Next Project (Apple CarPlay)

[-hh]

Finally getting around to an upgrade...

<http://huntzinger.com/photo/2024/pre-install.jpg>


-hh

[Alan]

Cool!

[Thomas E.]

You call that an upgrade? The screen is tiny. Just get a newer Porsche with a real OEM screen or at least something bigger than this. Heck, my 2015 CRV with its retrofit has a 6.8" screen Pioneer radio/CarPlay unit. Smaller than the 2022 Accord, but still very useable. If you can't afford another Porsche get a mount for your phone. That would work as well as than your unit I found on "https://www.thedrive.com/news/33144/porsche-finally-offers-an-upgrade-to-its-eyesore-early-infotainment-units" that shows a $1550 price tag. A good phone mount is 5% of that.

[-hh]

On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 5:22:01 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Friday, December 29, 2023 at 4:27:34 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > Finally getting around to an upgrade...
> >
> > <http://huntzinger.com/photo/2024/pre-install.jpg>
>

> You call that an upgrade? The screen is tiny.

Most anything is an upgrade from the OEM AM/SW/FM+cassette deck radio.
But it’s still has to fit within the dashboard constraint of being single DIN.

> Just get a newer Porsche with a real OEM screen or at least something bigger than this.

Not for this one, as Porsche doesn’t sell new air cooled models anymore .. at any price.

> Heck, my 2015 CRV with its retrofit has a 6.8" screen Pioneer radio/CarPlay unit.
> Smaller than the 2022 Accord, but still very useable. If you can't afford another Porsche
> get a mount for your phone. That would work as well as than your unit I found on
"https://www.thedrive.com/news/33144/porsche-finally-offers-an-upgrade-to-its-eyesore-early-infotainment-units" that shows a $1550 price tag. A good phone mount is 5% of that.

That link is to this very product, along with the ‘PCCM Plus’ version, which is for the newer
996 & 986 (first generation water cooled). The good news for you Tommy is that 996’s and
986’s aren’t as popular, so they’re now cheap enough to be even within _your_ budget.

-hh

[Thomas E.]

After I receive my January RMD funds allotment I could trade my 2022 Honda Accord for a new 911 and write a check for the difference. But not going to happen. I have better uses for the money.

[Alan]

What an absolutely consistent, shallow asshole you are!

"Mine's bigger than yours" is the highest level of discourse you possess.

[Alan]

Graciously admitting your error as...

Oh, wait!

Failing to acknowledge your error...

...as always!

[-hh]

On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 5:51:20 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 5:44:25 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 5:22:01 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > On Friday, December 29, 2023 at 4:27:34 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > > > Finally getting around to an upgrade...
> > > >
> > > > <http://huntzinger.com/photo/2024/pre-install.jpg>
> > >
> > > You call that an upgrade? The screen is tiny.
> >
> > Most anything is an upgrade from the OEM AM/SW/FM+cassette deck radio.
> > But it’s still has to fit within the dashboard constraint of being single DIN.
> >
> > > Just get a newer Porsche with a real OEM screen or at least something bigger than this.
> >
> > Not for this one, as Porsche doesn’t sell new air cooled models anymore .. at any price.
> >
> > > Heck, my 2015 CRV with its retrofit has a 6.8" screen Pioneer radio/CarPlay unit.
> > > Smaller than the 2022 Accord, but still very useable. If you can't afford another Porsche
> > > get a mount for your phone. That would work as well as than your unit I found on
> > "https://www.thedrive.com/news/33144/porsche-finally-offers-an-upgrade-to-its-eyesore-early-infotainment-units" that shows a $1550 price tag. A good phone mount is 5% of that.
> >
> > That link is to this very product, along with the ‘PCCM Plus’ version, which is for the newer
> > 996 & 986 (first generation water cooled). The good news for you Tommy is that 996’s and
> > 986’s aren’t as popular, so they’re now cheap enough to be even within _your_ budget.
> >
>

> After I receive my January RMD funds allotment I could trade my 2022 Honda Accord
> for a new 911 and write a check for the difference. But not going to happen.

“Could”… but will never do so. That’s why the most you could rationalize stretching for
would be just a twenty year old used example.

> I have better uses for the money.

Meaning day-to-day living expenses.

-hh

[-hh]

How gauche. Merely YA distraction attempt, trying to find a hopefully plausible
tangent to save face on, rather than to simply admit being wrong.

-hh

[Alan]

It's really more sad than anything else, isn't it?

It's a pattern that I find quite common on Usenet.

There's a guy on here who insists that I can't possibly being a road
racer, road racing instructor...

...or even own a BMW...

...because I don't use the terms "beemer" or "bimmer"...

...and haven't heard anyone in racing EVER refer to the curve described
by a racing car at the limit as being a "catenary".

:-)

[-hh]

It happens.

> It's a pattern that I find quite common on Usenet.

It happens surprisingly frequently.

> There's a guy on here who insists that I can't possibly being a road
> racer, road racing instructor...
>
> ...or even own a BMW...
>
> ...because I don't use the terms "beemer" or "bimmer"...
>
> ...and haven't heard anyone in racing EVER refer to the curve described
> by a racing car at the limit as being a "catenary".
>
> :-)

Merely illustrates their own obsession to try to feel relevant/important.

Funniest stuff is how often they can get tripped up (& triggered) by
simple stuff. I recall a story of one who bragged about being well enough
off to have had a SEL560 .. and yet an innocuous comment on how luxury
cars were being used as a tax dodge happened to solidly hit home: braggart

was suddenly spitting mad, shouting that he beat that IRS audit on the
car.
Yeah, it was being claimed as a “business expense” & he got caught,
both
by the IRS as well as on his self-aggrandizing internet prosperity brag.

-hh

[Thomas E.]

I don't buy 20 year old cars. I do not see the need for a Porsche either. Apparently your ego needs stroking by the car you drive. Cars are transportation.

If you count vacations, charitable giving, flying us to places instead of driving and reinvestment as day-to-day living expenses then yes.

[Thomas E.]

On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 5:56:57 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:

What "error" is that?

[Alan]

For someone who claims he flies for the enjoyment of it, it's odd you
can't understand that someone else might want to make activity most of
us must do every day more enjoyable.

[-hh]

> > I don't buy 20 year old cars. I do not see the need for a Porsche
> > either. Apparently your ego needs stroking by the car you drive. Cars
> > are transportation.
>
> For someone who claims he flies for the enjoyment of it, it's odd you
> can't understand that someone else might want to make activity most of
> us must do every day more enjoyable.

Oh, Tom understands perfectly well: he just prefers anything over admitting
being wrong, including revealing himself as liar and a hypocrite.

-hh

[Alan]

And a part of it I think is that he doesn't actually get enjoyment from
doing things...


...as much as he gets enjoyment from lording it over others that he does
them.

[-hh]

> And a part of it I think is that he doesn't actually get enjoyment from
> doing things...
>
> ...as much as he gets enjoyment from lording it over others that he does
> them.

The problem he has is that he’s not actually doing any lording.

For example, his “could” claims on RMDs are countermanded by how it’s a
nothing burger in the real world, as he never did buy his own Cessna, or
even doubled up on vacation budget, etc, despite multiple years of RMDs to
draw from.

It is reminiscent of another braggart who went down this same trap of
falsely believing that merely having a modest bag of bucks somehow
magically equates to being a good human. It doesn’t.

