OT: Testing the new car

[Alan Baker]

I know that there are people eager for news of my new RF98, so I thought
I'd provide an update.

Yesterday, in return for offering road racing instruction to novice
trackday participants, I ran my Van Diemen RF98 Honda during the lunch
break at Mission Raceway Park. I thought it would be better to discover
any issues with the car three and a half weeks before the next race,
rather than discover them during the practice session Saturday morning
with the need to have them resolved before qualifying just 115 minutes
later.

So after going through the car's systems, fixing a few minor issues
(such as a little extra slop in the gear linkage cured by adding more
appropriate, shanked bolts and proper saddle washers), completely
replacing the brake and clutch fluid, flushing and replacing the
coolant, we packed up the car for an initial shakedown run.

With only 20 minutes running time, this wasn't a session for trying
changes to the car; just a chance to find any problems with time to
resolve them before the first race.

Only... ...there weren't any problems! The car was exactly as
advertised. OK... ...there was a tiny amount lateral instability at top
speed which is probably just a fresh alignment away from correction, and
the shop which installed the new engine before the car was sold to me
definitely put in too heavy a weight engine oil, but we took care of
that before we'd even finished unpacking the trailer back at the garage.

Oh! There was one Dzus fastener that had been replaced with one that
wasn't the proper length, so we had to temporarily tape that panel into
place.


However, I would run the car without hesitation as it sits in the garage
right now. I have good information from an experience prep shop for
starting settings for spring rates, anti-roll bars, ride heights, camber
and caster, and the car will be taken to a specialty shop to get its
first alignment; mostly because I need to fabricate a few things before
I can do an alignment myself (new brackets for the alignment bars, most
of all).

And... ...it feels fast.

One area where the Honda-engined cars differ from the Kents is that the
Honda has a rev limiter which cuts in at 6750 rpm whereas most Kents are
run without a rev limiter. So when selecting a top gear, Honda cars must
choose a ratio which will keep the car below the rev limiter in every
conceivable situation, while the Kent-engined FFs can choose a slightly
shorter ratio, knowing that if they do happen to get a good "tow" down
the longest straight, they can allow the engine to rev past the optimum
for short lengths of time. This is one of the reasons that Kents have a
small advantage at tracks with long straights (along with slightly
greater top-end power).

But even having to choose that slightly taller gear, and even before
trying to put together a full-on lap, I was seeing speeds very near the
rev limit before braking for turn one.

If I'm in town to enjoy it, I think the rest of the racing season could
be a lot of fun!

:-)

[Alan Baker]

On 2018-05-29 12:10 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> I know that there are people eager for news of my new RF98, so I thought

> I'd provide an update...

...and a little video:

<https://youtu.be/NnYx_lZBSaI>

[Thomas E.]

Already making excuses for no-shows!!!!!

Chicken-shit Baker is afraid to run the new toy! He will probably find a way to break even a Honda engine!

[Alan Baker]

No, Liarboy.

I've got an opportunity for a six month contract overseas. If it comes
through, I'm taking it.

>
> Chicken-shit Baker is afraid to run the new toy! He will probably find a way to break even a Honda engine!

You simpleton, what do you think the video was?

[Thomas E.]

And miss the whole season. How utterly convenient.

[Alan Baker]

Very inconvenient in point of fact—not only would it mean missing the
racing season, but at least half of my hockey season, and Christmas with
my family in all likelihood, but also very lucrative. About $1,000USD a
day, 6 days a week for about 6 months.

Do the math. That will pay for a lot of future racing.

:-D

[Thomas E.]

$156,000 is bit less than I made all last year, and a pretty darn good 6 months for a college drop-out.

I just signed a contract for project that could pay about $2,000 a day + expenses for at least the next 6 months, and I can do it from here. At 5 days a week you do the math. Then add in my $145k pension and investment base income.

2018 taxes could be pretty awful for both of us. :)

[Alan Baker]

Bully for you.

