|
|
BARBELLS FOR YOUR BRAIN
SOCIAL SECURITY Judy O'Leary: “If one takes Social Security at 62, they are limited
on how much they can earn in a given year without forfeiting a portion of the
payout. If you wait until full retirement age, your annual earnings can be
unlimited.” F True.
It’s explained here.
But I don’t think that affects the strategy discussed Wednesday. Yes,
you’d receive a smaller benefit; but you would also have less to repay if
you elected to reset the benefit later. Russell Turpin: “Like every other
endeavor, it's first important to decide one's goal. Is the chief aim to
maximize one's estate? Or is it to insure against outliving one's income? If
it is the latter, and there is the possibility of living much past 70, then the
best strategy is to wait until one is 70 to start drawing social security. That
maximizes guaranteed income when one is truly old. Starting at 62, with the
intent of paying back benefits at 70, is a bit more flexible, but carries some
risk. The money that is drawn is exposed, not just to one's own lapse in
discipline or bad turn at investment, but also to lawsuits, state actions, and
court judgments. One of the great features of social security is that it is
immune to all of that. A 68 year-old man may fall down a cliff with an old
drinking buddy, spend an expensive three months in a hospital, get sued by
buddy's family, and simultaneously by an ungrateful son. Neither the various creditors
and plaintiffs nor their lawyers can touch the cash value of this fellow's
social security, force him to start drawing it earlier than he desires, nor
garnish the checks once he decides to do so. Despite a bad year that exhausts a
lifetime of assets and lines up the creditors, this fellow may have a decent
income for the next twenty-five years. Of course, if his girlfriend kills him
at his 69th birthday party, this fellow's son may be even more ungrateful that
the father never drew a cent from social security, continually borrowing
drinking money from the son while forestalling until his 70th year. So, it
depends on one’s goals.” F And
one’s rather vivid – not to say violent – imagination. PLASTIC BAGS Karen Tiede: “On the topic of whether or not to wash
plastic bags [which I last month suggested could
profitably be explored at book length], Amy Dacyczyn, the frugal zealot who
wrote The Tightwad Gazette, addressed this topic several years ago, long before
$4 gas prices. On pages 45-47 of volume 1, she distinguishes between
Zipock (which you should wash) and other bags (not worth it). She, and I,
do not reuse any bag that has been in direct contact with meat. Also, do
not use any bag inside out if it has “paint” (bread bags) on the
outside. Elsewise, the cost savings for washing and reusing Ziploc bags in
1993 time-and-money (and petroleum) values came out to $30 / hour. On page 99
of volume 2, one of her readers recommends turning them inside out and tossing
them in the wash with a warm load. Those of us with cats and litter boxes are
always in need of plastic bags. In my house, all food-contact bags
(lettuce) go to the litter box stash once they’re done protecting the
lettuce from dehydration.” RIP-OFFS Click here for a website entirely devoted to
them – and a chance to add your own. I noted 109 reports on Sirius
Satellite Radio, for example, before even adding my own.
|
Webdesign by Marc Fest
© Copyright Andrew Tobias