Finally getting around to an upgrade...
<http://huntzinger.com/photo/2024/pre-install.jpg>
-hh
Finally getting around to an upgrade...
<http://huntzinger.com/photo/2024/pre-install.jpg>
-hhYou 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.
On Friday, December 29, 2023 at 4:27:34 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:Most anything is an upgrade from the OEM AM/SW/FM+cassette deck radio.
Finally getting around to an upgrade...
<http://huntzinger.com/photo/2024/pre-install.jpg>
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.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."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.
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
On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 5:22:01 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote: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. I have better uses for the money.
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."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.
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
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.
-hh
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.
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:Most anything is an upgrade from the OEM AM/SW/FM+cassette deck radio.
Finally getting around to an upgrade...
<http://huntzinger.com/photo/2024/pre-install.jpg>
You call that an upgrade? The screen is tiny.
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."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.
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
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.
-hh
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. I have better uses for the money.
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."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.
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
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“Could”… but will never do so. That’s why the most you could rationalize stretching for
for a new 911 and write a check for the difference. But not going to happen.
I have better uses for the money.Meaning day-to-day living expenses.
On 2023-12-31 14:51, Thomas E. wrote:How gauche. Merely YA distraction attempt, trying to find a hopefully plausible
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:Most anything is an upgrade from the OEM AM/SW/FM+cassette deck radio.
Finally getting around to an upgrade...
<http://huntzinger.com/photo/2024/pre-install.jpg>
You call that an upgrade? The screen is tiny.
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."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.
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
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.
-hh
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. I have better uses for the money.
Graciously admitting your error as...
Oh, wait!
Failing to acknowledge your error...
...as always!
On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 5:56:57 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2023-12-31 14:51, 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: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.
Finally getting around to an upgrade...
<http://huntzinger.com/photo/2024/pre-install.jpg>
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.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."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.
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
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.
-hh
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. I have better uses for the money.
Graciously admitting your error as...
Oh, wait!
Failing to acknowledge your error...
...as always!
How gauche. Merely YA distraction attempt, trying to find a hopefully plausible
tangent to save face on, rather than to simply admit being wrong.
On 2023-12-31 16:29, -hh wrote:
On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 5:56:57 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2023-12-31 14:51, 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:
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.Finally getting around to an upgrade...
<http://huntzinger.com/photo/2024/pre-install.jpg>
You call that an upgrade? The screen is tiny.
Just get a newer Porsche with a real OEM screen or at leastNot for this one, as Porsche
something bigger than this.
doesn’t sell new air cooled models anymore .. at any price."https://www.thedrive.com/news/33144/porsche-finally-offers-an-upgrade-to-its-eyesore-early-infotainment-units"
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
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.
-hh
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. I have better uses for the money.
Graciously admitting your error as...
Oh, wait!
Failing to acknowledge your error...
...as always!
How gauche. Merely YA distraction attempt, trying to find a hopefully plausible
tangent to save face on, rather than to simply admit being wrong.
It's really more sad than anything else, isn't it?
It's a pattern that I find quite common on Usenet.
There's a guy on here who insists that I can't possibly being a road
racer, road racing instructor...
...or even own a BMW...
...because I don't use the terms "beemer" or "bimmer"...
...and haven't heard anyone in racing EVER refer to the curve described
by a racing car at the limit as being a "catenary".
:-)
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."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.
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
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.
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.After I receive my January RMD funds allotment I could trade my 2022 Honda Accord“Could”… but will never do so. That’s why the most you could rationalize stretching for
for a new 911 and write a check for the difference. But not going to happen.
would be just a twenty year old used example.
I have better uses for the money.Meaning day-to-day living expenses.
-hh
On 2023-12-31 14:51, Thomas E. wrote:What "error" is that?
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:Most anything is an upgrade from the OEM AM/SW/FM+cassette deck radio.
Finally getting around to an upgrade...
<http://huntzinger.com/photo/2024/pre-install.jpg>
You call that an upgrade? The screen is tiny.
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."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.
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
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.
-hh
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. I have better uses for the money.Graciously admitting your error as...
Oh, wait!
Failing to acknowledge your error...
...as always!
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:“Could”… but will never do so. That’s why the most you could
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"https://www.thedrive.com/news/33144/porsche-finally-offers-an-upgrade-to-its-eyesore-early-infotainment-units"
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
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.
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.
-hh
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.
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:“Could”… but will never do so. That’s why the most you could
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"https://www.thedrive.com/news/33144/porsche-finally-offers-an-upgrade-to-its-eyesore-early-infotainment-units"
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
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.
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.
Oh, Tom understands perfectly well: he just prefers anything over admitting being wrong, including revealing himself as liar and a hypocrite.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.
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:“Could”… but will never do so. That’s why the most you could
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"https://www.thedrive.com/news/33144/porsche-finally-offers-an-upgrade-to-its-eyesore-early-infotainment-units"
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
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.
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.
-hh
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:
“Could”… but will never do so. That’s why the most you could >>>>> rationalize stretching for would be just a twenty year old usedOn 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"https://www.thedrive.com/news/33144/porsche-finally-offers-an-upgrade-to-its-eyesore-early-infotainment-units"
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
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.
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.
On 2023-12-31 14:22, Thomas E. wrote:LOL, HH has been saying that to me for years. Paybacks are a bitch.
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 newerWhat an absolutely consistent, shallow asshole you are!
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.
"Mine's bigger than yours" is the highest level of discourse you possess.
Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:Hugh, you totally fail to see how you can actually see value in something but not enough to want to own it. I have seen enough aircraft (and boat) owners live to regret buying instead of renting. I once enjoyed golf too, but never bought a golf course. Quite a few of us enjoy a particular car, but lease it. With over $3 mill in net worth I can afford a lot of things I don't own. 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. In fact, 2 hours in the logbook of that CAP thingy just today.
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:
“Could”… but will never do so. That’s why the most you could >>>>> rationalize stretching for would be just a twenty year old usedOn 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.
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.
-hh
PS: piloting a new Usenet newsreader setup, in anticipation of GG’s demise.
“Meh” so far.
On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 10:03:50 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
You have no right to criticize others' choices based on your personal
values. Yours are yours and are mine.
On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 10:03:50 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:Yet that was what you initiated with your “Just get a newer Porsche with a real
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:
“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.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.
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.
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:
For less than hanger, maintenance and insurance I have access to 5 flying clubNothing 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.
aircraft and can fly CAP aircraft too with almost no out-of-pocket expense.
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,
I have no desire to even test drive a Porsche. To me a car is somethingBecause Hondas are renowned for being the most comfortable of rides … /s
to get you from A to B in comfort and do it with no muss or fuss.
I once had an SVT Mustang Cobra. It was fun for a year, then I went backSounds more like you scared yourself with the Cobra, and have been subsequently “playing it safe” for the past ~30 years.
to Honda. It's just not me.
You have no right to criticize others' choices based on your personal values.I’m not: I’m simply holding a mirror up … and you’re not liking your own reflection.
Yours are yours and are mine.
On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 8:30:33 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:Uh, Hugh, the 4 or 5 Honda Accords starts way back in 1989. It was actually 5, now that I think about it. Two of those were not new. Three were changed out with well over 100,000 miles. The other two were close to 100,000. I have tried others too. A previoulsy owned Civic with about 100,000 was traded for a new Insight Hybrid. About three years later, in the midst of the auto production crisis, a dealer offered me close to the Insight's MSRP to upgrade to the Accord Hybrid at its MSRP. (A year later Honda discontinued the Insight.) I took the offer. That's my current drive, 41,000 at 2 years in, and very happy with the larger Accord
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:“Could”… but will never do so. That’s why the most you could
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.
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 notYet that was what you initiated with your “Just get a newer Porsche with a real
enough to want to own it.
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 clubNothing 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.
aircraft and can fly CAP aircraft too with almost no out-of-pocket expense.
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 somethingBecause Hondas are renowned for being the most comfortable of rides … /s
to get you from A to B in comfort and do it with no muss or fuss.
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.I’m not: I’m simply holding a mirror up … and you’re not liking your own reflection.
Yours are yours and are mine.
-hh
On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 10:30:57 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:What you did 30 years ago just isn’t contemporary, and there’s been other Hondas too, such
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:“Could”… but will never do so. That’s why the most you could
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.
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 notYet that was what you initiated with your “Just get a newer Porsche with a real
enough to want to own it.
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 clubNothing wrong about being frugal, but it becomes hypocritical when one then
aircraft and can fly CAP aircraft too with almost no out-of-pocket expense.
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.I’m not: I’m simply holding a mirror up … and you’re not liking your own reflection.
