[SK in CV]

[quote=flu]what about all that looting? Where’s the prosecution for all those that burned down businesses and looted?[/quote]

That prosecution may come. Hundreds, maybe thousands were rounded up by police, stuck in crowded small cells, without adequate water or food, held without being charged. Some who have been charged had bail set at double the bail for the police officers that were charged.

But ultimately, under the circumstances, your question is nothing more than a grotesque diversion. You seek justice for looters. The collective spines of the black community in Baltimore have been busted up for decades by brutal police tactics. I can’t condone, dismiss or defend the mayhem on the streets of Baltimore this week. The vast majority of peaceful protestors on those city streets would probably agree. But absent the looters, the thugs, the actions that created an environment that demanded non-stop focus, would any charges have been brought? Would peaceful protest have yielded similar results? Which crime is worse, a broken window or a broken spine?

[SK in CV]

I’m always surprised when one who identifies as an atheist uses the phrase “I believe”. At its core, it’s a religious phrase.

Scientific studies have shown little benefit to regular intake of fish oil. Fiber, in balance with other dietary intake, has been shown to be beneficial. Vitamin D is a necessity. No peer reviewed studies show an significant benefit to oregano oil or turmeric over other similar herbs.

Interesting timing on this. My daughter just posted a quote on facebook from someone named Tim Minchen (confession: I have no idea who he his.)

“Do you know what they call alternative medicine that’s been proven to work? Medicine.”

[SK in CV]

BG, this sounds like horrible divorce representation. Under the scenario you described, absent a specific waiver of reimbursement, the value of the home contributed to the community would be reimbursable to the contributing spouse, irrespective of how the home was transferred to the community.

These kinds of problems would be easily avoidable in the case of a Roth (or other self-directed retirement plan). Even employer sponsored plan equity is separate property, to the extent it was earned prior to marriage.

[SK in CV]

No. He left SD almost 40 years ago.

[SK in CV]

[quote=flu][quote=SK in CV]It’s a great idea. Almost no downside. If I had lots of extra money and my kids didn’t need today what little I do give them, I’d do it in a heartbeat. My brother (a managing director at a national tax and consulting firm) who does have plenty extra and doesn’t need to worry about his own retirement, has been doing it for his two daughters for more than a decade.[/quote]

I was hoping you would chime in on this. Thank you.
Now the bigger issue is that I need to figure out. How do I give my kid a “job” at this age…lol….

You said “almost no downside…”

Ok, almost… What are the downsides in your opinion…..[/quote]

The accounts belong to the kids. If they’re over 18, they don’t need your permission to take the money out. We always hope our kids are going to act responsibly, but we never know for sure. Other than that possibility, I can’t think of any downside.

[SK in CV]

It’s a great idea. Almost no downside. If I had lots of extra money and my kids didn’t need today what little I do give them, I’d do it in a heartbeat. My brother (a managing director at a national tax and consulting firm) who does have plenty extra and doesn’t need to worry about his own retirement, has been doing it for his two daughters for more than a decade.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=SK in CV]… One of my siblings has DB pensions that pay he and his wife over $170K a year…[/quote]

SK, I don’t think I would be able to find it now but didn’t you once mention here that one of your brothers (the youngest?) was a SDPD sworn staff and recently retired? Is this the brother you are referring to above? Is the $170K in pensions referring to TWO City workers (your sibling and their spouse) or referring to just ONE pension (your sibling).

I just wanted to illustrate to the Piggs that not only were the negotiated “Class C” retirements very generous to sworn staff, but the option of participating in DROP made it even moreso.[/quote]

Yes, both he and his wife are recently retired cops. One participated in the DROP program. The other retired on disability after 7 surgeries from work related injuries and wasn’t eligible for DROP. They are a minority of retirees with DB pensions, and even tinier minority of those under 60 with DP pensions.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]Well, then, if I’m understanding your post correctly, SK, four of your siblings (2 seniors and 2 “boomers”) have DB pension plans and all are presently collecting benefits (typical). You are finally working in a job which will provide you with a DB pension. And I will surmise that most of all of your siblings have health benefits (or a healthcare allowance) attached to their DB Plans.

[/quote]

Typically, you’re not understanding my post. Three of the four are boomers. Two are collecting. The oldest (that is still alive) and the youngest. Two are not. My oldest brother died at 65. He had no DB plan. Only one has any healthcare benefits attached to their plans. I do not have a job with a DB pension. I have a job with a 401K with no matching.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
SK, are you factoring in military retirees? Military pensions are akin to DB pensions and I included them in my assumptions. Also, I am referring to about 60% seniors (those currently 70 and older) and 40% boomers (those currently 51 to 69 yrs old who are already “retired.”). The bulk of senior households DID and DO HAVE at least one DB pension coming in, incl military retirements. The bulk of those collecting DB pensions also have guaranteed health coverage for life or a guaranteed healthcare allowance for life or both (single or couple).

