vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"One wonders where the author thinks the monies for the generous Boomer pension payouts will come from? And of course they utterly ignore the fact that things like 401k's and IRA's *require* that a person begin divesting (at a progressive rate) after one hits age 70-1/2. Yes, post retirement fund sales (minus the taxes on the proceeds of course, which taxes are not to be ignored) these people COULD turn the entire remainder of those monies back around and then re-invest them back into the stock market as (non tax-deferred) retail stock purchasers ... but that is pretty unlikely to happen. In addition, the Boomers as a generation have become accustomed to a far higher lifestyle (newer cars, larger &amp; fancier homes, more vacations, etc) than the previous generation(s), and so -- just as with many other things where Boomers ""broke the mold"" -- relying the the data from those generations as an economic model of how much wealth retirees tend to ""cash in"" and how they spend (versus what they ""sit on"" and hoard for their heirs) may be rather foolish. (Somewhat akin to building an economic model on 20 years of data that proclaimed ""Americans don't default on their mortgages""... yeah that turned out to NOT be very wise.) And then finally, I wonder if this author really comprehends the meaning of the phrase ""at the margin""; after all *everyone* in a neighborhood doesn't have to default on their mortgage to drive house prices down, in fact all it takes is a lack of BUYERS and prices cannot be sustained. So, the problem with the Boomer ""en masse"" retirement is not JUST the possibility that they will ""all sell everything at the same time""; but rather that the ""demographic bulge"" will at a certain tipping point, change from buyer-hoarders, to divester-sellers, and that inevitably WILL have a major affect on the float and thus the prices of stocks... and just as inevitably, at some stage of that change, herd behavior (even *panicked* herd behavior) will take over. It really doesn't take much to drive a stock down...
&gt;Now a crucial thing here is that while the 20-24 cohort is the largest now, in a few years, the largest group will be those of prime-age workers: 25-29, the age when people really begin to earn better money and buy homes and cars.  Unless-   1) Those jobs are still being done by baby boomers, or have sent offshore/ eliminated by robots, google, etc   2) That extra money goes to paying down student loans instead of consumer purchases.    3) Interest rates rise. At all. Pushing monthly costs for homeownership from unjustifyable to truly unaffordable.
But wait! There are government subsidies! Yeah, good luck with that as well. If you've been working any half-decent job and apply, and are under 25 and your parents also make half-decent wages, you will be lucky to be offered loans. They aren't even low interest loans anymore. Also, god forbid your parents have a little emergency nest egg saved up from years of hard labor in the salt mines. Or - horrors - own a small, crappy, cookie-cutter, not-aging-well tract home free and clear. That'll cost you big in financial assistance from the goverment.
The other issue you could run into is that each deferred account is going to be subject to its own RMD's (Required Minimum Distributions) when you've retired or hit 70.5 years of age.  Roth's don't generally care about RMD's at first, but are still subject to them once the person that created the Roth has passed.  Having fewer accounts will simplify the RMD stuff, but that's really only a factor in terms of being forced to sell 'something' in each account in order to make the RMD.   Other than that, it's just a matter of remembering to check each account if you come to a decision that it's time to liquidate holdings in a given security, lest you sell some but forget about the rest of it in another account.  (and perhaps as Chris pointed out, maybe having to pay fee's on each account for the sale)  Where this really can come into play is if you choose to load up each individual account with a given kind of investment, instead of spreading them across the accounts.  In that case RMD's could force you into selling something that is currently 'down' when you want to hold onto it, because that is your only choice in order to meet RMD's for account X.  So if you have multiple accounts, it's a good idea to not 'silo' particular vehicles into a single account, but spread similar ivestments across multiple accounts, so you always have the choice in each account of what to sell in order to meet an RMD. If you have fewer accounts, it's thus a lot easier to avoid the siloing effect
Look at the left column.  If you are disabled at age 62 or older and have worked for at least 10 years they you qualify for full disability benefits (which are generally less than retirement benefits).   Outside of disability, one is only eligible for social security benefits at age 67 (unless you were born before 1960, in which case different rules apply), but you must have worked for at least 10 years to get full retirement benefits.
