• By Jerry Lynch, CFP, CLU, ChFC

    Posted on: July 21, 2011

     

    There has been a lot of buzz surrounding the infamous “Debt Ceiling” and why it is relevant and essential to us in our lives. I want to walk you through these issues and let you know why this is important to all of us.

    First, the national debt is more than $14.3 trillion dollars, which is more than our Gross Domestic Product (what we produce as a country). First, you need to understand what a trillion dollars is. A million seconds is 14 days. A billion seconds is 32 years. A trillion seconds is 32,000 years. They may sound very similar, but in actuality they are extremely different. This comes out to $46,000 for each of the 311,603,000 people in the U.S. The U.S. federal government is spending $4 billion a day, money of which we do not have, and this does not incorporate the debt by state and local governments.

    Financial planning 101 leverages the basic concept that you should spend less money than you bring in. There are certainly case-by-case situations where everyone has to dip into savings, but the real problem is that the U.S. government really does not have savings. On Aug. 2, we will no longer have the ability to borrow money legally and that is a huge concern. It could potentially shut down the government, raise enormous issues with regard to compensation of government employees, and literally spider its way through the U.S. economy. Thus it is evident that this predicted downfall, as it pertains to borrowing, can become our reality. We have to come up with a tangible solution before it’s too late.

    Now let’s take a look at our tax system basics. According to the Tax Policy Center, 47 percent of the U.S. population paid no income taxes in 2009. Also, in 2007, the top 400 super-rich families in the U.S., with an average income of $345 million, averaged a federal tax rate of 17 percent. To understand this, a family earning $70,000 is taxed at a marginal tax rate of 25 percent. This is a blatant illustration of the corruption that exists within the system. Almost half of the population is paying nothing yet still getting services, and the richest people in the U.S. pay a tax rate substantially less than the average citizen. A tax system needs to be fair, competitive with other nations, and give people an incentive to work and make more money.

    So many may be thinking what exactly the desirable solution is. I think it is a combination of two things. For one, taxes need to be fairer among each group to ensure each is paying a reasonable amount. I do not believe the 70 percent marginal tax rate that Ronald Regan started with is fair or reasonable, and I think that wealthy families need to pay more than 17 percent. Also, everyone needs to pay something and this even pertains to those at the lower income levels. Of course, their disbursement would be based on a lower threshold.

    Second, we need to cut spending in essentially every sector. Here are a few of the major areas of concern and my analysis of the impact they have on our society:

    •Social Security: This program was set up to pay people compensation at age 65. This was at a time when life expectancy was 64 years old. Now average life expectancy is in the mid-80s. The dilemma is that the program was never designed to pay people for almost 50 percent of their average working life. This needs to be changed as the times are changing.
    •Military: For 2012, we are spending $1 -$1.4 trillion in military costs, which will be more than 20 percent of the entire U.S. budget. In the book The Art of War by Sun Tzu, it is stated, “No country has ever been able to sustain long periods of war.” Sun Tzu writes, “Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.” For purposes of clarification, I will pronounce that I will always support our troops. I just think that if all congressmen had to have their kids serve in the military, the decisions to send troops would be a lot different than they currently are. Our perspective as a nation needs to encompass the bigger picture.
    •Social Services: This includes programs such as Medicaid. I have no issue giving someone a hand out when it’s genuinely needed, but I have a problem with people who refuse to help themselves. If someone is hurt and truthfully cannot work, as a society we need to help these people. To pay people who can work is incomprehensible and if nothing else, they should be enforced by law to do something to add value to our society. Otherwise, our economy will inevitably suffer as a consequence.
    •Foreign Spending: We spend a massive amount of money overseas, often in areas of the world that despise us or do not support us as a country. Is this the best use of our money and resources in every case? Ron Paul put our spending at more than $1 trillion dollars and that was verified by PolitiFact Truth-O-Meter. This is certainly a vital area of concern that must be re-evaluated from an economic standpoint.
    From the small individual to the government, all will encounter certain times when they have to look at their spending and evaluate if they are allocating their expenditures wisely. We cannot spend money that we do not have and every area of spending needs to be reviewed and justified as a realistic cost. A rational, good decision for the economy may still leave some people unhappy at the end of the day. However, as we all know you cannot please everybody, but a just system will attempt to make it as equal as possible for all.

    Any time I look at a client who is in financial trouble, the first thing I do is itemize expenses by cost and focus on the most expensive items first. Then, the focus shifts to how they can make more money and grow their wealth stream. For our economy as a whole, there needs to be a combination of changes to the tax system and a reduction of spending on a larger scale. We need to make some concrete choices where everyone is impacted as a collective, and the key is it needs to be fair and reasonable for all.

