TUG MEMBERS: Joining TUG does not automatically register you as a user of the TUG Bulletin Board. You must register yourself.


*ads are disabled when logged in*
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 23 years! Join the tens of thousands of other owners here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered!
  3. Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free! Join tens of thousands of other owners who get this every week! Latest resort reviews and the most important topics discussed by owners during the week!
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Follow the TUG Member Banner as it travels the world on vacation with Timeshare owners! Also sign up to get the banner sent to you so you can submit a photo of your vacation with the banner to share with TUG! Banner Thread
    Dismiss Notice
  5. A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!
    Dismiss Notice
  6. For any of you worried about seeing the "connection not secure" message in your web browser when visiting TUG, rest assured that TUG is no more or less secure than it always has been! read more details here in this thread
    Dismiss Notice

Baby Boomers Are Retiring - And It's Going to Have a Huge Impact on the Economy

Discussion in 'TUG Lounge' started by MULTIZ321, Sep 5, 2017.

  1. geekette

    geekette Guest

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    6,373
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    63
    yes, this, gentle changes, let's get on it!

    I also believe that by the time you are 25-30 you should know what your FRA is, it scares me that some think FRA rising should occur to people in their 50s and after. That's too late, and as mentioned by someone(s) here, ageism does exist in the work place. Perhaps there are stats to show how many boomers were involuntarily displaced in Great Recession and yet to find "comparable" work. A large multinational employer HQ'd here has announced it is sending folks to retirement and otherwise laying people off. Those involuntarily retired may not be able to actually retire yet and need to dust off the resume and hit the streets. What if they got laid off over and over, employers streeting the elders, until age 70??? Unthinkably stressful to someone past their prime.

    No matter what we do, it will remain true that some people pay in over a career and drop dead before collecting. Instead of denying high earners from collecting, it's better they forgo it by choice and make noise over it so it can be an example. I have a hard time saying "yeah, you paid in, but you made too much money so you don't get to see a dime of your contributions..." which becomes punishment for success. Far better that philanthropy spread or voluntarily forgoing it. If I drop dead before age 70, when I expect to take SS, you can count me as forgoing it. Involuntarily displaced, as it were.

    Penalizing people for accumulating outside savings is another punishment I'd like to avoid. It's not like we have a choice whether or not to contribute to SS. We are hearing all these scary-high healthcare-in-retirement numbers, so discouraging outside savings in order to come in under "means testing" will lead to more bad outcomes for our elders. In my opinion, SS should concern itself with SS, not the overall individual's life, since all it cares about in our working years is our income.

    I find myself scared for the folks in Houston and FL that lost it all. Everything, often including the job that washed away. In many cases, folks will be compelled to make mortgage payments on homes that no longer exist. These are people that in many cases are going to be in deep need of SS at earliest draw time. They have been ruined. Moving FRA to 70 immediately harms them greatly. Deciding that their assets are sufficient to be "above need" harms them. Consider someone whose home is gone and still has a mortgage yet fat bank account. I really think we should bypass deciding what "need" is, as it will also vary across regions. I also do not want to harm the special needs children that parents may have made large accounts to care for them with. Deciding that this large account is for the retiring couple is not a decision anyone but the couple should be making. Govt should not be in the business of deciding what "enough" is. If a person paid into SS, they should collect.
     
  2. Jimster

    Jimster TUG Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,300
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Crystal Lake, IL
    It already is in that business. I have paid in a very large amount of funds into social security because I have had two careers- one as a teacher and one as a private attorney. Thanks to the Windfall Exclusion Act passed in the 1980's i can only collect a small portion of what I should receive because this act severely diminishes my social security because I already have a public pension. Congress seems to be all right with that. There are many like situated individuals including many who served in the military who already have a public pension and are likewise punished.

    While I am not happy with that, it does make the SS system more viable. I see no problem in restricting or diminishing those with a high INCOME. I capitalize the word INCOME as opposed to using the word ASSETS or WEALTH. At age 66 or whatever, if you are still making $250 K in INCOME, you shouldn't expect to collect social security. I find it repugnant to think that the Mark Zuckerman's, Bill Gate's, Donald Trump's or the like in this world should be drawing SS benefits. I find it even more repugnant that they think that they should draw SS benefits yet some do believe this.