But perhaps Tommy will take the opportunity to learn something new and
swing by a dealer for a visit and maybe even a test drive..not that I’d
expect him to spring for a 911; he’d probably not even be able to pass
muster to take a GT3 out for a test drive.

-hh

PS: piloting a new Usenet newsreader setup, in anticipation of GG’s demise.
“Meh” so far.

[Thomas E.]

LOL, HH has been saying that to me for years. Paybacks are a bitch.

[Thomas E.]

Hugh, you totally fail to see how you can actually see value in something but not enough to want to own it. I have seen enough aircraft (and boat) owners live to regret buying instead of renting. I once enjoyed golf too, but never bought a golf course. Quite a few of us enjoy a particular car, but lease it. With over $3 mill in net worth I can afford a lot of things I don't own. For less than hanger, maintenance and insurance I have access to 5 flying club aircraft and can fly CAP aircraft too with almost no out-of-pocket expense. In fact, 2 hours in the logbook of that CAP thingy just today.

Let's think about a Porsche. I have a 2022 Honda Accord Hybrid Touring. The Accord has consistenly ranked high on "best of" lists for decades. I have owned 4 or 5, and can see why. I have no desire to even test drive a Porsche. To me a car is something to get you from A to B in comfort and do it with no muss or fuss. I once had an SVT Mustang Cobra. It was fun for a year, then I went back to Honda. It's just not me.

You have no right to criticize others' choices based on your personal values. Yours are yours and are mine.

[Alan]

And yet you do PRECISELY that all the time.

[-hh]

> > PS: piloting a new Usenet newsreader setup, in anticipation of GG’s demise.
> > “Meh” so far.
>
> Hugh, you totally fail to see how you can actually see value in something but not
> enough to want to own it.

Yet that was what you initiated with your “Just get a newer Porsche with a real
OEM screen” and its follow-up of your January RMD “I could buy” claim.

> With over $3 mill in net worth I can afford a lot of things I don't own.

Which once again, as Alan noted, is precisely what you do all the time:
with often with the most tenuous of relevance, dangle a brag of bucks
so as to try to feel superior about yourself.

> For less than hanger, maintenance and insurance I have access to 5 flying club
> aircraft and can fly CAP aircraft too with almost no out-of-pocket expense.

Nothing wrong about being frugal, but it becomes hypocritical when one then
goes on to criticize others when in their own way, they’re doing the same.

> Let's think about a Porsche. I have a 2022 Honda Accord Hybrid Touring.

Merely the most recent of your many new car purchases…case in point:

> I have owned 4 or 5, and can see why.

Five and because you’re taking the initial years’ depreciation hits each time,
figure at $25K net capital each. Retaining frugality means you could have
had fewer & saved enough to have gotten the wife a Porsche.

> I have no desire to even test drive a Porsche. To me a car is something
> to get you from A to B in comfort and do it with no muss or fuss.

Because Hondas are renowned for being the most comfortable of rides … /s

> I once had an SVT Mustang Cobra. It was fun for a year, then I went back
> to Honda. It's just not me.

Sounds more like you scared yourself with the Cobra, and have been
subsequently “playing it safe” for the past ~30 years.

> You have no right to criticize others' choices based on your personal values.
> Yours are yours and are mine.

I’m not: I’m simply holding a mirror up … and you’re not liking your own reflection.

-hh

[Thomas E.]

Uh, Hugh, the 4 or 5 Honda Accords starts way back in 1989. It was actually 5, now that I think about it. Two of those were not new. Three were changed out with well over 100,000 miles. The other two were close to 100,000. I have tried others too. A previoulsy owned Civic with about 100,000 was traded for a new Insight Hybrid. About three years later, in the midst of the auto production crisis, a dealer offered me close to the Insight's MSRP to upgrade to the Accord Hybrid at its MSRP. (A year later Honda discontinued the Insight.) I took the offer. That's my current drive, 41,000 at 2 years in, and very happy with the larger Accord

The Accord, like all autos, is a series of compromises, but in a good way. Let Car and Driver explain it.

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a45976512/10best-2024-honda-accord/

"If there were a Mount Rushmore of cars, a likeness of the Accord would be George Washington. Honda's stalwart sedan has long been a towering example of smart engineering, a clear-eyed and consistent vision of what a great family sedan should be. This is the 38th time the Accord has earned a 10Best spot since our award's 1983 inaugural year, the most of any model from any manufacturer. The reason for the Accord's winning streak is simple but one that's hard for other companies to duplicate: continuous improvement of a single model over decades."

"In almost every way, this latest Accord is the best ever. Like Accords past, it hides its greatness under a conservatively styled suit of clothes. There's no flash, just substance, and this iteration confirms Honda's belief that now is the time for hybridization. The top four of the Accord's trims come strictly with a 204-hp hybrid powertrain. If you're solidly anti-hybrid, the two lower trim levels come standard with a 192-hp turbo 1.5-liter inline-four connected to a CVT."

There are many cars that exceed the Accord in some area or another. Your Porche is quicker, likely more fun to drive (for you), and makes a statement about the owner. But try to load up 5 or 6 model aircraft to go fly at a local RC field. Or carry 4 people and baggage on a trip. Does it get 45+ mpg? No, it will not do that.

I traded the Cobra SVT at about 10,000 miles because it just did not fit my needs. Seemed like a good idea at the time, but a mistake. It would hit 100 mph in third gear. It was loud. Tracked like it was on rails. Lots of fun, did not scare me, but failed in too many other areas, and my garage has only 2 slots. That one did cost a bundle in depreciation. Lesson learned.

[-hh]

What you did 30 years ago just isn’t contemporary, and there’s been other Hondas too, such
as your Insight hybrids. as of late, you’ve been flipping cars as often as your smartphones.

> There are many cars that exceed the Accord in some area or another. Your Porche is
> quicker, likely more fun to drive (for you), and makes a statement about the owner.
> But try to load up 5 or 6 model aircraft to go fly at a local RC field. Or carry 4 people
> and baggage on a trip. Does it get 45+ mpg? No, it will not do that.

Fortunately, “the right tool for the job” applies: If I need to carry a half dozen R/Cs or
passengers, I’ll simply choose a different vehicle in the family fleet. Ditto for other
use cases; It’s what happens when one is deliberate & holistic on capability needs.

-hh

[Thomas E.]

Insight Hybrids? I had one. It was obvious that it was not selling well and was likely to be discontinued. The clincher was the dealer's trade offer for the Accord Hybrid.

Let's review the chain. 2015 traded a pre-owned 2010 Accord with about 100,000 miles for a new Civic. Good car that Civic, but not great. 2019 traded the Civic with about 60,000 miles for the Insight. Dec 30, 2021 I traded the Insight Touring Hybrid with about 50,000 miles and valued at close to the 2019 MSRP for the Accord Touring Hybrid, now with 41,000 miles. We also have a 2015 CRV purchased new with about 90,000 miles, and no plans to make a change in either. The trade-in for the CRV as a 2002 Highlander with 140,000 miles. Since 2015 net worth has almost doubled, income less 401k contributions is up 50%, and cash flow since 2021 is no longer dependent on highly variable consulting income.

Between us since 2015 we have purchased about 8-10 smartphones, 4 or 5 tablets, Android and Apple, versus 4 car purchases. Phones do not cost as much as cars. News at 11.

