Filed under: Retirement Income
Question:
I saw in USA Today…. They mentioned the Social Securtiy *surplus*…. Folks, those of you who PAY SS *taxes* have been OVERPAYING for quite some time… you do NOT get a refund. The ‘overpayment’ by those of us who pay into SS in the USA will be about 163 BILLION this year…! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Now, someone should chime in about who exactly suggested to congress that we SPEND this money, collected for SS, on NON-SS items. While we’ve been having a SURPLUS of SS for YEARS AND YEARS, folks seem worried about SS deficits looming some years down the road. This is the "secret tax" folks. If the US had INVESTED or merely SAVED this money, well… that could never happen when politicians are involved… Now, some have suggested "investing" some of this SURPLUS… that means, they want to invest some of YOUR money… money YOU have OVERPAID into the SS system, so that you might have MORE money when you *retire*… alas, there are plenty who are against that suggestion. This OVERCHARGE you pay is already allocated to be used for stuff you no nothing about. Oh… this politics thing, it’s a nasty beast it is… gtski
Response:
> I saw in USA Today….I saw on FoxNews Today….I….OK- I’m….stupid. Still; > Turns out i just figured out that the US has ALWAYS STOLEN this money by lumping the take in w/ *all* IRS purloins and, well… > it’s being splattered across everything from HUd to DoD! > *Now* I almost sorta understand what Gore was alluding to w/ that whole "Lock Box" bit.
> Oh… this politics thing, it’s a nasty beast it is…and I’m as stupid about domestic politics as I am the international stuff. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> They don’t all run around farms in Mao costumes over China way? Please help me out here paul, pmg, TD, wheaton, SoK66, leaky, -oh god- > gtski
Response:
> those of you who PAY SS *taxes* have been OVERPAYING for quite > some time… you do NOT get a refund
You’re an idiot. There’s no "overpayment" because the Social Security system isn’t an insurance policy. It’s current workers helping out retired workers. It’s a contract between generations to ensure that old age doesn’t mean poverty. But, since you don’t give a damn about anyone but yourself, it doesn’t matter to you.
Response:
> those of you who PAY SS *taxes* have been OVERPAYING for quite > some time… you do NOT get a refund > You’re an idiot. > There’s no "overpayment" because the Social Security system isn’t an > insurance policy. It’s current workers helping out retired workers. It’s > a contract between generations to ensure that old age doesn’t mean > poverty. > But, since you don’t give a damn about anyone but yourself, it doesn’t > matter to you.
and you clearly have no clue as to what ss is or how it works. if you were worth it, i would explain. your not. i wont. gtski raised a legitimate question… one that has been raised by political leaders on both sides of the aisle. he didn’t attack ss or suggest that it should be done away with. it needs fixed, and to do that you have to understand the mechanisms of how it works, and what could be done better, and what is being done (spending the current annual surplus) that perhaps shouldn’t be done. but you are a one dimensional political hack, out to throw bombs, irregardless of the cost, and you really don’t care what happens to ss as long as you can make republicans look bad in the process. "truth is nothing, but trashing a republican is everything" is your mantra of hate. go crawl back under your rock. paul az
Response:
normally I wouldn’t say anything but since you picked on my typing today and I’m sick with the flu and feeling pissy, I’m gonna dish > if you were worth it, i would explain. your not. i wont. ….it needs fixed,
You’re not. I won’t. It needs to be fixed run-on sentences, no caps etc.
Response:
> i would explain. your not. i wont.
So sayeth someone that doesn’t understand how the Social Security system works…
Response:
>> i would explain. your not. i wont. > So sayeth someone that doesn’t understand how the Social Security system > works…
Paul’s right, as usual. Pixie’s wrong, as usual. This year the program will collect more than it will pay out. More income, than out go is a surplus. Go take a High School econ class, they’ll explain it to you. See ya, John
Response:
How smoothly truth applies…. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > but I am a one dimensional political hack, out to throw bombs, > irregardless of the cost, and I really don’t care what happens to ss as > long as I can make democrats look bad in the process. "truth is nothing, > but trashing a democrat is everything" is my mantra of hate. > I’ll go crawl back under my rock.
Response:
:
: >> i would explain. your not. i wont. : > : > So sayeth someone that doesn’t understand how the Social Security system : > works… : : Paul’s right, as usual. : Pixie’s wrong, as usual. : : This year the program will collect more than it will pay out. More income, : than out go is a surplus. Go take a High School econ class, they’ll explain : it to you. : : See ya, : John Yeah right, that’s why SS is in crisis, because future generations of the elderly will be saddled with excessive reserves No problem though as the repugnicons are here to solve the problem.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> i would explain. your not. i wont. > So sayeth someone that doesn’t understand how the Social Security system > works… > Paul’s right, as usual. > Pixie’s wrong, as usual. > This year the program will collect more than it will pay out. More > income, than out go is a surplus. Go take a High School econ class, > they’ll explain it to you. > See ya, > John
Social Security has run a surplus for years, a process begun under Lyndon Johnson and his Demo-liar cronies back in the mid 60’s to pay for the Socialist "Great Society" debacle. To their great shame, Republicans latched onto the scam and are just as bad as the Demo-crooks at spending SS taxes on everything BUT grandma. In exchange for the money taken from SS to pay for the general budget expenditures, the Feds drop off "IOUs". A major part of the future mess the politicians have created is the simple fact they’ll have to pay these debts, and soon. They haven;t got the money, so they’ll either have to raise taxes, cut benefits, or reduce the payout period by increasing the retirement age. The best part in all this? It’s going to fall on the heads of the stupid, young Socialist bastards who have fallen for the Demo-liars party line "there’s no problem with Social Security."
Response:
> In exchange for the money taken from SS to pay for the general budget > expenditures, the Feds drop off "IOUs". A major part of the future mess the > politicians have created is the simple fact they’ll have to pay these debts, > and soon. They haven;t got the money, so they’ll either have to raise taxes, > cut benefits, or reduce the payout period by increasing the retirement age. > The best part in all this? It’s going to fall on the heads of the stupid, > young Socialist bastards who have fallen for the Demo-liars party line > "there’s no problem with Social Security."
How come you are all concerned about debts? You wanna fork it over for Iraq and Haliburton? Why are you playing favoritism? One billion here, one billion there. It’ll be OK.
Response:
> > i would explain. your not. i wont. > So sayeth someone that doesn’t understand how the Social Security system > works…
Or notice which side of the aisle he was sitting on, when he mouthed off on the SC decision. Regards, Rich Koerner, Time Electronics. http://www.timeelect.com Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering, Music & Studio Production, Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>i would explain. your not. i wont. >>So sayeth someone that doesn’t understand how the Social Security system >>works… >Paul’s right, as usual. >Pixie’s wrong, as usual. >This year the program will collect more than it will pay out. More >income, than out go is a surplus. Go take a High School econ class, >they’ll explain it to you. >See ya, >John > Social Security has run a surplus for years, a process begun under Lyndon > Johnson and his Demo-liar cronies back in the mid 60’s to pay for the > Socialist "Great Society" debacle. To their great shame, Republicans latched > onto the scam and are just as bad as the Demo-crooks at spending SS taxes on > everything BUT grandma.
I remember when SS wasn’t taxed… so not only is the SS system OVERFUNDED by the tax-PAYERS… the beneficiaries must pay tax on the PORTION they DO get…! ! ! ! (Ugh…! ! ) What a *racket*..! ! ! > In exchange for the money taken from SS to pay for the general budget > expenditures, the Feds drop off "IOUs". A major part of the future mess the > politicians have created is the simple fact they’ll have to pay these debts, > and soon. They haven;t got the money, so they’ll either have to raise taxes, > cut benefits, or reduce the payout period by increasing the retirement age. > The best part in all this? It’s going to fall on the heads of the stupid, > young Socialist bastards who have fallen for the Demo-liars party line > "there’s no problem with Social Security."
The *boomers*… the largest single "voting block" to ever exist in the US. :-) Amazingly, it *appears* that if the whole scam… I mean SS *system* would have been LEFT ALONE… and/or the surpluses had been *saved*, the "boomers" might be livin large soon… ( or at least "largER" ;-)…) It seems like politicians seem to find the nooks and crannys that the voters don’t really *understand* and bleed whatever cash they can from it.
Response:
> > So sayeth someone that doesn’t understand how the Social Security system > works… > This year the program will collect more than it will pay out. More income, > than out go is a surplus.
So sayeth someone who’s not paying attention and doesn’t know dick about how the real world works.. Social Security isn’t an insurance program (like the auto insurance that I’m sure you’re pissed off at being "forced" to buy) and therefore has no "surplus." You’re comparing apples and oranges.
Response:
>> This year the program will collect more than it will pay out. More > income, > than out go is a surplus. > So sayeth someone who’s not paying attention and doesn’t know dick about > how the real world works..
We did the real world comparison once and YOU are the HOLLOW man who hasn’t done shit. For years I managed medium size businesses that had over 100 employees, and YOU do NOT have a CLUE as to how the real world works. > Social Security isn’t an insurance program
You IGNORANT TWIT. I NEVER made any such comparison! Someday you’ll learn to follow a thread! > (like the auto insurance that I’m sure you’re pissed off at being "forced" > to buy)
You would be on a more firm footing if you were sure that the Earth was flat, you MORON. > and therefore has no "surplus."
If a program has a LARGER INCOME, than it does OUT GO, the different would be called a SURPLUS! Take any High School level Economics class. There also quite a few Tutor’s available, so get someone to READ the textbook for you, so that someone can explain these comcepts that are obviously well beyond your ability to comprehend. > You’re comparing apples and oranges.
I made NO COMPARISONS, you MUST get your MEDS CHECKED, you are hallucinating AGAIN! See ya, John
Response:
> >> This year the program will collect more than it will pay out. More >> income, >> than out go is a surplus. > So sayeth someone who’s not paying attention and doesn’t know dick about > how the real world works.. > We did the real world comparison once
Hey. Asshole. Social Security isn’t insurance. It isn’t a business. There’s no "surplus." Figure it out. > If a program has a LARGER INCOME, than it does OUT GO, the different would > be called a SURPLUS!
You can call it Ethel for all the sense you’d make. The fact is that there is NO Social Security surplus. A "surplus" would be a pile of money, say, OVER THERE, in a box, that isn’t being used. There is no surplus. > I made
Glad to hear that the toilet training is coming along.
Response:
> Hey. Asshole. Social Security isn’t insurance.
DUH.. > There’s no "surplus."
Let’s take it back to Elementry School Mathmatics, if you take the INCOME, and subtract the outgoing DEBT, and you have money left over, you call that left over balance what? Go back and read all of the stories about Social Security, and you will find that EVERYONE, on EVERY side admits that it IS CURRENTLY taking in MORE than it PAYS OUT you FUCKING MORON! Just ONCE, consider the FACTS! See ya, John
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > : > : >> i would explain. your not. i wont. > : > > : > So sayeth someone that doesn’t understand how the Social Security > system > : > works… > : > : Paul’s right, as usual. > : Pixie’s wrong, as usual. > : > : This year the program will collect more than it will pay out. More > income, > : than out go is a surplus. Go take a High School econ class, they’ll > explain > : it to you. > : > : See ya, > : John > Yeah right, that’s why SS is in crisis, because future > generations of the elderly will be saddled with > excessive reserves > No problem though as the repugnicons are here to > solve the problem.
lol, you are sooooooooo clueless. future obligations are huge. future surpluses are non existent. today’s surpluses are being spent (as they have for 40+ years) so are not available to cover the coming shortfall. when the system started, there were something like 25 workers supporting each retiree. that is NOT the case today, and the rate is slipping fast for the future. there will be something like 2 workers supporting each retiree. that is not good. but no problem though, the democrats will tell you that everything is okay. "Don’t worry, Be happy". buy a book, or turn your tv off of nickelodian. buy a vowel. something! you need a clue of some kind. paul az – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Hey. Asshole. Social Security isn’t insurance. > DUH.. > There’s no "surplus." > Let’s take it back to Elementry School Mathmatics, if you take the INCOME, > and subtract the outgoing DEBT, and you have money left over, you call > that left over balance what? > Go back and read all of the stories about Social Security, and you will > find that EVERYONE, on EVERY side admits that it IS CURRENTLY taking in > MORE than it PAYS OUT you FUCKING MORON! Just ONCE, consider the FACTS! > See ya, > John
he doesn’t read. he doesn’t even watch current events on tv. all of his lefty heroes even understand and use the terminology that he is rejecting. he is without a clue, as usual. if a conservative/libertarian/non lefty ever said that water was wet, pixie would argue that it was all a lie and a right wing plot. at one time the stereotype of a paranoid conspiracy fearing freak was considered to be more typical of the right than the left. pixie and many (not all) of the lefties here are making a concerted effort to re-write that stereotype. utimately, pixie and some others here at aga are slowly turning into trolls. others here (mulay, morgen) were trolls when they arrived. paul az
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>This year the program will collect more than it will pay out. More >>>income, >>>than out go is a surplus. >>So sayeth someone who’s not paying attention and doesn’t know dick about >>how the real world works.. >We did the real world comparison once > Hey. Asshole. Social Security isn’t insurance. It isn’t a business. > There’s no "surplus." Figure it out.
Wow… Paxi is getting a little heated here… "It isn’t a business"… now this is Pax at his most insightful. Well, neither is govt in general, eh Pax..?? So, all those "budget surpluses" of a few years back, weren’t really *surpluses*… ok. Ummm… I’m wondering what you call SSI… >If a program has a LARGER INCOME, than it does OUT GO, the different would >be called a SURPLUS! > You can call it Ethel for all the sense you’d make. The fact is that > there is NO Social Security surplus. A "surplus" would be a pile of > money, say, OVER THERE, in a box, that isn’t being used.
Well yes, $163 billion this year will be, say "OVER THERE"… it’ll be collected for SS, won’t be SPENT on what it is/was INTENDED for, which means it’s "surplus. And this SS surplus (Paxi, dude.. even the govt calls it that) is then "moved" to somewhere else and SPENT.. or as you say USED. Maybe you are suggesting that all the "surplus" taxes collected from taxpayers should not qualify as a surplus and should just be USED… > There is no surplus.
Sure there is. And everyone but you seems to think so… and your concept of NO SURPLUS might come in handy in Washington… for if there can be no surplus, there can be no deficit… eh Pax..??? >I made > Glad to hear that the toilet training is coming along.
Pax, it’s good to hear you’re glad about something, even if it’s merely a sarcastic remark of little use…
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > When I wrote "…that is not good. but no problem though, the democrats will tell you that everything is okay. "Don’t worry, Be happy"…" > and will not part with. It is part of the "Dylan Thomas" aspect that keeps me going. Fucking asshole liberals. > paul "the cape" HERO of Mesa, AZ
Response:
> > Hey. Asshole. Social Security isn’t insurance. > DUH.. > There’s no "surplus." > Let’s take it back to Elementry School Mathmatics
Okay asshole. Where’s the surplus? Where’s it kept? Is it in a big brown bag on Dubya’s desk? Is it packed in balloons that’ve been shoved up your ass? No. There is no Social Security "surplus."
Response:
>> Let’s take it back to Elementry School Mathmatics > Okay asshole. Where’s the surplus? Where’s it kept?
Since passage of President Johnson’s Great Society, the Social Security surplus gets dumped into the General Fund and is spent. There are those that would like to take that money and put it into a Social Security fund. If that had been done, and it was drawing interest there wouldn’t be the same looming problem that we face today. See ya, John
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>Hey. Asshole. Social Security isn’t insurance. >DUH.. >>There’s no "surplus." >Let’s take it back to Elementry School Mathmatics > Okay asshole. Where’s the surplus?
Jerk-off, it’s right where they keep the SS funds that are collected through payroll taxes and other payments. > Where’s it kept? Is it in a big brown bag on Dubya’s desk?
Ummmm…. does it matter to you exactly where it’s "kept"..?? > Is it packed in balloons that’ve been shoved up your ass?
Uh-oh… you’re sounding like Elmis after a binge… > No.
Right. It’s not there. > There is no Social Security "surplus."
PAX, you’re a fan of CNN… here’s one for you… http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/23/social.security.ap/index.html From that article… "..they were drafting a bill that would wall off the surplus payroll tax revenues Social Security is slated to receive until 2017." and… Rep. Shaw said… "The American people believe that there is something out there in West Virginia with their names on it. There is not now — but there will be if we pass this bill." Pax, he doesn’t mean the surplus MONEY will be there…! ! ! I know, it’s hard for you to comprehend. More from the article… … "While the federal government would continue to spend the surplus tax money…" … " The government would continue to spend the excess revenues…" (Paxi… John explained to you, *excess* revenues equals *surplus*) … "Rep. Richard Neal, D-Massachusetts, a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, said: "I’ve been consistent and faithful to the idea that we shouldn’t spend the Social Security surplus on other initiatives…" Oops..! ! ! A Democrat, a DEMOCRAT, suggests that we should spend the "surplus" on "other initiatives"… my, my… Pax, are the surpluses in a bag shoved up HIS ass..????? Now, Paxidude… about the "insurance" aspect of Social Security… http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/28/shields.socialsecurity/inde… A quote from this opinion… " For 70 years, the enduring premise of the program has been that the publicly financed insurance and pension system…" Oh shit..! ! ! Pax, say it so..! ! ! (again and again.. SS isn’t insurance..! ! !) Ok, maybe he is wrong, and you are right… it’s possible… (but I doubt it) Theres lots more there about "SS surpluses" etc… and I suspect the writer is more a-tuned to the specifics than Timepax could EVER be… Now, this CNN article… http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/17/bush.socialsecurity.tm/inde… From the article… "…He remembers a White House meeting in the mid-1980s at which he raised the idea of overhauling the program as a way to cut the deficit.." (this was during the Regan admin) Shee-iiit..! ! ! Someone in the Regan Admin was "on it" (to reform enlightened of Mr. Moore… oh, that it didn’t happen. But… the Reps stated… "It was one thing every Republican said was off the table — even these revolutionary Republicans," Moore recalls… (this is about *SS reform*) Wait… these were Republicans saying this… isn’t’ this what the Deems are whining about now…???? Aren’t they a little late..??? No, they’ve been co-opting Rep planks for YEARs..! ! ! ! Then again, it was folks within the Reps who were trying to address the *problem* years ago to get an early *fix* in…. From the article…. "By turning every American into an investor, and a government safety net into a system that rewards judicious risk and individual initiative, Republicans believe they can change how Americans see every question from free trade to capital gains — tax cuts." The above concept, is contrary to the Dems quasi-socialist approach… but seems quite *progressive* in nature, and more in tune with the *American way*… IMMHO… Now… this article goes on to say more and more about the *state* of the SS system, *surpluses*, etc… From the article…. "What will actually happen in 2018, according to the Social Security trustees who oversee the program, is that the money paid out in benefits will begin to exceed the amount collected in taxes. And since Social Security will run a surplus until then (and has been running one for some time), it has billions available that it can tap to fill the gap. Even under conservative estimates, the system as it stands will have enough money to pay all its promised benefits until 2042 and most of its obligations for decades after." PAX..! ! ! NOTE the words "…Social Security will run a surplus.." What is *funny* is that the article mentions that SS has "..billions available"… ummm… where..??? Like Pax says, they are *used*… meaning "spent"… as in, NOT saved. So these *billions* are like the un-funded pension plans in the private sector. But… the article claims… ".. even under conservative estimates…" it’ll be solvent till 2042 and beyond… Later, in this article… the following.. "As Bush planned his first presidential campaign, he brought in experts to brief him on how privatization had worked in places like Chile, and even Sweden –surely one of the rare instances of a Republican taking the lead from a country known for a near socialist welfare system." Another *opinion* from CNN… " And yet Bush is right about one big thing: Social Security does face a fiscal challenge — one that will be less painful to handle the sooner we tackle it." leave it alone, no changes needed…etc..etc.." And there’s more…. " Though policymakers talk of Social Security as a trust fund (or, in the imagery that Al Gore and Saturday Night Live made famous, "a lock box"), it was enacted as an insurance program in which current workers pay for older generations. Today more than three-quarters of payroll taxes go to pay benefits." Pax… dude… CNN is saying that SS "… was enacted as and insurance program…" … ! ! ! ! ! Set them straight Paxi..! ! ! Again from the CNN article "… projected shortfall is not a new situation, or even the worst that Social Security has faced. " More… "What about Bush’s proposed individual accounts? On their own, they do nothing to solve Social Security’s funding problems. Even the White House admits as much." Wait… the White House admits it..! ! ! ! Sounds pretty *honest* to me… are you feeling hood-winked Pax..???? Maybe you just aren’t listening. Finally, one of the most important statements… "At the end of 2004, about 48 million Americans — not just retired workers but also the disabled and the spouses and children of deceased workers — drew $41.5 billion a month in benefits. Even with 401(k)s and pensions figured, nearly two-thirds of those who receive benefits count on it for more than half their income; a third rely on it for 90 percent." This shows how folks are NOT saving enough of their PAY… sure they wasn’t their kids/grandkids to have $160 sneakers, limos for their 9th grade graduation, $150/month cable bills… then they rely on SS for As far as financing the "private accounts"… the following perspective… "… he explained that the government might have to borrow $100 billion to $150 billion a year for 10 years to finance the new private accounts. Participants say the traders told Snow that the markets could easily absorb that much. As a bond executive said, "Mr. Secretary, that’s a rounding error in our business." " Take note of that folks… $100 billion to $150 billion over ten years… a "rounding era" in the bond trading business. How much was the war in Iraq costing us..??? 83 billion…??? Amortized over 5-6 years… well, some of you will get it… Ok… now for the man… Bill Clinton himself… http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/26/dems.clinton.transcript/ind… Clinton… "… by taking the Social Security surplus that comes in every month and endorsing the checks of working people.." Oh Pax… Clinton says a "surplus" comes in EVERY MONTH..! ! ! But Pax, Clinton didn’t say "where" this surplus *is*, or is *kept*… maybe it’s kept up Clintons ass…eh Paxi..???? Then, on to… http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/25/rec.budget.deficit/index.html Sen. Kent Conrad, D-North Dakota… said back in 2001…. "The Medicare surplus is gone, the Social Security surplus is almost all gone," Conrad said. "But we’ve had no choice … we must do what is necessary to strengthen the economy and defend the nation." Timepax… this guy says "surplus" over and over…. I mean, WTF..???? Where is this guy getting his info…??? He talks about "Budget surplus"… "Medicare surplus"… SS surplus… PAXI.. where are all those surpluses kept…???? They were *used* right..??? SO how could they be surpluses…??? For all you Jr. Economists out there… it was interesting to note this in the article…. "That figure does not include expected new spending to increase airline security, compensate victims of the attacks, stimulate the economy and pay for further defense and security needs. Those additional measures are expected to cost significantly more than $50 billion. Part of the problem, Conrad said, is the economic slowdown is expected to result in a loss of about $60 billion in tax revenue next year. " This "slowdown" started during Clintons last year in office… His last quote… "…we must do what is necessary to strengthen the economy and defend the nation." Any of you Jr. Economists out there care to chime in on what govt fiscal measures are used to "strengthen the economy" in a recession..????
… read more »
Response:
> > Okay asshole. Where’s the surplus? > Jerk-off, it’s right where they keep the SS funds that are collected > through payroll taxes and other payments.
Where might that be? Nowhere. It doesn’t exist.
