrote:
> > > > > > >> On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 6:22:56 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> > > > > > >>> On 2024-01-01 14:36, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > > > > >>>> On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 6:41:31 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>> On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 5:51:20 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>> On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 5:44:25 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 5:22:01 PM UTC-5, Thomas E.
> > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Friday, December 29, 2023 at 4:27:34 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Finally getting around to an upgrade...
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> <http://huntzinger.com/photo/2024/pre-install.jpg>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> You call that an upgrade? The screen is tiny.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Most anything is an upgrade from the OEM AM/SW/FM+cassette deck
> > > > > > >>>>>>> radio. But it’s still has to fit within the dashboard
> > > > > > >>>>>>> constraint of being single DIN.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Just get a newer Porsche with a real OEM screen or at least
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> something bigger than this.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Not for this one, as Porsche doesn’t sell new air cooled models
> > > > > > >>>>>>> anymore .. at any price.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Heck, my 2015 CRV with its retrofit has a 6.8" screen Pioneer
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> radio/CarPlay unit. Smaller than the 2022 Accord, but still
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> very useable. If you can't afford another Porsche get a mount
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> for your phone. That would work as well as than your unit I
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> found on
> > > > > > >>>>>>> "https://www.thedrive.com/news/33144/porsche-finally-offers-an-upgrade-to-its-eyesore-early-infotainment-units"
> > > > > > >>>>>>> that shows a $1550 price tag. A good phone mount is 5% of
> > > > > > >>>>>>> that.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> That link is to this very product, along with the ‘PCCM Plus’
> > > > > > >>>>>>> version, which is for the newer 996 & 986 (first generation
> > > > > > >>>>>>> water cooled). The good news for you Tommy is that 996’s and
> > > > > > >>>>>>> 986’s aren’t as popular, so they’re now cheap enough to be even
> > > > > > >>>>>>> within _your_ budget.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> After I receive my January RMD funds allotment I could trade my
> > > > > > >>>>>> 2022 Honda Accord for a new 911 and write a check for the
> > > > > > >>>>>> difference. But not going to happen.
> > > > > > >>>>> “Could”… but will never do so. That’s why the most you could
> > > > > > >>>>> rationalize stretching for would be just a twenty year old used
> > > > > > >>>>> example.
> > > > > > >>>>>> I have better uses for the money.
> > > > > > >>>>> Meaning day-to-day living expenses.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> I don't buy 20 year old cars. I do not see the need for a Porsche
> > > > > > >>>> either. Apparently your ego needs stroking by the car you drive. Cars
> > > > > > >>>> are transportation.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> For someone who claims he flies for the enjoyment of it, it's odd you
> > > > > > >>> can't understand that someone else might want to make activity most of
> > > > > > >>> us must do every day more enjoyable.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Oh, Tom understands perfectly well: he just prefers anything over admitting
> > > > > > >> being wrong, including revealing himself as liar and a hypocrite.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And a part of it I think is that he doesn't actually get enjoyment from
> > > > > > > doing things...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ...as much as he gets enjoyment from lording it over others that he does
> > > > > > > them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The problem he has is that he’s not actually doing any lording.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For example, his “could” claims on RMDs are countermanded by how it’s a
> > > > > > nothing burger in the real world, as he never did buy his own Cessna, or
> > > > > > even doubled up on vacation budget, etc, despite multiple years of RMDs to
> > > > > > draw from.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is reminiscent of another braggart who went down this same trap of
> > > > > > falsely believing that merely having a modest bag of bucks somehow
> > > > > > magically equates to being a good human. It doesn’t.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But perhaps Tommy will take the opportunity to learn something new and
> > > > > > swing by a dealer for a visit and maybe even a test drive..not that I’d
> > > > > > expect him to spring for a 911; he’d probably not even be able to pass
> > > > > > muster to take a GT3 out for a test drive.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > PS: piloting a new Usenet newsreader setup, in anticipation of GG’s demise.
> > > > > > “Meh” so far.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hugh, you totally fail to see how you can actually see value in something but not
> > > > > enough to want to own it.
> > > > Yet that was what you initiated with your “Just get a newer Porsche with a real
> > > > OEM screen” and its follow-up of your January RMD “I could buy” claim.
> > > > > With over $3 mill in net worth I can afford a lot of things I don't own.
> > > > Which once again, as Alan noted, is precisely what you do all the time:
> > > > with often with the most tenuous of relevance, dangle a brag of bucks
> > > > so as to try to feel superior about yourself.
> > > > > For less than hanger, maintenance and insurance I have access to 5 flying club
> > > > > aircraft and can fly CAP aircraft too with almost no out-of-pocket expense.
> > > > Nothing wrong about being frugal, but it becomes hypocritical when one then
> > > > goes on to criticize others when in their own way, they’re doing the same.
> > > > > Let's think about a Porsche. I have a 2022 Honda Accord Hybrid Touring.
> > > > Merely the most recent of your many new car purchases…case in point:
> > > > > I have owned 4 or 5, and can see why.
> > > > Five and because you’re taking the initial years’ depreciation hits each time,
> > > > figure at $25K net capital each. Retaining frugality means you could have
> > > > had fewer & saved enough to have gotten the wife a Porsche.
> > > > > I have no desire to even test drive a Porsche. To me a car is something
> > > > > to get you from A to B in comfort and do it with no muss or fuss.
> > > > Because Hondas are renowned for being the most comfortable of rides … /s
> > > > > I once had an SVT Mustang Cobra. It was fun for a year, then I went back
> > > > > to Honda. It's just not me.
> > > > Sounds more like you scared yourself with the Cobra, and have been
> > > > subsequently “playing it safe” for the past ~30 years.
> > > > > You have no right to criticize others' choices based on your personal values.
> > > > > Yours are yours and are mine.
> > > > I’m not: I’m simply holding a mirror up … and you’re not liking your own reflection.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Uh, Hugh, the 4 or 5 Honda Accords starts way back in 1989.
> >
> > What you did 30 years ago just isn’t contemporary, and there’s been other Hondas too, such
> > as your Insight hybrids. as of late, you’ve been flipping cars as often as your smartphones.
> >
> > > There are many cars that exceed the Accord in some area or another. Your Porche is
> > > quicker, likely more fun to drive (for you), and makes a statement about the owner.
> > > But try to load up 5 or 6 model aircraft to go fly at a local RC field. Or carry 4 people
> > > and baggage on a trip. Does it get 45+ mpg? No, it will not do that.
> >
> > Fortunately, “the right tool for the job” applies: If I need to carry a half dozen R/Cs or
> > passengers, I’ll simply choose a different vehicle in the family fleet. Ditto for other
> > use cases; It’s what happens when one is deliberate & holistic on capability needs.
> >
>
> Insight Hybrids? I had one.

On 2024-01-05 09:42, -hh wrote:
> On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 10:49:39 AM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 11:54:02 AM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
>>> On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 11:12:33 AM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 10:30:57 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 8:30:33 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 10:03:50 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
>>>>>>> Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-01-01 15:34, -hh wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 6:22:56 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-01-01 14:36, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 6:41:31 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 5:51:20 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 5:44:25 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 5:22:01 PM UTC-5, Thomas E.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, December 29, 2023 at 4:27:34 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally getting around to an upgrade...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://huntzinger.com/photo/2024/pre-install.jpg>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You call that an upgrade? The screen is tiny.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most anything is an upgrade from the OEM AM/SW/FM+cassette deck
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> radio. But it’s still has to fit within the dashboard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constraint of being single DIN.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just get a newer Porsche with a real OEM screen or at least
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something bigger than this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not for this one, as Porsche doesn’t sell new air cooled models
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anymore .. at any price.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Heck, my 2015 CRV with its retrofit has a 6.8" screen Pioneer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> radio/CarPlay unit. Smaller than the 2022 Accord, but still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very useable. If you can't afford another Porsche get a mount
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for your phone. That would work as well as than your unit I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "https://www.thedrive.com/news/33144/porsche-finally-offers-an-upgrade-to-its-eyesore-early-infotainment-units"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that shows a $1550 price tag. A good phone mount is 5% of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That link is to this very product, along with the ‘PCCM Plus’
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version, which is for the newer 996 & 986 (first generation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water cooled). The good news for you Tommy is that 996’s and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 986’s aren’t as popular, so they’re now cheap enough to be even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within _your_ budget.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> After I receive my January RMD funds allotment I could trade my
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2022 Honda Accord for a new 911 and write a check for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference. But not going to happen.
>>>>>>>>>>>> “Could”… but will never do so. That’s why the most you could
>>>>>>>>>>>> rationalize stretching for would be just a twenty year old used
>>>>>>>>>>>> example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have better uses for the money.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Meaning day-to-day living expenses.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't buy 20 year old cars. I do not see the need for a Porsche
>>>>>>>>>>> either. Apparently your ego needs stroking by the car you drive. Cars
>>>>>>>>>>> are transportation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For someone who claims he flies for the enjoyment of it, it's odd you
>>>>>>>>>> can't understand that someone else might want to make activity most of
>>>>>>>>>> us must do every day more enjoyable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oh, Tom understands perfectly well: he just prefers anything over admitting
>>>>>>>>> being wrong, including revealing himself as liar and a hypocrite.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And a part of it I think is that he doesn't actually get enjoyment from
>>>>>>>> doing things...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...as much as he gets enjoyment from lording it over others that he does
>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem he has is that he’s not actually doing any lording.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For example, his “could” claims on RMDs are countermanded by how it’s a
>>>>>>> nothing burger in the real world, as he never did buy his own Cessna, or
>>>>>>> even doubled up on vacation budget, etc, despite multiple years of RMDs to
>>>>>>> draw from.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is reminiscent of another braggart who went down this same trap of
>>>>>>> falsely believing that merely having a modest bag of bucks somehow
>>>>>>> magically equates to being a good human. It doesn’t.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But perhaps Tommy will take the opportunity to learn something new and
>>>>>>> swing by a dealer for a visit and maybe even a test drive..not that I’d
>>>>>>> expect him to spring for a 911; he’d probably not even be able to pass
>>>>>>> muster to take a GT3 out for a test drive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PS: piloting a new Usenet newsreader setup, in anticipation of GG’s demise.
>>>>>>> “Meh” so far.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hugh, you totally fail to see how you can actually see value in something but not
>>>>>> enough to want to own it.
>>>>> Yet that was what you initiated with your “Just get a newer Porsche with a real
>>>>> OEM screen” and its follow-up of your January RMD “I could buy” claim.
>>>>>> With over $3 mill in net worth I can afford a lot of things I don't own.
>>>>> Which once again, as Alan noted, is precisely what you do all the time:
>>>>> with often with the most tenuous of relevance, dangle a brag of bucks
>>>>> so as to try to feel superior about yourself.
>>>>>> For less than hanger, maintenance and insurance I have access to 5 flying club
>>>>>> aircraft and can fly CAP aircraft too with almost no out-of-pocket expense.
>>>>> Nothing wrong about being frugal, but it becomes hypocritical when one then
>>>>> goes on to criticize others when in their own way, they’re doing the same.
>>>>>> Let's think about a Porsche. I have a 2022 Honda Accord Hybrid Touring.
>>>>> Merely the most recent of your many new car purchases…case in point:
>>>>>> I have owned 4 or 5, and can see why.
>>>>> Five and because you’re taking the initial years’ depreciation hits each time,
>>>>> figure at $25K net capital each. Retaining frugality means you could have
>>>>> had fewer & saved enough to have gotten the wife a Porsche.
>>>>>> I have no desire to even test drive a Porsche. To me a car is something
>>>>>> to get you from A to B in comfort and do it with no muss or fuss.
>>>>> Because Hondas are renowned for being the most comfortable of rides … /s
>>>>>> I once had an SVT Mustang Cobra. It was fun for a year, then I went back
>>>>>> to Honda. It's just not me.
>>>>> Sounds more like you scared yourself with the Cobra, and have been
>>>>> subsequently “playing it safe” for the past ~30 years.
>>>>>> You have no right to criticize others' choices based on your personal values.
>>>>>> Yours are yours and are mine.
>>>>> I’m not: I’m simply holding a mirror up … and you’re not liking your own reflection.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Uh, Hugh, the 4 or 5 Honda Accords starts way back in 1989.
>>>
>>> What you did 30 years ago just isn’t contemporary, and there’s been other Hondas too, such
>>> as your Insight hybrids. as of late, you’ve been flipping cars as often as your smartphones.
>>>
>>>> There are many cars that exceed the Accord in some area or another. Your Porche is
>>>> quicker, likely more fun to drive (for you), and makes a statement about the owner.
>>>> But try to load up 5 or 6 model aircraft to go fly at a local RC field. Or carry 4 people
>>>> and baggage on a trip. Does it get 45+ mpg? No, it will not do that.
>>>
>>> Fortunately, “the right tool for the job” applies: If I need to carry a half dozen R/Cs or
>>> passengers, I’ll simply choose a different vehicle in the family fleet. Ditto for other
>>> use cases; It’s what happens when one is deliberate & holistic on capability needs.
>>>
>>
>> Insight Hybrids? I had one.
>
> Point being that you've had more vehicles than merely Accords for your total count.
>
>> It was obvious that it was not selling well and was likely to be discontinued.
>
> So? That doesn't stop it from being a good vehicle, or meeting your needs.
>
>> The clincher was the dealer's trade offer for the Accord Hybrid.
>
> A ... "deal" /s
>
>
>> Let's review the chain. 2015 traded a pre-owned 2010 Accord with about 100,000 miles for a new Civic.
>
> Being pre-owned, it means you owned it for less than 5 years. For a typical three year lease, that
> would have been a 2013 purchase and just 2 years of its ownership by you.
>
>> Good car that Civic, but not great. 2019 traded the Civic with about 60,000 miles for the Insight.
>
> 2019 - 2015 = 4 years ownership
>
>> Dec 30, 2021 I traded the Insight Touring Hybrid with about 50,000 miles ...
>
> No more than 3 years ownership
>
> So for what you've disclosed, its (2 + 4 + 3 ) / 3 = flipping your car every 3 years.
>
>> Between us since 2015 we have purchased about 8-10 smartphones, 4 or 5 tablets,
>> Android and Apple, versus 4 car purchases.
>
> 75% of which were your cars, not the households.
>
>> Phones do not cost as much as cars. News at 11.
>
> Right, and despite that, if we assume that just over half the phones were yours (vs spouse),
> your consumption was 3 cars vs 5 smartphones: less than a 1:2 ratio.
>
>> You do know that it is totally rational to be frugal in some areas and not-so-frugal in others?
>
> Too bad you didn't afford that consideration to others when you criticized based on passenger seating,
> carrying of R/Cs and even fuel economy: makes you more than just a tad hypocritical.
>
>> Please note that I did not criticize your car, just its tiny display.
>
> Which you did while being utterly ignorant that it was an interface constraint, and for which you
> never acknowledged your mistake. Instead, you tried just saying "buy a new one", which was also
> explained as not possible at any price, as air-cooled examples are no longer manufactured new: that
> double-down attempt means you make two mistakes instead of just one.
>
>> That's my car, a year newer. But nothing will appease your compulsion to find fault.
>
> Who started it in this thread, Tommy? Hint: see "tiny display", above.
>
> And FYI, I'm not being critical of the Honda Accord, but just how you seem to think that it is the
> epitome of a comfortable (luxurious) ride whereas its merely just a nice all-around performer.
> Plus it doesn't hurt to be able to claim reliability/etc, when one flips into a new one every ~3 years.
> And time will tell if you'll keep your 2022 example until after 2025, or be flipping it yet again.
>
> -hh
>

On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 12:13:54 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-01-02 17:14, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 5:54:46 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >> ...
> >> "Mine's bigger than yours" is the highest level of discourse you possess.
> >
> > LOL, HH has been saying that to me for years. Paybacks are a bitch.
>
> What I've seen is his game is "tit for tat". He only gives after he's
> received.

