Early Retirement & Financial Independence Community

Early Retirement & Financial Independence Community (https://www.early-retirement.org/forums/)
-   Hi, I am... (https://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f26/)
-   -   WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06 (https://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f26/wsj-retirement-section-12-11-06-a-24480.html)

ZMAN 12-11-2006 05:57 AM

WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
I just joined and was prompted to write by the Wall Steet Journal section 12/11/06 on retirement. The frontpage story is entitled, "The Retirement Lies We Tell Ourselves". One of the "lies" is that we can live on less than 70-80% of pre-retirement income. On page R-4 of the section, the writer essentially tells us that we will need 100% of pre-retiremtn income and that we only get to drop to 80% if we were saving that other 20% for retirement. I am sure that there are a million strings on the topic. But for you veterans: What is the real story? I am still working, mid 50's, but doing some planning to get out.

unclemick 12-11-2006 07:08 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Hmmm - in my case 12% to 35% cause I was a really cheap bastard the first 12 years. Now trying to spend more -- about 110 - 130% of intial retirement in 1993 $ skipping any inflation adjustments.

Moral - I think each ER has to work up his/her estimate based on planned lifestyle.

Dory's ancient 33% That's My Story Post/thread convinced me to join this forum back in ?? 03.

heh heh heh

REWahoo 12-11-2006 07:09 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ZMAN
One of the "lies" is that we can live on less than 70-80% of pre-retirement income. On page R-4 of the section, the writer essentially tells us that we will need 100% of pre-retiremtn income and that we only get to drop to 80% if we were saving that other 20% for retirement. I am sure that there are a million strings on the topic. But for you veterans: What is the real story?

Welcome to the forum ZMAN.

There are folks here saving 60%...does that mean they only need 40% of their pre-retirement income to live on? The big lie is that you can determine anything about what % of your income will be needed for retirement if you leave expenses out of the equation. In my case we're living large on about 60% of what I grossed when I was a megacorp slave. Like Unclemick says, everyone's situation is different, so these so called rules of thumb are just what the WSJ called them: lies. But not for the reason they give you.

There have been dozens of threads here discussing this subject if you want to look for them.


Rich_by_the_Bay 12-11-2006 07:17 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Which brings up the age-old question: why base your decision on pre-FIRE earnings rather than expenses?

ZMAN 12-11-2006 07:33 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Indeed I have worked up expenses left and right, but then I see the detailed and confident article in the WSJ telling me less than 100% is a lie.

I think, am I being delusional living on less? Are these people just shills for the investment industry? Am I missing something in my calculations? Even healthcare. In my area a very good policy with a consumer reports highly rated carrier is currently about $10,000 per year.

REWahoo 12-11-2006 07:43 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ZMAN
Indeed I have worked up expenses left and right, but then I see the detailed and confident article in the WSJ telling me less than 100% is a lie.

Are these people just shills for the investment industry?

Ya think? :laugh:


rs0460a 12-11-2006 08:10 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
DW/me live happily, comfortable, and meet more than our expectations on 100% of our current net income.

Our retirement is set to have this same net income (add taxes for gross amount).

Simple, for us...

- Ron

Dawg52 12-11-2006 08:37 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich_in_Tampa
Which brings up the age-old question: why base your decision on pre-FIRE earnings rather than expenses?

Expenses is the way to go. Everyone will have a different % to income number. My % will be closer to Unclemick's early numbers but the average person will be higher. Percentages are fun to discuss but thats about it. :-\




Martha 12-11-2006 09:02 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Welcome Zman. I haven't read the article yet. I am tired of these percentage rules of thumb that make no sense on an individual basis. If I was making $300,000 when I retired I would not need $300,000 to live on, more like 20% of that amount. But if I made $30,000 I may need 100%. Also, expenses vary tremendously on an individual basis. Do you have a mortgage? What part of the country do you live in? Do you want to travel? Do you have college expenses for kids? Do you have retiree health benefits from work? Etc.

Assumptions are made about lifestyle that are not accurate especially for early retirees.

Instead, they would do more of a service by talking about what expenses will decrease and what may increase when you retire and what you can do to manage expenses. But unfortunately rules of thumb are appealing, even though they can be intellectually lazy.

riskadverse 12-11-2006 09:07 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Any article that quotes a percentage of pre-retirement income needed after retirement is written by a moron.

unclemick 12-11-2006 09:16 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Hmmm - we've had some threads in the past trying to match actual $ budgets with ER lifestyles. A much more challenging endevor. Anyone remember the old $50/day type threads?

Heh heh heh heh

Nords 12-11-2006 11:09 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by riskaverse
Any article that quotes a percentage of pre-retirement income needed after retirement is written by a moron.

Make that "a working moron on deadline".

grumpy 12-11-2006 11:10 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
We are living large on the same level of EXPENSES as before retirement. As others have said, this is only about 50% of our peak pre-retirement INCOME (we were big savers).

Grumpy

Gumby 12-11-2006 02:08 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
The article correctly notes that you won't be saving for retirement, so that percentage comes off the pretirement income. But it ignores the fact that you also won't be paying 7% of your gross in social security and medicare and that your income tax rate is likely to drop substantially. And you likely will not have a mortgage.

For example, here is our situation

100% Gross Income

33% Taxes - FIT, SIT, FICA, Medicare (but not real estate)
4% Mortgage Principal & Interest
37% Savings (401k,403b,457,taxable)
2% Charitable gifts
24% Livin' Large

All I need to do in retirement is take the 24% and adjust it upward to offset taxes. If I assume an average of 10% in taxes, I need only about 27% of my preretirement income to have the same standard of living (29% if I continue the same level of charitable giving).

LEX 12-11-2006 10:03 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Taking retirement advice from the WSJ, Forbes, or any of the other house organs of the Institutional Money Complex is the fastest way to end up yet another Host for these Parasites. ER (at least for me) includes investing on your own. If you require hand holding, you are most likely to be taken to the cleaners by the broker holding your hand (and shaving your deals for their margins!). As they say in the securities business: for every trade, the broker makes money, the brokerage house makes money, and two out of three ain't bad! ;D

macdaddy 12-12-2006 01:15 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
I think travel would be the big budget breaker... some people love to travel, but some people just like sitting at home planting tulips.

chris2008 12-12-2006 02:35 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
My two cents:
If you keep track of your expenses before you retire you do not need a rule of thumb:
You will know how much it takes you to carry on living in the same way as pre-retirement.
You will know how much of your work related cost will go away after retirement
You will be able to calculate know how much extra money to factor in realisically for your desired after-retirement lifestyle.

Looking at some retired and quite wealthy relatives I learned that the desire to travel and for expensive hobbies was reduced once they had the spare time to make it reality. Often the desire came from stress and daydreaming during corporate life and was replaced by the joy to spend time with friends and relatives, putter around the house and to prepare carefully for the trips they really wanted to take.

We are planning to live on after retirement from what we spend now over the year + inflation. In addition we are building a "fun and support cache" for hobbies and trips that go beyond our existing budget. Once our health and age does not allow to travel extensively or the desire goes away we will use this cache to buy us more help around the house.


HFWR 12-12-2006 07:53 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by macdaddy
I think travel would be the big budget breaker... some people love to travel, but some people just like sitting at home planting tulips.

And not pushing up daisies...

jackcjackson 12-12-2006 08:10 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
I would say that the 2 expenses that makeup a majority of my spending will be gone when I retire. 1. Retirement contributions. 2. I don't plan to carry a mortgage when I am retired.

Right now I live below my means and my mortgage, while modest, and retirement are easily my biggest expenses. I would say eliminating those would suggest I dont need 100% of my current expenses ( and nowhere near current income) to retire.

Not to mention most people have commuting and travel costs related to working,etc.

I don't like flashy stuff or taking expensive vacations. When I am older I will probably want to travel less, if anything.

dumpster56 12-12-2006 08:12 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
They are wrong.

My situation. Had a home that had a 17000 mortgage real estate tax payment of 8000 a year. Total of 25,000. Two car payments that were needed to get our sorry butts to work everyday 100 mile round trip was 8000 a year and after 5 years the cars were well toast with 180,000 miles and needed to be replaced.

So the 100,000 salary did not go that far.

Now my mortgage is 3,000 a year and taxes are 3,000 a year my cars are new and paid off my pension is 33,000 a year and I will sub teach at schools I can use a bike to get to. My new home is nicer than my old place. MOVED from the crazy New Jersey to North Carolina.

So I will have 50,000 instead of 100,000 50% LESS and I have MORE MONEY after paying EVERYTHING from food to utilities!


Oh and in 8 years the wife gets her SS and in 10 I get mine an additional 20K on the low side thinking. So what are these guys smokin? Oh yea they want your 401 k MONEY!

astromeria 12-12-2006 08:39 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
100% of working income may well be spent in retirement by the WSJ intended audience--the multiple home, luxury car, 4* travel class, likely with golden retirement benefits from executive jobs. I get more steamed when publications with a middle-upper middle class readership frighten 40-60somethings with unqualified nonsense that doesn't explain the difference between income and expenses--perhaps because so many people spend all of their income, no matter what it is.

LEX 12-12-2006 08:56 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
The previous post was directly on point. All the finacial press is doing is marketing, presented as advice. Its all one big "infomercial" whether its print or electronic media. If one keeps a realistic and accurate budget, much of what we spend when working is making money to work, not working to make money. We locate in expensive areas to avoid costly commutes, but still pay too much on houses, have to buy new cars, usually ego driven choices, nice clothes, high cost two week 'vacations" that are three times more expensive than traveling on your own schedlue and budget when you retire, and in general, paying too much because your employer controls where you live, how much time you 'own' on your end to do what actually matters to you and your family. Most of us have money but little else in the way of personal control in this phase of life. So we use money, much more than we should, to buy the personal leverage that is required to offset the insane hours required by the job.

Once one retires, they still have needs, but if one knows what they truly needs, 30 - 40 K/year in a low cost part of the US, where housing is not based on commute distances, as you no longer need to live in the high cost commercial center, as well as a simpler approach that allows you to shop sales, avoid traveling in the high cost periods, and use time, rather than money, to leverage your life. The most important aspect of ER to me is the ability to pull time out of the daily barter with your former employer and now own this to dispose of anyway you want!

Ignore the media pundits that want your inventment account so they can rip you off with high fees, and use scare tactics and self serving misinformation that is really marketing to drive this point, make your own budget, and get your life back early from hock. Its not how long you live, its how you live that will ultimately matter.

kcowan 12-12-2006 09:27 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by grumpy
We are living large on the same level of EXPENSES as before retirement. As others have said, this is only about 50% of our peak pre-retirement INCOME (we were big savers).
Grumpy

In our case, we live on 18% and even that includes paying rent. I guess the moron that wrote the WSJ article did not speak to Grumpy and me...

Mudd 12-13-2006 08:48 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
I completely agree that most magazines and papers are doing their part "marketing" rather than informing BUT,

I hardly think the writer, or any writer who writes like this is a moron. Check that, I believe these writers are writing for morons. I believe telling regular, normal everyday Americans that they need 70-80% of their salary for retirement is off. But I beleive it's too low for most people. Most people have no idea how to live below their means, have little or no debt, or delay gratification. Are you telling me they are going to cut back on their lifestyle once they retire? Highly doubtful. Thinking expenses will go down for these people is a dream. They'll want the same if not more to "enjoy" their retirement.

The guy in the office next to mine is currently cashing out his retirement funds, fees be darned to put a down payment on a house he clearly can't afford. Moronic to the nth degree. He will then be near 40 with no retirement savings, no college funds for 2 kids, 2 leased cars, etc. He couldn't ever live on 70% of his salary. No way, no how.

So even though I currently live on 60% of our salary, as do most of you(if not a lot less), the regular person is never going to be able to live on below 70%. To much "I want it now" in them. But they'll keep working while we have options.

I did quote somebody from this forum when after trying to enlighten my friend to no avail (after he asked me for advice)about taking money out of his retirement accounts by saying "Well at least you'll have to keep working, which will help my SS benefit down the road. He had that deer in lights look, but didn't disagree.

Mudd


rs0460a 12-13-2006 08:51 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by astromeria
100% of working income may well be spent in retirement by the WSJ intended audience--the multiple home, luxury car, 4* travel class, likely with golden retirement benefits from executive jobs.

Oh - so they targeted me ;) . What's the problem???

- Ron

REWahoo 12-13-2006 09:09 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mudd
I completely agree that most magazines and papers are doing their part "marketing" rather than informing BUT,

I hardly think the writer, or any writer who writes like this is a moron. Check that, I believe these writers are writing for morons.

That may be a little harsh, but I'm with you so far...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mudd
Most people have no idea how to live below their means, have little or no debt, or delay gratification.

I'm still with you...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mudd
Are you telling me they are going to cut back on their lifestyle once they retire? Highly doubtful. Thinking expenses will go down for these people is a dream. They'll want the same if not more to "enjoy" their retirement.

They won't have a choice. They won't do it voluntarily or happily, but they will live on less because they will be forced to do so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mudd
... the regular person is never going to be able to live on below 70%. To much "I want it now" in them.

It depends on what your definition of "live" is... ;)


tryan 12-13-2006 09:59 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
You guys are brutal ... so I'll add that any moron can see that your taxes will decline at least 15% (33% becomes 15% for us) and a retiree no longer needs to save (25% for us). Drop your mortgage and it's another drop in expences.