We use the Accord as our trip car. It gets much better mileage and has a very large trunk. I could use the CRV for local hauls, but the wife likes driving it instead of the Accord.

You do know that it is totally rational to be frugal in some areas and not-so-frugal in others?

Please note that I did not criticize your car, just its tiny display.

You might want to read this too:

https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/mark-phelan/2023/12/31/honda-accord-2024-detroit-free-press-car-of-the-year/72034346007/

"The 2023 Honda Accord makes excellence look so effortless, it’s tempting to take the midsize sedan for granted. Don’t. The Accord hybrid, in particular, provides a combination of comfort, safety and efficiency that makes it a near-perfect daily driver. It is one of the many reasons I chose the Accord as the Detroit Free Press Car of the Year."

That's my car, a year newer. But nothing will appease your compulsion to find fault.

[Alan]

[Alan]

What I've seen is his game is "tit for tat". He only gives after he's
received.

[-hh]

> > > Uh, Hugh, the 4 or 5 Honda Accords starts way back in 1989.
> >
> > What you did 30 years ago just isn’t contemporary, and there’s been other Hondas too, such
> > as your Insight hybrids. as of late, you’ve been flipping cars as often as your smartphones.
> >
> > > There are many cars that exceed the Accord in some area or another. Your Porche is
> > > quicker, likely more fun to drive (for you), and makes a statement about the owner.
> > > But try to load up 5 or 6 model aircraft to go fly at a local RC field. Or carry 4 people
> > > and baggage on a trip. Does it get 45+ mpg? No, it will not do that.
> >
> > Fortunately, “the right tool for the job” applies: If I need to carry a half dozen R/Cs or
> > passengers, I’ll simply choose a different vehicle in the family fleet. Ditto for other
> > use cases; It’s what happens when one is deliberate & holistic on capability needs.
> >
>

> Insight Hybrids? I had one.

Point being that you've had more vehicles than merely Accords for your total count.

> It was obvious that it was not selling well and was likely to be discontinued.

So? That doesn't stop it from being a good vehicle, or meeting your needs.

> The clincher was the dealer's trade offer for the Accord Hybrid.

A ... "deal" /s

> Let's review the chain. 2015 traded a pre-owned 2010 Accord with about 100,000 miles for a new Civic.

Being pre-owned, it means you owned it for less than 5 years. For a typical three year lease, that
would have been a 2013 purchase and just 2 years of its ownership by you.

> Good car that Civic, but not great. 2019 traded the Civic with about 60,000 miles for the Insight.

2019 - 2015 = 4 years ownership

> Dec 30, 2021 I traded the Insight Touring Hybrid with about 50,000 miles ...

No more than 3 years ownership

So for what you've disclosed, its (2 + 4 + 3 ) / 3 = flipping your car every 3 years.

> Between us since 2015 we have purchased about 8-10 smartphones, 4 or 5 tablets,
> Android and Apple, versus 4 car purchases.

75% of which were your cars, not the households.

> Phones do not cost as much as cars. News at 11.

Right, and despite that, if we assume that just over half the phones were yours (vs spouse),
your consumption was 3 cars vs 5 smartphones: less than a 1:2 ratio.

> You do know that it is totally rational to be frugal in some areas and not-so-frugal in others?

Too bad you didn't afford that consideration to others when you criticized based on passenger seating,
carrying of R/Cs and even fuel economy: makes you more than just a tad hypocritical.

> Please note that I did not criticize your car, just its tiny display.

Which you did while being utterly ignorant that it was an interface constraint, and for which you
never acknowledged your mistake. Instead, you tried just saying "buy a new one", which was also
explained as not possible at any price, as air-cooled examples are no longer manufactured new: that
double-down attempt means you make two mistakes instead of just one.

> That's my car, a year newer. But nothing will appease your compulsion to find fault.

Who started it in this thread, Tommy? Hint: see "tiny display", above.

And FYI, I'm not being critical of the Honda Accord, but just how you seem to think that it is the
epitome of a comfortable (luxurious) ride whereas its merely just a nice all-around performer.
Plus it doesn't hurt to be able to claim reliability/etc, when one flips into a new one every ~3 years.
And time will tell if you'll keep your 2022 example until after 2025, or be flipping it yet again.

-hh

[Alan]

I'm still driving the BMW 135i I bought in 2017 and loving it. Before
that, I had my 1990 Miata (bought very lightly used from the parts
manager of the local Mazda dealership) from 1992; 25 years.

Now, I'll freely admit that during that time there was one very major
overhaul that probably cost $6,000. ("Probably" because the guy who did
the work was a close friend and I could NOT get him to invoice me.)

And of course there was some maintenance and repair down through the
years, but the main spends of $9,000 to purchase and the $6K, means
$600/year overall.

[-hh]

On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 12:13:54 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-01-02 17:14, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 5:54:46 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:

> >> ...

> >> "Mine's bigger than yours" is the highest level of discourse you possess.
> >
> > LOL, HH has been saying that to me for years. Paybacks are a bitch.
>
> What I've seen is his game is "tit for tat". He only gives after he's
> received.

With Tommy's comment on his personal finance, ie: "Since 2015 net worth has almost

doubled, income less 401k contributions is up 50%, and cash flow since 2021 is no longer

dependent on highly variable consulting income." ... well, gosh golly, "Good For You!" ...

... even though the question remains as to the motivation behind this clearly gratuitous
and unnecessary statement was made, because there are also spurious aspects to it.
For example, we know from his past comments that being self-employed, there were
broad 'employer' discretionary latitude on officially indicated income vs 401k contributions:
back in 2020, one could 'shelter' up to $57K in total in that fashion, which is more than 50%
of a $100K in revenue. As such, one should understand that a claimed "up 50%" can be
pedantically correct, but not necessarily all that meaningful overall because of that degree
of latitude for income shifting: in a way, its not unlike claiming an AGI of $364K while
neglecting to mention that it included a Roth conversion of an unspecified amount.

-hh

[Thomas E.]

My my, you lie a lot. The high AGI year was from selling stocks not in a qualified plan. I never claimed it was a Roth conversion. We saved more than the 401k contributions. And I had some other investments from the late 90s. Why do you keep making assumptions? The after tax proceeds were moved to an income plan to replace consulting income as I closed down the business.

I also maxed out the 401k contributions. My advisor and I laid out a long game plan and worked it for 20 years. It took a little longer than we thought but it did work out. Had COVID-19 not happened we would have been about on schedule.

[Thomas E.]

Given what you know I know about your financial situation this is probably more based on necessity than frugality.

As I recall a family member gave you a "great deal" on the BMW because he was not happy with the trade-in value. Felt sorry for you?

That a friend felt so sorry for you that he gave you a $6,000 engine overhaul just further says you probably can't afford new cars.

