From The Wall Street Journal:
“More than anything else, I want my candidacy to unify our country, to renew the American spirit and sense of purpose. I want to carry our message to every American, regardless of party affiliation, who is a member of this community of shared values . . . For those who have abandoned hope, we’ll restore hope and we’ll welcome them into a great national crusade to make America great again!”
From LDS.org:
As Elder Ballard noted earlier in this session, various crosscurrents of our times have brought increasing public attention to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Lord told the ancients this latter-day work would be “a marvellous work and a wonder,â€1 and it is. But even as we invite one and all to examine closely the marvel of it, there is one thing we would not like anyone to wonder about—that is whether or not we are “Christians.â€
By and large any controversy in this matter has swirled around two doctrinal issues—our view of the Godhead and our belief in the principle of continuing revelation leading to an open scriptural canon. In addressing this we do not need to be apologists for our faith, but we would like not to be misunderstood. So with a desire to increase understanding and unequivocally declare our Christianity, I speak today on the first of those two doctrinal issues just mentioned.
From CNN Money:
…some financial advisers (and a couple of books) have begun to voice a dissenting view: If you invest in your 401(k), they say, you’ll end up paying more in taxes than you have to.
On the face of it, this argument looks plausible. If you buy stocks or stock mutual funds in a regular brokerage account, you will pay a 15% long-term capital-gains rate when you eventually sell. But you’ll have to pay ordinary income tax rates of 28% or even 35% on your 401(k) withdrawals. Could the 401(k) skeptics be right?
(more…)
Find out with Wells Fargo’s Retirement Secure Index.
Simple. Corny. Commercialized. Marginally effective.
What is the difference between an IRA and a 401k?
Not much of a difference, but it can be significant in certain instances. I don’t think you can take loans from IRA’s, which is a minor detail, and you can only contribute to a Roth IRA if your income is below a certain limit (Roth 401(k) doesn’t have this restriction), but the biggest difference is the contribution limits: In 2008, for example, the limit for contributing to an IRA is $5,000 plus an additional $1,000 “catch-up” for those over 50. You can contribute the full $15,500 plus an additional $5,000 catch-up if you’re over 50 to either a traditional or a Roth 401(k), not including any employer contributions (match or profit sharing, for example). The total limit of all contributions is either $46,000 or 100% of your income. So, for example, if I’m making ~$45k a year, and I put in 6% of my salary then there would be virtually no difference between a 401(k) and an IRA, aside from difference in loan availability (which I think is a bad idea anyway). But, let’s say I own my own business and make around $300,000/year. I could set up a 401(k) (even if it’s a one-person business) and get all of the tax benefits of a 401(k), and potentially save up to $46,000 a year tax-deferred. Over 10-20+ years until retirement that could save me a lot of money.
What is the advantage of a Roth IRA vs just buying stock? Both are with after tax dollars and both can be sold at any time. I’m sure there is good reason or people wouldn’t be making such a big deal about it. (more…)
The “economic stimulus” checks will be coming in the mail starting sometime around May. Find out how much yours will be for:
The Wall Street Journal explains to us about the long-term ramifications of the promises Barack Obama is making in his inspiring speeches on the campaign trail. Let’s just say, he will definitely bring about change…
One of my take-aways from Tuesday’s Super results is that political machines have a hard time influencing caucuses, when they can easily dominate primaries. Take a look at Romney’s many caucus victories versus McCain’s none. The same is true on the Democratic side with Obama winning an overwhelming majority of the caucuses (the only exception on this side is Nevada) over Clinton
Is it significant? Perhaps not, but I think it provides at least a small window into the hearts of the American voters. When they’re allowed to discuss, persuade, and influence among each other the results are quite a bit different then if they’re isolated in booths or with mail-in ballots. Caucuses are old-fashioned, grass-roots efforts from the ground up. Movements by the people, where neighbors influence neighbors, and friends campaign with friends. Primaries are persuaded by perceived national opinion - they seem more likely to be based on who the polls say is ahead, or who the media projects will win.