The Syndicate

The odds:

1/215- Dating a millionaire
1/11,500- Winning an Academy Award
1/18,000- Getting murdered
1/22,000- Becoming a professional athlete
1/48,000- Dying in a work-related accident
1/649,740- Being dealt a royal flush in poker
1/662,000- Winning an Olympic gold medal
1/840,000- Drowning in a bathtub
1/1,000,000- Getting struck by lightning
1/1,000,000- Dying in a plane crash
1/1,000,000- Being killed by flesh-eating bacteria
1/1,505,000- Becoming a movie star
1/2,000,000- Drowning in general
1/6,100,000- Dying from a bee, hornet, or wasp sting
1/10,000,000- Become President of the USA
1/11,500,000- Get attacked by a shark
1/15,000,000- Become the biological parent of identical quadruplets
1/112,000,000- Get killed by a vending machine
1/292,000,000- Winning the Powerball jackpot
1/303,000,000- Winning the Mega Millions jackpot

Good for you, Epi. Tough break speedchuck. My best Pennsylvania refund ever was somewhere around $80 but I can't remember why it shot that high. It's usually between $20 and $40, aka just enough to cover the e-file fee.

While its nice to get a tax refund, it's really better to get as small a refund as possible. The lower the refund, the less money you had over-withheld and the less money the government erroneously had at their fingertips all year long.

It's tax season here in the USA. I just filed mine last week and I'm curious about something- does anyone in states with personal income tax ever get much of a refund on the state level? Pennsylvania is notoriously stingy and whatever little refund I might get in a good year gets mostly or completely eaten up by the e-file fee. This year I ended up owing PA $18 so I mailed my return in.

Anyone scoring a decent refund from their respective state?

Dragon D. Luffy wrote: ↑Sat Mar 17, 2018 8:16 am http://thehill.com/regulation/court-bat ... ciary-rule

So moral of the story: don't trust people who want to help you invest your money, if their salary is paid by someone other than you.

While this really sucks for investors who work through a small independent-esque agent (like my wife's uncle), the rule was a bit unfeasible for the large, corporate brokers who package funds together in bulk options. Everyone is unique, so few if any funds can really be purchased in anyone's best interest. Most people (myself included) aren't focused enough on the investment world to invest their money on their own/ Even if they were, t how would companies handle matching retirement funds? You can't just give it to people in their paycheck and expect them to invest it themselves and the costs would be too high to pump it into an individual plan instead of a group plan. I for one would not invest with the brokerage firm my company has their plan through. I only withhold enough to maximize the company match and fund my Roth IRA elsewhere.

65% of Americans save little or nothing—and half could end up struggling in retirement

Yep, here they’re officially called ‘treasury bonds’ but ours have been a lousy investment until recently. They were as low as 1% interest a few years ago. Anything less than 3% is a poor investment in my eyes because the average rate of inflation is 3% historically. With our Federal Reserve keeping interest rate artificially low for so long, our corporate bond market has struggled too. That’s a big reason the stock market has done so well- little else offers an appealing return!

Depending on the birth year range you use, I qualify as a Millennial. It's easy to use this article's headline as an invitation to take a cheap shot at that cohort but it really is a multi-faceted issue that goes beyond just one generation group. The economy keeps changing and it seems the public's understanding of the economy moves at a slower pace than the reality of the economy.

Epignosis wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2017 4:32 pm

G-Man wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2017 4:28 pm Taking the annuity is guaranteed money for three decades.

No it isn't.

Yes, well, Illinois sucks for a number of reasons. Just add that gem to the list.

And here is a text book example of what NOT to do when you win a large sum of money in the lottery.

1) She claimed the prize the next day.

2) She quit her job the day after.

3) She took the lump sum (though seeing as she's a single person with adult children, the lump sum isn't such a bad move here I guess).

4) She claimed the prize as an individual.


