OT: Some immigration statistics

[Thomas E.]

In 2015 7,522 U.S. citizens were admitted to Canada as permanent residents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Canada

In 2015 19,309 Canadian citizens were admitted to the U.S. as permanent residents.

https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2015/table2

The 2015 U.S. population was about 320 million.
The 2015 Canadian population was about 36 million.

The U.S. to Canada immigration rate was 0.00002351 immigrants per capita.
The Canada to U.S. immigration rate was 0.00053636 immigrants per capita.

The per capita Canada to U.S. immigration rate was 22.8x the rate from the U.S. to Canada.

Why are so many Canadians taking up permanent residency in the U.S. relative to U.S. citizens moving to Canada? Could it be that the U.S. is a more attractive place to live and work?

[ed]

Certainly job opportunities and weather olay a part.

But Americans barely travel abroad, so one would not really expect them to do much immigrating...

[Alan Baker]

Why do you care...

...I mean other than your continuing attempt to find something to denigrate?

:-)

[Thomas E.]

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 11:27:51 AM UTC-4, ed wrote:
> Certainly job opportunities and weather olay a part.
>
> But Americans barely travel abroad, so one would not really expect them to do much immigrating...

Put another way, the U.S. is economically attractive, huge and varied. We have less incentive to immigrate or travel abroad than most countries. Which is also why we run a tourism trade surplus.

[Thomas E.]

The only thing I want to denigrate is you, Liarboy.

BTW, do you claim to be enough of an expert to work on Windows 7, 8, and 10?

[Alan Baker]

Or you're just ignorant boobs who don't learn about the rest of the
world while in school and don't bother to educate themselves either.

:-)

[Alan Baker]

LOL!

Unintentional honesty!

>
> BTW, do you claim to be enough of an expert to work on Windows 7, 8, and 10?

I claim to be expert enough to help my clients...

...and they agree!

:-)

[Jack Blackie]

"Thomas E." wrote in message
news:68beab3e-3823-4d93...@googlegroups.com...

IT'S "clients"??!!!!!! BWAHAAAHAAAHAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

Looking at IT'S POS website, the Shit Stain isn't looking for clients. No
address (IT works off IT'S kitchen table) and no phone number? What kind of
business doesn't have those.

BTW; the dumb little fuck didn't even know what the windows Task Manager
was.

[Nuxters]

Does the Travel Channel count?

[Nuxters]

Windows 10 still has a task Manager?

[Jack Blackie]

"Nuxters" wrote in message
news:pan$52c36$78b61a56$c6891db$31dd...@secmail.pro...

Yes. And Shit Stain the "computer consultant" didn't know. IT was moaning
something about 100% disk usage!!!???

[Nuxters]

Damn! That's why I use a Mac. Windows was simply too unreliable.

[-hh]

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 3:27:15 PM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 11:27:51 AM UTC-4, ed wrote:

> > Certainly job opportunities and weather [only] a part.

> >
> > But Americans barely travel abroad, so one would not really
> > expect them to do much immigrating...
>
> Put another way, the U.S. is economically attractive, huge
> and varied. We have less incentive to immigrate or travel
> abroad than most countries. Which is also why we run a
> tourism trade surplus.

Except ... Correlation is not Causation.

Plus there's also other factors to consider, such as the
relative 'barriers to entry', such as economic expense.
Considering that the USA is predominantly a Continent,
except for Canada, Mexico & the Caribbean, to then travel
abroad means incurring the expense of a trans-oceanic flight.

Indeed, these cost (& time) commitments are sufficiently high
that even the self-proclaimed highly prosperous Tom Elam has
never fully paid his own way to take a holiday in Australia.


-hh

[Thomas E.]

True, especially if you count Europe. You can visit a large number of countries in a few days and do it all by car.

OTOH, solely on my own dime I've been to:

New Zealand
England/Scotland (3x)
Ireland
France (2x)
Germany
Switzerland
Canada
Turkey (2x)
Israel
Occupied Palestine
Greece
Italy
About 10 Caribbean island countries

Upcoming 2017/2018
Norway
Sweden
Chile
Peru
Ecuador
Hungary
Austria
Slovakia

[Alan Baker]

And will all of those be "solely on your own dime"...

...or will that suddenly be information you won't share, Liarboy?

:-)

[Thomas E.]

Yet you complained about the length of time it took to update Windows 7 before a Windows 10 upgrade. If you were any kind of expert you would have expected a Dell bought on sale would have an old W7 load that would need numerous stepwise, incremental, updates to bring it up to to date before the W10 process could start.

I claim to be nothing other than a long time Windows Home Edition end user, and I know that much.

Basically, you are fooling your customers. Liar.

[Thomas E.]

Or that a Dell bought on sale would have a very outdated OS that would take hours to update.

[Alan Baker]

I didn't "complain", Liarboy. I was amused by it. It was no skin off my
nose, nor was it any kind of inconvenience for my clients, so why would
I complain.

But if they had been Macs, there would have been no need to update one
OS version before upgrading to the next major one.

:-)

>
> I claim to be nothing other than a long time Windows Home Edition end user, and I know that much.
>
> Basically, you are fooling your customers. Liar.

My clients are happy with my services, Liarboy.

>

[-hh]

Roughly 26 'visits', whereas Tom's International Travel Spreadsheet
had 112 line entries. That means 26/112 = 23% were on his own dime.

> > Upcoming 2017/2018
> > Norway
> > Sweden
> > Chile
> > Peru
> > Ecuador
> > Hungary
> > Austria
> > Slovakia
>
> And will all of those be "solely on your own dime"...
> ...or will that suddenly be information you won't share, Liarboy?
> :-)

I'll settle for clarity in which are using Airline Frequent Flier
Miles (FFM), which invariably were ~90% paid for by business.

In any case, the list is less impressive with context:

Trip#1 (land based?): Norway, Sweden
Trip#2 (Ocean Cruise): Chile, Peru, Ecuador
Trip#3 (Danube River Cruise): Hungary, Austria, Slovakia

The standard itinerary for the Danube is one week.
The standard itinerary for Santiago-FLL is two weeks (16 days).
The first one is undisclosed and can vary widely; figure a week.


-hh

[Thomas E.]

Only 3 listed trips have used FF miles. Prior to that most of them went for 9 family trips to Hawaii and numerous ski trips out west.

[Thomas E.]

Oh, by the way, several of the trips not listed involved personal funds for family air travel and all expenses for personal travel trip extensions. For example, the last trip to Germany was 4 days on expense account followed by 9 days of personal travel, plus 2x United business-first upgrades paid for with personal funds.

[Thomas E.]

LOL Liarboy

[Thomas E.]

Gee, this coming from the citizen of a very large country that is so awful that 90% of the population lives within about 160 km of its southern neighbor. They act like moths attracted to the light!

Where in Canada can you take an winter time ocean skinny-dip and survive for more than 10 minutes? Why do I meet so many Canadians in Florida and on the chair lifts at Beaver Creek?

We are smart enough to not emigrate to Canada.

[Thomas E.]

Liarboy, here is a quote from your Dell upgrade experience:


"The default behaviour is for Dell to tell you that there's a free
upgrade to Windows 10...

...and never mention that it isn't something you can easily exercise
right away...

The default behaviour is to deliver a machine that is ready for a
Windows 10 upgrade and which should have the "Get Windows 10" app in
place... ...but doesn't; and you need to download about 100 updates
before it appears.

It's all one to the end user, ed.

I know which parts of this are Dell's fault and which Microsoft's, but
the average user would only know that he/she's been promised an upgrade
that he/she can't get when it suits him/her."


Liarboy, if that's not whining and complaining, what is? Liarboy, if you had been even remotely aware of the implications of an off-the-shelf Windows machine being very out-of-date you would not have been the least bit surprised. Liarboy, if you had been remotely aware than Microsoft wants and up-to-date OS before it upgrades to a new version you would not have been the least bit surprised.

Liarboy, your quote above reveals gross ignorance of Windows.

Liarboy, I have never claimed to be a Windows consultant, and I would have realized right away what was going on, and why.

News flash Liarboy, Windows is not OS X.

[-hh]

> > Only 3 listed trips have used FF miles.

But the question was for the _future_ trips, not past ones.

> > Prior to that most of them went for 9 family trips to Hawaii
> > and numerous ski trips out west.

Whereas you've previously claimed that you *drive* out to your ski trips...

> Oh, by the way, several of the trips not listed involved
> personal funds for family air travel and all expenses for
> personal travel trip extensions. For example, the last trip

> to Germany was 4 days on expense account followed by ...

Yet that's still a trip which has been subsidized.

Particularly the subsidy is in the form of Round Trip trans-
oceanic airline ticket(s) and/or major city hotel room(s),
it isn't really all that negligible.

Particularly when there's been comments made that they're
deliberately trying to save a buck by leveraging these
business expenses as a subsidy.

Hence, 26/112 = 23% "on own time"

-hh

[Alan Baker]

It's not complaining. Sorry.