    Today with income inequality at an all time high, those living in luxury should not be benefiting from a system designed to help people subsist.
     
    geekette and Elan like this.
  3. PigsDad

    PigsDad TUG Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,503
    Likes Received:
    196
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Northern Colorado
    Resorts Owned:
    HGVC Elite: SeaWorld, Surf Club, Charter Club
    I think it depends on what people think the Social Security program is. If they think SS is an income redistribution program, then your views above probably apply. If they think SS is a retirement pension program with a security net feature, then expecting some level of return for the dollars contributed seems quite reasonable and certainly not "repugnant".

    Kurt
     
  4. VacationForever

    VacationForever TUG Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,238
    Likes Received:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Somewhere Out There
    Why gripe about the rich who can afford to give their money to charities? Charities, if run correctly/ethically, help the less fortunate.

    How do we draw the line between who should get SS or not? Someone mentioned $250K in income as the line. Income can change year to year, depending on whether in that year, funds were sold resulting in capital gains, or interest rates/dividends change, or something matures. It will be a nightmare for SS to compute with start/stop. The whole model will have to change to accomodate fluctuations. We want simplification of taxes etc and we certainly don't want it to be more complicated than it already is. Medicare "penalty" with charging higher premium on the recipient uses income 2 years before is already an issue, with people needing to send application to Medicare to show why that was a one-off event or circumstances have changed.
     
    geekette likes this.
  5. geekette

    geekette Guest

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    6,373
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Your last statement is completely true.

    The 3-4% "rule" is a bit whack, as many rules of thumb are, but gotta put a stake in the ground somewhere, I guess, just to give people Some Target. I would simply caution that no one refer to this as "safe withdrawal rate" because it isn't. Reasonable rate, maybe.

    Since I have chosen to ignore most rules of thumb and completely embraced dividend investment, I can make more than 40k on a pot less than a mil. Time in the market is my friend, granting juicy compounding that gets larger with every passing year. I look at my div payments more than I look at port value.

    It's a different mindset, focusing on div income vs portfolio value, but I can at least project div income while it is simply Wild Guess as to how much that million dollar portfolio is at first significant up or down market. Persons choosing to liquidate using the 3-4% are going to be selling in bad markets out of necessity. My strategy does not involve liquidation, I hold the shares that generate the dividends vs selling them off over time. That would be for me less and less in divs each year.

    Extra bonus that div raises have for many many years been much higher than job raises, many dbl digits, some above 20%. Within 10 years I should be able to replace job income with div income without selling off my portfolio. Granted, my IRA will force withdrawals via RMD (IRA is largest nest egg) but I can move positions to taxable port and keep on eating the divs. No forced sales. I can liquidate some or all of any position at any time if I choose and will endeavor to put that off until my 80s.

    Anyone can invest in dividend stocks. You don't need to be Warren Buffet nor an MBA and don't even need much money (I began with $25/mo).

    If interested in what this div thing is about, check out Lowell Miller's book. It has been updated from the original in the 90s but numbers and so forth are still old, read it for the concepts and not the stale charts.

    http://www.mhinvest.com/files/pdf/SBI_Single_Best_Investment_Miller.pdf

    as a companion site,
    http://www.tessellation.com/dividends/companies.html
    will show you div history of many companies (not all but Robert will add a company if you ask).

    Further help sifting the universe here
    http://www.dripinvesting.org/tools/tools.asp

    the dividend champions spreadsheet helps illuminate further the long div raising streaks of some companies. David Fish updates this monthly, he is one of the kings of div investing.

    I get that many people do not want to be direct stock holders so offer these links for those with interest. I think it is only Kurt and I here that are div devotees but perhaps a strategy that fits goals of others so I offer a place to start looking into it.
     
    VacationForever likes this.
  6. VacationForever

    VacationForever TUG Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,238
    Likes Received:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Somewhere Out There
    Women have a choice whether to have children and how many. If they cannot afford to have children, then don't. In my previous work, we came across far too many single mothers who were on welfare and continued to pop out babies, going from boyfriend to boyfriend. I don't have a solution but do we go with tough love and make sure welfare is only available when they work at least part-time? Raising a child should not be considered paid work. One is only a victim when one allows it or believes in it.

