<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Paul Ferraresi &#187; Educational Funding</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.paulferraresi.com/category/financial-planning/educational-funding/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.paulferraresi.com</link>
	<description>Paul Ferraresi Blog is a compilation of topics including, but not limited to, finance, personal wealth building, motivation, political education, business tips, and, most importantly, personal growth and development.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:43:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>The Education Fund</title>
		<link>http://www.paulferraresi.com/2010/03/24/the-education-fund/</link>
		<comments>http://www.paulferraresi.com/2010/03/24/the-education-fund/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:25:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Educational Funding]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.paulferraresi.com/?p=487</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The cost of higher education has increased dramatically, particularly at private colleges and universities.  It may cost $15,000 to $40,000 per year in tuition, books, fees and room and board for a student to attend some private colleges.  This does not include transportation, clothing, laundry and incidental expenses that frequently equal or exceed [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The cost of higher education has increased dramatically, particularly at private colleges and universities.  It may cost $15,000 to $40,000 per year in tuition, books, fees and room and board for a student to attend some private colleges.  This does not include transportation, clothing, laundry and incidental expenses that frequently equal or exceed the basic tuition.  This can result in a tremendous financial drain for a family with college age children.</p>
<p>HOW MUCH SHOULD I SAVE?</p>
<p>The size of the fund depends upon the number of children, their ages, educational plans, school selection, scholarships and student loans that may be available to them, student earnings and the amount of family income.</p>
<p>It also depends upon the attitudes of the family toward education.  Some people feel they should provide their children with all the education they can profit from and want.  Others, however, feel that children should earn at least part of their educational expenses themselves.  If costs are substantial, it may even be necessary for a major portion to be financed by student loans.</p>
<p>HOW TO FINANCE A COLLEGE EDUCATION</p>
<p>Since loans must be repaid, many parents would like to avoid having their children start out heavily in debt.  The payment burden can be substantial for a young couple, especially if both have education loans.  There is also the idea that older children should help send their younger brothers and sisters through school after their parents have helped them.  However, this is not a reliable source of funds because the siblings may not have the ability or willingness to provide this support.</p>
<p>The types of schools and graduate schools the children plan to attend also have a considerable bearing on the costs involved.  An investment fund for educational needs is a relatively long-term objective, and it should be set up so the fund, hopefully, will not be needed in the meantime.  Therefore, a less conservative investment vehicle seems justified in order to secure a more attractive investment yield.  However, it would be unwise to speculate too aggressively with more than a small percentage of the fund.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.paulferraresi.com/2010/03/24/the-education-fund/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>So You Are Thinking of Having a Child!</title>
		<link>http://www.paulferraresi.com/2009/12/22/so-you-are-thinking-of-having-a-child/</link>
		<comments>http://www.paulferraresi.com/2009/12/22/so-you-are-thinking-of-having-a-child/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:00:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Educational Funding]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.paulferraresi.com/?p=385</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ The September 2009 issue of Investment Advisor portrayed how much it costs to raise a child. The report from the Department of Agriculture child-rearing study will take your breath away. 
 A two-parent, middle income family (with income from $56,870 to $98,470) can expect to spend $221,190 ($291,570 inflated) to raise a child born [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> The September 2009 issue of Investment Advisor portrayed how much it costs to raise a child. The report from the Department of Agriculture child-rearing study will take your breath away. </p>
<p> A two-parent, middle income family (with income from $56,870 to $98,470) can expect to spend $221,190 ($291,570 inflated) to raise a child born in 2008 for the next 17 years. This amounts to $11,610 to $13,380 per year based on the child’s age.</p>
<p>The USDA states that a family with income over $98,470 can expect to spend $366,660 raising a child for 17 years. This does not include any private school or college costs.</p>
<p>You can see the full report and online calculator at www.cnpp.usda.gov. </p>
<p>And don’t you love it when your children say to you … “what have you done for me?”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.paulferraresi.com/2009/12/22/so-you-are-thinking-of-having-a-child/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Double Dipping…Legally</title>
		<link>http://www.paulferraresi.com/2009/12/17/double-dipping%e2%80%a6legally-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.paulferraresi.com/2009/12/17/double-dipping%e2%80%a6legally-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2009 22:49:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Educational Funding]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.paulferraresi.com/?p=373</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What if you could retire early and still get full retirement benefits?? 
