iamshack

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 03:46 PM) A few minutes a week? I've spent easily the equivalent of that trying to figure out the gobblygook I receive from my retirement plans and I still feel completely incompetent afterwards. Seriously? You cannot figure out the funds in your plan based on the holdings and the historical returns and the daily price trends and all the reports from the financial websites? I think you're trying to equate investing to science, and you just cannot do that.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 03:47 PM) So why does my income need to go to subsidizing your 401K plan? Your income hasn't subsidized my 401k plan.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 03:45 PM) You are literally involved in a trading market everyday, right? Doesn't that give you a decent advantage in understanding the risks and information associated with investment that a vast majority of people don't have? I am involved in a commodities market, yes. I suppose due to repetitive experience that might give me some advantages in understanding how some financial markets work, but to be honest with you, most of what made me a good trader was common sense...

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 03:43 PM) So it's a good idea because you have the prerequisite knowledge and income that most don't have to make the most of investment opportunities? I'm not sure that's a good social policy. Perhaps it could be something that you have the option to opt-in or out of?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 03:42 PM) When has anyone attempted to stop you from doing so? If we eliminated the 401k entirely tomorrow, you'd still be able to do that. If more of my money was being taken due to an increased social security program, than the percentage of my earnings dedicated to my own investments would be decreased.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 03:39 PM) And now we're at the real issue...if I want to do this effectively, at the level required for success, I need to be in a position to respond to new events in a matter of days. It literally needs to be a part time job, based on your description here. If a person doesn't do that much, then they're doing what I am, putting it into a higher-risk vehicle figuring I'm only 30 and hoping that I understood the fee levels well enough to have figured out where I put it. I'm simply never going to put that much time into managing a retirement account. And I figure...if that's the level of commitment it takes, the level of knowledge it takes, then basically, 99% of the population is going to be screwed. It is not a part-time job. It takes a few minutes a week, if that. Most of the things that affect the stock market and other markets are all over the news and are almost impossible to escape. If you're not willing to spend 10 minutes a week on your future financial health, when I know you spend hours a week posting on Soxtalk, then I honestly have no sympathy for you.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 03:38 PM) So why is it a good idea to essentially require everyone to become well-versed in financial investments if they want a chance at a decent retirement instead of just having a system that provides a decent retirement after decades of work but still leaves open the option for anyone who wants to to invest? Because maybe I want more control over where my money goes? Maybe I would rather have the ability to use the considerable education I have paid for (and continue to pay for) to increase my money over time rather than allow the government to do so?

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 03:32 PM) Of course it is. But there are two issues that feed off of that: 1) How do you get people to think long term? How do you get people motivated to seek out investment vehicles when it's 30 years down the road (especially if not employer sponsored)? I have long advocated personal finance classes as a high school and college pre-req. 2) What about people that just don't make enough to put money aside for retirement? SS and Balta are correct that at $50k with a family of 4, even if you are saving for retirement, you aren't saving enough. At some point, those people will be out of the workforce, either due to being too expensive or due to health issues. Honestly, this has to do with being responsible about what you can afford, as well. And this goes back to previous discussions, as Jenks said...maybe if resources are not as plentiful as they once were, we need to scale back on things. Maybe if you make $50k a year as a household, you shouldn't have two children. Maybe you should carve out a more modest existence for yourself if you make a modest paycheck. I understand the concerns here, and I agree some things need to change. I just disagree that we continue to throw all personal responsibility out the window and treat human beings with all kinds of access to information as if they are imbeciles.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 03:29 PM) And I haven't a clue if I've done the right thing with my 401k/retirement plan. I've put away the money to gain the matching options, but I haven't a clue if I've picked reasonable investment vehicles or not. Depends on what you define reasonable as. By it's very nature, investment involves risk. Otherwise, it would be called saving. No one can know exactly how things will turn out, but most folks with 401(k) accounts have the ability to watch the market daily, buy and sell their funds within a business day of making that decision, read reports and gauge risk tolerances, etc. It isn't as if you just put your money in there and then it's stuck there for all eternity. These websites offer quite a bit of research tools to educate you on what risk/reward tolerances you are comfortable with and how to act on those tolerances.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 04:15 PM) Next time don't listen to these "man up" tards and just keep your mouth shut. And then, if you've legitimately learned something, don't do it again. Ever. It's ok to learn from your mistakes and just keep silent about something like that. Coming clean did nothing good for anyone involved. Not you. Not her. And not the other her. Nobody won, everybody lost. It didn't make you feel better, it didn't make them feel better. Manning up, as some put it, accomplished absolutely nothing. You could have learned from your mistake, and moved on without hurting or potentially losing the one you actually cared about, and never repeated such a mistake. While there shouldn't be a next time, if you truly learned, if there is...just stifle yerself, Edith. I was going to suggest he say nothing until he mentioned he drilled her. I dunno, would you want to know if your wife drilled some other dude, even if it was just once?

