Oh, you came for the links? Ok, here is what I found this week:
What's with Gillette? It is a company Motley Fool says you can hold forever, the type of stock that belongs in your retirement portfolio. Many people are high on dividend investing--buying stocks that pay good dividends--as a way of investing. This article recommends some. If you want one dividend stock to hold forever, read this. Annuities are one of those things that people love to hate. However, I think they do have thier place and this explains why. Another thing people love to hate are hedge funds; the comments are an interesting part of this article.
Everyone has their favorite ways to consume content. I like reading blogs. Some folks are Twitter addicts; others like podcasts. If Twitter is your thing, here are some personal finance experts to follow. If you like podcasts, try this article. Still you need to make sure the advice you are getting is good; here is some bad advice, according to the author.
For most of us, Social Security will be our retirement base. This article talks about what you gain and don't gain my waiting to take different types of benefits. Want four strategies to increase your Social Security? Hopefully we will have a nest egg to draw on and this article from Forbes has some suggestions about how to handle your nest egg as retirement approaches. Motley Fool names twenty-eight things you should not do.
Over the years I have followed five or six suggestions from Motely Crew. None of them worked for me in the long run. Part of it is they love tobacco. I just won't invest in something I know is not good for people.
ReplyDeleteInteresting about SS and a disabled child. I am glad it is set up for them. I am a bit concerned with the growth of this group though. Here is an abstract from an article: http://www.nber.org/aging/drc/papers/odrc13-02. I am wondering if having the number of children being diagnosed will ultimately hurt all of them and collapse the system. I certainly was aware that some of the families I taught pushed to get their children into the system so they could have the extra income.
How we as a society will care for those who are unable to care for themselves is a real problem. At one time family-centered informal arrangements were the norm. The disabled (I'm talking mentally; the physically disabled didn't live long enough to be a problem) lived with their parents, or later, their siblings. They worked on the family farm, in the family business or for a friend of the family. Now our employment conditions are so regulated and the penalties so high for disregarding them, not to mention the liability issue, that letting your friend's handicapped adult child (or even your own) hang around your place of business, doing what s/he can to help for very low wages (because they aren't all that productive) isn't a viable option. Fewer people have siblings, and there is no guarantee that the siblings will stay in the community, or that they or their spouses will be willing to shoulder the burden of caring for a mildly handicapped sibling. Institutions are expensive, and for many, not really necessary. Today we use a hodge-podge of money from Social Security, SNAP and other pots of money with long waiting lists to cover the needs of handicapped adults.
DeleteRules designed to make sure the money goes to those who need it end up hurting those between rich and poor--or at least making them see lawyers. Who should support handicapped adults--their families or the state? Philosophically, I believe the family should, but I recognize that there are people who would find this difficult if not impossible, and what happens when the money runs out?