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:
> > > > >> 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…”.
> > > > 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,
> > > > >>> 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?
> > > > Silence from Tommy.
> > > > >>> 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.
> > > > Which is not a statement on Net Worth changes.
> > > > >>> 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.
> > > > >> 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.
> > > > “Tapering” … quantified. Or in demand from just one last faithful client
> > > > /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 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.
> >
> > 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.

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:
> > > > > >> 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…”.
> > > > > 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,
> > > > > >>> 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?
> > > > > Silence from Tommy.
> > > > > >>> 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.
> > > > > Which is not a statement on Net Worth changes.
> > > > > >>> 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.
> > > > > >> 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.
> > > > > “Tapering” … quantified. Or in demand from just one last faithful client
> > > > > /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 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.
> > >
> > > 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 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.
> Not really the point I was making, which was that you've been bragging for years on
> 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 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:
> > > > > > >> 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…”.
> > > > > > 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,
> > > > > > >>> 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?
> > > > > > Silence from Tommy.
> > > > > > >>> 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.
> > > > > > Which is not a statement on Net Worth changes.
> > > > > > >>> 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.
> > > > > > >> 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.
> > > > > > “Tapering” … quantified. Or in demand from just one last faithful client
> > > > > > /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 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.
> > > >
> > > > 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 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.
> > Not really the point I was making, which was that you've been bragging for years on
> > 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.

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:
> > > > > > > >> 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…”.
> > > > > > > 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,
> > > > > > > >>> 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?
> > > > > > > Silence from Tommy.
> > > > > > > >>> 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.
> > > > > > > Which is not a statement on Net Worth changes.
> > > > > > > >>> 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.
> > > > > > > >> 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.
> > > > > > > “Tapering” … quantified. Or in demand from just one last faithful client
> > > > > > > /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 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.
> > > > >
> > > > > 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 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.
> > > Not really the point I was making, which was that you've been bragging for years on
> > > 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.
>
> -hh

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:
> > > > > > > > >> 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…”.
> > > > > > > > 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,
> > > > > > > > >>> 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?
> > > > > > > > Silence from Tommy.
> > > > > > > > >>> 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.
> > > > > > > > Which is not a statement on Net Worth changes.
> > > > > > > > >>> 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.
> > > > > > > > >> 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.
> > > > > > > > “Tapering” … quantified. Or in demand from just one last faithful client
> > > > > > > > /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 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.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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 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.
> > > > Not really the point I was making, which was that you've been bragging for years on
> > > > 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.

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:
> > > > > > > > > >> 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…”.
> > > > > > > > > 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,
> > > > > > > > > >>> 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?
> > > > > > > > > Silence from Tommy.
> > > > > > > > > >>> 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.
> > > > > > > > > Which is not a statement on Net Worth changes.
> > > > > > > > > >>> 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.
> > > > > > > > > >> 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.
> > > > > > > > > “Tapering” … quantified. Or in demand from just one last faithful client
> > > > > > > > > /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 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.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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 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.
> > > > > Not really the point I was making, which was that you've been bragging for years on
> > > > > 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?
>
>
> -hh

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:
> > > > > > > > > > >> 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…”.
> > > > > > > > > > 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,
> > > > > > > > > > >>> 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?
> > > > > > > > > > Silence from Tommy.
> > > > > > > > > > >>> 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.
> > > > > > > > > > Which is not a statement on Net Worth changes.
> > > > > > > > > > >>> 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.
> > > > > > > > > > >> 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.
> > > > > > > > > > “Tapering” … quantified. Or in demand from just one last faithful client
> > > > > > > > > > /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 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.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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 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.
> > > > > > Not really the point I was making, which was that you've been bragging for years on
> > > > > > 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.

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:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> 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…”.
> > > > > > > > > > > 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,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> 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?
> > > > > > > > > > > Silence from Tommy.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > Which is not a statement on Net Worth changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > “Tapering” … quantified. Or in demand from just one last faithful client
> > > > > > > > > > > /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 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.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 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 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.
> > > > > > > Not really the point I was making, which was that you've been bragging for years on
> > > > > > > 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.
>
> -hh

On Wednesday, February 21, 2024 at 3:18:42 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> 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:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> 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…”.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 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,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> 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?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Silence from Tommy.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Which is not a statement on Net Worth changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > > “Tapering” … quantified. Or in demand from just one last faithful client
> > > > > > > > > > > > /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 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.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 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 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.
> > > > > > > > Not really the point I was making, which was that you've been bragging for years on
> > > > > > > > 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.