With Tommy's comment on his personal finance, ie: "Since 2015 net worth has almost
doubled, income less 401k contributions is up 50%, and cash flow since 2021 is no longer
dependent on highly variable consulting income." ... well, gosh golly, "Good For You!" ...

.... even though the question remains as to the motivation behind this clearly gratuitous
and unnecessary statement was made, because there are also spurious aspects to it.
For example, we know from his past comments that being self-employed, there were
broad 'employer' discretionary latitude on officially indicated income vs 401k contributions:
back in 2020, one could 'shelter' up to $57K in total in that fashion, which is more than 50%
of a $100K in revenue. As such, one should understand that a claimed "up 50%" can be
pedantically correct, but not necessarily all that meaningful overall because of that degree
of latitude for income shifting: in a way, its not unlike claiming an AGI of $364K while
neglecting to mention that it included a Roth conversion of an unspecified amount.

-hh

On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 2:10:48 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 12:13:54 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> > On 2024-01-02 17:14, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 5:54:46 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> > >> ...
> > >> "Mine's bigger than yours" is the highest level of discourse you possess.
> > >
> > > LOL, HH has been saying that to me for years. Paybacks are a bitch.
> >
> > What I've seen is his game is "tit for tat". He only gives after he's
> > received.
> With Tommy's comment on his personal finance, ie: "Since 2015 net worth has almost
> doubled, income less 401k contributions is up 50%, and cash flow since 2021 is no longer
> dependent on highly variable consulting income." ... well, gosh golly, "Good For You!" ...
>
> ... even though the question remains as to the motivation behind this clearly gratuitous
> and unnecessary statement was made, because there are also spurious aspects to it.
> For example, we know from his past comments that being self-employed, there were
> broad 'employer' discretionary latitude on officially indicated income vs 401k contributions:
> back in 2020, one could 'shelter' up to $57K in total in that fashion, which is more than 50%
> of a $100K in revenue. As such, one should understand that a claimed "up 50%" can be
> pedantically correct, but not necessarily all that meaningful overall because of that degree
> of latitude for income shifting: in a way, its not unlike claiming an AGI of $364K while
> neglecting to mention that it included a Roth conversion of an unspecified amount.
>
> -hh

My my, you lie a lot. The high AGI year was from selling stocks not in a qualified plan. I never claimed it was a Roth conversion. We saved more than the 401k contributions. And I had some other investments from the late 90s. Why do you keep making assumptions? The after tax proceeds were moved to an income plan to replace consulting income as I closed down the business.

I also maxed out the 401k contributions. My advisor and I laid out a long game plan and worked it for 20 years. It took a little longer than we thought but it did work out. Had COVID-19 not happened we would have been about on schedule.

On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 1:04:34 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-01-05 09:42, -hh wrote:
> > On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 10:49:39 AM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> >> On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 11:54:02 AM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 11:12:33 AM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 10:30:57 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 8:30:33 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>> On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 10:03:50 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> >>>>>>> Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 2024-01-01 15:34, -hh wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 6:22:56 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 2024-01-01 14:36, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 6:41:31 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 5:51:20 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 5:44:25 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 5:22:01 PM UTC-5, Thomas E.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, December 29, 2023 at 4:27:34 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally getting around to an upgrade...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://huntzinger.com/photo/2024/pre-install.jpg>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You call that an upgrade? The screen is tiny.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most anything is an upgrade from the OEM AM/SW/FM+cassette deck
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> radio. But it’s still has to fit within the dashboard
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> constraint of being single DIN.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just get a newer Porsche with a real OEM screen or at least
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something bigger than this.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not for this one, as Porsche doesn’t sell new air cooled models
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> anymore .. at any price.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Heck, my 2015 CRV with its retrofit has a 6.8" screen Pioneer
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> radio/CarPlay unit. Smaller than the 2022 Accord, but still
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very useable. If you can't afford another Porsche get a mount
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for your phone. That would work as well as than your unit I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "https://www.thedrive.com/news/33144/porsche-finally-offers-an-upgrade-to-its-eyesore-early-infotainment-units"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that shows a $1550 price tag. A good phone mount is 5% of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That link is to this very product, along with the ‘PCCM Plus’
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> version, which is for the newer 996 & 986 (first generation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> water cooled). The good news for you Tommy is that 996’s and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 986’s aren’t as popular, so they’re now cheap enough to be even
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> within _your_ budget.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> After I receive my January RMD funds allotment I could trade my
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2022 Honda Accord for a new 911 and write a check for the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> difference. But not going to happen.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> “Could”… but will never do so. That’s why the most you could
> >>>>>>>>>>>> rationalize stretching for would be just a twenty year old used
> >>>>>>>>>>>> example.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I have better uses for the money.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Meaning day-to-day living expenses.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't buy 20 year old cars. I do not see the need for a Porsche
> >>>>>>>>>>> either. Apparently your ego needs stroking by the car you drive. Cars
> >>>>>>>>>>> are transportation.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> For someone who claims he flies for the enjoyment of it, it's odd you
> >>>>>>>>>> can't understand that someone else might want to make activity most of
> >>>>>>>>>> us must do every day more enjoyable.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Oh, Tom understands perfectly well: he just prefers anything over admitting
> >>>>>>>>> being wrong, including revealing himself as liar and a hypocrite.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And a part of it I think is that he doesn't actually get enjoyment from
> >>>>>>>> doing things...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ...as much as he gets enjoyment from lording it over others that he does
> >>>>>>>> them.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The problem he has is that he’s not actually doing any lording.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> For example, his “could” claims on RMDs are countermanded by how it’s a
> >>>>>>> nothing burger in the real world, as he never did buy his own Cessna, or
> >>>>>>> even doubled up on vacation budget, etc, despite multiple years of RMDs to
> >>>>>>> draw from.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It is reminiscent of another braggart who went down this same trap of
> >>>>>>> falsely believing that merely having a modest bag of bucks somehow
> >>>>>>> magically equates to being a good human. It doesn’t.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But perhaps Tommy will take the opportunity to learn something new and
> >>>>>>> swing by a dealer for a visit and maybe even a test drive..not that I’d
> >>>>>>> expect him to spring for a 911; he’d probably not even be able to pass
> >>>>>>> muster to take a GT3 out for a test drive.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> PS: piloting a new Usenet newsreader setup, in anticipation of GG’s demise.
> >>>>>>> “Meh” so far.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hugh, you totally fail to see how you can actually see value in something but not
> >>>>>> enough to want to own it.
> >>>>> Yet that was what you initiated with your “Just get a newer Porsche with a real
> >>>>> OEM screen” and its follow-up of your January RMD “I could buy” claim.
> >>>>>> With over $3 mill in net worth I can afford a lot of things I don't own.
> >>>>> Which once again, as Alan noted, is precisely what you do all the time:
> >>>>> with often with the most tenuous of relevance, dangle a brag of bucks
> >>>>> so as to try to feel superior about yourself.
> >>>>>> For less than hanger, maintenance and insurance I have access to 5 flying club
> >>>>>> aircraft and can fly CAP aircraft too with almost no out-of-pocket expense.
> >>>>> Nothing wrong about being frugal, but it becomes hypocritical when one then
> >>>>> goes on to criticize others when in their own way, they’re doing the same.
> >>>>>> Let's think about a Porsche. I have a 2022 Honda Accord Hybrid Touring.
> >>>>> Merely the most recent of your many new car purchases…case in point:
> >>>>>> I have owned 4 or 5, and can see why.
> >>>>> Five and because you’re taking the initial years’ depreciation hits each time,
> >>>>> figure at $25K net capital each. Retaining frugality means you could have
> >>>>> had fewer & saved enough to have gotten the wife a Porsche.
> >>>>>> I have no desire to even test drive a Porsche. To me a car is something
> >>>>>> to get you from A to B in comfort and do it with no muss or fuss.
> >>>>> Because Hondas are renowned for being the most comfortable of rides … /s
> >>>>>> I once had an SVT Mustang Cobra. It was fun for a year, then I went back
> >>>>>> to Honda. It's just not me.
> >>>>> Sounds more like you scared yourself with the Cobra, and have been
> >>>>> subsequently “playing it safe” for the past ~30 years.
> >>>>>> You have no right to criticize others' choices based on your personal values.
> >>>>>> Yours are yours and are mine.
> >>>>> I’m not: I’m simply holding a mirror up … and you’re not liking your own reflection.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Uh, Hugh, the 4 or 5 Honda Accords starts way back in 1989.
> >>>
> >>> What you did 30 years ago just isn’t contemporary, and there’s been other Hondas too, such
> >>> as your Insight hybrids. as of late, you’ve been flipping cars as often as your smartphones.
> >>>
> >>>> There are many cars that exceed the Accord in some area or another. Your Porche is
> >>>> quicker, likely more fun to drive (for you), and makes a statement about the owner.
> >>>> But try to load up 5 or 6 model aircraft to go fly at a local RC field. Or carry 4 people
> >>>> and baggage on a trip. Does it get 45+ mpg? No, it will not do that.
> >>>
> >>> Fortunately, “the right tool for the job” applies: If I need to carry a half dozen R/Cs or
> >>> passengers, I’ll simply choose a different vehicle in the family fleet. Ditto for other
> >>> use cases; It’s what happens when one is deliberate & holistic on capability needs.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Insight Hybrids? I had one.
> >
> > Point being that you've had more vehicles than merely Accords for your total count.
> >
> >> It was obvious that it was not selling well and was likely to be discontinued.
> >
> > So? That doesn't stop it from being a good vehicle, or meeting your needs.
> >
> >> The clincher was the dealer's trade offer for the Accord Hybrid.
> >
> > A ... "deal" /s
> >
> >
> >> Let's review the chain. 2015 traded a pre-owned 2010 Accord with about 100,000 miles for a new Civic.
> >
> > Being pre-owned, it means you owned it for less than 5 years. For a typical three year lease, that
> > would have been a 2013 purchase and just 2 years of its ownership by you.
> >
> >> Good car that Civic, but not great. 2019 traded the Civic with about 60,000 miles for the Insight.
> >
> > 2019 - 2015 = 4 years ownership
> >
> >> Dec 30, 2021 I traded the Insight Touring Hybrid with about 50,000 miles ...
> >
> > No more than 3 years ownership
> >
> > So for what you've disclosed, its (2 + 4 + 3 ) / 3 = flipping your car every 3 years.
> >
> >> Between us since 2015 we have purchased about 8-10 smartphones, 4 or 5 tablets,
> >> Android and Apple, versus 4 car purchases.
> >
> > 75% of which were your cars, not the households.
> >
> >> Phones do not cost as much as cars. News at 11.
> >
> > Right, and despite that, if we assume that just over half the phones were yours (vs spouse),
> > your consumption was 3 cars vs 5 smartphones: less than a 1:2 ratio.
> >
> >> You do know that it is totally rational to be frugal in some areas and not-so-frugal in others?
> >
> > Too bad you didn't afford that consideration to others when you criticized based on passenger seating,
> > carrying of R/Cs and even fuel economy: makes you more than just a tad hypocritical.
> >
> >> Please note that I did not criticize your car, just its tiny display.
> >
> > Which you did while being utterly ignorant that it was an interface constraint, and for which you
> > never acknowledged your mistake. Instead, you tried just saying "buy a new one", which was also
> > explained as not possible at any price, as air-cooled examples are no longer manufactured new: that
> > double-down attempt means you make two mistakes instead of just one.
> >
> >> That's my car, a year newer. But nothing will appease your compulsion to find fault.
> >
> > Who started it in this thread, Tommy? Hint: see "tiny display", above.
> >
> > And FYI, I'm not being critical of the Honda Accord, but just how you seem to think that it is the
> > epitome of a comfortable (luxurious) ride whereas its merely just a nice all-around performer.
> > Plus it doesn't hurt to be able to claim reliability/etc, when one flips into a new one every ~3 years.
> > And time will tell if you'll keep your 2022 example until after 2025, or be flipping it yet again.
> >
> > -hh
> >
> I'm still driving the BMW 135i I bought in 2017 and loving it. Before
> that, I had my 1990 Miata (bought very lightly used from the parts
> manager of the local Mazda dealership) from 1992; 25 years.
>
> Now, I'll freely admit that during that time there was one very major
> overhaul that probably cost $6,000. ("Probably" because the guy who did
> the work was a close friend and I could NOT get him to invoice me.)
>
> And of course there was some maintenance and repair down through the
> years, but the main spends of $9,000 to purchase and the $6K, means
> $600/year overall.