Response:
Question:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >How do you go about determingin whether it makes financial sense to pay >off > >a mortgage in preparation for retirement? > >We refinanced last year for a 30 year 5.75% loan. > >Retirement is in 10 years. We were doubling up the principle payments to > >payoff in 15 or so years. But im wondering if we would be better of > >investing that. If you can make 6 % or more on investments would you be > >better off leaving the loan at 30 years and investing the money that was > >being paid to pay of the loan early? I think we are paying about 500 a > >month as extra payment for early payoff. > >thx for any tips > Paying it off probably makes sense. Here are a few considerations. > 1. Money that is used to pay off your mortgage is in effect a 100% > secure investment of Treasury Bond quality paying a tax free 5.75%. At > today’s rates that 5.75% can’t be matched in a treasury security and > is mighty near the 6% return you believe a stock market investment > "may" produce. But, you might say, "We will lose the deduction". > That’s true, but you will find that when you retire your annual income > will decline somewhat, dropping your tax bracket, and the deduction > will probably be of little value — maybe of no value whatsoever if it > doesn’t pay you to itemize. > 2. If you continue to have a mortgage after retirement age, you will > require an additional increment of income to support the mortgage > payments. Depending on the source, that income will likely have an > impact on the taxability of Social Security. > 3. It’s nice to minimize expenses in a post-retirement environment. If > your other sources of income take a turn for the worse, or you spend > more than you were counting on, you will be in a better position to > cope than would be the case if you were saddled with a mortgage. > So unless your situation doesn’t fit what I’ve described, my advice > would be to pay it off. > Jeff >Not to mention, it’s just a damn lot less hassle. That’s gotta’ be worth >something too! >Gary
A friend of mine paid his mortgage off several years ago had no debt and always paid his credit card within 30 days. We were in a mall and he applied for a cell phone and was turned down as having a poor credit rating. Thumper To reply drop XYZ in address
Response:
It seems to me to be more important to ask if your home is in an area where it is likely to appreciate or depreciate. Many neighborhoods go downhill for a variety of reasons including it becomes unfashionable, major industry moves, natural disaster, etc. Do you plan to live in it after retirement or move to a different location or type of housing? -Connie
Response:
> How do you go about determingin whether it makes financial sense to pay off > a mortgage in preparation for retirement? > We refinanced last year for a 30 year 5.75% loan. > Retirement is in 10 years. We were doubling up the principle payments to > payoff in 15 or so years. But im wondering if we would be better of > investing that. If you can make 6 % or more on investments would you be > better off leaving the loan at 30 years and investing the money that was > being paid to pay of the loan early? I think we are paying about 500 a > month as extra payment for early payoff. > thx for any tips
There are a whole lot of variables to consider prior to making that decision. First and foremost, is can you afford the additional money? From what you post, since you are considering doing that, apparently you can. Second, is how much is the aggregate mortgage, or, IOW, how much will you have available and for how many years, through an early payoff? If the amount is significant, that is something to consider. If it amounts to a smaller amount, then it may not be such a good idea. Third, what are the tax advantages you lose in early payoff? Fourth, what investment strategy would you use to invest the money instead of an early payoff? And what rate of return would you need to get, taking all of these things into consideration, to make it worthwhile? Remember, when taxes are considered, rates of return that provide you with a financial benefit change, so even if lower, will give you an aggregate benefit. In short, you are asking what appears to be a simple question, but in reality is complex. You’ll get opinions on the internet, but bear in mind, that anyone who offers you an opinion may not be taking all those things into consideration and surely does not know your financial condition or your comfort level. The best bet is to seek the advice of a competent financial planner who is NOT out to sell you a product. Alan
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >:How do you go about determingin whether it makes financial sense to pay off >:a mortgage in preparation for retirement? >: >:We refinanced last year for a 30 year 5.75% loan. >:Retirement is in 10 years. We were doubling up the principle payments to >:payoff in 15 or so years. But im wondering if we would be better of >:investing that. If you can make 6 % or more on investments would you be >:better off leaving the loan at 30 years and investing the money that was >:being paid to pay of the loan early? I think we are paying about 500 a >:month as extra payment for early payoff. >: >:thx for any tips >: >: >: >every $ you pay into the mortgage principle starts earning 5.75% less >in expense the day the mtgage principle is reduced by that $. look at >your net. you no longer have to pay in that amount in interest, and >this is certain.
You really aren’t paying that amount in interest if you are itemizing. Thumper – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->whether this is a good investment depends on what alternatives you have. >when high quality investments start paying above 5.75%, the only >comparable quality investment right now are 5 and 10 year us bonds. >they pay significantly less. >to do better, you have to accept risk. how much risk are you willing >to tolerate? >on the other hand, the only possible consequences of our current >fiscal dilemna in the us is further devaluation of the us$ which >implies inflation. it is always better to pay off a debt with cheaper >dollars in the future. >so ny answer to your question depends on how soon, and how fast, you >expect substantial inflation. >i learned this the hard way by going through many periods of high >inflation since i became economically aware in the late 40s, and saw >fixed assets devalue over and over again as the $ went through its >gyrations. >if you have little faith in the $, don’t pay off the mortgage, >find investments which will keep pace with inflation in the long term. >as ed hall used to say, the us$ has become a widow’s and orphan’s >short. >this scheme is riskier, but has been justified over and over again in >the past 55 years. YMMV
To reply drop XYZ in address
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->How do you go about determingin whether it makes financial sense to pay off >a mortgage in preparation for retirement? >We refinanced last year for a 30 year 5.75% loan. >Retirement is in 10 years. We were doubling up the principle payments to >payoff in 15 or so years. But im wondering if we would be better of >investing that. If you can make 6 % or more on investments would you be >better off leaving the loan at 30 years and investing the money that was >being paid to pay of the loan early? I think we are paying about 500 a >month as extra payment for early payoff. >thx for any tips > Paying it off probably makes sense. Here are a few considerations. > 1. Money that is used to pay off your mortgage is in effect a 100% > secure investment of Treasury Bond quality paying a tax free 5.75%. At > today’s rates that 5.75% can’t be matched in a treasury security and > is mighty near the 6% return you believe a stock market investment > "may" produce. But, you might say, "We will lose the deduction". > That’s true, but you will find that when you retire your annual income > will decline somewhat, dropping your tax bracket, and the deduction > will probably be of little value — maybe of no value whatsoever if it > doesn’t pay you to itemize. > 2. If you continue to have a mortgage after retirement age, you will > require an additional increment of income to support the mortgage > payments. Depending on the source, that income will likely have an > impact on the taxability of Social Security. > 3. It’s nice to minimize expenses in a post-retirement environment. If > your other sources of income take a turn for the worse, or you spend > more than you were counting on, you will be in a better position to > cope than would be the case if you were saddled with a mortgage. > So unless your situation doesn’t fit what I’ve described, my advice > would be to pay it off. > Jeff
Not to mention, it’s just a damn lot less hassle. That’s gotta’ be worth something too! Gary
Response:
I had a similar situation in 1989 and decided to pay off the mortgage by 1994 when I retired. Glad I did. Visa Frequent Flyer is my only significant monthly bill and I still invest regularly. Happy in Retirement – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > How do you go about determingin whether it makes financial sense to pay > off > a mortgage in preparation for retirement? > We refinanced last year for a 30 year 5.75% loan. > Retirement is in 10 years. We were doubling up the principle payments to > payoff in 15 or so years. But im wondering if we would be better of > investing that. If you can make 6 % or more on investments would you be > better off leaving the loan at 30 years and investing the money that was > being paid to pay of the loan early? I think we are paying about 500 a > month as extra payment for early payoff. > thx for any tips
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I had a similar situation in 1989 and decided to pay off the mortgage by > 1994 when I retired. Glad I did. Visa Frequent Flyer is my only significant > monthly bill and I still invest regularly. > Happy in Retirement >How do you go about determingin whether it makes financial sense to pay >off >a mortgage in preparation for retirement? >We refinanced last year for a 30 year 5.75% loan. >Retirement is in 10 years. We were doubling up the principle payments to >payoff in 15 or so years. But im wondering if we would be better of >investing that. If you can make 6 % or more on investments would you be >better off leaving the loan at 30 years and investing the money that was >being paid to pay of the loan early? I think we are paying about 500 a >month as extra payment for early payoff. >thx for any tips
This would depend on several other considerations. First the amount of the mortgage compared to your expected retirement income. This should not be more than 30% of income. If your retirement income will be taxable, then the interest deduction may be of some help. Alonzo, indicated he retired ten years ago, if he drives like 90%+ of us then his auto would be approaching replacement time, that interest is not deductible. Rest assured the auto payment will cut in to the retirement funds. I think the next consideration just might be the most important one. A 5.75% loan is reversed, that is considered this is the return on any investment you would make, is highly questionable, as well as doubt that it is secure. A share Certificate in my credit union on 24 month commitment only pays 2.45%. This is a secure investment and I doubt that you could get up to the 5.75% any where with a secure investment. If you are paying $500 of additional principle and only dropping 15 years off the term, you must have one very large payment and owe around $500,000. your payment would be in the neighborhood of $2,000. I would come up with a lot more than $500 extra and do pay off the note. BILL P. — *KERRY LIED WHILE GOOD MEN DIED*
Response:
How do you go about determingin whether it makes financial sense to pay off a mortgage in preparation for retirement? We refinanced last year for a 30 year 5.75% loan. Retirement is in 10 years. We were doubling up the principle payments to payoff in 15 or so years. But im wondering if we would be better of investing that. If you can make 6 % or more on investments would you be better off leaving the loan at 30 years and investing the money that was being paid to pay of the loan early? I think we are paying about 500 a month as extra payment for early payoff. thx for any tips
Response:
Question:
The other day I was in lowes and noticed, they have landscape accent lights that are solar powered. This begs the question when will I be able to walk into my local hardware store and buy a solar panel?
Response:
> The other day I was in lowes and noticed, they have landscape accent > lights that are solar powered. This begs the question when will I be > able to walk into my local hardware store and buy a solar panel?
The accent lights are battery powered. The battery charger is solar powered. -dl
Response:
> > The other day I was in lowes and noticed, they have landscape accent > lights that are solar powered. This begs the question when will I be > able to walk into my local hardware store and buy a solar panel? > The accent lights are battery powered. The battery charger is solar > powered. > -dl
True, But they come with a little solar panel.
Response:
> >The other day I was in lowes and noticed, they have landscape accent >lights that are solar powered. This begs the question when will I be >able to walk into my local hardware store and buy a solar panel? > Some Home Depot stores on the west coast already do.
Can it do anything more than charge a 120 A-hr RV battery?
Response:
> > The other day I was in lowes and noticed, they have landscape accent > > lights that are solar powered. This begs the question when will I be > > able to walk into my local hardware store and buy a solar panel? > The accent lights are battery powered. The battery charger is solar > powered. > -dl > True, But they come with a little solar panel.
You’ve answered your own question. Want a solar-panel powered battery charger? Go to Lowes. I guess you have something more grandiose in mind. Maybe they can special-order a set of solar-photovoltaic roofing tiles for you? Might be fun to ask them to look it up in the catalog… Also, maybe you should check with Batteries Plus to see if they can hook you up with a rechargable "uninterruptable power supply" unit to catch the run-off from your roof. More cheap thrills with solar-powered roofing tiles can be had at: http://www.ovonic.com/ -dl
Response:
> >> >able to walk into my local hardware store and buy a solar panel? >> Some Home Depot stores on the west coast already do. >Can it do anything more than charge a 120 A-hr RV battery? > They’re carrying real, full-size panels (as opposed to the tiny panels > on accent lights), if that’s what you’re asking.
I still don’t know the capacity. A 2A x 18V could charge that RV battery in a week during summer, ideal for small cabin. For larger setups you need charge controllers, bigger batteries, etc. Solar electric is not just a panel plus battery.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> >> >able to walk into my local hardware store and buy a solar panel? >> >> Some Home Depot stores on the west coast already do. >> >Can it do anything more than charge a 120 A-hr RV battery? >> They’re carrying real, full-size panels (as opposed to the tiny panels >> on accent lights), if that’s what you’re asking. >I still don’t know the capacity. A 2A x 18V could charge that RV battery in >a week during summer, ideal for small cabin. > They are selling Astropower’s line of modules, which ranges from 65W to > 140W. They are also selling Astropower’s residential systems, including > power electronics and, if desired, battery backup. If you want to power > an entire house there, you can do it.
So what kind of cost are we talking? It seems like these huge chain hardware stores tend to drag down the price of everything they sell. It would be nice to see solar panels get into the reasonable price range.
Response:
> They are selling Astropower’s line of modules, which ranges from 65W to > 140W. They are also selling Astropower’s residential systems, including > power electronics and, if desired, battery backup. If you want to power > an entire house there, you can do it. > So what kind of cost are we talking? It seems like these huge chain > hardware stores tend to drag down the price of everything they sell. It > would be nice to see solar panels get into the reasonable price range.