It is not a new concept but many people do not know about it.  The current Social Security system allows individuals to claim reduced, early retirement benefits beginning at age 62. Individuals who wait until their full retirement age to collect and [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What if you could retire early and still get full retirement benefits?? </p>
<p>It is not a new concept but many people do not know about it.  The current Social Security system allows individuals to claim reduced, early retirement benefits beginning at age 62. Individuals who wait until their full retirement age to collect and receive about 30% more in monthly benefits. If they wait until age 70 to collect, their benefits will be about 60% larger than at age 62. So what should you suggest your clients do?</p>
<p>Assuming a normal life expectancy and using the interest rate on government bonds, the actuarial present value of lifetime benefits are the same for those taking early retirement as for those waiting to take benefits at a later age. Of course, if one’s life expectancy is not normal (due to illness or bad luck or particularly good genes or good luck) one retirement age will look more attractive than another. </p>
<p>Look at going for the best of both worlds: retire at age 62, then pay back and reapply for Social Security benefits at age 70 if you come to regret your early decision.</p>
<p>A couple claimed their Social Security benefits at age 62 and now they each receive reduced benefit of $13,250 annually (in 2008 dollars). If they had waited until their normal retirement age (65) to collect benefits, the couple would each receive $18,928 a year. If they waited until 70 (this year) to apply, their benefit in 2008 would have been $20,693, thanks to the delayed benefit credit.  If they choose to pay back the Social Security benefits they have received over the past eight years, they will each receive the much higher benefit for the rest of their lives. If they take this option, each would repay $94,556 to Social Security. They would then each begin receiving $20,693 a year (the same as if they had waited until age 70 to begin receiving benefits); and as a result, they would have approximately 56% more in real Social Security benefits every year for the rest of their lives. “Essentially, the government has given them an interest-free loan.”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.paulferraresi.com/2009/12/17/double-dipping%e2%80%a6legally-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dancing with the Stars</title>
		<link>http://www.paulferraresi.com/2009/11/11/dancing-with-the-stars/</link>
		<comments>http://www.paulferraresi.com/2009/11/11/dancing-with-the-stars/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:35:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Educational Funding]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.paulferraresi.com/?p=361</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[No, I do not mean the TV show. If you or your children enjoy watching the stars in the sky, you have a few options. Sure the old telescope or binoculars are a good standby. A good computer astronomy program can cost more than $200.
	I found a FREE downloadable alternative … Stellarium (www.stellarium.org). It shows [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No, I do not mean the TV show. If you or your children enjoy watching the stars in the sky, you have a few options. Sure the old telescope or binoculars are a good standby. A good computer astronomy program can cost more than $200.</p>
<p>	I found a FREE downloadable alternative … Stellarium (<a href="http://www.stellarium.org">www.stellarium.org</a>). It shows the sky as it looks now from any point on Earth that you specify. You can go back and forth in time and even see displays from other planets. </p>
<p>The site is a work-in-progress and improves every day. It is really power packed. So, instead of watching the “stars” on TV as they make millions, visit the “heavens” with your family and you may all learn something.</p>
<p>Now, do I hear Tony Bennett singing … “climbs halfway to the stars”?</p>
<p>Enjoy!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.paulferraresi.com/2009/11/11/dancing-with-the-stars/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Are IRAs Safe?</title>
		<link>http://www.paulferraresi.com/2009/10/07/are-iras-safe/</link>
		<comments>http://www.paulferraresi.com/2009/10/07/are-iras-safe/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:44:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Educational Funding]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.paulferraresi.com/?p=333</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Are IRAs Safe?
Retirement accounts are federally insured up to @250,000 per account at every bank. Congress raised the limit from $100,000 in 2006. This insurance is only for federally insured deposits.