Yours are yours and are mine.
-hhUh, Hugh, the 4 or 5 Honda Accords starts way back in 1989.
There are many cars that exceed the Accord in some area or another. Your Porche isFortunately, “the right tool for the job” applies: If I need to carry a half dozen R/Cs or
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.
On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 11:12:33 AM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:Insight Hybrids? I had one. It was obvious that it was not selling well and was likely to be discontinued. The clincher was the dealer's trade offer for the Accord Hybrid.
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:“Could”… but will never do so. That’s why the most you could
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...You call that an upgrade? The screen is tiny.
<http://huntzinger.com/photo/2024/pre-install.jpg> >>>>>>>>
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"https://www.thedrive.com/news/33144/porsche-finally-offers-an-upgrade-to-its-eyesore-early-infotainment-units"
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
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.
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 notYet that was what you initiated with your “Just get a newer Porsche with a real
enough to want to own it.
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 clubNothing wrong about being frugal, but it becomes hypocritical when one then
aircraft and can fly CAP aircraft too with almost no out-of-pocket expense.
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 somethingBecause Hondas are renowned for being the most comfortable of rides … /s
to get you from A to B in comfort and do it with no muss or fuss.
I once had an SVT Mustang Cobra. It was fun for a year, then I went backSounds more like you scared yourself with the Cobra, and have been subsequently “playing it safe” for the past ~30 years.
to Honda. It's just not me.
You have no right to criticize others' choices based on your personal values.I’m not: I’m simply holding a mirror up … and you’re not liking your own reflection.
Yours are yours and are mine.
What you did 30 years ago just isn’t contemporary, and there’s been other Hondas too, such-hhUh, Hugh, the 4 or 5 Honda Accords starts way back in 1989.
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 isFortunately, “the right tool for the job” applies: If I need to carry a half dozen R/Cs or
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.
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.
-hh
On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 11:54:02 AM UTC-5, -hh wrote:You call that an upgrade? The screen is tiny.
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> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
that shows a $1550 price tag. A good phone mount is 5% of
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"https://www.thedrive.com/news/33144/porsche-finally-offers-an-upgrade-to-its-eyesore-early-infotainment-units"
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
What you did 30 years ago just isn’t contemporary, and there’s beenUh, Hugh, the 4 or 5 Honda Accords starts way back in 1989.Yet that was what you initiated with your “Just get a newer“Could”… but will never do so. That’s why thethat.
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.
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.
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 IWhich once again, as Alan noted, is precisely what you do all
don't own.
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 accessNothing wrong about being frugal, but it becomes hypocritical
to 5 flying club aircraft and can fly CAP aircraft too with
almost no out-of-pocket expense.
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 AccordMerely the most recent of your many new car purchases…case in
Hybrid Touring.
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 isBecause Hondas are renowned for being the most comfortable of
something to get you from A to B in comfort and do it with no
muss or fuss.
rides … /s
I once had an SVT Mustang Cobra. It was fun for a year, thenSounds more like you scared yourself with the Cobra, and have
I went back to Honda. It's just not me.
been subsequently “playing it safe” for the past ~30 years.
You have no right to criticize others' choices based on yourI’m not: I’m simply holding a mirror up … and you’re not liking >>>> your own reflection.
personal values. Yours are yours and are mine.
-hh
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 orFortunately, “the right tool for the job” applies: If I need to
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.
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.
-hh
Insight Hybrids? I had one. It was obvious that it was not selling
well and was likely to be discontinued. The clincher was the dealer's
trade offer for the Accord Hybrid.
Let's review the chain. 2015 traded a pre-owned 2010 Accord with
about 100,000 miles for a new Civic. Good car that Civic, but not
great. 2019 traded the Civic with about 60,000 miles for the Insight.
Dec 30, 2021 I traded the Insight Touring Hybrid with about 50,000
miles and valued at close to the 2019 MSRP for the Accord Touring
Hybrid, now with 41,000 miles. We also have a 2015 CRV purchased new
with about 90,000 miles, and no plans to make a change in either. The trade-in for the CRV as a 2002 Highlander with 140,000 miles. 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.
Between us since 2015 we have purchased about 8-10 smartphones, 4 or
5 tablets, Android and Apple, versus 4 car purchases. Phones do not
cost as much as cars. News at 11.
We use the Accord as our trip car. It gets much better mileage and
has a very large trunk. I could use the CRV for local hauls, but the
wife likes driving it instead of the Accord.
You do know that it is totally rational to be frugal in some areas
and not-so-frugal in others?
Please note that I did not criticize your car, just its tiny
display.
You might want to read this too:
https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/mark-phelan/2023/12/31/honda-accord-2024-detroit-free-press-car-of-the-year/72034346007/
"The 2023 Honda Accord makes excellence look so effortless, it’s
tempting to take the midsize sedan for granted. Don’t. The Accord
hybrid, in particular, provides a combination of comfort, safety and efficiency that makes it a near-perfect daily driver. It is one of
the many reasons I chose the Accord as the Detroit Free Press Car of
the Year."
That's my car, a year newer. But nothing will appease your compulsion
to find fault.
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:What an absolutely consistent, shallow asshole you are!
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.
"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.
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:“Could”… but will never do so. That’s why the most you could
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...You call that an upgrade? The screen is tiny.
<http://huntzinger.com/photo/2024/pre-install.jpg> >>>>>>>>
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"https://www.thedrive.com/news/33144/porsche-finally-offers-an-upgrade-to-its-eyesore-early-infotainment-units"
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
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.
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 notYet that was what you initiated with your “Just get a newer Porsche with a real
enough to want to own it.
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 clubNothing wrong about being frugal, but it becomes hypocritical when one then
aircraft and can fly CAP aircraft too with almost no out-of-pocket expense.
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 somethingBecause Hondas are renowned for being the most comfortable of rides … /s
to get you from A to B in comfort and do it with no muss or fuss.
I once had an SVT Mustang Cobra. It was fun for a year, then I went backSounds more like you scared yourself with the Cobra, and have been subsequently “playing it safe” for the past ~30 years.
to Honda. It's just not me.
You have no right to criticize others' choices based on your personal values.I’m not: I’m simply holding a mirror up … and you’re not liking your own reflection.
Yours are yours and are mine.
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
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
Between us since 2015 we have purchased about 8-10 smartphones, 4 or 5 tablets,75% of which were your cars, not the households.
Android and Apple, versus 4 car purchases.
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),
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,
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
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.
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:
Yet that was what you initiated with your “Just get a newer Porsche with a realAlan <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:And a part of it I think is that he doesn't actually get enjoyment from
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:“Could”… but will never do so. That’s why the most you could
On Friday, December 29, 2023 at 4:27:34 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally getting around to an upgrade...
You call that an upgrade? The screen is tiny.
<http://huntzinger.com/photo/2024/pre-install.jpg> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
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. >>>>>>>>
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.
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.Nothing wrong about being frugal, but it becomes hypocritical when one then
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.
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.I’m not: I’m simply holding a mirror up … and you’re not liking your own reflection.
Yours are yours and are mine.
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 2024-01-02 17:14, Thomas E. wrote:With Tommy's comment on his personal finance, ie: "Since 2015 net worth has almost
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.
On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 12:13:54 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote: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.
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 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:
Yet that was what you initiated with your “Just get a newer Porsche with a realAlan <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:And a part of it I think is that he doesn't actually get enjoyment from
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:“Could”… but will never do so. That’s why the most you could
On Friday, December 29, 2023 at 4:27:34 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
Finally getting around to an upgrade...You call that an upgrade? The screen is tiny.
<http://huntzinger.com/photo/2024/pre-install.jpg> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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"https://www.thedrive.com/news/33144/porsche-finally-offers-an-upgrade-to-its-eyesore-early-infotainment-units"
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
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.
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. >>>>>>>>
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.
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 clubNothing wrong about being frugal, but it becomes hypocritical when one then
aircraft and can fly CAP aircraft too with almost no out-of-pocket expense.
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 somethingSounds more like you scared yourself with the Cobra, and have been >>>>> subsequently “playing it safe” for the past ~30 years.
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.
You have no right to criticize others' choices based on your personal values.I’m not: I’m simply holding a mirror up … and you’re not liking your own reflection.
Yours are yours and are mine.
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 isFortunately, “the right tool for the job” applies: If I need to carry a half dozen R/Cs or
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. >>>
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
Given what you know I know about your financial situation this is probably more based on necessity than frugality.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 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.False, for I never said it was only a Roth: I was drawing an analogy for how income can be
I never claimed it was a Roth conversion.