;D


MasterBlaster 12-13-2006 10:45 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mudd
The guy in the office next to mine is currently cashing out his retirement funds, fees be darned to put a down payment on a house he clearly can't afford. Moronic to the nth degree. He will then be near 40 with no retirement savings, no college funds for 2 kids, 2 leased cars, etc. He couldn't ever live on 70% of his salary. No way, no how.

So even though I currently live on 60% of our salary, as do most of you(if not a lot less), the regular person is never going to be able to live on below 70%. To much "I want it now" in them. But they'll keep working while we have options.

I did quote somebody from this forum when after trying to enlighten my friend to no avail (after he asked me for advice)about taking money out of his retirement accounts by saying "Well at least you'll have to keep working, which will help my SS benefit down the road. He had that deer in lights look, but didn't disagree.

I know the type and have given up trying to help wayward souls find their way. Their values are so different than mine. They can work till they drop. I always get the - "Who wants money when you are old" blah blah blah

The only problem that I can see is that they can vote. And they can vote in legislators who will help themselves to part of your stash. After all you have so much and need to give up your "Fair Share"

Mudd 12-13-2006 03:42 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
so I'll add that any moron can see that your taxes will decline at least 15% (33% becomes 15% for us) and a retiree no longer needs to save (25% for us). Drop your mortgage and it's another drop in expences. Tryan

I have nearly 20 years to go- I hope the lowest tax rate for me will be 15%, but the way this country's spending is going, that's no guarantee rates won't rise. I'm in the 25% now, when I retire, i bet I'll be around 20%

Most people aren't saving much so they really won't notice a drop from what they are "saving"

My buddy, like a lot of people will be lucky to have their mortgage paid for when they hit 70 years old. So not much savings there.

Maybe morons was a bit harsh, more like sheep. They need to follow and have the Mcmansion and luxury car, and fancy vacations. Fees aside, if there is anything that can get people saving more, than I'm all for it.

Mudd

Nords 12-13-2006 04:03 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mudd
My buddy, like a lot of people will be lucky to have their mortgage paid for when they hit 70 years old. So not much savings there.

Age 74 in my case, unless we get another once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to refinance for a lower rate...

Bikerdude 12-13-2006 08:05 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster

The only problem that I can see is that they can vote. And they can vote in legislators who will help themselves to part of your stash. After all you have so much and need to give up your "Fair Share"

You are so correct!

This how it will go down:

Congress is increasingly concerned about the growing number of elderly living at the poverty level. Most of these people are former middle class working people who have simply grown too old to work and cannot live on Social Security alone. President HR Clinton is urging Congress to pass her asset tax bill to help save these unfortunate people. :'(

President Clinton was quoted as saying "I believe Congress must realize there are people in America whose incomes do not reflect their true wealth. The only fair way to raise the needed revenue is to tax the assets of these Americans. The great untapped revenue source in the form of asset taxing cannot be overlooked”. :-\

ZMAN 12-13-2006 08:24 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
I started the thread as my intro and the responses have been very helpful. I think Mudds recent post really nailed it for me. If, as the statistics say, the American savings rate is close to or less than zero then people are living at or above their current incomes. Thus they need 100% (or more) of current income at retirement.

This group (including DW and me), as savers, are essentially a different species. If you use credit carefully and rarely, and save the raises you are lucky enough to get, the "rule of thumb" clearly does not apply.

I spent the last few nights streamlining my catergories in Quicken to sharpen my understanding of my monthly expenses, which remain well below current income.


macdaddy 12-13-2006 11:32 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
I read Hillary is planning to be called "President Rodham" when she is elected... we better all start practicing it now.

LEX 12-13-2006 11:43 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Confiscatory Socialists by any name are a true threat to those who responsibly saved and through personal effort have more than the 'less fortunate'. They gain power by reallocating the wealth of others to those who become their supporting political force. There is a real longer term asset preservation issue here IMHO. Besides inflation which is insidiously built into the system and functions as a surrogate asset seizure over time, the feds can and have found ways to take retirement assets, from double taxation to stealing it from your kids through the estate tax.

You are not paranoid if it turns out to be true that they really are out to get you! Perhaps this is a good reason to hedge your in-country assets and keep assets in more than one political system. Maybe buy a flat in Lucern or Zug and get to know your local banker.

donheff 12-14-2006 08:10 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by macdaddy
I read Hillary is planning to be called "President Rodham" when she is elected... we better all start practicing it now.

I doubt it. She doesn't even call herself Hillary Rodham Clinton anymore, just Hillary Clinton.

HFWR 12-14-2006 11:51 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Rod 'em...

Gotta nice ring to it, don't you think? :P

brewer12345 12-14-2006 02:27 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by LEX
Confiscatory Socialists by any name are a true threat to those who responsibly saved and through personal effort have more than the 'less fortunate'. They gain power by reallocating the wealth of others to those who become their supporting political force. There is a real longer term asset preservation issue here IMHO. Besides inflation which is insidiously built into the system and functions as a surrogate asset seizure over time, the feds can and have found ways to take retirement assets, from double taxation to stealing it from your kids through the estate tax.

You are not paranoid if it turns out to be true that they really are out to get you! Perhaps this is a good reason to hedge your in-country assets and keep assets in more than one political system. Maybe buy a flat in Lucern or Zug and get to know your local banker.

Woop, woop! Tinfoil hat alert!

CCdaCE 12-14-2006 03:08 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bikerdude
You are so correct!

This how it will go down:

Congress is increasingly concerned about the growing number of elderly living at the poverty level. Most of these people are former middle class working people who have simply grown too old to work and cannot live on Social Security alone. President HR Clinton is urging Congress to pass her asset tax bill to help save these unfortunate people. :'(

President Clinton was quoted as saying "I believe Congress must realize there are people in America whose incomes do not reflect their true wealth. The only fair way to raise the needed revenue is to tax the assets of these Americans. The great untapped revenue source in the form of asset taxing cannot be overlooked”. :-\


Quote:

Originally Posted by LEX
Confiscatory Socialists by any name are a true threat to those who responsibly saved and through personal effort have more than the 'less fortunate'. They gain power by reallocating the wealth of others to those who become their supporting political force. There is a real longer term asset preservation issue here IMHO. Besides inflation which is insidiously built into the system and functions as a surrogate asset seizure over time, the feds can and have found ways to take retirement assets, from double taxation to stealing it from your kids through the estate tax.

You are not paranoid if it turns out to be true that they really are out to get you! Perhaps this is a good reason to hedge your in-country assets and keep assets in more than one political system. Maybe buy a flat in Lucern or Zug and get to know your local banker.