The $250,000 limit for federal deposit protection applies to retirement accounts at banks and savings associations insured by the FDIC, as well as credit unions [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Are IRAs Safe?</p>
<p>Retirement accounts are federally insured up to @250,000 per account at every bank. Congress raised the limit from $100,000 in 2006. This insurance is only for federally insured deposits.</p>
<p>The $250,000 limit for federal deposit protection applies to retirement accounts at banks and savings associations insured by the FDIC, as well as credit unions insured by the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA). (For non-retirement accounts, the FDIC or NCUA limit temporarily increased to $250,000 from $100,000 as part of 2008 Economic Stabilization Act, effective Oct. 3.)</p>
<p>The federal insurance coverage for retirement accounts applies to traditional and Roth IRAs, simplified employee pension (SEP) IRAs and savings incentive match plans for employees (SIMPLE) IRAs. In addition, the coverage also includes self-directed Keogh accounts, 457 plan accounts for state government employees and self-directed employer-sponsored defined contribution plans, including 401(K) and SIMPLE 401 (k) accounts.</p>
<p>DEFINING SELF-DIRECTED</p>
<p>For purposes of FDIC insurance, self-directed means that the plan participant can instruct administrators how his or her retirement funds are to be invested, including the ability to direct those funds to an FDIC-insured account. A retirement plan whose only investment option is the deposit accounts of a specified bank is not considered a self-directed account and is not covered by FDIC insurance. A plan for a single employee/employer can limit investments to a single option and will still be a self-directed plan under the insurance rules.</p>
<p>Under the FDIC/NCUA rules, all of an individual’s retirement accounts at the same insured bank are added together and insured up to a limit of $250,000. Thus, if you have $200,000 in a traditional IRA and $100,000 in a Roth IRA at ABC Bank, federal deposit insurance would cover $250,000 of those accounts, leaving $50,000 uninsured.</p>
<p>BENEFICIARY ISSUES</p>
<p>If an individual has a personal IRA and an inherited IRA at the same bank, they are insured separately for $250,000 each. Naming different beneficiaries on an individual’s retirement accounts will not affect the coverage limits for the individual, according to the rules.</p>
<p>If someone is a beneficiary of an account and not an owner, They have up to $250,000 in coverage on this account in addition to the $250,000 in coverage on their own personal IRA account. Retirement accounts are separately insured from any other deposits you may have at the same institution.</p>
<p>MOVING PARTS</p>
<p>For each IRA, you can do a rollover no more than once every 12 months (the once-per-year IRA rollover rule). If someone has done a rollover to or from an IRA within the past 12 months, they must wait until 12 months (365 days) have passed before doing a rollover from the same IRA. What happens if they violate the 12 month rule? They will owe income tax on the second withdrawal, plus 10% penalty if they are under age 59½, and those funds are no longer IRA funds.</p>
<p>The bottom line, then, is that you must check the history of each IRA account before determining whether you can do a rollover from it. Without this careful due diligence, you risk paying taxes and penalties on your retirement funds.</p>
<p>When a bank fails, depositors usually want to get their funds out as quickly as possible. That could mean receiving a check or cash. If the account is an IRA, a check made out to you is considered a rollover, and the 60-day rule and the once-per-year rollover limit both apply. If other IRA funds were rolled to or from the IRA account within the past 12 months, the depositor will have a taxable distribution.</p>
<p>To add insult to injury, if the funds come from an IRA at a failed bank and the balance is over $250,000, then, the depositor might only be able to withdraw $250,000 (the FDIC insured amount). But since that $250,000 cannot be rolled over to another IRA (because IRA funds were already rolled to or from that IRA within the past 12 months), then the entire $250,000 will be taxable and possibly subject to the 10% withdrawal penalty.</p>
<p>NON-BANK PROTECTION</p>
<p>Remember that FDIC/NCUA insurance applies only to bank deposits such as checking accounts, savings accounts, CDs and others. There is no federal deposit insurance for IRA investments in mutual funds, stocks, bonds and annuities; even if they are purchased from an FDIC- or NCUA- insured institution.</p>
<p>However, there is some protection for investments through the Securities Investor Protection Corp. (SIPC). Virtually all securities brokers belong to this organization. SIPC members contribute to a reserve fund that will reimburse investors up to $500,000 per customer, including up to $100,000 in cash.</p>
<p>Of course there is no SIPC reimbursement for investments that lose money.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.paulferraresi.com/2009/10/07/are-iras-safe/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Retirement Future Tense</title>
		<link>http://www.paulferraresi.com/2009/09/30/retirement-future-tense/</link>