    I worked starting from the time I finished my degree all the way until I retired - in the meantime, I had a child, which I took 8 weeks of maternity leave, I completed my MBA in the evenings and weekends for almost 3 years while still working full time and after I had my child. I drew a paycheck and never missing a day between the time I started working in my early 20s until my retirement last year. Did I miss time with my offspring while I worked and went to school? Yes, but I believe in working hard and to continue to better myself to ensure we are all financially secure.
     
    geekette and WalnutBaron like this.
  7. geekette

    geekette Guest

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    6,373
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Baron, the kid thing was not SS-related, it had to do with another post citing non-working mommies refusing to marry in order to collect welfare or whatever that state calls it. Off the rails? I cannot disagree with you there! The point was the very programs you reference were elsewhere referenced with disdain because taxpayers foot it.

    I am still concerned about the women married off, discouraged from schooling and careers, encouraged to latch onto a man that will provide for them. It still happens, it always will, and wage gap contributes to it. I don't think that having children should be the test. Married people are a social unit, they share income, homes, taxes, etc. To not provide for the woman that supported the man's career is punitive, whether or not there are children. Women live longer with worse SS records, lower wages, etc. We can't fix that, women bear children and do not birth them in the office and immediately continue on writing the email or whatever. If we choose to dump the spouse part, we will be back to poverty-ridden widows. And a huge slowdown in marriage and birth rates as women must choose away from the social unit that puts their potential earnings in jeopardy and forgo having kids in order to afford Life. By not marrying, they may escape MommyTracking that inhibits career growth. The less future workers, the worse SS gets, but a female can at least avoid career sidetracking by avoiding having children and the marriage tether.

    To collect on spouse record, the marriage must have been at least 10 years and if that marriage ended in divorce, not remarried. Before becoming moms, most women do work so it is not true that they never paid in. But their earnings for same work as men are less. The uterus tax is not going away.

    My own mother would have been one of those in poverty if not for spousal SS and pension (greatly reduced after employee death). She did what society told her to do - work until you are married and then stop working and raise children. A choice, for sure, but it was The Path for women then and the workplace has not changed significantly enough to help women stay afloat regardless of choices made. One sick kid and you can be out of a job. Women cannot 'have it all' until society allows it, and until then, they suffer financially compared to men. The problem is magnified in old age, after the men die off, if women can only collect on their own spotty records.

    I'm frankly not concerned about me, I am to the point of the low paying teen and college years coming off the record, replaced by later better paying years. But my sister will be in deep doo doo if this "own record" stuff comes to pass. Her own fault for volunteering as the kids went to school instead of paid work. Her husband made good money, she didn't need money, she choose to give back to the community. The thanks for that would be dismal SS due to all those unpaid years of actual work, value unrecognized.
     
    bluehende and WalnutBaron like this.
  8. geekette

    geekette Guest

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    6,373
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    63
    ...
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2017
  9. Jimster

    Jimster TUG Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,300
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Crystal Lake, IL
    I think you are missing my point. I am not griping about charities. My point was the Pres said he would NOT take a salary to save money. Instead, he took the money as a tax dodge. No other President who was wealthy ever accepted the money. This is why the current Pres is effectively getting almost 500K each year from public funds. He takes the money only so he can write it off. He is not SAVING the government money; he is COSTING the government money for his own profit.

    I fully support the principle of those people who can afford to give money to charity to do so. That is why I would hate to see this deduction eliminated from our tax code.
     
    geekette likes this.
  10. lizap

    lizap TUG Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    116
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Louisiana
    Dividend investing is a good strategy, but I certainly wouldn't count on it for all my retirement needs. Any financial person/analyst will tell you its always best to diversify your assets (this especially holds true in retirement).
     
  11. VacationForever

    VacationForever TUG Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,238
    Likes Received:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Somewhere Out There
    You are wrong and wrong again.

    There is no tax dodge. The 400K went straight to charity - 400K income, 400K donation to charities. If charities do not exist, then our personal income tax bills will be higher to fund the less fortunate people in the society. How does the current president give away presidential salary for his own profit? It makes no sense.

    We have had lots of wealthy presidents who accepted their salaries. There were only 2 other presidents who gave the presidential salary to charities - JF Kennedy (entire) and Herbert Hoover (partial to charities and others to his staff).

    You obviously have an issue with Trump and I am stopping here because this discussion is going nowhere with your skewed view.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2017
  12. geekette

    geekette Guest

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    6,373
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    63
    But it is! Witness the rise in child care facilities, where you can pay someone else to raise your kid. Nannies. Boarding schools.