... So, my question is... how are "they" gonna go about bleeding off any available funds from within Roth IRAs. I dutifully stick money in that honey pot, thinkin' it's virtually guaranteed that tax rates will be higher in 30+ years, though, all they've seem to do is go down in the past 30. Right?

-CC

FIRE'd@51 12-14-2006 03:55 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by CCdaCE
... So, my question is... how are "they" gonna go about bleeding off any available funds from within Roth IRAs. I dutifully stick money in that honey pot, thinkin' it's virtually guaranteed that tax rates will be higher in 30+ years, though, all they've seem to do is go down in the past 30. Right?

If "they" do it, my guess is it will be through some type of means testing. At one time SS benefits weren't taxed at all, and SS taxes are "after-tax" dollars just like a Roth. IIRC, at first only a max of 50% of SS benefits were taxed, then in 1993 it was raised to 85%. I suspect we will see it raised to 100% in the fairly near future as part of a SS "fix". I don't mean to discourage you from a Roth. If I could, I would contribute to a Roth after I maxed out my tax-deductible contributions. But I am hesitant to rollover my existing IRA's to Roth's and pay the tax up front (I think we can do that in 2010).

MasterBlaster 12-14-2006 04:55 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
If I recall correctly until 1997 there was a 15% IRA "excess distribution" penalty in the tax code for large withdrawals. I don't remember the details - perhaps Martha would know.

So there is indeed precident for IRA means testing.

Cut-Throat 12-14-2006 05:16 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by LEX
Confiscatory Socialists by any name are a true threat to those who responsibly saved and through personal effort have more than the 'less fortunate'. They gain power by reallocating the wealth of others to those who become their supporting political force. There is a real longer term asset preservation issue here IMHO. Besides inflation which is insidiously built into the system and functions as a surrogate asset seizure over time, the feds can and have found ways to take retirement assets, from double taxation to stealing it from your kids through the estate tax.

You are not paranoid if it turns out to be true that they really are out to get you! Perhaps this is a good reason to hedge your in-country assets and keep assets in more than one political system. Maybe buy a flat in Lucern or Zug and get to know your local banker.

You guys should be blaming the current administration (GW 'Chimp' Bush) for the economic debt that we are racking up. They are the ones spending it! - Not future administrations that will have to Fix it.





LEX 12-14-2006 05:31 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
I follow my own advice. I typically have done well by it.

Having international hedging means it takes several "confiscatory" political systems to evaporate all my assets. Typically this is low probability/high impact risk. Political risk mitigation is similar to Tax planning and is valid issue in asset preservation. I would suggest there is more, not less incentive for those IRA's to become subject to either indirect taxation or subesquent seizure in the next ten years. I am also mindfull this is not an issue that most need to concern themselves with as most domestic wealth is gone within one generation anyway. Do your own due dilligence.

CCdaCE 12-14-2006 08:35 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
I agree, C-T, but "I didn't vote for 'em" and I don't feel there's much I can do about "monkey boy" ...and... I feel, we're gonna be "takin' fire", I just wanna know which to "aim the Claymore".

I know what I'm going to do (just like LEX said), just wondering what others' take is on the situation.

"Don't get me started" *wink*

Preach on LEX. It's those low probabilities multiplied by the high impact that wipe things out. I'm not at the point where I feel I need, or that it would be efficient, to have multitudes of investment vehicles in a wide array of currencies. ... but, I see your point. Heck, it's just a lousy $4K in a Roth. Seems like it's starting to add up, though.

-CC

Bikerdude 12-14-2006 10:44 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cut-Throat
You guys should be blaming the current administration (GW 'Chimp' Bush) for the economic debt that we are racking up. They are the ones spending it! - Not future administrations that will have to Fix it.


Yeah, reminds me of LB 'Ears' Johnson with the "Great Society" and Vietnam. Still reeling (no pun intended) from that one. ;)

brewer12345 12-15-2006 07:05 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by CCdaCE

... So, my question is... how are "they" gonna go about bleeding off any available funds from within Roth IRAs. I dutifully stick money in that honey pot, thinkin' it's virtually guaranteed that tax rates will be higher in 30+ years, though, all they've seem to do is go down in the past 30. Right?

-CC

How about a national 15% sales tax?

CCdaCE 12-15-2006 09:02 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345
How about a national 15% sales tax?

Ding. ding. ding. We have a winner.

That'd be sweet, actually. Punish all the hoarding/consuming Americans.

Everyone'd argue it'd hurt/target the poor, though. I'm guessing it wouldn't pass, although I haven't heard or read much about the issue in the last six months.

-CC

FIRE'd@51 12-15-2006 09:28 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
There's not a "snowball's chance in hell" of it even getting out of the Ways and Means Committee so long as the Democrats control Congress, unless it were in addition to the income tax. I'd give it a lower probability of passing than a flat tax.

Cut-Throat 12-15-2006 09:38 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by CCdaCE
Ding. ding. ding. We have a winner.

That'd be sweet, actually. Punish all the hoarding/consuming Americans.

Everyone'd argue it'd hurt/target the poor, though. I'm guessing it wouldn't pass, although I haven't heard or read much about the issue in the last six months.

-CC

Why would you want this? You've saved your money and paid taxes on the income. Now you want to pay taxes again when you spend it?

I would like to see a Federal $5 a gallon gas tax though. That would start a conservation movement like you've never seen. Get the SUVs off the highways too. Good for the planet and we'd have plenty of gas for years to come!

FIRE'd@51 12-15-2006 09:50 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cut-Throat
Why would you want this? You've saved your money and paid taxes on the income. Now you want to pay taxes again when you spend it?

C-T, you bring up a very good point - it's something I have been thinking about since this whole issue of replacing the income tax with a national sales tax has come up. How do they do it in a way that is fair to the retired folks who have amassed a substantial amount of after-tax dollars? Those folks already paid high income taxes on their wages, and many, if not most, want (or may have to) consume a large portion of those dollars before they die. In addition, to raise the same amount of money to finance the government's current budget the tax would have to apply to everything - houses, health care, etc.

Dawg52 12-15-2006 09:54 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cut-Throat


I would like to see a Federal $5 a gallon gas tax though.

I just spit my coffee all over the computer screen. :o Where are the paper towels?

dumpster56 12-15-2006 10:18 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cut-Throat
Why would you want this? You've saved your money and paid taxes on the income. Now you want to pay taxes again when you spend it?

I would like to see a Federal $5 a gallon gas tax though. That would start a conservation movement like you've never seen. Get the SUVs off the highways too. Good for the planet and we'd have plenty of gas for years to come!


Maybe if we had railroads in this country that actually worked.

donheff 12-15-2006 11:51 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by CutThroat
I would like to see a Federal $5 a gallon gas tax though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DOG52
I just spit my coffee all over the computer screen. :o Where are the paper towels?