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”
The after tax proceeds were moved to an income plan to replace consulting incomeA common strategy today for doing that is via a bond ladder (which includes CDs).
as I closed down the business.
I also maxed out the 401k contributions.Which traditionally reduces taxable income in those years, which makes a subsequent
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
It took a little longer than we thought but it did work out. Had COVID-19 not happenedMeaning then that your financial situation where you worked into your upper 70s was the
we would have been about on schedule.
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:“Could”… but will never do so. That’s why the most you could
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...You call that an upgrade? The screen is tiny.
<http://huntzinger.com/photo/2024/pre-install.jpg> >>>>>>>>
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"https://www.thedrive.com/news/33144/porsche-finally-offers-an-upgrade-to-its-eyesore-early-infotainment-units"
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
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.
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 notYet that was what you initiated with your “Just get a newer Porsche with a real
enough to want to own it.
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 clubNothing wrong about being frugal, but it becomes hypocritical when one then
aircraft and can fly CAP aircraft too with almost no out-of-pocket expense.
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 somethingBecause Hondas are renowned for being the most comfortable of rides … /s
to get you from A to B in comfort and do it with no muss or fuss.
I once had an SVT Mustang Cobra. It was fun for a year, then I went backSounds more like you scared yourself with the Cobra, and have been subsequently “playing it safe” for the past ~30 years.
to Honda. It's just not me.
You have no right to criticize others' choices based on your personal values.I’m not: I’m simply holding a mirror up … and you’re not liking your own reflection.
Yours are yours and are mine.
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.
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? I do, in Quicken.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,75% of which were your cars, not the households.
Android and Apple, versus 4 car purchases.
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 12:42:05 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:“Could”… but will never do so. That’s why the most you could
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...You call that an upgrade? The screen is tiny.
<http://huntzinger.com/photo/2024/pre-install.jpg> >>>>>>>>
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"https://www.thedrive.com/news/33144/porsche-finally-offers-an-upgrade-to-its-eyesore-early-infotainment-units"
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
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.
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 notYet that was what you initiated with your “Just get a newer Porsche with a real
enough to want to own it.
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 clubNothing wrong about being frugal, but it becomes hypocritical when one then
aircraft and can fly CAP aircraft too with almost no out-of-pocket expense.
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 somethingBecause Hondas are renowned for being the most comfortable of rides … /s
to get you from A to B in comfort and do it with no muss or fuss.
I once had an SVT Mustang Cobra. It was fun for a year, then I went backSounds more like you scared yourself with the Cobra, and have been subsequently “playing it safe” for the past ~30 years.
to Honda. It's just not me.
You have no right to criticize others' choices based on your personal values.I’m not: I’m simply holding a mirror up … and you’re not liking your own reflection.
Yours are yours and are mine.
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.
Of course, and I even know that this tracking is commonly called a "budget" /s.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?
I do, in Quicken.It probably even looks something like this, but with dollars added:
So let's look at this a different way. From January 2002 to today We bought 7 cars. Complete records are in Quicken.
Total cost was 2.9% of total gross income since 2002.2001 Honda Accord EXL $21K MSRP; Used less; figure -25% = $16K
Records are in Quicken and tax returns.So $127K times 3, divided by 20 years = $19K/yr average. Nashton would be jealous /s
That's 1/3 of vacation spending, ...
... less than groceries, about the same as utilities and home improvements, and a lot less thanBut of course it is all your choice.
charitable giving. Records are in Quicken. Those numbers and others like it reflect our personal priorities.
And, over that period we increased net worth by almost 4.5x, grew income, and were debt free from 2003 onward.The SP500 since 2002 has gone from ~875 to ~4700, which is 5.3x growth, but this doesn't
As I stated before the Insight trade incurred almost no depreciation on that car. Also, we did buyAs was said, "... well, gosh golly, "Good For You!"" .. but it is still hypocritical of you to work into
used cars until 2015. All part of the plan to get to where we could afford new. It helped.
Bottom line if we now want to buy a new car every three years we can afford it, and still have
money for vacations, charitable giving and keep groceries in the house. The house we own.
Well technically, the house our trust owns.
You are perfectly free to keep your car with an expensive and tiny retrofit CarPlay screenHonestly, it was not my plan for it to have become an appreciating asset...but it has:
as long as you like. You must love that old 911 to spend that kind of money on it.
Our priorities may be different.Of course they are ... yet that hasn't stopped you from trying to criticize others' choices.
Our priorities may be different.Of course they are ... yet that hasn't stopped you from trying to criticize others' choices.
I'm still driving the BMW 135i I bought in 2017 and loving it.Given what you know I know about your financial situation this is
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.
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?
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.
On 2024-01-07 04:31, -hh wrote:Plus there’s always more. Something else I stumbled across was this from April 2017:
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:Yet you can't seem to afford to keep a very important financial obligation current. You know what I'm talking about.
I'm still driving the BMW 135i I bought in 2017 and loving it.Given what you know I know about your financial situation this is
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.
probably more based on necessity than frugality.
As I recall a family member gave you a "great deal" on the BMWNope. Just gave a family member as good a deal as he was going to get
because he was not happy with the trade-in value. Felt sorry for
you?
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:I had a few VERY successful projects after that.
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 7:21:20 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote: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:
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 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
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
Here is the actual comment, note that first sentence:So what? Because you did then proceed to provide a *sum* of your income history.
"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,But you characterized it as TOTAL GROSS income.
expenses $250k..."
That was not total income, just consulting.
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
From 2002 we were both getting salaries early on, a substantial 2003 "golden parachute",So if we are to believe your herein revised claims, the aforementioned $1.41M gross on
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.Versus $1.16M after 2016, so just $1.3M-$1.16M = $140K for 2017-20 inclusive, for
I was already tapering down as RMD income started and planning transitioning someMeaning a (0.544/1.3) = 40% reduction in taxable net 'income then, which enables
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.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%,
PLEASE stop lying.I'm not; I'm merely quantitatively calling you out when you try to spin cherry-picked half truths.
On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 7:24:05 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2024-01-06 18:10, Thomas E. wrote:
Nope. Just gave a family member as good a deal as he was going to getI'm still driving the BMW 135i I bought in 2017 and loving it.Given what you know I know about your financial situation this is
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.
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?
from a third party.
Nope. He knew very well that I could absolutely afford it. I kept at him
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.
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:Plus there’s always more. Something else I stumbled across was this from April 2017:
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.
:-)
“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",So if we are to believe your herein revised claims, the aforementioned $1.41M gross on
retirement plan income from 2003, and Social Security from 2011, capital gains, and some
dividend income. TOTAL 2002-2017 income was $3.1 million.
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.
-hhYou 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.
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.
Silence from TommyCaught 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?
Which is not a statement on Net Worth changes.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.
“Tapering” … quantified. Or in demand from just one last faithful client /sFrom 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.
Nope: you represented it in 2017 as your TOTAL GROSS income with no such qualifiers.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.
FYI 2003-2023 gross , IRS basis, was $4.3 million.Just what definition of “gross” are you using here? For example, is that before
The 4.5x referred to net worth, not earnings!
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.
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:False, for I never said it was only a Roth: I was drawing an analogy for
On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 7:21:20 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2024-01-07 04:31, -hh wrote:Plus there’s always more. Something else I stumbled across was this from April 2017:
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.
:-)
“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.
how income can be
manipulated YoY, which is why it said “…not unlike…”.
I looked up the original. You actually edited that comment, leaving outNo, the quotation was done correctly. The prior sentence wasn't included
the first sentence!
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,But you characterized it as TOTAL GROSS income.
expenses $250k..."
That was not total income, just consulting.
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",So if we are to believe your herein revised claims, the aforementioned $1.41M gross on
retirement plan income from 2003, and Social Security from 2011, capital gains, and some
dividend income. TOTAL 2002-2017 income was $3.1 million.
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 IVersus $1.16M after 2016, so just $1.3M-$1.16M
had active projects.
= $140K for 2017-20 inclusive, foran 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.
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.
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:Silence from Tommy.
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:False, for I never said it was only a Roth: I was drawing an analogy for >> how income can be
On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 7:21:20 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2024-01-07 04:31, -hh wrote:Plus there’s always more. Something else I stumbled across was this from April 2017:
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.
:-)
“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.
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,But you characterized it as TOTAL GROSS income.
expenses $250k..."
That was not total income, just consulting.
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?
Which is not a statement on Net Worth changes.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.
/sFrom 2002 we were both getting salaries early on, a substantial 2003 "golden parachute",So if we are to believe your herein revised claims, the aforementioned $1.41M gross on
retirement plan income from 2003, and Social Security from 2011, capital gains, and some
dividend income. TOTAL 2002-2017 income was $3.1 million.
