intercst showed the math on his website. There was a real benefit and it likely was much higher than 1% for me.I didn't say the benefit was only 1%. I said that much fewer than 1% of the people could benefit from it.I saw his math, and I went over the numbers. IIRC, the original article was titled "Where can a 70-year-old buy the least expensive life annuity". When you work thru the numbers rigorously, that is just about the ONLY case where it made sense. And really, the number of people who met all the criteria was IMHO vanishingly small.Most of the people who got all excited about it were focussed on the fact that you could pay the money back without interest and keep any earning you'd made in the meanwhile. While this was true, it was also kinda dumb---because you re-exposed yourself to mortality risk. They looked at the benefits but ignored the risks.Also, of course, this worked only for people who didn't need the SS money to live on. So the only people who could get this benefit were people who were financially extremely well off. That was what SSA (rightly) saw as an abuse of the system.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra