[edna_mode]

So diversify your regulatory risk…half in traditional, half in “Roth”. If your work only allows traditional 401ks, contribute to Roth IRAs and rollover to Roth IRAs whenever you change employers.

I’m of the opinion that Roth IRAs are actually at greater risk of demagogery: they were a vehicle for people to pay taxes upfront at what they bet to be lower rates than what they would get at retirement. So then people will be complaining that wasn’t “fair” somehow, and then they’ll be taxed on the way out too.

Not to say they wouldn’t do this with traditional 401ks/IRAs too, but here I’m hoping for protection by a the increased likelihood that more people who vote have savings of this type, and would thus be more likely to vote to protect them from further erosion. But to check this premise, I’d have to know which class more assets have been parked in. Any ideas how to research this information?

[edna_mode]

So diversify your regulatory risk…half in traditional, half in “Roth”. If your work only allows traditional 401ks, contribute to Roth IRAs and rollover to Roth IRAs whenever you change employers.

I’m of the opinion that Roth IRAs are actually at greater risk of demagogery: they were a vehicle for people to pay taxes upfront at what they bet to be lower rates than what they would get at retirement. So then people will be complaining that wasn’t “fair” somehow, and then they’ll be taxed on the way out too.

Not to say they wouldn’t do this with traditional 401ks/IRAs too, but here I’m hoping for protection by a the increased likelihood that more people who vote have savings of this type, and would thus be more likely to vote to protect them from further erosion. But to check this premise, I’d have to know which class more assets have been parked in. Any ideas how to research this information?

[edna_mode]

So diversify your regulatory risk…half in traditional, half in “Roth”. If your work only allows traditional 401ks, contribute to Roth IRAs and rollover to Roth IRAs whenever you change employers.

I’m of the opinion that Roth IRAs are actually at greater risk of demagogery: they were a vehicle for people to pay taxes upfront at what they bet to be lower rates than what they would get at retirement. So then people will be complaining that wasn’t “fair” somehow, and then they’ll be taxed on the way out too.

Not to say they wouldn’t do this with traditional 401ks/IRAs too, but here I’m hoping for protection by a the increased likelihood that more people who vote have savings of this type, and would thus be more likely to vote to protect them from further erosion. But to check this premise, I’d have to know which class more assets have been parked in. Any ideas how to research this information?

[edna_mode]

So diversify your regulatory risk…half in traditional, half in “Roth”. If your work only allows traditional 401ks, contribute to Roth IRAs and rollover to Roth IRAs whenever you change employers.

I’m of the opinion that Roth IRAs are actually at greater risk of demagogery: they were a vehicle for people to pay taxes upfront at what they bet to be lower rates than what they would get at retirement. So then people will be complaining that wasn’t “fair” somehow, and then they’ll be taxed on the way out too.

Not to say they wouldn’t do this with traditional 401ks/IRAs too, but here I’m hoping for protection by a the increased likelihood that more people who vote have savings of this type, and would thus be more likely to vote to protect them from further erosion. But to check this premise, I’d have to know which class more assets have been parked in. Any ideas how to research this information?

[edna_mode]

So diversify your regulatory risk…half in traditional, half in “Roth”. If your work only allows traditional 401ks, contribute to Roth IRAs and rollover to Roth IRAs whenever you change employers.

I’m of the opinion that Roth IRAs are actually at greater risk of demagogery: they were a vehicle for people to pay taxes upfront at what they bet to be lower rates than what they would get at retirement. So then people will be complaining that wasn’t “fair” somehow, and then they’ll be taxed on the way out too.

Not to say they wouldn’t do this with traditional 401ks/IRAs too, but here I’m hoping for protection by a the increased likelihood that more people who vote have savings of this type, and would thus be more likely to vote to protect them from further erosion. But to check this premise, I’d have to know which class more assets have been parked in. Any ideas how to research this information?

[edna_mode]

In other twists of language:

Droogs! Smurf me with a chainsaw!

http://www.avclub.com/articles/well-smurf-me-with-a-chainsaw-11-movies-that-twist,59356/

I once had a friend who was born Jewish and converted to Buddhism, and called himself a JewBu.

