A reader asked me about the name of the article and the author. I have searched for it and even called in Jeffchristie, blog super-sleuth, to help. Neither of us have been able to find it. I wish that Bob Brinker would have given more information about it.
Here is a transcript of what Brinker said:
Moneytalk, November 6, 2011: Bob said: "There's a new study from Boston University. And it talks about the amount the amount of time that you have to save to reach your retirement objectives. If you start young at 25 years of age and work until the age of 70, that's a 45 year time horizon in order to get from 25 to 70.....If you start later on, say around 45 and you decide to hang up up at 62 -- you take short leash, the 17-year saving and investing leash, you have to save and invest ten times more money than the person that starts at 25 and saves and invests out to the age of 70. Think about it.
And by the way, the annual rates of return that were presumed in the Boston University study, very reasonable annual rates of return to achieve -- only 4%.....So you start at 25, you go out and save and invest, before you start taking it all the way out to age 70 -- versus somebody starting at 45, retiring early at 62, that early retiree has to save and invest ten times more than the person that started young in that example.
So I think there's a lesson to be learned there. It's a lesson we've discussed on our broadcast many years, going all the way back to Super Bowl Sunday 1986. And that lesson is, there is great value for you in moving forward on a saving and investment program as early as you can get started. I'm not saying you have to get started when you're a yon-teen, or something like that. But certainly mid-20's is a reasonable goal for you to get started.
Also on our broadcast we've talked for close to 26 years about how much you should use as a minimum saving vehicle. And that number that we've always talked about is 10% -- minimal....In this day and age with the various programs that are available in ta- advantaged accounts, it's easier than ever for you to do this, because you can do it through 401K's, 403B's -- take the money off the top. Pre-tax money going in there. Remove that money from the tax-man's grasp up front and then invest it tax-advantaged all the way out to your retirement years. It's a terrific way for you to do it."
16 comments:
Here you go Joe, that's an article from Boston College, jeff c. couldn't seem to find the article so you might share with him if you two ever cross paths...
..."Two messages stand out. First, starting to save at age 25, rather than age 45, cuts the required saving rate by about two thirds. Second, delaying retirement from age 62 to age 70 also reduces the required saving rate by about two thirds. As a result, the individual who starts at 25 and retires at 70 needs to save only 7 percent of earnings to achieve an 80-percent replacement rate at retirement, roughly one tenth of the rate required of an individual who starts at 45 and retires at 62 – an impossible 65 percent.8 But note that even that individual who starts at 45 has a plausible 18 percent required saving rate if he postpones retirement to age 70...."
http://crr.bc.edu/images/stories/Briefs/IB_11-13.pdf
onthehouse
It's official, the federal gov't has figured out a way to tax Christmas with a 15 cent per tree tax on sellers of 500 trees or more. (Real ones not fake).
The money goes to some commodity promotion effort to enhance the use of Christmas trees. Federal law allows agricultural based industries to assess themselves for marketing/promotion purposes. Probably the best known example is the "Got Milk" advertising by the dairy industry.
The article cited blames Obama, but this could have happened under any administration.
I guess my tree will cost $10.15 this year.
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/11/08/obama-couldnt-wait-his-new-christmas-tree-tax/
-- Frankj
Thanks Gronieel, I mean anonymous. I thought there would be a lot of interest in the article when I mentioned it on Moneytalk Sunday.
Yelvingtonn
Thanks Frank:
"President Obama’s Agriculture Department today announced that it will impose a new 15-cent charge on all fresh Christmas trees—the Christmas Tree Tax—to support a new Federal program to improve the image and marketing of Christmas trees."
Honey sez: Oh, pullleeeeeze. The Christmas tree has done just fine without the Federal government's help for centuries! What a crock of bull!
The Christmas Tree is NOT doing ok, it's getting killed by artificial trees. The growers wanted this 15 cent fee.
The Chicago Tribune notes that the industry will impose the tax on itself to raise $2 million to promote the sales of its products.
Akin to similar programs that promote milk, beef and cotton, the Christmas tree program will impose on U.S. domestic producers and importers an initial fee of 15 cents per tree.
A 12-member board will direct the money to generic ads and other promotions, as well as research. The promotions, according to the USDA, will present “a favorable image of Christmas trees to the general public,” with the intent of improving the public “perception” of Christmas trees and, hence, their sales.
Growers in most states wanted the tax. Those in Texas and Vermont were against it, the Chicago newspaper notes.
After three years, growers and importers will decide whether to continue the tax.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitic....-wing-outra ge/
Elf
Obama just called off the Christmas tree tax.
El Rushbo speaks, the White House listens. ROFLOL!
Frankj:
Just in, the White House has delayed the "Christmas Tree Tax."
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/obama-administration-to-delay-new-15-cent-christmas-tree-fee/
You cannot make this stuff up!
"The Christmas Tree is NOT doing ok, it's getting killed by artificial trees."
Well, a 15 cent tax on real trees isn't going to help promote them. How about a $50 tax on artificial trees? That should do the trick!
I sure hope no one here owns GMCR. Yikes! As Bob Brinker, the second, said on twitter: It's getting roasted. LOL!
GMCR Yahoo Finance
Dan!!
SHHHHHH.....Don't give them any ideas. LOL!
This was a rough day in the market, huh?
"This was a rough day in the market, huh?"
One of the worst, if not THE worst, I've ever had. Ouch!
But thankfully we are recovering a bit this morning.
I got an email from "Kirk Lindstrom's Investment Letter" It looked kind of interesting - I printed it off to look at later - Didn't he use to use this site? Anyone here know anything about his letter or does anyone get it - please tell me what you know? Thanks
Bupee
Bupee,
I don't know what you mean when you asked if Kirk "used to use" this site, but no, Kirk has never "used" this site.
It is solely my site. However, Kirk sometimes posts comments here and I sometimes quote him.
As for your question about his newsletter, I have no knowledge of it.
I do read The Retirement Advisor that he and David Korn publish. I highly recommend it!
The Retirement Advisor is far-and-away superior to the one that Bob Brinker (the jr one) and his wife, the linguist, publish.
After watching what seemed like the 35th Republican debate last night, Romney appears to have the nomination. But with the conservative wing uneasy with his ascent, I will repeat a plea written here a while back.
HONEYBEE IN 2012
It's not too late for the erudite host of this blog to throw her hat in the ring and give the GOP a real choice for leadership and guiding Congress toward fiscal responsibility. As luck would have it, I have access to thousands of unused buttons and stickers from the last Presidential election. Just a matter of changing four letters on each item. That's right, from the Huckabee camp.
The country needs you, Honey. Think of your nation, think of four more Obama years, think of three government departments you would like to eliminate.
You would remember them in a debate.
I'll go door to door for signatures. Honey Bee for President, finally we will have someone with a pair holding office. :)
tfb
Birdbrain and TFB,
Be careful what you wish for, you might get it. LOL!!!!
Post a Comment