On Saturday, January 6, 2024 at 8:41:46 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 2:10:48 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 12:13:54 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> > > On 2024-01-02 17:14, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 5:54:46 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> > > >> ...
> > > >> "Mine's bigger than yours" is the highest level of discourse you possess.
> > > >
> > > > LOL, HH has been saying that to me for years. Paybacks are a bitch.
> > >
> > > What I've seen is his game is "tit for tat". He only gives after he's
> > > received.
> >
> > With Tommy's comment on his personal finance, ie: "Since 2015 net worth has almost
> > doubled, income less 401k contributions is up 50%, and cash flow since 2021 is no longer
> > dependent on highly variable consulting income." ... well, gosh golly, "Good For You!" ...
> >
> > ... even though the question remains as to the motivation behind this clearly gratuitous
> > and unnecessary statement was made, because there are also spurious aspects to it.
> > For example, we know from his past comments that being self-employed, there were
> > broad 'employer' discretionary latitude on officially indicated income vs 401k contributions:
> > back in 2020, one could 'shelter' up to $57K in total in that fashion, which is more than 50%
> > of a $100K in revenue. As such, one should understand that a claimed "up 50%" can be
> > pedantically correct, but not necessarily all that meaningful overall because of that degree
> > of latitude for income shifting: in a way, its not unlike claiming an AGI of $364K while
> > neglecting to mention that it included a Roth conversion of an unspecified amount.
> >
>
> My my, you lie a lot. The high AGI year was from selling stocks not in a qualified plan.
> I never claimed it was a Roth conversion.

False, for I never said it was only a Roth: I was drawing an analogy for how income can be
manipulated YoY, which is why it said “…not unlike…”.

> We saved more than the 401k contributions.

Irrelevant.

> And I had some other investments from the late 90s.

Irrelevant.

> Why do you keep making assumptions?

I’m not: I was simply giving a common example for how one can have a sudden “boost”
to taxable income to satisfy a “+50%!!!” claim. It wasn’t claimed as the only possible way.

> The after tax proceeds were moved to an income plan to replace consulting income
> as I closed down the business.

A common strategy today for doing that is via a bond ladder (which includes CDs).
Not a huge trade secret; “join the club.” Likewise, there’s also annuities.

> I also maxed out the 401k contributions.

Which traditionally reduces taxable income in those years, which makes a subsequent
“+50%!!” claim later on all the easier…golly! /s

> My advisor and I laid out a long game plan and worked it for 20 years.

Really? Because the actual test of the “it worked” is retrospective, after XX years of
the de-accumulation phase, which you’ve not yet had. Check back in 2041.

> It took a little longer than we thought but it did work out. Had COVID-19 not happened
> we would have been about on schedule.

Meaning then that your financial situation where you worked into your upper 70s was the
‘probably more based on necessity’ … right? Pot, meet kettle.

In any event, CoVid affected everyone’s long term plans in different ways. Invariably, there
were some who were fully able to retire in 2020, but chose to stay on, such as perhaps
telework was an easy opportunity to get a lifestyle “test run” while also banking extra, etc.
You can probably expect to see them driving by in a new Porsche /s

-hh

On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 12:42:05 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 10:49:39 AM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 11:54:02 AM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > > On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 11:12:33 AM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 10:30:57 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 8:30:33 PM UTC-5, Thomas E.. wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 10:03:50 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > > > > > > Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 2024-01-01 15:34, -hh wrote:
> > > > > > > >> On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 6:22:56 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> On 2024-01-01 14:36, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>> On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 6:41:31 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>> On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 5:51:20 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>> On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 5:44:25 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 5:22:01 PM UTC-5, Thomas E.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Friday, December 29, 2023 at 4:27:34 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Finally getting around to an upgrade...
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> <http://huntzinger.com/photo/2024/pre-install.jpg>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> You call that an upgrade? The screen is tiny.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Most anything is an upgrade from the OEM AM/SW/FM+cassette deck
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> radio. But it’s still has to fit within the dashboard
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> constraint of being single DIN.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Just get a newer Porsche with a real OEM screen or at least
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> something bigger than this.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Not for this one, as Porsche doesn’t sell new air cooled models
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> anymore .. at any price.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Heck, my 2015 CRV with its retrofit has a 6.8" screen Pioneer
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> radio/CarPlay unit. Smaller than the 2022 Accord, but still
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> very useable. If you can't afford another Porsche get a mount
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> for your phone. That would work as well as than your unit I
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> found on
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> "https://www.thedrive.com/news/33144/porsche-finally-offers-an-upgrade-to-its-eyesore-early-infotainment-units"
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> that shows a $1550 price tag. A good phone mount is 5% of
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> that.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> That link is to this very product, along with the ‘PCCM Plus’
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> version, which is for the newer 996 & 986 (first generation
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> water cooled). The good news for you Tommy is that 996’s and
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> 986’s aren’t as popular, so they’re now cheap enough to be even
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> within _your_ budget.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> After I receive my January RMD funds allotment I could trade my
> > > > > > > >>>>>> 2022 Honda Accord for a new 911 and write a check for the
> > > > > > > >>>>>> difference. But not going to happen.
> > > > > > > >>>>> “Could”… but will never do so. That’s why the most you could
> > > > > > > >>>>> rationalize stretching for would be just a twenty year old used
> > > > > > > >>>>> example.
> > > > > > > >>>>>> I have better uses for the money.
> > > > > > > >>>>> Meaning day-to-day living expenses.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> I don't buy 20 year old cars. I do not see the need for a Porsche
> > > > > > > >>>> either. Apparently your ego needs stroking by the car you drive. Cars
> > > > > > > >>>> are transportation.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> For someone who claims he flies for the enjoyment of it, it's odd you
> > > > > > > >>> can't understand that someone else might want to make activity most of
> > > > > > > >>> us must do every day more enjoyable.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Oh, Tom understands perfectly well: he just prefers anything over admitting
> > > > > > > >> being wrong, including revealing himself as liar and a hypocrite.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And a part of it I think is that he doesn't actually get enjoyment from
> > > > > > > > doing things...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ...as much as he gets enjoyment from lording it over others that he does
> > > > > > > > them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The problem he has is that he’s not actually doing any lording.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For example, his “could” claims on RMDs are countermanded by how it’s a
> > > > > > > nothing burger in the real world, as he never did buy his own Cessna, or
> > > > > > > even doubled up on vacation budget, etc, despite multiple years of RMDs to
> > > > > > > draw from.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is reminiscent of another braggart who went down this same trap of
> > > > > > > falsely believing that merely having a modest bag of bucks somehow
> > > > > > > magically equates to being a good human. It doesn’t.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But perhaps Tommy will take the opportunity to learn something new and
> > > > > > > swing by a dealer for a visit and maybe even a test drive..not that I’d
> > > > > > > expect him to spring for a 911; he’d probably not even be able to pass
> > > > > > > muster to take a GT3 out for a test drive.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > PS: piloting a new Usenet newsreader setup, in anticipation of GG’s demise.
> > > > > > > “Meh” so far.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hugh, you totally fail to see how you can actually see value in something but not
> > > > > > enough to want to own it.
> > > > > Yet that was what you initiated with your “Just get a newer Porsche with a real
> > > > > OEM screen” and its follow-up of your January RMD “I could buy” claim.
> > > > > > With over $3 mill in net worth I can afford a lot of things I don't own.
> > > > > Which once again, as Alan noted, is precisely what you do all the time:
> > > > > with often with the most tenuous of relevance, dangle a brag of bucks
> > > > > so as to try to feel superior about yourself.
> > > > > > For less than hanger, maintenance and insurance I have access to 5 flying club
> > > > > > aircraft and can fly CAP aircraft too with almost no out-of-pocket expense.
> > > > > Nothing wrong about being frugal, but it becomes hypocritical when one then
> > > > > goes on to criticize others when in their own way, they’re doing the same.
> > > > > > Let's think about a Porsche. I have a 2022 Honda Accord Hybrid Touring.
> > > > > Merely the most recent of your many new car purchases…case in point:
> > > > > > I have owned 4 or 5, and can see why.
> > > > > Five and because you’re taking the initial years’ depreciation hits each time,
> > > > > figure at $25K net capital each. Retaining frugality means you could have
> > > > > had fewer & saved enough to have gotten the wife a Porsche.
> > > > > > I have no desire to even test drive a Porsche. To me a car is something
> > > > > > to get you from A to B in comfort and do it with no muss or fuss.
> > > > > Because Hondas are renowned for being the most comfortable of rides … /s
> > > > > > I once had an SVT Mustang Cobra. It was fun for a year, then I went back
> > > > > > to Honda. It's just not me.
> > > > > Sounds more like you scared yourself with the Cobra, and have been
> > > > > subsequently “playing it safe” for the past ~30 years.
> > > > > > You have no right to criticize others' choices based on your personal values.
> > > > > > Yours are yours and are mine.
> > > > > I’m not: I’m simply holding a mirror up … and you’re not liking your own reflection.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Uh, Hugh, the 4 or 5 Honda Accords starts way back in 1989.
> > >
> > > What you did 30 years ago just isn’t contemporary, and there’s been other Hondas too, such
> > > as your Insight hybrids. as of late, you’ve been flipping cars as often as your smartphones.
> > >
> > > > There are many cars that exceed the Accord in some area or another. Your Porche is
> > > > quicker, likely more fun to drive (for you), and makes a statement about the owner.
> > > > But try to load up 5 or 6 model aircraft to go fly at a local RC field. Or carry 4 people
> > > > and baggage on a trip. Does it get 45+ mpg? No, it will not do that..
> > >
> > > Fortunately, “the right tool for the job” applies: If I need to carry a half dozen R/Cs or
> > > passengers, I’ll simply choose a different vehicle in the family fleet. Ditto for other
> > > use cases; It’s what happens when one is deliberate & holistic on capability needs.
> > >
> >
> > Insight Hybrids? I had one.
> Point being that you've had more vehicles than merely Accords for your total count.
> > It was obvious that it was not selling well and was likely to be discontinued.
> So? That doesn't stop it from being a good vehicle, or meeting your needs..
> > The clincher was the dealer's trade offer for the Accord Hybrid.
> A ... "deal" /s
> > Let's review the chain. 2015 traded a pre-owned 2010 Accord with about 100,000 miles for a new Civic.
> Being pre-owned, it means you owned it for less than 5 years. For a typical three year lease, that
> would have been a 2013 purchase and just 2 years of its ownership by you.
> > Good car that Civic, but not great. 2019 traded the Civic with about 60,000 miles for the Insight.
> 2019 - 2015 = 4 years ownership
>
> > Dec 30, 2021 I traded the Insight Touring Hybrid with about 50,000 miles ...
>
> No more than 3 years ownership
>
> So for what you've disclosed, its (2 + 4 + 3 ) / 3 = flipping your car every 3 years.
> > Between us since 2015 we have purchased about 8-10 smartphones, 4 or 5 tablets,
> > Android and Apple, versus 4 car purchases.
> 75% of which were your cars, not the households.
> > Phones do not cost as much as cars. News at 11.
> Right, and despite that, if we assume that just over half the phones were yours (vs spouse),
> your consumption was 3 cars vs 5 smartphones: less than a 1:2 ratio.
> > You do know that it is totally rational to be frugal in some areas and not-so-frugal in others?
> Too bad you didn't afford that consideration to others when you criticized based on passenger seating,
> carrying of R/Cs and even fuel economy: makes you more than just a tad hypocritical.
> > Please note that I did not criticize your car, just its tiny display.
> Which you did while being utterly ignorant that it was an interface constraint, and for which you
> never acknowledged your mistake. Instead, you tried just saying "buy a new one", which was also
> explained as not possible at any price, as air-cooled examples are no longer manufactured new: that
> double-down attempt means you make two mistakes instead of just one.
> > That's my car, a year newer. But nothing will appease your compulsion to find fault.
> Who started it in this thread, Tommy? Hint: see "tiny display", above.
>
> And FYI, I'm not being critical of the Honda Accord, but just how you seem to think that it is the
> epitome of a comfortable (luxurious) ride whereas its merely just a nice all-around performer.
> Plus it doesn't hurt to be able to claim reliability/etc, when one flips into a new one every ~3 years.
> And time will tell if you'll keep your 2022 example until after 2025, or be flipping it yet again.
>
> -hh