[-hh]

On Saturday, January 6, 2024 at 8:41:46 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 2:10:48 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 12:13:54 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> > > On 2024-01-02 17:14, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 5:54:46 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> > > >> ...
> > > >> "Mine's bigger than yours" is the highest level of discourse you possess.
> > > >
> > > > LOL, HH has been saying that to me for years. Paybacks are a bitch.
> > >
> > > What I've seen is his game is "tit for tat". He only gives after he's
> > > received.
> >
> > With Tommy's comment on his personal finance, ie: "Since 2015 net worth has almost
> > doubled, income less 401k contributions is up 50%, and cash flow since 2021 is no longer
> > dependent on highly variable consulting income." ... well, gosh golly, "Good For You!" ...
> >
> > ... even though the question remains as to the motivation behind this clearly gratuitous
> > and unnecessary statement was made, because there are also spurious aspects to it.
> > For example, we know from his past comments that being self-employed, there were
> > broad 'employer' discretionary latitude on officially indicated income vs 401k contributions:
> > back in 2020, one could 'shelter' up to $57K in total in that fashion, which is more than 50%
> > of a $100K in revenue. As such, one should understand that a claimed "up 50%" can be
> > pedantically correct, but not necessarily all that meaningful overall because of that degree
> > of latitude for income shifting: in a way, its not unlike claiming an AGI of $364K while
> > neglecting to mention that it included a Roth conversion of an unspecified amount.
> >
>

> My my, you lie a lot. The high AGI year was from selling stocks not in a qualified plan.
> I never claimed it was a Roth conversion.

False, for I never said it was only a Roth: I was drawing an analogy for how income can be
manipulated YoY, which is why it said “…not unlike…”.

> We saved more than the 401k contributions.

Irrelevant.

> And I had some other investments from the late 90s.

Irrelevant.

> Why do you keep making assumptions?

I’m not: I was simply giving a common example for how one can have a sudden “boost”
to taxable income to satisfy a “+50%!!!” claim. It wasn’t claimed as the only possible way.

> The after tax proceeds were moved to an income plan to replace consulting income
> as I closed down the business.

A common strategy today for doing that is via a bond ladder (which includes CDs).
Not a huge trade secret; “join the club.” Likewise, there’s also annuities.

> I also maxed out the 401k contributions.

Which traditionally reduces taxable income in those years, which makes a subsequent
“+50%!!” claim later on all the easier…golly! /s

> My advisor and I laid out a long game plan and worked it for 20 years.

Really? Because the actual test of the “it worked” is retrospective, after XX years of
the de-accumulation phase, which you’ve not yet had. Check back in 2041.

> It took a little longer than we thought but it did work out. Had COVID-19 not happened
> we would have been about on schedule.

Meaning then that your financial situation where you worked into your upper 70s was the
‘probably more based on necessity’ … right? Pot, meet kettle.

In any event, CoVid affected everyone’s long term plans in different ways. Invariably, there
were some who were fully able to retire in 2020, but chose to stay on, such as perhaps
telework was an easy opportunity to get a lifestyle “test run” while also banking extra, etc.
You can probably expect to see them driving by in a new Porsche /s

-hh

[Thomas E.]

You are aware that if you lay out a long-term financial strategy you need to have detailed records to track how well you are performing? I do, in Quicken.

So let's look at this a different way. From January 2002 to today We bought 7 cars. Complete records are in Quicken. Total cost was 2.9% of total gross income since 2002. Records are in Quicken and tax returns. That's 1/3 of vacation spending, less than groceries, about the same as utilities and home improvements, and a lot less than charitable giving. Records are in Quicken. Those numbers and others like it reflect our personal priorities.

And, over that period we increased net worth by almost 4.5x, grew income, and were debt free from 2003 onward.

As I stated before the Insight trade incurred almost no depreciation on that car. Also, we did buy used cars until 2015. All part of the plan to get to where we could afford new. It helped.

Bottom line if we now want to buy a new car every three years we can afford it, and still have money for vacations, charitable giving and keep groceries in the house. The house we own. Well technically, the house our trust owns.

You are perfectly free to keep your car with an expensive and tiny retrofit CarPlay screen as long as you like. You must love that old 911 to spend that kind of money on it. Our priorities may be different.

[-hh]

> You are aware that if you lay out a long-term financial strategy you need to have detailed records
> to track how well you are performing?

Of course, and I even know that this tracking is commonly called a "budget" /s.

> I do, in Quicken.
> So let's look at this a different way. From January 2002 to today We bought 7 cars. Complete records are in Quicken.

It probably even looks something like this, but with dollars added:

Tommy's Cars:

11/18/2003, 2001 Honda Accord EXL, Used, 140,000
12/22/2012, 2011, Honda Accord EXL, Used, 85,000
3/30/2015, 2015, Honda Civic EXL, New, 50,000
3/12/19, 2019, Honda Insight Touring, New, 42,000
12/31/2021, 2022, Honda Accord Hybrid Touring, New, 22,000

Wife's Cars:

6/2/2004, 2003, Toyota Highlander, Used, 125,000
3/19/2015, 2015, Honda CRV EXL, New, 81,000

> Total cost was 2.9% of total gross income since 2002.

2001 Honda Accord EXL $21K MSRP; Used less; figure -25% = $16K
2011, Honda Accord EXL ... $23K MSRP; Used less; figure -25% = $17K
2003, Toyota Highlander ... $24K MSRP; Used less; figure -25% = $18K
2015, Honda CRV EXL .. $28K MSRP
2015 Honda Civic EXL .. $23K MSRP
2019 Honda Insight Touring .. $29K MSRP
2022 Honda Accord Hybrid Touring .. $29K MSRP, but with "almost no depreciation" on the Insight, <$5K net

Assuming no MSRP discounts and trades averaging $3K each (because 'still running'), the
quick parameterized upper limit estimate is: 16+17+18+28+23+29+5-(4*3) = $124K.

Now $124K/0.029 = $4,275K gross over 20 years .. ~$214K/yr gross before taxes, SS, Medcare, self-
employment additions, 401k and IRA deductions. For a dual income white collar working couple, that's
pretty average.

> Records are in Quicken and tax returns.

> That's 1/3 of vacation spending, ...

So $127K times 3, divided by 20 years = $19K/yr average. Nashton would be jealous /s

> ... less than groceries, about the same as utilities and home improvements, and a lot less than

> charitable giving. Records are in Quicken. Those numbers and others like it reflect our personal priorities.

But of course it is all your choice.

> And, over that period we increased net worth by almost 4.5x, grew income, and were debt free from 2003 onward.

The SP500 since 2002 has gone from ~875 to ~4700, which is 5.3x growth, but this doesn't
include making additional contributions. A quick spin using the below web tool...
<https://www.investor.gov/financial-tools-calculators/calculators/compound-interest-calculator>
indicates that a $1M starting point with $2K/mo additions only needs to compound at 6.5% APR to
hit that 4.5x number.

Naturally, annual 401k contribution limits are higher than $24K/yr for self-employed, as well as
for dual-income couples, which merely means that for those who have 'maxed', meeting the same
benchmark is accomplished with a lower overall average compounding rate. For example, at $4K/mo,
it is less than 5.25% APR.

> As I stated before the Insight trade incurred almost no depreciation on that car. Also, we did buy
> used cars until 2015. All part of the plan to get to where we could afford new. It helped.
>
> Bottom line if we now want to buy a new car every three years we can afford it, and still have
> money for vacations, charitable giving and keep groceries in the house. The house we own.
> Well technically, the house our trust owns.

As was said, "... well, gosh golly, "Good For You!"" .. but it is still hypocritical of you to work into
into your late 70s despite buying used cars into your lat 60s to try to berate another by saying
that their own financial situation "... is probably more based on necessity than frugality."

> You are perfectly free to keep your car with an expensive and tiny retrofit CarPlay screen
> as long as you like. You must love that old 911 to spend that kind of money on it.

Honestly, it was not my plan for it to have become an appreciating asset...but it has:
the last time I checked market values for insurance, it was worth more than 4x what I paid for it.