I love that SS is claiming this is impossible for the average person to figure out, meanwhile Balta is claiming he understood the housing bubble better than the Wall Street folks

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 03:00 PM) Again, you're back to a tautology. I'm asking why that's currently the system (it's only been that way for a few decades) and if it makes any sense for it to be that way. I don't agree that it does, and I don't see any net benefits that result from tying individual investment savvy to your ability to get by once you can no longer work. Are you equating providing food, shelter and clothing to the same sorts of skills required to be a successful investor? You and jenks have both said "it's how people provide for their families" or some stuff about "hunter-gatherers." Investment income is not how 99.99999% of people have ever provided for their families, and it's not how 99% of them provide for them now. It's an additional skill that you'd need to be able to pick up and do well with decades before you'll see the end results and hope there's no catastrophes outside of your control along the way. Why? Why not just increase SS benefits and not put so much individual risk out there? What good comes of tying retirement to how well you invested your money over the past 30 years? The main reason I utilize a 401k account is because my company matches up to 6% of my base salary that I put into it. If I was super paranoid, there is nothing saying I couldn't put the money straight into the bank, or invest it in any number of very safe investments. And yes, I could absolutely hire someone to do this for me, if I was not savvy enough to figure that out myself. You guys are going to jump all over the recent banking and market scandals, but let's face it, if I was REALLY conservative, I could take my money into any bank or investment firm, and say "tell me how to invest this money along the ultra-conservative risk spectrum," and they would guide me towards those options. One doesn't have to buy stocks or mutual funds with their savings. And that doesn't require anyone to have any more common sense than it requires of someone to balance a monthly budget or determine how much house they can afford. The reason many middle class workers are not prepared for retirement is because they do not have the discipline to properly save their money. Not because doing so is so incredibly complex that they don't have the requisite knowledge to do so.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 01:42 PM) I was. That was specifically my question--why should our retirements be tied so tightly to how well we can manage financial investments? Any talk about "hunter-gatherers" or how pre-finance capitalism societies handled the elderly isn't relevant to that specific question. Because that is what it takes for human beings to survive if they want to cease becoming wage-earners? Why should anything we need to survive be tied to anything that is even moderately complex? Why should I even be required to support myself when I am working? How am I expected to be some genius, able to provide for food, shelter and CLOTHING for myself? What the heck do you people expect of me?? I am just a helpless human being!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 02:31 PM) 401(k) management isn't a survival skill that goes back farther than three decades. Aside from a relatively small number of investors, very few people have ever provided for their family based on financial investment management. Right, because you really thought I was referring literally to 401k management.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 02:30 PM) 1) We (the Western world) haven't been living in "hunter/gatherer" societies for a few thousand years now, but those societies and even many agrarian societies tended to be heavily egalitarian. Very few people actually provide for their family via investment income anyway. Most people provide for their family by selling their labor. Saying "that's how you provide for [your retirement]" is just a tautology. I'm asking why is that the current (and relatively recent) system, and should it be that way? What's the societal benefits of that? What are the costs and risks? Saving a small portion of your yearly salary without investing it isn't going to result in that much savings. Take the median income, $50k, at %5 a year (which might be more