How much money have you lost from your cruise stocks?

[clo]

1 minute ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

...well, not always.  "Effect" can also be a verb, as in "She wanted effect a number of changes to how the department operated."  (It means "to bring something about.")

 

-- Cruisegrammarian42

LOL. Did you mean to put "to" in front of "effect"? If so then wouldn't it be affect?

[cruisemom42]

2 minutes ago, clo said:

LOL. Did you mean to put "to" in front of "effect"? If so then wouldn't it be affect?

 

 

See my edited version.  I can't type worth crap after a glass (or two) of wine.

 

Edited to add:  See https://writingexplained.org/affect-change-or-effect-change

 

Edited April 24, 2020 by cruisemom42

[clo]

2 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

 

See my edited version.  I can't type worth crap after a glass (or two) of wine.

 

I'm right there with you, girlfriend 🙂 But  I don't know what it means without "to" in front of it. Oh, hell, who cares???  xoc

Edited April 24, 2020 by clo

[rkacruiser]

4 minutes ago, clo said:

OT, but I found out here that for 2020 you don't have to take the MRD. We have to have some of that money but we have a non-IRA account we can draw from.

 

Bob likes to say "if you pay more taxes than you thought you were going to then you made more money than you thought you would."

 

And I agree that paying taxes is part of civilization. We need to help others.

 

All 3 of your paragraphs are those with which I concur.  

[cruisemom42]

9 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

...well, not always.  "Effect" can also be a verb, as in "She wanted to effect a number of changes in how the department operated."  (It means "to bring something about.")

 

-- Cruisegrammarian42

 

3 minutes ago, clo said:

I'm right there with you, girlfriend 🙂 But  I don't know what it means without "to" in front of it. Oh, hell, who cares???  xoc

 

See my post above -- I edited it. 

 

Sorry for the massive derailment of thought!

 

[clo]

3 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

 

See my post above -- I edited it. 

 

Sorry for the massive derailment of thought!

 

FINALLY!  I love any day I love something new. And these days especially. Thanks.

Affect change is an incorrect version of the phrase effect change. In most contexts, affect is a verb, while effect is a noun, so it's easy to see why many writers default to affect in this verb phrase. Still, effect can be used as a verb, where it means to bring about something (like change).

 

Affect Change or Effect Change – Which is Correct? - Writing ...

[navybankerteacher]

1 hour ago, rkacruiser said:

 

 

How can such discounts be contemplated in advance?  Maybe I don't read Annual Reports very accurately, but it has been my impression that the Balance Sheet for CCL has been far more positive reading than that for RCL.  

We are not talking about “discounts” in the sense of price cuts - the market anticipates things which are going to happen - so today’s market prices reflect what will happen a week, month, or even year in the future . So if something which will reduce earnings a few months from now is anticipated, the market price today will be impacted.

[navybankerteacher]

2 hours ago, chipmaster said:

 

Where the bold are willing to bet there are lots of opportunities, CCL isn't the best of them, LOL.    It's been a while since the dot.com days that I did a bit of day trading and have put my toe back in the water, hope no great white bites off the leg.

 

I heard a great story about the 401K and IRA as the greatest con put on the working man.

 

Think about it you put your hard earned money away tax free, it grows tax free, and when you retire if you do well you likely will get taxed at equal or higher rate by the government ( remember everyone thinks they will retire rich and live well, and the tax man is planning to tax your riches ).

 

The really rich they won't be so stupid to look to put in an IRA nor a 401K, they are far smarter.  They invest in stock and or realestate and when they sell their rate on the gains are far lower than ordinary income.  Thus the rich make out richer and pay less than the poor sucker who dutifully socked away in IRA and 401K only to have the tax man take a lot when he withdraws. 

Most of us will earn less money after retirement than in our peak earnings years - and less income can usually mean lower tax rates. So deferring income from when you might pay 30% tax on it to a time when you may be paying 20% on it — and having it grow tax free until that time kind of makes sense.  For many they have the added benerit of having their employer matching the few thousand dollars per year they put in.

 

Hardly a “con job” — that “great story” is in the same category of all the anti-vaxxing blather the uninformed swallow whole and infect others.

