Joe wrote:
No kidding. With a little effort a person with good credit could get
100 credits cards with a 10K limit. Max them all out buying foriegn
currency the go sailing for 7 yrs 1 day min.


And what's the downside?

Back in the 1990s, a lot of investors & "investment
professionals" (ie shills) thought we had entered a new
economy where profits didn't matter, and dividends were
irrelevant. In the short run, they were right, but in the
long run they were dead.

Is this a new idea? Long time ago, a wise man said "In the
long run, we're all dead."

Easy ever-expanding credit with no obligation is the new
"big picture" for fiscal management. In the long run, who's
gonna care?

Frankly, I'm too much of an old fogey to act on these
principles, but after thinking it over, I'm not going to say
they're wrong. FWIW I agree with you about being on a major
corporation's vendor list. That's why I am a subcontractor.
Those on the vendors list are simply known "easy marks."

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Easy... ever expanding credit.


Maxprop wrote:
Not in my case. I have no credit debt beyond my home.


Means nothing. People take cash-out refi's all the time, to pay for
accumulated debt or to splurge on a home entertainment system. I saw a
poster the other day advertising a bank offer of 125% on your home's
appraised value.

Not here. We have a 15 year fixed rate mortgage loan that's 2/3 paid up.
No re-fi.


Another explanation is that you aren't including investment returns in
your "current income" (which indeed they shouldn't be under many
circumstances).


Just because I'm not including my investment proceeds in my income does
not imply that my income is not substantial.

?

What did I say, exactly? Anything that implied what your investment income
is (or is not)?

I have no investment income. It is reinvested.

... And I guess I should have stated that we could draw our current
combined family income without touching the principle. The reason we can
do that is quite simple: the principle is also substantial. Don't
always attempt to find the red herring in every situation. Nothing fishy
here--just sound investments. Not bad for a "neocon," eh?


Congratulations.

Thank you.

Did you choose to be a neo-conservative so that you could be the sole
voice of fiscal reason in the group?

I didn't know I was one until you labeled me so.

... Obviously the larger the nest egg the better, but to fallaciously
inflate life expectancies in order to sell something is bogus.


Agreed, but obviously it's not working. The U.S. has a negative savings
rate and there's little or no sign it's going up from here.


I heard that the day after I posted that.

It's been in the fiscal news for years that the U.S. savings rate is
dropping from low to nothing. Few if any of the pundits thought it would
actually go negative, or stay that way for this long.

I suspected it would go negative, and continue to slide further in that
direction. My brother and I had this discussion about five years ago.

... Not good news for the government, who undoubtedly will be supporting
a substantial percentage of the population on down the road.


Why should they? Just because the gov't has taken up the task of driving
the middle class into poverty, and extinguishing the U.S.'s economic base,
doesn't mean that they're going to take any responsibility for the
consequences.

They've already assumed the pensions for at least one major company, and I
have no doubt they will do so for GM as well in the future. And when the
day comes that SS is defunct, and it will come, it's doubtful the
politicians will allow people to die in the streets from starvation. Let's
hear it for welfare. As for driving the middle class into poverty and
tanking the US economy, you give the gummint far too much credit. Many
factors outside the influence of the government affect such things. And
frankly I'm not interested in living in a nanny-state with the government
wiping my ass and brushing my teeth for me. The US government is hardly
omnipotent--hell it screws up nearly everything it does now. How do you
expect it to fix the ills of an economy that can't compete on a global level
any longer? And the rich will always get richer--that's axiomatic.


Actually, it's somewhat unfair to say "the gov't" is doing this, since
it's really the fault of the politicians currently in charge; who are not
only executing short-sighted & selfish policies but also replacing
functioning departments with patronage dependent partisan lackeys.

While I don't agree that such politicians have achieved that solely by
themselves, I do agree that they are doing little to correct the problems,
not that they are capable of doing so.


OTOH why not retire on credit cards? You can always shuffle your balance
from one card to the next. This modern world of finance is a freeloader's
dream scenario.


I've no doubt someone (other than yourself) has thought of that as a
retirement plan.


It seems to be the basic plan for national fiscal policy.

Every house of (credit) cards gets knocked down eventually.

Max

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com..
..
No kidding. With a little effort a person with good credit
could get
100 credits cards with a 10K limit. Max them all out
buying foriegn
currency the go sailing for 7 yrs 1 day min.


And then what?

Well if you are smart you would invest 90% of the 1 million dollars as
you explore the globe.
When you return after the statue of limitations is up... you can use
your wealth as you please.

And with so much cash in the bank you will be receiving 100's of new
credit card offers.
What's in your wallet?