>
>
> Liarboy, if that's not whining and complaining, what is? Liarboy, if you had been even remotely aware of the implications of an off-the-shelf Windows machine being very out-of-date you would not have been the least bit surprised. Liarboy, if you had been remotely aware than Microsoft wants and up-to-date OS before it upgrades to a new version you would not have been the least bit surprised.

How do you know it was an "off-the-shelf" machine, Liarboy?

>
> Liarboy, your quote above reveals gross ignorance of Windows.
>
> Liarboy, I have never claimed to be a Windows consultant, and I would have realized right away what was going on, and why.
>
> News flash Liarboy, Windows is not OS X.

Which is a pity... ...because it it were, things like this wouldn't happen.

>

[Thomas E.]

I think you meant to say "dime" not "time." I never skipped out on business to be a tourist. All that extra time and the expenses were on my time and my dime.

We started skiing in 1984. From then until 2006 we flew out West on 1 week trips almost every year, mostly on FF miles. We bought the condo timeshare after the 2005 season, and started driving out for 2 weeks the next year.

Sure, I extended business trips and took vacation time until retirement, then it was personal time. I did "deliberately" leverage company trips to take advantage of business travel. The hotel expenses were paid by third parties while on assignment, I paid for the rest. I stayed in the hotels booked by the company or client while on assignment. In no case was the company or consulting client out any money over and above what they would have paid had I not extended. In some cases they actually saved airfare.

You're trying to make common sense sound like a crime.

Lying again, Hugh.

Anyway, this whole conversation is about how much of the world have you seen. How you get there is incidental.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-06-28 5:51 AM, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 3:29:52 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2017-06-26 12:27 PM, Thomas E. wrote:
>>> On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 11:27:51 AM UTC-4, ed wrote:
>>>> Certainly job opportunities and weather olay a part.
>>>>
>>>> But Americans barely travel abroad, so one would not really expect them to do much immigrating...
>>>
>>> Put another way, the U.S. is economically attractive, huge and varied. We have less incentive to immigrate or travel abroad than most countries. Which is also why we run a tourism trade surplus.
>>>
>>
>> Or you're just ignorant boobs who don't learn about the rest of the
>> world while in school and don't bother to educate themselves either.
>>
>> :-)
>
> Gee, this coming from the citizen of a very large country that is so awful that 90% of the population lives within about 160 km of its southern neighbor. They act like moths attracted to the light!

Talk about living where the climate is best...

>
> Where in Canada can you take an winter time ocean skinny-dip and survive for more than 10 minutes? Why do I meet so many Canadians in Florida and on the chair lifts at Beaver Creek?
>
> We are smart enough to not emigrate to Canada.

As a nation, you are incredibly ignorant about everything outside your
borders.

[Thomas E.]

Support that last statement with facts.

[Alan Baker]

Like you've supported all your fanciful claims about Vancouver and
Canada and me with facts, Liarboy?

"Among all the seemingly intractable crises Americans face in the world
today, none is so serious as their utter unfamiliarity with that world.
It makes every specific overseas problem virtually impossible for us to
deal with confidently or competently.

Whether motivated by exceptionalism, isolationism, triumphalism or sheer
indifference -- probably some of each over time -- the United States has
somehow failed to equip a significant percentage of its citizenry with
the basic information necessary to follow international events, let
alone participate in formulating and executing the foreign policy that
is an essential component of self-government in a healthy modern democracy."

<https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2015/03/23/essay-problems-american-ignorance-world>

[Willey Brennan]

"Thomas E." wrote in message

news:876658c4-5a6f-40b3...@googlegroups.com...

Shit Stain claimed TWELVE HOURS!!!! I was totally amused at IT'S ineptness,
both in lying and performing.

Goes to show what a know nothing Asshole IT is.

I recently loaded Win 7 on a brand new drive, ONE HOUR AND FIFTEEN
MINUTES....COMPLETE.... and I'm not a "computer consultant"!!

[Nuxters]

Are women allowed to go topless in Canada?

[-hh]

Tom wrote:
> [...]

>> > > > > And will all of those be "solely on your own dime"...
>> > > > > ...or will that suddenly be information you won't share, Liarboy?
>> > > > > :-)
>> > > >
>> > > > I'll settle for clarity in which are using Airline Frequent Flier
>> > > > Miles (FFM), which invariably were ~90% paid for by business.

Still waiting. Shocking!

>> > > > In any case, the list is less impressive with context:
>> > > > Trip#1 (land based?): Norway, Sweden
>> > > > Trip#2 (Ocean Cruise): Chile, Peru, Ecuador
>> > > > Trip#3 (Danube River Cruise): Hungary, Austria, Slovakia
>> > > >
>> > > > The standard itinerary for the Danube is one week.
>> > > > The standard itinerary for Santiago-FLL is two weeks (16 days).
>> > > > The first one is undisclosed and can vary widely; figure a week.
>> > >
>> > > Only 3 listed trips have used FF miles.
>>
>> But the question was for the _future_ trips, not past ones.

That was the second request.

>> > > Prior to that most of them went for 9 family trips to Hawaii
>> > > and numerous ski trips out west.
>>
>> Whereas you've previously claimed that you *drive* out to your ski trips...
>>
>> > Oh, by the way, several of the trips not listed involved
>> > personal funds for family air travel and all expenses for
>> > personal travel trip extensions. For example, the last trip
>> > to Germany was 4 days on expense account followed by ...
>>
>> Yet that's still a trip which has been subsidized.
>>
>> Particularly the subsidy is in the form of Round Trip trans-
>> oceanic airline ticket(s) and/or major city hotel room(s),
>> it isn't really all that negligible.
>>
>> Particularly when there's been comments made that they're
>> deliberately trying to save a buck by leveraging these
>> business expenses as a subsidy.
>> Hence, 26/112 = 23% "on own time"
>

> I think you meant to say "dime" not "time."

Agreed, that was effectively a typo.

> I never skipped out on business to be a tourist. All that extra time and the expenses were on my time and my dime.

Understood, but that's also not quite true either: you got there (& home) on a business ticket, and
what's also pretty typical is to have at least one day's worth of an overnight hotel room, since time
taken off after the last business day will be charged to the expense account, but one hits the ground
the next morning, as opposed to losing most of that day in transit.

FYI, I've also occasionally extended business travel into personal and thus, know how the game is played.

> We started skiing in 1984. From then until 2006 we flew out West on 1 week trips almost every year,
> mostly on FF miles. We bought the condo timeshare after the 2005 season, and started driving out
> for 2 weeks the next year.

You actually *bought* a timeshare at age ~58??

> Sure, I extended business trips and took vacation time until retirement, then it was personal time.
> I did "deliberately" leverage company trips to take advantage of business travel. The hotel
> expenses were paid by third parties while on assignment, I paid for the rest. I stayed in the
> hotels booked by the company or client while on assignment. In no case was the company
> or consulting client out any money over and above what they would have paid had I not
> extended. In some cases they actually saved airfare.
>
> You're trying to make common sense sound like a crime.

No, the 'crime' was your misappropriation of a CAP vehicle.

> Lying again, Hugh.

Nope, merely revealing how your attempts to claim personal prosperity as based on travel was
much more due to your business-based travel. When someone else is paying for 50% of the
airfare, it's a lot easier to go to EU than a domestic driving vacation to the Mouse, etc.

> Anyway, this whole conversation is about how much of the world have you seen.

Nope, that's what you've tried to change it into. Earlier, you attempted to use CA vs US
immigration stats .. "Correlation is not Causation" - remember?

> How you get there is incidental.

No, that's a goal post move: the point you were trying to make has been that your travel list
was a means of proving your personal wealth...until it was revealed that you weren't actually
personally paying for the majority (~77%) of said travel list's trips --> Tommy Brag Attempt Fail.


-hh

[Thomas E.]

There was no attempt to disguise that most of those trips were for business.

I'm getting very tired of your little game.

[Thomas E.]

That's an opinion.

[-hh]

You volunteered it to CSMA only because you're an attention whore
and you believed that it would show you in a positive light.

> I'm getting very tired of your little game.

No, what you're getting 'tired of' is what your own information
reveals after its been washed clean of your slimy spin attempts.


-hh

[Alan Baker]

Actually, it's an essay with more than one thing within it; including
references to studies and polls.

[Alan Baker]

He really did earn the name, "Liarboy", didn't he?

:-)

[-hh]

Pretty much. Overall, the motivation for why he lies is a bit
more revealing.

Such as what this morning's archive find of how Tom has tried
to equate business travel to his personal wealth:

"Later this year I'll be speaking in Colombia, Santa Domingo,
and Vienna Austria among other places. Yes, I make big bucks,
not chicken feed."

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/L6RyJthqRPI/N1JOwEFLoicJ>
It was stumbled across while I was checking to see just how
much/little I'd mentioned on CSMA on our own Danube cruise.