    Jerry Lynch is president of JFL Consulting and has more than 23 years in insurance and financial planning. He has been a regular guest on CNBC, WABC and does regular articles for the Star Ledger. He can be reached at jerry.lynch@jflconsultinginc.com.

  • Published: Sunday, July 10, 2011, 6:35 AM

    By Karin Price Mueller/The Star-Ledger The Star-Ledger

    If you can’t rein in spending, it doesn’t matter how much money you earn.

    Mark, 63, and Melissa, 59, have learned that the hard way. They owe more than they own, and despite an annual income of about $200,000, they can’t seem to stay current with their bills.

    They’re behind on their mortgage and they owe back taxes to the IRS. And that’s just the beginning.

    “It’s a ceaseless struggle of paying off our debts,” says Mark.

    Mark says they’d like to get current and stay current with their two mortgages, pay off more than $335,000 in student loans they took for their three grown children and pay off their credit card obligations.

    Despite the debt burden, the couple is still planning to spend more.

    “Repairs and improvements need to be made to our house over the next few years and, hopefully, the housing market will come back somewhat over that period,” Mark says. “We plan to sell, downsize and pay off as much debt as we can at that time. Retirement cannot come until we get to an affordable living situation.”

    Mark and Melissa, whose names have been changed, have $29,000 in a cash balance pension plan, $3,000 in a brokerage account and $3,000 in checking.

    Years ago, they cashed out Mark’s 401(k) plan when he had a salary reduction at work, and they never restarted the saving.

    The Star-Ledger asked Jerry Lynch, a certified financial planner with JFL Consulting in Fairfield, to help this couple take a look at their options.

    “Their combined income is about $200,000 and they are living paycheck to paycheck — if that,” Lynch says. “They have to make some hard choices if they want to get through this.”

    Lynch says Mark and Melissa need to aggressively cut their expenses and start saving.

    “We need to break this down to basics,” he says. “We really only need three things: food, shelter and water.”

    Mark and Melissa estimate their home is worth $575,000, and they have $478,000 of loans against it. But according to real estate price tracking website Zillow.com, the home is currently worth $465,000. That puts their home underwater — worth less than they owe on the home.

    Lynch says the couple may want to consider a short sale, which is when the bank agrees to accept a selling price that’s less than the mortgages are worth, and the bank takes a loss on the loan(s).

    Next, they need to address their credit card usage, and theirs have interest rates as high as 27 percent. Mark and Melissa simply have to stop adding to their debt.

    Lynch doesn’t recommend they cancel their credit cards, but instead take the cards, place them in a plastic bag, fill the bag with water and stick it in the freezer.

    “If they really need something, they can defrost the cards, take them out to pay and then stick them in the freezer again,” he says. “Generally the process of defrosting the credit cards gets the person to think, ‘Is this really necessary?’  ”

    Next, they should drastically cut back on their discretionary expenses, which include annual costs of $9,000 for vacations, $5,400 for snacks and meals out and $3,420 for house cleaning and lawn maintenance.

    “I am not saying that all these costs can be eliminated, but the reality is that radical steps are needed if they ever want to have the ability to retire,” Lynch says.

    If they want to pay off the student debt in 12 years when Mark is 75, they need to pay about $40,000 a year on the loans. Lynch says this means to pay the college debt alone, they need to earn about $60,000 before taxes.

    But even with cutbacks, that level of college loan payback may not be realistic, he says. The couple has expenses of about $15,000 a month. Even if they pare back spending by a third, or $5,000 a month — to cover the college loan payback — they still need funds to address the credit card bills and any notion of retirement saving.

    Lynch says when parents and college-bound children look at college, they need to see it as an investment and not a birthright. If you are making an investment, the first question should be if the investment is reasonable based on the expected return.

    For example, Lynch says, if your child is accepted to both Rutgers and a private school that costs $50,000 a year, you have to ask yourself if the private school is worth the extra $37,500 annually in costs for a commuter student, or the extra $26,500 for those who live on campus.

    “If your child thinks it is worth the additional cost, then their name should be on the student loans, not the parent,” he says. “The additional cost on a four-year college is over $140,000 per child. Unless your child makes it into an Ivy League school, generally it is not worth the additional cost.”

    The couple have other risks, too. If either of them gets hurt or sick and can’t work, or needs nursing home care (at a cost of $70,000 or more per year in New Jersey), Lynch says the entire plan falls apart.

    “I suggest that they speak to a bankruptcy attorney just to understand what their options are,” Lynch says. “They have a tremendous amount of debt at a period of time when they should not. Generally student loan debt is not canceled in bankruptcy, however, sometimes it is.”

    One thing that they have going for them is the longer they work, the larger their Social Security benefit will be.

    Lynch says if they retire at age 66, their combined monthly benefit is $3,600. If they wait until age 70, their benefit will be $4,900.