The power of mass-production and mass-marketing has yet to dethrone solar pv as a plaything of the rich. More cheap thrills, price quotes, etc. at: http://www.astropower.com/ -dl
Response:
> So what kind of cost are we talking? It seems like these huge chain > hardware stores tend to drag down the price of everything they sell. It > would be nice to see solar panels get into the reasonable price range. > The power of mass-production and mass-marketing has yet to dethrone solar pv > as a plaything of the rich. More cheap thrills, price quotes, etc. at: > http://www.astropower.com/
The price used to be 10 $/W for years. I now find 120W panels at 4 $/W at http://www.solar-electric.com/ . I think another post said Lowes were much more.
Response:
> The power of mass-production and mass-marketing has yet to dethrone > solar pv as a plaything of the rich. More cheap thrills, price > quotes, etc. at: http://www.astropower.com/
For every example of a solar-playboy, there are hundreds of people who have found PV affordable for living modestly off-grid. You’d think such facts would prevent someone who could afford city services etc., from imagining that PV is a "plaything of the rich". But it doesn’t. Weird huh? Here’s a sample of turn-key solar-powered homes for sale http://www.66greenwood.com/gw_main.asp They start at $100k. Perhaps the playboy lifestyle just ain’t what it used to be? 
Wayne
Response:
> quotes, etc. at: http://www.astropower.com/ > Here’s a sample of turn-key solar-powered homes for sale > http://www.66greenwood.com/gw_main.asp They start at $100k. Perhaps the > playboy lifestyle just ain’t what it used to be?
It’s never been the same since they closed the bunny clubs in Chicago and Lake Geneva, Wisconsin. -dl
Response:
> > Here’s a sample of turn-key solar-powered homes for sale > http://www.66greenwood.com/gw_main.asp They start at $100k.
Wayne, it appears that the one and only $100k home+lot out of about 487 lots in this "off-grid" community has a power line running through the back yard. Who wants an off-grid home with a powerline in the back yard? I imagine that after a summer in the desert 30 miles down a dirt road from Kingman AZ, one might be tempted to install air-conditioning, in which case, the powerline might not be such a bad idea after all. No bunnies at this mansion, but maybe a Jackelope or two. -dl
Response:
>Wayne, it appears that the one and only $100k home+lot out of about 487 lots >in this "off-grid" community has a power line running through the back yard. >Who wants an off-grid home with a powerline in the back yard?
Who knows — people do some strange things. Like, buy one of N identical new houses in an area in which more new houses appear every year and will continue to do so for at least the next ten years, so that if they ever go to sell the place, they will have an "old" new house that is otherwise indistinguishable from a "new" new house in the same area and hence worth far less than if they had bought something that were less of a commodity. >I imagine that after a summer in the desert 30 miles down a dirt road from >Kingman AZ, one might be tempted to install air-conditioning, in which case, >the powerline might not be such a bad idea after all.
Wayne’s place *is* 30 miles down a dirt road from Kingman AZ. (Well, perhaps no longer — they keep paving over more and more of the dirt.) Wayne has air conditioning. Wayne has no power lines. This constitutes an existence proof that power lines are not a requirement. (Forethought, however, is.) — In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Wind River Systems Salt Lake City, UT, USA (40
Question:
Hi all… I went to my appointment at MAPS again today…hopefully my last, if the new GP I have an appointment with next week goes well… Anyhow, the NP I saw (seems always to be a different one every time) decided to ask if I would try another med for neuropathic pain, since I had no results at all with Neurontin, even at the full 900mg 3x a day. It’s called Zonegran…I think I’ve heard of it before, but I don’t know anyone personally who takes it, or anything about it, as I haven’t looked it up yet (doing that first thing in the morning, as it’s 3am here now, and I’m getting tired). I assume it is in the same family as Neurontin, as an anti-seizure med? Does anyone here have any info, or experience with this drug? Good or bad, or indifferent? I’m taking 100mg at bedtime for 2 weeks, then up to 100mg morning and another 100mg at night. Any thoughts or information on this would be greatly appreciated. Since I had no results from Neurontin, do you think this will work any better, or at all, or does it just depend on my own chemistry? I think I already can guess the answer to this one…..LOL … I haven’t been on Neurontin for over a year and a half, so there isn’t any other anti-seizure med in my system at all. I currently take Methadone, 50mg a day (20-10-20), Visteril for nausea, Trazodone for sleep, and Synthroid for Hashimoto’s (hypo-thyroidism). I didn’t get any info with the sample pack, and I can’t get the script filled because I have no money, and my husband is playing more games, even denying me cash for medical expenses now. My divorce lawyer will have a field day with this new development, I’m sure, once we get his rear end into court…..but anyhow, I thank you all in advance for any info! Trailingvine "To live happily is an inward power of the soul." Marcus Aurelius
Response:
http://www.fda.gov/cder/consumerinfo/druginfo/zonegran.htm Zonegran
Question:
Hello all, My parents have a 91 Park Avenue. We live in the south and dont have a whole lot of bad cold weather but when we do their car won’t start. If you try it early and it wont start they can let it sit until it warms up outside temp. and it will crank fine. The rest of the day is fine but first thing in the morning you can run the battery down and it won’t crank. Soon as the outside temp gets to say 40 or 50 degrees it will crank. Anyone have suggestions? They have carried it to several different places and they all say its fixed but same results the next day. They are on a retirement income so parts swapping is costing them a small fortune and getting them nowhere. Any help would be appreciated. thanks Alan
Response:
When you say it won’t crank do you mean, the starter won’t engage or it cranks over but doesn’t start?
> Hello all, > My parents have a 91 Park Avenue. We live in the south and dont have > a whole lot of bad cold weather but when we do their car won’t start. > If you try it early and it wont start they can let it sit until it > warms up outside temp. and it will crank fine. The rest of the day is > fine but first thing in the morning you can run the battery down and > it won’t crank. Soon as the outside temp gets to say 40 or 50 degrees > it will crank. Anyone have suggestions? They have carried it to > several different places and they all say its fixed but same results > the next day. They are on a retirement income so parts swapping is > costing them a small fortune and getting them nowhere. Any help would > be appreciated. thanks Alan
—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–
Response:
What do you mean wont start in the Am when cold?? Does it crank but not start or does it sound as if the battery is dead (cranks slowly)?
Response:
> What do you mean wont start in the Am when cold?? > Does it crank but not start or does it sound as if the battery is dead > (cranks slowly)?
Sorry for not clarifing more. The engine will spin over fine but wont start. It sounds like its fixing to catch up and start but it wont.After it has been sitting there and the outside temp warms up it will start. I’m worried they will have to leave in a hurry if something happens and this thing will leave them stranded. It runs great and it dependable when it is warm out. thanks Alan
Response:
Yea, it will spin over fine, but wont start. It only affects the starting when the outside temp is cold. When the weather is warm,no problem starting. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> When you say it won’t crank do you mean, the starter won’t engage or it > cranks over but doesn’t start? > Hello all, > My parents have a 91 Park Avenue. We live in the south and dont have > a whole lot of bad cold weather but when we do their car won’t start. > If you try it early and it wont start they can let it sit until it > warms up outside temp. and it will crank fine. The rest of the day is > fine but first thing in the morning you can run the battery down and > it won’t crank. Soon as the outside temp gets to say 40 or 50 degrees > it will crank. Anyone have suggestions? They have carried it to > several different places and they all say its fixed but same results > the next day. They are on a retirement income so parts swapping is > costing them a small fortune and getting them nowhere. Any help would > be appreciated. thanks Alan > Yea, it will spin over fine, but wont start. It only affects the starting when the outside temp is cold. When the weather is warm,no problem starting. > —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– > http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > —–== Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–
Response:
You should put it on a scanner when cold and check the coolant sensor, also fuel pump prime pressure at first start in the am, this will eliminate a lot of parts guesses.
> Hello all, > My parents have a 91 Park Avenue. We live in the south and dont have > a whole lot of bad cold weather but when we do their car won’t start. > If you try it early and it wont start they can let it sit until it > warms up outside temp. and it will crank fine. The rest of the day is > fine but first thing in the morning you can run the battery down and > it won’t crank. Soon as the outside temp gets to say 40 or 50 degrees > it will crank. Anyone have suggestions? They have carried it to > several different places and they all say its fixed but same results > the next day. They are on a retirement income so parts swapping is > costing them a small fortune and getting them nowhere. Any help would > be appreciated. thanks Alan
—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–
Response:
I agree ck the CTS Coolant Temp Sensor, I would hope it was changed already by one of the garages that you said looked at it already. Also may have a leaky injector causing the fuel pressure to bleed down overnight??? Try this. In the morning turn the key to on but don’t crank the engine, leave the key in on for a few seconds 4-5 then try to start it.. Do you know what has already been changed?? Good Luck and keep us updated. JRE
Response:
My suggestion is to replace the fuel pump and spark plugs. My mom has an 89 Buick LeSabre. When it was cold it was nearly impossible to start. It was so bad the fuel injectors were severely flooded. After replacing the plugs (w/ AC Rapidfires) and the pump, it hadn’t given her that problem.
Response:
Hey Jeff, I know the battery,alt,fuel filter,plugs,and the fuel pump pressure reg. to this point.They just left my house and I didn’t think to ask.Right now they aren’t having the problem,but I just thought I would ask while I had it on my mind.Usually my dad will carry it somewhere to keep from "bothering" me.By the time I find out,and he takes it in somewhere,they cant duplicate it because it has already warmed up.I will have to get my mom to look up her charges to see what exactly has been done. thanks Alan
Response:
Question:
My name is Laurie and I live in Denver, CO. Fortunately, we have great mental health support at the county mental health center here in Arapahoe County. I’ve just received my second denial from S.S. and want advice on how to proceed. I’m a single parent, diagnosed four years ago, and had substance abuse problems too which I’ve overcome. I’m stable right now, but I also have HepC and want to make sure my daughter and I are financially OK. I haven’t worked in four years, but am going to school, of course in the mental health field. Any ideas? Thanks. Laurie P.S. Life is too important to take so seriously! (Right?)
Response:
><BR> >My name is Laurie and I live in Denver, CO. Fortunately, we have great >mental<BR> >health support at the county mental health center here in Arapahoe County. >I’ve<BR> >just received my second denial from S.S. and want advice on how to proceed. >I’m<BR> >a single parent, diagnosed four years ago, and had substance abuse problems >too<BR> >which I’ve overcome. I’m stable right now, but I also have HepC and want >to<BR> >make sure my daughter and I are financially OK. I haven’t worked in four >years,<BR> >but am going to school, of course in the mental health field. Any ideas?<BR>
Get a lawyer to help you out. I got turned down twice too, and was in the hospital 7 times in 2 years. I have been under the care of a pych and therapist and MD for a long time before I even applied. The lawyer I have works on a contingency basis. It took another year of wrangling, but I just got my notification that I got the disability. I am a rapid cycling BPII with anxiety. Best wishes Cher
Response:
Sorry, you don’t have a great mental health support network. If someone in Australia hwas a single parent manic depressive with substance abuse problems and Hep C, no-one would be expecting them to go straight back to work!! You would be getting either disability support pension or single parents benefits, or sickness benefits for the Hep C/substance abuse problem. One of those conditions alone would be enough!! Get a social worker to help you with your case. You desrve support and you should be entitled to it. Write to your local congressman, or move to Australia. SS will just keep flipping you off unless you make a strong case and are persistant. Get lots of doctors letters, referrals, documentation about your case. If you’ve already done all these things, I’m stumped. And stunned. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >My name is Laurie and I live in Denver, CO. Fortunately, we have great mental >health support at the county mental health center here in Arapahoe County. I’ve >just received my second denial from S.S. and want advice on how to proceed. I’m >a single parent, diagnosed four years ago, and had substance abuse problems too >which I’ve overcome. I’m stable right now, but I also have HepC and want to >make sure my daughter and I are financially OK. I haven’t worked in four years, >but am going to school, of course in the mental health field. Any ideas? >Thanks. >Laurie >P.S. Life is too important to take so seriously! (Right?)
