Jenksismyhero

My directv signal is out. Just checked the score. Glad I can't watch this crapfest.

Would have been better without the snark against the Bush Admn, which conflates the message a bit. And if it gets 2 weeks of play like the torture memo did I'll consider it equal coverage.

I expect a blow out, but I wouldn't be shocked by a close game either. This is essentially Illinois' last chance for a statement win (a winnable statement win as opposed to a game like @Mich). They did play well against MSU and probably should have won but for Paul's ignorance and the ridiculous number of foul shots MSU took in the second half. They'll need to play their best defensive game of the year though, and hit some shots for the first time in 2 months. I'm guessing it'll be a 6-8 point lead for IU throughout, and in the last 8 minutes or so they'll pull away and win by 14-16. Let's say Illinois does win though, or they win at Michigan or at Minnesota, and then win a few of the crap games and end up with 6 wins in the conference. Is that good enough to get them in the dance? Their RPI number would be good enough (41 right now, so gotta be in the 25-35 range), their SOS is top 10 right now and shouldn't change much with their upcoming schedule. It'd be an interesting case study. I don't remember a team with so many quality wins and really only two bad losses - purdue and northwestern.

And really this argument just comes down to SS/Balta wanting people with lower incomes to live the lifestyles of those with higher incomes. I'd like a definition for "modest retirement" because I have a feeling everyone would view that differently. "Bob and Sue Banker get to take a country wide trip in their RV during retirement. NOT FAIR. Everyone should be able to do that. RV's for everyone!" Also, that SS Plus plan talks about cutting the deduction for employee retirement plans. That's just screwing the middle class with employers that provide matches to employee plans. Employers would stop offering them, and people would have even less savings/retirement income and become even more dependent on SS. And in 20 years you'll argue that SS Plus isn't enough to provide a "modest retirement" and we're back to square one. (I am 100% behind the idea of taxing the wealthy more, however) Why don't we START with the idea that everyone is responsible for themselves? If NEED be, society can help out those that have experienced a rough life.

An oldie but a goodie: http://www.edmunds.com/car-buying/confessi...r-salesman.html It's a decade old, but when we bought our new Ford Escape in 2010, basically everything this guy said - down the the chain smoking older guys with styrofoam cups of coffee wearing leather jackets - was spot on.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 12:28 PM) I'd argue that the referral was related to performance of services. Hard to argue anything other then that from a tax code perspective. I think its clearly income, the bigger question is whether they'd ever be able to figure it out. I didn't perform any services for him. He was paid a referral fee from my firm, and he gave me a thank you gift. I think this differs from being given a direct referral bonus (gift card) which is something that's put out there as compensation for doing something. I'm having my dad check with an IRS guy he knows. I don't see how this would be any different than him taking me out to dinner or buying me a gift. I'd still have to disclose the value of that gift, but it still a gift that isn't taxable up until a certain amount. I mean, i'm going to pay it and not screw with it. But being an attorney, I'm now on a mission to find out what the real answer is here.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 04:36 PM) I'm younger than 30 and my concern here isn't for my own personal retirement fund. My allocation is going towards those better-rated funds, but again, now I'm relying on a ratings agency's experts to tell me what's good. They did a pretty s*** job recently. So screw the ratings and invest in index funds that are highly diversified and aren't nearly as volatile. When the market is up, you make money. When it's down, you lose. And historically, it's always gone up over the long term. These aren't difficult concepts and if anything this stuff has gotten easier even in the last 5 years or so since I started looking into this stuff as a poor law student with a $13/hr part time job.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 04:31 PM) But for comparison, as of 2009, the S&P had lost money relative to inflation since the 1970's. And what about in 2012/2013 when the market rose back to it's 2000ish level? http://www.moneychimp.com/features/market_cagr.htm If I invested $1 in 1970, including inflation, that dollar is now worth over $9. Even if that's a conservative estimate, it's long been the norm that a return is 6-7% annually, adjusted for inflation.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 04:27 PM) They can deduct wages as an expense as well. If there's even more tax incentives than that, then we're back to "why not redirect those resources to a risk-free system?" To a handful of pre-selected choices. My new 401(k) is pretty s***ty, the average morningstar rating is probably 2-1/2 stars, only one is 5 star and only two are four star, and those are all small-cap or international (read: high-risk). You're 30 something right? You have another 30 years. You can afford the risk. If the bottom drops out of the entire market, money is going to be useless anyway. And only people with guns will have power! Mwha ha ha!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 04:24 PM) Actually, I'm pretty sure that there is a right to privacy somewhere that overlaps with the right to have a kid. I'd love to read that case law.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 04:23 PM) And, as we've noted...that leaves me deficient in retirement. Since the 70's that fund has earned over a 10% return. That's not some modest gain if you're reinvesting your earnings and adding contributions. There are several funds just like it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 04:20 PM) Wages would arguably higher if this retirement benefit were not there, not every place matches, many have long vesting periods and that still doesn't show a net gain over time compared to an alternative higher payroll tax (or eliminating the cap) and increased SS benefits. It's my understanding that the 401(k) is a big tax advantage for a company - the more people that participate, and the more money that gets invested, the more they can deduct. And if you have a 401(k) and aren't happy with it you can change the allocation in most plans.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 04:19 PM) He said "a family of 4", not "4 kids". But I'm sure "only the rich should have more than 1 kid" is a great policy. He did, my mistake. My point remains. Last I checked the ability to have a kid isn't a right. If you can't adequately provide for one, you shouldn't have one. That's one of the basic problems we have in this country that gets ignored because "don't worry, the Great Provider will help you if you can't!"