than your typical family of four can reasonably afford to set aside). That's only $75,000 after 30 years of working. You don't have to be a Harvard business grad to realize that having money set aside in retirement is a good idea, and you don't have to be a Harvard business grad to realize that many people can't actually afford to set aside all that much. And that you need it to grow with compounding interest over time for it to amount to anything, which is an assumption the whole model is built on but isn't working out in actual practice very well. 2) But aren't there risks with annuities? Aren't there high fees? Why should we structure our retirement plans around a system that enables a huge amount of rent-seeking and little social good? And what if you just aren't that financially savvy? Should dumb people or people without a background in personal investment be left to suffer? 3) Again, this requires some level of financial investment savvy. Why should our retirements be so dependent on that? What good comes of it? It's not the "governments" responsibility, it's society's. The government is a tool that can be used to accomplish social goals. It's particularly effective at this one and more reliable than charity or "lol, enjoy your cat food, grandma!" personal investment outcomes. There are substantial healthcare costs for seniors that aren't covered by Medicare. Prescription drugs are particularly expensive (no negotiating prices!) and any form of routine care can wipe out savings quickly. Continuing to pay rent or upkeep on an old house is a significant expense. Even if you're living in a small, affordable apartment, that could easily take over half of your monthly income. Maintaining a car is expensive. Food is expensive. Yeah, you can get by, but you'd be grinding by very meagerly and things would be awfully tight. One unexpected expense could sink your budget and throw you back into debt. And in the past, society, for the most part, accomplished this by directly caring for their elders. However, with medical advancements, this has become extremely burdensome, and in many cases, impossible for the younger family members. We, as a society, have struggled to adjust to any other model for addressing the problem of caring for our elders. It's certainly a very imposing issue.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 02:10 PM) (1) First, savings =/= investment. Planning out your long term debt =/= investment. You don't to be a Harvard business grad to understand that later in life, when you stop working, your income stream stops coming in and you need to be prepared. And really, why the hell shouldn't your personal finance practices be the most important skill you have?? That's how you provide for yourself and your family. If this were a hunting/gathering society, wouldn't the most important skill be tied to your ability to obtain food and feed your family? When did that idea get lost? Oh, right, when government became the Great Provider of Everything. (2) Buy annuities if you can't handle risk in the market but still want a steady rate of return. Open a money market account. There are lots of different ways to protect the money you've earned and be conservative with your investments. Anyone over 60 should be doing this anyway. (3) This is true, but better personal finance practices and investment practices as you age limits the damage. At the end of the day everyone that lost their money in the recession, had they stuck with it, made it all back and then some. Why is it the governments responsibility to pay for someones retirement? I just don't get that mindset. I get wanting to help people that have fallen on hard times. I don't get this "right" to be taken care of by the government no matter what your position is in life. I know that's your socialist dream and all, but I literally don't understand that way of thinking. And I still don't see how $1200+ a month isn't sufficient for an old person (or twice that for an old married couple). You don't have kids to pay for, you shouldn't have debt (and even if you pay for a car or pay rent, how much could you possibly need?) Supplemental insurance can be pricey, I get that, but MOST health problems are covered by Medicare, so it's not like you're paying out of pocket costs for every health problem you have. I was going to say the bolded as well...this is a survival skill that goes back to the beginning of time.