Response:
>> By the by I was surprised to find that the cost of living > in NZ is actually lower than US, UK, Canada, or Australia. >Not just anyone is allowed to live in NZ – you have to get permission, >and you may have to pay a settlement information fee and a migrant levy. >See http://www.immigration.govt.nz/migration/index.html >See http://www.movetonz.govt.nz/Bml/away/living/cost.htm for detailed >cost of living info. Note that the numbers are in NZ dollars. >John Cowart
Looks to me as if permanent residency in New Zealand is not set up for senior citizens unless they are quite well off. The person who could not make it in the U.S. on his/her retirement income would not be accepted for this status. They are not looking for people who just want an inexpensive place to retire. That is the impression I got from reviewing the immigration site. Any comments?
Response:
>I would be too! Ive worked as an engineer and professional most of my life, >and a thousand is a pittance. The system is crazy. >Wayne
Check out this link about survivor benefits. http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10084.html#Part%202 Also: Maximum Social Security Benefit: Worker Retiring at Full Retirement Age in January of 2003: $1,741/mo. (Age 65 and 2 months) I suppose the worker would have to been contributing the max. ( 7.65% of $87,000 this year). I’m 56 and If i was to retire at 62 would receive about $1300 a month and $1700 at 66. Thumper
Response:
>Simple answer: We were told our SS deductions were equivalent to an >investment. Since 1953 I have been paying into the SS so called account. >That’s fifty years. I’m getting less than a thousand a month. By computing >what I put into the SS if invested in any of the big companies such as Ford, >GM, IBM, and the like, I would be getting three to four times that amount >back each month.
I agree with you. I would certainly be better off if I had invested my FICA money into good stocks. The return on my SS money is not a good rate of return. Any new system that is developed, whether it is an extension of the IRA or some other system, must have it built in so that people cannot do early withdrawal. -Connie
Response:
>I’m gonna take care of myself after 65… why can’t anyone else.
A lot of people do, but some can’t. My father worked from age 12 to 65 and he and my mother lived decently after retirement because of SS. And believe me, all of their lives they lived very frugally. It just took almost everything he made to support his family. Pat
Response:
>Of course that assumes that you buy at the right time, hold for the >right amount of time, don’t tap the fund for family emergencies, go >through a bad divorce, don’t become ill at the wrong time. It’s true >that some would do better on their own but SS is meant as a safety net >for all of us. It was set up precisely because most people didn’t >have anything after a lifetime of work and had to be taken care of by >relatives or died in poverty in state run institutions. >Thumper
The only people who can really guarantee looking after their own health are the millionaire class and those who have little or no illness or accident throughout their lives and die quite suddenly. — Gordon
Response:
<snip> > It’s true > that some would do better on their own but SS is meant as a safety net > for all of us. It was set up precisely because most people didn’t > have anything after a lifetime of work and had to be taken care of by > relatives or died in poverty in state run institutions. > Thumper
There’s also the disability aspect: collecting when you become disabled before retirement age. Also premature death with support for widow/er and/or dependent children.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> The day after SS taxes increase I move to New Zealand. >> I’m gonna take care of myself after 65… why can’t anyone else. And >> no I wasn’t born rich. > Simple answer: We were told our SS deductions were equivalent to an > investment. Since 1953 I have been paying into the SS so called > account. That’s fifty years. I’m getting less than a thousand a month. > By computing what I put into the SS if invested in any of the big > companies such as Ford, GM, IBM, and the like, I would be getting > three to four times that amount back each month. I am taking care of > myself. So go to New Zealand and take your medical bills with you. > Wayne > Gee, an actual retirement subject in soc.retirement. Will wonders never > cease? I guess this means the end of the world. But wait, I’m sure > someone will introduce politics into the thread before it gets too > informative. By the by I was surprised to find that the cost of living > in NZ is actually lower than US, UK, Canada, or Australia. An average of > +$8K in the US was +$5K in NZ. I’m not sure what this means but I have > used numbers from a google search so it must be both authoritative and > informative. See, actual retirement info in soc.retirement!
Probably the most important consideration when one considers retiring in a foriegn country (at least it was for me and my wife) is the exchange rate trend.
Response:
>I agree with you. I would certainly be better off if I had invested my FICA >money into good stocks. The return on my SS money is not a good rate of >return.
That’s total crap. Most people get all the money they ever put into S.S. back in 18 months of drawing benefits. S.S. can’t be compared to an investment anyway; because we all know that the benefits are skewed to provide more benefit to low paid workers who worked a long time.
Response:
example, you say you’re getting less than a thousand a month. My sister, a widow, turns 60 in August and will begin to collect the widow’s benefit (starting in September?). Her husband, who was a high school dropout, never made a whole hell of a lotin a non-union small die-casting shop, and quit working when he turned 50 or so, subsequently dying at age 54 about eight years ago. My sister called to see what her benefit would be (widow’s get 71.5% of what the deceased beneficiary would have gotten at age 65, I believe), and was told $1,118! I couldn’t believe it. She, understandably, is quite happy." I don’t believe it. Since you say she is age 60, she would notbe eligible for any benefits till she reaches age 62. Widows get 100% of what the deceased age 65′ers would have gotten. Does she have a disabled child living with her? The child would be eligible for the father’s benefits. But then, it has been a few years since I started SS, but doesn’t sound right to me! Jeanette
Response:
Lee wrote "I constantly wonder how SS benefits are determined. For example, you say you’re getting less than a thousand a month. My sister, a widow, turns 60 in August and will begin to collect the widow’s benefit (starting in September?). Her husband, who was a high school dropout, never made a whole hell of a lotin a non-union small die-casting shop, and quit working when he turned 50 or so, subsequently dying at age 54 about eight years ago. My sister called to see what her benefit would be (widow’s get 71.5% of what the deceased beneficiary would have gotten at age 65, I believe), and was told $1,118! I couldn’t believe it. She, understandably, is quite happy." to which I responded thatsince she was only 60 she coudn’t get benefits till she ws atleast 62. I clicked on the link someone posted, and lo and behold! a 60 year old widow/widower can receive the benefits. Jeanette
Response:
> By the by I was surprised to find that the cost of living > in NZ is actually lower than US, UK, Canada, or Australia.
Not just anyone is allowed to live in NZ – you have to get permission, and you may have to pay a settlement information fee and a migrant levy. See http://www.immigration.govt.nz/migration/index.html See http://www.movetonz.govt.nz/Bml/away/living/cost.htm for detailed cost of living info. Note that the numbers are in NZ dollars. John Cowart
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> The day after SS taxes increase I move to New Zealand. >> I’m gonna take care of myself after 65… why can’t anyone else. And >> no I wasn’t born rich. > Simple answer: We were told our SS deductions were equivalent to an > investment. Since 1953 I have been paying into the SS so called > account. That’s fifty years. I’m getting less than a thousand a month. > By computing what I put into the SS if invested in any of the big > companies such as Ford, GM, IBM, and the like, I would be getting > three to four times that amount back each month. I am taking care of > myself. So go to New Zealand and take your medical bills with you. > Wayne >Gee, an actual retirement subject in soc.retirement. Will wonders never >cease? I guess this means the end of the world. But wait, I’m sure >someone will introduce politics into the thread before it gets too >informative. By the by I was surprised to find that the cost of living >in NZ is actually lower than US, UK, Canada, or Australia. An average of >+$8K in the US was +$5K in NZ. I’m not sure what this means but I have >used numbers from a google search so it must be both authoritative and >informative. See, actual retirement info in soc.retirement!
Life is politics. You can’t get away from. Thumper
Response:
The day after SS taxes increase I move to New Zealand. I’m gonna take care of myself after 65… why can’t anyone else. And no I wasn’t born rich.
Response:
> The day after SS taxes increase I move to New Zealand. > I’m gonna take care of myself after 65… why can’t anyone else. And > no I wasn’t born rich.
Simple answer: We were told our SS deductions were equivalent to an investment. Since 1953 I have been paying into the SS so called account. That’s fifty years. I’m getting less than a thousand a month. By computing what I put into the SS if invested in any of the big companies such as Ford, GM, IBM, and the like, I would be getting three to four times that amount back each month. I am taking care of myself. So go to New Zealand and take your medical bills with you. Wayne
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The day after SS taxes increase I move to New Zealand. > I’m gonna take care of myself after 65… why can’t anyone else. And > no I wasn’t born rich. > Simple answer: We were told our SS deductions were equivalent to an > investment. Since 1953 I have been paying into the SS so called > account. That’s fifty years. I’m getting less than a thousand a month. > By computing what I put into the SS if invested in any of the big > companies such as Ford, GM, IBM, and the like, I would be getting > three to four times that amount back each month. I am taking care of > myself. So go to New Zealand and take your medical bills with you. > Wayne
Gee, an actual retirement subject in soc.retirement. Will wonders never cease? I guess this means the end of the world. But wait, I’m sure someone will introduce politics into the thread before it gets too informative. By the by I was surprised to find that the cost of living in NZ is actually lower than US, UK, Canada, or Australia. An average of +$8K in the US was +$5K in NZ. I’m not sure what this means but I have used numbers from a google search so it must be both authoritative and informative. See, actual retirement info in soc.retirement!
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The day after SS taxes increase I move to New Zealand. > I’m gonna take care of myself after 65… why can’t anyone else. And > no I wasn’t born rich. > Simple answer: We were told our SS deductions were equivalent to an > investment. Since 1953 I have been paying into the SS so called account. > That’s fifty years. I’m getting less than a thousand a month. By computing > what I put into the SS if invested in any of the big companies such as Ford, > GM, IBM, and the like, I would be getting three to four times that amount > back each month. I am taking care of myself. So go to New Zealand and take > your medical bills with you. > Wayne
I constantly wonder how SS benefits are determined. For example, you say you’re getting less than a thousand a month. My sister, a widow, turns 60 in August and will begin to collect the widow’s benefit (starting in September?). Her husband, who was a high school dropout, never made a whole hell of a lotin a non-union small die-casting shop, and quit working when he turned 50 or so, subsequently dying at age 54 about eight years ago. My sister called to see what her benefit would be (widow’s get 71.5% of what the deceased beneficiary would have gotten at age 65, I believe), and was told $1,118! I couldn’t believe it. She, understandably, is quite happy. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –
Response:
I would be too! Ive worked as an engineer and professional most of my life, and a thousand is a pittance. The system is crazy. Wayne
Response:
> I’m gonna take care of myself after 65… why can’t anyone else. And > no I wasn’t born rich.
So you’re the only person in the US who can take care of himself after 65. I think that if you looked up the demographics of S.S. recipients, you could answer your own question.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The day after SS taxes increase I move to New Zealand. > I’m gonna take care of myself after 65… why can’t anyone else. And > no I wasn’t born rich. >Simple answer: We were told our SS deductions were equivalent to an >investment. Since 1953 I have been paying into the SS so called account. >That’s fifty years. I’m getting less than a thousand a month. By computing >what I put into the SS if invested in any of the big companies such as Ford, >GM, IBM, and the like, I would be getting three to four times that amount >back each month. I am taking care of myself. So go to New Zealand and take >your medical bills with you. >Wayne
Of course that assumes that you buy at the right time, hold for the right amount of time, don’t tap the fund for family emergencies, go through a bad divorce, don’t become ill at the wrong time. It’s true that some would do better on their own but SS is meant as a safety net for all of us. It was set up precisely because most people didn’t have anything after a lifetime of work and had to be taken care of by relatives or died in poverty in state run institutions. Thumper
Response:
Your post is long on philosophy–most of which I’m inclined to agree with. However, old people, disabled people and widows taking car of children can’t eat philosophy or cash philosophy checks at the bank. So, why not give us an executive summary of your social security plan?
Response:
> It’s not within the powers granted to the National government to operate > a retirement program. It can be claimed as such via the insane idea that > it falls within the parameters of the commerce clause, but most sane > people would know that is merely a scam to cover up the constitutional > violations engaged in by the National government. Then others would > claim that promoting and/or providing for the general welfare entails > all social endeavors but that too is in error. Otherwise, normally men > of wisdom would refrain from proclaiming a general power immediately > followed by an enumeration of granted powers.
The New Deal faced a lot of opposition from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court took its stance from a constitutional viewpoint and in 1935 it effectively declared the National Recovery Administration (NRA) illegal. In the following year it declared the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) unconstitutional, thus killing off the AAA. The point made by the Supreme Court was that any effort made to help farmers etc. should come at the state level and not the federal level, and that these parts of the New Deal went against the powers reserved to the states by the Constitution. 11 out of 16 of the Alphabet Laws were declared unconstitutional in cases heard by the Supreme Court. The reasoning of the Supreme Court was that Roosevelt had tried to impose the power of the federal government on state governments
Question:
> That doesn’t mean the *house* itself was worth it, but that other > factors were involved.
and: > A house in not-so-perfect condition should not be priced the same as > a comparable house in excellent condition.