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 04:18 PM) There's a difference between picking them and having any confidence in one's choices. So pick the Vanguard S&P 500 index fund, pay like .2% in fees and enjoy a steady growth that matches the market. There's no rocket science involved. It takes some reading and research. Just like it takes some reading and research into buying a car, buying a home, having a kid etc. - things that will probably end up costing the same or more over the course of your lifetime than potential losses on your investments.

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. I'm 100% behind idea #1. As to #2, how about you start by not having 4 kids? This goes back to the personal finance skills and responsibility point I was making. 10000 years ago if you couldn't provide enough food for your family, you either didn't do it, or you died. You didn't look to your neighbors and say "hey boss, I had 2 more kids than I could feed. Can you and everyone else pitch in so my kids can eat?"

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 04:07 PM) So if I really, truly can't pick a mutual fund because I suck at it, should I be forced to have a s*** retirement or to pay exorbitant fees for someone else to hopefully do a better job at picking? I'm still not seeing any good reason for that to be the system beyond "well-off people can make some more money." It's not a net benefit for a majority of people. Not true: Meaning 80% do, and each one of those people get MORE out of doing so because they get free money from their company for participating, on top of any gains their investments make.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 02:58 PM) I'm not going to trust 'common sense' that just happens to support the conclusions you've already come to. So you don't think that there's a segment of our population called "suckers" that buy into crap like subprime loans, bad auto loans, overpriced goods at specific stores (instead of shopping at other places), etc etc.?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 02:58 PM) There were thousands of generations of evolution to develop abilities to hunt and gather, though. That doesn't apply to financial investing, with it's incredibly complex and numeric-centric nature and the need to assess risk and results years and decades into the future. That's not something humans are particularly well adapted to naturally. Currency and trade and dealing with money isn't a new concept. It's been around for thousands of years. Being responsible with that money (personal finance) is, at this point, a basic skill necessary to live in this society. I feel like you're equating "investment" with day trading, which takes a great deal of knowledge, insider information, and luck. Safe investments don't take more than reading comprehension and trust in whatever institution you're investing in/with. How is that any different than buying a 20k car that may or may not be a POS? Again, it doesn't. You have SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Denny's Senior Discount, etc. Investing is only a part of it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 02:57 PM) Yes it does...but it does not expand at such a rate to substantially outpace inflation + management fees unless you get very lucky with your investments. I think you're overstating it. If people the last 60 years weren't making money on their investments, they wouldn't invest. But people do, and they make money. Whether or not it's enough money, well, that goes back to the "we need to give people paid cell phone because they are necessities in today's society" argument.

From that article, exactly what i'm talking about: You don't think this stuff - lack of good personal finance skills and ability to think long term - feeds into the other problems listed in that article?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 02:46 PM) Of course, the basic underlying point is...Wall Street, people who are paid millions of dollars to make solid financial decisions...on the whole understood less about the mortgage market than a random geology grad student in california. I didn't have all the details down about how Credit Default Swaps nearly destroyed the world, but I pretty much nailed where things were going before 2004. Even expert financial types can't make decisions that can be counted on, yet you're willing to declare that's a basic skill on which people's long-term livelihoods should be almost entirely based. You're willing to criticize someone who takes out a mortgage they can't pay off...but the most knowledgeable financial professionals in the world were happy to make that loan and buy it up like it was going out of style. Because at the end of the day we have market collapses but the market continues to grow and expand. Look at the market indexes over the last 60 years. It goes up, even with the dips here and there. And I don't think make-em-up investments = subprime mortgages. One is idiotic on its face, the other is just an unknown.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 02:27 PM) Can you give me some citations and data for this? Or is this just your "gut feel" of personal finances in this country? Are people over-extending themselves because wages have stagnated for decades (where is this money going? finance sector!) but COL rises? What would happen to our consumer-driven economy if people drastically started cutting back on demand? I think it's common sense, but I don't have time (or the desire really) to look for some study about it. Just look at black friday shopping. Millions of people thinking they're getting a deal on a bunch of crap merchandise that just a month prior got slowly jacked up in price so that the "deals" were not really "deals." True, but I think you could make the argument that if you're one of those students the last 2-3 years you made a terrible mistake despite knowing exactly what you were getting yourself into. Law schools are subprime lenders. You should know what you're signing up for. It's not something totally fraudulent, it's just making a terrible decision.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 02:39 PM) The collapse of the world's banking systems would have done wonders for IRA's and 401(k)'s. (I'm still torn on that one given how the people who caused this mess got to keep and increase their personal fortunes and are apparently immune from criminal prosecution now) No, the government could have insured those losses instead of just paying the companies off. I was fine doing that in some situations. But again, the vast majority of those investors that lost money in the collapse really only lose 2-3 years of growth. That's why you can't look at these things in 10 year chunks. It's a lifetime of investment and there's really no reason not to come out ahead.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 02:24 PM) PERSONAL FINANCE is a relatively recent "skill of survival" for humans and isn't relevant to many people still today (subsistence living in much of the developing world). It's not some innate skill that humans have. Financial investment is even newer and less widespread of a "basic skill of survival." And we go right back to asking "why should this be a 'basic skill of survival'?" It's a learned skill that's a basic need. A hunger/gatherer 10000 years ago wasn't born with the skill, he had to learn it. The same thing with personal finance today. Financial investment is not "basic" skill, but it's still readily available to the vast majority of people. You can invest without being all that risky, especially when spread out over your lifetime. This basically just comes down to your typical argument - some people have a lot, other people don't have as much. It's not fair.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 02:22 PM) The mortgage one is a great example, because that $250k ARM would have been sliced up and sent off to half a dozen different wall street firms, loaded with financial professionals, each of whom bought into the same crap about how housing prices were going to permanently skyrocket. Yet...they had an ace in the hole...a bailout. Hey don't look at me, I was against all of the bailouts.