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 12:17 PM) Why can't I say that? The Bible is fact when it comes to Christian philosophy. I can discuss what I've read in it and what I've read and heard from theology experts about it. And who knows? Maybe I'm getting it wrong. Maybe someone would point to a passage I missed and tell me that homosexuality is indeed much worse than other sins and that Hans Frank is burning in Hell whether he sincerely converted or not. So I'll talk about what I believe. If you don't have any interest or faith in Christianity, then it's probably moot to discuss it with you. But don't tell me what I can and cannot say. I can absolutely state what I believe and explain why I think I'm right. You don't have to agree nor would I force you to agree. And since these are my beliefs, I wouldn't force them on anyone through government either. God gave men free will; why should men take it from other men on His behalf? You can do whatever the heck you want...I don't particularly care, to be honest with you. Just noting that it seems ironic that someone would criticize someone else of their faith-based beliefs while simultaneously being so defensive when their own faith-based beliefs are questioned.

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 11:41 AM) So all Christians are supposed to agree on everything? The underlying message there, which is that since I believe in "made up" things I can't dissent with other "made up" things, is not a very tolerant one. Absolutely not. But the basis upon which you challenge the beliefs of others cannot really be based on belief itself...because that basis cannot be supported by fact. One cannot say "I believe that such and such is the only unforgivable sin, and you should believe this too, because I believe it to be true." If you want to talk about tolerance...it seems to me that one whose beliefs are based upon faith should have more tolerance than those who base their beliefs on science.

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 11:14 AM) To me, God is fact. It's why the "War on Christianity" isn't a big concern for me; the "warriors" can't change the truth. You want to disagree with that, fine. But to me, sin is as I described it. I didn't feel the need to quantify that statement with "I believe...". Sorry. Why were you speaking generally? I'm not trying to take credit for it, but is that a viewpoint you've honestly heard before? From all the Christians I've ever talked to, I've never heard that particular point. Shouldn't it then be something that sets me apart? I'm not saying its better, but from what I've experienced, it is different. Why would your first reaction be to clump me in with the theocratic types (which I am not at all) and wonder why I want to force things on people and make them agree with me? I didn't mean to be defensive, but I don't get why you'd respond to what I think is a somewhat unique perspective with a general statement on the actions of Christians. I don't agree with what you said about hard rules. Until we meet St. Peter at the Pearly Gates, there are no consequences to my "rules". I offer no punishments. Yes, I do believe God offers consequences. But those are not to be delivered by me. So all I offer is postulation, based on the Bible, on what I think Christ meant. I was just commenting on your sense of perspective. I always find it ironic when someone who follows a religious belief system fervently questions another person's beliefs within that or another belief system.

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 10:45 AM) What did I force on you? What did I expect you to agree with? Did I not say that my comments could lead to interesting discussion? What hard line rules am I making? I was making a point about what I believe to be the nature of sin. Did I not repeatedly inject my statement with "I think" and "I believe" and "I was taught"? Geez. No wonder we are where we are today. If a Christian even talks about what he thinks, people claim he's forcing things on them. Kind of hints back at the title of this thread, doesn't it? Whoa. Why are you so incredibly defensive? It's almost as though you tee-up these debates and then the moment someone chimes in, you come in, guns-blazing, looking for a repository for your anger or something. I wasn't speaking personally. I was speaking, in general. You made several assertions in your post as though they were factual, when they clearly are not. You also mentioned how you don't understand how others within your belief system could think certain things. I was merely pointing out that when you're discussing a belief system in which so much is based on faith, you're going to have many different interpretations and nuances of those beliefs, because there really are no clear-cut answers one can point to. These are the hard-line rules I mentioned...you know none of these things to be true. These are merely your beliefs.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 11:45 AM) She has a zero tolerance policy. So if I come clean, I'm f***ed! You're right though, she deserves to know. Wait, wait, wait... Did you just have dinner and dessert and wine? Did you have any intimate contact, whatsoever?

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 11:26 AM) Honestly, I feel like I made a grave mistake. I am starting to think it was the sheer infatutation and not genuine. I went to her place and saw she practices the religion of Santeria. She had shrines and rules about what you could or couldn't do in front of the spirits. I don't judge people or their religion by any means but I somewhat avoid people who are heavily involved with anytype of religion. Holy s***

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 11:39 AM) They'd charge him interest at a minimum and most likely a penalty. Otherwise people would always try that play-dumb excuse for unreported income. Yeah, makes sense...although I am sure people always do try that play-dumb excuse for unreported income

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 10:34 AM) Absolutely he could. Its all a matter of if you get audited, the "it slipped my mind" isn't going to fly. Of course if you are a basic W-2 filer with pretty simple returns, the odds of being audited tend to be pretty minor. And it would be hard for them to identify it other then checking into your bank records and noticing the large deposit. I'd probably have a tax accountant submit for all of the 1099's and various documents that are out there to ensure it wasn't reported (and you just didn't get it mailed to you). Cause when you get on the 13K with penalties, fines, and interest on top of it (if it was reported and you didn't include it), you are definitely risking it. So if for some reason they audited him, and found it, he couldn't just go "oh crap, I totally blanked on that!" and they wouldn't just let him file a correction? They'd actually penalize him or fine him harshly for that?

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 11:30 AM) Yeah, except the IRS reads Soxtalk. Doh!