[an]

[quote=SK in CV]That life expectance has not significantly increased over the last few decades. Whether it will in the future remains to be seen.[/quote]
What would you consider significant? Over the last 2 decades, life expectancy went up 4% (3 years) and over the last 5 decades, life expectancy went up 12%. So, boomers in their 50s, if we see another 12% over the next 5 decades, their life expectancy would be 9 years longer. I don’t think we’re delaying SS full retirement age by 9 years.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=AN]BG, what you say about gen before you will be what us Gen X/Y will say about your generation. I can say with a certainty your generation will live longer than the gen before you. You’ll have access to stuff like, new cancer treatments, new AIDS treatments, new body party replacements using your own stem cell, etc. So, yes, on average, Boomers WILL live longer than their parents. So, you will use more than you put in to SS.[/quote]

I agree that we will live longer than WWII and Greatest Gen (not too many of these folks left). All I’m saying is that we put a LOT more into “the system” than our forebears did and are the first generation who very well may not see our “investment” come back to us in full. This is due to overpaying recipients who shouldn’t have qualified to get as high a benefit as they did and allowing some recipients to base their benefits on another’s work record when they didn’t contribute to “the system” themselves. I don’t care what anybody says. At all times after WWII, it was a personal choice of an individual (usually female) to stay out of the workforce for life. There are other ways to take care of someone until death who never worked and was never able to save anything for retirement. In other countries, the financial duty to care for indigent senior citizens falls on their family … as it should be. That same family benefited from the care and attention that (now indigent) non-working parent was able to give them when they were growing up.

Believe it or not, I am against “means testing” for OASDI benefits. A high-paid worker and/or worker with a long career deserves his/her SS based upon their contributions.

Since OASDI is funded by FICA employer and employee contributions, it should be used solely to help fund the retirements of those workers who contributed to it and no one else.[/quote]Unless you agree to stop SS payment upon complete drainage of the $ you put in, then it makes no difference if you put in $5 and get $10 in SS or $5k and get $5005 from SS. This is why I mentioned that your generation will most likely out live your parents’ generation. Which means your generation will most likely extract more from SS than your parents’ generation. Even if you put in more. There are a lot more exotic procedures today to keep you alive and I’m assuming that there will be even more in the future. So, how much you put in doesn’t matter as much as how much you take out from the system.

[an]

FHA loans prefer if your total DTI is less than 40 percent to 42 percent of your gross income. Conventional loans may allow your DTI to be up to 45 percent.

Read more: Mortgage Borrowing Limits | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_7293826_mortgage-borrowing-limits.html#ixzz2Hi96DcaP

[an]

BG, what you say about gen before you will be what us Gen X/Y will say about your generation. I can say with a certainty your generation will live longer than the gen before you. You’ll have access to stuff like, new cancer treatments, new AIDS treatments, new body party replacements using your own stem cell, etc. So, yes, on average, Boomers WILL live longer than their parents. So, you will use more than you put in to SS.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]What would members of Gen X/Y think if they contribute all their lives to SS and then find out at the 11th hr (age 65) that their benefits will be drastically reduced or eliminated?

Boomers, in general, worked hard all their lives in much lesser circumstances than younger workers of today and many are still working. They *deserve* to retire.[/quote]I’m part of the Gen X/Y you’re referring to and I’m expecting my benefits will be drastically reduced or eliminated. That’s why I’m not counting on them in my planning. FYI, those WWII and Greatest generation paid into the system all their lives as well and they die a lot earlier, which mean they take out less. So your entire argument sounds like the boomer will be a biggest drainer yet due to their longevity and the medical advancements.

[an]

[quote=flu]AN.

Best buy is up close to 12%. What are you gonna do?

Btw I am selling lly today @53.20.
Holding onto armh and nxpi for now. Can’t believe arm is over 40 now and nxpi is pretty close to 30.[/quote]
I actually sold awhile back to buy AAPL $515 Feb call. So I missed out this 11-13% run. But that’s OK, you win some you lose some. I still have my NOK from $2.8x though, so I love the 18%+ increase yesterday.

[an]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]If I start saying that senate republicans have not voted to pass a budget since 2009, it will not be inaccurate.

But that is about as meaningless as saying that Senate has not passed a budget, or house has not passed a budget that is acceptable to senate, or that Obama has not proposed a budget that is acceptable to the house etc.

In reality it takes two (or three) to pass it and if it doesn’t get passed, blame goes everywhere equally.[/quote]
Totally agree on most of that point. But Obama not only has not proposed a budget that’s acceptable to the house, it wasn’t acceptable to the Senate either (even for Senate Democrats): http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/163347-senate-votes-unanimously-against-obama-budget. 97 to 0. That’s pretty bad, don’t you think? But you’re right, blame goes all around. They all need to find some common ground.

[an]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=AN][quote=enron_by_the_sea][quote=AN]The other 2/3 have no room to complain about the bad budget from the other 1/3 if they haven’t passed one of their own. That’s the whole point of negotiation right? Put your budget on the table and see where they can come together?[/quote]

* Obama can’t “pass” budget but do not complain that he did not propose one .