Tina, I think these two statements show the problem. Any factors that establish the sale price are as relevant as any other factors to its worth. Worth is not a simple formula like square footage times a government mandated dollars per square foot minus the cost of work needed. If you see two houses that appear comparable to you, you clearly should choose the less costly one. Someone else might not see them as comparable, and so may be destined to spend more money than you if what they seek is less available. So worth is relative to individual taste or needs and whatever else is simultaneously available. Eric Salathe
Response:
>By definition, if someone *pays* more than the asking price, the house >was not overpriced.
BUT, if there is high demand and very little inventory (which is the case here right now) then a house could certainly be overpriced and also sell for more than that overpriced figure. That doesn’t mean the *house* itself was worth it, but that other factors were involved. <Sounds like sour grapes to me… No doubt your tune would change if you owned such a house and were attempting to sell it. As far as sour grapes is concerned, that’s not the case at all. I just don’t like being ripped off, simple as that. A house in not-so-perfect condition should not be priced the same as a comparable house in excellent condition. Just my opinion, and I’m sure I’m not the only one who thinks this way. Tina
Response:
>>By definition, if someone *pays* more than the asking price, the house >was not overpriced. >BUT, if there is high demand and very little inventory (which is the case here >right now) then a house could certainly be overpriced and also sell for more >than that overpriced figure. That doesn’t mean the *house* itself was worth >it, but that other factors were involved.
How do YOU define how much a house is "worth"? If there is high demand and low supply, then until that relationship changes, houses are worth more. If there is low demand and a high supply, then they are worth less. Do you mean you think there is some intrinsic amount that a house is "really" worth? How is this value arived at? Your position is a tautology: you first declare a house is overpriced, but if it sells for that amount or more, you STILL say it is overpriced, simply that it sold for an overpriced amount. There would simply be no way at all to convince you that the house was worth what it sold for once you are convinced that it is overpriced to begin with. Anything over your internal idea of what it is "really" worth you say is overpriced and there is just no convincing you otherwise. More than what YOU want to pay is not overpriced if others are willing to pay it. But then again nobody is making you buy. This is quite different from whether the repairs you find are needed on a particular house, make it worthwhile to proceed. If a house needing lots of repair is priced the same as one not needing repair, obviously your solution is to buy the one not needing repair. But if you want the house needing repair enough that you’ll buy anyway, than it is not overpriced, regardless of what you feel the seller SHOULD have done. Maybe you better buy a different house. -v.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> After inspection, it turns > out that the house is in poor condition, and possibly unsafe, on several > points. We are guessing that a total of approx. $15,000 or so will be needed > to repair defects and most of the cosmetic items. Forget about the things that > I was *hoping* to do. > Now that we have inspection in hand, we are trying to decide if we should try > to negotiate, walk away from the deal or run away from it. They didn’t accept > another bid before us that was under the asking price, so we aren’t optimistic > that they will be willing to make repairs or pay us to, which was our addendum. > So to us and anyone else who gets an inspection, the house physically is not > worth nearly what they asked for, neighborhood or not. I think it really > stinks that we had to fork over $490 of non-refundable cash to find out that > fact. I know it will save us more $$$ in the long-run by being armed with this > information, but it still makes me very angry and frustrated that the house was > portrayed as a "showcase" piece of property. False advertising at its best > (worst) here!
Seems to me that much in defects should have been disclosed (I presume your state mandates disclosure of certain defects as do most states). If they didn’t disclose, they’ve got legal problems awaiting them. Otherwise, unless this house is something really special (like a particularly neat Victorian), it would be wiser to pass something that the inspector found so wrong. Inspectors don’t normally worry about trivial cosmetic things, they’re looking for things that should work but don’t. When my wife and I were looking (we’re closing at the end of the month), we presumed we’d pay for inspections on two or three houses. We were blessed that the first one "right" enough for us to put down earnest money on also sailed through inspection and appraisal. I still intend to spend a good penny refinishing the basement and doing a lot of rewiring for my computer, woodworking, and auto- mechanic hobbies, but I’d never have found anyplace with all that stuff already done, and this place is the perfect basis for it. It has a 1500 square foot, bone-dry basement and a 26×30 foot garage. — Kirk Experience is the best teacher… But her pop quizzes can be mighty tough.
Response:
[snip!] >As for riding the wave, isn’t that exactly what people are doing when >their brokerage accounts, IRAs or 401ks go up, when they didn’t "do" >anything except ride the market? We don’t resent people for selling >their stocks at the top of the market (or maybe we do) so why resnt a >homeowner doing the same?
I think the resentment stems from folks trying to get more for a house than it’s worth. Just like lowballing sellers can possibly piss them off, pricing a house too high on the off chance it might sell can piss off buyers. A house should be priced to sell. Like you said, if it sells then it was priced right. The annoying part is when people price too high and then refuse to come down. Their house doesn’t sell and they end up wasting the time of the buyers. I don’t know the proper term for it, but what they are doing is fishing for a sucker and not selling a house. It’s sort of the opposite of the seller’s bane — looky lou’s. Dimitri
Response:
>I think the resentment stems from folks trying to get more for a house >than it’s worth. Just like lowballing sellers can possibly piss them off, >pricing a house too high on the off chance it might sell can piss off >buyers. A house should be priced to sell. Like you said, if it sells >then it was priced right. The annoying part is when people price too high >and then refuse to come down. Their house doesn’t sell and they end up >wasting the time of the buyers. I don’t know the proper term for it, >but what they are doing is fishing for a sucker and not selling a house. >It’s sort of the opposite of the seller’s bane — looky lou’s. >Dimitri
Exactly. In my opinion, the stock analogy that v. used does not really fit here because investing in the stock market takes on a form of gambling. Purchasing a house shouldn’t be considered a gamble. You are purchasing a house with the idea that it will be quality structure that is safe and secure for you and your loved ones. What I am in the middle of right now is a full price bid (which we thought was semi-fair given the area and the extent of cosmetic work needed), $1000 down, with mortgage and insurance processes progressing. After inspection, it turns out that the house is in poor condition, and possibly unsafe, on several points. We are guessing that a total of approx. $15,000 or so will be needed to repair defects and most of the cosmetic items. Forget about the things that I was *hoping* to do. Now that we have inspection in hand, we are trying to decide if we should try to negotiate, walk away from the deal or run away from it. They didn’t accept another bid before us that was under the asking price, so we aren’t optimistic that they will be willing to make repairs or pay us to, which was our addendum. So to us and anyone else who gets an inspection, the house physically is not worth nearly what they asked for, neighborhood or not. I think it really stinks that we had to fork over $490 of non-refundable cash to find out that fact. I know it will save us more $$$ in the long-run by being armed with this information, but it still makes me very angry and frustrated that the house was portrayed as a "showcase" piece of property. False advertising at its best (worst) here! Tina
Response:
>Exactly. In my opinion, the stock analogy that v. used does not really fit >here because investing in the stock market takes on a form of gambling. >Purchasing a house shouldn’t be considered a gamble. You are purchasing a >house with the idea that it will be quality structure that is safe and secure >for you and your loved ones.
Weeeellll…. I respectfully suggest that you are "too close to the problem" to get the view of your situation that *we* get from out here. You don’t think people view their real estate as an "investment" (or, perhaps in your view, "gamble", which really all investments at some level are)? People could say about their brokerage investments, "I was trying to purchase a safe and secure retirement income for my wife and myself". Or, "I shouldn’t have to gamble with my future, I want a safe investment". So what. Does that mean the folks who are selling XYZ stock for $50 per share, because that’s what they can get, are unfair because someone would rather buy a safe secure future for their family for $48? Today’s buyers are tomorrow’s sellers. If it went up, be it house or stock, they’d take the money. As would you after you’ve had the house a few years and for whatever reason find you want to move elsewhere. You’d get what you could. That you want the building you buy to be "safe and secure" has NOTHING at all to do with what a proper asking price is. Right now you are a buyer. You only see a buyer’s side, which is that if *they* want more for it than *you* think its worth, *they* are wrong. Wait until you are a seller and you think people are not seeing what the place is *really* worth. *They* price the house at what they think it is worth. If they are wrong (too high) then it will not sell. If they are wrong (too low) then they ‘left money on the table’, but at least they got a quick sale. If somebody knowingly overprices seeing if some sucker will bite, THEN DON’T BE THAT SUCKER. I hope you find the house that makes you happy, but really, complaining about unfair sellers is not gonna make it happen. good luck, -v.
Response:
> Exactly. In my opinion, the stock analogy that v. used does not really fit > here because investing in the stock market takes on a form of gambling.
It fits the original thread, but your situation is a very different one from "Negotiating Selling Price of House", but one of negotiating the cost of needed and undisclosed repairs. > Now that we have inspection in hand, we are trying to decide if we > should try to negotiate, walk away from the deal or run away from > it.
What I’d do is get back into the market immediately so that you have something in the other hand. If you find a comparable house in better condition at a lower price, then that makes the decision a little easier. If you cannot find a comparable, then the seller is in the drivers seat whether you like it or not. As long as you are obsessed with getting this precise house, you will be at risk of overpaying. That’s why auctions work so well — they drive prices above what the market might settle on otherwise. A year ago, we paid $10,000 over asking for a house needing $20,000 worth of repairs, but which apraised at $40,000 over asking. We just refinanced, and had an appraisal of $70,000 to $90,000 over the original asking price (that’s based on very close very similar comparable sales). Half a mile away, and at least $100,000 is added to the price of identical houses. Don’t try to figure out why, just how. Eric Salathe
Response:
>…. I’m just >sick of people "riding the wave" as it were in certain neighborhoods. Just my >opinion and experience at this moment…
You are certainly entitled to your opinionas to what a fair price is. And when other buyers share your opinion, market prices will fall. As for riding the wave, isn’t that exactly what people are doing when their brokerage accounts, IRAs or 401ks go up, when they didn’t "do" anything except ride the market? We don’t resent people for selling their stocks at the top of the market (or maybe we do) so why resnt a homeowner doing the same? If you had a stock that was worth $100 per share on a given day, and you thought it overvalued in your opinion, wouldn’t you still want the $100 that people were willing to pay? You wouldn’t take $90 for it when you could get $100, so why should a real estate seller be any different? The seller might agree with you that the house shouldn’t "really" be worth $350k, but if people were willing to pay that much, why take less? regards, -v.
Response:
>As far as paying more than "asking" on a house that’s underpriced, I have no >qualms with that. My problem is paying more than "asking" on one that seems to >be quite OVERpriced. I’m debating right now just how much neighborhood is >worth to me… A house that needs extensive repair shouldn’t be going for the >same rate as one in good condition, no matter where the location. I’m just >sick of people "riding the wave" as it were in certain neighborhoods. Just my >opinion and experience at this moment…
Yes, the pricing in certain markets is frustrating. In this case, we’ve had a long bull real estate market up until now. Each house was selling for more than the previous house, so it was possible for one in lesser lesser condition to sell for the same price as one in good condition. You are right that sellers try to get it while the getting is good. As a buyer, it’s annoying, but you should be just as annoyed at the other buyers who are willing to pay the price. In the end, the buyers are the ones that determine the selling price. If the seller is unreasonable and the market is really cooling off, then their house won’t sell. Make an offer then. In my area (Southern California) I am starting to see more houses with "Price Reduced" signs, in spite of the fact that the LA Times reported that the average home price rose in the latest quarter. I’ve also noticed houses staying on the market for a more traditional 3-4 weeks, instead of selling on the day they hit the market. Dimitri
Response:
-v. wrote >I take it you meant over the ASKING price. >As for against your grain, would it really make any difference if they >asked higher so you could buy it for the very same price but think you >’got them to come down’? >I repeat, whether it is a good deal or not has NOTHING to do with the >asking price, it only has to do with how much you would have had to >pay to get a comparable house. Better to pay a little more than >’asking’ on a house that’s underpriced to start with, than to pay a >little less than ‘asking’ on a house that was way overpriced. >-v.
