Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Perry, I am kinda confused because I agree with you so often and fence (politely debate) TuborgP almost as often. But he does remain polite and makes me think.
EDIT - I think I have repped him a couple of times when I saw his point, so maybe a SNL church lady "never mind" is in order...
Perry, I am kinda confused because I agree with you so often and fence (politely debate) TuborgP almost as often. But he does remain polite and makes me think.
EDIT - I think I have repped him a couple of times when I saw his point, so maybe a SNL church lady "never mind" is in order...
LOL, I am chilled and have learned to learn from others and take what works and apply it. I am a very data driven person and retirement is about data and how to best develop the best set of data you can for you and yours' Same with solving SS there is the personal impact which is best served by solvency and fairness. I have long called for pension reform and just say do it and let people know in advance how they will be impacted down the road so they can plan.
How do they rip people off I think mine are marvelous. Seriously
Here. Basically the entire profit margins of the biggest banks in the country is a result of tax payer subsidies because of "too big to fail advantages":
Quote:
In its latest analysis for the Global Financial Stability Report, the IMF shows that big banks still benefit from implicit public subsidies created by the expectation that the government will support them if they are in financial trouble. In 2012, the implicit subsidy given to global systemically important banks represented up to $70 billion in the United States
-Banks deemed ‘too important to fail’ borrow at lower rates, take bigger risks
-Policymakers should aim to remove this advantage to protect taxpayers, ensure level playing field, promote financial stability
Here. Basically the entire profit margins of the biggest banks in the country is a result of tax payer subsidies because of "too big to fail advantages":
Hmmm to me that doesn't equal ripping individuals off especially if they invest either directly or indirectly in financial industry equities, bonds etc. I mean if that's what enables them to offer me a full range of services for no fee, I am good with that. They give me money and services for free as long as I follow their guidelines to not have to pay a service fee I think that's pretty cool and not very self serving on their part.
Hmmm to me that doesn't equal ripping individuals off especially if they invest either directly or indirectly in financial industry equities, bonds etc. I mean if that's what enables them to offer me a full range of services for no fee, I am good with that. They give me money and services for free as long as I follow their guidelines to not have to pay a service fee I think that's pretty cool and not very self serving on their part.
What? A select number of mega banks are ripping off the taxpayer to the tune of $70 billion a year, while smaller banks are left high and dry. They cant make risky investments on tax payer collateral and earn high profits as a result, purely on the backs of the people. This is crony capitalism at its worst, and the tax payer is footing the bill while the big wigs in Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan fly high.
Hmmm to me that doesn't equal ripping individuals off especially if they invest either directly or indirectly in financial industry equities, bonds etc. I mean if that's what enables them to offer me a full range of services for no fee, I am good with that. They give me money and services for free as long as I follow their guidelines to not have to pay a service fee I think that's pretty cool and not very self serving on their part.
I see your side and Mike's. I am with Wells Fargo these days because SouthTrust was bought by Wachovia which was bought by Wells Fargo. They give us our services for pretty much nothing because of grandfathering but they screw it up every few months and we have to go in and complain. They backout the charges and fix it. Then they mess up again. Lots of people just pay and put up with it.
I see your side and Mike's. I am with Wells Fargo these days because SouthTrust was bought by Wachovia which was bought by Wells Fargo. They give us our services for pretty much nothing because of grandfathering but they screw it up every few months and we have to go in and complain. They backout the charges and fix it. Then they mess up again. Lots of people just pay and put up with it.
We went from Wachovia to Wells also. No complaints problems etc. They invited us in to meet with them about the transition and that was helpful. They even did about $60 plus on notarizing for free. We are blessed and able to work comfortably within their regs and do some things to minimize their cost. We try to keep the cost down for all our service providers.
What? A select number of mega banks are ripping off the taxpayer to the tune of $70 billion a year, while smaller banks are left high and dry. They cant make risky investments on tax payer collateral and earn high profits as a result, purely on the backs of the people. This is crony capitalism at its worst, and the tax payer is footing the bill while the big wigs in Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan fly high.
Not sure how you are funding your retirement. Personally mine in addition to SS is dependent on Mutual Funds, and pensions both of which reap profits from investing in the financial services industry. A decade or so ago I was actively holding select financial service mutual funds very sweet at times. Financial services often lead markets higher and for many of us rising markets are a good thing. I know this is horrible to some but others would agree that oil at $4.00 a gallon has been sweet also. Social Security as is often said is not meant to be your sole source of retirement income.
Only 20%? Why? Unless you are a)wealthy, b)dying or c)really financially desperate with nowhere else to turn, why would anyone collect at 62 and yet nearly half collect at 62
.
Because at 62 the Social Security payment plus my savings/investments would allow me to live comfortably. You don't have to be wealthy; just need to have saved enough.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
