Realcent.org

I gave up drinking sodas about two months ago in an attempt to eat healthier, but had to buy some for an office party yesterday. Last time I bought two liter bottles of Coke they were 98 cents or $1.19, doesn't seem like all that long ago (maybe they were on sale). Now? $1.95... and this is at a discount grocer!!!

Soda pricing follows cycles and sales. Highly variable in price.

Here's some inflation data on carbonated drinks...
http://myinflationrate.com/ItemCheckRes ... ode=SEFN01

inflationhawk wrote:Here's some inflation data on carbonated drinks...
http://myinflationrate.com/ItemCheckRes ... ode=SEFN01

as I've stated before... nice site. Thanks for the link.

Unfortunately, the BLS doesn't track data down to the regional/local area for carbonated drinks specifically. They only track larger categories more locally. The data is likely smoothed out from data points all over to mute any inflated prices in a single area. Not that it makes your Coke cost any less or taste different!

My mom's parents managed to retire early; my granddad had spent many of his last 15 or so working years on the road as a salesman, and managed to make (and save) in his best years what was then a lot of money. He had promised my grandma that for that, they would build a new house in the country and retire early, and he managed to accomplish that. That was circa 1955-56. They had a good life for a few years, but by the late 60s things started to get tight for them. I was still a kid and some of the concepts had little frame of reference for me then, but I remember my mom talking about the horrible effects of inflation on her parents savings and how it was squeezing them, and how the secure investments he had made couldn't keep up with their property taxes and food and energy prices.

So I just went back (from above referenced link) to review the inflation rates for the late 60s and early 70s when this was a problem for them on fixed income. Folks, the tipping point started for them at 3-4%. And this makes sense. When this happens year after year, it catches up to fixed incomes very quickly.

1965 3.5
1966 3.0
1967 4.7
1968 6.2
1969 5.6
1970 3.3

The above 6 years (and it continued through the 70s into the early 80s, though he died in 73, at 73) tore their finances apart, and had it not been for their relatively short lives, they would have been in a terrible position by the late 70s.

It doesn't take double-digit inflation to induce a lot of pain. Just year after year inflation.

We're headed for both. Prepare, and be careful out there....

Yep, and what's compounding the trouble now is that returns on "safe" investments, like CDs and Treasury Notes are rock bottom. The elderly are the real victims of this latest financial crisis. What once was a somewhat comfortable retirement where they could live off social security and supplement it with returns from hard earned savings has now turned into survival without any comfort living on minuscule returns on investments and social security that just allows for getting by. It's a shame that all that hard work ended up like this for them.

and in my reading today I have come across more than one source that states congress would like to implement a change in retirement age to at least 64... meaning that you couldn't tap into your IRA's or 401k's without penalties until you reach that age.... giving them sufficient time to implement Guaranteed Retirement Annuities (restricting your investment choices to Treasuries) as well as imposing a new 5% tax on everyone to fund $600 annual contributions for the lowly compensated workers and the unemployed. "You will be beaten until morale improves," and the stick they use to hit you with has many different branches, each with its own form of thorns.

beauanderos wrote:and in my reading today I have come across more than one source that states congress would like to implement a change in retirement age to at least 64... meaning that you couldn't tap into your IRA's or 401k's without penalties until you reach that age.... giving them sufficient time to implement Guaranteed Retirement Annuities (restricting your investment choices to Treasuries) as well as imposing a new 5% tax on everyone to fund $600 annual contributions for the lowly compensated workers and the unemployed. "You will be beaten until morale improves," and the stick they use to hit you with has many different branches, each with its own form of thorns.

I've always been suspicious of 401Ks and other tax deferred investments. As the old saw goes, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

If there's any justice in the world, all those 401K "financial advisors" who touted the benefits of a lower tax rate after you retire will have to bite the bullet along with the suckers who bought into their sales pitches.

So then what do you think of the financial advisors that recommended Roth IRAs?

inflationhawk wrote:So then what do you think of the financial advisors that recommended Roth IRAs?

I think they're still salesmen.

Roths are better because at least you're taking the initial tax hit up front, but you're still deferring your earnings for a future which is almost certain to have higher rates...and you still have the counter-party risk of having politicians making rules about what, when, and where you can invest, and when or if they'll let you have it back.

Since I turned 61 a little while back, I decided yesterday "the heck with it." I cashed in my meager holdings of BGEIX (under ten grand) this morning and a check is on its way, soon to be converted to more silver fractionals. I still have five other sheltered accts, but I'd like to pump them up a bit more before starting to siphon about half, hopefully this year and next. I just hope that's quick enough to keep them away from Obama.

http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=5849 good article

Last year I bought a load of crushed rock to fill in the holes in my private road and paid $275 per 12 yd load. This year it will cost me $375.

inflationhawk wrote:So then what do you think of the financial advisors that recommended Roth IRAs?

About everything I have is in a Roth. The only way I felt this would be a mistake is if the tax rates actually dropped by the I retired. I make a decent living but my marginal rate isn't too high when putting after tax money into the Roth so if I ever put anymore in that sort of investment I plan on it going into the same place. This is not likely though as I will have to wait 18 years before I could withdraw any of it without extra penalties. Not sure what the "new rules" will be by then. So PM's from now on or at least until we change our ways which I feel isn't ever going to happen.