Retirement Targets

[CycloneSpinning]

You have to remember that a million-dollar estate is not as difficult as many people think anymore. We reached that figure easily when you figured in the value of your home, savings, retirement plan and other funds. It was that reason alone we decided to go with a

Thanks, but since I am going through all of this with my mom, we decided not to make our children have to do the same with us. Our goal originally was just to redo our wills which were 30 years old and were written when our children where small. Now they are grown, married and have children of their own, so it should be updated. When we spoke to our lawyer, she said that many people including her parents have moved to a trust for their estate, the main reason is cost after your death. Drawing up a new will would have cost us a couple hundred dollars, but she stated many lawyers today will charge a percent of the estate if there is just a will, which in my mother's case is costing us $9,000, ours would be well over double that. So, we figured it's a lot cheaper to spend the $2,000 now, then have our kids pay out the much larger number in the future. If having a trust shields our assists from nursing homes in the future, I can live with that also.

I think if you have the time and energy to do that, that’s awesome. I know for her parents, it feels they’re so often thinking about their money and wanting to streamline stuff for their kids…

Agreed. Case in point, the Turmp tax cuts. Businesses were giving out small bonuses to their employees as a result of it. However, after that first year, did those bonuses continue as a result of the continued tax cut? Not from what I can tell.

I think this gets to the question about how much it costs us to have the stock market go up. We count on an annual increase of 8-10% in the market to have our 401ks and IRAs well-funded, but in order to have that happen, businesses do all they can to cut costs and increase profits.

 

[BCClone]

I think you are greatly overestimating the generosity of businesses and corporations all across this great nation. Most view the workers as nothing more than a piece of equipment to be used and then disposed of when they no longer have much value. Those same businesses are not now going to do a 180 and start handing out raises because they are not giving that money to the government. Corporations would see it as way to funnel even more money to stockholders or into stock buybacks.
The average worker would see very little of that money, let alone a 6% raise of benefits.

One easy example is businesses losing money but still giving out raises.

Even if they look at workers as a commodity, are you saying there is no competition for employees?

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

One easy example is businesses losing money but still giving out raises.

Even if they look at workers as a commodity, are you saying there is no competition for employees?

BC when was the last time we heard about a business that was losing money but turning around and giving out raises to their workers, not the CEO but the workers?

Business owners have to be offer salaries that are competitive to those around them, but many are not willing to go above that amount. Most people are not going to move from their current job for a few thousand more in benefits just to start all over again at the new company.

Businesses and corporations think about their stockholders and the owners first and foremost, the workers are second or third down the line. Have to keep those profits rolling in, and many are not willing to share those profits with the workforce. If they were than John Deere would not have been on strike last year, nor would the UAW be on strike now along with the wait and kitchen staffs out in Vegas. All those corporations are making vast profits each year but are only grungily willing to share that wealth with the workforce.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

If you don't it basically turns into the House. They just have longer terms. The Senate was intended to temper the whims of the House which was elected every 2 years.

Extending that out a bit, then also for just having simple majorities override Presidential vetoes?

I would have no problem moving the number to say 60 to override a president veto, much lower than that, and you run into the power of giving congress too much power in the process.

Any bill could be passed in the senate with 51 votes, the problem is that the bill cannot be brought to a vote without closure which requires 60 votes. Closure is what needs to change, any bill should be able to be brought to the floor and a vote called for. Let's get some of these SOB's on record of voting against bills that would help the American people, instead of giving them a pass, and allowing them to say, "there was no vote on that bill". Force them to do the will of the people, not those of the corporations.

 

[Cyhig]

BC when was the last time we heard about a business that was losing money but turning around and giving out raises to their workers, not the CEO but the workers?

Business owners have to be offer salaries that are competitive to those around them, but many are not willing to go above that amount. Most people are not going to move from their current job for a few thousand more in benefits just to start all over again at the new company.

Businesses and corporations think about their stockholders and the owners first and foremost, the workers are second or third down the line. Have to keep those profits rolling in, and many are not willing to share those profits with the workforce. If they were than John Deere would not have been on strike last year, nor would the UAW be on strike now along with the wait and kitchen staffs out in Vegas. All those corporations are making vast profits each year but are only grungily willing to share that wealth with the workforce.