-hh

[ed]

since we're talking smack about things we didn't pay for ourselves... :D what's the most anyone here has spent on a ticket? I've spend ~$5k on a one way ticket (and around ~$4k back iirc) in international business, and over $2k for a domestic roundtrip coach ticket... :barf

[-hh]

On Saturday, July 1, 2017 at 3:47:03 AM UTC-4, ed wrote:
> On Friday, June 30, 2017 at 2:01:49 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > On Friday, June 30, 2017 at 4:45:14 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> > > On 2017-06-30 6:19 AM, -hh wrote:
> > > > On Friday, June 30, 2017 at 9:05:07 AM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:

> > > >> [...]

> > > >> I'm getting very tired of your little game.
> > > >
> > > > No, what you're getting 'tired of' is what your own information
> > > > reveals after its been washed clean of your slimy spin attempts.
> > >
> > > He really did earn the name, "Liarboy", didn't he?
> > > :-)
> >
> > Pretty much. Overall, the motivation for why he lies is a bit
> > more revealing.
> >
> > Such as what this morning's archive find of how Tom has tried
> > to equate business travel to his personal wealth:
> >
> > "Later this year I'll be speaking in Colombia, Santa Domingo,
> > and Vienna Austria among other places. Yes, I make big bucks,
> > not chicken feed."
> >
> > <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/L6RyJthqRPI/N1JOwEFLoicJ>
> > It was stumbled across while I was checking to see just how
> > much/little I'd mentioned on CSMA on our own Danube cruise.
>
> since we're talking smack about things we didn't pay for ourselves... :D
> what's the most anyone here has spent on a ticket? I've spend ~$5k
> on a one way ticket (and around ~$4k back iirc) in international business,
> and over $2k for a domestic roundtrip coach ticket... :barf

Two trips come to mind as likely candidates. The first was back
in the mid-90s and was a last minute deal, which required them
pay, including that one they could only get First Class for one of the legs.
Back in those days, air was purchased by a separate office, so we didn't
have visibility on costs. The second was during the Icelandic Volcano mess,
which I recall as being in the ballpark of $2K for a one-way Coach ticket.


-hh

[Thomas E.]

Back in about 1992 or 93 Lilly spent $12k for a first class ticket to Bangkok and back.

Personally, it was the wife's tickets on the 2008 Australia trip, about $3k. Tickets? I paid for her Sydney ticket and round-trip Sydney-Brisbane. That, and the 9 days we were on our own dime, resulted in a negative cash flow for that trip. In fact, the Sydney airline ticket alone was about the same as the speaking fee. But, so what, my ticket and 3 days in Gold Coast were paid by the client. It was a great trip!

[Thomas E.]

Lie? That business travel was to make money that added to personal wealth. To be more precise, most of the consulting net income went straight into a 410k. I also got to see some of the world too.

You are the one who is lying here, Hugh.

[-hh]

On Saturday, July 1, 2017 at 11:17:45 AM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Friday, June 30, 2017 at 5:01:49 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
> > On Friday, June 30, 2017 at 4:45:14 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> > > On 2017-06-30 6:19 AM, -hh wrote:
> > > > On Friday, June 30, 2017 at 9:05:07 AM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:

> > > >> [...]

> > > >> There was no attempt to disguise that most of those trips were for business.
> > > >
> > > > You volunteered it to CSMA only because you're an attention whore
> > > > and you believed that it would show you in a positive light.
> > > >
> > > >> I'm getting very tired of your little game.
> > > >
> > > > No, what you're getting 'tired of' is what your own information
> > > > reveals after its been washed clean of your slimy spin attempts.
> > >
> > > He really did earn the name, "Liarboy", didn't he?
> > > :-)
> >
> > Pretty much. Overall, the motivation for why he lies is a bit
> > more revealing.
> >
> > Such as what this morning's archive find of how Tom has tried
> > to equate business travel to his personal wealth:
> >
> > "Later this year I'll be speaking in Colombia, Santa Domingo,
> > and Vienna Austria among other places. Yes, I make big bucks,
> > not chicken feed."
> >
> > <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/L6RyJthqRPI/N1JOwEFLoicJ>
> > It was stumbled across while I was checking to see just how
> > much/little I'd mentioned on CSMA on our own Danube cruise.
>
>

> Lie? That business travel was to make money that added to personal wealth.

But isn't that pretty much the point of *all* business? Including business travel?

So then what is the point of trying to conflate your business travel with your
income?

Case in point: "Later this year I'll be speaking in Colombia, Santa Domingo, and

Vienna Austria among other places. Yes, I make big bucks, not chicken feed."
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/L6RyJthqRPI/N1JOwEFLoicJ>

As I said, Correlation isn't Causation:

there's been literally millions of soldiers, airmen & sailers in the US military who
are paid to go out every year 'seeing the world' on their deployments, while not
earning anything close to 'big bucks'.

> To be more precise, most of the consulting net income went straight into a 410k.
> I also got to see some of the world too.

And of course, it matters what personal accounts the income goes ... why?

For example, is it that because you're trying to brag that you've maxed out your
401(k) contributions for that year? Are you that naive to believe that this metric
somehow makes you profoundly unique?

> You are the one who is lying here, Hugh.

No, for to the best of my recollection, I've never done what you've repeatedly done,
which has been to try to claim on CSMA to personal wealth & prosperity based
supposedly on business travel that others paid for.


-hh

[Thomas E.]

The whole conversation started with how many places have you visited. I did not maxed out my 401k contribution. I did max out the owner portion, but not the company match.

What's wrong with earning money, saving it, and having it involve travel paid for by clients? I mean, I could have spent it all, paid more taxes, and still had a jolly good time.

[-hh]

!> somehow makes you profoundly unique?

>>
>> > You are the one who is lying here, Hugh.
>>
>> No, for to the best of my recollection, I've never done what you've repeatedly done,
>> which has been to try to claim on CSMA to personal wealth & prosperity based
>> supposedly on business travel that others paid for.
>
>

> The whole conversation started with how many places have you visited.

Really? Cite please.

FYI you're this thread's OP, and it started with **you** tossing out immigration
statistics, as a troll attempt to try to denegrate another poster.

After pointing out the fallacy of your troll, **you** then tried to initiate bragging about
where you've been (and plan to go) as a sign of wealth - and this was too pointed out
as YA "Correlation isn't Causation" fallacy, as well as how most of them were business
trips and/or business travel subsidized, not singularly out of your own personal pocket.

Your attempted response to that point was:

"Lie? That business travel was to make money that added to personal wealth."

Countered with: " But isn't that pretty much the point of *all* business? Including
business travel?" --> Yup, still waiting an answer from Tommy on this!

> I did not maxed out my 401k contribution. I did max out the owner portion, but not the company match.

So therefore this speculation doesn't explain your actions.

Unfortunately, what's left as motivation is pretty much pure narcissm on your part.

> What's wrong with earning money, saving it, and having it involve travel paid for by clients?

A moot point, since you failed to honest upfront about it.

> I mean, I could have spent it all, paid more taxes, and still had a jolly good time.

Or you could have still done what you did, but merely been spin-free honest about it.

In any event, you're still not providing sufficient evidence that you're now actually
having a "jolly time" in your retirement commensurate with your claimed net worth
and age: parametric ally since you've clearly implied that your pensions & SS are robust

-hh

[Thomas E.]

Hugh you are the one obsessing here. Never satisfied, always probing for more, and extrapolating based on your assumptions not based on facts. I owe you nothing other than what I am willing to provide.

[-hh]

Sorry Tommy, but you're the one who's been volunteering information,
and all I'm doing is revealing the results after its been washed clean of
your slimy spin attempts.

For example, your 'obsession' comment is your means to attempt to avoid
addressing the facts that *you* started this thread (not me or anyone else),
and your motivation was clearly as a malicious troll.

When that didn't work for you, **you** then tried to initiate bragging about

where you've been (and plan to go) as a sign of wealth - and this was too

pointed out as YA "Correlation isn't Causation" fallacy (and how that most

of them were business trips and/or business travel subsidized, not singularly

out of your own personal pocket), **your** attempted response was to say:

"Lie? That business travel was to make money that added to personal wealth."

Which was countered with the observation that making money is "...pretty
much the point of *all* business..." (and we are waiting an answer from Tom
on this - hence, YA dodge).


Oh, and for working off of "assumptions", it is a fact:

a) that you've claimed that your house is paid off
b) that you've claimed to have an ample pension & SS income stream
c) that you've claimed that you have a net worth of $2M+
d) that you've claimed (bragged) about having
e) that you've claimed you're going to have three Int'l trips by the end of 2018.

Now:

f) a rough assessment of your claimed trips (e) costs are ~$10K each; ~$30K total.

g) taking (f) divided by claimed period (through 2018) indicates your annual
spend rate for international trips at roughly ($30K / (18mo/12mo)) = $20K/year.
FYI, this is an *interpolation* from your volunteered data.

h) The Actuarial mortality tables for your age/gender indicate your life expectancy
at ~13 years. FYI, this is also not an extrapolation, but simple statistics.

i) taking your net worth from (c) and subtracting off $0.5M for housing and $0.5M
for terminal care for you & your wife leaves you $1M+ in discretionary spending.
FYI, this is also not extrapolation, but subtraction. And eliminating housing
and terminal care is to establish a lower mathematical limit.

j) Taking (i) and dividing by (h) yields roughly ($1M / 13 yrs) = $77K/year. Even without
it ever earning another dollar through investments (4% rule of thumb = +$40K/yr).

k) But as per (g) your spend rate is a mere ~$20K/year.