On Saturday, January 6, 2024 at 9:58:42 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 12:42:05 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 10:49:39 AM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 11:54:02 AM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 11:12:33 AM UTC-5, Thomas E.. wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 10:30:57 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 8:30:33 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 10:03:50 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > > > > > > > Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 2024-01-01 15:34, -hh wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 6:22:56 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>> On 2024-01-01 14:36, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>> On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 6:41:31 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>> On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 5:51:20 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 5:44:25 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 5:22:01 PM UTC-5, Thomas E.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Friday, December 29, 2023 at 4:27:34 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Finally getting around to an upgrade...
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> <http://huntzinger.com/photo/2024/pre-install.jpg>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> You call that an upgrade? The screen is tiny.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Most anything is an upgrade from the OEM AM/SW/FM+cassette deck
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> radio. But it’s still has to fit within the dashboard
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> constraint of being single DIN.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Just get a newer Porsche with a real OEM screen or at least
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> something bigger than this.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Not for this one, as Porsche doesn’t sell new air cooled models
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> anymore .. at any price.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Heck, my 2015 CRV with its retrofit has a 6.8" screen Pioneer
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> radio/CarPlay unit. Smaller than the 2022 Accord, but still
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> very useable. If you can't afford another Porsche get a mount
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> for your phone. That would work as well as than your unit I
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> found on
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> "https://www.thedrive.com/news/33144/porsche-finally-offers-an-upgrade-to-its-eyesore-early-infotainment-units"
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> that shows a $1550 price tag. A good phone mount is 5% of
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> that.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> That link is to this very product, along with the ‘PCCM Plus’
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> version, which is for the newer 996 & 986 (first generation
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> water cooled). The good news for you Tommy is that 996’s and
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> 986’s aren’t as popular, so they’re now cheap enough to be even
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> within _your_ budget.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> After I receive my January RMD funds allotment I could trade my
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> 2022 Honda Accord for a new 911 and write a check for the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> difference. But not going to happen.
> > > > > > > > >>>>> “Could”… but will never do so.. That’s why the most you could
> > > > > > > > >>>>> rationalize stretching for would be just a twenty year old used
> > > > > > > > >>>>> example.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> I have better uses for the money.
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Meaning day-to-day living expenses.
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> I don't buy 20 year old cars. I do not see the need for a Porsche
> > > > > > > > >>>> either. Apparently your ego needs stroking by the car you drive. Cars
> > > > > > > > >>>> are transportation.
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> For someone who claims he flies for the enjoyment of it, it's odd you
> > > > > > > > >>> can't understand that someone else might want to make activity most of
> > > > > > > > >>> us must do every day more enjoyable.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Oh, Tom understands perfectly well: he just prefers anything over admitting
> > > > > > > > >> being wrong, including revealing himself as liar and a hypocrite.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And a part of it I think is that he doesn't actually get enjoyment from
> > > > > > > > > doing things...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ...as much as he gets enjoyment from lording it over others that he does
> > > > > > > > > them.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The problem he has is that he’s not actually doing any lording.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For example, his “could” claims on RMDs are countermanded by how it’s a
> > > > > > > > nothing burger in the real world, as he never did buy his own Cessna, or
> > > > > > > > even doubled up on vacation budget, etc, despite multiple years of RMDs to
> > > > > > > > draw from.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It is reminiscent of another braggart who went down this same trap of
> > > > > > > > falsely believing that merely having a modest bag of bucks somehow
> > > > > > > > magically equates to being a good human. It doesn’t..
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But perhaps Tommy will take the opportunity to learn something new and
> > > > > > > > swing by a dealer for a visit and maybe even a test drive..not that I’d
> > > > > > > > expect him to spring for a 911; he’d probably not even be able to pass
> > > > > > > > muster to take a GT3 out for a test drive.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > PS: piloting a new Usenet newsreader setup, in anticipation of GG’s demise.
> > > > > > > > “Meh” so far.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hugh, you totally fail to see how you can actually see value in something but not
> > > > > > > enough to want to own it.
> > > > > > Yet that was what you initiated with your “Just get a newer Porsche with a real
> > > > > > OEM screen” and its follow-up of your January RMD “I could buy” claim.
> > > > > > > With over $3 mill in net worth I can afford a lot of things I don't own.
> > > > > > Which once again, as Alan noted, is precisely what you do all the time:
> > > > > > with often with the most tenuous of relevance, dangle a brag of bucks
> > > > > > so as to try to feel superior about yourself.
> > > > > > > For less than hanger, maintenance and insurance I have access to 5 flying club
> > > > > > > aircraft and can fly CAP aircraft too with almost no out-of-pocket expense.
> > > > > > Nothing wrong about being frugal, but it becomes hypocritical when one then
> > > > > > goes on to criticize others when in their own way, they’re doing the same.
> > > > > > > Let's think about a Porsche. I have a 2022 Honda Accord Hybrid Touring.
> > > > > > Merely the most recent of your many new car purchases…case in point:
> > > > > > > I have owned 4 or 5, and can see why.
> > > > > > Five and because you’re taking the initial years’ depreciation hits each time,
> > > > > > figure at $25K net capital each. Retaining frugality means you could have
> > > > > > had fewer & saved enough to have gotten the wife a Porsche.
> > > > > > > I have no desire to even test drive a Porsche. To me a car is something
> > > > > > > to get you from A to B in comfort and do it with no muss or fuss.
> > > > > > Because Hondas are renowned for being the most comfortable of rides … /s
> > > > > > > I once had an SVT Mustang Cobra. It was fun for a year, then I went back
> > > > > > > to Honda. It's just not me.
> > > > > > Sounds more like you scared yourself with the Cobra, and have been
> > > > > > subsequently “playing it safe” for the past ~30 years.
> > > > > > > You have no right to criticize others' choices based on your personal values.
> > > > > > > Yours are yours and are mine.
> > > > > > I’m not: I’m simply holding a mirror up … and you’re not liking your own reflection.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Uh, Hugh, the 4 or 5 Honda Accords starts way back in 1989.
> > > >
> > > > What you did 30 years ago just isn’t contemporary, and there’s been other Hondas too, such
> > > > as your Insight hybrids. as of late, you’ve been flipping cars as often as your smartphones.
> > > >
> > > > > There are many cars that exceed the Accord in some area or another. Your Porche is
> > > > > quicker, likely more fun to drive (for you), and makes a statement about the owner.
> > > > > But try to load up 5 or 6 model aircraft to go fly at a local RC field. Or carry 4 people
> > > > > and baggage on a trip. Does it get 45+ mpg? No, it will not do that.
> > > >
> > > > Fortunately, “the right tool for the job” applies: If I need to carry a half dozen R/Cs or
> > > > passengers, I’ll simply choose a different vehicle in the family fleet. Ditto for other
> > > > use cases; It’s what happens when one is deliberate & holistic on capability needs.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Insight Hybrids? I had one.
> >
> > Point being that you've had more vehicles than merely Accords for your total count.
> >
> > > It was obvious that it was not selling well and was likely to be discontinued.
> >
> > So? That doesn't stop it from being a good vehicle, or meeting your needs.
> >
> > > The clincher was the dealer's trade offer for the Accord Hybrid.
> >
> > A ... "deal" /s
> >
> > > Let's review the chain. 2015 traded a pre-owned 2010 Accord with about 100,000 miles for a new Civic.
> >
> > Being pre-owned, it means you owned it for less than 5 years. For a typical three year lease, that
> > would have been a 2013 purchase and just 2 years of its ownership by you.
> >
> > > Good car that Civic, but not great. 2019 traded the Civic with about 60,000 miles for the Insight.
> >
> > 2019 - 2015 = 4 years ownership
> >
> > > Dec 30, 2021 I traded the Insight Touring Hybrid with about 50,000 miles ...
> >
> > No more than 3 years ownership
> >
> > So for what you've disclosed, its (2 + 4 + 3 ) / 3 = flipping your car every 3 years.
> >
> > > Between us since 2015 we have purchased about 8-10 smartphones, 4 or 5 tablets,
> > > Android and Apple, versus 4 car purchases.
> >
> > 75% of which were your cars, not the households.
> >
> > > Phones do not cost as much as cars. News at 11.
> >
> > Right, and despite that, if we assume that just over half the phones were yours (vs spouse),
> > your consumption was 3 cars vs 5 smartphones: less than a 1:2 ratio.
> >
> > > You do know that it is totally rational to be frugal in some areas and not-so-frugal in others?
> >
> > Too bad you didn't afford that consideration to others when you criticized based on passenger seating,
> > carrying of R/Cs and even fuel economy: makes you more than just a tad hypocritical.
> >
> > > Please note that I did not criticize your car, just its tiny display.
> >
> > Which you did while being utterly ignorant that it was an interface constraint, and for which you
> > never acknowledged your mistake. Instead, you tried just saying "buy a new one", which was also
> > explained as not possible at any price, as air-cooled examples are no longer manufactured new: that
> > double-down attempt means you make two mistakes instead of just one.
> >
> > > That's my car, a year newer. But nothing will appease your compulsion to find fault.
> >
> > Who started it in this thread, Tommy? Hint: see "tiny display", above.
> >
> > And FYI, I'm not being critical of the Honda Accord, but just how you seem to think that it is the
> > epitome of a comfortable (luxurious) ride whereas its merely just a nice all-around performer.
> > Plus it doesn't hurt to be able to claim reliability/etc, when one flips into a new one every ~3 years.
> > And time will tell if you'll keep your 2022 example until after 2025, or be flipping it yet again.
>
> You are aware that if you lay out a long-term financial strategy you need to have detailed records
> to track how well you are performing?

On 2024-01-07 04:31, -hh wrote:
>> Our priorities may be different.
> Of course they are ... yet that hasn't stopped you from trying to criticize others' choices.

And not just criticize:

Criticize from utter ignorance.

:-)

On 2024-01-06 18:10, Thomas E. wrote:
>> I'm still driving the BMW 135i I bought in 2017 and loving it.
>> Before that, I had my 1990 Miata (bought very lightly used from the
>> parts manager of the local Mazda dealership) from 1992; 25 years.
>>
>> Now, I'll freely admit that during that time there was one very
>> major overhaul that probably cost $6,000. ("Probably" because the
>> guy who did the work was a close friend and I could NOT get him to
>> invoice me.)
>>
>> And of course there was some maintenance and repair down through
>> the years, but the main spends of $9,000 to purchase and the $6K,
>> means $600/year overall.
> Given what you know I know about your financial situation this is
> probably more based on necessity than frugality.
>
> As I recall a family member gave you a "great deal" on the BMW
> because he was not happy with the trade-in value. Felt sorry for
> you?

Nope. Just gave a family member as good a deal as he was going to get
from a third party.

>
> That a friend felt so sorry for you that he gave you a $6,000 engine
> overhaul just further says you probably can't afford new cars.

Nope. He knew very well that I could absolutely afford it. I kept at him
for more than a year to just give me an invoice.

And it wasn't just an "engine overhaul". That's just another example of
you jumping to conclusions.

What a dick you are.

On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 7:21:20 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-01-07 04:31, -hh wrote:
> >> Our priorities may be different.
> > Of course they are ... yet that hasn't stopped you from trying to criticize others' choices.
>
> And not just criticize:
>
> Criticize from utter ignorance.
>
> :-)

Plus there’s always more. Something else I stumbled across was this from April 2017:

“Total gross since 2003 has been $1.41 million, net income before taxes $1.16 million,
expenses $250k. Lest you think that impossible, quite a bit of that income did not involve
travel. Some of the travel was paid direct by the project sponsor, and is not included in the
gross income. That would include airline tickets for quite a few of the international trips,
some hotels, and lots of meals.”

< https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/c/k6biAzIgaSA/m/ZEGRw4WCDgAJ>

Odd how 13 years of the prior 20 years summed to “just”:1.16M, whereas how his cars 2.9%
claim meant up to ~$3M for just the other 7 years…even before recalling how later years
were “95%” retired. YMMV on if the upper limit parameterizing was overly generous…or if
someone else’s numbers were a tad misleading.

-hh

On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 7:24:05 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-01-06 18:10, Thomas E. wrote:
> >> I'm still driving the BMW 135i I bought in 2017 and loving it.
> >> Before that, I had my 1990 Miata (bought very lightly used from the
> >> parts manager of the local Mazda dealership) from 1992; 25 years.
> >>
> >> Now, I'll freely admit that during that time there was one very
> >> major overhaul that probably cost $6,000. ("Probably" because the
> >> guy who did the work was a close friend and I could NOT get him to
> >> invoice me.)
> >>
> >> And of course there was some maintenance and repair down through
> >> the years, but the main spends of $9,000 to purchase and the $6K,
> >> means $600/year overall.
> > Given what you know I know about your financial situation this is
> > probably more based on necessity than frugality.
> >
> > As I recall a family member gave you a "great deal" on the BMW
> > because he was not happy with the trade-in value. Felt sorry for
> > you?
> Nope. Just gave a family member as good a deal as he was going to get
> from a third party.
> >
> > That a friend felt so sorry for you that he gave you a $6,000 engine
> > overhaul just further says you probably can't afford new cars.
> Nope. He knew very well that I could absolutely afford it. I kept at him
> for more than a year to just give me an invoice.
>
> And it wasn't just an "engine overhaul". That's just another example of
> you jumping to conclusions.
>
> What a dick you are.

Yet you can't seem to afford to keep a very important financial obligation current. You know what I'm talking about.

On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 9:59:05 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 7:21:20 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> > On 2024-01-07 04:31, -hh wrote:
> > >> Our priorities may be different.
> > > Of course they are ... yet that hasn't stopped you from trying to criticize others' choices.
> >
> > And not just criticize:
> >
> > Criticize from utter ignorance.
> >
> > :-)
> Plus there’s always more. Something else I stumbled across was this from April 2017:
>
> “Total gross since 2003 has been $1.41 million, net income before taxes $1.16 million,
> expenses $250k. Lest you think that impossible, quite a bit of that income did not involve
> travel. Some of the travel was paid direct by the project sponsor, and is not included in the
> gross income. That would include airline tickets for quite a few of the international trips,
> some hotels, and lots of meals.”
>
> < https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/c/k6biAzIgaSA/m/ZEGRw4WCDgAJ>
>
> Odd how 13 years of the prior 20 years summed to “just”:1..16M, whereas how his cars 2.9%
> claim meant up to ~$3M for just the other 7 years…even before recalling how later years
> were “95%” retired. YMMV on if the upper limit parameterizing was overly generous…or if
> someone else’s numbers were a tad misleading.
>
> -hh

I had a few VERY successful projects after that.

On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 9:59:05 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 7:21:20 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> > On 2024-01-07 04:31, -hh wrote:
> > >> Our priorities may be different.
> > > Of course they are ... yet that hasn't stopped you from trying to criticize others' choices.
> >
> > And not just criticize:
> >
> > Criticize from utter ignorance.
> >
> > :-)
> Plus there’s always more. Something else I stumbled across was this from April 2017:
>
> “Total gross since 2003 has been $1.41 million, net income before taxes $1.16 million,
> expenses $250k. Lest you think that impossible, quite a bit of that income did not involve
> travel. Some of the travel was paid direct by the project sponsor, and is not included in the
> gross income. That would include airline tickets for quite a few of the international trips,
> some hotels, and lots of meals.”
>
> < https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/c/k6biAzIgaSA/m/ZEGRw4WCDgAJ>
>
> Odd how 13 years of the prior 20 years summed to “just”:1..16M, whereas how his cars 2.9%
> claim meant up to ~$3M for just the other 7 years…even before recalling how later years
> were “95%” retired. YMMV on if the upper limit parameterizing was overly generous…or if
> someone else’s numbers were a tad misleading.
>
> -hh

Caught you in another lie in addition to your Roth conversion lie that you have not acknowledged. I looked up the original. You actually edited that comment, leaving out the first sentence! Here is the actual comment, note that first sentence:

"Of course I'm not going to give you my annual income history. Total gross since 2003 has been $1.41 million, net income before taxes $1.16 million, expenses $250k. Lest you think that impossible, quite a bit of that income did not involve travel. Some of the travel was paid direct by the project sponsor, and is not included in the gross income. That would include airline tickets for quite a few of the international trips, some hotels, and lots of meals. Don't ask how many or how much. I have no idea."

That was not total income, just consulting. You are still not going to get annual income details. From 2002 we were both getting salaries early on, a substantial 2003 "golden parachute", retirement plan income from 2003, and Social Security from 2011, capital gains, and some dividend income. TOTAL 2002-2017 income was $3.1 million. Net consulting before taxes was $1.3 million in 2020, the last year I had active projects. I was already tapering down as RMD income started and planning transitioning some investments from capital appreciation to income funds. Of that $1.3 million $544k was contributed to the 401k and $302k has been paid out in RMDs starting in 2016. Despite the RMDs the total investments have continued to appreciate.

