Hi again dolcemia, I am pleased that your husband has a retirement plan ... and that you have one, as well. At what age can you begin to draw on them? Usually they are set up to begin at age 65 ... can you choose to begin drawing before that? For example, in Canada, the Federal pension, to which we all contribute, which began over 40 years ago, intends to have us retire at 65, with full pension (if we made full rate of contributions ... which you don't, if you earn anything near minimum wage, meaning that low income hurts, even into retirement). If I choose to retire earlier, they won't allow me to do it before age 60, and for each 2 months that I retire before age 65, they reduce my pension by 1% ... which means 6% per year, and if I chose to retire at age 60, there would be a 30% reduction. On the other hand, if I choose not to retire until after age 65, I get a bonus of 1% for each 2 months extra that I work and contribute, 6% per year. Is your pension set up so that as inflation continues over the years, does the amount of your pension increase, as well? If there is a provision for it to increase due to inflation, it's almost certain that it won't increase at the same rate as the rate of inflation, but less ... which means that it won't cover as many expenses as the years go by as it would earlier. They call that a pension being indexed for inflation. Is your husband's pension indexed to inflation? ______________________ Do you owe money on credit cards, that you don't pay in full each month when the bill arrives? Is it/are they mainline cards, or cards issued by stores? Do you know what rate of interest that you pay on those unpaid balances? Usually on mainline cards it's about 15 - 18% annual rate. Usually on store-issued cards it's up around 25 - 28% annual rate. If I loaned you $100. and said that you owed me $25. per year for the use of it, would you consider me some kind of rascal? May I ask you a question ... have you heard the saying, "A penny saved is a penny earned"? Do you believe it? If you say that you agree, I'd like to disagree, in terms of much of the stuff that, when you buy, you might be able to save a dollar on the purchase. When you consider most of the stuff that you buy ... when you prepare your income tax, can you deduct the price of it as you calculate the amount of tax that you owe? For much of the goods that most of us buy ... the cost is not deductible. Which means that we have to buy it using money that we've already paid income tax on, i.e., after-tax money. Let's suppose that you could save $1.00 on a purchase that you make. If you're in 25% marginal tax rate (i.e. the rate of tax that you pay on your top dollar of income), that means that you have to earn $1.33 before-tax, then pay 33 cents tax, leaving yu with $1.00 in hand to go out to buy that item. So .. if you save $1.00 on the cost of the purchse ... you've saved $1.333 of extra earnings, right? Plus... if you pay that 28% on a store-issued credit card, most of the things that you bought when using it were not tax-deductible, right? Which means that, if you're in 25% income tax rate, you have to earn $36.00 pre-tax income, then pay the 25%, or $9.00 income tax, leaving you with $27.00 ... oh,oh ... not quite enough to pay that $28.00 owing. Drat!! When you buy a car (or do you lease) do you pay cash for it, or do you finance it? If finance, do you shop around to find the best rate of interest and terms? Are you a member of a credit union, or are there some in your area? Sometimes they offer lower rates, or better terms, than the usual market offers. Do you try to pay the loan off as soon as possible? I recommend that. Be sure to pay off the loan quite a while before you need to replace the car. Then keep putting away that amount of money (or nearly as much) each month, building a fund to enable you to make a far larger down payment on the next car. It would be best if you can pay the full cost in cash ... that lets you put the amount of interest into your own pocket that you'd been paying earlier to a lender. I like keeping my money in my jeans over paying others to borrow theirs. Do you have an emergency fund? That is, if you had no family income for 3 months (or, even better, 6 months ... or, better yet, a year) would you have anough money available that you would still be able to live fairly comfortably? It's important to have such an emergency fund, in case unexpected expenses crop up ... including if we get laid off from work, especially if permanently, as your husbnad is dealing with at the moment. I recommend learning how money works - it's an interesting hobby. And, know what? It pays well ... very well. As I said earlier .. pay off your store-issued credit card balances fully when they come in each month ... save yourself 35%. And that saving is ... guaranteed. Where else can you earn 35% on your money ... guaranteed!?!? Good wishes for making your money work harder for you than for the other fellers! ole joyful

If you just want a bigger deduction, you can borrow against the existing equity in your home. Just make sure that you expect an after tax return on the money you take out that is greater than the after tax cost of the loan. As for the optimum house cost, there is no easy answer. It depends on a lot of things. If you are someone that spends a lot of time at home, it's probably worth more. If you and your family are rarely there, you should spend less. Once you are getting the core financial things taken care of - adequate retirement savings, college savings, emergency reserves, and savings for expected major future expenses, I think you should do whatever you want with the rest of your money. If having a more expensive house is worth more to you than having better cars, better vacations, better stuff, more money saved, or whatever else you'd do with the money, then get a more expensive house. Personally, I find that people that underspend on houses, cars, and stuff, tend to be happier because they are less stressed about money.