-hh

[Thomas E.]

Wow, that is some kind of weird arithmetic. You are again working off some strange assumptions and a complete lack of my personal goals. It is not my intention to spend it all by life end. In fact, 50% of my RMD cash flow is currently going back into stock investments. I'm also insured to offset potential nursing home care expense. My Medicare and health care supplement plans together have no co-pay or lifetime limits. And, international travel is not the only travel we do. We will be doing a 3 week road trip with some friends from here to California come September.

I just went to Araris.com and did a customized life expectancy. It came out at 95, 24 more years, not 13. That's about what I expected based on my family history and current state of health. That's another reason I'm still putting money back. :)

You neglected to factor in the fact that I am still saving out of my current cash flow, or potential investment earnings over the next 24 years. For over 20 years I've worked on this plan with some very good advisers. It's meeting its goals.

By the way, this morning I picked up a one week business trip to Beijing.

:)

[-hh]

> Wow, that is some kind of weird arithmetic.

The numbers don't lie. And as I've said before, "...I believe you when you claim
that _you_ can't." [do such mathematical modeling].

> You are again working off some strange assumptions

No, merely once which were deliberately conservative. And since you've now
disclosed that you have LTC insurance, they're even more conservative, by
roughly $500K.

> ... and a complete lack of my personal goals. It is not my intention

> to spend it all by life end.

Well, you *still* can't take it with you. In the meantime, you're depriving
yourself and your wife (and family) by your hoarding.

> In fact, 50% of my RMD cash flow is currently going back into stock
> investments.

Considering that we don't know how small your IRA is from which you
have RMD's, this isn't really saying anything material.

> I'm also insured to offset potential nursing home care expense.
> My Medicare and health care supplement plans together have no
> co-pay or lifetime limits.

LTC alone pays for a big bulk of Nursing Home care, which means that
my prior conservative estimate of $1M for these expenses was overly
conservative by easily $500K: moving that over, the ramifications are
that you have 50% more discretionary ($1.5M instead of $1M).

> And, international travel is not the only travel we do. We will be doing a
> 3 week road trip with some friends from here to California come September.

Which is unlikely to run even $5K (let alone $10K), which puts the brag into fiscal noise.

> I just went to Araris.com and did a customized life expectancy.

Araris.com? 403 Error (and who is Philippe Lambert?)
Care to try providing a URL which actually works?

> It came out at 95, 24 more years, not 13. That's about what I expected
> based on my family history and current state of health. That's another
> reason I'm still putting money back. :)

It is still misguided, since even $1M divided by 24 years is easily $42K/year,
which is twice your current $20K/yr international holiday travel spend rate.

Plus with that $1M now revised upwards now to $1.5M because you say you
have LTC, even a simple division is $62.5K/yr (and using the 4% rule of thumb
yields $60K/year) ... that's 3x your spend rate.

And in reality, its actually more than 3x because you need to recognize that
after the "go go" retirement years, these are followed by the "go slow" and
then the "no go" years where this sort of spending falls off a cliff. Overall,
you could plan to figure on spending like $75K/yr for ages 70-80, then $50K/yr
for the "go slow" 80-90 ages, and $25K/yr for 90+ (if you really do make it that far).
And still leave a suitable nest egg for the widow, too.

> You neglected to factor in the fact that I am still saving out of my current
> cash flow, or potential investment earnings over the next 24 years.

As well as also the assumption that the assets which were deliberately excluded
(set aside for healthcare) will never have any gains relevant for potentially being
tapped for additional discretionary spending. Doing so is merely yet another
aspect of making sure that the parameterization had adequate conservatism.

> For over 20 years I've worked on this plan with some very good advisers.
> It's meeting its goals.

And they've not yet advised you on transitioning from saving to spending?
Sorry, but those so-called advisors aren't really doing you any service anymore.

<http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/15/retirement/retirement-spending-guilt/index.html>

<https://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2015/05/02/how-to-shift-from-saving-to-spending-your-retireme.aspx>

From the first one:

"For example, if you withdraw an initial 4%, or $20,000, from a $500,000 nest egg
split equally between stocks and bonds and boost subsequent yearly withdrawals
by the inflation rate, you would have an 80% or so chance that your nest egg will
ast at least 30 years. Drop that initial withdrawal rate to 3.5%, or $17,500, and the
probability of your savings sustaining you for 30 years jumps to roughly 90%."

Applying this to your $1.5M discretionary balance and you have the $60K/yr I was
talking about, which in their baseline has Inflation COLAs and results in an 80%
probability of successfully sustaining itself until you're age 101.

> By the way, this morning I picked up a one week business trip to Beijing.
> :)

Ugh! At the very least, take a couple of good air filtration masks ... and no laptop.


-hh

[Thomas E.]

Who the hell are you to tell me how much to save and how much to spend? My kids and grandchildren will get something. By design.

None of my relatives have spent anything like $500k on end-life care. Most spent essentially nothing. It's called family. Apparently you do not have one. The only exception was an aunt that never married. She spent about $150k, most of which came from her pensions.

You seem to have forgotten that I have a 401k and IRA accounts. The 401k is a sole employee account, and requires RMD just like an IRA.

[-hh]

> Who the hell are you to tell me how much to save and how much to spend?

Sorry Tom, but you're the one who's miserable enough to try to brag about
everything, in order to make you feel better.

> My kids and grandchildren will get something. By design.

And once again, a GOOD financial advisor will tell you of strategies to do that
which are better than waiting until you're dead. For example, making annual
contributions into 529 funds which are a 'dollar less' than what the grandkids
are earning is an effective tax minimization strategy.

> None of my relatives have spent anything like $500k on end-life care. Most
> spent essentially nothing. It's called family. Apparently you do not have one.
> The only exception was an aunt that never married. She spent about $150k,
> most of which came from her pensions.

But of course $500K was high - - that was deliberately so because the intent
was to be conservative. And your attempt to insult is lame, Tom, because
what any aging adult (who's really an adult) invariably wants is for their
end-of-life care needs to ** not be a burden ** on their family. That means having
the financial resources, not to expect your family to be your caregiver.

> You seem to have forgotten that I have a 401k and IRA accounts. The 401k
> is a sole employee account, and requires RMD just like an IRA.

On the contrary: I know you have them - - but since you've not revealed their
balances, we can't assume that that's where your claimed Net Worth is located.
As such, the question of if they are big enough to be significant is unresolved.

Its just like how you've tried to brag about delivering meals to homes of the elderly
for years - - we don't know if you do this weekly, or if it is a once/year thing at
Christmas or Thanksgiving.

In any event, taking a moment to put a parametric maximum on it, from
what you've told us, your reinvestment claim can't be more than ~$40K/year.
Similarly, by using some additional factors, its probably closer to ~$19K/year.


-hh

[Thomas E.]

Try this for the longevity estimate:

https://www.myabaris.com/tools/life-expectancy-calculator-how-long-will-i-live/

Good job. Reinvestment of dividends and RMDs is about $32k this year. To that add business net income going into the 401k.

Why would I give you a clear picture? It's more fun to watch you fumble around, spending time on your meaningless, obsessive and laughable extrapolations!

[Thomas E.]

My error

https://www.myabaris.com/tools/life-expectancy-calculator-how-long-will-i-live/

[Thomas E.]

And, as for Meals on Wheels, this is my 11th year. Frequency has varied from weekly to twice a month. It depends on client load versus number of volunteers. I was weekly for the first few years, but as their client numbers dropped routes were consolidated, and I was cut back to 1x per month, now it's up to 2x per month. There were no breaks. Monday is my next delivery.

[-hh]

Oh, look: Tommy's moved the goalposts to a different metric, in order to try
to inflate the number.

Okay kids, let's review:

Tom's original claim was 'half of RMD' was going back into investments.

The above claim is that his reinvestment is $32K/year ... but coming from both
this 'half RMD' source as well as his investment dividends.

> Why would I give you a clear picture?

Because you don't want people to have a clear picture of what you're actually like.

> It's more fun to watch you fumble around, spending time on your meaningless,
> obsessive and laughable extrapolations!

If they really were meaningless, you would have walked away long ago.

In the meantime, you've given us another puzzle, which does resolve down
to a better parametric estimate:

$32K/yr = (50% of RMD) + (Dividends)

Assuming a portfolio average dividend rate of 3%, then we get:

$32K = (0.50) * (Portfolio / 26.5) + (3%) * (Portfolio)

$32K = (0.019)(P) + (0.03)(P)

$32K = (0.049)P

P = $32K*(1/0.49)

P = $655K

And hearkening back to this:

"And similarly, from a parametric standpoint, said gain also suggests that your
investment portfolio which is tracking comparably (deliberately or otherwise)
to the main indices is probably in the ballpark of around $550K - $730K.

Again, YA parametric, merely from the data *you* provided."