In case any of you ever win the lottery, DON'T rush into claiming the prize. You do not have to claim it right away. I don't remember off-hand, but the prize can be claimed several months after the fact. Instead of claiming the prize and quitting your job right away, the first thing you should do is find a lawyer and a financial planner, both of whom you trust, and bring them both in for a face-to-face meeting to discuss your options. The key point is this: don't make hasty decisions.

Claiming a large jackpot through a trust provides much more security for the money. As an individual, some jackwagon could get themselves hurt on your property and sue you for big bucks because their lawyer will know you've got it. Having a trust puts a legal barrier in the way of those types of shenanigans.

I'm a fan of taking the annuity option but that always depends on circumstances (the winner's age, family situation, and how states treat the transfer of such annuities to spouses upon the death of the winner). Sure, it sounds awesome to take $400 million right now, but where are you going to put it? FDIC only guarantees up to $250,000, so you'll either need a ton of accounts or a personal vault. Taking the annuity is guaranteed money for three decades. Given the crappy investment environment we have right now, you're probably better off taking the annuity anyway. For tax purposes, it allows you to give to charities over 30 years, rather than racking your brain right now for suitable places to make big gives to. After the income tax year is over, you won't be able to make big donations and have them count towards lowering your taxable income.

This story just...

Golden wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:37 pm And if you are me, you can probably burn through $1m in savings in 5 years

I have no discipline with money.

Haha. I am a little too disciplined with money most of the time.

My parents started out their working lives during the recession of the early 80s and with no education beyond a high school diploma. They had to do a lot to make ends meet for a family of four. It, and my great-grandmother's influence, whipped a lot of financial discipline into my dad. I think his life experience hardened him too much though. He clawed his way up from car sales and low-wage retail to a very comfortable salary. He is of the opinion that only a lack of motivation and effort prevents people from accomplishing what he did employment-wise. Because of that, he's not very generous outside of spending money on limited creature comforts for himself and spoiling his grandchildren rotten.

I never knew how hard my parents struggles with money when I was growing up but their constant explanations of needs vs. wants really sunk in. I'm a bit of a tightwad like my dad and I do lot of research before making purchases to find a way to get as much quality as possible for less money. I hate big purchases all the same though. For instance, I asked my dad to help me pressure wash our small deck out back. He said that the deck is probably old enough to warrant replacing and I should go the extra mile and expand the deck like I've drawn up. Turns out, I'd rather hold onto my money and re-seal the small deck than shell out the money to realize my vision.

The difference between my dad and I is that through my own struggle (albeit less difficult than his), I came out the other side a more generous person. I'm still a tight-wad when it comes to spending money on myself but I'm not afraid to give to charitable organizations.

juliets wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2017 3:20 pm G-Man does this assume no income, like social security, pension and investment income?

I believe it is based off simply having a nest egg of $1 million in savings. The source of the article's information is another article, which doesn't specify how the nest egg is broken down. That does make it a bit more unwieldy to not factor other income sources. I think they're just using the old standard of "you need $1 million to live through your retirement." They do at least claim to have run their living expenses though annual cost of living indices to at least make it more realistic than dividing the $1M by current prices.

My state, Pennsylvania, certainly didn't fare well. They say the average life expectancy is 85 and the average age of retirement is 63, meaning you need to get at least 22 years out of your retirement funds to get by. PA came up a month short.

I've posted a few articles in this area before and I figured we might as well have a thread for it. We're all in different stages of life (age, marital status, etc.) and we have a very diverse set of personal experiences to draw from in regards to finance. I figure we might be able to use this thread as a place share our experiences and/or ask questions we may have. Money is one of those subjects that people try to avoid but I enjoy helping people with budgets and seeing the empowerment taking control of your finances brings.

Here's a neat article I found on CNBC today: How Long $1 Million Will Last In Retirement.

I know the knee-jerk reaction is "How many people can actually achieve that?" The answer is more than you might guess but it varies greatly based on where you live and what field you work in. Not all job markets are created equally.

In case you don't want to read the article, I've spoilered their estimates for all 50 US states (they did not include Washington D.C.).