>
> I just signed a contract for project that could pay about $2,000 a
> day + expenses for at least the next 6 months, and I can do it from
> here. At 5 days a week you do the math. Then add in my $145k pension
> and investment base income.
>
> 2018 taxes could be pretty awful for both of us. :)

Your apology for suggesting I was looking for an excuse is duly noted by
its absence, Liarboy.

>

[Thomas E.]

No apology is forthcoming

[Alan Baker]

I know that, Liarboy.

You lack the integrity to do so.

[-hh]

Tom wrote:

> Alan wrote:
>> Very inconvenient in point of fact—not only would it mean missing the
>> racing season, but at least half of my hockey season, and Christmas with
>> my family in all likelihood, but also very lucrative. About $1,000USD a
>> day, 6 days a week for about 6 months.
>>
>> Do the math. That will pay for a lot of future racing.

Indeed. Hope it works out for you Alan.

> $156,000 is bit less than I made all last year, and a pretty darn
> good 6 months for a college drop-out.

And that’s without any perturbations from cashing in stock options causing anomalous high years on the one hand, and six months of subsequent work on the other.

> I just signed a contract for project that could pay about $2,000 a day + expenses for at least the next 6 months, ...

Keyword being “could”. Write us when the check clears.

> ...and I can do it from here.

Well, some people do consider travel to be a plus.

> At 5 days a week you do the math. Then add in my $145k pension and investment base income.

Much of the latter is RMDs and already included.

> 2018 taxes could be pretty awful for both of us. :)

Pretty soon you might even be keeping up with the Jones. /S


-hh

[Alan Baker]

On 2018-06-05 5:17 PM, -hh wrote:
> Tom wrote:
>> Alan wrote:
>>> Very inconvenient in point of fact—not only would it mean missing the
>>> racing season, but at least half of my hockey season, and Christmas with
>>> my family in all likelihood, but also very lucrative. About $1,000USD a
>>> day, 6 days a week for about 6 months.
>>>
>>> Do the math. That will pay for a lot of future racing.
>
> Indeed. Hope it works out for you Alan.

Thanks. For whatever reason, it seems to be taking them a lot longer to
announce their decision than we'd thought it would.

I'm hoping I can have the best of both worlds: my racing season...
...followed by a lucrative 6 month contract.

:-)

[Thomas E.]

Gee, how is Alan's business travel a plus and mine is not?

If your hypothetical American Jones family is in the top 10% of income and median net worth then I'm in those groups with them.

I'm billing monthly, so there will not be one check. The project start for me is a few months away. I will be having a conference call with clients next week.

[-hh]

Thomas E. Wrote:
>On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 8:17:20 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
>> Tom wrote:
>> > Alan wrote:
>> >> Very inconvenient in point of fact—not only would it mean missing the
>> >> racing season, but at least half of my hockey season, and Christmas with
>> >> my family in all likelihood, but also very lucrative. About $1,000USD a
>> >> day, 6 days a week for about 6 months.
>> >>
>> >> Do the math. That will pay for a lot of future racing.
>>
>> Indeed. Hope it works out for you Alan.
>>
>> > $156,000 is bit less than I made all last year, and a pretty darn
>> > good 6 months for a college drop-out.
>>
>> And that’s without any perturbations from cashing in stock options
>> causing anomalous high years on the one hand, and six months of
>> subsequent work on the other.
>>
>> > I just signed a contract for project that could pay about $2,000 a day + expenses for at least the next 6 months, ...
>>
>> Keyword being “could”. Write us when the check clears.
>>
>> > ...and I can do it from here.
>>
>> Well, some people do consider travel to be a plus.
>>
>> > At 5 days a week you do the math. Then add in my $145k pension and investment base income.
>>
>> Much of the latter is RMDs and already included.
>>
>> > 2018 taxes could be pretty awful for both of us. :)
>>
>> Pretty soon you might even be keeping up with the Jones. /S
>
>

> Gee, how is Alan's business travel a plus and mine is not?

When you said ”...and I can do it from here.“

> If your hypothetical American Jones family is in the top 10%
> of income and median net worth then I'm in those groups with them.

But not when they’re in the top 5%.

> I'm billing monthly, so there will not be one check.

Pedantic dodge attempt. Lame.


-hh

[Thomas E.]

You dissed my international business travel. Then when Alan gets to do it on a project and I don't "Some people consider travel a plus." Dual standards are your MO.

Not in the top 5%, but still better than 90% of the Jones. Lame...if I was in the top 5% you would say not as well of as the top 1%. LOL

I'll tell you when I collect the first check, and then the total at the end. There are going to be a lot of checks. Each of the 12+ clients are going to be paying a pro-rated share direct to me.

[-hh]

> You dissed my international business travel. Then when Alan gets to do it on a project
> and I don't "Some people consider travel a plus." Dual standards are your MO.

Nope. You claimed that your business travel was proof of your financial prosperity.
IIRC, I even pointed out to you at the time that the military sends enlisted servicemen
overseas all the time ... and FYI, the annual pay for a corporal is only ~$25K/yr.
As such, your claim does not logically follow and that’s what you were slammed on.

> Not in the top 5%, but still better than 90% of the Jones. Lame...if I was in the top 5%
> you would say not as well of as the top 1%. LOL

Sorry, but you don’t actually know how far behind you are, to know how much
will be enough to be caught up.

> I'll tell you when I collect the first check, and then the total at the end. There
> are going to be a lot of checks. Each of the 12+ clients are going to be paying a
> pro-rated share direct to me.

A monthly report will suffice. Have it posted by the 7th of each month and also
do a quarterly running sum so that you don’t “acccidently” double-count.

-hh

[Thomas E.]

I will not be disclosing my monthly fees.

As for the travel, it was a sign of my career success, and the money that came from same. Those trips were at the request of local and international upper management. I put on company meetings, conducted market research studies, spoke at international professional conferences, met with the upper management of numerous customers, and spoke at company sales meetings. Had I not been successful that travel would not have happened. The day I retired my salary was in the top 5 or 10% of all the U.S. Eli Lilly cohort managers. How do I know that? Your rank was disclosed as part of your annual performance review.

Corporate travel is vastly difference from military deployments.

So, with $2.2+ million net worth, 0 debt, and a 6 figure retirement income, how far behind am I? And when will I catch up? LOL

[ed]

Corporate travel is nothing resembling a signifier of career success (coming from someone who's done more than their share).

[-hh]

Tom backtracks, now writing:
> -hh wrote:

> > Tom wrote:
> > I'll tell you when I collect the first check, and then the total at the end. There
> > are going to be a lot of checks. Each of the 12+ clients are going to be paying a
> > pro-rated share direct to me.
>
> A monthly report will suffice. Have it posted by the 7th of each month and also
> do a quarterly running sum so that you don’t “acccidently” double-count.
>

> I will not be disclosing my monthly fees.

So all the above offer really was saying was that you would tell how many checks
are recievrd and not for fiscally how much. Gosh that’s a real nothing-burger!

> As for the travel, it was a sign of my career success, ...

Nope, because that wasn’t your claim as made. As was pointed out, there are also
many low-paid people who get sent on international trips too. And these too were
sent at the request of people higher up.

> Had I not been successful that travel would not have happened.

Bullshit. For if it hadn’t been for your clogged pee-pee (or whatever), Uncle Sam would
have sent you in an international all-expenses paid business trip ... to Vietnam. And no,
it isn’t somehow ‘different’ just because you say so, for there’s tons of international travel, for
all types. For another example, travel abroad to work for near-minimum wage (<$20K/yr) on
a big cruise ship (a lot of Filipinos do this).

> The day I retired my salary was in the top 5 or 10% of all the U.S. Eli Lilly
> cohort managers.

“Five to ten percent” is a pretty big spread, plus one would normally expect that
an at-retirement employee that’s not a total loser would be at or near the top of
his job position’s pay band anyway. As such, wouldn’t it be more impressive to
be near the top ~5% when you’re still at least ten years before retirement?

> So, with $2.2+ million net worth, 0 debt, and a 6 figure retirement income, how
> far behind am I? And when will I catch up? LOL

Since the “six figure” still starts with only a one and with you now also backtracking to
just a “Hey, I got another check in the mail this month”, there’s no evidence you ever will.


-hh

[Thomas E.]

Then you must not have been very good at it. I was.

[Thomas E.]

There are so many holes in that diatribe I don't know where to start.

[ed]

On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 3:01:34 PM UTC-7, Thomas E. wrote:
> Then you must not have been very good at it. I was.

Look at any management consulting company. All sorts of college new hires getting ridden for every dollar that can be wrung out of them. It's not an indicator of anything, until you're at the level where you determine your own travel, and can take the corporate jet on your schedule, rather being at the because and call of others. That's why so many actual high level employees are able to CHOOSE not to travel.

(And maybe you were better at it than I am. But i somehow managed to have a higher net worth than you have. Even though you're decades older. So there's that.)

[-hh]

Thomas E. wrote:
> There are so many holes in that diatribe I don't know where to start.

It was clear, such as pointing out how you’ve backpedaled on your promise.
Evidentially, you must not have been as good as you thought you were.


-hh

[Alan Baker]

Certainly, you'll avoid saying anything that you could be called out on
later, Liarboy.

[Thomas E.]

So you traveled more and have a higher net worth than me, good for you. Millions of people have done better than either of us. But, do you not see your contradiction.

[Thomas E.]

What, like you claiming that a prototype is the same as a fully working product?

[ed]

there's no contradiction. the level of success and the required travel are not correlated; some years i've travelled more than some of the C-levels in my company. that certainly wasn't an indication of being more successful. ha. i'm sure there were many salespeople at lilly that basically lived on the road - would you argue that indicated they were more successful than you?

[Thomas E.]

Depends on the nature of the travel and the responsibilities entailed.

[Alan Baker]

I never claimed that.

I claimed that TYPICALLY, when one refers to a prototype, one is
referring to an object which, while not perhaps in its final form, works
as the final product is intended to work:

You presented the Asus as generic prototype, Liarboy.

[-hh]

Where "it depends" literally because there is no correlation between the variables.

Its hard not to put a "/S" sarcasm mark on that, since it ultimately tracks back to
Tommy being clearly delinquent analytically, not understanding what words like
"correlation" actually means.


-hh

[Thomas E.]

Per my post on various kinds of prototypes that is not true, LIARBOY. You assumed something that is not based in fact, just to make a point. You were wrong, just admit and go on with your life.

[-hh]

> Per my post on various kinds of prototypes that is not true, ...

Except that that post came later, after you had already fixed by
context just what type of prototype you intended to apply.

> You assumed something that is not based in fact, just to make
> a point.

No, because just which kind of prototype had already been fixed
by the context of your post...

> You were wrong, just admit and go on with your life.

...despite how you've been trying to backpedal it to change
what was meant to now be something different.


-hh

[Alan Baker]

Those posts came later after you realized that trying to defend the
position that this was a working prototype was a losing proposition,
Liarboy.

I pointed out it wasn't a working prototype, and if you'd actually meant
that it was something else, you would have replied "Yes, but..."...

...but you didn't.

:-)

[ed]

so what you're saying is that travel isn't the signifier of career success. huh.

[Thomas E.]

I NEVER stated it was a working prototype. The fact that you have to use the word "working" implies that there is a range of meanings with classifications of types.

[Alan Baker]

I never said you explicitly stated it, Liarboy.

Every time I posted that it wasn't working, you posted in rebuttal, however.