> Our priorities may be different.

Of course they are ... yet that hasn't stopped you from trying to criticize others' choices.


-hh

[Alan]

On 2024-01-07 04:31, -hh wrote:
>> Our priorities may be different.
> Of course they are ... yet that hasn't stopped you from trying to criticize others' choices.

And not just criticize:

Criticize from utter ignorance.

:-)

[Alan]

On 2024-01-06 18:10, Thomas E. wrote:
>> I'm still driving the BMW 135i I bought in 2017 and loving it.
>> Before that, I had my 1990 Miata (bought very lightly used from the
>> parts manager of the local Mazda dealership) from 1992; 25 years.
>>
>> Now, I'll freely admit that during that time there was one very
>> major overhaul that probably cost $6,000. ("Probably" because the
>> guy who did the work was a close friend and I could NOT get him to
>> invoice me.)
>>
>> And of course there was some maintenance and repair down through
>> the years, but the main spends of $9,000 to purchase and the $6K,
>> means $600/year overall.
> Given what you know I know about your financial situation this is
> probably more based on necessity than frugality.
>
> As I recall a family member gave you a "great deal" on the BMW
> because he was not happy with the trade-in value. Felt sorry for
> you?

Nope. Just gave a family member as good a deal as he was going to get
from a third party.

>
> That a friend felt so sorry for you that he gave you a $6,000 engine
> overhaul just further says you probably can't afford new cars.

Nope. He knew very well that I could absolutely afford it. I kept at him
for more than a year to just give me an invoice.

And it wasn't just an "engine overhaul". That's just another example of
you jumping to conclusions.

What a dick you are.

[-hh]

Plus there’s always more. Something else I stumbled across was this from April 2017:

“Total gross since 2003 has been $1.41 million, net income before taxes $1.16 million,
expenses $250k. Lest you think that impossible, quite a bit of that income did not involve
travel. Some of the travel was paid direct by the project sponsor, and is not included in the
gross income. That would include airline tickets for quite a few of the international trips,
some hotels, and lots of meals.”

< https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/c/k6biAzIgaSA/m/ZEGRw4WCDgAJ>

Odd how 13 years of the prior 20 years summed to “just”:1.16M, whereas how his cars 2.9%
claim meant up to ~$3M for just the other 7 years…even before recalling how later years
were “95%” retired. YMMV on if the upper limit parameterizing was overly generous…or if
someone else’s numbers were a tad misleading.

-hh

[Thomas E.]

Yet you can't seem to afford to keep a very important financial obligation current. You know what I'm talking about.

[Thomas E.]

I had a few VERY successful projects after that.

[Thomas E.]

Caught you in another lie in addition to your Roth conversion lie that you have not acknowledged. I looked up the original. You actually edited that comment, leaving out the first sentence! Here is the actual comment, note that first sentence:

"Of course I'm not going to give you my annual income history. Total gross since 2003 has been $1.41 million, net income before taxes $1.16 million, expenses $250k. Lest you think that impossible, quite a bit of that income did not involve travel. Some of the travel was paid direct by the project sponsor, and is not included in the gross income. That would include airline tickets for quite a few of the international trips, some hotels, and lots of meals. Don't ask how many or how much. I have no idea."

That was not total income, just consulting. You are still not going to get annual income details. From 2002 we were both getting salaries early on, a substantial 2003 "golden parachute", retirement plan income from 2003, and Social Security from 2011, capital gains, and some dividend income. TOTAL 2002-2017 income was $3.1 million. Net consulting before taxes was $1.3 million in 2020, the last year I had active projects. I was already tapering down as RMD income started and planning transitioning some investments from capital appreciation to income funds. Of that $1.3 million $544k was contributed to the 401k and $302k has been paid out in RMDs starting in 2016. Despite the RMDs the total investments have continued to appreciate.

PLEASE stop lying.

[-hh]

On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 8:52:39 AM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 9:59:05 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 7:21:20 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> > > On 2024-01-07 04:31, -hh wrote:
> > > >> Our priorities may be different.
> > > > Of course they are ... yet that hasn't stopped you from trying to criticize others' choices.
> > >
> > > And not just criticize:
> > >
> > > Criticize from utter ignorance.
> > >
> > > :-)
> > Plus there’s always more. Something else I stumbled across was this from April 2017:
> >
> > “Total gross since 2003 has been $1.41 million, net income before taxes $1.16 million,
> > expenses $250k. Lest you think that impossible, quite a bit of that income did not involve
> > travel. Some of the travel was paid direct by the project sponsor, and is not included in the
> > gross income. That would include airline tickets for quite a few of the international trips,
> > some hotels, and lots of meals.”
> >
> > < https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/c/k6biAzIgaSA/m/ZEGRw4WCDgAJ>
> >
> > Odd how 13 years of the prior 20 years summed to “just”:1.16M, whereas how his cars 2.9%
> > claim meant up to ~$3M for just the other 7 years…even before recalling how later years
> > were “95%” retired. YMMV on if the upper limit parameterizing was overly generous…or if
> > someone else’s numbers were a tad misleading.
> >
>

> Caught you in another lie in addition to your Roth conversion lie that you have not acknowledged.

False, for I never said it was only a Roth: I was drawing an analogy for how income can be
manipulated YoY, which is why it said “…not unlike…”.

> I looked up the original. You actually edited that comment, leaving out the first sentence!

No, the quotation was done correctly. The prior sentence wasn't included because it wasn't
quantitatively relevant to the context of your fiscal claim.

> Here is the actual comment, note that first sentence:
>

> "Of course I'm not going to give you my annual income history.["]

So what? Because you did then proceed to provide a *sum* of your income history.
for a ~14 year period, as noted:

> ["]Total gross since 2003 has been $1.41 million, net income before taxes $1.16 million,
> expenses $250k..."

>
> That was not total income, just consulting.

But you characterized it as TOTAL GROSS income.

Gross includes everything, as per GAAP as well as the IRS's 1040 form, where it is listed
on line 9, whose sum includes IRA (line 4), pensions (line 5), Social Security (line 6), etc.
So are you lying now, or back then?

> You are still not going to get annual income details.

Don't need to, for all I was doing was pointing out the implausibility that you earned ~twice
as much in 7 years than you did over 14 years ... which would be ~4x annualized, and yet
somehow never bragged about this quadruple increase during any of those years.

> From 2002 we were both getting salaries early on, a substantial 2003 "golden parachute",
> retirement plan income from 2003, and Social Security from 2011, capital gains, and some
> dividend income. TOTAL 2002-2017 income was $3.1 million.

So if we are to believe your herein revised claims, the aforementioned $1.41M gross on
supposedly just your consulting means that your non-consulting income sources summed
to ($3.1M - $1.41M) = $1.69M for what's now 16 years ... that's an average of just $100K/yr,
of which we know a good chunk is seven years worth of Social Security payments: at a
simple swag of $30K/pp * two persons * seven years, that's $420K, so the remainder is
$1.27M, for an average of ~$80K/yr for the sum of all non-SS/non-consulting sources.

> Net consulting before taxes was $1.3 million in 2020, the last year I had active projects.

Versus $1.16M after 2016, so just $1.3M-$1.16M = $140K for 2017-20 inclusive, for
an average of $35K/yr ... seems that the old "95% retired" comment had been pretty
much spot-on, as at your $250-$275/hr rate, its just ~3.5 weeks/year.