		<comments>http://www.paulferraresi.com/2009/09/30/retirement-future-tense/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Educational Funding]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.paulferraresi.com/?p=323</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[	In our Western culture, we take many things for granted. We take comfort in the fact that the laws of gravity will not be surreptitiously repealed while we sleep, catapulting us and all we have into the ever-expanding universe as dawn arrives. The sun will rise and set each day. When it comes to retirement [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>	In our Western culture, we take many things for granted. We take comfort in the fact that the laws of gravity will not be surreptitiously repealed while we sleep, catapulting us and all we have into the ever-expanding universe as dawn arrives. The sun will rise and set each day. When it comes to retirement planning, we mentally quote Scarlett O’Hara from Gone with the Wind: “I can’t think about that right now. If I do I’ll go crazy. I’ll think about that tomorrow.” In essence, we expect a fair amount of certainty. This shared deception about retirement planning is what keeps our existential crises at bay as well as present retirement planners with their greatest challenge: How to create in clients a realistic sense of urgency without inviting panic. To address this conundrum you might want to revisit some ideas and retool your approaches.</p>
<p>	<strong>Smarter or wiser. </strong>An old saying states that smart people learn by their mistakes. That should bring us some comfort, since we all like to fancy ourselves as smart people! But another saying shares a different pearl of wisdom: wise people learn by the mistakes of others. No wonder we have heard that “experience is a dear teacher and only a fool will learn by it.” As part of the retirement planning process, planners can assist their clients by pointing out the errors of the past so as to guide future directions and decisions so clients will not have to repeat mistakes of the past. What are these mistakes and can we avoid them?</p>
<p><strong>•	Living without a spending plan<br />
•	Using credit to expand standard of living far beyond income<br />
•	Believing that good times will roll on forever</p>
<p><strong><strong><em>Most of you would benefit from a review of the basics on how to avoid these pitfalls:</em></strong></strong></p>
<p>•	Save- save for the rainy day, save for the big-ticket purchase, save just to have some extra cash on hand.<br />
•	If it doesn’t make sense, then it probably doesn’t make sense.<br />
•	Learn more about how money works. Ignorance is not bliss!<br />
•	Strive for modest, steady returns on investments.</strong></p>
<p>None of these require advanced education to understand, nor do they imply a high level of sophistication; rather, because they are so self-evident, they may have grown dim in our memories and relegated to a time long past and regarded as ideas that were part of the horse-and-buggy era- certainly not part of the great complex financial system we see today. It just may be that in our sophisticated world, there are more people who can claim the label “smarter” than those who would call themselves “wiser.”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.paulferraresi.com/2009/09/30/retirement-future-tense/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Higher Oil Prices</title>
		<link>http://www.paulferraresi.com/2009/07/15/higher-oil-prices/</link>
		<comments>http://www.paulferraresi.com/2009/07/15/higher-oil-prices/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:29:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Educational Funding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Miscellaneous]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.paulferraresi.com/?p=277</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The last few weeks have shown completely different approaches to managing energy by China and the U.S. China has lent $10 billion to Brazilian oil giant Petrobras to further its offshore exploration. In return China will get a future flow of oil equal to 160,000 barrels per day (bpd). China has lent Rosneft, Russia’s oil [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The last few weeks have shown completely different approaches to managing energy by China and the U.S. China has lent $10 billion to Brazilian oil giant Petrobras to further its offshore exploration. In return China will get a future flow of oil equal to 160,000 barrels per day (bpd). China has lent Rosneft, Russia’s oil firm, $15 billion and Russian pipeline operator Transneft $10 billion for agreeing to supply 300,000 bpd from the new Siberian fields for the next 20 years.</p>
<p>	In Venezuela, China will contribute $8 billion to a strategic fund for oil development mainly to increase Venezuela’s oil exports to China. China is paying now at today’s prices to insure growth in the supply of oil and their long term access to its share.</p>
<p>	Meanwhile here in the U.S., the Obama administration is planning to severely tax exploration and production companies operating in the Gulf of Mexico (our core area of production). Boy, that will be a real incentive for any company to consider looking for oil (tish-tish). This will also make U.S. oil production more expensive (duh!).</p>
<p>	The government has delayed and rescinded the opening of other offshore areas for additional incremental exploration and possible production (higher prices for us and less supply. Oh, and you did not know about this? HMMM! I thought we were to have full transparency in this new administration).</p>