    Get With the Plan is designed to illuminate personal-finance concepts and isn’t a substitute for actual financial planning or dedicated professional advice. To participate, contact Karin Price Mueller at kmueller@starledger.com

    © 2011 NJ.com. All rights reserved.

  • Published: Sunday, June 19, 2011, 6:51 AM

      By Karin Price Mueller/The Star-Ledger The Star-Ledger

      Brian and Maya are in their mid 60s, but they’re not yet ready for retirement. After a failed business in the mid-1990s that ate into their savings and their financial     security, the couple has been playing catch-up.

    “We’d like a comfortable retirement with vacations,” says Brian, 67. “We also want to reduce college debt — debt reduction in general.”

    Brian and Maya, whose names have been changed, have saved $351,900 in 401(k) plans, $84,900 in IRAs, $16,000 in a brokerage account, $118,400 in mutual funds, $183,500 in a money market, $26,000 in savings and $5,500 in checking.

    Outside of their mortgage, their only debt is outstanding college loans for their grown children. Brian hopes to retire when he’s 75, and Maya, now 66, hopes to retire at 70.

    The Star-Ledger asked Jerry Lynch, a certified financial planner with JFL Consulting in Fairfield, to help Brian and Maya calculate when they’ll be ready to retire.

    “First and foremost, many of us over the past three years have experienced financial issues,” Lynch says. “This can be from a loss of a job, loss of income or as a business owner having to write checks to the business to keep it afloat.”

    Since Brian’s business went under, the couple have done a great job getting back on track and taking control of their financial future. They are currently saving about a third of their income, and Lynch says their target retirement dates are very realistic.

    One big area of concern that’s common for many couples is college education costs for children. Lynch says everyone wants the best for their kids, especially when it comes to education and preparing them to become adults. However, you always need to prioritize and be mindful of your resources, he says.

    “I can borrow money for college, but no bank in the U.S. will lend me money to retire,” he says. “Just like when you are on a plane and the flight attendant runs through their safety check, they always say, in the event of an emergency always put your mask on first and then help your kids. Same thing here.”

    Brian and Maya took college loans for their kids, but Lynch says he would have rather seen the children take the loans in their own names. Later, the parents could pay the loans if such payments would not push back their own retirement plans.

    In this couple’s case, their three children are financially secure and could afford to pay off their own college loans.

    “This is something that is extremely personal to many people, so even if my logic is very rational, many people still will tell me that they want to pay this expense, and that is fine, too,” he says. “It is all about choices.”

    While Brian and Maya seem to be on the right path to reach their retirement goals, there are several items that could throw them off: not receiving the targeted rates of return of 6 percent because of another market collapse; an illness or injury that prevents one of them from working, or savings being needed to pay for long-term care.

    The couple should look at their investments. They have about a third of their money in cash, which is safe but not a good long-term option, Lynch says. If they don’t need that much money in cash — probably earning less than 1 percent — they need to develop a strategy to keep ahead of inflation.

    For example, dividend stocks such as AT&T are paying a dividend rate of about 5.5 percent, he says, far more than what money market accounts are paying. Equally important, he says, qualified dividends are taxed at either zero percent or 15 percent.

    The couple should consider other options that make sense based on their risk tolerance, time frame, returns and tax benefits.

    Lynch isn’t happy with the couple’s mutual fund portfolio, which he says was recommended by a “financial salesperson.” The adviser sold the couple a portfolio of mutual funds that are all from the same fund family.

    “The funds selected have done worse than almost 75 percent of similar funds over the past five years and almost 90 percent of the funds over the past 10 years,” he says.
    “Anytime any adviser suggests that all or a majority of your funds be with one fund company, run as fast as you can.”

    Lynch says no one company is great at everything, and a good plan has diversification not just with regard to assets, but also with the fund companies.

    “This advisor is an example of what is wrong with the financial services industry,” he says. “Financial advisors are not held to a fiduciary standard where certified financial planners are. What this means to the consumer is if the investor specifically told me to do this exact same portfolio for them, I legally could not. It would simply be not acting in the best interest of the client and if I did this, I could be sued (and probably lose) or I would possibly lose my CFP designation.”

    To strengthen their plan, the couple should also think about long-term care insurance.

    The cost of such care — and long-term care insurance — is only going higher, Lynch says, so they need to consider their possible future needs and the cost and risk of self-insuring.

    Get With the Plan is designed to illuminate personal-finance concepts and isn’t a substitute for actual financial planning or dedicated professional advice. To participate, contact Karin Price Mueller at kmueller@starledger.com.

    © 2011 NJ.com. All rights reserved.

   

Recent Comments

  • Is the conference for Saturday, November 3rd, still happenin...
  • Publication 555 page 8 addresses the death of a spouse in a ...
  • I'd really be interested to know your authority for the stat...
  • Thank you for this very useful information.