Good Grief, the government is in the car business! Obama stressed that they took 60% of GM simply to bail them out, but I find it difficult to believe the government will be able to keep their grubby paws out of the car makers business when and if they finally emerge from bankruptcy. Obama stated further the government would only be involved in the "most critical" decisions...which to many translated dictating what kind of cars they make to meet his greenhouse gas emissions mandates. Socialism and a bailout all rolled into one. Pretty neat package at the taxpayers expenses. Oh yeah, one more thing, Obama stated that the predictors were wrong in thinking the car business would "fall off the cliff" and Chrysler sold more cars in May than they did in April. DUH. Of course they did...they cut the prices by ten to fifteen thousand dollars on some models, and had to liquidate inventory by June 9 as dealerships were told they lost their dealership franchises with Chrysler. Plus, some dealers purchased vehicles from other dealers at below invoice prices to beef up inventory in markets where they were able to move vehicles. What the hell is this guy thinking? Does he think we're too stupid to see the spin?
For those who thought the Democrats were going to save America, you were sadly deluded. They will sink the country with their free spending, just as they have California. Yes, California has a Republican governor but he has been unable to bridle the run away spending of the Democrat controlled legislature and look at the mess we're in. A state that will again run out of money by July and that held up Tax refunds this year because there was no money to pay them. A state that throws billions at welfare and illegal immigration costs and cuts education and mental health benefits for the most needy.
And, the Democrats in Washington will do the same. Spend every penny they can print and watch while the country sinks so far into debt we'll never get out. Did anyone notice that the personal savings rate went up for the first time in 14 years? That's because people are scared of what's coming, and squirreling away cash as best they can to prepare for the future. When Washington talks about playing with Social Security and Medicare, and is silent on welfare, that speaks volumes about where the administration is coming from. People who earned the money and placed it into a trust with the government will likely get screwed, as those who put zip into anything continue to enjoy a free ride on the taxpayer and the backs of the retired.
What happened to Social Security? Why is it being drained so fast? The government neatly blames all those retiring due to the recession and not enough going into the plan. But what about all the borrowing from the plan that took place over the years? What about the movement of money from and to Social Security that wasn't repaid with adequate interest? Why didn't the government act to increase the Social Security tax gradually over the years to accommodate retirement potentials and only use the money for retirees?
What about the millions or tens of millions of Form 1011 charges for illegal aliens that are charged to Medicare annually to drain a separate portion of the fund? Why should the illegals get free care and then the Americans be told their Medicare is on the verge of collapse? Go to another country illegally and see how good your health care is. Wait, go to another country legally and see if you get free health care. Not only no, but hell, no! Looks like their politicians have more brains than ours do. We're not talking about emergency, absolutely needed care either. We're talking about every little damned thing that you can show up at the ER for. Just be illegal and you're home free. And the taxpayer is paying for it.
Sad
Showing posts with label Retirement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Retirement. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Your Bank or Credit Union May be Lying to You
Did you roll your retirement account over from your workplace to your favorite bank or credit union to a retirement account? Do you have an IRA or Keough account at your bank or credit union? Is the amount in excess of $250,000? If so, did you know that the amount over $250,000 is not insured by either the FDIC or, in the case of credit unions, the NCUA?
No, it does NOT matter if you have your spouses name on the account as community property or with right of survivorship, nor how many beneficiaries are named on the account. According to the Federal insurers of these institutions, all retirement accounts have one thing in common and that is they have a $250,000 insured limit per person per institution. Period. End of story. You also have a limit of $100,000 per account you might have in the institution, so savings can be insured separately as can be checking, etc, but NOT retirement accounts. However, you can have a retirement account into which you contributed separately, as can your spouse and each will be insured separately up to the $250K amount, providing each is a fully separate account.
So, if you, personally, have three retirement accounts, and each has $150,000 in it, you stand to lose $200,000 if your bank or credit union folds. If you have one account and it has $500,000 in it you stand to lose $250,000 in one fell swoop in the same scenario. Not likely, but given the present economy, who wants to take that chance. My suggestion is to diversify and move money to credit unions or banks where the money will be insured. You might not make as much interest at another bank, but losing a few dollars in interest isn't nearly as bad as losing your lifes' savings!
I'm writing this because I have been misinformed, and I believe downright deceived, by people who are not the brightest bulbs on the tree at the San Diego County Credit Union. As late as yesterday, I was informed that accounts were covered fully and that the number of beneficiaries on the account increased the insurance on the account, so if you have four beneficiaries, you would automatically increase the insurance by $400K plus the amount already available to husband and spouse of $100K each for a total of $600K. HUH? None of that applies to anything, but it sure must have sounded good coming out of the storyteller at SDCCU so she went on to tell me more amazing stories to try and convince me all was fine in credit union land.