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/HENOVSrk5b8/OrHzj1I9AgAJ>

That's only $15K from the exact midpoint of the above range. Between these
two effectively independent sources, this one has been nailed down. But you'll
of course probably try to save face and disingenuously claim otherwise. Again.


-hh

[Thomas E.]

Wrong again. There are 2 pieces with different percent cash flows. The dividend piece has a ~5% dividend yield. All of the dividends are being reinvested via DRIP, and are included in the $32k.

The RMD requirement for this year is 3.77358%. The 50% RMD cash inflow piece is going into dividend piece every month. Now, with 50% of the RMD being accounted for in the $32k, try again!

More:

The remaining 50% RMD, from a different retirement account, is going into a savings account that is used to pay for some recurring annual/semiannual bills (property taxes, car/home insurance, etc.) with some left over for play time funding and contingencies. Current income taxes are covered by monthly withholding. That just changed last month. I got tired of writing large quarterly checks for federal and state estimated tax.

:)

[-hh]

Well, since you insist, I'll oblige in revising your cash balance downwards.
Yes, down, because that's what happens from claiming a higher yield.

> There are 2 pieces with different percent cash flows. The dividend piece
> has a ~5% dividend yield. All of the dividends are being reinvested via DRIP,
> and are included in the $32k.

Said 5% return merely means that my prior 3% was overly conservative in your favor.

> The RMD requirement for this year is 3.77358%.

And just what is (1/26.5)? Gosh, its 3.77% . And half of that is the 1.9% which
I had listed. Congratulations on trying to correct math that wasn't wrong.

> The 50% RMD cash inflow piece is going into dividend piece every month.

Frankly, I don't care where the other 50% goes.

> Now, with 50% of the RMD being accounted for in the $32k, try again!

Because the yield went up, it merely means that your IRA account value goes down:

$32K = (0.50) * (Portfolio / 26.5) + (5%) * (Portfolio)

$32K = (0.019)(P) + (0.05)(P)

$32K = (0.069)P

P = $32K*(1/0.069)

P = $464K

Compared to before, it lost $91K ... "Yay, you!"



-hh

[Thomas E.]

LOL, you forgot all about the account with the RMD going into bank cash. The $32k is the amount reinvested in stocks, not the total coming in.

Here is how you might figure it out, dummy.

1. Dividend account annual dividends/0.05 = dividend account value

2. 401k account dividends/0.377 = 401k value

3. IRS account dividends/0.377 = IRA value

The $32k is the sum of the dividends and the 401k RMD.

What you don't know is the weighted average percentage for the dividend account and 401k RMD % yields.

Figure it's mostly 401k, and say about 3.9% is the weighted average.

$32/.039 = $820k

Figure the IRA is about 75% of that, $615. That's another $23k a year cash in not being reinvested.

Then too there is one relatively minor diversified stock account that is in dividend reinvestment not accounted for above, but that's most of it. There is also some life insurance cash value that yields about 5% a year, and a few other relatively minor items.

You have my address. Look up the Zillow estimate. Check out the actual sale value of the house 2 doors to the east of mine. If you cannot find it, $320k. It's the same floor plan, similar improvements. The sale was in June.

I have about $3k in debt. Add it all up. Now you are close.

Wow, you had all the pieces and could not even get close. You are no financial genius. Heck, you even came up with about $600k in investments once, and I told you it was a million low.

:)

[-hh]

> LOL, you forgot all about the account with the RMD going into bank cash.
> The $32k is the amount reinvested in stocks, not the total coming in.

No, as this discussion was AFAIC only about your account balances which
are the source of your RMD.

And the mix between IRA vs 401k doesn't matter because at your age and
because you own more than 5% of your company, RMDs are required even
if you're working full time (which you're not): as the company owner, you're
not eligible for the "Still Working" 401k RMD deferment.

> Here is how you might figure it out, dummy.
>
> 1. Dividend account annual dividends/0.05 = dividend account value

And just what is this? Is it a non-retirement account that you're now also
adding in, so as to try to increase the totals ... again?

> 2. 401k account dividends/0.377 = 401k value

Incorrect math

> 3. IRS account dividends/0.377 = IRA value

Incorrect math

> The $32k is the sum of the dividends and the 401k RMD.

Dividends from YA account which hadn't been clearly delineated as such before.

> What you don't know is the weighted average percentage for the
> dividend account and 401k RMD % yields.
>
> Figure it's mostly 401k, and say about 3.9% is the weighted average.

So then the 5% claimed a few hours ago wasn't what it appear to represent.
Gosh, golly: more confiscation by Tom.

> $32/.039 = $820k
>
> Figure the IRA is about 75% of that, $615.

Which, according to what Tom would like us to believe, somehow isn't
within the previously stated "...ballpark of around $550K - $730K."

> That's another $23k a year cash in not being reinvested.
> Then too there is one relatively minor diversified stock account that
> is in dividend reinvestment not accounted for above, but that's most
> of it. There is also some life insurance cash value that yields about 5%
> a year, and a few other relatively minor items.

Life Insurance cash values? Well, but of course it is only natural for Tom
to penny-pinch his accounting right down to the last nickel.

> You have my address. Look up the Zillow estimate. Check out the actual
> sale value of the house 2 doors to the east of mine. If you cannot find it,
> $320k. It's the same floor plan, similar improvements. The sale was in June.

You can do the same here, but do realize that the house next door which
was sold this past December was the price for a knock-down which is being
flipped. The builder's planned asking price is $575K (slightly lower than a
similar one ~2 blocks away that's reportedly being listed at $599K).

Oh, and this town's crime safety rating is 89, vs your Carmel's score of only 70.


-hh

[Thomas E.]

No, I mentioned the dividend account in the disclosure of the $32k

>
>
> > 2. 401k account dividends/0.377 = 401k value
>
> Incorrect math
>

I probably should have said RMD not dividends. The math is correct. If you multiply the account balance by the RMD % you get the annual RMD. If you divide the RMD amount by the RMD % you get the account balance.

>
> > 3. IRS account dividends/0.377 = IRA value
>
> Incorrect math
>
> > The $32k is the sum of the dividends and the 401k RMD.
>
> Dividends from YA account which hadn't been clearly delineated as such before.

Mentioned, but not it's weight in the portfolio.

>
>
> > What you don't know is the weighted average percentage for the
> > dividend account and 401k RMD % yields.
> >
> > Figure it's mostly 401k, and say about 3.9% is the weighted average.
>
> So then the 5% claimed a few hours ago wasn't what it appear to represent.
> Gosh, golly: more confiscation by Tom.
>
>
> > $32/.039 = $820k
> >
> > Figure the IRA is about 75% of that, $615.
>
> Which, according to what Tom would like us to believe, somehow isn't
> within the previously stated "...ballpark of around $550K - $730K."
>

You were working off the $32k amount. The IRA RMD is not being reinvested in stocks and was not included. It's additive to the $32k.

>
> > That's another $23k a year cash in not being reinvested.
> > Then too there is one relatively minor diversified stock account that
> > is in dividend reinvestment not accounted for above, but that's most
> > of it. There is also some life insurance cash value that yields about 5%
> > a year, and a few other relatively minor items.
>
> Life Insurance cash values? Well, but of course it is only natural for Tom
> to penny-pinch his accounting right down to the last nickel.
>

It's a tax-free backstop. It's like money in the bank, available for emergencies. I have a friend who has over $1,0000,000 in such funds available. Mine is much more modest.

>
> > You have my address. Look up the Zillow estimate. Check out the actual
> > sale value of the house 2 doors to the east of mine. If you cannot find it,
> > $320k. It's the same floor plan, similar improvements. The sale was in June.
>
> You can do the same here, but do realize that the house next door which
> was sold this past December was the price for a knock-down which is being
> flipped. The builder's planned asking price is $575K (slightly lower than a
> similar one ~2 blocks away that's reportedly being listed at $599K).

>
> Oh, and this town's crime safety rating is 89, vs your Carmel's score of only 70.
>

Good for you. Denville sounds like a nice place too. However, it's 25% of the population of Carmel. Smaller towns generally tend to be safer. But, if you focus on violent crime, the Carmel rate is 0.15/1000 while Denville is 0.25/1000. In that sense, Carmel is safer.

Sources:

https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/in/carmel/crime
https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/nj/denville/crime

Summary:

$820 + $615 + $300 = $1,735,000 Those are the big pieces.

We both live is very nice, very safe, small towns.

[Thomas E.]

So, Hugh, I looked up your neighborhood and home in Zillow. Your house is shown as 1288 square feet, estimated market value $322k. It's similar to other homes in the area, small and expensive per square foot. Of course, you are within commuting distance to NYC, so prices would be affected.

To the point, why do you live in such a tiny house? Can't afford anything better? Or prefer to spend your money on travel?

When you travel you probably do so out of Newark, generally regarded as one of the worst airports in the country. I've been there a few times. It's a dismal place. When the weather goes down the runways are too close to allow simultaneous operations. Air traffic backs up there in bad weather. Delays can be horrendous. LGA is even worse.

http://www.ranker.com/list/best-to-worst-u-s-airports/voteable

Note my closest air carrier airport is ranked #7, yours #82, out of 85.

