Prognostication and tax law

I didn't mention that what I saved is on top of what we're supposedly are going to get in social security (state pension) and a pension from a pensionfund set up by our respective employers. If all that doesn 't go belly up alltogether what I'm doing privately is on top of that. Having the houses (a house) has a huge advantage; your fixed expenses are incredibly low compared to what other people are spending on just staying warm and dry.

Over the last 20 years investments in anything other than bricks have had either zero or negative results. Both the investments that should be considered risky (shares in a particular company) and investments that carried a considerable lower risk (participation in a global investment fund). The absolute killer was the house in Istanbul, bought for less money than most people spend on a used car, now worth ten times that and bringing in enough money for me to party there without drawing on my income in Amsterdam.

What really messes with my groove writing this is that the SO sabotaged getting into gold 7 years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

....


I'm not sure why you're surprised about the 1% figure. I have no prescriptions, routine doctors visits are free in-house, dentist cleanings are free twice a year in-network (and since I take care of my teeth and health I don't need more involved stuff), and I replace my glasses maybe every 4 or 5 years. Remember we're talking about the archetypal young, urban college graduate - they rarely have significant health costs. If I spend a few hundred bucks on healthcare a year, I'm surprised. (Note: the numbers would be higher with a wife mostly because I'd have to pay her premium on my plan and because she has one prescription that would cost about $200/year.)

---

I'm surprised that just because you're in a university hospital network, you assume all young people (ages 18-30) have 1% costs like you do, with "free" doctor visits, dental and vision coverage. Or that just because you don't have a health condition or prescriptions, no one else would, or if they do it's just for BC or something. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

You think an undergrad degree in finance is useful? Especially today, after the collapse of the whole industry? Anyways, we're not talking about right now - I admit right now is exceptional from an employment perspective (though most of the engineers I know have had little trouble getting jobs).

Look, most people who go to expensive private universities get useless degrees in English or whatever. The available job openings for someone with those skills is far exceeded by the number of trainees.

---

I'm not critiquing your choices, your future retirement. If everyone had a life like you, made choices like you, was a supersaver with a degree in demand, a job with presumed longevity and security, the world would be peachy keen! Your posts are peppered with broad statements that are bothersome---you're tired of stupid people with sob stories, their bad decisions aren't your problem, all anyone has to do is persevere and follow a budget, English degrees are useless, people who lost money in the market were just doing it wrong, you plan to amass 5 million by retirement, if you can do it then anyone can....but that's not realistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

I'm surprised that just because you're in a university hospital network, you assume all young people (ages 18-30) have 1% costs like you do, with "free" doctor visits, dental and vision coverage. Or that just because you don't have a health condition or prescriptions, no one else would, or if they do it's just for BC or something. :rolleyes:

---

My wife's health insurance is way better than mine - she's not restricted to a network, has her HSA filled up by her employer to cover deductibles and premiums, gets full dental, some vision... and has family covered for free. She works for an evil corporation, too. I'm on a shitty student health plan that's very restrictive and doesn't cover nearly what it should.

My point is that many young urbanites don't have high health bills - that's why so many of them elect not to pay for health insurance, it's just not worth it.

Quote:

---

I'm not critiquing your choices, your future retirement. If everyone had a life like you, made choices like you, was a supersaver with a degree in demand, a job with presumed longevity and security, the world would be peachy keen! Your posts are peppered with broad statements that are bothersome---you're tired of stupid people with sob stories, their bad decisions aren't your problem, all anyone has to do is persevere and follow a budget, English degrees are useless, people who lost money in the market were just doing it wrong, you plan to amass 5 million by retirement, if you can do it then anyone can....but that's not realistic.

---

Which of those broad statements was wrong, again? Though I would argue I never said the 'people who lost money in the market were doing it wrong.' I said that people who were ruined by the market downturn were doing it wrong; everyone lost money; well, almost everyone.

People make poor choices; it's one of the hallmarks of human nature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

My wife's health insurance is way better than mine - she's not restricted to a network, has her HSA filled up by her employer to cover deductibles and premiums, gets full dental, some vision... and has family covered for free. She works for an evil corporation, too. I'm on a shitty student health plan that's very restrictive and doesn't cover nearly what it should.

---

A thread for another day, or file it under Healthcare (Insurance) Reform. Talk about subsidies or "free money".....;)

Quote:

---

My point is that many young urbanites don't have high health bills - that's why so many of them elect not to pay for health insurance, it's just not worth it.

---

Yes, I understand. Young invincibles and all that. Nobody thinks they'll have a car crash, break bones, get burned, rack up thousands in medical bills.

Quote:

---

Which of those broad statements was wrong, again? Though I would argue I never said the 'people who lost money in the market were doing it wrong.' I said that people who were ruined by the market downturn were doing it wrong; everyone lost money; well, almost everyone.

People make poor choices; it's one of the hallmarks of human nature.

---

Mostly assuming others' problems don't or won't affect you. They will, they do. It's great when people make good choices and weather downturns, but rather myopic to think we can be insulated from those who got into trouble or hard times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

... but rather myopic to think we can be insulated from those who got into trouble or hard times.

---

Myopic or inhumane? Or, the new American Dream?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

Myopic or inhumane? Or, the new American Dream?

---

Convenient denial? Not sure. Been a lot of whining lately how unemployment benefits or welfare subsidies "spoil" the populace and make us lazy. I don't agree with that, but it is true that our safety nets have an unintended consequence: it keeps struggling or needy people out of sight, out of mind.

Food stamp debit cards means no long bread lines or beggars on every corner. Homeless shelters mean less tent cities or wandering cart people. On-line applications for housing assistance masks the real need (recall the Atlanta debacle where 30,000 showed up for some 400 open slots). Internet job searches hides the faces of the millions looking for work. Only large jobs fairs or applicant lines a city block long make the news. Only thousands showing up at convention centers for charity healthcare paints a visual picture.