HEALTH CARE BLAH BLAH BLAH

You’re skipping over a boatload of people, here, SK.

All but one of the boomers I know who lost both parents had to split their “inheritance” with 2 or more siblings (and/or the heirs of a deceased sibling). SK, you’re a boomer who grew up in SD, no? How many siblings do/did you have? Are both of your parents still alive?[/quote]

I was referring to private sector employees. But since public sector has never made up more than 10% of the population, it doesn’t change things much. There has never been a time during baby boomer’s working lives when “the vast majority” were covered by DB plans.

I didn’t skip over anyone or anything. I never mentioned anything about health care. Only your assertion that “the vast majority” of retirees have some sort of DB pensions. They don’t.

I had 5 siblings. One is dead, and the other oldest aren’t/weren’t boomers. But that’s the difference between us BG. You think that the entire world is like your world. I don’t, because it isn’t. None of my close friends had more than 2 siblings. One of my siblings has DB pensions that pay he and his wife over $170K a year. Another will have $7K a month when he’s 65 for 5 years of work in the ’70’s. The other two also have DB plans. Until 10 months ago, I’ve never worked for en employer with a DB plan nor even a 401K. Until 6 months ago, I’ve never been eligible to participate in any kind of employer plan.

You know a lot of retired military and retired civil servants. I don’t. I know one retired civil servant. I don’t know a single retired career member of the military. (I did know a guy that was a career Coast Guard. He’s probably retired now. I haven’t seen nor heard from him in 15 years, since he moved to Alaska.) But none of that is important, because what I’ve experienced is nothing more than a single data point among millions. So I look at that data for the millions. And it says that you’re wrong.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]Flyer, it doesn’t seem like you’re taking into account defined benefit pensions paid monthly to boomer-and-beyond households. The vast majority of the over-55 cohort that I’m acquainted with have at least one DB pension coming into the household. And about 3/4 of those households ALSO paid into Social Security (whether or not they are currently collecting any). With one or more DB pensions combined with SS paid to one or more persons of a household, certainly this is enough money for a 1-2 person household to live relatively comfortably and indefinitely …. especially if their primary residence is paid off.

I realize that most boomers came from families with 3-6 kids and that any inheritance from the last parent who died would likely be split up among the heirs which would account for smaller inheritances in a large portion of families (don’t know the percentage). This is assuming the last remaining parent didn’t use a lot of long term care or avail themselves of LT care on Medi-Cal in their final years (which would cause a MC lien to be placed on any real property they owned).

[/quote]

Perfect example of why anecdotes are not the same as data. For the last 35 years, fewer than 30% of workers were covered by DB plans. Even among those with some kind of plan, fewer than half had DB plans, and those numbers are much lower today than they were 35 years ago. Today, that number is less than 10%.

There is no period of time over the last 60 years when average families had 3-6 kids. And we have to go back 100 years since more families had more than 2 or more children than fewer than 2.

The people that surround you are not representative of the rest of the population.

[SK in CV]

The property (or properties) has/have to be rented (or available for rent) for 2 years immediately following acquisition. If that occurs, all taxable gain is deferred until the new property is disposed of.

[SK in CV]

[quote=harvey]
Speaking of the “I read something on the internet” brand of “science” …[/quote]

“don’t believe everything you read on the internet”
Abraham Lincoln

[SK in CV]

[quote=poorgradstudent]Looks like unemployment is finally starting to catch up in what has been a largely jobless recovery.

[/quote]

Largely jobless? Something like 12 million private sector jobs in the last 5 years, and more than 5.5 million in the last 2 years is jobless?

[SK in CV]

[quote=utcsox]
State-mandated vaccination program is by definition the government take over of health care. The Republican party talking points have been that medical decisions are between you and your doctors and not some bureaucrats in Washington (CDC). I mean if they have to acquiesce with the mandatory vaccine program, I mean what’s next? The real government take over health care program, Obamacare? LOL..[/quote]

That’s silly. Vaccinations are an important part of healthcare. It is not all of healthcare. 110 years ago, the supreme court ruled that state mandated vaccinations are legal. And smallpox was eradicated. Do you think that was a bad idea?

If the Republican party really supported policies that insisted that healthcare be between patient and doctor, they wouldn’t have passed more than 230 laws limiting abortion in just the last 4 years.

(Obamacare, btw, has been a rounding success, far exceeding even the most optimistic projections. Without the government getting involved in healthcare, only in the access to healthcare.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=poorgradstudent]
Clearly Rand Paul is pandering to anti-science fools rather than sticking to the less onorous personal liberty approach.[/quote]

It’s also remotely possible that Rand Paul knows the personal liberty approach is a dead end. The supreme court already ruled on it. 110 years ago. State mandated vaccines are legal.

[Author]

Posts