| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Is thinking obsolete?
On 8/7/2014 7:33 AM, True North wrote:
Bertram "Why is targeting civilians in a war between nations a bad thing?........" WOW! Maybe the average civilian in either country has little or no say in what it's government does...such as North Korea. You are quite a piece of work, Bertie. Kind of like Canada and it's big brother to the south, eh? -- "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them". Thomas Jefferson |
Is thinking obsolete?
In article ,
says... On Thu, 7 Aug 2014 09:21:17 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 10:30:50 -0500, amdx wrote: http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/is-thinking-now-obsolete/ Mikek If, somehow, the allies had lost that war, Bomber Harris and Curtis LeMay would have been in the dock at the Hague. We clearly targeted civilians in Germany and Japan. Why is targeting civilians in a war between nations a bad thing? It is a war crime, prosecuted against the losers. Hermann Goring was sentenced to death for the same thing Harris and LeMay did. Goering wasn't prosecuted for civilian bombings for that very reason. It wasn't considered a war crime. Goering had other blood on his hands. Plenty. |
Is thinking obsolete?
On 8/7/14 2:27 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Aug 2014 09:21:17 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 10:30:50 -0500, amdx wrote: http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/is-thinking-now-obsolete/ Mikek If, somehow, the allies had lost that war, Bomber Harris and Curtis LeMay would have been in the dock at the Hague. We clearly targeted civilians in Germany and Japan. Why is targeting civilians in a war between nations a bad thing? It is a war crime, prosecuted against the losers. Hermann Goring was sentenced to death for the same thing Harris and LeMay did. Göring was prosecuted for war crimes and for crimes against humanity. He committed suicide. |
Is thinking obsolete?
|
Is thinking obsolete?
H*a*r*r*o*l*d wrote:
On 8/7/2014 12:32 PM, wrote: On Thu, 7 Aug 2014 10:45:06 -0400, BAR wrote: Why wouldn't you start to collect your social security at 62? If you don't spend it you should invest it. You never know when you are going to die and do you really want the government holding onto your money for an extra 4 years and 3 months? The last time I saw someone run those numbers, the crossover age was 82-83. If you live longer than that, you were better off waiting. That does not assume any return from investing the money tho. Most people don't. I am saving mine but that is not the same as investing it, considering what interest rates are. I originally called it my "new boat fund" but I never bought the new boat. I have saved up enough to buy the house next door tho. I am getting ready to steal it on a tax deed sale if the mortgage company doesn't move pretty fast. When I ran the numbers several years ago, I factored in a 5% COL increase and the crossover point was around 87. So I think your numbers are pretty close, give or take a year or so. I'm with Bar. The sooner you get the Govt. to start paying back your money, the better. 9 years ago, when I started collecting, the SS guy said the break even point was 79. Maybe higher now. Different interest rates. |
Is thinking obsolete?
wrote:
On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 00:00:31 -0500, Califbill wrote: H*a*r*r*o*l*d wrote: On 8/7/2014 12:32 PM, wrote: On Thu, 7 Aug 2014 10:45:06 -0400, BAR wrote: Why wouldn't you start to collect your social security at 62? If you don't spend it you should invest it. You never know when you are going to die and do you really want the government holding onto your money for an extra 4 years and 3 months? The last time I saw someone run those numbers, the crossover age was 82-83. If you live longer than that, you were better off waiting. That does not assume any return from investing the money tho. Most people don't. I am saving mine but that is not the same as investing it, considering what interest rates are. I originally called it my "new boat fund" but I never bought the new boat. I have saved up enough to buy the house next door tho. I am getting ready to steal it on a tax deed sale if the mortgage company doesn't move pretty fast. When I ran the numbers several years ago, I factored in a 5% COL increase and the crossover point was around 87. So I think your numbers are pretty close, give or take a year or so. I'm with Bar. The sooner you get the Govt. to start paying back your money, the better. 9 years ago, when I started collecting, the SS guy said the break even point was 79. Maybe higher now. Different interest rates. There are IBM guys who have all of this in a spread sheet and they can fill in the blanks and run just about any scenario. If I see it on the IBM retiree board I will post it here. NCR is offering a cash buyout of our retirements. If your guys got spread sheets on that also. |
Is thinking obsolete?