> I was already tapering down as RMD income started and planning transitioning some
> investments from capital appreciation to income funds. Of that $1.3 million $544k

> was contributed to the 401k ...

Meaning a (0.544/1.3) = 40% reduction in taxable net 'income then, which enables
making a '+50% higher' spin attempt all the easier to meet now.

> ...and $302k has been paid out in RMDs starting in 2016.

For 8 years, that's <$38K/yr. Using a simple average RMD of 4% and ignoring
QCDs, it means that the average 401k/IRA balances has been around $950K.

> Despite the RMDs the total investments have continued to appreciate.

But is that really saying much? Because the Markets were up by IIRC roughly +15%,
yet RMDs at age 77 are just 4.4%

> PLEASE stop lying.

I'm not; I'm merely quantitatively calling you out when you try to spin cherry-picked half truths.


-hh

[Alan]

I know that you've been stalking, dick.

[Alan]

How is "total gross" "not total income", dick?

[Thomas E.]

You are the one who cherry-picks, and confused. The 1.41 clearly referred to consulting only. FYI 2003-2023 gross , IRS basis, was $4.3 million. Keep up please! The 4.5x referred to net worth, not earnings! I have you spinning in circles.

The RMDs come from 5 different qualified accounts, not just my former 401k, now an IRA. The long term S&P average is 6-7%/year. That's the number I'm looking at, not just 2023.

[-hh]

Silence from Tommy

> > > I looked up the original. You actually edited that comment, leaving out the first sentence!
> >
> > No, the quotation was done correctly. The prior sentence wasn't included because it wasn't
> > quantitatively relevant to the context of your fiscal claim.

Silence from Tommy.

> > > Here is the actual comment, note that first sentence:
> > >
> > > "Of course I'm not going to give you my annual income history.["]
> >
> > So what? Because you did then proceed to provide a *sum* of your income history.
> > for a ~14 year period, as noted:
> >
> > > ["]Total gross since 2003 has been $1.41 million, net income before taxes $1.16 million,
> > > expenses $250k..."
> > >
> > > That was not total income, just consulting.
> >
> > But you characterized it as TOTAL GROSS income.
> >
> > Gross includes everything, as per GAAP as well as the IRS's 1040 form, where it is listed
> > on line 9, whose sum includes IRA (line 4), pensions (line 5), Social Security (line 6), etc.
> > So are you lying now, or back then?

Silence from Tommy.

> > > You are still not going to get annual income details.
> >
> > Don't need to, for all I was doing was pointing out the implausibility that you earned ~twice
> > as much in 7 years than you did over 14 years ... which would be ~4x annualized, and yet
> > somehow never bragged about this quadruple increase during any of those years.

Which is not a statement on Net Worth changes.

> > > From 2002 we were both getting salaries early on, a substantial 2003 "golden parachute",
> > > retirement plan income from 2003, and Social Security from 2011, capital gains, and some
> > > dividend income. TOTAL 2002-2017 income was $3.1 million.
> >
> > So if we are to believe your herein revised claims, the aforementioned $1.41M gross on
> > supposedly just your consulting means that your non-consulting income sources summed
> > to ($3.1M - $1.41M) = $1.69M for what's now 16 years ... that's an average of just $100K/yr,
> > of which we know a good chunk is seven years worth of Social Security payments: at a
> > simple swag of $30K/pp * two persons * seven years, that's $420K, so the remainder is
> > $1.27M, for an average of ~$80K/yr for the sum of all non-SS/non-consulting sources.
> >
> > > Net consulting before taxes was $1.3 million in 2020, the last year I had active projects.
> >
> > Versus $1.16M after 2016, so just $1.3M-$1.16M = $140K for 2017-20 inclusive, for
> > an average of $35K/yr ... seems that the old "95% retired" comment had been pretty
> > much spot-on, as at your $250-$275/hr rate, its just ~3.5 weeks/year.

“Tapering” … quantified. Or in demand from just one last faithful client /s

> > > I was already tapering down as RMD income started and planning transitioning some
> > > investments from capital appreciation to income funds. Of that $1.3 million $544k
> > > was contributed to the 401k ...
> >
> > Meaning a (0.544/1.3) = 40% reduction in taxable net 'income then, which enables
> > making a '+50% higher' spin attempt all the easier to meet now.
> >
> > > ...and $302k has been paid out in RMDs starting in 2016.
> >
> > For 8 years, that's <$38K/yr. Using a simple average RMD of 4% and ignoring
> > QCDs, it means that the average 401k/IRA balances has been around $950K.
> >
> > > Despite the RMDs the total investments have continued to appreciate.
> >
> > But is that really saying much? Because the Markets were up by IIRC roughly +15%,
> > yet RMDs at age 77 are just 4.4%
> >
> > > PLEASE stop lying.
> >
> > I'm not; I'm merely quantitatively calling you out when you try to spin cherry-picked half truths.
>

> You are the one who cherry-picks, and confused. The 1.41 clearly referred to consulting only.

Nope: you represented it in 2017 as your TOTAL GROSS income with no such qualifiers.

> FYI 2003-2023 gross , IRS basis, was $4.3 million.

Just what definition of “gross” are you using here? For example, is that before
or after deductible business expenses (such as the $250K already mentioned)?

Oh and FYI, I see you’ve chosen to change your claim’s timeline yet again:
“[April 2017] Total gross since 2003 has been $1.41 million, net income
before taxes $1.16 million, expenses $250k.”
“2002-2017 income was $3.1 million.”
“2003-2023 gross, IRS basis, was $4.3 million.”

This last one added six years (2018-2023), but also apparently dropped 2002: a mistake,
or an interesting but effectively futile obfuscation attempt on your brag attempt?

> The 4.5x referred to net worth, not earnings!

I said 4x, not 4.5x, because I wasn't referring to Net Worth changes.

> The RMDs come from 5 different qualified accounts, ..

Irrelevant, because you gave a sum total of their RMDs.

> The long term S&P average is 6-7%/year. That's the number I'm looking at,
> not just 2023.

Yet 6-7% is still greater than 4% RMDs, so mathematically, growth is still expected.
As such, just what is your unusual and profound claim that you’re trying to make?

-hh

[-hh]

Hmm..

Looks like my response on GG hasn’t disseminated. Repost.

Silence from Tommy.

>>> I looked up the original. You actually edited that comment, leaving out
>>> the first sentence!
>> No, the quotation was done correctly. The prior sentence wasn't included
>> because it wasn't
>> quantitatively relevant to the context of your fiscal claim.
>>> Here is the actual comment, note that first sentence:
>>>
>>> "Of course I'm not going to give you my annual income history.["]
>>
>> So what? Because you did then proceed to provide a *sum* of your income history.
>> for a ~14 year period, as noted:
>>
>>> ["]Total gross since 2003 has been $1.41 million, net income before taxes $1.16 million,
>>> expenses $250k..."
>>>
>>> That was not total income, just consulting.
>> But you characterized it as TOTAL GROSS income.
>>
>> Gross includes everything, as per GAAP as well as the IRS's 1040 form, where it is listed
>> on line 9, whose sum includes IRA (line 4), pensions (line 5), Social
>> Security (line 6), etc.
>> So are you lying now, or back then?

Silence from Tommy.

>>> You are still not going to get annual income details.
>> Don't need to, for all I was doing was pointing out the implausibility
>> that you earned ~twice
>> as much in 7 years than you did over 14 years ... which would be ~4x annualized, and yet
>> somehow never bragged about this quadruple increase during any of those years.