<p>	Since October 2004 the U.S. Department of Energy claims the global oil supply hasn’t grown much even though we had huge price increases. Most experts agree that large new oil supply is not in the picture.</p>
<p>	So, if the supply for oil will be, say, “X” and China has already “bought up” an amount equal to “Y,” then, X-Y will equal the remaining supply. With the demand for oil rising and supply only at “Y”…..well better prepare for higher prices. Experts are predicting a price of $150-$180 a barrel very soon.  That is without a major interruption in flow (war, terrorism, etc.) Ah, yes higher gas prices. Better prepare as well as make investments to benefit your family. Once again…discipline or regret.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.paulferraresi.com/2009/07/15/higher-oil-prices/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Credit Card Surprises</title>
		<link>http://www.paulferraresi.com/2009/07/10/credit-card-surprises/</link>
		<comments>http://www.paulferraresi.com/2009/07/10/credit-card-surprises/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:16:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Educational Funding]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.paulferraresi.com/?p=274</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For years Americans have complained that the interest rates, excess fees, overlimit fees and change in rates by credit card companies are not reasonable. Credit cards have been a profitable center for most banks and other issuers. Keep in mind that a large percentage of Americans are way behind on their payments (not just recently, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For years Americans have complained that the interest rates, excess fees, overlimit fees and change in rates by credit card companies are not reasonable. Credit cards have been a profitable center for most banks and other issuers. Keep in mind that a large percentage of Americans are way behind on their payments (not just recently, but for years), many people run up charges and never pay a penny on the debt, and then, there are the fraudulent activities on cards. Well, not in defense of these card companies, but, someone needs to pay for these “bad transactions.” Guess what…. It has been you. Yes, the “good credit” people have and are paying for the “bad credit” people.</p>
<p>	You know, I remember over 20 years ago when Representative Markey, from Massachusetts, brought the  credit card companies into a Congressional hearing to go over the same complaints listed above. He demanded that all card interest rates should be no higher than 8%. The card companies agreed to return in two weeks to submit their thoughts and findings (you see, the card companies had testified before Congress about the “bad credit” people forcing them to keep rates high to make up for the losses). </p>
<p>	Two weeks later the card companies presented a short list of those Americans whose credit scores were strong enough to support an 8% rate. Also, there was not one Senator or Congressman that made the listing of “good credit” people. The hearings were adjourned.</p>
<p>	Well, your cries have been heard in Congress again. But be careful what you pray for…. The present administration passed a bill on May 19, 2009 to “protect the consumer.”</p>
<p>	This new bill will not allow the credit card companies to raise your interest rate unless you have been late for 60 days. It eliminates the overlimit fee and many other benefits for you. BUT, there is a cost to you!!! DUH!!! The correct way to use a credit card is to make sure the balance is paid in full by the end of the billing cycle, say, 30 days. So, you will have no interest charges if paid on time and using OPM …other people’s money. That is the correct finance approach. Well, that is no longer true, “ol’ bankrupt breath,” under the new rules. Effective when you swipe your card…interest begins to accrue immediately. There is NO more grace period. So if you run up, say, a $1,000 charge today, at a 30% annual card rate, in 30 days when the bill comes you will owe $1000 + $25 interest = $1025. So, what did you gain? Well, to facilitate the “bad credit” people and their slow paying,  the “good credit” people are paying the price. Sounds exactly like the bailout of the subprime mortgage people. Good payers are paying for bad payers. “From each according to his ability to each according to his need” – sound familiar? – Check your history books under the communist manifesto.</p>
<p>	You wanted change? You voted for change, you’ve got change, but I don’t think it is the change you voted for…since with this new law you will no longer have any “change” left in your pocket.<br />
Ah, discipline or regret.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.paulferraresi.com/2009/07/10/credit-card-surprises/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>More Government Failure</title>
		<link>http://www.paulferraresi.com/2009/05/14/government-failure/</link>
		<comments>http://www.paulferraresi.com/2009/05/14/government-failure/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2009 19:53:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Educational Funding]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.paulferraresi.com/2009/05/14/government-failure/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A report this week showed that Social Security and Medicare’s financial health has weakened. In fact, Medicare is now paying out more than it receives. The report further said the same fate is in store for Social Security one year earlier than projected, namely, by 2016. That means if you are retiring in 6-7 years, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A report this week showed that Social Security and Medicare’s financial health has weakened. In fact, Medicare is now paying out more than it receives. The report further said the same fate is in store for Social Security one year earlier than projected, namely, by 2016. That means if you are retiring in 6-7 years, both of these programs will be defunct. Medicare will be totally insolvent by 2017. So, better plan for higher taxes for EVERYONE if these programs are to survive, and make plans to make it on your own.<br />