A lot of people freak out at the thought but if we had instituted a gas tax back in the 70s after the first OPEC crisis we would all be driving fuel efficient vehicles and we would not be as dependant on the middle east as we are now. Small, fuel efficient cars were in huge demand in the late 70s but they went the way of the Dodo when gas became cheaper than soda pop. National security minded folks should have championed this.

CCdaCE 12-15-2006 12:39 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cut-Throat
Why would you want this? You've saved your money and paid taxes on the income. Now you want to pay taxes again when you spend it?

I would like to see a Federal $5 a gallon gas tax though. That would start a conservation movement like you've never seen. Get the SUVs off the highways too. Good for the planet and we'd have plenty of gas for years to come!

I wouldn't WANT a flat sales tax, but I'd prefer it to high property taxes, high income taxes and the like. I'd rather punish someone tax-wise for wanting a big screen/expensive vehicle/etc. vs. owning a house or making a decent income. That'd be my preference.

-CC

Nords 12-15-2006 08:28 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by donheff
A lot of people freak out at the thought but if we had instituted a gas tax back in the 70s after the first OPEC crisis we would all be driving fuel efficient vehicles and we would not be as dependant on the middle east as we are now.

Well, that certainly would have eliminated the gas lines-- and brought what little was left of the economy to a screeching crash!

Have we all forgotten what it was like during November 1973 - February 74? I was only 13 years old then but it left a pretty clear impression on me, and I don't think a $5/gallon gas tax would have been the sort of economic stimulus that was needed.

We're already less dependent on foreign oil today than we were 33 years ago, and the trend will continue (despite the multi-ton V8 Armada that almost ran me over today). Give it time.

Cut-Throat 12-15-2006 08:43 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nords
We're already less dependent on foreign oil today than we were 33 years ago, and the trend will continue (despite the multi-ton V8 Armada that almost ran me over today). Give it time.

Say What? - This is contrary to everything I've ever heard on the subject! - Do you have any graphs that illustrate your point?

The only trend I've ever heard about is we are more dependent on oil.


US Foreign Oil Dependency on Increase, say Experts
Michael Bowman
VOA, Washington
16 Oct 2003, 16:03 UTC

Thirty years ago, the United States faced an energy crisis as mostly-Muslim, oil-producing nations imposed an oil embargo, hoping to force a halt of U.S. support for Israel. Today, U.S. dependence on foreign oil is far greater than it was in the early 1970s. Panel of experts recently gathered in Washington to examine America's energy situation and its choices for the future.

Former Energy Secretary James Schlesinger says the 1973 oil embargo had a devastating short term effect on the United States, but an even costlier long term effect on OPEC nations that conspired to withhold fuel. In the years that followed, the United States built more fuel-efficient cars and sought alternate sources for oil. OPEC's market share fell and, by the mid-1980s, world oil prices collapsed.

"The Saudis did learn in that period that there was a need for stable prices, that there was a need to show that they were the dependable sources of supply," said Mr. Schlesinger, speaking at the Washington-based Heritage Foundation. "If they were not, other places in the world were discovered that could produce oil: the North Sea, West Africa. Not only that, but the world's appetite for oil could be curbed if prices were high enough."

But Mr. Schlesinger and other analysts contend that any progress the United States made in the 1970s and 80s towards stable energy supplies at reasonable prices is at risk.

"Our dependence [on foreign oil] has almost doubled since 1973," added Gal Luft, co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. "In 1972, the United States imported 28 percent of its oil; today it imports 55 percent, and projections show that 25 years from now it will import 70 percent of its oil," he continued. "Our dependency is growing, and our dependency on Middle East oil is also growing. We will import 50 percent of our oil from the Middle East by 2025."

Cut-Throat 12-15-2006 08:49 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nords
Well, that certainly would have eliminated the gas lines-- and brought what little was left of the economy to a screeching crash!

Have we all forgotten what it was like during November 1973 - February 74? I was only 13 years old then but it left a pretty clear impression on me, and I don't think a $5/gallon gas tax would have been the sort of economic stimulus that was needed.

We're already less dependent on foreign oil today than we were 33 years ago, and the trend will continue (despite the multi-ton V8 Armada that almost ran me over today). Give it time.

You don't know the inventions that this would have fueled (pun intended) - I think we would have been much better off. We need to move our economy from an oil dependent one to a renewable energy one.

mb 12-15-2006 09:03 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nords
We're already less dependent on foreign oil today than we were 33 years ago, and the trend will continue (despite the multi-ton V8 Armada that almost ran me over today). Give it time.

You are usually pretty reliable Nords, but the above is completely wrong.

Since the mid-70s oil imports as a percent of consumption have increased by about 50% and oil imports in bbl/day have increased by about 100%.

And it is unlikely that the trend to a greater dependence on foreign oil will reverse. Even when the North Slope came on line it was only a small blip in the trend.

The recent Gulf discoveries will help some but more oil exporation in the US in not the answer.

MB




Nords 12-15-2006 09:52 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cut-Throat
Say What? - This is contrary to everything I've ever heard on the subject! - Do you have any graphs that illustrate your point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mb
You are usually pretty reliable Nords, but the above is completely wrong.

OK, guys, I'll go digging (so to speak). I'm sure there's enough weasel words on the subject to prove that we're all correct.

My point is that in 1973-4 the situation would've been helped by fiscal stimulus. The last thing we needed was the government stepping in with Smoot-Hawley tariffs higher taxes.

EDIT--
OK, I'm back. Here's one: https://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...tm?chan=search

"The history of oil spikes is a poor guide, in part because the country is less dependent on oil than it used to be. The U.S. uses only about half as much oil per dollar of inflation-adjusted output as it did in the early 1970s. Even since the last Gulf War, the economy's energy dependence has shrunk."

Of course the article also goes on thusly:
"If the conflict with Iraq is resolved within a few months -- a big if, to be sure -- oil prices are likely to drop below $30 a barrel by summer. Some experts even think an oil glut is possible. Oil-company analyst Frederick P. Leuffer of Bear, Stearns & Co. predicts oil will average $18 a barrel in the second half of 2003."

BTW, how 'bout if the next one of you armchair economists who wants to punish us with gas taxes decides to buy a photovoltaic array instead? Electricity bills at the Nords house have been running reliably under $40 (as low as $15) and I'm looking for another kilowatt or two of PV cells at under $4/watt (including shipping).

unclemick 12-15-2006 10:00 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Hmmmm

The way I heard it (no handy sources either) was that we import a lot more oil BUT the price has less of an immediate effect because of changes in the structure/mix of our economy since the 1970's.

heh heh heh heh - and no I can't remember where I read that??

mb 12-15-2006 10:26 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cut-Throat
I would like to see a Federal $5 a gallon gas tax though. That would start a conservation movement like you've never seen. Get the SUVs off the highways too. Good for the planet and we'd have plenty of gas for years to come!