I will hereby deactivate all emotionally charged meaning in these useless collective nouns by mentally editing in smurf for every instance.

no true smurf would smurf that.

i have now found the one true mantra. it helps remind me of the inherent ridiculousness of these discussions.

we now return you to your regular programming.

ObFinance: Nothing says “save the economy” like “gay bridal registry”.

[edna_mode]

In other twists of language:

Droogs! Smurf me with a chainsaw!

http://www.avclub.com/articles/well-smurf-me-with-a-chainsaw-11-movies-that-twist,59356/

I once had a friend who was born Jewish and converted to Buddhism, and called himself a JewBu.

I will hereby deactivate all emotionally charged meaning in these useless collective nouns by mentally editing in smurf for every instance.

no true smurf would smurf that.

i have now found the one true mantra. it helps remind me of the inherent ridiculousness of these discussions.

we now return you to your regular programming.

ObFinance: Nothing says “save the economy” like “gay bridal registry”.

[edna_mode]

In other twists of language:

Droogs! Smurf me with a chainsaw!

http://www.avclub.com/articles/well-smurf-me-with-a-chainsaw-11-movies-that-twist,59356/

I once had a friend who was born Jewish and converted to Buddhism, and called himself a JewBu.

I will hereby deactivate all emotionally charged meaning in these useless collective nouns by mentally editing in smurf for every instance.

no true smurf would smurf that.

i have now found the one true mantra. it helps remind me of the inherent ridiculousness of these discussions.

we now return you to your regular programming.

ObFinance: Nothing says “save the economy” like “gay bridal registry”.

[edna_mode]

In other twists of language:

Droogs! Smurf me with a chainsaw!

http://www.avclub.com/articles/well-smurf-me-with-a-chainsaw-11-movies-that-twist,59356/

I once had a friend who was born Jewish and converted to Buddhism, and called himself a JewBu.

I will hereby deactivate all emotionally charged meaning in these useless collective nouns by mentally editing in smurf for every instance.

no true smurf would smurf that.

i have now found the one true mantra. it helps remind me of the inherent ridiculousness of these discussions.

we now return you to your regular programming.

ObFinance: Nothing says “save the economy” like “gay bridal registry”.

[edna_mode]

In other twists of language:

Droogs! Smurf me with a chainsaw!

http://www.avclub.com/articles/well-smurf-me-with-a-chainsaw-11-movies-that-twist,59356/

I once had a friend who was born Jewish and converted to Buddhism, and called himself a JewBu.

I will hereby deactivate all emotionally charged meaning in these useless collective nouns by mentally editing in smurf for every instance.

no true smurf would smurf that.

i have now found the one true mantra. it helps remind me of the inherent ridiculousness of these discussions.

we now return you to your regular programming.

ObFinance: Nothing says “save the economy” like “gay bridal registry”.

[edna_mode]

And getting back to something scientific: I despise all of this sociological categorization because none of it is falsifiable. We quickly run into the “no true Scotsman” argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Get back to me when there’s any sociological argument that creates falsifiable predictive models that seek to include all known data. Everything else is naive empiricism.

[edna_mode]

And getting back to something scientific: I despise all of this sociological categorization because none of it is falsifiable. We quickly run into the “no true Scotsman” argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Get back to me when there’s any sociological argument that creates falsifiable predictive models that seek to include all known data. Everything else is naive empiricism.

[edna_mode]

And getting back to something scientific: I despise all of this sociological categorization because none of it is falsifiable. We quickly run into the “no true Scotsman” argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Get back to me when there’s any sociological argument that creates falsifiable predictive models that seek to include all known data. Everything else is naive empiricism.

[edna_mode]

And getting back to something scientific: I despise all of this sociological categorization because none of it is falsifiable. We quickly run into the “no true Scotsman” argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Get back to me when there’s any sociological argument that creates falsifiable predictive models that seek to include all known data. Everything else is naive empiricism.

[edna_mode]

And getting back to something scientific: I despise all of this sociological categorization because none of it is falsifiable. We quickly run into the “no true Scotsman” argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Get back to me when there’s any sociological argument that creates falsifiable predictive models that seek to include all known data. Everything else is naive empiricism.

[Author]

Posts