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, foran 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
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.
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.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:Silence from Tommy.
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:False, for I never said it was only a Roth: I was drawing an analogy for
On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 7:21:20 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2024-01-07 04:31, -hh wrote:Plus there’s always more. Something else I stumbled across was this from April 2017:
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.
:-)
“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.
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 outNo, the quotation was done correctly. The prior sentence wasn't included
the first sentence!
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,But you characterized it as TOTAL GROSS income.
expenses $250k..."
That was not total income, just consulting.
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?
Which is not a statement on Net Worth changes.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.
/sFrom 2002 we were both getting salaries early on, a substantial 2003 "golden parachute",So if we are to believe your herein revised claims, the aforementioned $1.41M gross on
retirement plan income from 2003, and Social Security from 2011, capital gains, and some
dividend income. TOTAL 2002-2017 income was $3.1 million.
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, foran 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
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 referredNope: you represented it in 2017 as your TOTAL GROSS income with no such qualifiers.
to consulting only.
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
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
Hmm..
Looks like another two posts on GG hasn’t disseminated. Reproducing 1/17 posts:
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:Silence from Tommy.
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:False, for I never said it was only a Roth: I was drawing an analogy for >> how income can be
On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 7:21:20 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2024-01-07 04:31, -hh wrote:Plus there’s always more. Something else I stumbled across was this from April 2017:
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.
:-)
“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.
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 beforeBut you characterized it as TOTAL GROSS income.
taxes $1.16 million,
expenses $250k..."
That was not total income, just consulting.
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?
Which is not a statement on Net Worth changes.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.
/sFrom 2002 we were both getting salaries early on, a substantialSo if we are to believe your herein revised claims, the aforementioned $1.41M gross on
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.
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, foran 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
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.
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:Silence from Tommy.
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:
False, for I never said it was only a Roth: I was drawing an analogy forOn Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 7:21:20 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2024-01-07 04:31, -hh wrote:Plus there’s always more. Something else I stumbled across was this from April 2017:
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.
:-)
“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.
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 outNo, the quotation was done correctly. The prior sentence wasn't included
the first sentence!
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,But you characterized it as TOTAL GROSS income.
expenses $250k..."
That was not total income, just consulting.
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?
Which is not a statement on Net Worth changes.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.
/sFrom 2002 we were both getting salaries early on, a substantial 2003 "golden parachute",So if we are to believe your herein revised claims, the aforementioned $1.41M gross on
retirement plan income from 2003, and Social Security from 2011, capital gains, and some
dividend income. TOTAL 2002-2017 income was $3.1 million.
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 IVersus $1.16M after 2016, so just $1.3M-$1.16M
had active projects.
= $140K for 2017-20 inclusive, foran 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
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 referredNope: you represented it in 2017 as your TOTAL GROSS income with no such qualifiers.
to consulting only.
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?
LOL, you are way off on many of your numbers. I wanted to increase the cash flow after full retirement, so I worked part-time a while longer. It worked. It was a balance of risks and opportunities. I'm very happy with how it's turned out. Get over it.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
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:Silence from Tommy.
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:
False, for I never said it was only a Roth: I was drawing an analogy forOn Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 7:21:20 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote: >>>>> On 2024-01-07 04:31, -hh wrote:
Plus there’s always more. Something else I stumbled across was this from April 2017: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.
:-)
“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.
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 outNo, the quotation was done correctly. The prior sentence wasn't included
the first sentence!
because it wasn't
quantitatively relevant to the context of your fiscal claim.
Here is the actual comment, note that first sentence:So what? Because you did then proceed to provide a *sum* of your income history.
"Of course I'm not going to give you my annual 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,But you characterized it as TOTAL GROSS income.
expenses $250k..."
That was not total income, just consulting.
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?
Which is not a statement on Net Worth changes.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.
“Tapering” … quantified. Or in demand from just one last faithful clientFrom 2002 we were both getting salaries early on, a substantial 2003 "golden parachute",So if we are to believe your herein revised claims, the aforementioned $1.41M gross on
retirement plan income from 2003, and Social Security from 2011, capital gains, and some
dividend income. TOTAL 2002-2017 income was $3.1 million.
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 IVersus $1.16M after 2016, so just $1.3M-$1.16M
had active projects.
= $140K for 2017-20 inclusive, foran 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.
/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 referredNope: you represented it in 2017 as your TOTAL GROSS income with no such
to consulting only.
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.
LOL, you are way off on many of your numbers.Given how often you've been forced to admit just how spot-on they've been, not a
I wanted to increase the cash flow after full retirement, so I worked part-time aNot really the point I was making, which was that you've been bragging for years on
while longer. It worked. It was a balance of risks and opportunities. I'm very happy
with how it's turned out. Get over it.
On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 2:51:35 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
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:Silence from Tommy.
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:False, for I never said it was only a Roth: I was drawing an analogy for
Plus there’s always more. Something else I stumbled across was this from April 2017: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.
:-)
“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.
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 outNo, the quotation was done correctly. The prior sentence wasn't included
the first sentence!
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,But you characterized it as TOTAL GROSS income.
expenses $250k..."
That was not total income, just consulting.
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?
Which is not a statement on Net Worth changes.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.
“Tapering” … quantified. Or in demand from just one last faithful clientFrom 2002 we were both getting salaries early on, a substantial 2003 "golden parachute",So if we are to believe your herein revised claims, the aforementioned $1.41M gross on
retirement plan income from 2003, and Social Security from 2011, capital gains, and some
dividend income. TOTAL 2002-2017 income was $3.1 million.
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 IVersus $1.16M after 2016, so just $1.3M-$1.16M
had active projects.
= $140K for 2017-20 inclusive, foran 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.
/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 referredNope: you represented it in 2017 as your TOTAL GROSS income with no such
to consulting only.
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.
You are so confused. I worked part time 2003-2020, 17 years. I could have retired years earlier, when the RMD income started coming online in 2016. A few other projects showed up and I took them.LOL, you are way off on many of your numbers.Given how often you've been forced to admit just how spot-on they've been, not a
really credible claim on your part. As I've noted before, they're just paramaterizations
based on your own claims, and the more you talk (& talk) about them, the smaller
the box becomes. As always, it assumes you're not lying.
I wanted to increase the cash flow after full retirement, so I worked part-time aNot really the point I was making, which was that you've been bragging for years on
while longer. It worked. It was a balance of risks and opportunities. I'm very happy
with how it's turned out. Get over it.
your alleged personal prosperity, yet contrary to that claim, you ended up working
for a good decade (plus the part time years too) to finally get to where you were
financially comfortable enough to retire. As you were asked in another subthread:
"If you could have retired at 63 with a $200K income stream before SS or 401k/IRA
distributions…would you have taken it?"
Silence from Tommy there ... and probably also again here too.
-hh
On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 6:29:20 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 2:51:35 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
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:Silence from Tommy.
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:False, for I never said it was only a Roth: I was drawing an analogy for
Plus there’s always more. Something else I stumbled across was this from April 2017: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.
:-)
“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.
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 outNo, the quotation was done correctly. The prior sentence wasn't included
the first sentence!
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,But you characterized it as TOTAL GROSS income.
expenses $250k..."
That was not total income, just consulting.
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?
Which is not a statement on Net Worth changes.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.
“Tapering” … quantified. Or in demand from just one last faithful clientFrom 2002 we were both getting salaries early on, a substantial 2003 "golden parachute",So if we are to believe your herein revised claims, the aforementioned $1.41M gross on
retirement plan income from 2003, and Social Security from 2011, capital gains, and some
dividend income. TOTAL 2002-2017 income was $3.1 million.
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 IVersus $1.16M after 2016, so just $1.3M-$1.16M
had active projects.
= $140K for 2017-20 inclusive, foran 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.
/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 referredNope: you represented it in 2017 as your TOTAL GROSS income with no such
to consulting only.
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.
LOL, you are way off on many of your numbers.Given how often you've been forced to admit just how spot-on they've been, not a
really credible claim on your part. As I've noted before, they're just paramaterizations
based on your own claims, and the more you talk (& talk) about them, the smaller
the box becomes. As always, it assumes you're not lying.
I wanted to increase the cash flow after full retirement, so I worked part-time aNot really the point I was making, which was that you've been bragging for years on
while longer. It worked. It was a balance of risks and opportunities. I'm very happy
with how it's turned out. Get over it.
your alleged personal prosperity, yet contrary to that claim, you ended up working
for a good decade (plus the part time years too) to finally get to where you were
financially comfortable enough to retire. As you were asked in another subthread:
"If you could have retired at 63 with a $200K income stream before SS or 401k/IRA
distributions…would you have taken it?"