[ldubs]

2 hours ago, chipmaster said:

 

Where the bold are willing to bet there are lots of opportunities, CCL isn't the best of them, LOL.    It's been a while since the dot.com days that I did a bit of day trading and have put my toe back in the water, hope no great white bites off the leg.

 

I heard a great story about the 401K and IRA as the greatest con put on the working man.

 

Think about it you put your hard earned money away tax free, it grows tax free, and when you retire if you do well you likely will get taxed at equal or higher rate by the government ( remember everyone thinks they will retire rich and live well, and the tax man is planning to tax your riches ).

 

The really rich they won't be so stupid to look to put in an IRA nor a 401K, they are far smarter.  They invest in stock and or realestate and when they sell their rate on the gains are far lower than ordinary income.  Thus the rich make out richer and pay less than the poor sucker who dutifully socked away in IRA and 401K only to have the tax man take a lot when he withdraws. 

 

except when there is an employer match in which for most cases it would be wise to participate in a 401K.  

[clo]

8 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

For many they have the added benerit of having their employer matching the few thousand dollars per year they put in.

Bob had an incredibly generous employer. Only 10% of the money in the IRA were his own contributions. The rest were due to the market and his employer. And he took advantage of every dime they offered in any way. We never made a huge amount of money so our tax rate is likely the same now as then. But that's good 🙂

[jeremyosborne81]

2 hours ago, rkacruiser said:

 

 

How can such discounts be contemplated in advance?

 

The people who make money on the stock market have inside information the rest of us are not privy to. Of course, that's supposed to be illegal, but .... money

[navybankerteacher]

13 minutes ago, clo said:

Bob had an incredibly generous employer. Only 10% of the money in the IRA were his own contributions. The rest were due to the market and his employer. And he took advantage of every dime they offered in any way. We never made a huge amount of money so our tax rate is likely the same now as then. But that's good 🙂

 My total income now is probably just a shade over one half of what it was during my best years - and that is with today’s dollars which buy a lot less.  But l have a lot more disposable income (for cruises, etc.) because fixed expenses which come off the top are so very much less.  My effective tax rate is significantly lower, I am not trying to amortize a large mortgage, I am not still saving for or contributing to  putting four children through college, I am not helping my daughters get the weddings they dreamed about since age three, I am not paying dental and medical bills for as many people,  my auto insurance covers two of us - not six (two of whom were males under age 25 for a number of years - if you can imagine what that means) and I am no longer putting money aside into the 401 k - whose successor IRA is now a significant source of income.

[navybankerteacher]

14 minutes ago, jeremyosborne81 said:

 

The people who make money on the stock market have inside information the rest of us are not privy to. Of course, that's supposed to be illegal, but .... money

A rather cynical view - and, frankly, sadly misinformed.

[jeremyosborne81]

2 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

A rather cynical view - and, frankly, sadly misinformed.

Are you saying "insider trading" ISN'T a problem and continuously goes unpunished?

[clo]

4 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

 My total income now is probably just a shade over one half of what it was during my best years - and that is with today’s dollars which buy a lot less.  But l have a lot more disposable income (for cruises, etc.) because fixed expenses which come off the top are so very much less.  My effective tax rate is significantly lower, I am not trying to amortize a large mortgage, I am not still saving for or contributing to  putting four children through college, I am not helping my daughters get the weddings they dreamed about since age three, I am not paying dental and medical bills for as many people,  my auto insurance covers two of us - not six (two of whom were males under age 25 for a number of years - if you can imagine what that means) and I am no longer putting money aside into the 401 k - whose successor IRA is now a significant source of income.

This, this, this and this 🙂

[clo]

20 minutes ago, jeremyosborne81 said:

 

The people who make money on the stock market have inside information the rest of us are not privy to. Of course, that's supposed to be illegal, but .... money

Sheesh. We have a financial adviser with a large corporation. If you feel that way perhaps you should get one. All we ever get are balancing recommendations and occasionally 'trends.'

[clo]

3 minutes ago, jeremyosborne81 said:

Are you saying "insider trading" ISN'T a problem and continuously goes unpunished?

