"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"dxAce" wrote in message

6 to 8 years.
Had you gone to school, graduated, etc., you might have actually learned
something. As it is (and was) you've faked everything!

Not really.


Which means, 'yes, really.'

Only in your mind with your absurd contention that I am supporting PPM from
Arbitron.

"dxAce" wrote in message
...



That is about the highest range that can be sustained if you are
concerned
with inflation-indexed preservation of capital. Otherwise, your little
saviings account will be reduced to about the equivalent of $100 k in
about
6 to 8 years.

You live in some damn strange dream world, oh faux one!


You do not get the fact that you must grow the principal in excess of the
amount of inflation, or your money loses value. To take 3% out of an
investment account and not lose principal, you have to grow the account by
something above 7%, which the market for the last 18 months has not done.

Unless you are in some fairly esoteric things like direct REIT investments
or Canadian oil /gas trusts (with the horrible tax and accounting problems
they bring) you are likely not getting 7% now.

David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


m II wrote:

dxAce wrote:

Doesn't matter, oh faux one. Thing is, folks learned that they no
longer wanted
you around as you're a damn pedantic piece of crap.

I am really happy that you are finally recognizing your superiors.

How so?

You
will be much happier once you accept the stature of your station in
life.

My station is pretty damn good.

I doubt that a lot. You live off the dole.

Nah, I get Social Security Disability (I paid into that), and I get my
Union
Pension (I paid into that), and I get my company pension (I paid into
that).

The Social Security disability you did not pay into.

Hogwash, better get a better grip on reality, bean burner!

RHF wrote:
On Jun 7, 6:11 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:

- Pensions are a product of company policies and
- union demands and threats.

TBD - Depends on the 'actual' Company and/or Union
Pension Plan.




For instance, AFTRA takes a piece of the paycheck, in addition to
regular Union dues, labelled: Health and Retirement Remittance. You pay
into the Health and Retirement Funds Program.

SAG has similar programs.

The more you work, the more your pension.

The Director's Guild also has a retirement program paid into by
working members.

Those are not 'company' programs. They're directly administered by
the Union for workers in good standing. They do not apply to members who
have declared 'financial core.'

And they're in addition to any programs by the company, and/or SS.

In an era where Union organization has taken some significant
membership hits, such programs are inducements to stay with the Union
rather than crossing to financial core.

But such programs are not merely late developments. Unions have had
pension plans for decades. Not all, certainly, but significant numbers
of them. Enough that your declarations to the contrary are laughable.

Someone working for/with the larger companies, especially in a state
like California, would know all this.

That you don't further exposes the weakness of your claims.

David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...



That is about the highest range that can be sustained if you are
concerned
with inflation-indexed preservation of capital. Otherwise, your little
saviings account will be reduced to about the equivalent of $100 k in
about
6 to 8 years.

You live in some damn strange dream world, oh faux one!

You do not get the fact that you must grow the principal in excess of the
amount of inflation, or your money loses value. To take 3% out of an
investment account and not lose principal, you have to grow the account by
something above 7%, which the market for the last 18 months has not done.

Unless you are in some fairly esoteric things like direct REIT investments
or Canadian oil /gas trusts (with the horrible tax and accounting problems
they bring) you are likely not getting 7% now.

You've not a clue as to what you're talking about, dropout!

David Eduardo wrote:
"dxAce" wrote in message
...

m II wrote:

dxAce wrote:

Doesn't matter, oh faux one. Thing is, folks learned that they no
longer wanted
you around as you're a damn pedantic piece of crap.
I am really happy that you are finally recognizing your superiors.
How so?

You
will be much happier once you accept the stature of your station in life.
My station is pretty damn good.

I doubt that a lot. You live off the dole.




For a man who endorses illegal immigrants sucking up the resources of
a nation into which they were never invited, you got a damned lot of
nerve commenting on a legal citizen's retirement.

