On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:56:22 GMT, "jlrogers" wrote:

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor...xpect/main.asp



Mine came out to be 87. OK by me but I question the validity. Asked
about total cholesteral but did not want to know about the ratios
(much more important)

Also asked a question about longevity of Grandparents but did not
qualify. My maternal Grandmother lived to 102. My maternal
Grandfather drank himself to death at 56. Doesn't mean I'm going to.

Talked about diet and exercise but limited the upside from good
habits. At 59 I run 25 miles a week and regularly win my age division
in 5 & 10K competitive runs. not taken into consideration.

of course I often sail with people who are a half a bubble out of
plumb so that could have an impact.

Frank

Frank,

They never asked about "Sculling" a 29 Ft Pilothouse Sloop :^) You did
notice my sense of balance was being affected?

Thom'sPage

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 14:59:28 -0800, (Thom Stewart)
wrote:

Frank,

They never asked about "Sculling" a 29 Ft Pilothouse Sloop :^) You did
notice my sense of balance was being affected?

Thom'sPage


No Thom, the people I'm referring to are a half bubble out of plumb on
land or sea. You don't seem to be or are you? :~)

Frank

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:56:22 GMT, "jlrogers" wrote:

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor...xpect/main.asp



Mine came out to be 87. OK by me but I question the validity. Asked
about total cholesteral but did not want to know about the ratios
(much more important)

The whole thing is bogus, Frank. It's an investment site, the point being
that one is going to need a far larger nest egg if he is planning to see his
90s.

Max

"Maxprop" wrote in message
.net...

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:56:22 GMT, "jlrogers" wrote:

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor...xpect/main.asp



Mine came out to be 87. OK by me but I question the validity. Asked
about total cholesteral but did not want to know about the ratios
(much more important)

The whole thing is bogus, Frank. It's an investment site, the point being
that one is going to need a far larger nest egg if he is planning to see
his 90s.

I'm guaranteed 40 more years. It said so on the Internet!
GUARANTEED! WOOHOOO!
Scout

Mine came out to be 87. OK by me but I question the validity. Asked
about total cholesteral but did not want to know about the ratios
(much more important)

"Maxprop" wrote
The whole thing is bogus, Frank. It's an investment site, the point being
that one is going to need a far larger nest egg if he is planning to see
his 90s.


Why? This country has a whole wave of people planning to
enter retirement while their net worth is in the red. Why
bother to start saving now? And if you start with less than
nothing, what difference will it make how long you'll have
to "make it" on your savings?

You neoconservatives obviously know nothing at all about
finance.


Scout wrote:
I'm guaranteed 40 more years. It said so on the Internet!
GUARANTEED! WOOHOOO!

If it's on the internet, it *has* to be true.

After all (as a co-worker explained to me the other day)
it's in writing.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...

"Maxprop" wrote
The whole thing is bogus, Frank. It's an investment site, the point
being that one is going to need a far larger nest egg if he is planning
to see his 90s.


Why? This country has a whole wave of people planning to enter retirement
while their net worth is in the red. Why bother to start saving now? And
if you start with less than nothing, what difference will it make how long
you'll have to "make it" on your savings?

You neoconservatives obviously know nothing at all about finance.

Right. But if that's the case how does one explain that I can retire today,
draw greater than my current income and never touch the principle, even if
interest rates plunge?

Get a grip, Doug. Where in my statement (the one you quoted) did I intimate
that investing for one's future is a bad idea? Let me help you--I didn't.
I only implied that the life expectancies were seriously exaggerated to be
utilized as a sales tool in order to convince someone with a realistic life
expectancy of 78 that he's going to live to be 95 and therefore needs a much
larger nest egg. Obviously the larger the nest egg the better, but to
fallaciously inflate life expectancies in order to sell something is bogus.

Max

... This country has a whole wave of people planning to enter retirement
while their net worth is in the red. Why bother to start saving now? And
if you start with less than nothing, what difference will it make how long
you'll have to "make it" on your savings?

You neoconservatives obviously know nothing at all about finance.


Maxprop wrote:
Right. But if that's the case how does one explain that I can retire today,
draw greater than my current income and never touch the principle, even if
interest rates plunge?


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


Get a grip, Doug.

Got two, thanks.

.... Where in my statement (the one you quoted) did I intimate
that investing for one's future is a bad idea?

Maybe I should have said "you neocons have absolutely no
sense of sarcasm."


I only implied that the life expectancies were seriously exaggerated to be
utilized as a sales tool in order to convince someone with a realistic life
expectancy of 78 that he's going to live to be 95 and therefore needs a much
larger nest egg. 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.

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.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
... This country has a whole wave of people planning to enter retirement
while their net worth is in the red. Why bother to start saving now? And
if you start with less than nothing, what difference will it make how
long you'll have to "make it" on your savings?

You neoconservatives obviously know nothing at all about finance.


Maxprop wrote:
Right. But if that's the case how does one explain that I can retire
today, draw greater than my current income and never touch the principle,
even if interest rates plunge?


Easy... ever expanding credit.

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

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. 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?

.... Where in my statement (the one you quoted) did I intimate that
investing for one's future is a bad idea?

Maybe I should have said "you neocons have absolutely no sense of
sarcasm."

That may be true--you've cornered the market in it.

I only implied that the life expectancies were seriously exaggerated to
be utilized as a sales tool in order to convince someone with a realistic
life expectancy of 78 that he's going to live to be 95 and therefore
needs a much larger nest egg. 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. Not good news for the government,
who undoubtedly will be supporting a substantial percentage of the
population on down the road.

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.

Max