Agree with C-T. A gas tax would:

- reduce oil imports
- reduce CO2 emissions
- encourage development of mass transit options
- encourage development of walkable\liveable neighborhoods rather than the drive to the mall culture

I would like to see something on the order of $3/gallon phased in at the rate of say $0.50 increase every 6 months.

MB

mb 12-15-2006 11:01 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nords
OK, guys, I'll go digging (so to speak). I'm sure there's enough weasel words on the subject to prove that we're all correct.


I will grant you that gas costs/energy costs as a percent of income/GDP declined from the 70s up until recently. That is because oil was so cheap for so long. That is also why imports increased so much.

MB

donheff 12-16-2006 07:25 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Nords. It isn't just a comparison of gross national product with total cost of oil. The absolute amount and the source of supply are huge issues. We are heavily dependant on areas of the world where we are hated. We could have ramped up gas taxes to push ourselves more towards energy independance over the last 30 years. It seems like a security issue, not just a simple dollars and cents question.

In terms of impact on the economy, f we raised the gas tax we could (theoretically) lower some other tax. An imagine, if we had substantially reduced our dependance on the mideast maybe Bush & Co wouldn't have invaded Iraq and we would currently be saving hundreds of billions.

A final note: I heard on the news last night that 80% of Americans favor imposing requirements on auto makers for increased fuel efficiency. Wouldn't a gas tax make that happen through the market by changing the demand instead of trying to change the supply?

dumpster56 12-16-2006 04:54 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
the real problem is that you MUST buy gasoline to get to work. There are really no alternatives in many suburban areas of the country. Look at Vegas, the desert southwest, denver, atlanta gwinitt county the areas of Northern NJ Chicago all the 40 50 mile commutes. IN CARS! Now the Stupid american who still buys the SUV or the 6 cyl vehicle is well dumb as you know what. Gasoline is gonna hit 4 dollars a gallon next summer, just wait and see. Yes the scum in the middle east hate us and we still buy the oil it is a national security issue. BUT the OIL COMPANIES are the most POWERFUL companies in america, And we have a dummie in the white house who is still in bed with the SAUDI royals!!

Sorry I am sick of the policies of our country. I waited on those gasoline lines back in the 70s I have ALWAYS owned a 4 cyl vehicle for 35 years always drive a small car, Oh guess what when the children were still in the house THEY FIT JUST FINE IN THE BACK OF THE HONDA CIVIC and their stuff FIT IN THE TRUNK! Trips if it did not fit IT DID NOT GO WITH US!!!

American parents and their I NEED THE SUV OR MINIVAN BECAUSE OF THE KIDZ STUFF! $hit what a bunch of moronic parents. Do they know 15 of the 19 hijackers were SAUDIS on 9/11?????????

mathjak107 12-17-2006 12:26 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
i just saw an article that said opec owns 105 billion right now in us treasuries. man am i glad i gave them all those gas profits so they can buy our treasuries. i hate to see our interest rates if they didnt buy them.

see using gas is a good thing

mathjak107 12-17-2006 12:29 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
who ever thought 33 years ago when we were on all those gas lines that by today almost nothing changed. geesh in 33 years i thought we would be like the jetsons.

dumpster56 12-17-2006 01:50 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mathjak107
who ever thought 33 years ago when we were on all those gas lines that by today almost nothing changed. geesh in 33 years i thought we would be like the jetsons.

The real problem is the people who DIDN'T wait on those gas lines, the ones who were not born yet or were too young to remember. They think its their god given right to drive wasteful suvs and sit on lines to buy a biscuit at bojangles!!

mathjak107 12-17-2006 03:51 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
some suv's are more efficiant than some cars so you cant generalize. i love and need mine being an avid hunter and camper but its a smaller bmw x3. what i find dis-tasteful is all these soccor moms with one kid and a quart of milk in a navigator or suburbon. .

Zipper 12-17-2006 05:31 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
So what do you shoot mathjak?

Or more important?

WHY do you shoot it??

dumpster56 12-17-2006 08:10 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mathjak107
some suv's are more efficiant than some cars so you cant generalize. i love and need mine being an avid hunter and camper but its a smaller bmw x3. what i find dis-tasteful is all these soccor moms with one kid and a quart of milk in a navigator or suburbon. .

I need mine. Uh what did people do 20 years ago??

Come on a BMW?? Please you are rationalizing.

You LIKE THE 3!! Which is fine but the vehicle should get 40mpg!! Or better.

Goonie 12-17-2006 09:06 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
When I FIRE (in a very short time!) I'll be able to live comfortably on about 25% of my current net income.....the only major exception to that will be for vacationing, which will probably boost that percentage to about 30-35%...ocassionally! :D

As for cost of gas....I can walk from one end of town to the other in a matter of about 1 hour (leisurely walk...NOT brisk), or I can bike it in about 20 minutes (if I obey the traffic signals). If it's cold/rainy/snowy/etc, I'll wait till the weather co-operates. ;D Plus, I'm going to be picking up a scoot in the spring, that will go a zillion miles on a fill-up....well, OK, maybe not QUITE a zillion, but at least a bunch!!! :laugh:

If our thoughtful politicians decide to dig deeper into my pockets while they're picking them, I may activate my 'alternative retirement plan'....and go 'ex-pat' to Mexico or Costa Rica!! VIVA!!! 8)

mathjak107 12-18-2006 02:57 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy888
I need mine. Uh what did people do 20 years ago??

Come on a BMW?? Please you are rationalizing.

You LIKE THE 3!! Which is fine but the vehicle should get 40mpg!! Or better.

years ago there were station wagons , except for a few models they are long gone.

donheff 12-18-2006 06:39 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
There is no reason why we can't develop SUVs that get 40mpg. There has simply been no incentive to do so since gas is cheap. Our enemies have seduced us with cheap fire water :laugh:

mathjak107 12-18-2006 06:18 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
ill drive anything that suits my lifestyle, give me an suv that gets 40 miles to the gallon, dosnt depreciate many times faster than a conventional car because thousands in batteries will be needed as well as parts that are difficult to get or obsoleted in very short times and ill consider it.

sgeeeee 12-18-2006 10:34 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by donheff
There is no reason why we can't develop SUVs that get 40mpg. There has simply been no incentive to do so since gas is cheap. Our enemies have seduced us with cheap fire water :laugh:

To first order, gas mileage is inversely proportional to vehicle weight.

Unfortunately, to first order, safety is directly proportional to vehicle weight.