Of course; the generation Xers are those in the age range where many were approaching the time when they would, but had not yet, transferred the bulk of their retirement savings to lower risk investments. Anyone who hadn't yet transferred their retirement savings from any direct market funds got totally Effed in the A.   Granted, some of this happened because people were simply banking on continual market rise. But a lot of these people simply got really bad advice from financial planners who looked and seemed totally qualified to advise, just as a lot of people got reassured from qualified sources that their adjustable rate mortgage on their million dollar home would be *no problem.*
I think it's fairly obvious that I'm talking about people that have recently graduated college that are 21-25 years old. If you need me to spell it out, plenty of people make 100k out of college after having graduated at the age of &lt;25.
If you are not planning on living in your condo for at least 10 years don't do it. For about 5 years your mortgage will be more then rent, after 5 years you start to break even and may start paying less. On the other hand, if you plan to be there for 10 years or more it might be a great savings tool,
A fourteen-year-old can invest a few thousand into commuting to a part-time job or an education. If you can wait five years for a couple hundred you can wait two to four years for a car (or gas money) or a class (or some textbooks.)
There are many ways to temper the dollar burden of an education.  Your question has very little information, so I am going to assume the following:  You are attending a University in the United States, you are paying for school with a combination of loans, scholarships, gifts, and your own income, and that you are a typical (socially) 18-22 year old male/female. Tuition Food Alcohol and Social Activities Books Room/Board/Transportation Income  (I don't have as much advice here, someone else will need to chime in)
I am not a Republican conservative. I would begin cutting the budget at the Pentagon, the NSA, and the CIA. I would eliminate Homeland Security and give the salvageable parts to the FBI. You could easily cut 500 billion right there without touching social spending.  Then I would shutter the Depts of Interior, Education, Commerce and Agriculture. There you have another 100 Billion  At that point you demand 15% cuts of the remaing departments, another 75 billion and then you attack the 3 big problems, which are medicare, medicaid and SS. Medicare and Social Security should have the minimum age raised now to 67. Medicaid must be much more difficult to qualify for.   Problem solved. Budget balanced. Foreign adventurism terminated.
Do you have any ties to your old address? In particular are you the LANDLORD? This could have been a precursor application to test identity evidence and setup a mortgage. The perps may even have legally changed their name to yours and even be living in, or close to the house if it is a share house to intercept this kind of mail.  Otherwise someone's database may have been breached, so it is important you try to work out where this information used in the application came from. If they are an illegal you may be racking up Council Tax somewhere or end up paying income tax on their earnings. In any case your character has probably now been damaged. So do follow it up right smartly.
Yea, you're still young. Just start trying and do the best you can. Maybe you don't land on Wall Street, if that's even the goal, but you can absolutely break into the industry and work your way up. People understand mistakes, and a DUI that will be 4 years old when you start working isn't going to be a big deal if you have a solid 3 year track record. Don't doubt yourself, don't keep people around that hold you back. You don't need to go to a top tier school. It helps, sure, but it's not a requirement by any means.
To be honest, all that they might be able to tell you is to keep saving.  Your income seems like it will vary week to week thanks to commission (and I'm still very curious how at 18 you found a job making $96,000 a year at minimum).  Right now because you have no savings, start stacking that up.   You're going to want an emergency fund on the side as well.   Even though now you may still live with parents, you still may run into issues where you'll need money on hand.  It's much better to dig into an emergency fund than get a loan.  Plus, when moving out, you won't be living paycheck to paycheck.  Best rule of thumb for this is to keep an emergency fund of roughly 3-6 months of expenses.  Right now because you're so young with so little money, there isn't a large reason to really open up an IRA or any sort of investment account.  Unless you're actually guaranteed $2,000 a week, then things are different.
My understanding is that age 60 is the magic time to buy Long Term Care Insurance. Younger and you'll save little to none on premiums and statistically never use it before age 60.  Older and it becomes more expensive and more likely that you won't qualify.
The government should worry less about raising the minimum wage and instead have some sort of job training program for kids. It's like, they completely ignore kids from ages 5-18 and then act surprised when they're only able to make minimum wage. The government should invest roughly $130,000 in educating children in useful job skills so that they can make more than minimum wage.