You said "the people who make money" are privy to insider trading. Please provide reputable and verifiable citations to support you claim.

[navybankerteacher]

6 minutes ago, jeremyosborne81 said:

Are you saying "insider trading" ISN'T a problem and continuously goes unpunished?

Yes it is a problem, but ask Martha Stewart  for her views as to whether it goes unpunished.  And “continuously” is an absurd comment — there are very many people who make money “on the stock market” by simply investing carefully - relying on competent advice, or their own research - and never acting upon, or even having access to, inside information. 

[jeremyosborne81]

1 minute ago, navybankerteacher said:

Yes it is a problem, but ask Martha Stewart  for her views as to whether it goes unpunished.  And “continuously” is an absurd comment — there are very many people who make money “on the stock market” by simply investing carefully - relying on competent advice, or their own research - and never acting upon, or even having access to, inside information. 

 

We have different definitions of what qualifies as "money" in these instances.

How are those Republican Congress members, who received warnings of the virus in January and promptly sold their stocks doing? In jail yet?

[Charles4515]

You haven't "lost" anything if you haven't sold. In '08 our portfolio got as low as 40% down but we didn't sell. But we also don't own individual stocks.

Yes but in 2008 I didn’t sell either but I was working and kept adding the same amount every paycheck as I was before that crisis. Now that I am retired I am not buying on the down. So far my “ loss” is not as high as the stock market drop because my portfolio is balanced. I don’t own any individual cruise line stocks. I only have one individual stock which has lost but it has paid big dividends over for many year. I would buy more on the low price if I thought the dividends would continue but I fear given the industry it is in that the dividends may stop.


Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[navybankerteacher]

10 minutes ago, jeremyosborne81 said:

 

We have different definitions of what qualifies as "money" in these instances.

How are those Republican Congress members, who received warnings of the virus in January and promptly sold their stocks doing? In jail yet?

They should of course be prosecuted - but don’t you fee, the same rules should apply to Democratic Congress members?

[jeremyosborne81]

Just now, navybankerteacher said:

They should of course be prosecuted - but don’t you fee, the same rules should apply to Democratic Congress members?

Yeah, but in this specific instance it is the usual suspects.

[Charles4515]

Most of us will earn less money after retirement than in our peak earnings years - and less income can usually mean lower tax rates. So deferring income from when you might pay 30% tax on it to a time when you may be paying 20% on it — and having it grow tax free until that time kind of makes sense.  For many they have the added benerit of having their employer matching the few thousand dollars per year they put in.
 
Hardly a “con job” — that “great story” is in the same category of all the anti-vaxxing blather the uninformed swallow whole and infect others.

I have not had to take an RMD or any funds from my IRA yet so I don’t know what my tax ramifications will be but deferring taxes by contributing to a 401 K certainly reduced my taxes while I was working. Now without wages, when paying taxes on the RMD withdrawals I think my total taxes will be much lower than when working. I also have a Roth IRA, no tax due if I need to withdraw funds from that.


Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[ldubs]

3 minutes ago, jeremyosborne81 said:

Yeah, but in this specific instance it is the usual suspects.

 

I don't think the round of suspect trading you refer to was limited to a single political persuasion.  

 

I do agree that, tho there is oversight, insider training is a problem.  But growing your investment, especially in the long term which is what investing in the stock market should be about, does not require insider information.   Get rich quick schemes have many perils.  For long term investing the information needed is there for anyone who cares to look.   

[ldubs]

5 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

 

I have not had to take an RMD or any funds from my IRA yet so I don’t know what my tax ramifications will be but deferring taxes by contributing to a 401 K certainly reduced my taxes while I was working. Now without wages, when paying taxes on the RMD withdrawals I think my total taxes will be much lower than when working. I also have a Roth IRA, no tax due if I need to withdraw funds from that.


Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

 

Not only did your 401K reduce you taxes while you were working, that money that would otherwise have gone to Uncle Sam was earning you interest all that time.  And, if your company had a match, that makes is almost a crime not to contribute.  Say the company matches 50%, you have a 50% return right off the top even if the market is flat, which it never is over time.   In the famous words of Larry David:  Pretty Pretty Pretty good!  Lol.