Yes, I did mean ASKING price, sorry I was rushing when I posted. As far as paying more than "asking" on a house that’s underpriced, I have no qualms with that. My problem is paying more than "asking" on one that seems to be quite OVERpriced. I’m debating right now just how much neighborhood is worth to me… A house that needs extensive repair shouldn’t be going for the same rate as one in good condition, no matter where the location. I’m just sick of people "riding the wave" as it were in certain neighborhoods. Just my opinion and experience at this moment… Tina
Response:
We were *lucky* to have the full-price bid accepted in the area we were looking at. Most are going for *over* the selling price, something that just goes against my grain. Tina
Response:
> We were *lucky* to have the full-price bid accepted in the area we were looking > at. Most are going for *over* the selling price, something that just goes > against my grain. > Tina
Same thing happened to me. There were five other bids on my house in less than 24 hours of the house going on the market. I asked the agent if the buyers could get in a bidding war and she said "It happens sometimes." I was aghast and lucky my full price offer was accepted! Sterling change aol to mindspring in reply
Response:
>… Most are going for *over* the selling price, something that just goes >against my grain.
I take it you meant over the ASKING price. As for against your grain, would it really make any difference if they asked higher so you could buy it for the very same price but think you ‘got them to come down’? I repeat, whether it is a good deal or not has NOTHING to do with the asking price, it only has to do with how much you would have had to pay to get a comparable house. Better to pay a little more than ‘asking’ on a house that’s underpriced to start with, than to pay a little less than ‘asking’ on a house that was way overpriced. -v.
Response:
> I am close to putting a deal together on a second house. This house > is located in a resort area (near Branson, MO), though at a less > desirable (but good) location of the area. It has been 16 years since > I’ve negotiated a house price and even then it was for a primary > residence. I am not sure what "protocal" is when making an offer on a > house these days. I don’t want to insult the owners, yet want to save > as much as I can off the asking price. Is there a rule of thumb I > should follow? The house is in perfect, move-in condition having been > built in 1995.
I think you should think more about your value than the pride of the current owners. There is no real protocol. They want to get the most. You want to pay the least. In my experience, mostly with fixer upper houses that no one is fighting over, the best deal is had from a low ball cash offer, then accepting the counter offer without arguing if it’s a good price for me. Sometimes they counter even lower when you just say no thanks, that’s just not the right price, when it isn’t. I picked up my last house for 40% of the asking price that way. This won’t really work in a seller’s market, but don’t be afraid to offer lower, especially on a house that’s a second home where you are in a position where you can afford to bargain and walk away if you need. The more important question is what’s it worth to you, than what’s it worth to them. — Travis Anton, BoxTop Software, Inc. – http://www.boxtopsoft.com "BoxTop Software’s ProJPEG plug-in consistently produces JPEG files that are routinely 50% smaller than Photoshop" – Mac Art Design
Response:
> I am close to putting a deal together on a second house. This house > is located in a resort area (near Branson, MO), though at a less > desirable (but good) location of the area. It has been 16 years since > I’ve negotiated a house price and even then it was for a primary > residence. I am not sure what "protocal" is when making an offer on a > house these days. I don’t want to insult the owners, yet want to save > as much as I can off the asking price. Is there a rule of thumb I > should follow? The house is in perfect, move-in condition having been > built in 1995.
If you are worried about upsetting the owner, just dont make an offer. any offer is better than none, at least they know that someone is interested, you can always go higher. You dont see the new car dealer tellling you they are sorry when they list the price of a $35,000 car in their showroom, do you?
Response:
> I am not sure what "protocal" is when making an offer on a > house these days. I don’t want to insult the owners, yet want to save > as much as I can off the asking price. Is there a rule of thumb I > should follow?
The asking price is just the owner’s guess at what the house is worth on the current market and a vague indication of how motivated they are to sell. You should come up with your own price based on your evaluation of the market and your own motivation to buy. Sale price can as likely be more than as less than the asking price. A year ago in Seattle, houses were regularly entering bidding wars and going for 10% above asking. Realtors got too cocky, raised they expectations, and now some houses are going for less than asking price. It is whatever you and the other buyers decide upon. In fact, it is other buyers, not the seller, that you are really negotiating with. At what price will the other buyer give up and go for the house down the block with the telephone pole right in the best view? So, if you offer well below asking, you don’t insult the seller at all if they have another buyer. If they do not, then they’ve insulted you with their asking price. Eric Salathe
Response:
>…. want to save >as much as I can off the asking price.
IMHO you are making a major conceptual error to base you perception of whether its a good deal on how much ypu get off the asking price. It should be based what simiular houses have been selling for. Here’s an example: A certain type of house has been selling in the area for $100k. Would you be better of buying an identical house from Seller "A" at their full asking price of $95 k, or from Seller "B" for 7% off their asking price of $110k? Being proud of getting money off the asking price can mask that you bought a house that was overpriced to start with. Maybe Seller "A" is anxious to sell due to a job transfer, divorce, etc. and so has priced low to sell quick, while Seller "B" is not motivated and will only sell if they can get "their price". DONT GO BY ASKING PRICE YOU JUST REWARD PEOPLE WHO PRICE HIGH TO BEGIN WITH. good luck, -v.
Response:
Depends on the selling price of comparables and the condition of the house as well as how much you want this particular one. You look at a lot of different houses and get a good feeling for what the value is. When I first saw my current house, I knew it was perfect for me as I had seen so many others that were not. I told my agent to put on a contract. I asked her advice about tendering an offer. No one likes to pay full price! I saw the house on Sunday afternoon, the day it went on the market. The homeowners were out of town. Monday morning my agent called to inform me that there were already 5 offers on the house and advised me to go full price, with a huge escrow and as big a down payment as possible. I had never done this and it really was a terrific surprise, but I did as she suggested and the house is now mine. Very comfortable place and the value has rocketed up. The other offers were low by 2-5K. My 2 cents. Sterling change aol to mindspring in reply
Response:
I am close to putting a deal together on a second house. This house is located in a resort area (near Branson, MO), though at a less desirable (but good) location of the area. It has been 16 years since I’ve negotiated a house price and even then it was for a primary residence. I am not sure what "protocal" is when making an offer on a house these days. I don’t want to insult the owners, yet want to save as much as I can off the asking price. Is there a rule of thumb I should follow? The house is in perfect, move-in condition having been built in 1995.
Response:
I think a good place to start would be to examine the sales of comparable properties in the recent past in the area you are looking. A good realtor could help you with this data. Another good resource would be to use resources like the Yahoo Real Estate web page and the Microsoft site to see what you can find on past sales as well. When I recently negotiated a home purchase I found 8 sales in the same general area as my house and made a spreadsheet of various factors–price per square foot, various amenities, etc. I even went so far as to build a multiple regression model to see which factors seemed to have the most impact on the price people paid. When I met with my realtor to get his opinion on what my initial offer would be, he threw out a first offer that I thought was reasonable. But, my first offer undercut his by several thousand dollars. (I left room to go up and still get good value.) When he said he’d be glad to take them the offer but didn’t hold forth a lot of hope, I showed him my data. He seemed impressed. A day later he came back with a counter offer. I countered that and they accepted. Our final price was less than the initial offer my realtor suggested. This was the first house I ever bought but I think I did OK based entirely on doing my "homework" on my own using the above information. As far as insulting the owners, I think if you follow the above suggestion, you won’t put together an insulting offer. If they do get offended you can at least know that it wasn’t because there was anything wrong with your offer. Tony
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I am close to putting a deal together on a second house. This house > is located in a resort area (near Branson, MO), though at a less > desirable (but good) location of the area. It has been 16 years since > I’ve negotiated a house price and even then it was for a primary > residence. I am not sure what "protocal" is when making an offer on a > house these days. I don’t want to insult the owners, yet want to save > as much as I can off the asking price. Is there a rule of thumb I > should follow? The house is in perfect, move-in condition having been > built in 1995.
Response:
Question:
Medicare Changes: Yes there are many changes to both medicare and medicaid. It is imperative that we, as a community tell our congres people that we as a community will have a say. It is unfortunate taht the older generation and the handicapped community have got to suffer these hardships at this stage in our life. This medicare change has been ongoing for two years. Many of us fight, but few listen as we might not have a loud enough voice. There are many voices that are sislent. I have begged sessveral times but to no avail. We have a say, lets not leave it until it is law. Take action now. Nygabnet * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!
Response:
Sandra and others who responded in this thread. Sorry I did not make my comments and then abandon the topic. I responded to the original that appeared in alt support learning disab .. I didn’t look at the "to" line to see where else it might have been going and if not for DN would not have seen the other responses. > I am an OT and I can tell you that starting in January PPS started under the > BBA and there have been numerous pay cuts and lay offs in OT, PT and SLP > fields. I know numerous therapists that are unemployed and unable to find > a job.
Of course I can’t dispute your personal observations and experience in your field at your location. I based my comments on what I have observed and experienced in my neck of the woods. Where I work we recently, within the past 2 months and 6 months before that finally filled 2 of 3 OT vacancies. One with a recent grad, the other with a person having many years of experience. We still have, unless there has been a new hire this week, one additional OT vacancy. These jobs had gone begging for over a year before recruitment efforts paid off. We have one PT on staff and he is a contract employee who annually rewrites his own contract – his pay is in the HIGH 5 figure range and goes up every year. If we could recruit 2 more PTs we’d be in good shape. We have a speech department with 5 SLPs, all with the CCC credential, one of them was hired 4 months ago into a position that had been vacant for over a year. The pay is very competitive and the working conditions are, most of think, well above average. >This is a national issue.
If this is so, why is it so difficult for agencies, such as the one I work for, to fill vacancies? Why is it next to impossible to find OTs/PTs/SLPs to fill vacancies in all of the local school systems? >Many therapist I know are qualifying for >displaced workers programs to assist in retraining in a different >field. I’d suggest you recheck your info. Pick up a employment page >in you paper or call the unemployment office. I think you will be >surprised.
Fair enough … I did just that. I pulled the "jobs" section of last Sunday’s paper and went through the medical section. One hospital was recruiting for OTs and 2 private companies were recruiting for OTs and one PT. Went to the education section and 4 of 6 local public school districts are looking for OTs and SLPs. There is a semi-private school looking for at least 1 SLP. I went to the yellow pages of the local directory (new 7/1/99) and found multiple listings for private OT and private PT services … >The patients are not getting the therapy they previously did. This is > having a negative effect on the course of recovery.
Having required the skills and services of a PT following a non- elective shoulder surgery I can appreciate that a lack of such services would indeed negatively impact on the length of recovery. Your comments, and the others, have made this an issue I will pursue a bit more via my contacts in the local medical community. Regards…. Bob — Justice consists of an enduring and unalterable intention to render to each what that person deserves. Aristotle Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.
Response:
Sandra is right. I am an SLP who was laid off in May. The company I worked for (16 yrs) went under, as did most of their competitors in rehab health care. I now work 3 part time jobs and still can’t make ends meet. Most of my old OT friends are out of the profession……back in school and/or collecting unemployment. And the Med B cap mentioned in the original post is actually off….it is $1500 annual for OT, and $1500 shared between PT and ST. So if you have a stroke and get booted from the hospital in less than 3 days (fairly typical), you now get to choose whether you want to walk again or talk and swallow again… Chelsea * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!