"Indeed. But it's worse than that. We now know that the brain continues to devolope well into the 20s and a college education might be less effective at age 18. Perhaps this is why businesses complain about not being able to find anyone with ""real world skills"". You think? They've been sitting in a class room for 16 years (or *more*). Other countries don't even start reading education until second or third grade!"
oh yea, I read where if you become a plumber (for example), the average college grad (who is immediately employed post grad) doesn't catch up to the plumber's gross earnings and nest egg until age 59.  in this economy, the grad may never catch up
Your gut feeling is absolutely spot on - you shouldn't be worrying about pension now, not at the age of 25. Assuming that you're not a footballer in the middle of the most productive part of your career and already have a fat wad of crunchy banknotes under your pillow that you're looking to set aside for a rainy day when you won't be able to play at your prime any longer. That doesn't mean you shouldn't invest, nor that means that you mustn't save. There are several factors at play here. First of all as a young person you are likely to have a high tolerance for risk, there is still plenty of time to recover should expected returns not materialise. Even a pension fund with the most aggressive risk / return strategy might just not quite do it for you. You could invest into education instead, improve health, obtain a profitable skill, create social capital by building connections, pay for experience, buy a house, start a family or even a business. Next, as a young professional you're unlikely to have reached your full earning potential yet and due to the law of diminishing marginal utility a hundred pounds per month now have greater utility (i.e. positive impact on your lifestyle) than a seven hundred pounds will in 7-10 years time once your earnings plateaued. That is to say it's easier to save £700 month from £3000 and maintain a reasonable level of personal comfort than carve £100 from £1300 monthly income. And last, but not the least, lets face it from a human point of view - forty years is a very long investment horizon and many things might and will change. One of the downsides of UK pensions is that you have very little control over the money until you reach a certain age. Tactically I suggest saving up to build a cushion consisting of cash or near cash assets; the size of the stash should be such that it is enough to cover all of your expenses from a minimum of 2 months to a maximum of a year. The exact size will depend on your personal comfort level, whatever social net you have (parents, wife, partner) and how hard it will be to find a new source of income should the current cease to produce cash.
"For some states they give you a tax break when you make a deposit into the accounts.  The 11 year old is still 11 years away from college graduation, so the growth can be significant. The 15 year old will have most of their funds in safe investments to avoid a big drop just as the they need the money. many view the automatic adjustment in risk a benefit since if this wasn't in a ""529"" plan you would have tax issues when selling the investments during the shift."
"&gt; Or what if I change majors? You still have a stake on my lifetime income, but it won't be in the field you helped me into. So college-aged indecision would mean twice as much out of my take-home income for life?  How is that any different from now, when people can rack up huge student loan debt because of ""college-aged indecision"".  It could be set up so on a per year basis just as tuition currently is formatted.(eg. 1% of future income per term)    &gt; Or what if I'd like to buy your percentage back from you? What would be a fair price? Would there be a market to establish it?  Well the contract would probably have some sort of penalty just as paying off a mortgage contract early incurs a penalty.   &gt; But again; transactions costs. Think of six billion little corporations with all their vital stats and market data. Now imagine voting on the jobs and homes of the potentially hundreds of people in whom you have an interest. It would simply be impossible to keep track of.  I wasn't suggesting that each person be a corporation, I think you're confusing what I wrote with the novel you read.  I didn't suggest that the investors had voting rights in your life decisions.  It would be more along the lines of an extra tax you paid  (perhaps while filing your income tax).  Each person would have a different rate based on the amount of schooling they had."
"Investing the money is only wise if the return on the investment outpaces your highest interest debt. Otherwise, you are making less than is going out. Given that you are in your late 50's, High risk investments are probably a poor idea.   If you're truly worried about having enough to retire, I would take 15% of that money and put it toward your emergency fund. Then the rest I would use to pay down your highest interest credit line.  You are short on funds right now so I would avoid using the HELOC. Your HELOC is available now, but if times get tight, the bank can decide to freeze your credit line. Instead, if you need a line of credit, look into a personal line of credit. The interest rate wont be as good as your HELOC but it's more stable.  If you haven't already, I would pickup ""The Richest Man in Babylon"". Read the lessons in it and see if you can use the tools it provides to tighten your situation up. The lessons mostly apply to people in the first half of life, but they are fundamentals regardless. Good Luck! (Information on the HELOC was stolen from Jasper's answer here... HELOC with no first mortgage (for liquidity--no plans to spend it) )"
Yeah having the government guarantee basically the entire housing finance industry has done the same thing as university eduction. In a larger sense those in their 20s did get screwed because the Baby Boomers mortgaged their future to keep prices artificially high for their assets.
Sometimes when I'm reading articles like this, I have to assume the writer must be 14 years old and have zero memory other than the recent past.  In the late 1990s, early 2000s windows had complete fan boys. Its only very recently that this has shifted.