[-hh]

Ah, it was how you described it: you weren't saying that your dividends
and RMDs sum to $32K, but rather that you're reinvesting $32K out of
the sum of your current dividends & RMDs. In any event, that's simply
just reinforcing the point I was making that you're still "flipped"
in terms of your priorities: your nest egg is already sufficient,
so you need not be reinvesting (hoarding) for yourself, but now in
a more distributive mode. For example, to use this $32K to bump up
your $20K/yr vacation budget.

> > > 2. 401k account dividends/0.377 = 401k value
> >
> > Incorrect math
> >
>
> I probably should have said RMD not dividends.
> The math is correct. If you multiply the account
> balance by the RMD % you get the annual RMD.
> If you divide the RMD amount by the RMD % you get
> the account balance.

Looks like your mistake was to conflate account growth
(dividends) with the account's RMD requirement. Simply
put, you take your end-of-year 401k account balance and
divide by your IRS age factor (yours is currently 26.5).
So for a EOY16 401k balance of $820K, your 2017 RMD for
your 401k is $30.9K. The same is also then done for a
non-Roth IRA:

> > > 3. IRS account dividends/0.377 = IRA value
> >
> > Incorrect math
> >
> > > The $32k is the sum of the dividends and the 401k RMD.
> >
> > Dividends from YA account which hadn't been
> > clearly delineated as such before.
>
> Mentioned, but not it's weight in the portfolio.

For an IRA balance @ EOY2016 of $615K, 2017 RMD = $23.2K

> > > What you don't know is the weighted average percentage
> > > for the dividend account and 401k RMD % yields.
> > >
> > > Figure it's mostly 401k, and say about 3.9% is the weighted average.
> >
> > So then the 5% claimed a few hours ago wasn't what it appear
> > to represent. Gosh, golly: more confiscation by Tom.

Reexamining, it appears more that the 401k and IRA are yielding
~3.9%, which would nominally mean that while the RMDs are taking
out $31K+$23K = $54K, the investment is growing roughly by about
the same (3.9% of $820K+$615K = $56K), with the net effective
result that this income stream is being taxed, and half? of it
is being put into a non-retirement brokerage account or equivalent
to probably the tune of the $32K that Tom's been talking about.

> > > $32/.039 = $820k
> > >
> > > Figure the IRA is about 75% of that, $615.
> >
> > Which, according to what Tom would like us to believe, somehow isn't
> > within the previously stated "...ballpark of around $550K - $730K."
>
> You were working off the $32k amount. The IRA RMD is not being
> reinvested in stocks and was not included. It's additive to the $32k.

But still quoted above: "In fact, 50% of my RMD cash flow is currently

going back into stock investments."

Since both the IRA and 401k have required RMDs, the term of "my RMD"
includes both, so when you try to then talk about the RMDs individually,
it is highly conflated.

> > > That's another $23k a year cash in not being reinvested.
> > > Then too there is one relatively minor diversified stock account
> > > that is in dividend reinvestment not accounted for above, but
> > > that's most of it. There is also some life insurance cash value
> > > that yields about 5% a year, and a few other relatively minor items.
> >
> > Life Insurance cash values? Well, but of course it is only natural
> > for Tom to penny-pinch his accounting right down to the last nickel.
>
> It's a tax-free backstop. It's like money in the bank, available
> for emergencies. I have a friend who has over $1,0000,000 in such
> funds available. Mine is much more modest.

"Whoosh!".

> > > You have my address. Look up the Zillow estimate. Check out
> > > the actual sale value of the house 2 doors to the east of mine.
> > > If you cannot find it, $320k. It's the same floor plan, similar
> > > improvements. The sale was in June.
> >
> > You can do the same here, but do realize that the house next door which
> > was sold this past December was the price for a knock-down which is being
> > flipped. The builder's planned asking price is $575K (slightly lower than
> > a similar one ~2 blocks away that's reportedly being listed at $599K).
> >
> > Oh, and this town's crime safety rating is 89, vs your Carmel's score
> > of only 70.
>
> Good for you.

Indeed, and it also isn't in "Flyover Country": for interests such
as International Travel, we can easily compete/compare 3+ local
International Hubs for our travels; in fact, for last fall's trip
to Africa, we did just that and chose to go out of JFK instead of
EWR to get a nonstop to Johannesburg: 16hrs beats ~30hrs transit.

> Denville sounds like a nice place too. However, it's 25% of the
> population of Carmel.

And population was the first screening requirement in the survey
you quoted, which is was why it wasn't competed against Carmel.

> Smaller towns generally tend to be safer. But, if you focus
> on violent crime, the Carmel rate is 0.15/1000 while Denville
> is 0.25/1000. In that sense, Carmel is safer.

Not really, once one understands statistics and sampling noise:
such events are integers and the rate includes population in
the denominator. For example, at 15K population:

2 events/year = 0.13/1000 rate
3 events/year = 0.20/1000 rate
4 events/year = 0.26/1000 rate

As such, does one really need to be concerned about a delta
of only two (2) events per year? Nope: the error here is
in trying to claim significance on values which are more
subject to statistical sampling noise.

> Summary:
>
> $820 + $615 + $300 = $1,735,000 Those are the big pieces.

Where the above is {401k}, {IRA}, and {House}.

Now since you previously claimed a net worth of $2.1M,
the "small pieces" sum to ~$400K...or your prior claim
of $2.1M was a significant overstatement.


-hh

[ed]

On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 6:28:06 AM UTC-7, Thomas E. wrote:
....

> When you travel you probably do so out of Newark, generally regarded as one of the worst airports in the country. I've been there a few times. It's a dismal place. When the weather goes down the runways are too close to allow simultaneous operations. Air traffic backs up there in bad weather. Delays can be horrendous. LGA is even worse.
>
> http://www.ranker.com/list/best-to-worst-u-s-airports/voteable
>
> Note my closest air carrier airport is ranked #7, yours #82, out of 85.

IND *is* a nice airport. too bad airlines don't like it so it's expensive to fly in and out of, there aren't many flights, and it's tough to catch a flight many places direct (it's "international" because you can fly to Toronto. that's the only regular international flight. that's it.). and that's with the city spending a billion on improvements and providing guarantees to airlines.
https://www.indystar.com/story/money/2013/11/24/fares-have-soared-flights-have-fallen-at-indianapolis-airport/3693059/

if you're cargo, it's great though. :D

[Thomas E.]

The difference between the two cash flows is approximately the stock dividends being reinvested. For that purpose I take the first RMD check every month and buy dividend stock. Stock dividends in the "dividend account" are automatically reinvested as they come in quarterly. The second RMD remains in cash. Some is used for travel. All income taxes are covered by monthly withholding from a pension check.

My 1 year return on the 401k is 12%, 10% on the IRA. I made a significant change in the IRA portfolio at year-end. The return since has been 14.5%. But, you certainly can't count on any of that every year.

The diversified stock portfolio return has been 12% or so both over the last year and YTD. It yields dividends that are re-invested on an irregular basis. I did not include those as they are not taken out as cash.

As for the difference, that is in this diversified stock account just mentioned, the wife's tax deferred 410A and 457 accounts, cash, and other minor property owned. The wife is not 70.5 yet, no RMD for her yet. Also, the $2.1m was at the market peak a few weeks ago, down a little bit now, but still close.

As for spending versus saving? That's a personal decision, very personal. We are not out to spend it down any time soon. We both have family history of very long lives. The wife's mom turns 96 this year. She is still living in her house of over 60 years and drives everywhere she needs to go. She does not travel any more unless it's a short road trip with one of here kids.

My mom lived to 93, her sister to 98 and her mom to 2 weeks from making 100. If my mom had laid off the cigarettes and booze she could have lived a lot longer.

Speaking of long lives, I'm on my way to the gym to work out with my personal trainer. Later.

[Alan Baker]

That is too rich!

Like Liarboy, his city's airport tries to make more of itself than it is
in reality!

[Thomas E.]

Partly wrong. It's International Airport partly due to FedEx and corporate aviation. FedEx has planes coming in here from as a far as China. We have several corporations that make overseas flights. All demand U.S. Customs services.

Alas, we do need to make a stop for all scheduled passenger destinations except Toronto.

[ed]

yes, as I mentioned, things are pretty sweet at ind if you're cargo. not really the context of your bragging though. :D

> Alas, we do need to make a stop for all scheduled passenger destinations except Toronto.

you have occasional seasonal service to 3 places in mx as well. woohoo!

[-hh]

ed wrote:
> yes, as I mentioned, things are pretty sweet at ind if you're cargo. not really the context of your bragging though. :D

"cherrypicked"

TE> Alas, we do need to make a stop for all scheduled passenger destinations except Toronto.

>
> you have occasional seasonal service to 3 places in mx as well. woohoo!

Fwiw, I tried a random kayak search for generic air to London, midweek, ~60 days out.

Best possible from IND was over $1K & required a stop, with transit times of 10-15 hours each way.