    Only the parent does it unpaid, no SS earned income, so they pay someone else to raise the kid to go get approved SS work, that substitute parent then has SS wages. When the job is outsourced, it counts for something, but when done directly, counts for nothing.

    I find it odd that tending to ones own offspring is penalized yet rewarded with old age benefits for a stranger to do it instead.
     
    WalnutBaron and PigsDad like this.
  13. geekette

    geekette Guest

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    6,373
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I have a home, cash and stocks. The equities are quite diversified by mkt cap and sector as well. What more could I need? Bonds? Gold? why? SS when it shows up grants the fixed income portion, mixing in with quarterly payments from utility companies, conglomerates, railroads, food companies, toilet paper companies.... pretty diversified.

    Perhaps many will tell you other things, but that's back to the ole rule of thumb stuff, the 60/40 and so forth. Much of "conventional wisdom" does not fit me, and my biz degree + career gains me as much insight as "any financial person/analyst" since I have also been that, yet I'm not trying to sell you anything. they are just people following the rule book they were handed, I carve my own way having studied finance and especially investing from early on. I am choosing away from financial institutions and instead owning businesses and real estate directly. No middlemen, no extra fees or obfuscation. I'm the one making money off of my money. A beautiful thing.

    I was well into it before I found others already living off their divs. It can be done, it is being done, it's what I set out to do and am within a decade of it being reality.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2017
    VacationForever likes this.
  14. VacationForever

    VacationForever TUG Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,238
    Likes Received:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Somewhere Out There
    It is a choice that the parent has to make. My kid is mine - I made the choice to have my kid. No one else made me. It is my responsibility to bring up my kid. I should not be paid for my choice in having a kid and staying at home to raise the kid. Many of us go out to work so that we have money to take care of our children (child care and food) and ourselves.
     
    Tia and Blues like this.
  15. Jimster

    Jimster TUG Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,300
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Crystal Lake, IL
    Message deleted by author
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2017
  16. Brett

    Brett Guest

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    484
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Newport News, Va.
    it's not quite like that. You still have to follow IRS rules on charitable contributions. (you cannot assign or give salary straight to a charitable organization. It has to be declared as income on the income tax return and then deducted as a charitable contribution subject to limitations. Some things like the Nobel Prize winnings can be given directly to a charity though.
     
  17. VacationForever

    VacationForever TUG Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,238
    Likes Received:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Somewhere Out There
    Yes, but my point is that on the IRS returns, in this case it will show $400K in income and $400K in charity line for deductions. There is no profit/gain on any of this.
     
  18. Jimster

    Jimster TUG Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,300
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Crystal Lake, IL
    The IRS defines "any acession to wealth" as a taxable event. Thus the $400 K is a taxable event and is listed as income. The deduction under current tax rules is allowed if verified but it goes against gain in regular income. in the case of the $400 K this profits the Pres in an amount of over $80 K by reducing his tax bill by that amount. It's as good as $80 K in your pocket. To clarify, this is legal because the IRS has ruled that "tax avoidance" is permitted but tax "evasion" is not. Nevertheless, I don't think he should profit from this.

    As to my prior post about Presidents who did not accept salaries, you are abolutely right. I knew that but did not word it correctly. JFK did not accept a salary at all- thus not a taxable event and no concomitant gain to him.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2017
  19. ace2000

    ace2000 TUG Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2006
    Messages:
    4,855
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You may be leaving some information out. I think the reason you can't collect is because you didn't pay into Social Security to begin with, right? The Windfall Act applies to those who recieve a pension and didn't pay into the system. That scenario applies to my wife, who is a teacher and she does not have Social Security taken out, therefore those earnings didn't get taxed. For me, I pay into Social Security and will also be eligible for a pension.

    So, yes, your pay was taxed as an attorney, but your pay as a teacher was probably not taxed. Here's a reference that describes it more fully...

    https://www.fool.com/investing/gene...indfall-elimination-provision-cut-your-s.aspx
     
  20. Jimster

    Jimster TUG Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,300
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Crystal Lake, IL
    No, that is not it. There are 13 states that do not require SS to be paid by certain professions covered by pensions. I live in one of them. I have been working since I was 14 years old and paying SS on those non-teaching jobs. I have accumulated well over 150 quarters of payments into SS and i have contributed susbstantially to SS. However, because I now collect a public pension, the amount of SS benefits I receive is offset by my pension with the net result that i get a pittance of what I would otherwise receive. I am unhappy but reluctantly accept that.