Silence from Tommy there ... and probably also again here too.
You are so confused. I worked part time 2003-2020, 17 years.Gosh, its quite amazing at how now all of that consultant work is being spun
I could have retired years earlier, when the RMD income started coming online in 2016.You could have taken withdrawals much earlier than 2016, because RMD's is a "no later than" deadline: penalty-free withdrawals start at age 59½ = 2006.
A few other projects showed up and I took them.Gosh, its quite amazing at how now all of those extra years of working are being spun
How do you propose I could have arrived at $200k 2009 annual income, absent RMDHow? Hmmm...from Tommy earlier today:
income and no job in 2011? That was before either of were taking Social Security.
I was not 66 until 3 years later. The wife was retired and not getting her state pension
or Social Security yet either. 2009 income was my pension and the consulting business.
You need to come up with an additional $160k or so post-retirement income. No job,
including my business, so how did you come up with that number?
If it was possible I'd like to know how.
BTW this morning just noticed it looks like we now have until Feb 22 to make more posts via Google.And for much longer outside of using Google Groups to read & post.
On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 12:02:32 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 6:29:20 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 2:51:35 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
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:Silence from Tommy.
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:False, for I never said it was only a Roth: I was drawing an analogy for
On 2024-01-07 04:31, -hh wrote:Plus there’s always more. Something else I stumbled across was this from April 2017:
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.
:-)
“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.
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 outNo, the quotation was done correctly. The prior sentence wasn't included
the first sentence!
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,But you characterized it as TOTAL GROSS income.
expenses $250k..."
That was not total income, just consulting.
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?
Which is not a statement on Net Worth changes.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.
“Tapering” … quantified. Or in demand from just one last faithful clientFrom 2002 we were both getting salaries early on, a substantial 2003 "golden parachute",So if we are to believe your herein revised claims, the aforementioned $1.41M gross on
retirement plan income from 2003, and Social Security from 2011, capital gains, and some
dividend income. TOTAL 2002-2017 income was $3.1 million.
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 IVersus $1.16M after 2016, so just $1.3M-$1.16M
had active projects.
= $140K for 2017-20 inclusive, foran 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.
/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 referredNope: you represented it in 2017 as your TOTAL GROSS income with no such
to consulting only.
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.
LOL, you are way off on many of your numbers.Given how often you've been forced to admit just how spot-on they've been, not a
really credible claim on your part. As I've noted before, they're just paramaterizations
based on your own claims, and the more you talk (& talk) about them, the smaller
the box becomes. As always, it assumes you're not lying.
I wanted to increase the cash flow after full retirement, so I worked part-time aNot really the point I was making, which was that you've been bragging for years on
while longer. It worked. It was a balance of risks and opportunities. I'm very happy
with how it's turned out. Get over it.
your alleged personal prosperity, yet contrary to that claim, you ended up working
for a good decade (plus the part time years too) to finally get to where you were
financially comfortable enough to retire. As you were asked in another subthread:
"If you could have retired at 63 with a $200K income stream before SS or 401k/IRA
distributions…would you have taken it?"
Silence from Tommy there ... and probably also again here too.
Oh my, you still do not understand, so more details. All remaining options expired on February 29, 2008. At that point every option I had left was underwater at the $50.02 close, and had been underwater for some time. The strike prices on what I had left were in the $60-90 range. All of the deep-in-the-money earlier-dated options were cashed in within a few months of retirement at $60+. Some were from the mid/early-1990s and already getting close to 10-year expiration. The strike price on a few was in the $10-15 range. The after-tax proceeds were invested and some went to pay off what was left on the mortgage. Had I waited until expiration I would have been worse off. Those 2003 option exercise proceeds have grown to well over $1 million in total assets outside our IRAs. Employee stock options can be very lucrative but also carry risk. Looking back I was way too optimistic on the prospects for the stock rising when it was in the $80-90 range before I retired. Had I cashed them all in at the then all-time peak price of over $100 in July 2000 I would have paid a lot of taxes but would likely be substantially better off today. So much so that I might not have even gone into consulting in 2003. Such is life.You are so confused. I worked part time 2003-2020, 17 years.Gosh, its quite amazing at how now all of that consultant work is being spun to lower expectations with this new "part time" label all over the place! /s
I could have retired years earlier, when the RMD income started coming online in 2016.You could have taken withdrawals much earlier than 2016, because RMD's is a "no later than" deadline: penalty-free withdrawals start at age 59½ = 2006.
A few other projects showed up and I took them.Gosh, its quite amazing at how now all of those extra years of working are being spun
to seem to have been completely discretionary, in contrast to how we've been told
about detailed planning that was coordinated with his financial advisor! /s
How do you propose I could have arrived at $200k 2009 annual income, absent RMDHow? Hmmm...from Tommy earlier today:
income and no job in 2011? That was before either of were taking Social Security.
I was not 66 until 3 years later. The wife was retired and not getting her state pension
or Social Security yet either. 2009 income was my pension and the consulting business.
You need to come up with an additional $160k or so post-retirement income. No job,
including my business, so how did you come up with that number?
If it was possible I'd like to know how.
"I retired in 2003, remember? Even before retirement the options expired 10 years after
issue. It was 5 years to expiration from the day I retired. So in 2018 those options had
been gone for 10 years."
Since 2018 minus 10 years = 2008, then one possibility is one of those Stock Options
that you bragged about having, purchased just before expiration in 2008, which was
then sold in 2009. Easy-peasy, especially if one was holding it for (365+1) days to get
the more favorable LTCG taxation rate: it just takes having the free cash available to do it.
BTW this morning just noticed it looks like we now have until Feb 22 to make more posts via Google.And for much longer outside of using Google Groups to read & post.
-hh
On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 2:49:08 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 12:02:32 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 6:29:20 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 2:51:35 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
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:Silence from Tommy.
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:False, for I never said it was only a Roth: I was drawing an analogy for
On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 7:21:20 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2024-01-07 04:31, -hh wrote:Plus there’s always more. Something else I stumbled across was this from April 2017:
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.
:-)
“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.
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 outNo, the quotation was done correctly. The prior sentence wasn't included
the first sentence!
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,But you characterized it as TOTAL GROSS income.
expenses $250k..."
That was not total income, just consulting.
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?
Which is not a statement on Net Worth changes.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.
“Tapering” … quantified. Or in demand from just one last faithful clientFrom 2002 we were both getting salaries early on, a substantial 2003 "golden parachute",supposedly just your consulting means that your non-consulting income sources summed
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
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 IVersus $1.16M after 2016, so just $1.3M-$1.16M
had active projects.
= $140K for 2017-20 inclusive, foran 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.
/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 referredNope: you represented it in 2017 as your TOTAL GROSS income with no such
to consulting only.
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.
LOL, you are way off on many of your numbers.Given how often you've been forced to admit just how spot-on they've been, not a
really credible claim on your part. As I've noted before, they're just paramaterizations
based on your own claims, and the more you talk (& talk) about them, the smaller
the box becomes. As always, it assumes you're not lying.
I wanted to increase the cash flow after full retirement, so I worked part-time aNot really the point I was making, which was that you've been bragging for years on
while longer. It worked. It was a balance of risks and opportunities. I'm very happy
with how it's turned out. Get over it.
your alleged personal prosperity, yet contrary to that claim, you ended up working
for a good decade (plus the part time years too) to finally get to where you were
financially comfortable enough to retire. As you were asked in another subthread:
"If you could have retired at 63 with a $200K income stream before SS or 401k/IRA
distributions…would you have taken it?"
Silence from Tommy there ... and probably also again here too.
You are so confused. I worked part time 2003-2020, 17 years.
Gosh, its quite amazing at how now all of that consultant work is being spun
to lower expectations with this new "part time" label all over the place! /s
I could have retired years earlier, when the RMD income started coming online in 2016.
You could have taken withdrawals much earlier than 2016, because RMD's is a
"no later than" deadline: penalty-free withdrawals start at age 59½ = 2006.
A few other projects showed up and I took them.
Gosh, its quite amazing at how now all of those extra years of working are being spun
to seem to have been completely discretionary, in contrast to how we've been told
about detailed planning that was coordinated with his financial advisor! /s
How do you propose I could have arrived at $200k 2009 annual income, absent RMD
income and no job in 2011? That was before either of were taking Social Security.
I was not 66 until 3 years later. The wife was retired and not getting her state pension
or Social Security yet either. 2009 income was my pension and the consulting business.
You need to come up with an additional $160k or so post-retirement income. No job,
including my business, so how did you come up with that number?
If it was possible I'd like to know how.