Joe

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com..
..
Well if you are smart you would invest 90% of the 1
million dollars as
you explore the globe.
When you return after the statue of limitations is up...
you can use
your wealth as you please.


does the statute of limitations apply to CC fraud?


And with so much cash in the bank you will be receiving
100's of new
credit card offers.
What's in your wallet?


Visa. But I just applied for an American Exp. Business
card. They're offering $50 off on the first purchase. I'll
use it a few times then cancel it.

Scotty

Means nothing. People take cash-out refi's all the time, to pay for
accumulated debt or to splurge on a home entertainment system. I saw a
poster the other day advertising a bank offer of 125% on your home's
appraised value.


Maxprop wrote:
Not here. We have a 15 year fixed rate mortgage loan that's 2/3 paid up.
No re-fi.


Refinancing isn't necessarily a bad idea, just like gov't
deficits. It all depends on where the money goes. I wouldn't
touch an ARM myself. We refinanced our house at 4.5% but
didn't max the cash out... it was tempting to do so & invest
the cash in bond funds & REITs paying 9% and up, but I
(well, both of us) resisted the temptation.



What did I say, exactly? Anything that implied what your investment income
is (or is not)?


I have no investment income. It is reinvested.


Ahem. It may be reinvested... it may even be qualified (tax
sheltered). But it is still income. I hope your accountant
knows the difference.



Did you choose to be a neo-conservative so that you could be the sole
voice of fiscal reason in the group?


I didn't know I was one until you labeled me so.


You're not a conservative, for sure.



They've already assumed the pensions for at least one major company, and I
have no doubt they will do so for GM as well in the future.

Yep. The PBGC ballon gets bigger every week.


... And when the
day comes that SS is defunct, and it will come

Wrong.

Why do so many people have the misconception that Social
Security is an investment program?

Social Security cannot go bankrupt. It is a gov't agency. It
can only go bankrupt if Uncle Sam folds up too.

Now, what the issue really is: what happens when Social
Security starts paying out more in retirement benefits than
it is taking in in taxes? That day is definitely coming.
It's a long way in the future (~ 40 years). Of course,
raising the ceiling on the SS tax would push that day
decades further into the future, but that idea is anathema
to the "conservatives" who can easily push the country into
record deficits for no structural reason and no
accountability but cannot stomach the idea of rich people
paying their share of taxes..





... it's doubtful the
politicians will allow people to die in the streets from starvation.

Really? I can imagine some politicians letting that happen
quite easily.


... As for driving the middle class into poverty and
tanking the US economy, you give the gummint far too much credit. Many
factors outside the influence of the government affect such things.

Agreed, but the real problem is the long arm of the IRS and
the current tax structure, which favors those with high-paid
lobbysists at the expense of everybody else.


....And
frankly I'm not interested in living in a nanny-state with the government
wiping my ass and brushing my teeth for me.

Did I suggest that?

... The US government is hardly
omnipotent--hell it screws up nearly everything it does now. How do you
expect it to fix the ills of an economy that can't compete on a global level
any longer?

Says who? If you believe that America & Americans are
somehow inherently inferior, then maybe you can justify your
belief that the American economy can't compete on a global
level.

I believe it can, but we must be given a fair chance. Right
now, the playing field is skewed very badly against the
average citizen.


... And the rich will always get richer--that's axiomatic.


So let's make sure that we have a plutocracy, gov't run by
rich in their own interest, and let the U.S. turn into a 3rd
world mud hole. It's predestined to be so!





Actually, it's somewhat unfair to say "the gov't" is doing this, since
it's really the fault of the politicians currently in charge; who are not
only executing short-sighted & selfish policies but also replacing
functioning departments with patronage dependent partisan lackeys.


While I don't agree that such politicians have achieved that solely by
themselves, I do agree that they are doing little to correct the problems,
not that they are capable of doing so.


They are capable if the U.S. voter takes control of the
gov't again. Last I looked, votes still counted. If every
single incumbent was turned out of office for a couple of
election cycles, things would change for the better.

The problem is that politicians have discovered advertising,
advertisers have discovered behavioral psychology, and
business has discovered that handing politicians huge
amounts of money for advertising gets them guaranteed profits.

If you spend enough money on advertising, you can convince
people to vote for their own flaying. And that's what is
happening. Gerrymandered districts with statistically safe
voter populations and huge campaign budgets have made our
professional politicians (remember when most politicians had
a real job before they went into politics?) believe that
they can do anything at all and make the voters swallow it.
And so far, they're right.





Every house of (credit) cards gets knocked down eventually.


Yep. The only question is, when?

DSK