The private sector would see more owners willing to give out raises to their employees while keeping their own salaries flat.

 

[BCClone]

BC when was the last time we heard about a business that was losing money but turning around and giving out raises to their workers, not the CEO but the workers?

Business owners have to be offer salaries that are competitive to those around them, but many are not willing to go above that amount. Most people are not going to move from their current job for a few thousand more in benefits just to start all over again at the new company.

Businesses and corporations think about their stockholders and the owners first and foremost, the workers are second or third down the line. Have to keep those profits rolling in, and many are not willing to share those profits with the workforce. If they were than John Deere would not have been on strike last year, nor would the UAW be on strike now along with the wait and kitchen staffs out in Vegas. All those corporations are making vast profits each year but are only grungily willing to share that wealth with the workforce.

Put it your wheelhouse so you don’t have to believe me only. Did your school ever give you a raise larger than what the state gave for an increase? My wife’s had several times.

They got full insurance increase and a 4% wage bump (which is effusive 4.25 when the other add ons happen) for this year and already have the same for next scheduled.

 

[qwerty]

I agree, anyone that thinks businesses would start giving out 6% raises if they did not have to pay into SS own the business. They may raise benefits a little, but the business would also take some if not all the 6% that they do not have to pay into SS.

Eliminating the cap brings in the most money, effects the fewest people, many of which would not be harmed by the increase. But those on the right want working class folks to put in a few more years working to protect the interests of the wealthy.

Just spitballing, but would eliminating the cap, freeze or even lower salaries? If companies now have to match more money on the highly compensated individuals, that is less $ to the bottom line. Hopefully it would only impact those who are directly affected (highly compensated) and only those salaries would be frozen. Current FICA cap is $160k

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

Put it your wheelhouse so you don’t have to believe me only. Did your school ever give you a raise larger than what the state gave for an increase? My wife’s had several times.

They got full insurance increase and a 4% wage bump (which is effusive 4.25 when the other add ons happen) for this year and already have the same for next scheduled.

BC schools are different than businesses, because they do not have to make a profit to stay in business.
The salary structure of each school is different, we both know that wealthier districts can give out larger raises than poor districts along with things like full paid insurance.

You also know that school unions can no longer bargain for anything other than wages and that percent is now capped by the state. A district could go above the cap if they chose, the union cannot ask for more than what 3% increase in salary?

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

Just spitballing, but would eliminating the cap, freeze or even lower salaries? If companies now have to match more money on the highly compensated individuals, that is less $ to the bottom line. Hopefully it would only impact those who are directly affected (highly compensated) and only those salaries would be frozen. Current FICA cap is $160k

Make the increase only on the wage earner, not the company themselves. The company pays up to $160,000 and they are finished, but the employee continues to pay on all salary. Therefore, the new law would be neutral for businesses.

 

[qwerty]

BC when was the last time we heard about a business that was losing money but turning around and giving out raises to their workers, not the CEO but the workers?

Business owners have to be offer salaries that are competitive to those around them, but many are not willing to go above that amount. Most people are not going to move from their current job for a few thousand more in benefits just to start all over again at the new company.

Businesses and corporations think about their stockholders and the owners first and foremost, the workers are second or third down the line. Have to keep those profits rolling in, and many are not willing to share those profits with the workforce. If they were than John Deere would not have been on strike last year, nor would the UAW be on strike now along with the wait and kitchen staffs out in Vegas. All those corporations are making vast profits each year but are only grungily willing to share that wealth with the workforce.

All the time, especially in cyclical industries. A company may have 2-3 profitable years followed by 2-3 negative years. Properly managed, they give steady pay increases during the good and the bad years, using excess reserves from the good years to carry them through the down years.

 

[BCClone]

BC schools are different than businesses, because they do not have to make a profit to stay in business.
The salary structure of each school is different, we both know that wealthier districts can give out larger raises than poor districts along with things like full paid insurance.

You also know that school unions can no longer bargain for anything other than wages and that percent is now capped by the state. A district could go above the cap if they chose, the union cannot ask for more than what 3% increase in salary?

Different some, but you still must break even over the long haul. A school cant lose money every year and stay open.