PLEASE stop lying.

On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 8:52:39 AM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 9:59:05 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 7:21:20 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> > > On 2024-01-07 04:31, -hh wrote:
> > > >> Our priorities may be different.
> > > > Of course they are ... yet that hasn't stopped you from trying to criticize others' choices.
> > >
> > > And not just criticize:
> > >
> > > Criticize from utter ignorance.
> > >
> > > :-)
> > Plus there’s always more. Something else I stumbled across was this from April 2017:
> >
> > “Total gross since 2003 has been $1.41 million, net income before taxes $1.16 million,
> > expenses $250k. Lest you think that impossible, quite a bit of that income did not involve
> > travel. Some of the travel was paid direct by the project sponsor, and is not included in the
> > gross income. That would include airline tickets for quite a few of the international trips,
> > some hotels, and lots of meals.”
> >
> > < https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/c/k6biAzIgaSA/m/ZEGRw4WCDgAJ>
> >
> > Odd how 13 years of the prior 20 years summed to “just”:1.16M, whereas how his cars 2.9%
> > claim meant up to ~$3M for just the other 7 years…even before recalling how later years
> > were “95%” retired. YMMV on if the upper limit parameterizing was overly generous…or if
> > someone else’s numbers were a tad misleading.
> >
>
> Caught you in another lie in addition to your Roth conversion lie that you have not acknowledged.

False, for I never said it was only a Roth: I was drawing an analogy for how income can be
manipulated YoY, which is why it said “…not unlike…”.

> I looked up the original. You actually edited that comment, leaving out the first sentence!

No, the quotation was done correctly. The prior sentence wasn't included because it wasn't
quantitatively relevant to the context of your fiscal claim.

> Here is the actual comment, note that first sentence:
>
> "Of course I'm not going to give you my annual income history.["]

So what? Because you did then proceed to provide a *sum* of your income history.
for a ~14 year period, as noted:

> ["]Total gross since 2003 has been $1.41 million, net income before taxes $1.16 million,
> expenses $250k..."
>
> That was not total income, just consulting.

But you characterized it as TOTAL GROSS income.

Gross includes everything, as per GAAP as well as the IRS's 1040 form, where it is listed
on line 9, whose sum includes IRA (line 4), pensions (line 5), Social Security (line 6), etc.
So are you lying now, or back then?

> You are still not going to get annual income details.

Don't need to, for all I was doing was pointing out the implausibility that you earned ~twice
as much in 7 years than you did over 14 years ... which would be ~4x annualized, and yet
somehow never bragged about this quadruple increase during any of those years.

> From 2002 we were both getting salaries early on, a substantial 2003 "golden parachute",
> retirement plan income from 2003, and Social Security from 2011, capital gains, and some
> dividend income. TOTAL 2002-2017 income was $3.1 million.

So if we are to believe your herein revised claims, the aforementioned $1.41M gross on
supposedly just your consulting means that your non-consulting income sources summed
to ($3.1M - $1.41M) = $1.69M for what's now 16 years ... that's an average of just $100K/yr,
of which we know a good chunk is seven years worth of Social Security payments: at a
simple swag of $30K/pp * two persons * seven years, that's $420K, so the remainder is
$1.27M, for an average of ~$80K/yr for the sum of all non-SS/non-consulting sources.

> Net consulting before taxes was $1.3 million in 2020, the last year I had active projects.

Versus $1.16M after 2016, so just $1.3M-$1.16M = $140K for 2017-20 inclusive, for
an average of $35K/yr ... seems that the old "95% retired" comment had been pretty
much spot-on, as at your $250-$275/hr rate, its just ~3.5 weeks/year.

> I was already tapering down as RMD income started and planning transitioning some
> investments from capital appreciation to income funds. Of that $1.3 million $544k
> was contributed to the 401k ...

Meaning a (0.544/1.3) = 40% reduction in taxable net 'income then, which enables
making a '+50% higher' spin attempt all the easier to meet now.

> ...and $302k has been paid out in RMDs starting in 2016.

For 8 years, that's <$38K/yr. Using a simple average RMD of 4% and ignoring
QCDs, it means that the average 401k/IRA balances has been around $950K.

> Despite the RMDs the total investments have continued to appreciate.

But is that really saying much? Because the Markets were up by IIRC roughly +15%,
yet RMDs at age 77 are just 4.4%

> PLEASE stop lying.

I'm not; I'm merely quantitatively calling you out when you try to spin cherry-picked half truths.

-hh

On 2024-01-08 05:11, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 7:24:05 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-01-06 18:10, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>> I'm still driving the BMW 135i I bought in 2017 and loving it.
>>>> Before that, I had my 1990 Miata (bought very lightly used from the
>>>> parts manager of the local Mazda dealership) from 1992; 25 years.
>>>>
>>>> Now, I'll freely admit that during that time there was one very
>>>> major overhaul that probably cost $6,000. ("Probably" because the
>>>> guy who did the work was a close friend and I could NOT get him to
>>>> invoice me.)
>>>>
>>>> And of course there was some maintenance and repair down through
>>>> the years, but the main spends of $9,000 to purchase and the $6K,
>>>> means $600/year overall.
>>> Given what you know I know about your financial situation this is
>>> probably more based on necessity than frugality.
>>>
>>> As I recall a family member gave you a "great deal" on the BMW
>>> because he was not happy with the trade-in value. Felt sorry for
>>> you?
>> Nope. Just gave a family member as good a deal as he was going to get
>> from a third party.
>>>
>>> That a friend felt so sorry for you that he gave you a $6,000 engine
>>> overhaul just further says you probably can't afford new cars.
>> Nope. He knew very well that I could absolutely afford it. I kept at him
>> for more than a year to just give me an invoice.
>>
>> And it wasn't just an "engine overhaul". That's just another example of
>> you jumping to conclusions.
>>
>> What a dick you are.
>
> Yet you can't seem to afford to keep a very important financial obligation current. You know what I'm talking about.

I know that you've been stalking, dick.

On 2024-01-08 05:52, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 9:59:05 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
>> On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 7:21:20 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2024-01-07 04:31, -hh wrote:
>>>>> Our priorities may be different.
>>>> Of course they are ... yet that hasn't stopped you from trying to criticize others' choices.
>>>
>>> And not just criticize:
>>>
>>> Criticize from utter ignorance.
>>>
>>> :-)
>> Plus there’s always more. Something else I stumbled across was this from April 2017:
>>
>> “Total gross since 2003 has been $1.41 million, net income before taxes $1.16 million,
>> expenses $250k. Lest you think that impossible, quite a bit of that income did not involve
>> travel. Some of the travel was paid direct by the project sponsor, and is not included in the
>> gross income. That would include airline tickets for quite a few of the international trips,
>> some hotels, and lots of meals.”
>>
>> < https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/c/k6biAzIgaSA/m/ZEGRw4WCDgAJ>
>>
>> Odd how 13 years of the prior 20 years summed to “just”:1.16M, whereas how his cars 2.9%
>> claim meant up to ~$3M for just the other 7 years…even before recalling how later years
>> were “95%” retired. YMMV on if the upper limit parameterizing was overly generous…or if
>> someone else’s numbers were a tad misleading.
>>
>> -hh
>
> Caught you in another lie in addition to your Roth conversion lie that you have not acknowledged. I looked up the original. You actually edited that comment, leaving out the first sentence! Here is the actual comment, note that first sentence:
>
> "Of course I'm not going to give you my annual income history. Total gross since 2003 has been $1.41 million, net income before taxes $1.16 million, expenses $250k. Lest you think that impossible, quite a bit of that income did not involve travel. Some of the travel was paid direct by the project sponsor, and is not included in the gross income. That would include airline tickets for quite a few of the international trips, some hotels, and lots of meals. Don't ask how many or how much. I have no idea."
>
> That was not total income, just consulting. You are still not going to get annual income details. From 2002 we were both getting salaries early on, a substantial 2003 "golden parachute", retirement plan income from 2003, and Social Security from 2011, capital gains, and some dividend income. TOTAL 2002-2017 income was $3.1 million. Net consulting before taxes was $1.3 million in 2020, the last year I had active projects. I was already tapering down as RMD income started and planning transitioning some investments from capital appreciation to income funds. Of that $1.3 million $544k was contributed to the 401k and $302k has been paid out in RMDs starting in 2016. Despite the RMDs the total investments have continued to appreciate.
>
> PLEASE stop lying.

How is "total gross" "not total income", dick?

On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 10:59:24 AM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 8:52:39 AM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 9:59:05 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 7:21:20 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> > > > On 2024-01-07 04:31, -hh wrote:
> > > > >> Our priorities may be different.
> > > > > Of course they are ... yet that hasn't stopped you from trying to criticize others' choices.
> > > >
> > > > And not just criticize:
> > > >
> > > > Criticize from utter ignorance.
> > > >
> > > > :-)
> > > Plus there’s always more. Something else I stumbled across was this from April 2017:
> > >
> > > “Total gross since 2003 has been $1.41 million, net income before taxes $1.16 million,
> > > expenses $250k. Lest you think that impossible, quite a bit of that income did not involve
> > > travel. Some of the travel was paid direct by the project sponsor, and is not included in the
> > > gross income. That would include airline tickets for quite a few of the international trips,
> > > some hotels, and lots of meals.”
> > >
> > > < https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/c/k6biAzIgaSA/m/ZEGRw4WCDgAJ>
> > >
> > > Odd how 13 years of the prior 20 years summed to “just”:1.16M, whereas how his cars 2.9%
> > > claim meant up to ~$3M for just the other 7 years…even before recalling how later years
> > > were “95%” retired. YMMV on if the upper limit parameterizing was overly generous…or if
> > > someone else’s numbers were a tad misleading.
> > >
> >
> > Caught you in another lie in addition to your Roth conversion lie that you have not acknowledged.
> False, for I never said it was only a Roth: I was drawing an analogy for how income can be
> manipulated YoY, which is why it said “…not unlike…”.
> > I looked up the original. You actually edited that comment, leaving out the first sentence!
> No, the quotation was done correctly. The prior sentence wasn't included because it wasn't
> quantitatively relevant to the context of your fiscal claim.
> > Here is the actual comment, note that first sentence:
> >
> > "Of course I'm not going to give you my annual income history.["]
>
> So what? Because you did then proceed to provide a *sum* of your income history.
> for a ~14 year period, as noted:
>
> > ["]Total gross since 2003 has been $1.41 million, net income before taxes $1.16 million,
> > expenses $250k..."
> >
> > That was not total income, just consulting.
> But you characterized it as TOTAL GROSS income.
>
> Gross includes everything, as per GAAP as well as the IRS's 1040 form, where it is listed
> on line 9, whose sum includes IRA (line 4), pensions (line 5), Social Security (line 6), etc.
> So are you lying now, or back then?
> > You are still not going to get annual income details.
> Don't need to, for all I was doing was pointing out the implausibility that you earned ~twice
> as much in 7 years than you did over 14 years ... which would be ~4x annualized, and yet
> somehow never bragged about this quadruple increase during any of those years.
> > From 2002 we were both getting salaries early on, a substantial 2003 "golden parachute",
> > retirement plan income from 2003, and Social Security from 2011, capital gains, and some
> > dividend income. TOTAL 2002-2017 income was $3.1 million.
> So if we are to believe your herein revised claims, the aforementioned $1..41M gross on
> supposedly just your consulting means that your non-consulting income sources summed
> to ($3.1M - $1.41M) = $1.69M for what's now 16 years ... that's an average of just $100K/yr,
> of which we know a good chunk is seven years worth of Social Security payments: at a
> simple swag of $30K/pp * two persons * seven years, that's $420K, so the remainder is
> $1.27M, for an average of ~$80K/yr for the sum of all non-SS/non-consulting sources.
> > Net consulting before taxes was $1.3 million in 2020, the last year I had active projects.
> Versus $1.16M after 2016, so just $1.3M-$1.16M = $140K for 2017-20 inclusive, for
> an average of $35K/yr ... seems that the old "95% retired" comment had been pretty
> much spot-on, as at your $250-$275/hr rate, its just ~3.5 weeks/year.
> > I was already tapering down as RMD income started and planning transitioning some
> > investments from capital appreciation to income funds. Of that $1.3 million $544k
> > was contributed to the 401k ...
>
> Meaning a (0.544/1.3) = 40% reduction in taxable net 'income then, which enables
> making a '+50% higher' spin attempt all the easier to meet now.
>
> > ...and $302k has been paid out in RMDs starting in 2016.
>
> For 8 years, that's <$38K/yr. Using a simple average RMD of 4% and ignoring
> QCDs, it means that the average 401k/IRA balances has been around $950K.
> > Despite the RMDs the total investments have continued to appreciate.
> But is that really saying much? Because the Markets were up by IIRC roughly +15%,
> yet RMDs at age 77 are just 4.4%
>
> > PLEASE stop lying.
>
> I'm not; I'm merely quantitatively calling you out when you try to spin cherry-picked half truths.
>
>
> -hh
You are the one who cherry-picks, and confused. The 1.41 clearly referred to consulting only. FYI 2003-2023 gross , IRS basis, was $4.3 million. Keep up please! The 4.5x referred to net worth, not earnings! I have you spinning in circles.

The RMDs come from 5 different qualified accounts, not just my former 401k, now an IRA. The long term S&P average is 6-7%/year. That's the number I'm looking at, not just 2023.