i agree with you conceptually about only investing in thing you believe in, or rather in things you can stomach as most investments and industries have a downside if you look hard enough. eventually you get to exploited workers and poisoned rivers and solid waste. i personally struggled with the payday investment i made. the return was high, but i did not want to be associated with it. i said no for about 6 months. over that six months i learned how they (where my money is now) did business. after i understood it i had a hard time thinking of it any differently than a bank. they both loan money based on ones ability to earn money and pay it back. the only difference is the duration and the size of the loan. a bank allows me to spend money i don't have on a credit card and then charges me 13-18% until i pay them back while they themselves are leveraged 10 to 1 on those dollars loaned. the payday place will only loan me money that will be covered in my NEXT paycheck and charge me a flat fee of $5 or $10 while they themselves have a dollar for every dollar they loan out. when i look at it like that i really had no problem with the payday place, but started to have them with the banks. the payday places are not dragging the economy down because of their recklessness. they are also not enslaving an entire generation by offering them credit they cannot pay back. there are people who use them recklessly, and it is real easy to point them out because they are the fringe. it is a little harder to point out the middle class suburbanite who is a slave to their credit card and bank because they get up and go to work each day and keep a nice yard but are living on credit. both industries lend money and both are technically guilty of charging people who don't have money. they are in business to make money, not give it away. in the end neither is good nor bad just as fire is neither good nor bad. the good or bad all depends on who uses it and how they use it. the payday places service a far less afluent and unsophisticated clientele and therefore gives them very little wiggle room to abuse the system. if they want to stay one paycheck behind for the rest of their lives, that is about all they can do. the bank will let me get decades behind because they assume i am responsible and won't let it come to that but do little to stop me and recently have even encouraged me to do so. in my mind it is a match compared to the bonfire. both can be abused, but the potential abuse of a credit card is far greater. but there may be other payday places that have different policies than where i invested. mind you i don't have equity in the payday place�"they borrowed money from me to lend. in short my money is on deposit to be lent out just as if i put it in a savings account for the bank to lend out on a credit card loan. the main difference is my rate of return is almost 10 times higher but not FDIC insured. the only thing i do struggle with is the 10% they charge for cashing checks. this is outrageous in my opinion. i can't understand why anybody would do that unless they were unable to cash it elsewhere and i won't speculate as to why. but in the end they have their reason and are paying a premium for it. and with that i leave it. cigarettes are another issue and i am totally with you. i feel the same way about other products as well most are not as overtly damaging, but their products do carry liability and they push them with abandon to those who are hurt by them. not just talking guns and alcohol. a few minutes watching saturday morning cartoons was an eyeopener to the type of products marketed to kids. slap a mcdonald's logo on a bucket of mud and i think my kids would want to eat it. a friend of mine who is militant about his hate for phillip-morris and smoking in general (i think he lost a parent to lung cancer) holds half his portfolio in tobacco stocks. he justification was that it "those people" are going to annoy him with their smoke and take his taxes in healthcare, they are going to pay him for it. an interesting take on moral investing practices, but for him it makes sense. i respect your desire to not follow my practice of investing in payday lending. we not only have to undderstand our investments, but repect if not love them. i do not love payday lending, and to be honest would rather be elsewhere, but for the time being it is a good place and i am no so morally apposed to money lending as to not take the opportunity. i do however own no bank stocks for obvious reasons, i think their model is risky. i also think they are on the more unethical side of business. they have laws and loopholes that allow them to do things that are illegal to any other company. id it because we need their services and that is what it takes, or is it because they have power to influence if not make laws that favor them? i think recent events have shown us it is a little of both. before i sound too anti-establishment, let me say i think financial institutions are important and necessary�"ie. banks, insurance companies, the US government, the FED, and even payday lenders. BUT they are in busniness to make themselves rich, not us. if you do not understand what they are doing, how they make money, or worse, what you are doing, they will take advantage of you. thus education. it is through education that you can see the smoke and mirrors they use to make you feel good about making them rich at your expense. one of the most ubiquitous is the home mortgage. i am emphatic that the most expensive ways to buy a house are in this order; cash, paid off early mortgage, continually refinanced mortgage, a 15-year note, a 30-year note, ARM, variable rate, interest only, and deferred interest-AKA sub-prime being the cheapest. that said, i don't like differed interest as it assumes the risk in the real estate market and if used by the uneducated or irresponsible it can (and has) blown up in the borrowers face. what does the bank want you to do? they love you to take out a 30 year and refinance every few years or pay it off early. if you are going to take it to term, they prefer you take out a 15-year because it makes them more money and that is why they have a cheaper rate to take it�"they need to give you incentive to do what benefits them and think you are