 

[yowza]

I would have no problem moving the number to say 60 to override a president veto, much lower than that, and you run into the power of giving congress too much power in the process.

Any bill could be passed in the senate with 51 votes, the problem is that the bill cannot be brought to a vote without closure which requires 60 votes. Closure is what needs to change, any bill should be able to be brought to the floor and a vote called for. Let's get some of these SOB's on record of voting against bills that would help the American people, instead of giving them a pass, and allowing them to say, "there was no vote on that bill". Force them to do the will of the people, not those of the corporations.

Senators are usually a lot more chummy between parties also, at least they used to be.

 

[clonechemist]

I agree, anyone that thinks businesses would start giving out 6% raises if they did not have to pay into SS own the business. They may raise benefits a little, but the business would also take some if not all the 6% that they do not have to pay into SS.

Eliminating the cap brings in the most money, effects the fewest people, many of which would not be harmed by the increase. But those on the right want working class folks to put in a few more years working to protect the interests of the wealthy.

Just saw this, and thought of this thread.

If we raise the retirement age, we are effectively giving taking money from non-college grads and redistributing it to college grads (since college grads live so much longer, on average).

 

[KnappShack]

Just saw this, and thought of this thread.

If we raise the retirement age, we are effectively giving taking money from non-college grads and redistributing it to college grads (since college grads live so much longer, on average).

OK. Now I'm in

 

[CycloneSpinning]

BC when was the last time we heard about a business that was losing money but turning around and giving out raises to their workers, not the CEO but the workers?

Business owners have to be offer salaries that are competitive to those around them, but many are not willing to go above that amount. Most people are not going to move from their current job for a few thousand more in benefits just to start all over again at the new company.

Businesses and corporations think about their stockholders and the owners first and foremost, the workers are second or third down the line. Have to keep those profits rolling in, and many are not willing to share those profits with the workforce. If they were than John Deere would not have been on strike last year, nor would the UAW be on strike now along with the wait and kitchen staffs out in Vegas. All those corporations are making vast profits each year but are only grungily willing to share that wealth with the workforce.

This gets to the heart of the bind we find ourselves in. Again, we need the corporations because their stocks drive our retirement, but our pushing them to send their stocks higher gives us worse jobs, worse products, and worse services in many ways.

I mean, certainly some things are better…don’t get me wrong. But whenever you sit on hold waiting for someone to answer or get terrible customer service from a call center, you kind of have your 401k to blame…

 

[Stormin]

I never said they would hand it out immediately, over a few years businesses would end up paying out most of it. One business would need employees and that would be the first place they would pull from to make their wages attractive. Then it becomes a ripple effect.

Not even close to being true. Businesses will keep the SS employer contribution. At least as much as they possibly can. You are delusional.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

Different some, but you still must break even over the long haul. A school cant lose money every year and stay open.

True, but schools also have the ability to raise funds by a vote of the school board without having to go before the voters for certain types of things.
You really cannot compare schools where the government sets the rate of wage increases to private businesses.
Most of school funding comes from two places, the state which is set as so much per student, and the value of property which the school can draw property taxes. Districts in the burbs do not have to draw a higher rates like rural schools to bring in money.

 

[Stormin]

Put it your wheelhouse so you don’t have to believe me only. Did your school ever give you a raise larger than what the state gave for an increase? My wife’s had several times.

They got full insurance increase and a 4% wage bump (which is effusive 4.25 when the other add ons happen) for this year and already have the same for next scheduled.

Schools are not a traditional business.

 

[CascadeClone]

Not even close to being true. Businesses will keep the SS employer contribution. At least as much as they possibly can. You are delusional.

It wouldn't be 100% either way. I'd swag a third would end up as higher salaries over time, across the entire economy. The rest would get re-invested in the company or kept as profit.

 

[Stormin]

Just spitballing, but would eliminating the cap, freeze or even lower salaries? If companies now have to match more money on the highly compensated individuals, that is less $ to the bottom line. Hopefully it would only impact those who are directly affected (highly compensated) and only those salaries would be frozen. Current FICA cap is $160k

Do you think that those making more than $160,000 a year will refuse to pay the tax and quit their job? They will pay the tax they make a lot of money.