[-hh]

On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 4:46:21 PM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 4:54:55 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> > On 2018-06-04 1:50 PM, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 12:04:52 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> > >> On 2018-06-04 6:37 AM, Thomas E. wrote:
> > >>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 3:10:04 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> > >>>> I know that there are people eager for news of my new RF98, so I thought
> > >>>> I'd provide an update.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Yesterday, in return for offering road racing instruction to novice
> > >>>> trackday participants, I ran my Van Diemen RF98 Honda during the lunch
> > >>>> break at Mission Raceway Park. I thought it would be better to discover
> > >>>> any issues with the car three and a half weeks before the next race,
> > >>>> rather than discover them during the practice session Saturday morning
> > >>>> with the need to have them resolved before qualifying just 115 minutes
> > >>>> later.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> So after going through the car's systems, fixing a few minor issues
> > >>>> (such as a little extra slop in the gear linkage cured by adding more
> > >>>> appropriate, shanked bolts and proper saddle washers), completely
> > >>>> replacing the brake and clutch fluid, flushing and replacing the
> > >>>> coolant, we packed up the car for an initial shakedown run.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> With only 20 minutes running time, this wasn't a session for trying
> > >>>> changes to the car; just a chance to find any problems with time to
> > >>>> resolve them before the first race.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Only... ...there weren't any problems! The car was exactly as
> > >>>> advertised. OK... ...there was a tiny amount lateral instability at top
> > >>>> speed which is probably just a fresh alignment away from correction, and
> > >>>> the shop which installed the new engine before the car was sold to me
> > >>>> definitely put in too heavy a weight engine oil, but we took care of
> > >>>> that before we'd even finished unpacking the trailer back at the garage.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Oh! There was one Dzus fastener that had been replaced with one that
> > >>>> wasn't the proper length, so we had to temporarily tape that panel into
> > >>>> place.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> However, I would run the car without hesitation as it sits in the garage
> > >>>> right now. I have good information from an experience prep shop for
> > >>>> starting settings for spring rates, anti-roll bars, ride heights, camber
> > >>>> and caster, and the car will be taken to a specialty shop to get its
> > >>>> first alignment; mostly because I need to fabricate a few things before
> > >>>> I can do an alignment myself (new brackets for the alignment bars, most
> > >>>> of all).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> And... ...it feels fast.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> One area where the Honda-engined cars differ from the Kents is that the
> > >>>> Honda has a rev limiter which cuts in at 6750 rpm whereas most Kents are
> > >>>> run without a rev limiter. So when selecting a top gear, Honda cars must
> > >>>> choose a ratio which will keep the car below the rev limiter in every
> > >>>> conceivable situation, while the Kent-engined FFs can choose a slightly
> > >>>> shorter ratio, knowing that if they do happen to get a good "tow" down
> > >>>> the longest straight, they can allow the engine to rev past the optimum
> > >>>> for short lengths of time. This is one of the reasons that Kents have a
> > >>>> small advantage at tracks with long straights (along with slightly
> > >>>> greater top-end power).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> But even having to choose that slightly taller gear, and even before
> > >>>> trying to put together a full-on lap, I was seeing speeds very near the
> > >>>> rev limit before braking for turn one.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If I'm in town to enjoy it, I think the rest of the racing season could
> > >>>> be a lot of fun!
> > >>>>
> > >>>> :-)
> > >>>
> > >>> "If I'm in town to enjoy it, I think the rest of the racing season could
> > >>> be a lot of fun!
> > >>>
> > >>> :-)"
> > >>>
> > >>> Already making excuses for no-shows!!!!!
> > >>
> > >> No, Liarboy.
> > >>
> > >> I've got an opportunity for a six month contract overseas. If it comes
> > >> through, I'm taking it.
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> Chicken-shit Baker is afraid to run the new toy! He will probably find a way to break even a Honda engine!
> > >>
> > >> You simpleton, what do you think the video was?
> > >
> > > And miss the whole season. How utterly convenient.

