http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon.../2005/stories/081405dnbusburns2.2290e0f9.html
He said there's no need for inflation adjustment after 55 or so....
He said there's no need for inflation adjustment after 55 or so....
I've been drinking Scott's Koolaid for years, but I have two questions that reflect on his credibility:amt said:He said there's no need for inflation adjustment after 55 or so....
I've been drinking Scott's Koolaid for years, but I have two questions that reflect on his credibility:
1. How old is he?
2. Why is he still working?
But let's start with ages 55 to 64, the period when most people retire. What happens then?
For that group, total consumption declines from $44,330 to $23,759 at 75. That's a decline of 46 percent in 20 years, an annualized rate of 3.07 percent.
That's enough to offset the overall rate of inflation, which means your actual income could be flat and you'd do fine.
As someone approaching his 65th birthday, I can tell you this looks perfectly reasonable.
HaHa said:Scott Burns has an agenda, and it involves attacking retired people's share of GDP; especially the share than comes from government.
He is not the retirees' friend, IMO. Just one more talentless hack.
Haha
ShokWaveRider said:Does the article assume, that Seniors do not buy gas for their cars, Pay taxes on their homes and repair their homes when they break, drink occasionally, buy drugs (may be classified as healthcare) or buy groceries?
All of the above go do up in time. I would however agree that inflation is not so prevalent once one is retired, but not eliminated. Once tends to buy less luxurious items, clothing, etc.
SWR
REWahoo! said:As I posted in an earlier thread on this same subject, I've seen the spending of my three older retired siblings gradually decline over the years. No major health problems, just reduced desire to travel and buy "stuff". Other expenses (taxes, gas, etc.) have not gone up to the point they offset savings from reduced spending.
REW
Cut-Throat said:You are correct that all of these items go up over time. But what the point is here is that travel expenses, Luxury car purchases, Furniture expenses may be drastically cut to the point that they override the inflation of the basic items.
Of course if you are living a subsistance lifestyle now (Not Traveling, eating at expensive restaurants, driving and buying luxury cars or boats) then chances are that inflation will definitely be a factor in a subsistance lifestyle.
It all depends on your lifestyle.
Cut-Throat said:Right! - As they say. "Don't save Sex for your old age"
REWahoo! said:As I posted in an earlier thread on this same subject, I've seen the spending of my three older retired siblings gradually decline over the years. No major health problems, just reduced desire to travel and buy "stuff". Other expenses (taxes, gas, etc.) have not gone up to the point they offset savings from reduced spending.
I know it may come as a shock to you youngsters posting here, but as you age what is important to you (and consumes your income) does change. For example, I'm considering not renewing my subscriptions to Canoe & Kayak and NASCAR magazines. But no way am I giving up my Gun World subscription.
REW
Lazarus said:I dropped my long term NRA membership when they sent me a video not requested then dunned me to send it back or pay for it. I trashed it and my membership. When they view their members as only a cash source they have lost their way.
I've been joking about that 9mm healthcare insurance. I sure hope they are too!MRGALT2U said:I even buy some insurance through them.
azanon said:I'll bite JG. What in the hell bit of good does the NRA do for anyone? Do you hunt? I have a 12 guage remington 870 and a .40 calibur beretta myself, both of which i bought years ago. A good gun can and will last a lifetime, so I dont see how anyone would be interested in month-to-month support for the NRA if they own the guns they want. Then again, anyone who's anyone knows that the NRA isnt protecting rights to own just basic guns like single-shot shotguns and rifles, they're protecting the rights of civilians to own military guns designed to pierce heavy armor like the .50 calibur. I think its embarresssing that even in our advanced society, it is legal for the average joe to buy a .50 calibur.
When you said you'd rather give money to the NRA instead of the government, i do want you to know what went through my mind instantly; ..... redneck.