ERICOPOLY

Regarding the homicides of the police officers and young black men (mentioned in that link you posted)... Probably what's driving that is the legal code that we have, more than the guns. The legal code says that you can bring a contract dispute to a courtroom if the underlying activity is legal. So in other words, if you are a black market businessman the courts will not help you resolve a contract dispute. So you rely on enforcing the contract yourself. The problem is that we have a huge underground economy -- therefore, a lot of "do it yourself" contract enforcement. Legalizing the underground activity would probably resolve the violence -- the businessmen could instead properly bring their disputes into a court of law.

West Virginia Custody Battle An old mountaineer and his young ex-wife were fighting over custody of their children. The mother protested that since she brought her kids into this world, she should retain custody of them. The judge asked the old mountaineer for his side of the story. After a long moment of silence, the mountaineer rose from his chair and asked, "Judge, when I put a quarter in a candy machine and a candy bar comes out, does it belong to me or the machine?"

A string walks into a bar with a few friends and orders a beer. The bartender says, "I'm sorry, but we don't serve strings here." The string goes back to his table. He ties himself in a loop and messes up the top of his hair. He walks back up to the bar and orders a beer. The bartender squints at him and says, "Hey, aren't you a string?" The string says, "Nope, I'm a frayed knot."

BNSF was investing in infrastructure to prevent collisions like these in other areas, they just hadn't yet done so in the area of the collision. However it is on their "to do" list per regulations: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/texas-train-collision-triggers-fireball-word-injuries-40187697 BNSF has pledged to meet a 2018 federal deadline to adopt technology, called positive train control or PTC, that relies on GPS, wireless radio and computers to monitor train positions and automatically slow or stop trains that are in danger of colliding, derailing due to excessive speed or about to enter track where crews are working or that is otherwise off limits. At least three freight railroads have said they'll need an extension to 2020. Faust said in a statement later Tuesday that the West Texas collision is the type of accident PTC can prevent and that BNSF is "aggressively" pursuing it "across our network." "While sections of the track operated by the eastbound train involved in this accident have PTC installed and are being tested, the section of track where the incident occurred will be installed later this year," he said in the statement.

Housing has a much bigger impact in the CPI index than just the rent itself. Go to any region with sky-high housing and everything else is very expensive too. Rents and paychecks feed off of each other. A pool service guy who comes once a week is $75/month in the Sacramento region, but $160/month in Santa Barbara. The pool guy needs somewhere to live, and he has to pay the high rents. So he demands more pay too.

It's not the principle being repaid that people get hung up on (after all, you are just returning the pre-tax money that you borrowed). Whether or not you spent the pre-tax money that you borrowed and are then repaying it with other money is just a shell game argument -- the dollars are fungible. Rather, I think it's the interest payment portion that makes them cringe. They see it as a contribution to the account using after-tax dollars. In that regard, not all loans are made equal. And the 401k loan is at a potential disadvantage here. Compare it to a margin loan, for example. The interest on a margin loan (if used to purchase investments) can be paid pre-tax using the investment income. However if you make the same investment using the proceeds from a 401k loan, you cannot deduct the interest if the plan was funded with elective deferrals (which they generally are).

It's why I think people should contribute post-tax to the 401k if available rather than post-tax to an IRA... that is, if funds are limited such that one can't contribute to both.

Me too. I always maxed out my post-tax 401k contributions. Then when I quit my job, I rolled my 401k plan into two separate accounts at the same time. The pre-tax contributions all went into a Rollover IRA. The post-tax contributions all went into a Roth IRA. Pretty cool. The post-tax 401k contributions were all allowed to go directly to a Roth IRA once I quit the job. It was not considered a "Roth conversion", and as such was not restricted by income limits. It's what some people call a "back door" Roth contribution. Are you legally able to allocate 100% of the pre-tax to the Rollover and 100% of the post-tax to the Roth? The reason I ask is because if you want to do a Roth conversion from a Traditional IRA, I'm pretty sure you can't do just the post-tax portion and ignore the rest. Meaning, you have to do it proportionally from what I know. So if only 10% of your total IRA assets are post-tax, only 10% of every conversion you do can be considered tax free. I may be wrong on this though, or the rules may be different for 401k transfers. But I know for sure this is true with state taxes in NJ; you can't just count your entire Roth conversion as the post-tax contribution amount, has to be proportional. I was a tax resident of Washington state where there is no state income tax. Here you are: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/rollovers-of-after-tax-contributions-in-retirement-plans Distributions sent to multiple destinations at the same time are treated as a single distribution for allocating pretax and after-tax amounts (Notice 2014-54). This means you can roll over all your pretax amounts to a traditional IRA or retirement plan and all your after-tax amounts to a different destination, such as a Roth IRA.