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/13/news/economy/obama_budget/index.htm%5B/quote%5D
Did that budget pass in the Democrat controlled Senate? How many Senator vote for it? So, what we have is, the House offered a budget, Obama offered a budget, and the Democrat controlled Senate is the road block?[/quote]

No, the President has presented budgets and while budget resolutions technically require only a majority vote, in order for the budget to take effect, it must survive a cloture vote on an identical bill passed in the House. It was effectively (though not technically) filibustered by Republicans in the Senate.[/quote]
So, what you’re saying again, which is what I’m also saying, the house gave a budget that the democrat senate doesn’t like while the president gave a budget that the republican senate doesn’t like. But the Democrat controlled Senate doesn’t produce a budget of their own. So, like I said, it’s stuck in the Democrat controlled Senate.

[an]

[quote=SK in CV]As I said, the 8 to 10% barely covers 1/2 of SE tax. If I remember correctly, she left Sharp and Scripps because both were permanent part time positions, to get more hours at other facilities. She has a specialty that is in high demand, but very few facilities need her specialty full time.[/quote]
But they have full benefits. Why not just stay put instead of moving somewhere else that only pay 10% more but then after all the benefits, you’re actually taking a pay cut?

[an]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea][quote=AN]The other 2/3 have no room to complain about the bad budget from the other 1/3 if they haven’t passed one of their own. That’s the whole point of negotiation right? Put your budget on the table and see where they can come together?[/quote]

* Obama can’t “pass” budget but do not complain that he did not propose one .

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/13/news/economy/obama_budget/index.htm%5B/quote%5D
Did that budget pass in the Democrat controlled Senate? How many Senator vote for it? So, what we have is, the House offered a budget, Obama offered a budget, and the Democrat controlled Senate is the road block?

[an]

[quote=SK in CV]If only it were that simple. My dear ex-wife is an allied health professional. She’s reasonably well paid, between $80 and $100K a year for most of the last 20 years, but most of that time she worked multiple permanent part time per diem or hourly positions, never worked for the same company for more than 5 or 6 years. Despite her specialty being in relatively high demand, only two of her probably 20 employers over that time offered W-2 positions to licensees (scripps and sharp). All the rest were independent contractor positions.[/quote]
Ok, so 10% of $80-100k = $8-10k. Wouldn’t that be enough to cover the health insurance. All the while, people who are not working for Sharp/Scripps can constantly try to get into Sharp/Scripps? Why did your ex-wife quit Scripps/Sharp?

[an]

[quote=UCGal]That’s not early retirement. That’s financial independence. You need FI in order to ER… but if you still need a job to make it work, you’re still working. What you describe is semi-retirement. Something I’m considering.

Having enough FU money changes your BS level… in other words – once you have enough FU money, you may not tolerate the BS anymore… or it may roll off your back more. It’s interesting how different people discuss it. One of the descriptions I heard was that you carry two buckets – one is the BS at work, and the other is the money you’re saving for retirement. Once the money one is full enough – it’s easier to drop the BS bucket.[/quote]
You can call it semi-retirement or full retirement. To me, it’s 2 of the same. If you still need a job to make it work then you’re right, you’re not retired or even semi-retired. To me, retirement is when I get to do what I love, regardless of its pay. At the same time, if you’re healthy and don’t mind working, I don’t see why you can’t work part time to take advantage of the benefits. Even if you choose full retirement. We’re talking about $6-10k/year. That’s not too much. You just have to make sure your income from your investment at retirement can easily cover that. Also keep in mind that at retirement, you don’t have to drive nearly as much anymore. So, your gas yearly saving might be $3-4k/year. You also don’t have to pay for kids’ activity or schools or food.

[an]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=AN]Interesting, I didn’t know that. That would suck for people in those industry. Why would people do freelance in those industry then. It doesn’t make any sense to me.[/quote]

Because that’s what the market pays, and there are limited employee positions available. It’s not exactly “freelance” work. Many are long term part and full-time per diem contract positions. Slightly higher pay that barely covers 1/2 the SE tax, but no benefits. It’s just how some industries work.[/quote]
Why don’t those contractors say to their employer to let them be full time and they’ll take a pay cut?

[an]

The other 2/3 have no room to complain about the bad budget from the other 1/3 if they haven’t passed one of their own. That’s the whole point of negotiation right? Put your budget on the table and see where they can come together?

[an]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=AN]BG, I had HMO before and I went to both Sharps and Scripps. So, you don’t have to get Kaiser’s HMO. I’m not self employed, so I don’t have to worry about self-employing. However, my point is, freelancers tend to get paid about 80-100% higher than their W-2 counter part. That 80-100% extra pay is supposed to be for paying for these insurance and such. If you don’t want to deal with that, you can try and get a job at a corporation then. They’ll take care of your health insurance for you.

[/quote]

The bolded part. It isn’t true in most industries for the equivilent of full time work. In health care, for instance, it tends to be 10% more at the top of the scale.[/quote]Interesting, I didn’t know that. That would suck for people in those industry. Why would people do freelance in those industry then. It doesn’t make any sense to me.

[Author]

Posts