Which is not a statement on Net Worth changes.

>>> From 2002 we were both getting salaries early on, a substantial 2003 "golden parachute",
>>> retirement plan income from 2003, and Social Security from 2011, capital gains, and some
>>> dividend income. TOTAL 2002-2017 income was $3.1 million.
>> So if we are to believe your herein revised claims, the aforementioned $1.41M gross on
>> supposedly just your consulting means that your non-consulting income sources summed
>> to ($3.1M - $1.41M) = $1.69M for what's now 16 years ... that's an
>> average of just $100K/yr,
>> of which we know a good chunk is seven years worth of Social Security payments: at a
>> simple swag of $30K/pp * two persons * seven years, that's $420K, so the remainder is
>> $1.27M, for an average of ~$80K/yr for the sum of all non-SS/non-consulting sources.
>>> Net consulting before taxes was $1.3 million in 2020, the last year I
>>> had active projects.
>> Versus $1.16M after 2016, so just $1.3M-$1.16M
>>> = $140K for 2017-20 inclusive, for
>> an average of $35K/yr ... seems that the old "95% retired" comment had been pretty
>> much spot-on, as at your $250-$275/hr rate, its just ~3.5 weeks/year.

“Tapering” … quantified. Or in demand from just one last faithful client
/s

>>> I was already tapering down as RMD income started and planning transitioning some
>>> investments from capital appreciation to income funds. Of that $1.3 million $544k
>>> was contributed to the 401k ...
>>
>> Meaning a (0.544/1.3) = 40% reduction in taxable net 'income then, which enables
>> making a '+50% higher' spin attempt all the easier to meet now.
>>
>>> ...and $302k has been paid out in RMDs starting in 2016.
>>
>> For 8 years, that's <$38K/yr. Using a simple average RMD of 4% and ignoring
>> QCDs, it means that the average 401k/IRA balances has been around $950K.
>>> Despite the RMDs the total investments have continued to appreciate.
>> But is that really saying much? Because the Markets were up by IIRC roughly +15%,
>> yet RMDs at age 77 are just 4.4%
>>
>>> PLEASE stop lying.
>>
>> I'm not; I'm merely quantitatively calling you out when you try to spin
>> cherry-picked half truths.
>
>

> You are the one who cherry-picks, and confused. The 1.41 clearly referred
> to consulting only.

Nope: you represented it in 2017 as your TOTAL GROSS income with no such
qualifiers.

> FYI 2003-2023 gross , IRS basis, was $4.3 million. Keep up please!

Just what definition of “gross” are you using here? For example, is that
before
or after deductible business expenses (such as the $250K already
mentioned)?

Oh and FYI, I see you’ve chosen to change your claim’s timeline yet again:
“[April 2017] Total gross since 2003 has been $1.41 million, net income
before taxes $1.16 million, expenses $250k.”
“2002-2017 income was $3.1 million.”
“2003-2023 gross, IRS basis, was $4.3 million.”

This last one added six years (2018-2023), but also apparently dropped
2002: a mistake,
or an interesting but effectively futile obfuscation attempt on your brag
attempt?

> The 4.5x referred to net worth, not earnings! I have you spinning in circles.

I said 4x, not 4.5x, because I wasn't referring to Net Worth changes.

> The RMDs come from 5 different qualified accounts, not just my former 401k, now an IRA.

Irrelevant, because you gave a sum total of their RMDs: 4% of
($20K+$20K+$20K
+$20K+$20K) [etc] is mathematically the same as 4% of ($100K).

> The long term S&P average is 6-7%/year. That's the number I'm looking at, not just 2023.

[Thomas E.]

In Florida for a while and not at home in that awful weather up there. Lots to do outside down here in Naples. You have all the pieces, but attempts to piece it all together are laughable. You still do not understand the strategy or how it all fits together. Nor will I give it to you in one post. You are not as smart as you think you are.

[-hh]

> In Florida for a while and not at home in that awful weather up there. Lots to do outside down here in Naples.

Dodge…and YA brag attempt.

> You have all the pieces, but attempts to piece it all together are laughable.

A common refrain that when you continue. you invariably have to admit that it was close enough.

> You still do not understand the strategy or how it all fits together.

Don’t particularly care what your alleged ‘strategy’ is, as I’ve already seen where
you’re taking risks, and what you’ve held close. Your brags have gone through just
enough parameterizing to gage what you believe is so amazingly brag-worthy.

For what that is, it’s respectable, but that’s really because you worked nearly ~halfway
through a normal retirement. It was that extra decade+ of grinding that not only added
the needed bucks, but it also slashes the number of years that the retirement savings
then needs to last. If you wanted to have the same outflow rate as a 63 year old retiree,
you would have needed a couple more million than what you have upfront.

> Nor will I give it to you in one post. You are not as smart as you think you are.

But one only needs to be smarter than the CSMA braggart, which is easy: thus, it
was never expected for you to be clear, for that would deny you the ego trip of all
future brag opportunities.

-hh

[-hh]

-hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> Hmm..
>
> Looks like another two posts on GG hasn’t disseminated. Reproducing 1/17 posts:


On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 11:03:14 AM UTC-5, Thomas E.
<thomas...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Thomas E.]

LOL, you are way off on many of your numbers. I wanted to increase the cash flow after full retirement, so I worked part-time a while longer. It worked. It was a balance of risks and opportunities. I'm very happy with how it's turned out. Get over it.

[-hh]

> LOL, you are way off on many of your numbers.

Given how often you've been forced to admit just how spot-on they've been, not a
really credible claim on your part. As I've noted before, they're just paramaterizations
based on your own claims, and the more you talk (& talk) about them, the smaller
the box becomes. As always, it assumes you're not lying.

> I wanted to increase the cash flow after full retirement, so I worked part-time a
> while longer. It worked. It was a balance of risks and opportunities. I'm very happy
> with how it's turned out. Get over it.

Not really the point I was making, which was that you've been bragging for years on
your alleged personal prosperity, yet contrary to that claim, you ended up working
for a good decade (plus the part time years too) to finally get to where you were
financially comfortable enough to retire. As you were asked in another subthread:

"If you could have retired at 63 with a $200K income stream before SS or 401k/IRA
distributions…would you have taken it?"

Silence from Tommy there ... and probably also again here too.

-hh

[Thomas E.]

You are so confused. I worked part time 2003-2020, 17 years. I could have retired years earlier, when the RMD income started coming online in 2016. A few other projects showed up and I took them.

How do you propose I could have arrived at $200k 2009 annual income, absent RMD income and no job in 2011? That was before either of were taking Social Security. I was not 66 until 3 years later. The wife was retired and not getting her state pension or Social Security yet either. 2009 income was my pension and the consulting business. You need to come up with an additional $160k or so post-retirement income. No job, including my business, so how did you come up with that number?

If it was possible I'd like to know how.

BTW this morning just noticed it looks like we now have until Feb 22 to make more posts via Google.

[-hh]

> You are so confused. I worked part time 2003-2020, 17 years.

Gosh, its quite amazing at how now all of that consultant work is being spun
to lower expectations with this new "part time" label all over the place! /s

> I could have retired years earlier, when the RMD income started coming online in 2016.

You could have taken withdrawals much earlier than 2016, because RMD's is a
"no later than" deadline: penalty-free withdrawals start at age 59½ = 2006.

