Saturday, December 21, 2013
Work Smart And Hard. Contrary Advice From Mike Rowe. Is He Right Or Is A College Degree The ONLY Route To Success?
Every year Jib Jab does it's review of the previous twelve months. They always are on point. We hope you enjoy this year's posting.
$37,680,000,000: THAT’S HOW MUCH THE U.S. SPENT ON FOREIGN AID IN 2012 — HERE’S A CHART THAT HELPS EXPLAIN IT
HUGE STASH OF ‘OBAMA CARE’ HEROIN CONFISCATED BY AUTHORITIES
Social Security Strategy Shows Some Retirees Should File Younger
DECEMBER 18, 2013 • KAREN DEMASTERS
Waiting until age 70 to collect the maximum amount of Social Security may not be the best strategy for couples who want to retire early, according to Christine Fahlund, senior financial planner at T. Rowe Price.
Financial advisors frequently tell clients to wait as long as possible to collect Social Security because benefits increase by 8 percent a year for each year payments are delayed beyond age 66.
At the same time, almost 70 percent of Americans are taking benefits at age 62 – the earliest time possible. This strategy reduces benefits for life. Only 5 percent wait until age 70.
Fahlund says there is a third choice that can be as financially and emotionally beneficial to couples as either of the above two options.
“A lot of people realize they should wait until age 70 to retire and take benefits, but they say that is not for them. They want to retire early,” she says. “There is a third option we call the split strategy.”
Under this option, the person who earns less retires at age 62. [For simplicity, the example assumes the wife is the lower wage earner.] The higher wage earner waits until he reaches full retirement age of 66, but instead of filing for his own benefits, he files for spousal benefits under his wife’s earnings record. Typically he will receive half of what his spouse is receiving.
While he is receiving spousal benefits, he lets his benefit continue to increase at 8 percent a year until he reaches age 70. He then switches to his own benefit and receives the highest amount possible.
This not only helps the couple while they are both receiving benefits, but also helps the survivor after one partner dies. Assuming the wife lives longer, she can then switch from her lower benefit to survivor benefits, which in most cases will be equal to her husband’s higher benefit amount.
If the couple wants to retire in their 60s, but delays receiving benefits until age 70, they will have to dip into their portfolio and savings until they start receiving benefits. The split strategy gives them an income from Social Security and reduces the amount that has to be taken from their portfolio or delays when they have to start taking money from the portfolio, allowing it to continue to grow.
“It is important to focus on the front end (by delaying dipping into savings),” says Fahlund. At the same time, you are “making sure whoever survives gets the highest possible benefit from Social Security for the rest of his or her life. You want to optimize for the survivor.”
The mantra from advisors always has been that the client should wait until age 70 to receive the maximum amount in Social Security, Fahlund says. But her research shows that this may not be the best strategy for a couple.
“You need to consider this as part of a larger strategy. It’s not only about taking Social Security. It is also about taking withdrawals and what year you take withdrawals. An advisor can control, with the clients, the actual year the clients begin taking withdrawals.” If the couple wants to retire early, they “better have some Social Security or they are going to have to withdraw from savings and that is not healthy.”
Fahlund gives the following example to illustrate the three possibilities. Ben was born in 1951, makes $98,000 a year and wants to retire at age 62. Sally was born in 1954, makes $68,000 and wants to retire at age 59. He is assumed to die at age 83 and she at 95. They want an income of $124,000 a year during retirement.
If they claim benefits early, total Social Security income over their lifetime will be $1.1 million and withdrawals from their portfolio will be $3.4 million.
If they use either of the other two options, waiting until they are 70 or using the split strategy, the total from Social Security will be $1.5 million and from portfolio withdrawals $3 million. The delaying strategy allows them to wait to withdraw from the portfolio.
Al Qaeda's Sharia Courts in Syria Lock Up and Torture ChildrenDaniel Greenfield - FrontPage Magazine, December 20th, 2013
Poll: At Same Point In Term, Nixon Approval Rating Higher Than Obama
December 20, 2013 by UPI - United Press International, Inc.
NEW YORK (UPI) — At the same point in his second term, President Richard Nixon had better job approval ratings than President Barack Obama, a Harris Poll released Friday indicted.
Thirty-seven percent of respondents gave Nixon positive ratings on his overall job in November of 1973 — just months before he resigned over the Watergate scandal — while 34 percent of Americans said Obama was doing a good job this month, results indicated.
Harris, based in New York, reviewed approval ratings for two-term presidents since Nixon — Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama — noting each had highs and lows during their eight years and had different approval numbers at the end of their first years into their second terms.
Thirty-four percent gave positive marks to Bush, who was dealing criticism over two wars and over his Administration’s initial response to Hurricane Katrina, in November 2005.
In November 1997, 57 percent were positive about Clinton a month before the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke and as the economy was humming along, Harris said.
Sixty-eight percent expressed approval of Reagan at the beginning of Glasnost and the first meeting with Mikhail Gorbachev and before the Iran-Contra scandal made its way into public awareness.
Results are based on an online survey of 2,311 adults Dec. 11-17 conducted by Harris Interactive. A margin of error was not provided.
Gun Control Laws Left Murder Victim Defenseless In Protecting His Wife
New Jersey’s reasonablehave caused the death of a man simply trying to protect his wife. Hoboken native Dustin Friedland was laid to rest this week after two carjackers brutally gunned him down in front of his wife. Friedland was unable to protect himself with a firearm because the law-abiding attorney adhered to New Jersey regulations which state permits to carry a firearm can only be given to those working in security or who have a “justifiable need.”
His wife, Jamie, was forced out of their vehicle at gunpoint but not physically harmed. The two carjackers, who are still on the loose, took the car for a joyride of approximately 10 miles before leaving it on the side of the road.
“I want [the suspects] dead. In a heartbeat. I would like to see them dead because of what they did,” said Jamie’s uncle, Dr. Mark Schare. “And for what? What did they gain? It’s just evil. They should not have a day of peace, ever again.”
New Jersey isn’t the only state to adopt extreme gun control laws in recent years. California took the step this year of seizing legally purchased guns from rightful owners after they were suddenly classified as “prohibited persons.” The state legislature approved new language earlier this year for what is defined as a prohibited person, expanded to include people who are behind on state taxes, did not pay toll fees in a “timely” manner and other minor misdemeanors or mental health concerns.