> > >
> >
> > Very inconvenient in point of fact—not only would it mean missing the
> > racing season, but at least half of my hockey season, and Christmas with
> > my family in all likelihood, but also very lucrative. About $1,000USD a
> > day, 6 days a week for about 6 months.
> >
> > Do the math. That will pay for a lot of future racing.
> >

> > :-D

> $156,000 is bit less than I made all last year, and a pretty darn good 6 months for a college drop-out.
>

> I just signed a contract for project that could pay about $2,000 a day + expenses for

> at least the next 6 months, and I can do it from here. At 5 days a week you do the math.

> Then add in my $145k pension and investment base income.
>

> 2018 taxes could be pretty awful for both of us. :)

Just in case Tommy wants to deny that he made this claim... /s

-hh

[Thomas E.]

Actually, we don't know if Alan's project came through. Mine did, but it fizzled because the multiple clients could not agree on an approach. Income was on that one was nominal. I did land a different project though. It did not kick off until late 2019 and ran over into 2020. Total billings were over $100k. It was my last major project.

[Alan]

You are very good with excuses... ...dick.

[-hh]

Not the point. The point was that here in 2018, you claimed “my $145K pension
and investment base income.”, yet in 2024, you claimed that your pension, plus your
wife’s pension, and both of your SS checks combined now sum to only $100K.

As ed pointed out to you, WTF?

The slight of hand appears to have been the just-ambiguous-enough phrasing which
implied a pension of $145K, plus an unspecified additional amount of investment
income, instead of the reading of it as a pension & investments income(s) which
taken together sum to $145K.

Given your propensities, the latter is more likely. Particularly as 2018 would have
around the onset of RMDs of former employer 401k. Plus the phrasing allows for
counting of discretionary (& greater-than-RMD) transactions, and of “one-shots”,
such as the exercising of an old/expiring stock options, Roth conversions, etc.

> I did land a different project though. It did not kick off until late 2019 and
> ran over into 2020. Total billings were over $100k. It was my last major project.

Which was much lower in total vs its prior potential, plus “billings” is a gross, not net,
so it is not actual real, take-home income like the other numbers. Deduct off a few
business trips, add overhead, and the balance left remaining for real net income is …?
/s

-hh

[Thomas E.]

OH MY GOD! Ask questions before you make assumptions. 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. Those expiration periods are somewhat standard. Have you ever received an employer stock option? Do you even know how they work?

The RMD income started in 2016 (1946+70). That's the 2018 difference. You can call it a 401k pension or investment income. I think of it both ways.

That last project involved no travel or overhead, it was 100% billable hours. The number is IRS-basis net income that does include some expenses that are not deductible unless you have a home office and have a positive gross margin. Yes, the project that fell through could have been worth at least twice that. The operative word was "could". We will never know, will we?

[-hh]

> OH MY GOD! Ask questions before you make assumptions. I retired in 2003, remember?

No, you lost your job in 2003, and the severance package was $240K in cash (2 years
of salary), plus a pension...which we've since learned was perhaps just $45K.

> 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.
> Those expiration periods are somewhat standard. Have you ever received an employer
> stock option? Do you even know how they work?

Yes, we've had such options ... and have sold very little of them, so they're currently
spinning off around $1K/mo in dividends.

In any event, Stock Options was merely one of several ways that an annual income
can have a transient bump up, so the lack of any remaining options on your part
doesn't make it impossible for you to have income from the others...which you then
admit to after your whining:

> The RMD income started in 2016 (1946+70). That's the 2018 difference. You can
> call it a 401k pension or investment income. I think of it both ways.

Having a 401k is a retirement benefit, as it is tax-advantaged, but I'd never refer to
it as a 'pension' regardless of additional modifiers because its a present value cash
balance and structurally not an annuity, nor anything close to one.

> That last project involved no travel or overhead, it was 100% billable hours.
> The number is IRS-basis net income that does include some expenses that
> are not deductible unless you have a home office and have a positive gross margin.