D Peter Maus wrote:

David Eduardo wrote:
"dxAce" wrote in message
...

m II wrote:

dxAce wrote:

Doesn't matter, oh faux one. Thing is, folks learned that they no
longer wanted
you around as you're a damn pedantic piece of crap.
I am really happy that you are finally recognizing your superiors.
How so?

You
will be much happier once you accept the stature of your station in life.
My station is pretty damn good.

I doubt that a lot. You live off the dole.



For a man who endorses illegal immigrants sucking up the resources of
a nation into which they were never invited, you got a damned lot of
nerve commenting on a legal citizen's retirement.

He's a bean blower!

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
RHF wrote:
On Jun 7, 6:11 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:

- Pensions are a product of company policies and
- union demands and threats.

Those are not 'company' programs. They're directly administered by the
Union for workers in good standing. They do not apply to members who have
declared 'financial core.'

I think that is why RHF distinguised between company pensions and union
ones. Many company pensions, such as those in the auto industry, are being
moved to the unions as the auto companies and related suppliers can not pay
them. They were created in the days when autos were so profitable (and fell
apart in 3 years or less) and so immune from foreign competion that the car
companies promised anything to avoid strikes. Wow, nobody can pay for any of
it.


And they're in addition to any programs by the company, and/or SS.

Pensions can be part employee financed, or totally enployer financed. SS is
an entitlement, and is based on, if I recall, the earned and taxed income
from the last 15 years of work prior to retirement.

Someone working for/with the larger companies, especially in a state
like California, would know all this.

California has few unionized workers by comparison to rust belt areas, and
is a right to work state. That's why unions often have to fund their own
pensions from dues, such as AFTRA and related film and entertainment unions
do.

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...



That is about the highest range that can be sustained if you are
concerned
with inflation-indexed preservation of capital. Otherwise, your little
saviings account will be reduced to about the equivalent of $100 k in
about
6 to 8 years.

You live in some damn strange dream world, oh faux one!

You do not get the fact that you must grow the principal in excess of the
amount of inflation, or your money loses value. To take 3% out of an
investment account and not lose principal, you have to grow the account
by
something above 7%, which the market for the last 18 months has not done.

Unless you are in some fairly esoteric things like direct REIT
investments
or Canadian oil /gas trusts (with the horrible tax and accounting
problems
they bring) you are likely not getting 7% now.

You've not a clue as to what you're talking about, dropout!

So you are saying one or more of the following is true:

1. You can take more than 3% to 4% of savings and retain present value of
the capital (in other words, adjusted for inflation).
2. Inflation does not have to be accounted for in the ongoing worth of
capital.
3. You can make an inflation and tax adjusted 7% over the last 18 months

Which is it (or "are they") as you may have invented a new school of
economics.

David Eduardo wrote:

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
RHF wrote:
On Jun 7, 6:11 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:

- Pensions are a product of company policies and
- union demands and threats.

Those are not 'company' programs. They're directly administered by the
Union for workers in good standing. They do not apply to members who have
declared 'financial core.'

I think that is why RHF distinguised between company pensions and union
ones. Many company pensions, such as those in the auto industry, are being
moved to the unions as the auto companies and related suppliers can not pay
them. They were created in the days when autos were so profitable (and fell
apart in 3 years or less) and so immune from foreign competion that the car
companies promised anything to avoid strikes. Wow, nobody can pay for any of
it.


And they're in addition to any programs by the company, and/or SS.

Pensions can be part employee financed, or totally enployer financed. SS is
an entitlement, and is based on, if I recall, the earned and taxed income
from the last 15 years of work prior to retirement.

Someone working for/with the larger companies, especially in a state
like California, would know all this.

California has few unionized workers by comparison to rust belt areas, and
is a right to work state. That's why unions often have to fund their own
pensions from dues, such as AFTRA and related film and entertainment unions
do.

Thanks for that pedantic diatribe!