Me too. I always maxed out my post-tax 401k contributions. Then when I quit my job, I rolled my 401k plan into two separate accounts at the same time. The pre-tax contributions all went into a Rollover IRA. The post-tax contributions all went into a Roth IRA. Pretty cool. The post-tax 401k contributions were all allowed to go directly to a Roth IRA once I quit the job. It was not considered a "Roth conversion", and as such was not restricted by income limits. It's what some people call a "back door" Roth contribution.

Remember that "Cops" episode where they sat behind the desk fielding calls where they refused to investigate? Yeah, I missed it too.

Had my wheels stolen from a car once -- same response. Police never came out to the property. Cost $2,000 to replace them -- mostly at my cost because it was a high-deductible. Encourages vigilante emotions. Gun sales probably benefit from all of this.

Somebody has succeeded in developing a miracle 5 minute turnaround time blood test for detecting malaria: http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/03/technology/malaria-blood-test-device/index.html?iid=surge-toplead-dom

huh???? The purpose of leverage is to increase your balance sheet so you can make more income. But borrowing from your 401k is moving it from one place in your balance sheet to another? And of course there is the double taxation issue. The only advantage to borrowing from 401k is to invest in things you cannot invest in your 401k. But there is just such a high cost. This is not accurate. When you borrow from a 401k, you are not withdrawing money from your account. The 401k plan is issuing you a loan and in-effect, your 401k holdings are the collateral. Also of note, some plans do not allow for loans. It's up to the business owner when they establish the plan. I need to make a correction here. After reading more on this topic, a 401k loan does not provide financial leverage as I previously implied. Randomep was correct in that it is in fact moving assets from one spot on the balance sheet to another. However, a loan from a 401k plan does allow you tax free access to up to $50k of your 401k account balance. The "interest" you pay on the loan is paid back to your own account. Some have noted that you're repaying your loan with after-tax dollars. This is true, but the loan is received free of taxes to begin with so its a wash. The "interest" you pay yourself would be paid back with after-tax dollars however. My apologies for the mistatement. A 401k loan can be a cheap way to get cash, but it does not provide financial leverage as such. Although I did not do this (wish I had), when your 401K is weighed down to mediocrity by the investment choices therein, taking out 50K and immediately investing outside would've worked out great. I know this is hindsight but how I know this would've been the case is that much of my net worth gains have come from rolling over my 401k's into IRA's, for me 401k and mediocrity go together. I have rolled over about 5 times in the past 15 years. Keep joking with my wife to quit or take a break from her job (get rehired back, they'd do so in heartbeat) so her 401K could have wings attached to it. Too bad the bastids cap off loans at 50K and make you pay it back in 60 months. It's a 2 month payback requirement if you lose your job. It's only 60 months if you remain employed. They will kick you when you are down if they have a legal right to do so.

The current system is just retarded -- I had an MRI on my elbow and I get all this junk mail from the insurance company about explanation of benefits, and explaining what they pay and what I have to pay. I have conversations with a doctor about which surgeon my insurance may or may not cover, etc... etc... Regardless of politics, who likes dealing with all this crap? Don't you want to enjoy life instead of living this way? It's a fucking nightmare of bullshit paperwork.

Isn't it true that only the smoking of tobacco is harmful? I think if you are vaporizing the unflavored product, you don't have health risks (nicotine itself is not a carcinogen). Today, it's personal choice if you choose to also suck in all of the carcinogens via smoking when you try to get your addictive nicotine.

How about a rocket that can drop a bomb on your enemy and then return to base?

