Low rates punish savers, really? (manufactured, generation, taxation, city)

[richrf]

[duplicate post]

[richrf]

Originally Posted by richrf

Not me. Too many friends and family having too many problems to deal with. They are always on my mind and I do what I can.

Way too many people suffering due to no fault of their own. I'll enjoy life, but I will do what I can to help them.

[TuborgP]

Originally Posted by richrf

Way too many people suffering due to no fault of their own. I'll enjoy life, but I will do what I can to help them.

And you can't enjoy your life while doing this? Help them to see their is a path for them if they handle their limited resources well and work towards building their future?

[richrf]

Originally Posted by TuborgP

And you can't enjoy your life while doing this? Help them to see their is a path for them if they handle their limited resources well and work towards building their future?

As the title of this thread suggests: They are doing the best they can but are still being punished.

And really for what? So that bankers can give themselves billions of dollars in bonuses at the end of the year? Most people don't realize what is going on. It's too complicated. But I know, and it makes me ill.

[Info Guy]

1% APY with Smarty Pig.

[mathjak107]

Originally Posted by Hamish Forbes

This is not correct. He does not recommend that retirees hold either stocks or long-term bonds for inflation protection. Rather, he recommends that retirees hold stocks only for bequests and luxuries.

i agree he did say the above you posted but when you get to 35 you learn about what you can expect as an income level from bills method .

we see that without equities there isnt enough ooomph to generate the higher levels of income that other more traditional portfolios do --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bills own view of his method and his own words: page 35

"below age 65- 2% is bullet proof."

"3% is probaly safe

4% is taking chances

above 5% you stand a serious risk of dying poor."



----------------------------------------------------------------------------


the success of this portfolio above 2% has no better chances than the tried and true other methods that run at a 4% withdrawal and use equities. in fact the odds favor the traditional 4% swr having a 97% success rate which is far better than bills above just 2%.

the biggest risk is if you need more than 2% to live on or much below 65.

i would only give the thumbs up to bills method if you can live with only a 2% rate . otherwise all bets are off unless as he calls it the RP or risk portfolio is used to sustain his LMP ( liability matched portfolio.) then we start to approach a balanced portfolio again anyway.

i do fall in the catagory of needing 2% myself but to be honest i dont have enough faith in bills risk free portfolio to even want to try it, especially because im retiring at 62 . if i did do something like that i would without question add a risk portfolio and back to square one we go to the balanced portfolio .

ti wouldnt argue anyone following bills method at all if they can stay within the income demands or are already approacing 70 but the problem we have been discussing here is there are those who wont even risk bills method and thats going to be a risk failure for them if they are pulling income from it..


not our problem , we can only present the ideas and facts and the chances of their survival but as they say you can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink.

[greybuscat]

Originally Posted by mathjak107

No one can grow there money in a bank . Growing our money comes from capital gains on the bits and pieces we manage to save .whether we like it or not real growth only comes from investing over decades.

If you're young, couldn't you just start a TSP at 18 and put into it until you retire? You'd have well over a million dollars, depending on the amount you put in month to month, and your ability to stick to it. I can live on about 30K (net) a year in Texas, with a mortgage and all the basic trappings of Western Civilization, so I don't see why I'd have to be an investment export to live with LESS expenses than I do not.

I think much of the current scare has a lot to do with people's standards of living being too high, and how little the upper-middle to upper classes actually get for the money they spend. Who cares how much you make if you have 0$ at the end of the month? How much is your half a million dollar house worth when your property taxes alone are higher than my total mortgage?

That being said, I have no knowledge of investment or anything beyond basic economics. I look forward to long-winded explanations of why I'm wrong or immature.

[Hamish Forbes]

Originally Posted by mathjak107

as they say you can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink.

I wonder what happens if some dope who doesn't really know much about liquids leads a horse to a trough full of kerosene right after a great natural disaster. Hey, but the trough has been full of water 99% of the time in the past, so we must be good going forward.

[Hamish Forbes]

Originally Posted by greybuscat

I look forward to long-winded explanations of why I'm wrong or immature.

A woman bet a friend that she could get famously reticent President Calvin Coolidge to say at least three words to her. She explained this to the President, who responded "You lose."

[mathjak107]

Originally Posted by Hamish Forbes

I wonder what happens if some dope who doesn't really know much about liquids leads a horse to a trough full of kerosene right after a great natural disaster. Hey, but the trough has been full of water 99% of the time in the past, so we must be good going forward.

the world is full of what if's. PERHAPS WE SHOULDNT CROSS STREETS EITHER. after all just because we crossed them before safely doesnt mean tomorrow is the same.