• 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 30 years!

    Join Tens of Thousands of other Owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered 24 hours a day!
  • TUG started 30 years ago in October 1993 as a group of regular Timeshare owners just like you!

    Read about our 30th anniversary: Happy 30th Birthday TUG!
  • TUG has a YouTube Channel to produce weekly short informative videos on popular Timeshare topics!

    Free memberships for every 50 subscribers!

    Visit TUG on Youtube!
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $21,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!

    Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $21 Million dollars
  • Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free!

    60,000+ subscribing owners! A weekly recap of the best Timeshare resort reviews and the most popular topics discussed by owners!
  • Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!

    All T-shirt options here!
  • A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!

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

geekette

Guest
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
10,777
Reaction score
5,531
Points
848
Congress can eventually pick a combination of measures that won't screw anyone, if they don't wait too long. One of my biggest criticisms of government for the last 30 years is that they won't take mild measures soon enough to avoid having to make much bigger ones eventually. As businesses point out, they can cope with almost anything ... except surprises. They need a few years to get things lined up.
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.
 

Jimster

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2005
Messages
2,427
Reaction score
110
Points
423
Location
Crystal Lake, IL
. Govt should not be in the business of deciding what "enough" is. If a person paid into SS, they should collect.

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.
 

PigsDad

TUG Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2006
Messages
10,072
Reaction score
7,075
Points
898
Location
Colorado and SW Florida
Resorts Owned
HGVC Elite: SeaWorld, Surf Club, Charter Club, Valdoro
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.
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
 

VacationForever

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
16,196
Reaction score
10,607
Points
1,048
Location
Somewhere Out There
I was using him only as an example of a billionaire that does not need the money. But to answer the question. It costs us $400 K in salary and it costs us the reduction of income on his taxes which costs us almost another #100 K. So collectively it costs the taxpayer about $500 K. If he also gets SS then that adds to the tab. I also think Mark Zuckerberg shouldn't get SS or Bill Gates or any of the Waltons or any number of others that may be technically eligible. But at this point the Pres is the only old enough to actually collect SS from among the group i mentioned.
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

Guest
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
10,777
Reaction score
5,531
Points
848
The statistics which show how much $ people have saved for retirement is alarming. If you have a pot of $, the rule of thumb is that you can safely withdraw 4% per year during retirement (which some are now saying is too high). Most people are not going to have anywhere near 1 million when they retire; even if they did, this would only provide 40k in annual income. Assuming both spouses worked with a combined income around 100k, their retirement income would be around 76k a year (including ss) thus they would be taking a roughly 24% decrease in annual income upon retirement. Unfortunately retirement is NOT going to be golden for many.

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

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
16,196
Reaction score
10,607
Points
1,048
Location
Somewhere Out There
My point would be that you suffered a penalty while pregnant, missing work, then had delivery costs, then recovery time. This is minimum for birth of baby. In most cases, women are financially punished for this time off, they don't get promotions, they don't get raises, they don't get paid for time off. Each baby puts a woman backwards financially. All this time off for one baby sends career off track. This isn't true for everyone, but happens a lot, too much, and impacts your earnings from which SS is derived. I was mommy tracked, altho I never wanted kids. I was told that I would want them someday so the promotion goes to the single guy, tho I was most qualified. One creep in a heap of jobs, but not the only one.

I doubt people stay single In Order To collect but that to me implies a household income test on those benefits vs forcing marriage. I'm not sure what to do with young single mothers but starving the kids isn't the answer and not all deadbeat dads can be made to pay child support. SS is not floating babies so it's a completely different matter. Taking time from career to have a baby puts her behind on career and wages and the lower the economic rung, the less likely she is paid for time off when she or baby is sick.

I guess I remain appalled that having and raising children is still not considered Work, still falls to women, women still punished financially for it. Some people make better mothers than any other profession they could choose but our society does not support that. SS is based on dollars earned, period, propagating the species doesn't enter into it. Weird, since we all need a lot more young taxpayers the older we get.

