User Pass
Home Sign Up Contact Log In
Forum > General Discussion > The "Random crap that isn't worth a thread" thread
Page:
 
Cuivienen
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by InRomoWeTrust
The 2015 limits are pretty high. I want to say it's over 185k now for married couples.


Yeah, they've gotten much better.


Originally posted by InRomoWeTrust
Also, Roth's have no tax break. The trade and reason that you use a Roth is because you pay taxes on the income today, not the income in the future (assuming you don't withdraw prior to 59 1/2).


Not paying taxes in the future is a tax break my friend.

As an aside, what people often don't consider with IRAs is the delta between capital gains and income tax. They just think it's all an income tax issue.

If regular money, you pay income tax now and cap gains in future.
If IRA, you pay no tax now and income tax in future.
If Roth, you pay income tax now and no tax in future.

The other thing to factor in is that, especially early investments, the bulk of the final value is going to be cap gains vs original principal, so with an IRA you are trading up the tax rate on a lot of the final value and so you had better be able to earn some decent returns on the initial tax savings to make up for that.

On the flip side, in retirement, you can earn little income and pay low income tax rates despite sitting on a mountain of assets.

At least with any kind of IRA, you are essentially locking in tax treatment now, which has value if you assume there is risk that this country goes European socialist and tax rates sky rocket. A Roth especially as you have zero exposure to future tax policy.
 
foshizzel17
my drizzt
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by jdbolick
http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/08/writer-dating-a-woman-for-the-first-time.html


i finished.
 
Time Trial
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by foshizzel17
i finished.


I never got to the end of the story. Did you?
 
jdbolick
offline
Link
 
I can't remember if I read about this study here or elsewhere, but in any case, it was faked: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/as-a-major-retraction-shows-were-all-vulnerable-to-faked-data/
 
Link
 
Jared Fogle.
 
Time Trial
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader
Jared Fogle.


He likes them fresh.
 
Catullus16
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by jdbolick
I can't remember if I read about this study here or elsewhere, but in any case, it was faked: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/as-a-major-retraction-shows-were-all-vulnerable-to-faked-data/


ha, i was guessing it would be you who posted the retractionwatch story.
 
Cuivienen
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by jdbolick
I can't remember if I read about this study here or elsewhere, but in any case, it was faked: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/as-a-major-retraction-shows-were-all-vulnerable-to-faked-data/


How exactly does it show we are "all" vulnerable to faked data?

I seem to remember quite a lot of people calling bullshit on that bullshit study when it was first published.

All it shows is how stupid people are vulnerable to stupidity, and we already knew that.
 
jdbolick
offline
Link
 
And how desperate academia is to push a certain agenda. Princeton offered that guy a position based on his conclusion and the attention it received without looking at the actual quality of his work.
 
Cuivienen
offline
Link
 
Well, I can agree with that.
 
rams78110
ROIT
offline
Link
 
People outside of academia seem to have an odd idea of how academia works. Almost the opposite idea in fact. Academia isn't some well-coordinated, single-subject, single-agenda, hush-hush collective of people. It's a set of egotistical scholars trying to make their careers with new research or by throwing shade on old research. If an idea starts gaining steam in academia, it is in spite of multiple people trying to bring it down to further their own careers, and it's because of continuing or substantial research indicating the idea to be true. There isn't some governing body that says "hey, lets push an idea that's not true, yall on board?" If the guy from Princeton got the position, an overwhelming shitstorm would blow in attempting to discredit him and shame Princeton
 
Catullus16
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by jdbolick
And how desperate academia is to push a certain agenda.


 
Catullus16
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by rams78110
People outside of academia seem to have an odd idea of how academia works. Almost the opposite idea in fact. Academia isn't some well-coordinated, single-subject, single-agenda, hush-hush collective of people. It's a set of egotistical scholars trying to make their careers with new research or by throwing shade on old research. If an idea starts gaining steam in academia, it is in spite of multiple people trying to bring it down to further their own careers, and it's because of continuing or substantial research indicating the idea to be true. There isn't some governing body that says "hey, lets push an idea that's not true, yall on board?" If the guy from Princeton got the position, an overwhelming shitstorm would blow in attempting to discredit him and shame Princeton


exactly.

and most of the backstabbing and bandwagons are due to the fact that jobs are super-scarce, especially in the humanities.
 
Link
 
http://www.fox5ny.com/news/9675370-story
 
Link
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/parrot-detained-by-indian-police-after-hurling-obscenities-at-85yearold-woman-10461725.html
 
Page:
 


You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.