> A few other projects showed up and I took them.

Gosh, its quite amazing at how now all of those extra years of working are being spun
to seem to have been completely discretionary, in contrast to how we've been told
about detailed planning that was coordinated with his financial advisor! /s

> How do you propose I could have arrived at $200k 2009 annual income, absent RMD
> income and no job in 2011? That was before either of were taking Social Security.
> I was not 66 until 3 years later. The wife was retired and not getting her state pension
> or Social Security yet either. 2009 income was my pension and the consulting business.
> You need to come up with an additional $160k or so post-retirement income. No job,
> including my business, so how did you come up with that number?
> If it was possible I'd like to know how.

How? Hmmm...from Tommy earlier today:

"I retired in 2003, remember? Even before retirement the options expired 10 years after
issue. It was 5 years to expiration from the day I retired. So in 2018 those options had
been gone for 10 years."

Since 2018 minus 10 years = 2008, then one possibility is one of those Stock Options
that you bragged about having, purchased just before expiration in 2008, which was
then sold in 2009. Easy-peasy, especially if one was holding it for (365+1) days to get
the more favorable LTCG taxation rate: it just takes having the free cash available to do it.

> BTW this morning just noticed it looks like we now have until Feb 22 to make more posts via Google.

And for much longer outside of using Google Groups to read & post.

-hh

[Thomas E.]

Oh my, you still do not understand, so more details. All remaining options expired on February 29, 2008. At that point every option I had left was underwater at the $50.02 close, and had been underwater for some time. The strike prices on what I had left were in the $60-90 range. All of the deep-in-the-money earlier-dated options were cashed in within a few months of retirement at $60+. Some were from the mid/early-1990s and already getting close to 10-year expiration. The strike price on a few was in the $10-15 range. The after-tax proceeds were invested and some went to pay off what was left on the mortgage. Had I waited until expiration I would have been worse off. Those 2003 option exercise proceeds have grown to well over $1 million in total assets outside our IRAs. Employee stock options can be very lucrative but also carry risk. Looking back I was way too optimistic on the prospects for the stock rising when it was in the $80-90 range before I retired. Had I cashed them all in at the then all-time peak price of over $100 in July 2000 I would have paid a lot of taxes but would likely be substantially better off today. So much so that I might not have even gone into consulting in 2003. Such is life.

So I repeat the question, how do you come up with a $200k income stream for me at age 63? Stock options are not an income stream.

Or maybe you have a $200k income stream planned for age 63? If so, great job on your part.

[-hh]

> Oh my, you still do not understand, so more details. All remaining options expired on February 29, 2008.

Which means that you've now confirmed that you did indeed have Stock Options which were
still valid in that time period, which is all that matters to confirm my statement as valid.


> At that point every option I had left was underwater ...

Doesn't matter, because the point was simply that a Stock Option existed, so it isn't excluded
as a means of potentially generating a taxable event - - in addition to the other methods of
doing so that I had previously mentioned.

> [blah, blah blah brag attempt ... but more parametric data too]

> So I repeat the question, how do you come up with a $200k income stream for me at age 63?
> Stock options are not an income stream.

Which is why attempting to use "income stream" as your goalpost attempt was a poor idea,
for there is a difference between having $XXX "taxable income" and an "income stream", as
the latter implies that it represents an amount expended, and if it is before or after taxes is
left conveniently ambiguous.

> Or maybe you have a $200k income stream planned for age 63? If so, great job on your part.

Depends on what you're trying to imply:

Do you mean for it to include just the one year where one turns 63 and "one shot" events such
as a Roth conversion or Brokerage Account sales (to buy Bonds, etc) can temporarily bump up
taxable income to count as a "yes"?

Or do you mean for it to represent the sum of only one's reliable, multi-year income sources
which means that this arbitrary $200K target value is exceeded year after year?


-hh

[Thomas E.]

Repeating...

Remember, employee options have a strike price that is the closing price on the grant date. The strike price varies over time. In 2003 I had older options with a strike price from very low double-digits up to about $85. Thus, those options were a portfolio stretching back 10 years. I cashed out all the early-dated in-the-money options in late 2002 and early 2003. Proceeds were used to pay off part of a mortgage, income taxes, and what was left was invested. Remaining later-dated options, and there were a few, were available but worthless. The stock price was lower than the remaining options' strike prices until all expired in early 2008. An option cannot generate a taxable event if it can't generate a positive cash flow. As it turned out I maximized the potential option income by taking them when they had value.

The rest of your post make no sense to me given the circumstances I faced during the referenced time period.

[-hh]

> Repeating...
>
> Remember, employee options have a strike price that is the closing price on the grant date.
> The strike price varies over time.

I'm familiar with how such options work.

> In 2003 I had older options with a strike price from very low double-digits up to about $85.
> Thus, those options were a portfolio stretching back 10 years. I cashed out all the early-dated
> in-the-money options in late 2002 and early 2003. Proceeds were used to pay off part of a
> mortgage, income taxes, and what was left was invested. Remaining later-dated options,
> and there were a few, were available but worthless. The stock price was lower than the
> remaining options' strike prices until all expired in early 2008. An option cannot generate
> a taxable event if it can't generate a positive cash flow. As it turned out I maximized the
> potential option income by taking them when they had value.

All you're really saying is that you were doing flips based on the option price vs the then-
current price of the stock. That's low risk and typically held briefly, so STCG taxes likely.
Similarly, your cash flow situation was such that it wasn't viable for you to buy and hold.

> The rest of your post make no sense to me given the circumstances I faced
> during the referenced time period.

The rest was merely noting that your phrasing was vague, which allows for multiple
interpretations of what you're trying to say/suggest. If you want to be actually clear
in what you're saying, you'll need to remove the ambiguities.

-hh

[Thomas E.]

I think I already explained. But if not here are the details.

You demonstrate that you would rather make false assumptions than ask questions. I flipped the NSO's, borrowing for 3 days to pay for the exercise, to generate immediate cash. The credit union had a program for that. You did not ask about any ISO's. The credit union had a program for that too. I borrowed more money, bought the in-the-money ISO's, held the stock for the required year, sold the stock, paid back the ISO loan, and got LTCG treatment.

[-hh]

> I think I already explained. But if not here are the details.

Probably not, but it doesn't really matter much, since you obviously want to avoid the
second part of your ambiguities, so you'll only discuss the first part on stock options.

> You demonstrate that you would rather make false assumptions than ask questions.

Nah, I know that there's always more than one way to skin the cat; I was simply using
the basic use case, which was sufficient to force you to admit that you did indeed have
stock options during the relevant time period which notionally could have been employed
to boost your income and/or wealth on paper.

> I flipped the NSO's, borrowing for 3 days to pay for the exercise, to generate immediate
> cash. The credit union had a program for that.

Which is precisely the basic use case I was referring to.

> You did not ask about any ISO's. The credit union had a program for that too. I borrowed
> more money, bought the in-the-money ISO's, held the stock for the required year, sold the
> stock, paid back the ISO loan, and got LTCG treatment.

Merely a different flavor of Stock options; film at 11. In any case, its interesting how
you're all "I don't borrow money" today, but you borrowed back then. Likewise, that
same statement also confirmed one of my observations. But in any event, "yay you!" /s.

Now if only you had two fully paid off houses instead of just one..for keeping up with the Joneses /s

-hh