On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 5:57:08 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 10:59:24 AM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 8:52:39 AM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 9:59:05 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 7:21:20 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> > > > > On 2024-01-07 04:31, -hh wrote:
> > > > > >> Our priorities may be different.
> > > > > > Of course they are ... yet that hasn't stopped you from trying to criticize others' choices.
> > > > >
> > > > > And not just criticize:
> > > > >
> > > > > Criticize from utter ignorance.
> > > > >
> > > > > :-)
> > > > Plus there’s always more. Something else I stumbled across was this from April 2017:
> > > >
> > > > “Total gross since 2003 has been $1.41 million, net income before taxes $1.16 million,
> > > > expenses $250k. Lest you think that impossible, quite a bit of that income did not involve
> > > > travel. Some of the travel was paid direct by the project sponsor, and is not included in the
> > > > gross income. That would include airline tickets for quite a few of the international trips,
> > > > some hotels, and lots of meals.”
> > > >
> > > > < https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/c/k6biAzIgaSA/m/ZEGRw4WCDgAJ>
> > > >
> > > > Odd how 13 years of the prior 20 years summed to “just”:1.16M, whereas how his cars 2.9%
> > > > claim meant up to ~$3M for just the other 7 years…even before recalling how later years
> > > > were “95%” retired. YMMV on if the upper limit parameterizing was overly generous…or if
> > > > someone else’s numbers were a tad misleading.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Caught you in another lie in addition to your Roth conversion lie that you have not acknowledged.
> >
> > False, for I never said it was only a Roth: I was drawing an analogy for how income can be
> > manipulated YoY, which is why it said “…not unlike…”.

Silence from Tommy

> > > I looked up the original. You actually edited that comment, leaving out the first sentence!
> >
> > No, the quotation was done correctly. The prior sentence wasn't included because it wasn't
> > quantitatively relevant to the context of your fiscal claim.

Silence from Tommy.

> > > Here is the actual comment, note that first sentence:
> > >
> > > "Of course I'm not going to give you my annual income history.["]
> >
> > So what? Because you did then proceed to provide a *sum* of your income history.
> > for a ~14 year period, as noted:
> >
> > > ["]Total gross since 2003 has been $1.41 million, net income before taxes $1.16 million,
> > > expenses $250k..."
> > >
> > > That was not total income, just consulting.
> >
> > But you characterized it as TOTAL GROSS income.
> >
> > Gross includes everything, as per GAAP as well as the IRS's 1040 form, where it is listed
> > on line 9, whose sum includes IRA (line 4), pensions (line 5), Social Security (line 6), etc.
> > So are you lying now, or back then?

Silence from Tommy.

> > > You are still not going to get annual income details.
> >
> > Don't need to, for all I was doing was pointing out the implausibility that you earned ~twice
> > as much in 7 years than you did over 14 years ... which would be ~4x annualized, and yet
> > somehow never bragged about this quadruple increase during any of those years.

Which is not a statement on Net Worth changes.

> > > From 2002 we were both getting salaries early on, a substantial 2003 "golden parachute",
> > > retirement plan income from 2003, and Social Security from 2011, capital gains, and some
> > > dividend income. TOTAL 2002-2017 income was $3.1 million.
> >
> > So if we are to believe your herein revised claims, the aforementioned $1.41M gross on
> > supposedly just your consulting means that your non-consulting income sources summed
> > to ($3.1M - $1.41M) = $1.69M for what's now 16 years ... that's an average of just $100K/yr,
> > of which we know a good chunk is seven years worth of Social Security payments: at a
> > simple swag of $30K/pp * two persons * seven years, that's $420K, so the remainder is
> > $1.27M, for an average of ~$80K/yr for the sum of all non-SS/non-consulting sources.
> >
> > > Net consulting before taxes was $1.3 million in 2020, the last year I had active projects.
> >
> > Versus $1.16M after 2016, so just $1.3M-$1.16M = $140K for 2017-20 inclusive, for
> > an average of $35K/yr ... seems that the old "95% retired" comment had been pretty
> > much spot-on, as at your $250-$275/hr rate, its just ~3.5 weeks/year.

“Tapering” … quantified. Or in demand from just one last faithful client /s

> > > I was already tapering down as RMD income started and planning transitioning some
> > > investments from capital appreciation to income funds. Of that $1.3 million $544k
> > > was contributed to the 401k ...
> >
> > Meaning a (0.544/1.3) = 40% reduction in taxable net 'income then, which enables
> > making a '+50% higher' spin attempt all the easier to meet now.
> >
> > > ...and $302k has been paid out in RMDs starting in 2016.
> >
> > For 8 years, that's <$38K/yr. Using a simple average RMD of 4% and ignoring
> > QCDs, it means that the average 401k/IRA balances has been around $950K..
> >
> > > Despite the RMDs the total investments have continued to appreciate.
> >
> > But is that really saying much? Because the Markets were up by IIRC roughly +15%,
> > yet RMDs at age 77 are just 4.4%
> >
> > > PLEASE stop lying.
> >
> > I'm not; I'm merely quantitatively calling you out when you try to spin cherry-picked half truths.
>
> You are the one who cherry-picks, and confused. The 1.41 clearly referred to consulting only.

Nope: you represented it in 2017 as your TOTAL GROSS income with no such qualifiers.

> FYI 2003-2023 gross , IRS basis, was $4.3 million.

Just what definition of “gross” are you using here? For example, is that before
or after deductible business expenses (such as the $250K already mentioned)?

Oh and FYI, I see you’ve chosen to change your claim’s timeline yet again:
“[April 2017] Total gross since 2003 has been $1.41 million, net income
before taxes $1.16 million, expenses $250k.”
“2002-2017 income was $3.1 million.”
“2003-2023 gross, IRS basis, was $4.3 million.”

This last one added six years (2018-2023), but also apparently dropped 2002: a mistake,
or an interesting but effectively futile obfuscation attempt on your brag attempt?

> The 4.5x referred to net worth, not earnings!
I said 4x, not 4.5x, because I wasn't referring to Net Worth changes.

> The RMDs come from 5 different qualified accounts, ..

Irrelevant, because you gave a sum total of their RMDs.

> The long term S&P average is 6-7%/year. That's the number I'm looking at,
> not just 2023.

Yet 6-7% is still greater than 4% RMDs, so mathematically, growth is still expected.
As such, just what is your unusual and profound claim that you’re trying to make?

-hh

Hmm..

Looks like my response on GG hasn’t disseminated. Repost.

Thomas E. <thomas.e.elam@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 10:59:24 AM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
>> On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 8:52:39 AM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
>>> On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 9:59:05 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 7:21:20 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-01-07 04:31, -hh wrote:
>>>>>>> Our priorities may be different.
>>>>>> Of course they are ... yet that hasn't stopped you from trying to
>>>>>> criticize others' choices.
>>>>>
>>>>> And not just criticize:
>>>>>
>>>>> Criticize from utter ignorance.
>>>>>
>>>>> :-)
>>>> Plus there’s always more. Something else I stumbled across was this from April 2017:
>>>>
>>>> “Total gross since 2003 has been $1.41 million, net income before taxes $1.16 million,
>>>> expenses $250k. Lest you think that impossible, quite a bit of that
>>>> income did not involve
>>>> travel. Some of the travel was paid direct by the project sponsor, and
>>>> is not included in the
>>>> gross income. That would include airline tickets for quite a few of
>>>> the international trips,
>>>> some hotels, and lots of meals.”
>>>>
>>>> < https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/c/k6biAzIgaSA/m/ZEGRw4WCDgAJ>
>>>>
>>>> Odd how 13 years of the prior 20 years summed to “just”:1.16M, whereas
>>>> how his cars 2.9%
>>>> claim meant up to ~$3M for just the other 7
>>>> years…even before recalling how later years
>>>> were “95%” retired. YMMV on if the upper limit parameterizing was overly generous…or if
>>>> someone else’s numbers were a tad misleading.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Caught you in another lie in addition to your Roth conversion lie that
>>> you have not acknowledged.
>> False, for I never said it was only a Roth: I was drawing an analogy for
>> how income can be
>> manipulated YoY, which is why it said “…not unlike…”.

Silence from Tommy.

>>> I looked up the original. You actually edited that comment, leaving out
>>> the first sentence!
>> No, the quotation was done correctly. The prior sentence wasn't included
>> because it wasn't
>> quantitatively relevant to the context of your fiscal claim.
>>> Here is the actual comment, note that first sentence:
>>>
>>> "Of course I'm not going to give you my annual income history.["]
>>
>> So what? Because you did then proceed to provide a *sum* of your income history.
>> for a ~14 year period, as noted:
>>
>>> ["]Total gross since 2003 has been $1.41 million, net income before taxes $1.16 million,
>>> expenses $250k..."
>>>
>>> That was not total income, just consulting.
>> But you characterized it as TOTAL GROSS income.
>>
>> Gross includes everything, as per GAAP as well as the IRS's 1040 form, where it is listed
>> on line 9, whose sum includes IRA (line 4), pensions (line 5), Social
>> Security (line 6), etc.
>> So are you lying now, or back then?

Silence from Tommy.

>>> You are still not going to get annual income details.
>> Don't need to, for all I was doing was pointing out the implausibility
>> that you earned ~twice
>> as much in 7 years than you did over 14 years ... which would be ~4x annualized, and yet
>> somehow never bragged about this quadruple increase during any of those years.

Which is not a statement on Net Worth changes.

>>> From 2002 we were both getting salaries early on, a substantial 2003 "golden parachute",
>>> retirement plan income from 2003, and Social Security from 2011, capital gains, and some
>>> dividend income. TOTAL 2002-2017 income was $3.1 million.
>> So if we are to believe your herein revised claims, the aforementioned $1.41M gross on
>> supposedly just your consulting means that your non-consulting income sources summed
>> to ($3.1M - $1.41M) = $1.69M for what's now 16 years ... that's an
>> average of just $100K/yr,
>> of which we know a good chunk is seven years worth of Social Security payments: at a
>> simple swag of $30K/pp * two persons * seven years, that's $420K, so the remainder is
>> $1.27M, for an average of ~$80K/yr for the sum of all non-SS/non-consulting sources.
>>> Net consulting before taxes was $1.3 million in 2020, the last year I
>>> had active projects.
>> Versus $1.16M after 2016, so just $1.3M-$1.16M
>>> = $140K for 2017-20 inclusive, for
>> an average of $35K/yr ... seems that the old "95% retired" comment had been pretty
>> much spot-on, as at your $250-$275/hr rate, its just ~3.5 weeks/year.

“Tapering” … quantified. Or in demand from just one last faithful client
/s

>>> I was already tapering down as RMD income started and planning transitioning some
>>> investments from capital appreciation to income funds. Of that $1.3 million $544k
>>> was contributed to the 401k ...
>>
>> Meaning a (0.544/1.3) = 40% reduction in taxable net 'income then, which enables
>> making a '+50% higher' spin attempt all the easier to meet now.
>>
>>> ...and $302k has been paid out in RMDs starting in 2016.
>>
>> For 8 years, that's <$38K/yr. Using a simple average RMD of 4% and ignoring
>> QCDs, it means that the average 401k/IRA balances has been around $950K.
>>> Despite the RMDs the total investments have continued to appreciate.
>> But is that really saying much? Because the Markets were up by IIRC roughly +15%,
>> yet RMDs at age 77 are just 4.4%
>>
>>> PLEASE stop lying.
>>
>> I'm not; I'm merely quantitatively calling you out when you try to spin
>> cherry-picked half truths.
>
>
> You are the one who cherry-picks, and confused. The 1.41 clearly referred
> to consulting only.

Nope: you represented it in 2017 as your TOTAL GROSS income with no such
qualifiers.

> FYI 2003-2023 gross , IRS basis, was $4.3 million. Keep up please!

Just what definition of “gross” are you using here? For example, is that
before
or after deductible business expenses (such as the $250K already
mentioned)?

Oh and FYI, I see you’ve chosen to change your claim’s timeline yet again:
“[April 2017] Total gross since 2003 has been $1.41 million, net income
before taxes $1.16 million, expenses $250k.”
“2002-2017 income was $3.1 million.”
“2003-2023 gross, IRS basis, was $4.3 million.”

This last one added six years (2018-2023), but also apparently dropped
2002: a mistake,
or an interesting but effectively futile obfuscation attempt on your brag
attempt?

> The 4.5x referred to net worth, not earnings! I have you spinning in circles.

I said 4x, not 4.5x, because I wasn't referring to Net Worth changes.

> The RMDs come from 5 different qualified accounts, not just my former 401k, now an IRA.

Irrelevant, because you gave a sum total of their RMDs: 4% of
($20K+$20K+$20K
+$20K+$20K) [etc] is mathematically the same as 4% of ($100K).

> The long term S&P average is 6-7%/year. That's the number I'm looking at, not just 2023.

Yet 6-7% is still greater than 4% RMDs, so mathematically, growth is still
expected.
As such, just what is your unusual and profound claim that you’re trying to
make?