On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 01:03:04 -0500, Califbill
wrote: When I ran the numbers several years ago, I factored in a 5% COL increase and the crossover point was around 87. So I think your numbers are pretty close, give or take a year or so. I'm with Bar. The sooner you get the Govt. to start paying back your money, the better. 9 years ago, when I started collecting, the SS guy said the break even point was 79. Maybe higher now. Different interest rates. There are IBM guys who have all of this in a spread sheet and they can fill in the blanks and run just about any scenario. If I see it on the IBM retiree board I will post it here. NCR is offering a cash buyout of our retirements. If your guys got spread sheets on that also. === You can bet that any company offering cash buyouts has already run the numbers very carefully. It might make sense for someone with a serious medical condition with a reduced longevity prognosis however. |
Is thinking obsolete?
On Friday, August 8, 2014 12:24:44 PM UTC-4, wrote:
I do have a handy little DOS program that does most of this kind of math (Mortgage calculator, loan tables etc and it includes a "time for withdrawal" that computes how long it takes to deplete a fixed amount of money invested at a particular interest rate. This is a tiny program and it seems to run fine on any windoze platform. I have something that can do the same thing. It's called a CPA wife. Operating requirements are a bit more expensive, er, extensive though. :- |
Is thinking obsolete?
wrote:
On Friday, August 8, 2014 12:24:44 PM UTC-4, wrote: I do have a handy little DOS program that does most of this kind of math (Mortgage calculator, loan tables etc and it includes a "time for withdrawal" that computes how long it takes to deplete a fixed amount of money invested at a particular interest rate. This is a tiny program and it seems to run fine on any windoze platform. I have something that can do the same thing. It's called a CPA wife. Operating requirements are a bit more expensive, er, extensive though. :- Do not have a windows platform anymore. |
Is thinking obsolete?
|
Is thinking obsolete?
Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 8 Aug 2014 10:02:07 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Friday, August 8, 2014 12:24:44 PM UTC-4, wrote: I do have a handy little DOS program that does most of this kind of math (Mortgage calculator, loan tables etc and it includes a "time for withdrawal" that computes how long it takes to deplete a fixed amount of money invested at a particular interest rate. This is a tiny program and it seems to run fine on any windoze platform. I have something that can do the same thing. It's called a CPA wife. Operating requirements are a bit more expensive, er, extensive though. :- === The wild card in all of those calculations is the question of how long are you going to live? The folks who sell the annuities have professional actuaries with advanced degrees who do those calculations for a living. You and your doctor may know more about your health than they do however. That is the major question. I have good health and mom made it to 96. I think they are figuring 15 years and about 3%. |
Is thinking obsolete?
On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 17:11:31 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 8 Aug 2014 10:02:07 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Friday, August 8, 2014 12:24:44 PM UTC-4, wrote: I do have a handy little DOS program that does most of this kind of math (Mortgage calculator, loan tables etc and it includes a "time for withdrawal" that computes how long it takes to deplete a fixed amount of money invested at a particular interest rate. This is a tiny program and it seems to run fine on any windoze platform. I have something that can do the same thing. It's called a CPA wife. Operating requirements are a bit more expensive, er, extensive though. :- === The wild card in all of those calculations is the question of how long are you going to live? The folks who sell the annuities have professional actuaries with advanced degrees who do those calculations for a living. You and your doctor may know more about your health than they do however. My break even was around the 80 year mark. I smoked for 38 years. I figured if I made it much past 80 the rest would be a gift anyway. So I started drawing at 62. Glad I did. |
Is thinking obsolete?