Response:
>. Most of my old OT >friends are out of the profession……back in school >and/or collecting unemployment. And the Med B cap mentioned >in the original post is actually off….it is $1500 annual >for OT, and $1500 shared between PT and ST. So if you have >a stroke and get booted from the hospital in less than 3 >days (fairly typical), you now get to choose whether you >want to walk again or talk and swallow again… >Chelsea
This is very depressing and scary for those of us who know that we will require more and more assistance in the years ahead. I have chronic progressive ms and it is picking up speed fast. Kathi
Response:
I have to second Sandra’s remarks. I used to monitor programs which employed OTs PTs and Speech Therapist for children between the ages of 0-3. I have received several dozen calls from them asking me if I know who is hiring. Since January, the Medicare services for even children have come to a screeching halt. And I live 30 miles from NYC. It is all over. Sue – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Hi Bob; > I do think I’d take this in with a large dose of skepticism. That > number of 40,000 OTs losing their jobs is the real clue. OTs are in > HIGH demand and the universities are not turning them out fast enough > to meet existing demand. It is likely this post is just another urban > legend in the making…. > I am an OT and I can tell you that starting in January PPS started under the > BBA and there have been numerous pay cuts and lay offs in OT, PT and SLP > fields. I know numerous therapists that are unemployed and unable to find > a job. This is a national issue. Many therapist I know are qualifying for > displaced workers programs to assist in retraining in a different field. > I’d suggest you recheck your info. Pick up a employment page in you paper > or call the unemployment office. I think you will be surprised. The > patients are not getting the therapy they previously did. This is having a > negative effect on the course of recovery. > Sandra > Rogene wrote > >Congress is in the process of making changes to the laws > >that affect Medicare benefits. > >Did you know that changes ALREADY in effect, limit Medicare > >benefits to $1500 of Occupational, Physical and Speech > >therapy PER YEAR. That amount doesn’t begin to cover therapy > >necessary for a serious illness. > >It doesn’t matter if you need therapy because of a stroke, > >burn, Alzheimer’s, accident or disease. THAT’S IT! Now some > >Medicare supplement policies are following suit by limiting > >therapy benefits to as little as $300! > >Also as a result of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, > >Medicare benefits for home health and nursing homes have > >been severely limited. As Clinton pointed out this week, > >women are being hit especially hard because they generally > >live longer and have less retirement income. > >ONLY if there is a public outcry will there be any changes > >made! In this case the budget cuts are being made at the > >expense of those who have the least able to fight back, the > >sick and elderly. > >Who will provide essential services for your parents, or > >you, if you run out of funds? Hospitals and nursing homes > >are turning out people who are too sick to take care for > >themselves because their benefits have run out! A nearby > >nursing home cut their therapy staff from thirteen to three. > >There are 40,000 occupational therapists who have lost their > >jobs nationwide. > >Please ask everyone you know to write to your congressmen > >and request that our poor, sick and elderly citizens be > >given necessary medical care. Please pass this on to your > >mailing lists and other newsgroups. This country is too > >wealthy to treat our disabled and seniors so shabbily. > >Thank you!!!
Response:
I do think I’d take this in with a large dose of skepticism. That number of 40,000 OTs losing their jobs is the real clue. OTs are in HIGH demand and the universities are not turning them out fast enough to meet existing demand. It is likely this post is just another urban legend in the making…. Rogene wrote – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Congress is in the process of making changes to the laws >that affect Medicare benefits. >Did you know that changes ALREADY in effect, limit Medicare >benefits to $1500 of Occupational, Physical and Speech >therapy PER YEAR. That amount doesn’t begin to cover therapy >necessary for a serious illness. >It doesn’t matter if you need therapy because of a stroke, >burn, Alzheimer’s, accident or disease. THAT’S IT! Now some >Medicare supplement policies are following suit by limiting >therapy benefits to as little as $300! >Also as a result of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, >Medicare benefits for home health and nursing homes have >been severely limited. As Clinton pointed out this week, >women are being hit especially hard because they generally >live longer and have less retirement income. >ONLY if there is a public outcry will there be any changes >made! In this case the budget cuts are being made at the >expense of those who have the least able to fight back, the >sick and elderly. >Who will provide essential services for your parents, or >you, if you run out of funds? Hospitals and nursing homes >are turning out people who are too sick to take care for >themselves because their benefits have run out! A nearby >nursing home cut their therapy staff from thirteen to three. >There are 40,000 occupational therapists who have lost their >jobs nationwide. >Please ask everyone you know to write to your congressmen >and request that our poor, sick and elderly citizens be >given necessary medical care. Please pass this on to your >mailing lists and other newsgroups. This country is too >wealthy to treat our disabled and seniors so shabbily. >Thank you!!!
Response:
Hi Bob;
> I do think I’d take this in with a large dose of skepticism. That > number of 40,000 OTs losing their jobs is the real clue. OTs are in > HIGH demand and the universities are not turning them out fast enough > to meet existing demand. It is likely this post is just another urban > legend in the making….
I am an OT and I can tell you that starting in January PPS started under the BBA and there have been numerous pay cuts and lay offs in OT, PT and SLP fields. I know numerous therapists that are unemployed and unable to find a job. This is a national issue. Many therapist I know are qualifying for displaced workers programs to assist in retraining in a different field. I’d suggest you recheck your info. Pick up a employment page in you paper or call the unemployment office. I think you will be surprised. The patients are not getting the therapy they previously did. This is having a negative effect on the course of recovery. Sandra – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Rogene wrote >Congress is in the process of making changes to the laws >that affect Medicare benefits. >Did you know that changes ALREADY in effect, limit Medicare >benefits to $1500 of Occupational, Physical and Speech >therapy PER YEAR. That amount doesn’t begin to cover therapy >necessary for a serious illness. >It doesn’t matter if you need therapy because of a stroke, >burn, Alzheimer’s, accident or disease. THAT’S IT! Now some >Medicare supplement policies are following suit by limiting >therapy benefits to as little as $300! >Also as a result of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, >Medicare benefits for home health and nursing homes have >been severely limited. As Clinton pointed out this week, >women are being hit especially hard because they generally >live longer and have less retirement income. >ONLY if there is a public outcry will there be any changes >made! In this case the budget cuts are being made at the >expense of those who have the least able to fight back, the >sick and elderly. >Who will provide essential services for your parents, or >you, if you run out of funds? Hospitals and nursing homes >are turning out people who are too sick to take care for >themselves because their benefits have run out! A nearby >nursing home cut their therapy staff from thirteen to three. >There are 40,000 occupational therapists who have lost their >jobs nationwide. >Please ask everyone you know to write to your congressmen >and request that our poor, sick and elderly citizens be >given necessary medical care. Please pass this on to your >mailing lists and other newsgroups. This country is too >wealthy to treat our disabled and seniors so shabbily. >Thank you!!!
Response:
Congress is in the process of making changes to the laws that affect Medicare benefits. Did you know that changes ALREADY in effect, limit Medicare benefits to $1500 of Occupational, Physical and Speech therapy PER YEAR. That amount doesn’t begin to cover therapy necessary for a serious illness. It doesn’t matter if you need therapy because of a stroke, burn, Alzheimer’s, accident or disease. THAT’S IT! Now some Medicare supplement policies are following suit by limiting therapy benefits to as little as $300! Also as a result of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Medicare benefits for home health and nursing homes have been severely limited. As Clinton pointed out this week, women are being hit especially hard because they generally live longer and have less retirement income. ONLY if there is a public outcry will there be any changes made! In this case the budget cuts are being made at the expense of those who have the least able to fight back, the sick and elderly. Who will provide essential services for your parents, or you, if you run out of funds? Hospitals and nursing homes are turning out people who are too sick to take care for themselves because their benefits have run out! A nearby nursing home cut their therapy staff from thirteen to three. There are 40,000 occupational therapists who have lost their jobs nationwide. Please ask everyone you know to write to your congressmen and request that our poor, sick and elderly citizens be given necessary medical care. Please pass this on to your mailing lists and other newsgroups. This country is too wealthy to treat our disabled and seniors so shabbily. Thank you!!!
Response:
Question:
Congress is in the process of making changes to the laws that affect Medicare benefits. Did you know that changes ALREADY in effect, limit Medicare benefits to $1500 of Occupational, Physical and Speech therapy PER YEAR. That amount doesn’t begin to cover therapy necessary for a serious illness. It doesn’t matter if you need therapy because of a stroke, burn, Alzheimer’s, accident or disease. THAT’S IT! Now some Medicare supplement policies are following suit by limiting therapy benefits to as little as $300! Also as a result of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Medicare benefits for home health and nursing homes have been severely limited. As Clinton pointed out this week, women are being hit especially hard because they generally live longer and have less retirement income. ONLY if there is a public outcry will there be any changes made! In this case the budget cuts are being made at the expense of those who have the least able to fight back, the sick and elderly. Who will provide essential services for your parents, or you, if you run out of funds? Hospitals and nursing homes are turning out people who are too sick to take care for themselves because their benefits have run out! A nearby nursing home cut their therapy staff from thirteen to three. There are 40,000 occupational therapists who have lost their jobs nationwide. Please ask everyone you know to write to your congressmen and request that our poor, sick and elderly citizens be given necessary medical care. Please pass this on to your mailing lists and other newsgroups. This country is too wealthy to treat our disabled and seniors so shabbily. Thank you!!!
Response:
Keep in mind that when Medicare cuts, so do the private insurers. You see, when Medicare makes the cuts, hospitals lose money when they do the simple act of providing adequate services. Therefore, they have a tendency to "shift costs" and bill private insurers more money. The private insurance companies aren’t stupid, so they tend to follow the medicare wave in order to protect their own interests. This type of legislation REALLY affects all of us on this newsgroup! Imagine splitting $1500 in therapy services for a year when you have to have multiple joint replacements? Heaven forbid one of us has a stroke! The money won’t go far! I’m seeing it in my fieldwork. Some stroke patients don’t even START to get any function back until a few months afterwards. As soon as you reach progress, the money is out. It’s pretty sad that people are being pushed through rehab services too quickly at times because medicare just won’t pay. I was never very political, but now that I’m on the other side of the fence, I’m learning! Luna
Response:
Question:
Let me start by saying that in this last year that I have been revolted by the conduct of the President and the support he received from other Democrats… so I am sympathetic to the Republicans. ONE EXCEPTION IS A KEY ISSUE IN HEALTH CARE REFORM. We as patients need the right to sue our HMO or health insurance providers. So I was very disappointed to read this this quote from Speaker of the House Dennis Hastaert in this morning’s Washington Times: >>" The speaker said any overhaul of the laws governing the nation’s
health care system will be delayed as long as Democrats insist on legislation that would allow patients to sue health maintenance organizations. " <<< I HOPE THAT PEOPLE WRITE TO EVERY REPUBLICAN POLITICIAN AND ASK THEM TO TURN THEIR BACK ON SPECIAL INTEREST MONEY FROM INSURANCE COMPANIES . AKS THEM TO ALLOW US TO SUE OUR HMO’s. Texas has already reformed this law… and it has worked just fine! As you might expect… once there is a right to sue the HMO’s; needed treatments are not denied…and there is no need to sue. Health care costs do go up : The increase is around 1% and no more than 3%. But this is a slightly higher premium for much better coverage, coverage in which needed medicines, tests, and surgeries are no longer denied…. and lives of patients are not senselessly ruined or lost. Here’s my thumbnail sketch of ERISA: ERISA… the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974… is the pension reform bill from 25 years ago that contained a ‘ bought and paid for’ loophole for the health care industry. Under ERISA…HMO’s and health insurance providers cannot be sued in state court. This means that a patient who is denied needed medical treatment cannot sue in state court for damages, in front of a jury . Likewise this law takes away the right to sue the HMO for Breach of Contract, Medical Malpractice, or any Tort which in every other case is actionable in state court with a jury trial. Under ERISA… one can only sue in Federal Court for the medical treatment… and cannot sue for compensatory or punitive damages. The trial is before a Federal Judge alone …. there is no jury trial. If a patient has died because a needed test or surgery was denied… the dead person’s family can only sue for the test or surgery. Since the treatment is often no longer needed… and since there is no chance to to recover money damages….very few people can afford to pay the lawyers tens of thousands of dollars to sue. The insurance industry/ HMO’s are virtually given immunity…. or as one former Medical Claims Adjuster described it: ‘ A License To Kill’ .
Response:
> Let me start by saying that in this last year that I have been revolted by > the conduct of the President and the support he received from other > Democrats… so I am sympathetic to the Republicans. ONE EXCEPTION IS A > KEY ISSUE IN HEALTH CARE REFORM. > We as patients need the right to sue our HMO or health insurance providers. >snip
I saw a guy with a sandwich board protesting in front of Kaiser in Kensington, MD, yesterday–something to the effect that Kaiser misdiagnosed his wife’s brain tumor for 4 years and never did a CAT scan. Regards, Lee Paulson **Orohippus, Mesohippus, Miohippus, Protohippus, Pliohippus, Equus. Evolution is just a theory. So is gravity.**
Response:
Previous page