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

I agree that very few of them beat the averages ... how could they? They have offices to run, computers, phones, postage and staff ... and buy and sell a lot of stocks, and though their fees are low, many of them pretty well turn over their whole portfolio annually. Those that do that ... have a lot of capital gain to report to you (you hope!) annually ... of which the income tax people want their, in that case, ongoing, share. And they have that management expense fee (often higher than the income tax cost) that reduces their effective rate - and they get their guaranteed rate, whether they produce or not! Also - when it comes time to sell those units, you'd better have kept records of not just your original cost ... but also of all of those declared payouts that were reivested, in order to calculate your capital gain. Many mutual funds keep track of your average cost per unit ... that works O.K. ... until they get bought out/merged, etc. and usually the new system just starts from when they took over. Have you checked Morningstar, the agency that rates them? What about learning how money works and buying individual stocks yourself? I bought shares in one of Canada's half dozen or so nationwide banks over 40 years ago for about $4.20 per share, that was paying about a dime or a bit more as annual dividend. A year ago May each of those shares was "worth" (i.e. "could be sold for") $107.00 ... but they were heavily involved with the U.S. stinky problem mortgage situation, so their price slipped down through the 90s, 80s, 70s, 60s into the 50s ... and have recovered a bit to low 60s. Some here recently said that, of course, I sold ... no, I hadn't. Partly, at the time of the high price, didn't have any idea that it would slide so far ... plus, it went from 4.5 doubles in 41 years to about 4 doubles in those years ... which, apart from the increased income via dividends over those 40 years, is a pretty good rate of growth. But if I were about to buy more bank shares, it'd be a different one, as this is not their first goof in recent years. Recently dividend rate grew from $2.80 to $3.08 to $3.48, which earlier in Canada were tax-advantaged, and recently that advantage increased substantially: so that a person with solely that kind of income went from tax-free $28,000. - 30,000. tax-free, to $46,345. tax-free, an increase of over 60% in one year. Further ... I've subscribed to what I consider Canada's best personal money management magazine for quite a number of years, that carries no ads, is pretty well all text - and the writers respond to subscribers' questions. Local subscribers meet regularly in about 40 places across Canada and I've met with about 20 others monthly here for about 8 years or so: many perspectives and I've learned a lot, there. Cost? Gas to get there, wear and tear on the car - plus, time ... a couple of hours a month, and another at the coffee house after, with a few of the guys and gals. If I'd put that $4.20 into the average even equity-based mutual fund 41 years ago, would the size of that asset have doubled that well? Rather doubtful, I think. A couple of mine have - several haven't. But I don't want to dump 'em this year, due to forced sale of a major holding - Canada's largest telco going private (damn it!). And that's with the income reinvested - and my shares paid me dividends quarterly, with frequent increases, for 41 years. However - the big proviso - the average growth rate has not been that good. I've avoided some taxes as I went along, but that piper will have to be paid, one of these days. Whether while I'm alive ... or for my executor to take care of, before dispersal of my estate to my kids and charities. Had I put that $4.20 into a bank account, GIC, bond, etc. where the number of dollars of principal has been guaranteed, would I have developed any such result? No way! Apart altogether from the tax advantages in the equity-based game (whether of the mutual fund or individual investment variety)! Did I say earlier ... that I prefer to run my own show? Further ... though it was 60 years ago, I grew up on a farm, and farmers are used to irregular income, with loss of some potential income when a cow dies, or reduced yields due to drought or flood (but the price of diesel fuel, fertilizer had to be paid, regardless). And seasonal income, for many. How many town folks could handle getting paid once or twice a year? Plus, they manipulate not only capital, but labour - to repair the tractor, or trade it on a bigger one? Which would require getting bigger tillage equipment, as well. Put a new roof on the barn, this year ... or build it larger? Farmers were much more used to uncertainty than city folks. Or, rather, than city folks used to be. Now, with pensions shrinking and disappearing like fog in the morning sun ... and, in many areas, the values of one's equity in one's owned home (well, "partly-owned", considering the mortgage), and with employment being uncertain, with full-time work scarcer, there have been major changes in the economic picture for city folks, as well. Back up and look at the far horizon ... occasionally, at least. Good wishes for increasingly more effective use of not only your income, but of your assets, as well. ole joyful

Greetings again, folks, And when did you ever see a G I C ... ... produce any growth? The only return that they'll produce ... is produced now ... and taxed now ... at top rate. The stock that I bought 45 years ago for about $4.20 or so was paying about 10 - 12 cents annual dividend ... which was taxed then at low rate, plus for the latest six years at an even lower rate. In June of '07, when I could have sold it for $107.00, it was paying me $3.08 per year, at that even lower tax rate than earlier, and the annual payment increased to $3.48 later that year. Their involvement with the U.S. financial fiasco resulted in the price of the stock sslliding tto $40.00 - but they maintained the dividend at $3.48. The price has recovered to about $75.00 now ... and they recently increased the dividend to $3.60. That current income is taxed at a much lower rate than interest that I might earn. And I haven't had to talk to the income tax people about the increase in value of the asset, during all of those years. I don't have to report to the income tax people until I either sell the stock ... or die ... neither of which I plan to do, this week or next. When I sell the stock, I deduct the $4.20 that I paid from the, e.g. $74.20? proceeds of sale, to produce a capital gain of $70.00 ... and I pay tax at regular rate on half of that amount. But not until I sell, or die - nothing till then. However - if I transfer the stock to a charity, I get a tax-deductible receipt for the full amount - and I pay no income tax on that increase. And didn't pay about 2.5% of the value annually to a management company, as I'd have to with a mutual fund. You figure it: 45 years at 2.5% of the ongoing value of the fund ... comes out to about 112.5%, doesn't it? No wonder few mutual funds grow faster than the segment of the market in which the manager operates! Looks like a good deal, to me. ole joyful

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.