When I told her she was wrong and needed to get her facts straight, she finally went to ask a supervisor and returned agreeing reluctantly that I was correct; $250K is the limit. But then went on to tell me even though the money is uninsured and I could potentially lose it, the credit union is doing so well and has never had financial troubles. Wait a minute...this is MY Money and it's uninsured! People at Indymac bank might have heard the same thing and they're sitting without a bunch of their life's savings now!
Just as a side note, this same institution has been telling me for two years that the limit didn't apply to IRA's. It's a shame you have to get on the Internet, and research and print out materials to take to the bank to educate them about their job, to avoid being sacrificed in the event of a meltdown. What the hell happened to professionalism and knowledge in the banking industry where you could get a straight answer? Remember the saying "You can take that to the bank"? or "You can bank on it"? Better not use that one any more.
I am not assuming Chicken Little's position and screaming that the sky is falling. Far from it; I believe our financial system is secure. However, why would anyone want to keep their money in an institution where it is not insured? That's like buying a car and insuring it for half it's value and after the wreck only having the chassis but no engine because the insurance doesn't cover it all. Or buying a house and then insuring it for only part of it's value, like house insurance that doesn't cover the roof; after the loss you get great walls, carpet and furniture but no roof or ceilings.
In my humble opinion, unless you are willing to lose, you take precautionary steps to secure. Seems to work in combat as in finance. The stakes just are different.
No, it does NOT matter if you have your spouses name on the account as community property or with right of survivorship, nor how many beneficiaries are named on the account. According to the Federal insurers of these institutions, all retirement accounts have one thing in common and that is they have a $250,000 insured limit per person per institution. Period. End of story. You also have a limit of $100,000 per account you might have in the institution, so savings can be insured separately as can be checking, etc, but NOT retirement accounts. However, you can have a retirement account into which you contributed separately, as can your spouse and each will be insured separately up to the $250K amount, providing each is a fully separate account.
So, if you, personally, have three retirement accounts, and each has $150,000 in it, you stand to lose $200,000 if your bank or credit union folds. If you have one account and it has $500,000 in it you stand to lose $250,000 in one fell swoop in the same scenario. Not likely, but given the present economy, who wants to take that chance. My suggestion is to diversify and move money to credit unions or banks where the money will be insured. You might not make as much interest at another bank, but losing a few dollars in interest isn't nearly as bad as losing your lifes' savings!
I'm writing this because I have been misinformed, and I believe downright deceived, by people who are not the brightest bulbs on the tree at the San Diego County Credit Union. As late as yesterday, I was informed that accounts were covered fully and that the number of beneficiaries on the account increased the insurance on the account, so if you have four beneficiaries, you would automatically increase the insurance by $400K plus the amount already available to husband and spouse of $100K each for a total of $600K. HUH? None of that applies to anything, but it sure must have sounded good coming out of the storyteller at SDCCU so she went on to tell me more amazing stories to try and convince me all was fine in credit union land.
When I told her she was wrong and needed to get her facts straight, she finally went to ask a supervisor and returned agreeing reluctantly that I was correct; $250K is the limit. But then went on to tell me even though the money is uninsured and I could potentially lose it, the credit union is doing so well and has never had financial troubles. Wait a minute...this is MY Money and it's uninsured! People at Indymac bank might have heard the same thing and they're sitting without a bunch of their life's savings now!
Just as a side note, this same institution has been telling me for two years that the limit didn't apply to IRA's. It's a shame you have to get on the Internet, and research and print out materials to take to the bank to educate them about their job, to avoid being sacrificed in the event of a meltdown. What the hell happened to professionalism and knowledge in the banking industry where you could get a straight answer? Remember the saying "You can take that to the bank"? or "You can bank on it"? Better not use that one any more.
I am not assuming Chicken Little's position and screaming that the sky is falling. Far from it; I believe our financial system is secure. However, why would anyone want to keep their money in an institution where it is not insured? That's like buying a car and insuring it for half it's value and after the wreck only having the chassis but no engine because the insurance doesn't cover it all. Or buying a house and then insuring it for only part of it's value, like house insurance that doesn't cover the roof; after the loss you get great walls, carpet and furniture but no roof or ceilings.
In my humble opinion, unless you are willing to lose, you take precautionary steps to secure. Seems to work in combat as in finance. The stakes just are different.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)