So do I. Congratulations on realizing your need and setting out on this journey of learning about your money and how to work with it effectively. There are two basic issues ... one is your income and how to deal with it to make each of those dollars coming in work most effectively. The other is your asset base and how to manage it to make it grow well, working harder for you than for the other guys ... and avoiding having too much of snipped off by the purportedly big-deal managers to slip into their pockets. Better to learn what you're doing, over the years, and become your own manager! Pay yourself those fees that they charge (probably wise to deduct the cost of some of your mistakes, as you learn). In the investment group that I've attended monthly for about 7 years, we call them the tuition fees in the University of Learning How to Manage Your Own Money! I bought some equity-based mutual funds over 20 years ago, charging 2.5% of the value of the current asset value of the account, annually. When you multiply 2.5 by 20+ ... what do you get? 50% of the value of my asset, right? Is that the original asset amount? No - the creeping value of the asset as it grew, over time. I started a thread (I think over on KT) a couple of weeks ago asking whether people had ever seen stock certificates grow like rabbits! Had a person bought 1 share of JNJ at the beginning of 1970 (I'm using this for illustration, not suggesting that you should buy it, or not buy it) about how many shares would they think that they'd own, now? If you go to Yahoo->Finance and put JNJ in the "Get quotes" box at upper left, you'll get a page that shows a lot of info about current situation of the shares, including a chart at lower right of the stock price movements today. Clicking at a long-term period under that chart will show you share prices over your choice of various periods ... plus info about several stock splits - twice 3:1, and 4 times 2:1. What does that produce? 1->3->9->18->36->72->144 ... right? Price in 1970 $180./share (in dollars each of which was "worth" a lot more than each dollar is now). Current price about $63.00. That is, $180. grew to about $9,072. How do you like them apples? Not only that ... I read somewhere a while ago about a numberof stocks which had increased their dividend annually for 25 years ... I think JNJ has increased theirs annually for 40 years, if I'm not mistaken. Which adds some sugar to the applesauce, right? When did you ever hear of a Guaranteed Investment Certificate acting like that? Also wise for you to learn to deal with both income and assets in a tax-effective way. If you can reduce taxes now, often a good idea to do so, if the system at issue is useful in your case. Deferral is frequently a good idea, as well, when available. In Canada, a number of people look at the current rate on a GIC and at the rates paid by a stock, and say they like the interest rate better than the dividend rates usually offered. But when Canadians earn a dividend on a Canadian stock, the tax rate used to be lower, and last year the system of calculation changed to make it even lower again. I can't believe how many Canadians I've run into over the years who didn't know that! Quite often ignorance carries a substantial price. I think that I've said to thousands, over the years, that learning how money works is an interesting hobby ... **that pays well**!! (I've said it so often, around here, that I think that people must be getting sick of hearing it!) Not only that, if you put your dollars into a investment where their numbers are guaranteed not to shrink ... they're almost always guaranteed not to grow either. I bought a stock over 40 years ago for about $4. and change, which at that time paid about a (tax-advantaged) nickel or a dime. Over the years the value of that stock has gone up, down and sideways. I could have sold it last May for about $107. ... and it pays me an annual dividend now of $3.48. There's one catch - it has been doubly involved in the U.S. sub-prime mortgage debacle. The share price dropped to the $80.s, then recovered to near $100., then slipped back into the $80.s ... and in the past few weeks, as the sub-prime issue got more complex, far-reaching and distressng, the share price dropped down through the $70.s, into the $60.s, closing since the first of the year in the $60.s ... and I suspect that the dividend rate will likely be cut. Am I about to sell it? No. I paid $4.20 over 40 years ago, and if I sell now, I deduct the $4.20 amount that I paid from the current $68.20 or so, leaving me with $64.00 capital gain. I divide that by 2, leaving me with $32.00 on which I must pay tax at my usual rate (i.e., added to the top of my other income this year). But it does leave me with the other $32.00 realized free of tax. However, I'm getting close to 80 years of age (79 next Wed.) and my current tax bracket is lower that will be the case if I leave all of those assets intact till I kick the bucket - for then some of them will be taxed at lower rates, but after that's used, others will be taxed at higher rates until they get to the top rate, and my executor will have to pay that on some of those realized capital gains, then. Also ... since I have no spouse (to which the tax-deferred retirement account could be transferred, tax-free at the moment, to be added to her assets, to provide her with income and on her death to have the residue added to her income and taxed then, at whatever rate) they'll be added to my income in that year, as well. Likely taxed at top rate. I've thought of selling some of the stocks that I've held for years, in order to have the taxable portion of the capital gain taxed now, at my usual lower rate ... ... but if I do that, I have fewer dollars to