getting the better end of the deal�"if it makes them more money, how can it also save you money and show up in two places at once? this all sounds like hericy i know. but where do we get our financial education from? our bank? alan greenspan has a nice quote about the variable interest only mortgage being the best deal out there if people only knew how to use it and the 30 year not serving its customers as the think. i will see if i can find it. the mortgage subject was perhaps the most eye-opening and influential education i ever had in finance. it is the lesson that taught me to see the whole equation and not look at a financial strategy in a vacuum. it taught me to understand finance on a macro economic level to understand how to best use products on a micro economic level. it is painful and feels like you brain is removed and turned around and put back in. but i assure you it is all true and useful information, but it requires the user to be responsible for their financial life and some are not willing to do this and for them it is not wise to have control. just as fire in the hands a of one is destructive and to another the opposite. what i am talking about is basic business finance�"in short figuring out the lost opportunity cost and the taking the greatest margin. if done properly with understanding risk is minimized and growth is maximized. some will refuse to believe, but that does not prove those strategies wrong. i myself do not practice whole-heartedly all the strategies i know an believe because of issues regarding timing, my own laziness or whatever. this does not mean i don't acknowledge their strengths or potential. but it serves me to understand alternatives. there are many i have encountered on this forum and in other places who flat out throw up a wall and won't even try to understand that there are several strategies to use in every situation and they all have merits. my beef is with those who claim merits that are not truly there or ignore others. those who emotionally attach themselves to dogma that was sold to them without trying to understand. i have been guilty of this and still am at times and it only hurts myself. when i have a few hours to spend with a calculator, i will start a new thread and actually run the numbers on the most popular mortgage products side-by-side including paying cash. i will treat all as equals. it is amazing how different the outcome is from popular beliefs, but if you look at who is selling the mortgages and the information i guess it is not shocking. it won't prove anything other than which is the most expensive in terms of money and what risks are inherent in each scenario. the individual would have to choose which is best for them. the problem is that most choose the wrong thing for what they claim to want. if you know how they each work you can choose more appropriately for your goals whatever they may be.

Hi billl, Just a note on "principal-guaranteed" products. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Of further note; COMPLETELY agreed. HOWEVER, there ARE currently principal-guaranteed products that are both significantly cheaper, safer, and better in performance than the alternatives in non-guaranteed securities (money market accounts, CDs, managed investment accounts and index mutual funds.) You can't get high guaranteed returns and no risk. Unfortunately, we can't have "no" risk anywhere, actually... but the exposures to risk *CAN* be dramatically reduced by proper reserves management by the firms, and conservative hedging. These are individual companies "guaranteeing" their products. That brings its own level of risk that isn't easily quantified. Pretty easily evidenced though... all one has to do is look at the historical track record of the firm offering the gaurantees (and especially in comparison to the non-guarantee security firms... if there are any that have remained in business long enough to have a history to compare.) The principal safety track records of insurance deposits are equal (if not better) than the track records of the FDIC & NCUA ('better' in the manner that the insurance deposits are guaranteed at much higher balances... up to twice as much as FDIC in some states... and the rate of failures of the insurance companies themselves is virtually zero in comparison to the banks & securities firms that have been dropping like flies.) The overall investment is ultimately only as "safe" as the underlying investments (ie stock market) even if there are multiple levels before it gets to the final investor. The risk is only being spread, not eliminated. Dead on! Risks exist, always, and need to be properly avoided. Risks that are competently managed so well that firms can offer principal-guarantees, and show a track record (often of CENTURIES) of never defaulting on their guarantees... that works! The non-guarantee security (stocks, mutual funds, bonds, notes, etc.) world *COULD* cobble together a complex structured offering that might come close to the safety and tax efficiency... but the internal expenses would be so high it would destroy any chance of competitive returns. I used to run a hedge fund that offered a principal-guarantee to our partners (just like the insurance companies do.) I discovered its too expensive to try to beat the insurance world at its own game *UNLESS* you accumulate enough in assets to actually BECOME insurance-regulated as a carrier (and can then offer tax-free status ALONG WITH the principal guarantees.) In addition, its always been illegal for your common stockbroker to guarantee principal (or guarantee *anything* really... but to take your money,) and with financial regulation of hedge funds its not even legal today to offer the kinds of guarantees we used to ON A PRIVATE basis. If the regulatory world shifts to make it plausible for non-insurance managed accounts to beat fixed-indexed resetting accounts, I'll fire up a new securities division immediately... but I am definitely NOT holding my breath on that. It *ALL* boils down to; A) who carries the deepest reserves (so they can always honor their guarantees,) B) who manages risks the best (so they can outperform the other guarantors.) Of course, the tax-free growth & access adds nicely to the benefits. Cheers, Dave Donhoff Leverage Planner