-hh

On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 6:44:35 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> Hmm..
>
> Looks like my response on GG hasn’t disseminated. Repost.
> Thomas E. <thomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 10:59:24 AM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> >> On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 8:52:39 AM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 9:59:05 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 7:21:20 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >>>>> On 2024-01-07 04:31, -hh wrote:
> >>>>>>> Our priorities may be different.
> >>>>>> Of course they are ... yet that hasn't stopped you from trying to
> >>>>>> criticize others' choices.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And not just criticize:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Criticize from utter ignorance.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> :-)
> >>>> Plus there’s always more. Something else I stumbled across was this from April 2017:
> >>>>
> >>>> “Total gross since 2003 has been $1.41 million, net income before taxes $1.16 million,
> >>>> expenses $250k. Lest you think that impossible, quite a bit of that
> >>>> income did not involve
> >>>> travel. Some of the travel was paid direct by the project sponsor, and
> >>>> is not included in the
> >>>> gross income. That would include airline tickets for quite a few of
> >>>> the international trips,
> >>>> some hotels, and lots of meals.”
> >>>>
> >>>> < https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/c/k6biAzIgaSA/m/ZEGRw4WCDgAJ>
> >>>>
> >>>> Odd how 13 years of the prior 20 years summed to “just”:1.16M, whereas
> >>>> how his cars 2.9%
> >>>> claim meant up to ~$3M for just the other 7
> >>>> years…even before recalling how later years
> >>>> were “95%” retired. YMMV on if the upper limit parameterizing was overly generous…or if
> >>>> someone else’s numbers were a tad misleading.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Caught you in another lie in addition to your Roth conversion lie that
> >>> you have not acknowledged.
> >> False, for I never said it was only a Roth: I was drawing an analogy for
> >> how income can be
> >> manipulated YoY, which is why it said “…not unlike…”.
> Silence from Tommy.
> >>> I looked up the original. You actually edited that comment, leaving out
> >>> the first sentence!
> >> No, the quotation was done correctly. The prior sentence wasn't included
> >> because it wasn't
> >> quantitatively relevant to the context of your fiscal claim.
> >>> Here is the actual comment, note that first sentence:
> >>>
> >>> "Of course I'm not going to give you my annual income history.["]
> >>
> >> So what? Because you did then proceed to provide a *sum* of your income history.
> >> for a ~14 year period, as noted:
> >>
> >>> ["]Total gross since 2003 has been $1.41 million, net income before taxes $1.16 million,
> >>> expenses $250k..."
> >>>
> >>> That was not total income, just consulting.
> >> But you characterized it as TOTAL GROSS income.
> >>
> >> Gross includes everything, as per GAAP as well as the IRS's 1040 form, where it is listed
> >> on line 9, whose sum includes IRA (line 4), pensions (line 5), Social
> >> Security (line 6), etc.
> >> So are you lying now, or back then?
> Silence from Tommy.
> >>> You are still not going to get annual income details.
> >> Don't need to, for all I was doing was pointing out the implausibility
> >> that you earned ~twice
> >> as much in 7 years than you did over 14 years ... which would be ~4x annualized, and yet
> >> somehow never bragged about this quadruple increase during any of those years.
> Which is not a statement on Net Worth changes.
> >>> From 2002 we were both getting salaries early on, a substantial 2003 "golden parachute",
> >>> retirement plan income from 2003, and Social Security from 2011, capital gains, and some
> >>> dividend income. TOTAL 2002-2017 income was $3.1 million.
> >> So if we are to believe your herein revised claims, the aforementioned $1.41M gross on
> >> supposedly just your consulting means that your non-consulting income sources summed
> >> to ($3.1M - $1.41M) = $1.69M for what's now 16 years ... that's an
> >> average of just $100K/yr,
> >> of which we know a good chunk is seven years worth of Social Security payments: at a
> >> simple swag of $30K/pp * two persons * seven years, that's $420K, so the remainder is
> >> $1.27M, for an average of ~$80K/yr for the sum of all non-SS/non-consulting sources.
> >>> Net consulting before taxes was $1.3 million in 2020, the last year I
> >>> had active projects.
> >> Versus $1.16M after 2016, so just $1.3M-$1.16M
> >>> = $140K for 2017-20 inclusive, for
> >> an average of $35K/yr ... seems that the old "95% retired" comment had been pretty
> >> much spot-on, as at your $250-$275/hr rate, its just ~3.5 weeks/year.
> “Tapering” … quantified. Or in demand from just one last faithful client
> /s
> >>> I was already tapering down as RMD income started and planning transitioning some
> >>> investments from capital appreciation to income funds. Of that $1.3 million $544k
> >>> was contributed to the 401k ...
> >>
> >> Meaning a (0.544/1.3) = 40% reduction in taxable net 'income then, which enables
> >> making a '+50% higher' spin attempt all the easier to meet now.
> >>
> >>> ...and $302k has been paid out in RMDs starting in 2016.
> >>
> >> For 8 years, that's <$38K/yr. Using a simple average RMD of 4% and ignoring
> >> QCDs, it means that the average 401k/IRA balances has been around $950K.
> >>> Despite the RMDs the total investments have continued to appreciate.
> >> But is that really saying much? Because the Markets were up by IIRC roughly +15%,
> >> yet RMDs at age 77 are just 4.4%
> >>
> >>> PLEASE stop lying.
> >>
> >> I'm not; I'm merely quantitatively calling you out when you try to spin
> >> cherry-picked half truths.
> >
> >
> > You are the one who cherry-picks, and confused. The 1.41 clearly referred
> > to consulting only.
> Nope: you represented it in 2017 as your TOTAL GROSS income with no such
> qualifiers.
> > FYI 2003-2023 gross , IRS basis, was $4.3 million. Keep up please!
> Just what definition of “gross” are you using here? For example, is that
> before
> or after deductible business expenses (such as the $250K already
> mentioned)?
>
> Oh and FYI, I see you’ve chosen to change your claim’s timeline yet again:
> “[April 2017] Total gross since 2003 has been $1.41 million, net income
> before taxes $1.16 million, expenses $250k.”
> “2002-2017 income was $3.1 million.”
> “2003-2023 gross, IRS basis, was $4.3 million.”
>
> This last one added six years (2018-2023), but also apparently dropped
> 2002: a mistake,
> or an interesting but effectively futile obfuscation attempt on your brag
> attempt?
> > The 4.5x referred to net worth, not earnings! I have you spinning in circles.
> I said 4x, not 4.5x, because I wasn't referring to Net Worth changes.
> > The RMDs come from 5 different qualified accounts, not just my former 401k, now an IRA.
> Irrelevant, because you gave a sum total of their RMDs: 4% of
> ($20K+$20K+$20K
> +$20K+$20K) [etc] is mathematically the same as 4% of ($100K).
> > The long term S&P average is 6-7%/year. That's the number I'm looking at, not just 2023.
> Yet 6-7% is still greater than 4% RMDs, so mathematically, growth is still
> expected.
> As such, just what is your unusual and profound claim that you’re trying to
> make?
>
> -hh
In Florida for a while and not at home in that awful weather up there. Lots to do outside down here in Naples. You have all the pieces, but attempts to piece it all together are laughable. You still do not understand the strategy or how it all fits together. Nor will I give it to you in one post. You are not as smart as you think you are.

On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 11:03:14 AM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 6:44:35 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > Hmm..
> >
> > Looks like my response on GG hasn’t disseminated. Repost.
> > Thomas E. <thomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 10:59:24 AM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > >> On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 8:52:39 AM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> > >>> On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 9:59:05 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > >>>> On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 7:21:20 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> > >>>>> On 2024-01-07 04:31, -hh wrote:
> > >>>>>>> Our priorities may be different.
> > >>>>>> Of course they are ... yet that hasn't stopped you from trying to
> > >>>>>> criticize others' choices.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> And not just criticize:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Criticize from utter ignorance.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> :-)
> > >>>> Plus there’s always more. Something else I stumbled across was this from April 2017:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> “Total gross since 2003 has been $1.41 million, net income before taxes $1.16 million,
> > >>>> expenses $250k. Lest you think that impossible, quite a bit of that
> > >>>> income did not involve
> > >>>> travel. Some of the travel was paid direct by the project sponsor, and
> > >>>> is not included in the
> > >>>> gross income. That would include airline tickets for quite a few of
> > >>>> the international trips,
> > >>>> some hotels, and lots of meals.”
> > >>>>
> > >>>> < https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/c/k6biAzIgaSA/m/ZEGRw4WCDgAJ>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Odd how 13 years of the prior 20 years summed to “just”:1.16M, whereas
> > >>>> how his cars 2.9%
> > >>>> claim meant up to ~$3M for just the other 7
> > >>>> years…even before recalling how later years
> > >>>> were “95%” retired. YMMV on if the upper limit parameterizing was overly generous…or if
> > >>>> someone else’s numbers were a tad misleading.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Caught you in another lie in addition to your Roth conversion lie that
> > >>> you have not acknowledged.
> > >> False, for I never said it was only a Roth: I was drawing an analogy for
> > >> how income can be
> > >> manipulated YoY, which is why it said “…not unlike…”.
> > Silence from Tommy.
> > >>> I looked up the original. You actually edited that comment, leaving out
> > >>> the first sentence!
> > >> No, the quotation was done correctly. The prior sentence wasn't included
> > >> because it wasn't
> > >> quantitatively relevant to the context of your fiscal claim.
> > >>> Here is the actual comment, note that first sentence:
> > >>>
> > >>> "Of course I'm not going to give you my annual income history.["]
> > >>
> > >> So what? Because you did then proceed to provide a *sum* of your income history.
> > >> for a ~14 year period, as noted:
> > >>
> > >>> ["]Total gross since 2003 has been $1.41 million, net income before taxes $1.16 million,
> > >>> expenses $250k..."
> > >>>
> > >>> That was not total income, just consulting.
> > >> But you characterized it as TOTAL GROSS income.
> > >>
> > >> Gross includes everything, as per GAAP as well as the IRS's 1040 form, where it is listed
> > >> on line 9, whose sum includes IRA (line 4), pensions (line 5), Social
> > >> Security (line 6), etc.
> > >> So are you lying now, or back then?
> > Silence from Tommy.
> > >>> You are still not going to get annual income details.
> > >> Don't need to, for all I was doing was pointing out the implausibility
> > >> that you earned ~twice
> > >> as much in 7 years than you did over 14 years ... which would be ~4x annualized, and yet
> > >> somehow never bragged about this quadruple increase during any of those years.
> > Which is not a statement on Net Worth changes.
> > >>> From 2002 we were both getting salaries early on, a substantial 2003 "golden parachute",
> > >>> retirement plan income from 2003, and Social Security from 2011, capital gains, and some
> > >>> dividend income. TOTAL 2002-2017 income was $3.1 million.
> > >> So if we are to believe your herein revised claims, the aforementioned $1.41M gross on
> > >> supposedly just your consulting means that your non-consulting income sources summed
> > >> to ($3.1M - $1.41M) = $1.69M for what's now 16 years ... that's an
> > >> average of just $100K/yr,
> > >> of which we know a good chunk is seven years worth of Social Security payments: at a
> > >> simple swag of $30K/pp * two persons * seven years, that's $420K, so the remainder is
> > >> $1.27M, for an average of ~$80K/yr for the sum of all non-SS/non-consulting sources.
> > >>> Net consulting before taxes was $1.3 million in 2020, the last year I
> > >>> had active projects.
> > >> Versus $1.16M after 2016, so just $1.3M-$1.16M
> > >>> = $140K for 2017-20 inclusive, for
> > >> an average of $35K/yr ... seems that the old "95% retired" comment had been pretty
> > >> much spot-on, as at your $250-$275/hr rate, its just ~3.5 weeks/year..
> > “Tapering” … quantified. Or in demand from just one last faithful client
> > /s
> > >>> I was already tapering down as RMD income started and planning transitioning some
> > >>> investments from capital appreciation to income funds. Of that $1.3 million $544k
> > >>> was contributed to the 401k ...
> > >>
> > >> Meaning a (0.544/1.3) = 40% reduction in taxable net 'income then, which enables
> > >> making a '+50% higher' spin attempt all the easier to meet now.
> > >>
> > >>> ...and $302k has been paid out in RMDs starting in 2016.
> > >>
> > >> For 8 years, that's <$38K/yr. Using a simple average RMD of 4% and ignoring
> > >> QCDs, it means that the average 401k/IRA balances has been around $950K.
> > >>> Despite the RMDs the total investments have continued to appreciate..
> > >> But is that really saying much? Because the Markets were up by IIRC roughly +15%,
> > >> yet RMDs at age 77 are just 4.4%
> > >>
> > >>> PLEASE stop lying.
> > >>
> > >> I'm not; I'm merely quantitatively calling you out when you try to spin
> > >> cherry-picked half truths.
> > >
> > >
> > > You are the one who cherry-picks, and confused. The 1.41 clearly referred
> > > to consulting only.
> > Nope: you represented it in 2017 as your TOTAL GROSS income with no such
> > qualifiers.
> > > FYI 2003-2023 gross , IRS basis, was $4.3 million. Keep up please!
> > Just what definition of “gross” are you using here? For example, is that
> > before
> > or after deductible business expenses (such as the $250K already
> > mentioned)?
> >
> > Oh and FYI, I see you’ve chosen to change your claim’s timeline yet again:
> > “[April 2017] Total gross since 2003 has been $1.41 million, net income
> > before taxes $1.16 million, expenses $250k.”
> > “2002-2017 income was $3.1 million.”
> > “2003-2023 gross, IRS basis, was $4.3 million.”
> >
> > This last one added six years (2018-2023), but also apparently dropped
> > 2002: a mistake,
> > or an interesting but effectively futile obfuscation attempt on your brag
> > attempt?
> > > The 4.5x referred to net worth, not earnings! I have you spinning in circles.
> > I said 4x, not 4.5x, because I wasn't referring to Net Worth changes.
> > > The RMDs come from 5 different qualified accounts, not just my former 401k, now an IRA.
> > Irrelevant, because you gave a sum total of their RMDs: 4% of
> > ($20K+$20K+$20K
> > +$20K+$20K) [etc] is mathematically the same as 4% of ($100K).
> > > The long term S&P average is 6-7%/year. That's the number I'm looking at, not just 2023.
> >
> > Yet 6-7% is still greater than 4% RMDs, so mathematically, growth is still
> > expected.
> > As such, just what is your unusual and profound claim that you’re trying to
> > make?
> >
>
> In Florida for a while and not at home in that awful weather up there. Lots to do outside down here in Naples.