re-invest, to go on not only growing, but adding to earnings in those years, until my demise. As it is, I add those $3,000. or so that I'm required to withdraw from my tax-deferred retirement account annually to my annual income. Do you think that I should follow the advice of some hot-shot financial advisors who tell how to get that payment out tax-free? Borrow $50,000. to invest it in a variety of stocks, using well over $100,000. (I wish!) of stock certificates as collateral, making it a fully secured line of credit, at interest of 6%, i.e $3,000. per year, using my $3,000. annual payout from my retirement account to pay the interest. My deal with the lender is that I pay interest only on the loan. As the loan is used for investment, the interest is deductible. As an old fart that doesn't want to take heavy risks, I invest in some quality Canadian stocks - paying about 3% interest, and as they are taxed at low rate, I have about 2.5% after-tax income, which in other circumstances I would use to help pay the interest on the loan. Suppose I'd borrowed that money 15 years ago, paying interest only through those years. If my Dad died and left me $50,000. as a legacy, and I took it to the bank to pay off the loan, how much would I owe them? That'd be $50,000., right? That would have bought a lot of good things, 15 years ago ... much more than now. I gained from inflation. Suppose you'd put $50,000. into the bank, 15 years ago, and the bank paid you the agreed upon rent on your money, in the years between ... and you went to collect the value of your GIC today ... how much would the bank give you? Right! Exactly $50,000. That would have bought a couple of good cars, 15 years ago ... not now. I gained from inflation ... you lost. Such strategies should be used with discretion, taking into account various possible scenarios, some of them quite unattractive, with the operator able to deal with them without serious inconvenience. I never want to see my friends get margin calls on such loans, unless they're able to meet the shortfall, whether with other assets ... or immediate cash. Good wishes for using both your income and assets increasingly skillfully! As you have further questions, feel free to ask. If some of them seem a bit too private for you to feel comfortable with discussing in this public place, I'm sure that several of us who have responded here would be pleased to offer you our opinions should you contact us privately. ole joyful

Am in my late 50's. We don't have longterm disability insurance. It's a real gamble. My dad died young, was cared for at home by my mom--no real expense there. My mother just died this past November at age 85--she was at Thanksgiving dinner with us one night, and gone the next. Long term disability? Nope--she was still living independently in her own apartment. Now, note that in her 40's she had a number of health issues--anyone guessing would probably have figured that she'd either have died early, or have been disabled for a long time, and needed a lot of care in later years. Fact is, other than her regular check ups, visits to the podiatrist to care for her feet, and having her cataracts operated on, Mom hadn't had any serious medical treatment for over 20 years when she died. My father-in-law went very quickly, too--at age 82. He was still working as a plumber in November, spent a couple of months in the hospital, then died the beg. of February. I'm not saying you should or shouldn't get the insurance--only you can decide if it's right for you. But to my way of thinking, I don't see all that many people in my life who actually need longterm care. Most seem to either go quickly, or be able to manage their needs anyway. And the insurance companies are banking on the fact that their scare tactics will get lots of people to sign up--many who will never make a claim. For example, I've got an aunt who has had earthquake insurance for many years--no matter to her that we live in an area of the country that has never had a major earthquake in anyone living's memory. But they were more than happy to sell her a policy. I think she also has flood insurance--but she lives on the 6th floor of an apartment building. We also don't get floods of any size around here. That would have to be some departure from the norm for her to collect! And what about the safety of investing in an insurance company? What if the company goes out of business in years to come? Or waht if the funds are mismanaged or depleted by embezzlement. There is a huge scandal in the country right now regarding pre-paid funerals. People paid ahead to make sure their wishes would be taken care of, and many of the funeral homes have stolen those funds and families are having to come up with money to pay the cost of a funeral twice--the second time at a much higher price. Personally (and I'm not telling you what to do)--I prefer to save and control my own money. I'm not a fan of allowing others to take my funds--as in prepaid funerals, extra insurance, IRA's, etc. I do have one small SEP account, but only because I had a year where I needed some serious deductions, and that one was a reasonable way of keeping a few more of my own dollars. It's important to me to have the freedom to invest as I choose, and to move my money from here to there, depending upon what the economy is doing. I've just known too many people who have relied on others to nurture their savings, and lost everything. My sister is a case in point--worked for over 30 years for one company, was up in corporate management when the company was sold and dessimated by a larger one. She had a GOOD pension plan--but the funds were stolen by the new management, and when the company folded, she got a measely, one-time payout of $16,000!