    What i find more objectionable is that this also applies to the military and police and fire workers. For example, a person who has spent 20 years in the military and eligible for a pension will get little or no SS even though his military service constitutes only 20 years of his working life. He/she can work 30 or 40 more years and contribute a substantial amount but he/she will not get anything near his full SS benefit. Essentially this act was passed to avoid "double dipping". Personally, I think someone who has served our country for 20 years should be allowed to "double dip". Apparently, Congress does not!

    Just to be clear, I posted this in response to my point that paying into SS doesn't necessarily mean you will get a benefit. Therefore, I see no justification for allowing those with substantial incomes to collect SS even though they paid in.
    Doing so would save the SS system billions of dollars over time.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2017
  21. lizap

    lizap TUG Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    116
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Louisiana
    Where do I begin? You are investing in 'equities', be it for dividends or capital gains. There is a relationship between risk and return, so if you find a high-dividend paying stock, there is a reason for it, and that stock is likely to be riskier. Diversification works and there is research to back this up; it's not just something promoted by CFPs. You are assuming the future is going to look like the past. That's a huge assumption to base your retirement on. I have a strong feeling the next 10 years, return-wise, may not resemble the past 10. If we head into an extended economic downturn, some companies will be forced to cut their dividends. Also, there may come a time where you may need the prinicpal that you've invested in your dividend paying stocks. Dividend stocks are great if you don't need the principal as you may be forced to take it out after the market has tanked, if you have unexpected cash flow requirements, as many seniors do. I have learned to expect the unexpected and plan for the worst case scenario. I have not always been like this; in fact, in my earlier years, was quite an aggressive investor, but there is a season for all things, and for us, our retired life is about security. I do think it's reasonable for dividend-paying stocks to be part of a well balanced portfolio.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2017
  22. geekette

    geekette Guest

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    6,373
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Sure, equities are the riskiest class, there is indeed a risk spectrum, plenty of academic stuff on all that, nothing new. I steered away from safe, needing much more growth than anything but equities could bring. Yet I own many companies that are hardly risky. When is the last time a utility went out of business? It's unlikely that companies that have survived over a hundred years will suddenly vaporize in the next correction. I get it, for many it looks like I play with fire. For all my time as a div investor, I have been warned and I ignore those warnings as my div income grows higher every year. Sitting on the stable end of the risky class doesn't bother me, I've been there a long time and have yet to lose any money in the market. I made rules for myself and they hold. One rule I would suggest for everyone is to not invest borrowed money. People jumped out of windows at Great Depression when margins were called.

    People in ETFs are more at risk than I am, they have no control over what is in that portfolio nor the buys and redemptions of others that force the fund managers' hands. They also make moves to make the quarter look good. That isn't necessarily good for the investors of the fund but it does help marketing. Stay tuned for the fall tax-loss harvesting that fund mgrs do.

    My risk is company out of business, nothing to do with stock price, yet that is what most risk discussions center on. Companies don't go broke overnight, it's not that hard to see that things aren't going well over many quarters. Most risk that is bandied about has little to do with business ops yet it is the earnings that matter, not stock price. Which blue chips went out of business in the Great Recession? Stock prices went down, but that didn't wipe out any solid companies. There were some dividend cuts or freezes, which a person living off of all their divs may or may not notice. My plan does not involve having to live off of All my dividends, one of those sneaky safety nets I have built for myself. Having to depend on every nickel of div income is riskier than even I will go, best to work and invest for another year. I can control what I own, but I cannot control what the companies do. I monitor earnings and enjoy annual reports. If I miss a big red flag, well, that can happen, I do not expect perfection from myself. I don't need to be right with every company, I only need to be mostly right, if that. Pareto Principle.

    I do not assume the past 10 years are like the next 10 and I do agree they will not at all be the same! what a run up we've had! My strategy was hatched over 25 years ago, researched a few years before that, this is where I landed as best fit for me, a young person struggling, looking for how best to avoid becoming old and poor because young and poor was zero fun and I figured it would be worse than that when old. I base my retirement on factual data, much of it money coming into my accounts all this time. I make no assumptions about the future, I simply choose companies that I have high conviction will outlive me. I don't play the buy low/sell high game, I buy and stay. I don't care about "returns", I'm in it for income, which shows up with high, low or no returns. Recessions bring stock prices down which gains more div shares @ reinvest. I'm good to go in any market conditions. Sure, who doesn't love big green Gain numbers? I dig the triple digit greens, they sure are pretty. But for me they are simply "fun numbers", here today, gone tomorrow, nothing but volatile vapor.