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

Guest
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
10,777
Reaction score
5,531
Points
848
Geekette, I almost always find your posts both thought-provoking and insightful, especially when it comes to financial management and investing. And I congratulate you for your success in saving and investing for your own account over the years. But, for some reason, you seem to have gone off the rails in parts of this discussion. No one, for example, has suggested that "starving the kids is the answer". That demeans an honest debate as we all try to ferret out answers to this perplexing public policy question. It's a common tactic for people to mis-characterize an argument of an opponent and take it to an unreasonable extreme in order to buttress their own argument, but it actually serves to do the opposite. (Let me also say that I appreciate the mods' allowing this debate to continue without labeling it "too political"...it's an important question that needs to be had in the public square.)

In my original suggestions on this topic, I said that removing ex- or current spouses who had not paid into the system and who had not raised any children from a marriage should not be eligible for the other spouse's Social Security benefits. If someone marries four times, divorces four times, how is it reasonable that all five people potentially draw benefits when only one contributed to the system?

Regarding children, we all know there are literally dozens of social programs in America that are designed to help poor or underprivileged or special needs children. And we also know that if SS benefits to those kinds of kids were discontinued, neither the constituents, public interest groups, or the political climate in general would allow kids to fall through the cracks, meaning some kind of replacement program would be created to take its place.

My point is that Social Security--which, though being poorly managed by Congress is actually one of the better-managed and most prized public programs in the country--was created to offer retirement benefits and should be returned to its original charter. The more it becomes bloated with new and additional obligations, the more complex it becomes, the more opportunity there is for fraud, and the more it strays from its original charter, the closer it is to collapsing under its own weight.

I appreciate the ideas offered by isisdave in Post #70. He's right: the sooner Congress gets on this and fundamentally reforms Social Security to give make it actuarially sound for the next 50 years instead of the next 8, the softer the impacts will be to all generations either receiving benefits or paying into the system. Right now, Congress is doing what it does best: ignoring the problem until it becomes a crisis, at which time any fixes will be severe, ultimately unfair to many, and prohibitively expensive and even wasteful.
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.
 

Jimster

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2005
Messages
2,427
Reaction score
110
Points
423
Location
Crystal Lake, IL
Why gripe about the rich who can afford to give their money to charities? Charities, if run correctly/ethically, help the less fortunate.

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.
 

lizap

TUG Member
Joined
May 26, 2013
Messages
1,949
Reaction score
240
Points
173
Location
Louisiana
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.

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).
 

VacationForever

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
16,196
Reaction score
10,607
Points
1,048
Location
Somewhere Out There
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.

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:

geekette

Guest
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
10,777
Reaction score
5,531
Points
848
Raising a child should not be considered paid work.

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.
 

geekette

Guest
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
10,777
Reaction score
5,531
Points
848
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).
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:

VacationForever

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
16,196
Reaction score
10,607
Points
1,048
Location
Somewhere Out There
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.

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.
 

Brett

Guest
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
9,257
Reaction score
4,897
Points
598
Location
Coastal Virginia
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.

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.
 

VacationForever

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
16,196
Reaction score
10,607
Points
1,048
Location
Somewhere Out There
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.

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.
 

Jimster

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2005
Messages
2,427
Reaction score
110
Points
423
Location
Crystal Lake, IL
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.

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:

ace2000

TUG Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
5,032
Reaction score
152
Points
498
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.

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
 

Jimster

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2005
Messages
2,427
Reaction score
110
Points
423
Location
Crystal Lake, IL
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

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:

lizap

TUG Member
Joined
May 26, 2013
Messages
1,949
Reaction score
240
Points
173
Location
Louisiana
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.

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:

geekette

Guest
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
10,777
Reaction score
5,531
Points
848
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.
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!
 

lizap

TUG Member
Joined
May 26, 2013
Messages
1,949
Reaction score
240
Points
173
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.


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!
 

VacationForever

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
16,196
Reaction score
10,607
Points
1,048
Location
Somewhere Out There
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.

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.
 

dagger1

TUG Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2016
Messages
1,463
Reaction score
840
Points
223
Location
Houston
Resorts Owned
Hyatt Wild Oak Ranch, Hyatt Main Street Station, Hyatt Ka’anapali; Marriott Ko’Olina, Marriott Waiohai; Marriott Maui Ocean Club; Wyndham CWA points, Worldmark credits.
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.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tia
Top