-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> Hmm..
>
> Looks like another two posts on GG hasn’t disseminated. Reproducing 1/17 posts:

On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 11:03:14 AM UTC-5, Thomas E.
<thomas.e.elam@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 6:44:35 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > Hmm..
> >
> > Looks like my response on GG hasn’t disseminated. Repost.
> > Thomas E. <thomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 10:59:24 AM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > >> On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 8:52:39 AM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> > >>> On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 9:59:05 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > >>>> On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 7:21:20 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> > >>>>> On 2024-01-07 04:31, -hh wrote:
> > >>>>>>> Our priorities may be different.
> > >>>>>> Of course they are ... yet that hasn't stopped you from trying to
> > >>>>>> criticize others' choices.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> And not just criticize:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Criticize from utter ignorance.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> :-)
> > >>>> Plus there’s always more. Something else I stumbled across was this from April 2017:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> “Total gross since 2003 has been $1.41 million, net income before
>>>>>> taxes $1.16 million,
> > >>>> expenses $250k. Lest you think that impossible, quite a bit of that
> > >>>> income did not involve
> > >>>> travel. Some of the travel was paid direct by the project sponsor, and
> > >>>> is not included in the
> > >>>> gross income. That would include airline tickets for quite a few of
> > >>>> the international trips,
> > >>>> some hotels, and lots of meals.”
> > >>>>
> > >>>> < https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/c/k6biAzIgaSA/m/ZEGRw4WCDgAJ>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Odd how 13 years of the prior 20 years summed to “just”:1.16M, whereas
> > >>>> how his cars 2.9%
> > >>>> claim meant up to ~$3M for just the other 7
> > >>>> years…even before recalling how later years
> > >>>> were “95%” retired. YMMV on if the upper limit parameterizing was
>>>>>> overly generous…or if
> > >>>> someone else’s numbers were a tad misleading.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Caught you in another lie in addition to your Roth conversion lie that
> > >>> you have not acknowledged.
> > >> False, for I never said it was only a Roth: I was drawing an analogy for
> > >> how income can be
> > >> manipulated YoY, which is why it said “…not unlike…”.
> > Silence from Tommy.
> > >>> I looked up the original. You actually edited that comment, leaving out
> > >>> the first sentence!
> > >> No, the quotation was done correctly. The prior sentence wasn't included
> > >> because it wasn't
> > >> quantitatively relevant to the context of your fiscal claim.
> > >>> Here is the actual comment, note that first sentence:
> > >>>
> > >>> "Of course I'm not going to give you my annual income history.["]
> > >>
> > >> So what? Because you did then proceed to provide a *sum* of your income history.
> > >> for a ~14 year period, as noted:
> > >>
> > >>> ["]Total gross since 2003 has been $1.41 million, net income before
>>>>> taxes $1.16 million,
> > >>> expenses $250k..."
> > >>>
> > >>> That was not total income, just consulting.
> > >> But you characterized it as TOTAL GROSS income.
> > >>
> > >> Gross includes everything, as per GAAP as well as the IRS's 1040
>>>> form, where it is listed
> > >> on line 9, whose sum includes IRA (line 4), pensions (line 5), Social
> > >> Security (line 6), etc.
> > >> So are you lying now, or back then?
> > Silence from Tommy.
> > >>> You are still not going to get annual income details.
> > >> Don't need to, for all I was doing was pointing out the implausibility
> > >> that you earned ~twice
> > >> as much in 7 years than you did over 14 years ... which would be ~4x
>>>> annualized, and yet
> > >> somehow never bragged about this quadruple increase during any of those years.
> > Which is not a statement on Net Worth changes.
> > >>> From 2002 we were both getting salaries early on, a substantial
>>>>> 2003 "golden parachute",
> > >>> retirement plan income from 2003, and Social Security from 2011,
>>>>> capital gains, and some
> > >>> dividend income. TOTAL 2002-2017 income was $3.1 million.
> > >> So if we are to believe your herein revised claims, the aforementioned $1.41M gross on
> > >> supposedly just your consulting means that your non-consulting income sources summed
> > >> to ($3.1M - $1.41M) = $1.69M for what's now 16 years ... that's an
> > >> average of just $100K/yr,
> > >> of which we know a good chunk is seven years worth of Social Security payments: at a
> > >> simple swag of $30K/pp * two persons * seven years, that's $420K, so the remainder is
> > >> $1.27M, for an average of ~$80K/yr for the sum of all non-SS/non-consulting sources.
> > >>> Net consulting before taxes was $1.3 million in 2020, the last year I
> > >>> had active projects.
> > >> Versus $1.16M after 2016, so just $1.3M-$1.16M
> > >>> = $140K for 2017-20 inclusive, for
> > >> an average of $35K/yr ... seems that the old "95% retired" comment had been pretty
> > >> much spot-on, as at your $250-$275/hr rate, its just ~3.5 weeks/year.
> > “Tapering” … quantified. Or in demand from just one last faithful client
> > /s
> > >>> I was already tapering down as RMD income started and planning transitioning some
> > >>> investments from capital appreciation to income funds. Of that $1.3 million $544k
> > >>> was contributed to the 401k ...
> > >>
> > >> Meaning a (0.544/1.3) = 40% reduction in taxable net 'income then, which enables
> > >> making a '+50% higher' spin attempt all the easier to meet now.
> > >>
> > >>> ...and $302k has been paid out in RMDs starting in 2016.
> > >>
> > >> For 8 years, that's <$38K/yr. Using a simple average RMD of 4% and ignoring
> > >> QCDs, it means that the average 401k/IRA balances has been around $950K.
> > >>> Despite the RMDs the total investments have continued to appreciate.
> > >> But is that really saying much? Because the Markets were up by IIRC roughly +15%,
> > >> yet RMDs at age 77 are just 4.4%
> > >>
> > >>> PLEASE stop lying.
> > >>
> > >> I'm not; I'm merely quantitatively calling you out when you try to spin
> > >> cherry-picked half truths.
> > >
> > >
> > > You are the one who cherry-picks, and confused. The 1.41 clearly referred
> > > to consulting only.
> > Nope: you represented it in 2017 as your TOTAL GROSS income with no such
> > qualifiers.
> > > FYI 2003-2023 gross , IRS basis, was $4.3 million. Keep up please!
> > Just what definition of “gross” are you using here? For example, is that
> > before
> > or after deductible business expenses (such as the $250K already
> > mentioned)?
> >
> > Oh and FYI, I see you’ve chosen to change your claim’s timeline yet again:
> > “[April 2017] Total gross since 2003 has been $1.41 million, net income
> > before taxes $1.16 million, expenses $250k.”
> > “2002-2017 income was $3.1 million.”
> > “2003-2023 gross, IRS basis, was $4.3 million.”
> >
> > This last one added six years (2018-2023), but also apparently dropped
> > 2002: a mistake,
> > or an interesting but effectively futile obfuscation attempt on your brag
> > attempt?
> > > The 4.5x referred to net worth, not earnings! I have you spinning in circles.
> > I said 4x, not 4.5x, because I wasn't referring to Net Worth changes.
> > > The RMDs come from 5 different qualified accounts, not just my former 401k, now an IRA.
> > Irrelevant, because you gave a sum total of their RMDs: 4% of
> > ($20K+$20K+$20K
> > +$20K+$20K) [etc] is mathematically the same as 4% of ($100K).
> > > The long term S&P average is 6-7%/year. That's the number I'm looking
>>> at, not just 2023.
> >
> > Yet 6-7% is still greater than 4% RMDs, so mathematically, growth is still
> > expected.
> > As such, just what is your unusual and profound claim that you’re trying to
> > make?
> >
>
> In Florida for a while and not at home in that awful weather up there.
> Lots to do outside down here in Naples.

On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 9:25:08 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 11:03:14 AM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 6:44:35 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > > Hmm..
> > >
> > > Looks like my response on GG hasn’t disseminated. Repost.
> > > Thomas E. <thomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 10:59:24 AM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > > >> On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 8:52:39 AM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > >>> On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 9:59:05 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > > >>>> On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 7:21:20 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> > > >>>>> On 2024-01-07 04:31, -hh wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> Our priorities may be different.
> > > >>>>>> Of course they are ... yet that hasn't stopped you from trying to
> > > >>>>>> criticize others' choices.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> And not just criticize:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Criticize from utter ignorance.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> :-)
> > > >>>> Plus there’s always more. Something else I stumbled across was this from April 2017:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> “Total gross since 2003 has been $1.41 million, net income before taxes $1.16 million,
> > > >>>> expenses $250k. Lest you think that impossible, quite a bit of that
> > > >>>> income did not involve
> > > >>>> travel. Some of the travel was paid direct by the project sponsor, and
> > > >>>> is not included in the
> > > >>>> gross income. That would include airline tickets for quite a few of
> > > >>>> the international trips,
> > > >>>> some hotels, and lots of meals.”
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> < https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/c/k6biAzIgaSA/m/ZEGRw4WCDgAJ>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Odd how 13 years of the prior 20 years summed to “just”:1.16M, whereas
> > > >>>> how his cars 2.9%
> > > >>>> claim meant up to ~$3M for just the other 7
> > > >>>> years…even before recalling how later years
> > > >>>> were “95%” retired. YMMV on if the upper limit parameterizing was overly generous…or if
> > > >>>> someone else’s numbers were a tad misleading.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Caught you in another lie in addition to your Roth conversion lie that
> > > >>> you have not acknowledged.
> > > >> False, for I never said it was only a Roth: I was drawing an analogy for
> > > >> how income can be
> > > >> manipulated YoY, which is why it said “…not unlike…”.
> > > Silence from Tommy.
> > > >>> I looked up the original. You actually edited that comment, leaving out
> > > >>> the first sentence!
> > > >> No, the quotation was done correctly. The prior sentence wasn't included
> > > >> because it wasn't
> > > >> quantitatively relevant to the context of your fiscal claim.
> > > >>> Here is the actual comment, note that first sentence:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> "Of course I'm not going to give you my annual income history.["]
> > > >>
> > > >> So what? Because you did then proceed to provide a *sum* of your income history.
> > > >> for a ~14 year period, as noted:
> > > >>
> > > >>> ["]Total gross since 2003 has been $1.41 million, net income before taxes $1.16 million,
> > > >>> expenses $250k..."
> > > >>>
> > > >>> That was not total income, just consulting.
> > > >> But you characterized it as TOTAL GROSS income.
> > > >>
> > > >> Gross includes everything, as per GAAP as well as the IRS's 1040 form, where it is listed
> > > >> on line 9, whose sum includes IRA (line 4), pensions (line 5), Social
> > > >> Security (line 6), etc.
> > > >> So are you lying now, or back then?
> > > Silence from Tommy.
> > > >>> You are still not going to get annual income details.
> > > >> Don't need to, for all I was doing was pointing out the implausibility
> > > >> that you earned ~twice
> > > >> as much in 7 years than you did over 14 years ... which would be ~4x annualized, and yet
> > > >> somehow never bragged about this quadruple increase during any of those years.
> > > Which is not a statement on Net Worth changes.
> > > >>> From 2002 we were both getting salaries early on, a substantial 2003 "golden parachute",
> > > >>> retirement plan income from 2003, and Social Security from 2011, capital gains, and some
> > > >>> dividend income. TOTAL 2002-2017 income was $3.1 million.
> > > >> So if we are to believe your herein revised claims, the aforementioned $1.41M gross on
> > > >> supposedly just your consulting means that your non-consulting income sources summed
> > > >> to ($3.1M - $1.41M) = $1.69M for what's now 16 years ... that's an
> > > >> average of just $100K/yr,
> > > >> of which we know a good chunk is seven years worth of Social Security payments: at a
> > > >> simple swag of $30K/pp * two persons * seven years, that's $420K, so the remainder is
> > > >> $1.27M, for an average of ~$80K/yr for the sum of all non-SS/non-consulting sources.
> > > >>> Net consulting before taxes was $1.3 million in 2020, the last year I
> > > >>> had active projects.
> > > >> Versus $1.16M after 2016, so just $1.3M-$1.16M
> > > >>> = $140K for 2017-20 inclusive, for
> > > >> an average of $35K/yr ... seems that the old "95% retired" comment had been pretty
> > > >> much spot-on, as at your $250-$275/hr rate, its just ~3.5 weeks/year.
> > > “Tapering” … quantified. Or in demand from just one last faithful client
> > > /s
> > > >>> I was already tapering down as RMD income started and planning transitioning some
> > > >>> investments from capital appreciation to income funds. Of that $1..3 million $544k
> > > >>> was contributed to the 401k ...
> > > >>
> > > >> Meaning a (0.544/1.3) = 40% reduction in taxable net 'income then, which enables
> > > >> making a '+50% higher' spin attempt all the easier to meet now.
> > > >>
> > > >>> ...and $302k has been paid out in RMDs starting in 2016.
> > > >>
> > > >> For 8 years, that's <$38K/yr. Using a simple average RMD of 4% and ignoring
> > > >> QCDs, it means that the average 401k/IRA balances has been around $950K.
> > > >>> Despite the RMDs the total investments have continued to appreciate.
> > > >> But is that really saying much? Because the Markets were up by IIRC roughly +15%,
> > > >> yet RMDs at age 77 are just 4.4%
> > > >>
> > > >>> PLEASE stop lying.
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm not; I'm merely quantitatively calling you out when you try to spin
> > > >> cherry-picked half truths.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You are the one who cherry-picks, and confused. The 1.41 clearly referred
> > > > to consulting only.
> > > Nope: you represented it in 2017 as your TOTAL GROSS income with no such
> > > qualifiers.
> > > > FYI 2003-2023 gross , IRS basis, was $4.3 million. Keep up please!
> > > Just what definition of “gross” are you using here? For example, is that
> > > before
> > > or after deductible business expenses (such as the $250K already
> > > mentioned)?
> > >
> > > Oh and FYI, I see you’ve chosen to change your claim’s timeline yet again:
> > > “[April 2017] Total gross since 2003 has been $1.41 million, net income
> > > before taxes $1.16 million, expenses $250k.”
> > > “2002-2017 income was $3.1 million.”
> > > “2003-2023 gross, IRS basis, was $4.3 million.”
> > >
> > > This last one added six years (2018-2023), but also apparently dropped
> > > 2002: a mistake,
> > > or an interesting but effectively futile obfuscation attempt on your brag
> > > attempt?
> > > > The 4.5x referred to net worth, not earnings! I have you spinning in circles.
> > > I said 4x, not 4.5x, because I wasn't referring to Net Worth changes.
> > > > The RMDs come from 5 different qualified accounts, not just my former 401k, now an IRA.
> > > Irrelevant, because you gave a sum total of their RMDs: 4% of
> > > ($20K+$20K+$20K
> > > +$20K+$20K) [etc] is mathematically the same as 4% of ($100K).
> > > > The long term S&P average is 6-7%/year. That's the number I'm looking at, not just 2023.
> > >
> > > Yet 6-7% is still greater than 4% RMDs, so mathematically, growth is still
> > > expected.
> > > As such, just what is your unusual and profound claim that you’re trying to
> > > make?
> > >
> >
> > In Florida for a while and not at home in that awful weather up there. Lots to do outside down here in Naples.
> Dodge…and YA brag attempt.
> > You have all the pieces, but attempts to piece it all together are laughable.
> A common refrain that when you continue. you invariably have to admit that it was close enough.
> > You still do not understand the strategy or how it all fits together.
> Don’t particularly care what your alleged ‘strategy’ is, as I’ve already seen where
> you’re taking risks, and what you’ve held close. Your brags have gone through just
> enough parameterizing to gage what you believe is so amazingly brag-worthy.
>
> For what that is, it’s respectable, but that’s really because you worked nearly ~halfway
> through a normal retirement. It was that extra decade+ of grinding that not only added
> the needed bucks, but it also slashes the number of years that the retirement savings
> then needs to last. If you wanted to have the same outflow rate as a 63 year old retiree,
> you would have needed a couple more million than what you have upfront.
> > Nor will I give it to you in one post. You are not as smart as you think you are.
> But one only needs to be smarter than the CSMA braggart, which is easy: thus, it
> was never expected for you to be clear, for that would deny you the ego trip of all
> future brag opportunities.
>
> -hh