Both of which you do have, which means you could have dumped into your 401k
rather than to take it now as taxable income.

> Yes, the project that fell through could have been worth at least twice that.
> The operative word was "could". We will never know, will we?

Same as your rampant speculation attempts on Alan's income.

-hh

[Alan]

On 2024-02-12 08:32, Thomas E. wrote:

>>> Actually, we don't know if Alan's project came through. Mine did, but it fizzled because
>>> the multiple clients could not agree on an approach. Income was on that one was nominal.
>> Not the point. The point was that here in 2018, you claimed “my $145K pension
>> and investment base income.”, yet in 2024, you claimed that your pension, plus your
>> wife’s pension, and both of your SS checks combined now sum to only $100K.
>>
>> As ed pointed out to you, WTF?
>>
>> The slight of hand appears to have been the just-ambiguous-enough phrasing which
>> implied a pension of $145K, plus an unspecified additional amount of investment
>> income, instead of the reading of it as a pension & investments income(s) which
>> taken together sum to $145K.
>>
>> Given your propensities, the latter is more likely. Particularly as 2018 would have
>> around the onset of RMDs of former employer 401k. Plus the phrasing allows for
>> counting of discretionary (& greater-than-RMD) transactions, and of “one-shots”,
>> such as the exercising of an old/expiring stock options, Roth conversions, etc.
>>> I did land a different project though. It did not kick off until late 2019 and
>>> ran over into 2020. Total billings were over $100k. It was my last major project.
>> Which was much lower in total vs its prior potential, plus “billings” is a gross, not net,
>> so it is not actual real, take-home income like the other numbers. Deduct off a few
>> business trips, add overhead, and the balance left remaining for real net income is …?
>> /s
>>
>> -hh
>
> OH MY GOD! Ask questions before you make assumptions.

You have GOT to be kidding, dick.

[Thomas E.]

Actually, I have hard evidence from 2018 forward in my possession that all is not well with Alan's finances. I promised Alan I would never show that to anyone, including you. It was obtained from a public-facing site that recently invoked a secure access protocol. This is an item that should be a high priority on the list of financial obligations. Alan knows exactly what I'm talking about here.

[Thomas E.]

If you remember there was a 2021 divorce. The wife got 40% of my pension. The $45k is your estimate of my share. Close.

> > 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.
> > Those expiration periods are somewhat standard. Have you ever received an employer
> > stock option? Do you even know how they work?
> Yes, we've had such options ... and have sold very little of them, so they're currently
> spinning off around $1K/mo in dividends.
>

Unexercised employee options pay dividends????

> In any event, Stock Options was merely one of several ways that an annual income
> can have a transient bump up, so the lack of any remaining options on your part
> doesn't make it impossible for you to have income from the others...which you then
> admit to after your whining:

My bump was the consulting business. A great deal of which went into the 401K.

> > The RMD income started in 2016 (1946+70). That's the 2018 difference. You can
> > call it a 401k pension or investment income. I think of it both ways.
> Having a 401k is a retirement benefit, as it is tax-advantaged, but I'd never refer to
> it as a 'pension' regardless of additional modifiers because its a present value cash
> balance and structurally not an annuity, nor anything close to one.

You might not think of it that way, but it is a requirement and comes in every year.

> > That last project involved no travel or overhead, it was 100% billable hours.
> > The number is IRS-basis net income that does include some expenses that
> > are not deductible unless you have a home office and have a positive gross margin.
> Both of which you do have, which means you could have dumped into your 401k
> rather than to take it now as taxable income.

That's true, but the 401K was already well over $1 million so I took those deductions as business expenses. That actually increased the net after tax cash flow because I did not pay income tax or FICA on those deductible expenses that reduced taxable net profit. Had I not taken the expenses and "dumped the extra profit into the 401K" I would have paid the full FICA as I was well short of the SS tax cap.