Aren't you a libertarian? If so, this is a pretty interesting perspective, that an increase in taxes is desirable to make things more fair. I don't want to increase taxes, but reduce (actually abolish them or make them voluntary). If you have a tax system deductions of any kind are inherently unfair (policy makers trying to help certain groups of people they prefer). Deductions highlight the limitations of a specific tax system. The more deduction options (and the more different taxes) the crapier the systrm. They could get rid of the deductions and instead make income from mortgages tax-exempt, similar to muni bonds. That would reduce the market interest rate and thus perhaps maintain affordability of mortgage credit. Would that be unfair? Or would it be fair because everybody could participate in tax-free savings options. Wealth tax should not exist. So dividend, capital gains, interest tax and mortgage tax should all not exist. These are the worst taxes. Continuing with income taxes. Slightly less bad but still should be abolished. Everything government does should be possible from consumption taxes alone (VAT). If that is too little it's a clear signal government has become way too large. The moment you eliminate dividend taxes, there will be zero S corporations and a lot of new C corporations. But I imagine that would all have to be amended or we'd see the total elimination of the employee as we know it (a whole lot of independent contractors as C corps).

Aren't you a libertarian? If so, this is a pretty interesting perspective, that an increase in taxes is desirable to make things more fair. I don't want to increase taxes, but reduce (actually abolish them or make them voluntary). If you have a tax system deductions of any kind are inherently unfair (policy makers trying to help certain groups of people they prefer). Deductions highlight the limitations of a specific tax system. The more deduction options (and the more different taxes) the crapier the systrm. They could get rid of the deductions and instead make income from mortgages tax-exempt, similar to muni bonds. That would reduce the market interest rate and thus perhaps maintain affordability of mortgage credit. Would that be unfair? Or would it be fair because everybody could participate in tax-free savings options.

That's right. Real estate prices would be higher if the government didn't tax the investors who buy the mortgage loans. Interest rates are higher to compensate for expected taxes.

Why would it overweight some holdings so much?

Sometimes the interest gets deducted twice. A realtor could rent an office and yet still deduct it from his income. The owner of the office building might be deducting mortgage interest. So is it deducted twice? It's always okay for a business (like the realtor in this case) to deduct these kinds of things a second time. So the mere fact of it being a second swipe isn't really the issue. Just seems to be that if you are paying for your primary residence, you get no deduction for that. Whether you own it or rent it, no deduction. (the price you pay for the home can't be deducted). The law does allow for deducting the financing of your principle residence if you own it -- could probably do the same for people who need to borrow money to make rent (deduct the interest). This wouldn't solve a real problem, but it may shut up a few people who think it's unfair that homeowners can deduct the cost of financing their primary home.

I would offer it as a populist gimmick if I were in the Presidential race, fully knowing that it could do no damage and would cost the Treasury nothing... because nobody will loan you money to make rent.

I've even heard people talk about taxing the imputed rent earned for living in your own home (even though you already paid that rent when you bought the house). Next somebody will suggest that we tax the imputed rent for driving your own car.

I heard it recently stated that rent should be deductible if homeowners get a mortgage interest deduction. My take: No. Reasoning: I just paid cash for a home with after-tax dollars. The price I paid is effectively the discounted present value of all future rent. So if you allow a deduction for rent, then to be fair you'll have to let me carry forward an annual deduction in perpetuity for the present value of the rent that I had paid upfront. I'm sure the thought of that would cool anyone's heels. To get apples to apples with the mortgage interest deduction, I would agree to a law that lets you deduct the interest you incur if you borrow the money that you pay your rent with.

Non-hardship loans against your 401(k) must be repaid within 5 years if you stay with your employer. But if you leave the company before the 5 years are up, the loan must be repaid within 2 months of your departure. After 2 months, any outstanding loan balance (minus any nondeductible contributions) is treated as taxable income. In addition, if you're under the age of 59½, you'll also have to pay an additional 10% early withdrawal penalty on the outstanding loan balance. Ouch! https://ttlc.intuit.com/questions/1899463-what-happens-if-i-have-a-401-k-loan-but-later-lose-or-quit-my-job