In contrast, I looked at local airports that I've used and found several choices at each, with various
carriers (all the major FF teams were represented) at each. Lowest overall was a shade over $500
and two more airports were also under $600 ... FYI, these are for the non-stops - only 7 hours in transit.
And a fourth (yes, a fourth local Int'l airport I've used) lacked non-stops, but did have 1-stops starting at $611.


-hh

[Thomas E.]

If I had to live in your tiny house and in small town NJ I'd be more likely to look for cheap international tickets and travel too!

[-hh]

On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 7:14:58 PM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:
> If I had to live in your tiny house and in small town NJ I'd be more likely to
> look for cheap international tickets and travel too!

Oh, look: Tom Elam once again lamely tries to diss someone who he thinks is a threat.

Now if you value the suburban 'Trophy House' paradigm, that's your prerogative.
Of course, we do happen to know that you've made your sacrifices to achieve that,
such as by skimping on cars (hello Hondas!) ... and by skimping on vacations ...
and by working into your 70s ... plus God only knows whatever else.

For ourselves, we're in a great location and great town & neighborhood, with a great
work-life balance - since we don't need more space, what would be the point?


And on "cheap" travel, golly, it really _sucks_ to not be constantly ripped off like Tom! /S

Oh, and here's one of our 'cheap rooms' from last year's trip for you, Tom:

<http://okonjima.com/accommodation/the-grand-african-villa/>

Of course there's more to the story (a complimentary upgrade) but this wouldn't have
been disclosed by our resident "cherrypicker" who tries to make himself look wonderful.


-hh

[Thomas E.]

Which is why I said partly wrong.

[-hh]

Gosh, we will all keep that "partially wrong" in mind, the next time that Tom travels as cargo! /S


-hh

[Thomas E.]

Noted that I never claimed that there is meaningful international passenger service out of Indy. Noted that the Indy rating is based on how well the airport works for its intended purpose. Noted that Newark is consistently rated as one of the worst airports in the country.

[Thomas E.]

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 8:43:30 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:

Also noted that New Jersey's unofficial nickname is "Armpit of America." I'd rather live in "Flyover Country."

[-hh]

TE Reply#1:

> Noted that I never claimed that there is meaningful international
> passenger service out of Indy. Noted that the Indy rating is based
> on how well the airport works for its intended purpose.

Since our conversation was on personal travel, not hauling cargo,
the ratings factors you're trying to brag about simply don't apply.

> Noted that Newark is consistently rated as one of the worst
> airports in the country.

Good thing then that EWR is merely one of four high volume
International Airports we have to choose from within this region!

In any case, applied context here too: Newark's general problem
has been on flight delays which jeopardizes making connections,
but this factor simply isn't really in play when one's itinerary
begins & ends at Newark, particularly when taking advantage of
the many nonstop flights which obviate all connections.

> Also noted that New Jersey's unofficial nickname is "Armpit of
> America." I'd rather live in "Flyover Country."

That's a NJ nickname? Really? Let me put 'Armpit of America'
into Google, to see what it lists as suggestions..

Yes, NJ is listed, but it is down on the list, after Ohio.
Oh, and look! In this listing of eight suggestions, Indiana
is not only also present, but it is listed TWICE! The first
time just the State, and the second time being Gary, Indiana.
FWIW, the other notable listing is for Battle Mountain, NV.

But in any case, this is simply just more 'sour grapes'
from Tom Elam. Given how he's still hard at work in his 70s,
it seems unlikely that he can afford to live here .. or at
least be able to cope with people who are totally unafraid
to call "BULLSHIT" when some lamer tries to dump a load of it.


-hh

[Thomas E.]

Note that I never claimed that IND is a significant international airport. Liarboy Baker brought that international thing up. Check out the names for Memphis and Louisville airports. Louisville has no scheduled international passenger service. Memphis has flights to Cancun and Toronto. They are both major air freight hubs. Kansas City International has only Cancun as passenger destination and no air freight hub. Indianapolis is hardly unique in it's naming.

I can drive to O'Hare in about 2.5 hours on a good day. That's a pretty good source of non-stop international travel, but not quite as convenient as JFK is for you. I have always flown up.

I could easily afford to live well where you do, and Vancouver if I was willing to rent or liquidate savings. However, we all live in places because we want to be there.

For fun check out this airport name - http://bbclowairport.com/

To the point, you make trade-offs to live where you live. I make trade-offs to live where I live. Alan makes trade-offs in Vancouver. That's the way the world works when we have the freedom to live where we decide is the best trade-off for our individual set of decision criteria. It's also natural for us to tout the advantages of the places we choose. You and Alan have done just that. :)

[-hh]

> Note that I never claimed that IND is a significant international airport.
> Liarboy Baker brought that international thing up.

Factually incorrect: the topic of international travel was brought up first
by ed did, in the very first post after your OP:

"But Americans barely travel abroad, so one would not really expect them
to do much immigrating..."

I then responded to your response to ed's above post, pointing out
the "relative 'barriers to entry'", which you then tried to twist into a
personal "been to" destination brag list.

And the actual first mention of specific airports was ... by you!

"Note my closest air carrier airport is ranked #7, yours #82, out of 85."

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/0RW3QIyWW30/gO3eD37MAAAJ>

And just who was the first to note that IND is only technically an International
airport for passenger service to Toronto?

Gosh that was ed too. Not Alan:

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/0RW3QIyWW30/qWr7o3nSAAAJ>

> Check out the names for Memphis and Louisville airports. Louisville has
> no scheduled international passenger service. Memphis has flights to
> Cancun and Toronto. They are both major air freight hubs. Kansas City
> International has only Cancun as passenger destination and no air freight hub.

Memphis ... flyover country
Louisville ... flyover country
Kansas City ... flyover country

> Indianapolis is hardly unique in it's naming.

For flyover country.

> I can drive to O'Hare in about 2.5 hours on a good day.
> That's a pretty good source of non-stop international travel,
> but not quite as convenient as JFK is for you. I have always flown up.

Chicago's also part of the USA's worst (and note that this
website is a lot more credible than the lame one you used):

<https://thepointsguy.com/guide/best-and-worst-airports-usa/>

Oh, and its a mere 2.5 hours? I've made EWR in <30 minutes
on a good day. Its typically more like 45 and for limo pickups,
we schedule it to be an hour ... mostly in case the driver's late.

> I could easily afford to live well where you do, and Vancouver if
> I was willing to rent or liquidate savings.

Yeas, I believe you that you'd have to liquidate savings for both
destinations, particularly with what you seem to believe that you
need and also because you're in your 70's and still working.

> To the point, you make trade-offs to live where you live. I make
> trade-offs to live where I live. Alan makes trade-offs in Vancouver.
> That's the way the world works when we have the freedom to live
> where we decide is the best trade-off for our individual set of
> decision criteria. It's also natural for us to tout the advantages of
> the places we choose. You and Alan have done just that. :)

Yes, and it is about time that you grew up and started to have a little
bit of respect for others.

-hh

[Alan Baker]

Where did bring that up, Liarboy? Cite.

>
> I can drive to O'Hare in about 2.5 hours on a good day. That's a pretty good source of non-stop international travel, but not quite as convenient as JFK is for you. I have always flown up.
>
> I could easily afford to live well where you do, and Vancouver if I was willing to rent or liquidate savings. However, we all live in places because we want to be there.
>
> For fun check out this airport name - http://bbclowairport.com/
>
> To the point, you make trade-offs to live where you live. I make trade-offs to live where I live. Alan makes trade-offs in Vancouver. That's the way the world works when we have the freedom to live where we decide is the best trade-off for our individual set of decision criteria. It's also natural for us to tout the advantages of the places we choose. You and Alan have done just that. :)

Only neither HH, nor I attempt to denigrate the place where someone
lives as you attempted to do with me.

>

[Thomas E.]

Ah, there you go again, you disrespectful arrogant little bastard. Everywhere you don't live is flyover country! You just dissed a huge portion of the country where millions of us choose to live. I'll be you agree with Hillary's "deplorables" assessment too. It's amazing to me that you are so willing to project your personal values on such a broad swath of the country.

You are right, it was ed.

[Thomas E.]

Hugh just called the entire middle of the U.S. "Flyover" country.

[Alan Baker]

You just lied about me by saying I brought up the subject of the status
of your airport...

...and he didn't call the entire middle of the US that...

...so you just lied about him, Liarboy.

You're quite the little prick, aren't you?

:-)

[-hh]

I merely used an existing term with an existing definition:

"Flyover country, flyover states, and Flyoverland are American phrases describing
the parts of the United States between the East and the West Coasts. The terms,
which are sometimes used pejoratively, but more often defensively,[1] refer to the
interior regions of the country passed over during transcontinental flights,
particularly flights between the nation's two most populous urban agglomerations,
the Northeastern Megalopolis and Southern California. "Flyover country" thus
refers to the part of the country that some Americans only view by air and never
actually see in person at ground level.[2][3]"

Cite:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyover_country>

>
> You just lied about me by saying I brought up the subject of the status
> of your airport...
>
> ...and he didn't call the entire middle of the US that...