    "Forced to sell" doesn't happen, people make choices. When and if I elect to sell, having decades of odd lots puts me in good shape to cash in shs bought 40 years previous at much lower prices and pair them with newer shs to net out on tax obligation or show a loss if I want. What's to worry? I have a lot of companies, there is pretty much zero likelihood of "forced sell" of every share of all of them, immediately, and if I want to sell, I have a lot of choices of companies and then the lots within them, representing decades of price movement.

    House + cash round it out; one big ole illiquid place to live cheap that I could sell, and cash, the most liquid asset there is, not much risk to it, except lack of growth and inflation erosion. Then fixed income SS. Savings is for unexpected expenses, those don't just happen to seniors! Life happens, I'll roll with it. At the end of the day, it's only my butt I need to float and I can own the outcome of my decisions like I have with everything else.

    We all find our security in different ways, and it is very important to sleep well at night, not stressing over portfolios! I get that my strategy gives others the willies but I am very comfortable with it, I've lived with it peacefully from my mid 20s. Eventually some of my companies will be sending me annually more than I invested in them and that makes me super secure. Bonds won't ever do that, unlikely to happen with any fund.

    Used to be, people didn't have to think about investing, they got pensions and SS and if they had squirrelled something away in the passbook savings account and paid off the mortgage, all the better. These days, almost everyone has to be an investor, even if they have a pension, as there is no promise of money tomorrow that is guaranteed to materialize.

    Good luck to us all!
     
  23. lizap

    lizap TUG Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    116
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Louisiana
    Our investment strategies tend to evolve over the years. I don't disagree with much you've said. The one exception is that 'people are not forced to sell'. Let me give you an example. My mom passed away several years ago after an unexpected illness that lasted for about 3 years. She stayed in her home, as she wanted, but needed around the clock care. She was very healthy and active prior to this; she could not have anticipated this. My mom was fairly well off from a financial perspective. She had a pension and substantial savings. We were 'forced' to sell most of her securities because she wanted to stay in her home rather than going into a nursing home. We used most of her savings to honor her wishes. In a sense, was fortunate that this happened during a rising market. Mom would not have been able to afford this care had the timing of her illness been after the latest market crash.


     
  24. VacationForever

    VacationForever TUG Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,238
    Likes Received:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Somewhere Out There
    Part of one's retirement strategy has to include long term care insurance or funds set aside if self-funding. I bought mine 8 years ago, that pays $8,000 per month with a 3 percent compounded inflation rider, pays for 5 years if max is used and if less is used, the insurance company will keep paying until the total amount is used. So if half is used each year, then it will stretch to 10 years. Because we were working in the elder industry, we picked the LTCI carrier with the best record and rating. My premium has not gone up in the last 8 years and even if it doubles, we will keep paying. I pay less than $100 per month. My husband bought a different plan last year, one that we paid a one-time lump sum and it is both a life insurance and a LTCI policy, with an inflation rider. If LTCI is not utilized, then upon his passing, a payment (slightly above the premium) is paid to the beneficiary. If it is partially used, then the balance of the insurance value will be paid to the beneficiary.

    We do not plan to deplete savings to pay for our care, but if it is needed to cover some difference, we can live with it.
     
  25. dagger1

    dagger1 TUG Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2016
    Messages:
    695
    Likes Received:
    279
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Houston
    Resorts Owned:
    HWOR, HMSS, CWA
    You are in essence saying that folks who had two (or more) careers, one in which SS payments were made, one where payments were made into a public pension, should receive two fully vested retirement funds and therefore two full payouts. But that the person who had two (or more) careers both of which paid into SS, should only get one fully vested retirement fund (SS), much less than the first person. The person who had two separate jobs/careers and paid into SS for both of them only gets one SS check, not two checks (one SS, one pension) like the government worker who gets payouts from both retirement plans.
    Everyone who paid into SS should get their promised benefit.
     
    Tia likes this.

Share This Page