On 8/7/2014 10:08 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 07 Aug 2014 20:31:52 -0600, H*a*r*r*o*l*d wrote: On 8/7/2014 12:32 PM, wrote: On Thu, 7 Aug 2014 10:45:06 -0400, BAR wrote: Why wouldn't you start to collect your social security at 62? If you don't spend it you should invest it. You never know when you are going to die and do you really want the government holding onto your money for an extra 4 years and 3 months? The last time I saw someone run those numbers, the crossover age was 82-83. If you live longer than that, you were better off waiting. That does not assume any return from investing the money tho. Most people don't. I am saving mine but that is not the same as investing it, considering what interest rates are. I originally called it my "new boat fund" but I never bought the new boat. I have saved up enough to buy the house next door tho. I am getting ready to steal it on a tax deed sale if the mortgage company doesn't move pretty fast. When I ran the numbers several years ago, I factored in a 5% COL increase and the crossover point was around 87. So I think your numbers are pretty close, give or take a year or so. I'm with Bar. The sooner you get the Govt. to start paying back your money, the better. I split the difference and went for 64. I have banked most of that $20k I am getting (after the tax on 85%). The only thing I spent was the $7200 for my new outboard (as in my "boat fund") I ran the numbers using an 8% return. I break even when I turn 80. HOWEVER, If I saved all the money plus interest and got an 8% return on the money, after 4 years the interest earned is more than the different in benefit between retiring at 62 and 66y 2 months. I think I'll collect at 62. Here is a nice calculator, that allows monthly deposits. http://www.thecalculatorsite.com/fin...calculator.php Oops, I didn't figure taxes on benefits or earned interest. But the interest earned on 4 yrs savings was about 21% higher than the difference in benefit by waiting 4 years. Maybe I'll spend more time figuring it another day, but for now, I'm confident the breakeven is past 85yrs old. I should also run it at 4% return. Mikek |
Is thinking obsolete?
On 8/10/2014 7:59 AM, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On 8/7/2014 10:08 PM, wrote: On Thu, 07 Aug 2014 20:31:52 -0600, H*a*r*r*o*l*d wrote: On 8/7/2014 12:32 PM, wrote: On Thu, 7 Aug 2014 10:45:06 -0400, BAR wrote: Why wouldn't you start to collect your social security at 62? If you don't spend it you should invest it. You never know when you are going to die and do you really want the government holding onto your money for an extra 4 years and 3 months? The last time I saw someone run those numbers, the crossover age was 82-83. If you live longer than that, you were better off waiting. That does not assume any return from investing the money tho. Most people don't. I am saving mine but that is not the same as investing it, considering what interest rates are. I originally called it my "new boat fund" but I never bought the new boat. I have saved up enough to buy the house next door tho. I am getting ready to steal it on a tax deed sale if the mortgage company doesn't move pretty fast. When I ran the numbers several years ago, I factored in a 5% COL increase and the crossover point was around 87. So I think your numbers are pretty close, give or take a year or so. I'm with Bar. The sooner you get the Govt. to start paying back your money, the better. I split the difference and went for 64. I have banked most of that $20k I am getting (after the tax on 85%). The only thing I spent was the $7200 for my new outboard (as in my "boat fund") I ran the numbers using an 8% return. I break even when I turn 80. HOWEVER, If I saved all the money plus interest and got an 8% return on the money, after 4 years the interest earned is more than the different in benefit between retiring at 62 and 66y 2 months. I think I'll collect at 62. Here is a nice calculator, that allows monthly deposits. http://www.thecalculatorsite.com/fin...calculator.php Oops, I didn't figure taxes on benefits or earned interest. But the interest earned on 4 yrs savings was about 21% higher t han the difference in benefit by waiting 4 years. Maybe I'll spend more time figuring it another day, but for now, I'm confident the breakeven is past 85yrs old. I should also run it at 4% return. Mikek For some reason people forget about the time value of money and don't apply it to taking SS as early as possible. Turns out it's not that simple. I started another post and found even with 8% return it takes longer than you think to get even. Take a look and do some calculations, I'd like to see what others get. Mikek --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:27 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com