Just that part which is between Transcontinental flights in North America,
as per the definition in Wikipedia.

> ...so you just lied about him, Liarboy.
>
> You're quite the little prick, aren't you?
>
> :-)

Tom really needs to do more research before he opens his mouth. His
unforced errors consistently makes it a challenge to offer any defense
of him being anything other than shallow, small & petty.


-hh

[Thomas E.]

That is absolutely not what you intended to say, Liarboy.

[Thomas E.]

I did not, memory failed me,

[Alan Baker]

And now you can read minds!

[Alan Baker]

Such a sincere apology...

[Thomas E.]

By inference, it's flyover country because it's not worth visiting. That's an insult to the millions of us who live here. And, frankly, given the snobbish attitudes of some people living on both coasts, we are actually glad you think that. Present company included.

[Alan Baker]

Do you know what the word "inference" means, Liarboy?

Perhaps you'd like to look it up and try again.

And while you're at it, you could own up to your EXPLICIT attempts to
denigrate where others live.

:-)

[Thomas E.]

Sure they were explicit. I quoted some negative third party views on certain Vancouver neighborhoods, and overall housing affordability. I'm not the only person that thinks Vancouver has its drawbacks.

So we all live where we do, and we must like it there to some extent. Otherwise we would move somewhere else. My observation is that it moving seldom fixes dissatisfaction. We tend to take our issues with us. That's why you see people with 5 divorces. I know a few.

:)

[Alan Baker]

"Drawbacks" isn't what you said, Liarboy.

EVERY place has its drawbacks, Liarboy.

>
> So we all live where we do, and we must like it there to some extent.
> Otherwise we would move somewhere else. My observation is that it
> moving seldom fixes dissatisfaction. We tend to take our issues with
> us. That's why you see people with 5 divorces. I know a few.

None of which addresses your explicit attempts to denigrate.

[Thomas E.]

Touchy aren't we? Must be that Canuck inferiority complex thing kicking in.

Canada, 10% of the U.S., and always will be.

[Alan Baker]

Nope. I note it: I'm not upset by it.

And I note that you don't deny it.

:-)

>
> Canada, 10% of the U.S., and always will be.

Canada: on top of the U.S., and always will be.

[Thomas E.]

On top in what? Innovation? No. Wealth? No. Affordability? No. Beach resorts? No. Desert resorts? No. Days with temps below freezing? Yes.

[Alan Baker]

LOL

You don't even get it!

[ed]

On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 4:02:13 PM UTC-7, ed wrote:
> On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 2:42:46 PM UTC-7, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 1:27:56 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> > > On 2017-07-10 8:17 AM, ed wrote:
> > > > On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 6:28:06 AM UTC-7, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > > ....
> > > >> When you travel you probably do so out of Newark, generally regarded as one of the worst airports in the country. I've been there a few times. It's a dismal place. When the weather goes down the runways are too close to allow simultaneous operations. Air traffic backs up there in bad weather. Delays can be horrendous. LGA is even worse.
> > > >>
> > > >> http://www.ranker.com/list/best-to-worst-u-s-airports/voteable
> > > >>
> > > >> Note my closest air carrier airport is ranked #7, yours #82, out of 85.
> > > >
> > > > IND *is* a nice airport. too bad airlines don't like it so it's expensive to fly in and out of, there aren't many flights, and it's tough to catch a flight many places direct (it's "international" because you can fly to Toronto. that's the only regular international flight. that's it.). and that's with the city spending a billion on improvements and providing guarantees to airlines.
> > > > https://www.indystar.com/story/money/2013/11/24/fares-have-soared-flights-have-fallen-at-indianapolis-airport/3693059/
> > > >
> > > > if you're cargo, it's great though. :D
> > > >
> > >
> > > That is too rich!
> > >
> > > Like Liarboy, his city's airport tries to make more of itself than it is
> > > in reality!
> >
> > Partly wrong. It's International Airport partly due to FedEx and corporate aviation. FedEx has planes coming in here from as a far as China. We have several corporations that make overseas flights. All demand U.S. Customs services.
>
> yes, as I mentioned, things are pretty sweet at ind if you're cargo. not really the context of your bragging though. :D
>
> > Alas, we do need to make a stop for all scheduled passenger destinations except Toronto.
>
> you have occasional seasonal service to 3 places in mx as well. woohoo!

sweet jesus tom, i just found out you poor bastards can't even enroll for global entry at IND (the only place in indiana that you can is in the bustling metropolis of south bend).

[Thomas E.]

We can enroll in pre-check here.

Some states have zero Global Entry centers. Why South Bend? It's close to O-Hare. If you look at where they are located it's the international hubs and border crossings with Canada and Mexico. The easiest thing to do is get an appointment at a hub, plan a layover, and do the interview then. I don't feel the need. With the spread of automated document checks the whole process is getting easier.

[-hh]

On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 4:47:22 PM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 8:04:08 PM UTC-4, ed wrote:

> > [2017 thread revisit]

> >
> > sweet jesus tom, i just found out you poor bastards can't

> > even enroll for global entry at IND (the only place in Indiana

> > that you can is in the bustling metropolis of south bend).

Which pretty much reveals virtually no international air traffic
for there to be a demand signal.

> We can enroll in pre-check here.

Again, it will be driven by a variety of factors; I have the
choice of 20 locations within 50 miles (Carmel has three <50mi).


> Some states have zero Global Entry centers....I don't feel
> the need.

Understandable, as when one only makes but a few international
trips per year, it doesn't really make sense to do.

> With the spread of automated document checks the whole process
> is getting easier.

Mobile Passport is nice, although it now has an annual fee for the App.


-hh

[Thomas E.]

First, you don't need Mobile Passport to use the scanners I'm talking about. You just put your passport in the scanner, answer a few questions, and it prints out a receipt that you hand to the INS officer. It's even faster than Mobile Passport, fewer questions to answer. https://www.cbp.gov/travel/us-citizens/apc

Second, of course there are more Pre-Check locations where you live. There are more people in the greater NYC area than the whole state of Indiana. There are more gas stations within 50 miles of you than me. So what?

Finally, we have significant numbers of passengers who travel internationally out of here. We make connections at immigration portal airports. BFD except for Newark and Philly, Charlie Foxtrot airports I avoid all all costs.

[-hh]

On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 7:58:35 AM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 5:33:48 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
> > On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 4:47:22 PM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 8:04:08 PM UTC-4, ed wrote:
> > > > [2017 thread revisit]
> > > >
> > > > sweet jesus tom, i just found out you poor bastards can't
> > > > even enroll for global entry at IND (the only place in Indiana
> > > > that you can is in the bustling metropolis of south bend).
> >
> > Which pretty much reveals virtually no international air traffic
> > for there to be a demand signal.
> >
> >
> > > We can enroll in pre-check here.
> >
> > Again, it will be driven by a variety of factors; I have the
> > choice of 20 locations within 50 miles (Carmel has three <50mi).
> >
> >
> > > Some states have zero Global Entry centers....I don't feel
> > > the need.
> >
> > Understandable, as when one only makes but a few international
> > trips per year, it doesn't really make sense to do.
> >
> > > With the spread of automated document checks the whole process
> > > is getting easier.
> >
> > Mobile Passport is nice, although it now has an annual fee for the App.
> >
> >
> > -hh
>
> First, you don't need Mobile Passport to use the scanners I'm
> talking about.

Correct, because MP lets you **skip** those scanners entirely.

> You just put your passport in the scanner...it prints out a

> receipt that you hand to the INS officer. It's even faster
> than Mobile Passport, fewer questions to answer.

Depends on how the airport is set up. At the places I've been
with the machines, after you stand in line to use a kiosk, you
then rejoin the masses to then get in line for an INS Agent.
And while it is quicker once you're at the INS Agent, you've
been in line at least twice: one for the machine and another
for the Agent. On only one occasion can I ever recall that
this second line for an Agent actually being "quick".

In contrast, the Mobile Passport entry is completed without
getting in a line for a kiosk. And in many (all?) locations,
the MB users have their own line set aside for the INS Agent;
at EWR, its the line also for "Diplomats & Crew" and it rarely
has anyone in line ahead of you.

> Second, of course there are more Pre-Check locations where
> you live. There are more people in the greater NYC area than
> the whole state of Indiana.

And more international flights apparently too ;-)

> Finally, we have significant numbers of passengers who travel
> internationally out of here.

When outbound, there is no line to clear through an Agent at all.

> We make connections at immigration portal airports.

Because with virtually zero direct international flights for
non-cargo, you have basically no other choice.

> BFD except for Newark and Philly, Charlie Foxtrot airports

> I avoid [at] all costs.

Particularly when you've not been travelling much lately anyway! /s

For EWR, the rules of savvy travel aren't really any different
than for IAH or similarly busy hubs: don't accept itineraries
which have unrealistically short connection times to begin with,
and be cautious too of booking onto the last outbound of the day.
Case in point, there's easily a ~dozen options for EWR-IAH-SCL,
but ones which have only a 45 minute connection is a bad choice.


-hh