"My father said it best to 17 year old me, ""when you have money you'll be more conservative too.""  Sure enough mid 30s me is more conservative and pissed off at people getting free stuff from my taxes."
A worker between ages 50 and 61 who has been unemployed for 17 months has only about a 9 percent chance of finding a new job in the next three months. A worker who is 62 or older and in the same situation has only about a 6 percent chance. As unemployment increases in duration, these slim chances drop steadily.
Depends on how you go about it. I'm in my mid 30s with 3 houses that are about $450,000 in the black. By the time I'm 50 they will be paid off (mostly by other people's rent) and I project I'll be sitting on about $1.7mil in assets with $40,000 annually in cash flow. Not a bad position to be in really.
I have been working since the 80s too.  I dont think thats a very good time frame to base it off of.  I would like to have someone who is around 70 years old tell me im incorrect on this one.
Yup. These people are entitled losers that don't want to be responsible for their actions. They still live at home at 30 and don't have a real job or make minimum wage, but it's not their fault according to them. They blame it on everyone else
The mortgage crisis really became a crisis because of these marginally qualified borrowers. They put their 3% down, maxed out their available debt, then the economy turned, so they lost their jobs. Worse yet, they couldn't sell out because their houses were worth less than what they owed on the mortgage. Until the banks started allowing short sales there was nothing to do but lose their savings, get forclosed, and watch their credit rating get destroyed.
"Much of the interest on a loan comes in the first years of a mortgage, so the sooner you can pay that off, the better. But let's see what the numbers say. If you have a loan at 4%, principal of $100,000, a term of 30 years, then this gives monthly payments of $477.42 (using the Excel PMT function). If you sell the house after precisely 5 years worth of payments, then you have made $28,644.92 in payments, you still owe $90,924.93. Suppose you sell the house for $100,000. That means you will be in the hole for: $100,000 - $90,924.93 - $28,644.92 = -$19,569.85 Now, suppose you pay an extra $50 per month over the five years. The same calculation becomes: $100,000 - $87,659.98 - $31,644.92 = -$19,304.90 So in this scenario, which is a little simplistic, you are $264.95 better off. The question you have to ask is whether you could have done better investing the $3,000 in extra payments somewhere else. The CAGR in doing this is 1.7%, so you might be better off putting the money away. Running the same numbers for a 6% mortgage the CAGR you have is about 2.7%. Edit I've added a Google Docs spreadsheet (read-only) that you can download and play with. Feel free to correct anything you find amiss! Edit 2 OK, so I've had a look at what JoeTaxpayer is saying in the comments below, and now I agree: The CAGR should be 4%. Where I want wrong was to assume that the $50 per month payments over the five years are worth $50 * 5 * 12 = $3000. This neglects the ""time value of money"" --- having small amounts of money periodically, rather than all of it in a lump sum.
so if we rent it out we don't want to just charge what we're paying on our mortgage - we'd definitely be losing money if we did that. I think you're overlooking one thing: your profit/loss is not monthly. Your profit is the property that's left after the mortgage ends. Even if you have to add extra $100 every month because you rent lower than the mortgage + maintenance + taxes, after 30 years you're left with property worth ie.$200k while you've paid for it ie. 30 years * 12 months * $100 = $36k. You can rent it lower than your costs and still make a profit in the long run.
If you can afford the payments on a 10-year mortgage for a property, that's an indication that it's very affordable.  This assumes that there aren't a ton of hidden costs in this property (which could be why it's going so cheaply). Looking at more expensive houses just because you can afford them is exactly what the lenders want you to do, and it's dangerous.  Resist the temptation.  If you're happy, you're happy.
Well typically you're borrowing a shit ton of money for 30 years so yeah you're paying a lot in interest over that period.   But your situation sounds especially bad, that's over a 10% constant assuming 80% LTV. What are you being quoted, like &gt;9% interest?
Yes, you will come out ahead slightly by putting the money in the savings account, then paying off your mortgage later.  However, we don't know what will happen to these interest rates after 1 year. If you put the £300 per month into the savings account for a year, then put the money into you mortgage, you will save about £78 for the year over just putting the money toward your mortgage in the first place.  For me, I'm more concerned about longer term strategy. What happens to your mortgage rate after 2 years? What happens to your savings account rate after 1 year? The mortgage rate likely goes up and the savings account rate likely goes down, making the savings of this strategy even less after the first year. Instead, you may want to put this £300 per month toward retirement investments (assuming you have no other debt), which should, over the long term, earn more than the savings account.