"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

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.



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)?


... 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.

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




... 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.

... 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.

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.



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.

DSK

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.

Joe

"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