It depends on whether her retirement portfolio includes enough non-tax deferred investments (money that isn't in a traditional IRA or 401k) to pay of the principal. If so, it's probaby a reasonable thing t do. But if her regular savings fall more than a little short of 100K, that means she'll have to withdraw enough from the non-Roth 401k or IRA to pay off not only the mortgage balance, but also the income tax owing on the withdrawal., thereby depleting her principal by a lot more than 100K. Even worse, if the withdrawal is sizable, it would no doubt put her into a higher tax bracket for the year the withdrawal is made, So she'll wind up paying a lot more income taxes than she would otherwise, even further depleting her principal. Not good. I'd say wait untill the mortgage balance is low enough that she can comfortably pay it from her regular savings.

Jakkam said, "It should be noted that Lindsay's experience with CA state pensions is only relevant between her employer and her specific union. Different unions/employer agencies negotiate contracts that are usually similar, but NOT identical." Gee, my very first comment was, "In California State Service, the terms of the retirement pension can vary according to which bargaining unit covers your position, when you were hired, and what "Tier" you are in." (emphasis added) Did you somehow miss that? Jak went on to say, "Union workers should be aware that at least in CA, CalPERS does not fund any health benefits. All retiree healthcare is funded directly by the agency involved. If your employer has not bothered to set up a separate funding for retiree healthcare, you should contact your union rep and make this an issue - a BIG issue." Incorrect, or at the very least, incomplete. The funds for State employee and CSU employee retiree health care benefits come from the State's General Fund, as allocated by the Governor's Budget each year. Perhaps you are thinking of other public agencies such as city and county government agencies and School employees. In fact, the CalPERS site for Health Plans & Rates for retirees says on the link for Public Agency and School Retirees, "Contributions vary by employer. Contact your employer's personnel office to find out how much they contribute toward your health premium." Click on the link for State & CSU Retirees and you will see the following: "The state employer contribution amounts for 2017 are: "One-Party: $707 "Two-Party: $1,349 "Family: $1,727 " The only difference in the amount that State retirees receive towards their health insurance costs is governed by the length of time of their service. Different "hired by" dates have different vesting requirements to receive the full amount of the State's contribution: (1) If you were hired before January 1, 1985, you are entitled to 100% of the State's contribution; (2) If you were hired between January 1, 1985, and January 1, 1989, there is a 10-year vesting requirement. If you have 10 years of service when you retire, you will receive 100% of the State's health care contribution. For less than 10 years of service, the State's contribution is reduced by approximately 10% for each year of service less than the required 10; and (3) If you were hired after January 1, 1989, the length of time of your service determines what percentage you will receive of the State's contribution. Less than 10 years, you get 0%; at 10 years, you will receive 50%; with 11-19 years of service you will receive 50% of the State's contribution plus an additional 5% for each year over 10 years. If you have at least 20 years of service when you retire, you will receive 100% of the State's contribution. Four (4) bargaining units (6, 9. 10, and 12) now have a 25-year vesting requirement, with different hire dates. My husband and I both had well over the required number of years of service when we retired, so we do receive the full benefit. The amount is more than enough to cover our Medicare Plan B premiums, Medicare Plan B IRMAA premiums, and our PERSCare Blue Cross PPO Medicare Supplement Plan premiums. There is more than enough left over to also cover the cost of our Medicare Plan D IRMAA premiums (our Medicare Plan D is included in the PERSCare Medicare Supplement Plan), but California law does not provide for the reimbursement of Medicare Plan D IRMAA premiums. But the $26.60 per month is the only health care cost we have.