How? Hmmm...from Tommy earlier today:
"I retired in 2003, remember? Even before retirement the options expired 10 years after
issue. It was 5 years to expiration from the day I retired. So in 2018 those options had
been gone for 10 years."
Since 2018 minus 10 years = 2008, then one possibility is one of those Stock Options
that you bragged about having, purchased just before expiration in 2008, which was
then sold in 2009. Easy-peasy, especially if one was holding it for (365+1) days to get
the more favorable LTCG taxation rate: it just takes having the free cash available to do it.
BTW this morning just noticed it looks like we now have until Feb 22 to make more posts via Google.
And for much longer outside of using Google Groups to read & post.
Oh my, you still do not understand, so more details. All remaining options expired on February 29, 2008.Which means that you've now confirmed that you did indeed have Stock Options which were
At that point every option I had left was underwater ...Doesn't matter, because the point was simply that a Stock Option existed, so it isn't excluded
[blah, blah blah brag attempt ... but more parametric data too]Which is why attempting to use "income stream" as your goalpost attempt was a poor idea,
So I repeat the question, how do you come up with a $200k income stream for me at age 63?
Stock options are not an income stream.
Or maybe you have a $200k income stream planned for age 63? If so, great job on your part.Depends on what you're trying to imply:
On Tuesday, February 13, 2024 at 9:32:59 AM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 2:49:08 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 12:02:32 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 6:29:20 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 2:51:35 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
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:Silence from Tommy.
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:False, for I never said it was only a Roth: I was drawing an analogy for
On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 7:21:20 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2024-01-07 04:31, -hh wrote:Plus there’s always more. Something else I stumbled across was this from April 2017:
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.
:-)
“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.
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 outNo, the quotation was done correctly. The prior sentence wasn't included
the first sentence!
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,But you characterized it as TOTAL GROSS income.
expenses $250k..."
That was not total income, just consulting.
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?
Which is not a statement on Net Worth changes.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.
“Tapering” … quantified. Or in demand from just one last faithful clientFrom 2002 we were both getting salaries early on, a substantial 2003 "golden parachute",So if we are to believe your herein revised claims, the aforementioned $1.41M gross on
retirement plan income from 2003, and Social Security from 2011, capital gains, and some
dividend income. TOTAL 2002-2017 income was $3.1 million.
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 IVersus $1.16M after 2016, so just $1.3M-$1.16M
had active projects.
= $140K for 2017-20 inclusive, foran 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.
/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 referredNope: you represented it in 2017 as your TOTAL GROSS income with no such
to consulting only.
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.
LOL, you are way off on many of your numbers.Given how often you've been forced to admit just how spot-on they've been, not a
really credible claim on your part. As I've noted before, they're just paramaterizations
based on your own claims, and the more you talk (& talk) about them, the smaller
the box becomes. As always, it assumes you're not lying.
I wanted to increase the cash flow after full retirement, so I worked part-time aNot really the point I was making, which was that you've been bragging for years on
while longer. It worked. It was a balance of risks and opportunities. I'm very happy
with how it's turned out. Get over it.
your alleged personal prosperity, yet contrary to that claim, you ended up working
for a good decade (plus the part time years too) to finally get to where you were
financially comfortable enough to retire. As you were asked in another subthread:
"If you could have retired at 63 with a $200K income stream before SS or 401k/IRA
distributions…would you have taken it?"
Silence from Tommy there ... and probably also again here too.
You are so confused. I worked part time 2003-2020, 17 years.
Gosh, its quite amazing at how now all of that consultant work is being spun
to lower expectations with this new "part time" label all over the place! /s
I could have retired years earlier, when the RMD income started coming online in 2016.
You could have taken withdrawals much earlier than 2016, because RMD's is a
"no later than" deadline: penalty-free withdrawals start at age 59½ = 2006.
A few other projects showed up and I took them.
Gosh, its quite amazing at how now all of those extra years of working are being spun
to seem to have been completely discretionary, in contrast to how we've been told
about detailed planning that was coordinated with his financial advisor! /s
How do you propose I could have arrived at $200k 2009 annual income, absent RMD
income and no job in 2011? That was before either of were taking Social Security.
I was not 66 until 3 years later. The wife was retired and not getting her state pension
or Social Security yet either. 2009 income was my pension and the consulting business.
You need to come up with an additional $160k or so post-retirement income. No job,
including my business, so how did you come up with that number?
If it was possible I'd like to know how.
How? Hmmm...from Tommy earlier today:
"I retired in 2003, remember? Even before retirement the options expired 10 years after
issue. It was 5 years to expiration from the day I retired. So in 2018 those options had
been gone for 10 years."
Since 2018 minus 10 years = 2008, then one possibility is one of those Stock Options
that you bragged about having, purchased just before expiration in 2008, which was
then sold in 2009. Easy-peasy, especially if one was holding it for (365+1) days to get
the more favorable LTCG taxation rate: it just takes having the free cash available to do it.
BTW this morning just noticed it looks like we now have until Feb 22 to make more posts via Google.
And for much longer outside of using Google Groups to read & post.
Oh my, you still do not understand, so more details. All remaining options expired on February 29, 2008.Which means that you've now confirmed that you did indeed have Stock Options which were
still valid in that time period, which is all that matters to confirm my statement as valid.
At that point every option I had left was underwater ...
Doesn't matter, because the point was simply that a Stock Option existed, so it isn't excluded
as a means of potentially generating a taxable event - - in addition to the other methods of
doing so that I had previously mentioned.
[blah, blah blah brag attempt ... but more parametric data too]Which is why attempting to use "income stream" as your goalpost attempt was a poor idea,
So I repeat the question, how do you come up with a $200k income stream for me at age 63?
Stock options are not an income stream.
for there is a difference between having $XXX "taxable income" and an "income stream", as
the latter implies that it represents an amount expended, and if it is before or after taxes is
left conveniently ambiguous.
Or maybe you have a $200k income stream planned for age 63? If so, great job on your part.Depends on what you're trying to imply:
Do you mean for it to include just the one year where one turns 63 and "one shot" events such
as a Roth conversion or Brokerage Account sales (to buy Bonds, etc) can temporarily bump up
taxable income to count as a "yes"?
Or do you mean for it to represent the sum of only one's reliable, multi-year income sources
which means that this arbitrary $200K target value is exceeded year after year?
-hhRepeating...
On Tuesday, February 13, 2024 at 11:57:39 AM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, February 13, 2024 at 9:32:59 AM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 2:49:08 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 12:02:32 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 6:29:20 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 2:51:35 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
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:Silence from Tommy.
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:False, for I never said it was only a Roth: I was drawing an analogy for
On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 7:21:20 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2024-01-07 04:31, -hh wrote:Plus there’s always more. Something else I stumbled across was this from April 2017:
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.
:-)
“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.
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 outNo, the quotation was done correctly. The prior sentence wasn't included
the first sentence!
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,But you characterized it as TOTAL GROSS income.
expenses $250k..."
That was not total income, just consulting.
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?
Which is not a statement on Net Worth changes.You are still not going to get annual income details. >> Don't need to, for all I was doing was pointing out the implausibilitythat 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.
“Tapering” … quantified. Or in demand from just one last faithful clientFrom 2002 we were both getting salaries early on, a substantial 2003 "golden parachute",So if we are to believe your herein revised claims, the aforementioned $1.41M gross on
retirement plan income from 2003, and Social Security from 2011, capital gains, and some
dividend income. TOTAL 2002-2017 income was $3.1 million.
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 IVersus $1.16M after 2016, so just $1.3M-$1.16M
had active projects.
= $140K for 2017-20 inclusive, foran 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.
/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 referredNope: you represented it in 2017 as your TOTAL GROSS income with no such
to consulting only.
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.
LOL, you are way off on many of your numbers.Given how often you've been forced to admit just how spot-on they've been, not a
really credible claim on your part. As I've noted before, they're just paramaterizations
based on your own claims, and the more you talk (& talk) about them, the smaller
the box becomes. As always, it assumes you're not lying.
I wanted to increase the cash flow after full retirement, so I worked part-time aNot really the point I was making, which was that you've been bragging for years on
while longer. It worked. It was a balance of risks and opportunities. I'm very happy
with how it's turned out. Get over it.
your alleged personal prosperity, yet contrary to that claim, you ended up working
for a good decade (plus the part time years too) to finally get to where you were
financially comfortable enough to retire. As you were asked in another subthread:
"If you could have retired at 63 with a $200K income stream before SS or 401k/IRA
distributions…would you have taken it?"
Silence from Tommy there ... and probably also again here too.
You are so confused. I worked part time 2003-2020, 17 years.