:-\

CCdaCE 12-18-2006 11:19 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sgeeeee
To first order, gas mileage is inversely proportional to vehicle weight.

Unfortunately, to first order, safety is directly proportional to vehicle weight.

:-\

Safety = weight? Haven't you ever seen one roll over? ... which SUVs tend to do alot, apparently.

Maybe a little less weight, or center of gravity adjustment, or SOMETHING, and then they'd be safer because they'd rollover less.

-CC

mathjak107 12-19-2006 03:47 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
so far hybrids are a poor choice. technology that obsoletes even the previous model years design. to much of a premium in price in most cases, batteries that cost thousands, its almost like buying a car you know will need a transmission job in it. depreciation thats rediculous because the technology is changing so fast.

long waits for parts and poorly trained mechanics

my insurance company even charges more for the hybrid version because if the batteries are damaged in a crash they are brutal to replace.

so far disposing of the old batteries are a problem as few recycling companies can handle these.

no thanks , ill take my conventional vehicle right now!

donheff 12-19-2006 08:02 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sgeeeee
To first order, gas mileage is inversely proportional to vehicle weight.

Unfortunately, to first order, safety is directly proportional to vehicle weight.

:-\

Smaller vehicles would be more efficient still but we could certainly make a 40MPG SUV. We ultimately will.

sgeeeee 12-19-2006 09:57 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by CCdaCE
Safety = weight? Haven't you ever seen one roll over? ... which SUVs tend to do alot, apparently.

Maybe a little less weight, or center of gravity adjustment, or SOMETHING, and then they'd be safer because they'd rollover less.

-CC

The actual safety records are pretty clear. Some vehicles have higher rollover rates than others because of design, but rollovers are still only one type of accident and do not dominate safety statistics. The correlation is not perfect . . . but the relationship between vehicle weight and safety is very strong.

brewer12345 12-19-2006 12:36 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sgeeeee
The actual safety records are pretty clear. Some vehicles have higher rollover rates than others because of design, but rollovers are still only one type of accident and do not dominate safety statistics. The correlation is not perfect . . . but the relationship between vehicle weight and safety is very strong.

Yup. My days of driving a 2500# econobox are over. It doesn't have to be luxurious, but if it isn't well over 3000#, I am not interested.

FinanceDude 12-19-2006 12:47 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sgeeeee
To first order, gas mileage is inversely proportional to vehicle weight.

Unfortunately, to first order, safety is directly proportional to vehicle weight.
:-\

Yes, and no. The internal combustion engine is by design pretty inefficient. I think it's only about 33% efficient. If they sold furnaces that were 33% efficient, the public would scream bloody murder. Fact is, as long as gasoline is realtively cheap, and the oil companies and auto makers are in bed together, there will be no real change.

Hybrid technology is a band-aid measure. The average hybrid costs $5-6000 more, which can buy a heck of a lot of gas, so you don't get breakeven for 7 years or more............. :P

Find a way to get Suburbans to get 30 mpg on the highway, and you've got something. Have midsize cars and smaller get 40-50 mpg and you got something...............none of which will appear anytime soon............. ;)

jackcjackson 12-21-2006 02:19 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Am I the only one here NOT in favor of social engineering through the tax code ( that is already so bloated that NO ONE alive really knows it), high tax socialism,etc?

brewer12345 12-21-2006 02:48 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jackcjackson
Am I the only one here NOT in favor of social engineering through the tax code ( that is already so bloated that NO ONE alive really knows it), high tax socialism,etc?

Heheh, absolutely, Comrade. Eat the rich! From each according to his means, to each according to his needs. Death to the imperialist-capitalist overlords!

peggy 12-22-2006 07:54 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy888

Sorry I am sick of the policies of our country. I waited on those gasoline lines back in the 70s I have ALWAYS owned a 4 cyl vehicle for 35 years always drive a small car, Oh guess what when the children were still in the house THEY FIT JUST FINE IN THE BACK OF THE HONDA CIVIC and their stuff FIT IN THE TRUNK! Trips if it did not fit IT DID NOT GO WITH US!!!

American parents and their I NEED THE SUV OR MINIVAN BECAUSE OF THE KIDZ STUFF! $hit what a bunch of moronic parents. Do they know 15 of the 19 hijackers were SAUDIS on 9/11?????????

Back in the 1970's, though, you didn't have laws requiring that every child under age five or under 50 pounds (whatever the current restriction is) MUST be in a car seat, and every single person in the car over those limits MUST be seat belted.

My MIL tossed five kids into a station wagon back in the late 1960's and drove across country. If anyone tried that today, they'd get a bunch of tickets right and left for not having the kids properly buckled in.

I know, I know, average family size is shrinking, but that means that for every couple like DH and me with no kids, there's a couple with four kids. How are you going to fit mom, dad, and four kids into that selfsame Honda Civic?

brewer12345 12-22-2006 07:58 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by peggy
I know, I know, average family size is shrinking, but that means that for every couple like DH and me with no kids, there's a couple with four kids. How are you going to fit mom, dad, and four kids into that selfsame Honda Civic?

Yup. Exactly the reason we ended up with a minivan. Good luck squeezing all those carseats into a mid-sized sedan.

dumpster56 12-22-2006 11:13 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
It would work in a camry, a car that gets 30+ mpg, you can put three car seats in the back.

brewer12345 12-22-2006 11:16 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy888
It would work in a camry, a car that gets 30+ mpg, you can put three car seats in the back.

Heh, ever tried it? And where do I put the two dogs? On the roof rack?

mathjak107 12-22-2006 06:25 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
i spend toooo much time in my car to be shoe horned into one of these skate board on wheels for the sake of economy. they are fine for running errands around town but trips are another story. i want performance, safety and comfort over mpg........ yep call me an infidel

jazz4cash 12-22-2006 06:25 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Ever since I stood in the gas lines, I have always thought we should have a gas tax to fund energy independance........not $5/gal....maybe 50 cents or a buck. Whatever level makes the best compromise between stimulating R&D, reducing wasted consumption, and maintaining freedom of movement.
There would need to be a trust fund (like the highway trust fund) so the money is not used for other expenses. The goverment should sponser a policy for private industry to to make the necessary advances and diversification to ensure our future freedom.

Everytime I 've tried to argue "gas is cheap" (compared to the rest of the world, inflation, $/mile traveled, or any other metric) with folks I know, I get "the look" that says "It is my birthright to consume!" When my barber bitched about the cost of gas and I say "Why are you driving an SUV?", his reply is "I LOVE my SUV!" I don't buy the argument that you MUST buy gas either........every jam packed rush hour highway I see has lots and lots of cars occupied by one person. I see long lines at the fast food drive thru and I often park, go inside, get served and am on my way before the last car in line gets through. We are just energy hogs and I can't think of any way to reduce consumption other than taxes. Any politician that dares utter "conservation" is DOA.