Keep in mind the supposed “Trust Fund” is just a group of bonds in a filing cabinet in Parkersburg, West Virginia. These bonds are backed by the “full faith and credit” of the Government (you and me). There is NO money or assets to back this up. All the money has been spent to fund other parts of the government. So, basically you are going to be responsible to come up with additional money to fund this government program and keep it solvent. Wait a minute… you already put your money in to cover it and your representatives spent it to get your votes. Now you have to “double down” on a bet that is a sure loss. Yes, Another Government failure!<br />
Hmmm….why aren’t these leaders being fired or prosecuted. The leader of General Motors (sorry, now it is Government Motors) was fired for poor performance. Why aren’t you voicing your disdain?? How much more are you going to put up with?<br />
So you want the government to run the automakers, the banks and provide health care? Ah, more failure! How many more failures will you put up with?<br />
You know, Americans’ action (lack of action) on this is like the guy who keeps hitting himself on his head with a hammer. When asked “why don’t you stop?”&#8230;he says…”because when I stop it hurts.”<br />
How much longer are you going to put up with the hurt?<br />
We have positioned our clients in an investment program that will be their own Social Security/Medicare program. It does not have any government involvement. The investment grows tax free, you can pull out money tax free (not like Social Security which is taxable) and when you die it transfers tax free.<br />
Please take responsibility for your actions and do not be part of the “entitlement” crowd.<br />
	Go to our other blog at www.WealthyFutureBlog.com and subscribe for free to learn about this “self reliant” way to protect your financial future.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.paulferraresi.com/2009/05/14/government-failure/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Tax Decrease or Increase?</title>
		<link>http://www.paulferraresi.com/2009/04/23/decrease-increase/</link>
		<comments>http://www.paulferraresi.com/2009/04/23/decrease-increase/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:02:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Educational Funding]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.paulferraresi.com/2009/04/23/decrease-increase/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[   As of April 1, 2009 the new Federal Withholding tables have been established. Under this temporary arrangement, there has been a short term adjustment to the amount being withheld from your paycheck. THIS IS NOT A TAX CUT. Rather it is a sleight -of-hand.
	You see, although you will have a few more [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>   As of April 1, 2009 the new Federal Withholding tables have been established. Under this temporary arrangement, there has been a short term adjustment to the amount being withheld from your paycheck. THIS IS NOT A TAX CUT. Rather it is a sleight -of-hand.<br />
	You see, although you will have a few more dollars in your pay check it is not necessarily yours to keep. Here is a simple example…<br />
	Let’s say you earned $75,000 in 2008, and the tax withheld by year end was $10,000. For simplicity, let’s say an April 15th, 2009, tax day, you do not owe any more tax, nor do you get a refund. So, for the 2008 year your tax liability is $10,000. Simple.<br />
	Now for 2009 let us assume all things are going to be exactly the same ($75,000 income, $10,000 withheld and tax for 2009 will be $10,000). Well, this new withholding legerdemain, of the current administration, is set so you will have more money in your pay check for the remainder of 2009. To you it appears as a tax cut, but it is NOT. Let’s say the new withholding change gives you an extra $125 per month in take home pay. That means you will have $1,000 in extra “pay” by year’s end. But it isn’t. You see, you will only have $9,000 in your year end withholding account (since they did not withhold that “extra” $1,000). So, come April 15th 2010 you will owe $1,000 in tax (the amount that was not withheld in 2009).<br />
	Be careful! If you do not have the money to pay in when you file your return, or, have not had the correct amount withheld you may be subject to a penalty tax plus interest.<br />
	You may consider setting this extra money aside until the air clears next April 15th or you could be in financial pain later. Please get proper tax advice on your specific situation.<br />
	Why didn’t someone tell you the rest of the story? I just did!<br />
	So, it is a tax decrease that will be a tax increase!!! Did I tell you about the bridge in Brooklyn or the swamp land that is for sale…….<br />
Discipline or regret!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.paulferraresi.com/2009/04/23/decrease-increase/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