Gosh, its quite amazing at how now all of that consultant work is being spun
to lower expectations with this new "part time" label all over the place! /s
I could have retired years earlier, when the RMD income started coming online in 2016.
You could have taken withdrawals much earlier than 2016, because RMD's is a
"no later than" deadline: penalty-free withdrawals start at age 59½ = 2006.
A few other projects showed up and I took them.
Gosh, its quite amazing at how now all of those extra years of working are being spun
to seem to have been completely discretionary, in contrast to how we've been told
about detailed planning that was coordinated with his financial advisor! /s
How do you propose I could have arrived at $200k 2009 annual income, absent RMD
income and no job in 2011? That was before either of were taking Social Security.
I was not 66 until 3 years later. The wife was retired and not getting her state pension
or Social Security yet either. 2009 income was my pension and the consulting business.
You need to come up with an additional $160k or so post-retirement income. No job,
including my business, so how did you come up with that number?
If it was possible I'd like to know how.
How? Hmmm...from Tommy earlier today:
"I retired in 2003, remember? Even before retirement the options expired 10 years after
issue. It was 5 years to expiration from the day I retired. So in 2018 those options had
been gone for 10 years."
Since 2018 minus 10 years = 2008, then one possibility is one of those Stock Options
that you bragged about having, purchased just before expiration in 2008, which was
then sold in 2009. Easy-peasy, especially if one was holding it for (365+1) days to get
the more favorable LTCG taxation rate: it just takes having the free cash available to do it.
BTW this morning just noticed it looks like we now have until Feb 22 to make more posts via Google.
And for much longer outside of using Google Groups to read & post.
I'm familiar with how such options work.Oh my, you still do not understand, so more details. All remaining options expired on February 29, 2008.
Which means that you've now confirmed that you did indeed have Stock Options which were
still valid in that time period, which is all that matters to confirm my statement as valid.
At that point every option I had left was underwater ...
Doesn't matter, because the point was simply that a Stock Option existed, so it isn't excluded
as a means of potentially generating a taxable event - - in addition to the other methods of
doing so that I had previously mentioned.
[blah, blah blah brag attempt ... but more parametric data too]
So I repeat the question, how do you come up with a $200k income stream for me at age 63?
Stock options are not an income stream.
Which is why attempting to use "income stream" as your goalpost attempt was a poor idea,
for there is a difference between having $XXX "taxable income" and an "income stream", as
the latter implies that it represents an amount expended, and if it is before or after taxes is
left conveniently ambiguous.
Or maybe you have a $200k income stream planned for age 63? If so, great job on your part.
Depends on what you're trying to imply:
Do you mean for it to include just the one year where one turns 63 and "one shot" events such
as a Roth conversion or Brokerage Account sales (to buy Bonds, etc) can temporarily bump up
taxable income to count as a "yes"?
Or do you mean for it to represent the sum of only one's reliable, multi-year income sources
which means that this arbitrary $200K target value is exceeded year after year?
Repeating...
Remember, employee options have a strike price that is the closing price on the grant date.
The strike price varies over time.
In 2003 I had older options with a strike price from very low double-digits up to about $85.All you're really saying is that you were doing flips based on the option price vs the then-
Thus, those options were a portfolio stretching back 10 years. I cashed out all the early-dated
in-the-money options in late 2002 and early 2003. Proceeds were used to pay off part of a
mortgage, income taxes, and what was left was invested. Remaining later-dated options,
and there were a few, were available but worthless. The stock price was lower than the
remaining options' strike prices until all expired in early 2008. An option cannot generate
a taxable event if it can't generate a positive cash flow. As it turned out I maximized the
potential option income by taking them when they had value.
The rest of your post make no sense to me given the circumstances I faced during the referenced time period.The rest was merely noting that your phrasing was vague, which allows for multiple
On Wednesday, February 21, 2024 at 10:41:19 AM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
On Tuesday, February 13, 2024 at 11:57:39 AM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, February 13, 2024 at 9:32:59 AM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 2:49:08 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 12:02:32 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 6:29:20 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 2:51:35 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
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:Silence from Tommy.
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:False, for I never said it was only a Roth: I was drawing an analogy for
On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 7:21:20 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2024-01-07 04:31, -hh wrote:Plus there’s always more. Something else I stumbled across was this from April 2017:
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.
:-)
“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.
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 outNo, the quotation was done correctly. The prior sentence wasn't included
the first sentence!
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,But you characterized it as TOTAL GROSS income.
expenses $250k..."
That was not total income, just consulting.
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?
Which is not a statement on Net Worth changes.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.
“Tapering” … quantified. Or in demand from just one last faithful clientFrom 2002 we were both getting salaries early on, a substantial 2003 "golden parachute",So if we are to believe your herein revised claims, the aforementioned $1.41M gross on
retirement plan income from 2003, and Social Security from 2011, capital gains, and some
dividend income. TOTAL 2002-2017 income was $3.1 million.
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 IVersus $1.16M after 2016, so just $1.3M-$1.16M
had active projects.
= $140K for 2017-20 inclusive, foran 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.
/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 referredNope: you represented it in 2017 as your TOTAL GROSS income with no such
to consulting only.
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.
LOL, you are way off on many of your numbers.Given how often you've been forced to admit just how spot-on they've been, not a
really credible claim on your part. As I've noted before, they're just paramaterizations
based on your own claims, and the more you talk (& talk) about them, the smaller
the box becomes. As always, it assumes you're not lying.
I wanted to increase the cash flow after full retirement, so I worked part-time aNot really the point I was making, which was that you've been bragging for years on
while longer. It worked. It was a balance of risks and opportunities. I'm very happy
with how it's turned out. Get over it.
your alleged personal prosperity, yet contrary to that claim, you ended up working
for a good decade (plus the part time years too) to finally get to where you were
financially comfortable enough to retire. As you were asked in another subthread:
"If you could have retired at 63 with a $200K income stream before SS or 401k/IRA
distributions…would you have taken it?"
Silence from Tommy there ... and probably also again here too.
You are so confused. I worked part time 2003-2020, 17 years.
Gosh, its quite amazing at how now all of that consultant work is being spun
to lower expectations with this new "part time" label all over the place! /s
I could have retired years earlier, when the RMD income started coming online in 2016.
You could have taken withdrawals much earlier than 2016, because RMD's is a
"no later than" deadline: penalty-free withdrawals start at age 59½ = 2006.
A few other projects showed up and I took them.
Gosh, its quite amazing at how now all of those extra years of working are being spun
to seem to have been completely discretionary, in contrast to how we've been told
about detailed planning that was coordinated with his financial advisor! /s
How do you propose I could have arrived at $200k 2009 annual income, absent RMD
income and no job in 2011? That was before either of were taking Social Security.
I was not 66 until 3 years later. The wife was retired and not getting her state pension
or Social Security yet either. 2009 income was my pension and the consulting business.
You need to come up with an additional $160k or so post-retirement income. No job,
including my business, so how did you come up with that number?
If it was possible I'd like to know how.
How? Hmmm...from Tommy earlier today:
"I retired in 2003, remember? Even before retirement the options expired 10 years after
issue. It was 5 years to expiration from the day I retired. So in 2018 those options had
been gone for 10 years."
Since 2018 minus 10 years = 2008, then one possibility is one of those Stock Options
that you bragged about having, purchased just before expiration in 2008, which was
then sold in 2009. Easy-peasy, especially if one was holding it for (365+1) days to get
the more favorable LTCG taxation rate: it just takes having the free cash available to do it.
BTW this morning just noticed it looks like we now have until Feb 22 to make more posts via Google.
And for much longer outside of using Google Groups to read & post.
I think I already explained. But if not here are the details.Oh my, you still do not understand, so more details. All remaining options expired on February 29, 2008.
Which means that you've now confirmed that you did indeed have Stock Options which were
still valid in that time period, which is all that matters to confirm my statement as valid.
At that point every option I had left was underwater ...
Doesn't matter, because the point was simply that a Stock Option existed, so it isn't excluded
as a means of potentially generating a taxable event - - in addition to the other methods of
doing so that I had previously mentioned.
[blah, blah blah brag attempt ... but more parametric data too]
So I repeat the question, how do you come up with a $200k income stream for me at age 63?
Stock options are not an income stream.
Which is why attempting to use "income stream" as your goalpost attempt was a poor idea,
for there is a difference between having $XXX "taxable income" and an "income stream", as
the latter implies that it represents an amount expended, and if it is before or after taxes is
left conveniently ambiguous.
Or maybe you have a $200k income stream planned for age 63? If so, great job on your part.
Depends on what you're trying to imply:
Do you mean for it to include just the one year where one turns 63 and "one shot" events such
as a Roth conversion or Brokerage Account sales (to buy Bonds, etc) can temporarily bump up
taxable income to count as a "yes"?
Or do you mean for it to represent the sum of only one's reliable, multi-year income sources
which means that this arbitrary $200K target value is exceeded year after year?
Repeating...
Remember, employee options have a strike price that is the closing price on the grant date.I'm familiar with how such options work.
The strike price varies over time.
In 2003 I had older options with a strike price from very low double-digits up to about $85.All you're really saying is that you were doing flips based on the option price vs the then-
Thus, those options were a portfolio stretching back 10 years. I cashed out all the early-dated
in-the-money options in late 2002 and early 2003. Proceeds were used to pay off part of a
mortgage, income taxes, and what was left was invested. Remaining later-dated options,
and there were a few, were available but worthless. The stock price was lower than the
remaining options' strike prices until all expired in early 2008. An option cannot generate
a taxable event if it can't generate a positive cash flow. As it turned out I maximized the
potential option income by taking them when they had value.
current price of the stock. That's low risk and typically held briefly, so STCG taxes likely.
Similarly, your cash flow situation was such that it wasn't viable for you to buy and hold.
The rest of your post make no sense to me given the circumstances I faced during the referenced time period.The rest was merely noting that your phrasing was vague, which allows for multiple
interpretations of what you're trying to say/suggest. If you want to be actually clear
in what you're saying, you'll need to remove the ambiguities.
-hh
On Wednesday, February 21, 2024 at 2:43:52 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, February 21, 2024 at 10:41:19 AM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
On Tuesday, February 13, 2024 at 11:57:39 AM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, February 13, 2024 at 9:32:59 AM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 2:49:08 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 12:02:32 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 6:29:20 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 2:51:35 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
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:Silence from Tommy.
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:False, for I never said it was only a Roth: I was drawing an analogy for
On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 7:21:20 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2024-01-07 04:31, -hh wrote:Plus there’s always more. Something else I stumbled across was this from April 2017:
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.
:-)
“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.
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 outNo, the quotation was done correctly. The prior sentence wasn't included
the first sentence!
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,But you characterized it as TOTAL GROSS income.
expenses $250k..."
That was not total income, just consulting.
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?
Which is not a statement on Net Worth changes.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.
“Tapering” … quantified. Or in demand from just one last faithful clientFrom 2002 we were both getting salaries early on, a substantial 2003 "golden parachute",So if we are to believe your herein revised claims, the aforementioned $1.41M gross on
retirement plan income from 2003, and Social Security from 2011, capital gains, and some
dividend income. TOTAL 2002-2017 income was $3.1 million.
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 IVersus $1.16M after 2016, so just $1.3M-$1.16M
had active projects.
= $140K for 2017-20 inclusive, foran 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.
/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 referredNope: you represented it in 2017 as your TOTAL GROSS income with no such
to consulting only.
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.
LOL, you are way off on many of your numbers.Given how often you've been forced to admit just how spot-on they've been, not a
really credible claim on your part. As I've noted before, they're just paramaterizations
based on your own claims, and the more you talk (& talk) about them, the smaller
the box becomes. As always, it assumes you're not lying.
I wanted to increase the cash flow after full retirement, so I worked part-time aNot really the point I was making, which was that you've been bragging for years on
while longer. It worked. It was a balance of risks and opportunities. I'm very happy
with how it's turned out. Get over it.
your alleged personal prosperity, yet contrary to that claim, you ended up working
for a good decade (plus the part time years too) to finally get to where you were
financially comfortable enough to retire. As you were asked in another subthread:
"If you could have retired at 63 with a $200K income stream before SS or 401k/IRA
distributions…would you have taken it?"
Silence from Tommy there ... and probably also again here too.
You are so confused. I worked part time 2003-2020, 17 years.
Gosh, its quite amazing at how now all of that consultant work is being spun
to lower expectations with this new "part time" label all over the place! /s
I could have retired years earlier, when the RMD income started coming online in 2016.
You could have taken withdrawals much earlier than 2016, because RMD's is a
"no later than" deadline: penalty-free withdrawals start at age 59½ = 2006.
A few other projects showed up and I took them.
Gosh, its quite amazing at how now all of those extra years of working are being spun
to seem to have been completely discretionary, in contrast to how we've been told
about detailed planning that was coordinated with his financial advisor! /s
How do you propose I could have arrived at $200k 2009 annual income, absent RMD
income and no job in 2011? That was before either of were taking Social Security.
I was not 66 until 3 years later. The wife was retired and not getting her state pension
or Social Security yet either. 2009 income was my pension and the consulting business.
You need to come up with an additional $160k or so post-retirement income. No job,
including my business, so how did you come up with that number? If it was possible I'd like to know how.
How? Hmmm...from Tommy earlier today:
"I retired in 2003, remember? Even before retirement the options expired 10 years after
issue. It was 5 years to expiration from the day I retired. So in 2018 those options had
been gone for 10 years."
Since 2018 minus 10 years = 2008, then one possibility is one of those Stock Options
that you bragged about having, purchased just before expiration in 2008, which was
then sold in 2009. Easy-peasy, especially if one was holding it for (365+1) days to get
the more favorable LTCG taxation rate: it just takes having the free cash available to do it.
BTW this morning just noticed it looks like we now have until Feb 22 to make more posts via Google.
And for much longer outside of using Google Groups to read & post.
Oh my, you still do not understand, so more details. All remaining options expired on February 29, 2008.
Which means that you've now confirmed that you did indeed have Stock Options which were
still valid in that time period, which is all that matters to confirm my statement as valid.
At that point every option I had left was underwater ...
Doesn't matter, because the point was simply that a Stock Option existed, so it isn't excluded
as a means of potentially generating a taxable event - - in addition to the other methods of
doing so that I had previously mentioned.
[blah, blah blah brag attempt ... but more parametric data too]
So I repeat the question, how do you come up with a $200k income stream for me at age 63?
Stock options are not an income stream.
Which is why attempting to use "income stream" as your goalpost attempt was a poor idea,
for there is a difference between having $XXX "taxable income" and an "income stream", as
the latter implies that it represents an amount expended, and if it is before or after taxes is
left conveniently ambiguous.
Or maybe you have a $200k income stream planned for age 63? If so, great job on your part.
Depends on what you're trying to imply:
Do you mean for it to include just the one year where one turns 63 and "one shot" events such
as a Roth conversion or Brokerage Account sales (to buy Bonds, etc) can temporarily bump up
taxable income to count as a "yes"?
Or do you mean for it to represent the sum of only one's reliable, multi-year income sources
which means that this arbitrary $200K target value is exceeded year after year?
Repeating...
Remember, employee options have a strike price that is the closing price on the grant date.
The strike price varies over time.
I'm familiar with how such options work.
In 2003 I had older options with a strike price from very low double-digits up to about $85.
Thus, those options were a portfolio stretching back 10 years. I cashed out all the early-dated
in-the-money options in late 2002 and early 2003. Proceeds were used to pay off part of a
mortgage, income taxes, and what was left was invested. Remaining later-dated options,
and there were a few, were available but worthless. The stock price was lower than the
remaining options' strike prices until all expired in early 2008. An option cannot generate
a taxable event if it can't generate a positive cash flow. As it turned out I maximized the
potential option income by taking them when they had value.
All you're really saying is that you were doing flips based on the option price vs the then-
current price of the stock. That's low risk and typically held briefly, so STCG taxes likely.
Similarly, your cash flow situation was such that it wasn't viable for you to buy and hold.
The rest of your post make no sense to me given the circumstances I faced
during the referenced time period.
The rest was merely noting that your phrasing was vague, which allows for multiple
interpretations of what you're trying to say/suggest. If you want to be actually clear
in what you're saying, you'll need to remove the ambiguities.
I think I already explained. But if not here are the details.Probably not, but it doesn't really matter much, since you obviously want to avoid the
You demonstrate that you would rather make false assumptions than ask questions.Nah, I know that there's always more than one way to skin the cat; I was simply using
I flipped the NSO's, borrowing for 3 days to pay for the exercise, to generate immediateWhich is precisely the basic use case I was referring to.
cash. The credit union had a program for that.
You did not ask about any ISO's. The credit union had a program for that too. I borrowedMerely a different flavor of Stock options; film at 11. In any case, its interesting how
more money, bought the in-the-money ISO's, held the stock for the required year, sold the
stock, paid back the ISO loan, and got LTCG treatment.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 915 |
| Nodes: | 10 (2 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 33:49:59 |
| Calls: | 12,169 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 186,521 |
| Messages: | 2,234,315 |