Bottom line in my opinion is we have NO ENERGY POLICY (good, bad, or otherwise) and we are letting short term economics ruin the future for our kids. We have tons of resources to utilize, but we are no better off than we were thirty years ago..........probably worse

dumpster56 12-22-2006 07:59 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jazz4cash
Ever since I stood in the gas lines, I have always thought we should have a gas tax to fund energy independance........not $5/gal....maybe 50 cents or a buck. Whatever level makes the best compromise between stimulating R&D, reducing wasted consumption, and maintaining freedom of movement.
There would need to be a trust fund (like the highway trust fund) so the money is not used for other expenses. The goverment should sponser a policy for private industry to to make the necessary advances and diversification to ensure our future freedom.

Everytime I 've tried to argue "gas is cheap" (compared to the rest of the world, inflation, $/mile traveled, or any other metric) with folks I know, I get "the look" that says "It is my birthright to consume!" When my barber bitched about the cost of gas and I say "Why are you driving an SUV?", his reply is "I LOVE my SUV!" I don't buy the argument that you MUST buy gas either........every jam packed rush hour highway I see has lots and lots of cars occupied by one person. I see long lines at the fast food drive thru and I often park, go inside, get served and am on my way before the last car in line gets through. We are just energy hogs and I can't think of any way to reduce consumption other than taxes. Any politician that dares utter "conservation" is DOA.

Bottom line in my opinion is we have NO ENERGY POLICY (good, bad, or otherwise) and we are letting short term economics ruin the future for our kids. We have tons of resources to utilize, but we are no better off than we were thirty years ago..........probably worse


Maybe rebuild the american railroads, it would put people to work at good jobs increase tax revenues and get people out of their cars.

I too see the fools yes FOOLS sitting in lines around fast food places 13 and 14 cars deep waiting for a breakfast buscuit. I laugh at them as I run by. I can run a 2 mile loop around the bojangles only to see the guy in 10th place in the line just making it to the window in his suv after I have been running 2 miles.

dumpster56 12-22-2006 08:00 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345
Heh, ever tried it? And where do I put the two dogs? On the roof rack?

Yes in fact we did this summer with the sisterinlaws kids, yes it worked. the dogs Boardem. Or rent a mini van for you vacation if you just have to take the dogs.

brewer12345 12-22-2006 08:02 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy888
Yes in fact we did this summer with the sisterinlaws kids, yes it worked. the dogs Boardem. Or rent a mini van for you vacation if you just have to take the dogs.

No thanks. The van gets less than 10k miles a year and will do 25MPG on the highway, so its not like it is a huge pig. Plus when DW was rear-ended last month, I was a lot less worried knowing she was in a 4500# vehicle with a dozen airbags.

dumpster56 12-22-2006 08:17 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345
No thanks. The van gets less than 10k miles a year and will do 25MPG on the highway, so its not like it is a huge pig. Plus when DW was rear-ended last month, I was a lot less worried knowing she was in a 4500# vehicle with a dozen airbags.

You has a van. Not a problem I have always had the problem with the people who say they needed the big SUV that only got 12 mpg but the people wouldtell you oh I get 20 mpg in my suburban. Uh thats a FISH STORY!!

Khan 12-22-2006 09:37 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy888
Yes in fact we did this summer with the sisterinlaws kids, yes it worked. the dogs Boardem. Or rent a mini van for you vacation if you just have to take the dogs.

Own something small for commute.
Rent something large for occasional use.

mathjak107 12-23-2006 03:09 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
its always amusing how the people who dont have to drive distances or commute to work want a gas tax and the rest of us to drive minature cars.

its like here in new york tolls on bridges go to fund mass transit. everytime theres a transit budget deficit the train riders want the drivers who use bridges to pay more towards their trains instead of all of new york footing the bill with a general tax increase. because someone works in a particular area they get kind of taxed unfairly by a toll that supports other things other than pay for the the bridge. i dont mind the extra gas costs to drive something comfortable.

its the ole if it dosnt effect me and i dont have to pay let someone else pay


let the same people who whine about what we should all drive stop over eating and get some exercise and stop costing the rest of us increased health insurance costs

jazz4cash 12-23-2006 03:11 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mathjak107
its always amusing how the people who dont have to drive distances or commute to work want a gas tax and the rest of us to drive minature cars.

Hey! Don't count ME in there..........We drive ALOT and I am only willing to "pay" a tax if it helps maintain our ability to freely move about whenever we need to. I think everybody outta drive whatever pleases and/or meets thier needs. Let's face it.....many of the choices folks make about thier personal transportation are not based on LBYM or any other practical basis. We talked about gas taxes, but same applies to any consumption of energy.

mathjak107 12-24-2006 03:24 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
more than likely all a tax would do is throw us back into the inflation scenerio of the 70's as everyone attempts to recover increased costs of living and moving about.
any oil saved would be quickly consumed by increased world demand in other growing areas.

i have to think it would turnout like the refrigerant and the ozone thing.

r12 shot up to 1,000 bucks for a tank because of restrictions on production in this country so we can protect the ozone layer.

well did we forget that when mexico , canada and the rest of the world still uses it there is still a hole? duh! .

Nords 12-24-2006 11:02 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mathjak107
i have to think it would turnout like the refrigerant and the ozone thing.
r12 shot up to 1,000 bucks for a tank because of restrictions on production in this country so we can protect the ozone layer.
well did we forget that when mexico , canada and the rest of the world still uses it there is still a hole? duh! .

You're right, Mathjak, doing nothing while waiting on someone else's initiative seems to be a much more affordable & convenient alternative.

You go first...

mathjak107 12-24-2006 11:13 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
works well ha ha ha .


i think the point is a lot of what is done in this world are either futile attempts of worthless technology that for all its brilliance goes no where; or we attempt some hair brain idea alone and we end up punishing ourselves while the rest of the planet just chugs along.

Nords 12-24-2006 12:09 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mathjak107
i think the point is a lot of what is done in this world are either futile attempts of worthless technology that for all its brilliance goes no where; or we attempt some hair brain idea alone and we end up punishing ourselves while the rest of the planet just chugs along.

I think you're missing the beneficial side effects of environmental initiatives. Most of them provide a reason to sweep out old, costly, inefficient, polluting infrastructure and replace it with a more efficient system that happens to be more environmentally friendly and probably quicker/faster/cheaper to operate. Not only is it less of a concern, but companies willing to invest the capital expense are usually set up for higher profits.

I had to contend with submarine R12 for decades. R134 (and just about any other modern refrigerant) is well worth the effort for the improved safety & ease of use, not just because it doesn't catalyze ozone decay.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:22 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.