> > Yes, the project that fell through could have been worth at least twice that.
> > The operative word was "could". We will never know, will we?
> Same as your rampant speculation attempts on Alan's income.
>
> -hh

Second reply. See my inline responses above.

[-hh]

> Actually, I have hard evidence from 2018 forward in my possession that all is not well
> with Alan's finances. I promised Alan I would never show that to anyone, including you.

Do not send it to me. Not only do I not particularly care, I wouldn't want to receive
material from what appears to be a not particularly legal source, as you go on to detail:

> It was obtained from a public-facing site that recently invoked a secure access protocol.

Meaning that they realized that they had a breach, and you know that too, yet you've
chosen to retain the copy of it.

> This is an item that should be a high priority on the list of financial obligations.
> Alan knows exactly what I'm talking about here.

Still not interested. And it's probably a lot less IRL dire than you're trying to allude to.

-hh

[-hh]

The only divorce of your's that I can recall was about 20 years earlier than that.

> The wife got 40% of my pension.

Irrelevant.

> The $45k is your estimate of my share. Close.

The non-negative tone of your reply indicates that that value was high, which is due
to what the parametric was doing, as there were invariably other sources of income
that weren't being as overtly addressed which would have then been rolled up into
this value.

> > > 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.
> > > Those expiration periods are somewhat standard. Have you ever received an employer
> > > stock option? Do you even know how they work?
> >
> > Yes, we've had such options ... and have sold very little of them, so they're currently
> > spinning off around $1K/mo in dividends.
>
> Unexercised employee options pay dividends????

Tommy reading comprehension fail, because when one has "sold very little of them",
it means that they were not only exercised, but retained in one's portfolio.

> > In any event, Stock Options was merely one of several ways that an annual income
> > can have a transient bump up, so the lack of any remaining options on your part
> > doesn't make it impossible for you to have income from the others...which you then
> > admit to after your whining:
>
> My bump was the consulting business. A great deal of which went into the 401K.

Which illustrates how you dance around between what is 'income' and what
is taxable after business deductions such as the 401k contributions.

> > > The RMD income started in 2016 (1946+70). That's the 2018 difference. You can
> > > call it a 401k pension or investment income. I think of it both ways.
> >
> > Having a 401k is a retirement benefit, as it is tax-advantaged, but I'd never refer to
> > it as a 'pension' regardless of additional modifiers because its a present value cash
> > balance and structurally not an annuity, nor anything close to one.
>
> You might not think of it that way, but it is a requirement and comes in every year.

No, you're conflating the tax obligation of a tax-advantaged account with its structure.

Structurally, 401k's & IRAs are "cash balance" which unless are held 100% in insured
assets (eg. FDIC), have no contractual guarantee of their future worth or payments.

> > > That last project involved no travel or overhead, it was 100% billable hours.
> > > The number is IRS-basis net income that does include some expenses that
> > > are not deductible unless you have a home office and have a positive gross margin.
> >
> > Both of which you do have, which means you could have dumped into your 401k
> > rather than to take it now as taxable income.
>
> That's true, but the 401K was already well over $1 million so I took those deductions
> as business expenses.

The 401k balance magnitude is irrelevant: your self-employed structure is what
enabled you to reduce your taxable income on both the employee & employer sides.

> That actually increased the net after tax cash flow because I did not pay income tax
> or FICA on those deductible expenses that reduced taxable net profit. Had I not taken
> the expenses and "dumped the extra profit into the 401K" I would have paid the full
> FICA as I was well short of the SS tax cap.

Meaning that you took it on the employer side as a benefit, which lowered not only your
taxable income for your personal Fed/State income taxes, but it also lowered the
Social Security & Medicare taxes due on both the personal & business sides. Since
you were already collecting SS, you no longer benefitted from large income quarters.
But of course, you've also used that in your 'income stream', which can be considered
to be a deceptive slight of hand counting methodology switch-up on your part.


-hh