If you are a full-timer and don't own any anything else why carry an umbrella since your only exposure is your rv? I carry $500,000. liability and full-timers thru GMAC with 3 vehicles (car, truck and fifth wheel)for $1,500./yr. I also carry $300,000 liability thru Farm Bureau on some grazing land I own and rent which runs about $110./yr.
I disagree. Your only exposure is not just your RV. If you cause an accident with damages over your liability limits on your RV, they you are personally responsible, which is why an umbrella policy is needed in some cases.
An umbrella liability policy is there to protect you from anything (with exceptions, of course) that someone might sue you for. Vehicle accidents with damages exceeding your car or RV policy limits, or someone getting injured on your property, are only the obvious ones. You could accidentally start a fire, or injure someone while trying to give CPR. You could be sued for libel or slander. And do you own a gun? Think about the potential liability there.
To me, it's cheap peace of mind. If you don't have much, you might feel like you won't have much to lose, or wouldn't be a target for a lawsuit. But if you've spent your life working toward retirement, and don't want to be forced into poverty by a lawsuit in your golden years, make sure you have enough coverage.
Motorhome insurance with Progressive, everything else (including umbrella) with Allstate, but all handled by the same agent. I don't recall exactly how they handled it, but I do remember something about coordinating the liability limits, so that the umbrella picks up where the underlying policies max out. We went to $2 million on the umbrella this time around, I think. Even at several hundred $$ a year, it was cheap peace of mind -- I like knowing I (probably) won't lose all my retirement assets in a lawsuit.
The placebo effect runs strong with stuff like this.
Yup, kind of like how a diet -- almost any diet -- will cause you to lose weight, at least partly because you start paying close attention to what you eat. That's why clinical trials are always "blind" -- the patients/drivers don't know whether they have the real drug/device or the placebo. That's the only fair way to evaluate effectiveness.
Now that we've all given our OPINIONS, call the people that know the answers - your local SS office. They're really good.
Yup -- but they also post all of this information on their website, which is where I got my info.
-- snip -
his dad collected absolutely (1) one Social Security prior to passing away! That's right, one lousy check. It's a gamble so look at the odds and then make your decision. Bags.
It is very likely his estate had to give that check back.
I'm curious -- why?
So. Rough numbers..... If I work till 70, I'll get $2500/mo. If I work till 62, I'll get $1600/mo. Those 8 years between 62 & 70, at $1600/mo, will get me $153,600. With the extra $900 per month I will get by waiting till 70, I'll break even in 14 years, at age 84. Starting at age 85, I'll be getting more out of SS by waiting till age 70 to retire.
I think I'll take the money when I'm young enough to enjoy it at 62. If anyone is relying solely on SS, they are going to have to work forever anyway, so my view is 62 and out!!!
That's about how I looked at it, though with the interest/dividends I could earn on that money, I figured my break-even point was around 88 or so. But --- one more point is that my wife's survivor benefit, if she outlives me, would also be higher the longer I wait. So I'm still on the fence, and like most things, will probably settle somewhere in the middle, like claiming at 66.
Another thing to consider at 62, is if you still have earned income after taking SS, at a certain amount, SS benefits will be reduced by $2 for every dollar you earn up until your full retirement age (which depends on the year you were born and all the laws made afterwards.)
Actually, it's the other way around -- your benefits are reduced by $1 for every $2 you earn over $15,120. And you get that money back after you reach full retirement age.
Also from what I heard, the government will make adjustments (lower the payout) to your early retirement benefit if you are not contributing payments (currently working) upon reaching before or at retirement age, even though if someone has contributed to a full 35 years + working upon credits prior....so in other words the government wants people currently working in their golden years upon reaching that required age to receive benefits for a better rate - I cannot find a regulation or chart regarding this to confirm that.
That's a new one on me -- like you, I've never seen such a thing mentioned (and I've spent a lot on the SSA web site lately), so I think not.
Your "Primary Insurance Amount" (PIA), what you would get if you retired at exactly your full retirement age, is calculated based on your highest 35 years (indexed for inflation) of earnings. If you have less than 35 years working, or made little during some of those years, then continuing to work as long as possible could raise your PIA. But they don't reduce your benefit to punish you for stopping early.
If I've missed something here, I'm sure someone will chime in.
It might have been asked and answered, if so I missed it. Are we talking about 4% of gross or 4% of net?
You've lost me -- gross or net what?
Generally, I think it's 4% (or less these days) of your "investable assets," e.g. savings, stocks, bonds, mutual funds, 401(k)s, IRAs, etc.
Our strategy (for now) is to only siphon off dividends and interest, leaving principal intact. By coincidence, that currently averages 3.5% per year. Of course, even if the principal is unchanged, its value would drop annually due to inflation, but at the moment it's rising nicely.
This is on our non-IRA accounts -- we're old enough to draw from IRAs, but not old enough to have to, so I'm holding off for now while I'm still working part-time. Our income is low enough that we get some "tax-free" capital gains, so I make sure to take advantage of those each year.
Guess I didn't see the post where they said what their price point was.
We had a 2008 Georgetown for a few years, and found it to be a very competent coach, and a good buy for the money. Only traded it when we wanted to go to a DP (and could afford to). Never had a problem with quality -- it isn't a luxury coach, but doesn't cost like one either. I imagine that's why it's been such a big seller for a number of years -- they must be doing something right.
The problem I have with this rule is that it's been around for years, at the same rate. So I understood that you could safely withdraw 4% per year, when you could easily invest "safely" in municipal bonds, say, at 5% or more. Now that rates on bonds, CDs, etc. have gone much lower, I wonder if the 4% rule shouldn't be lowered too?
What do you know about the depreciation route? Had some friends who depreciated their motorhome then when they sold it had to claim the selling price as income. Any way around this?
I'm not an accountant, nor have I claimed my RV for business use, but I would say no. I've owned rental property, and I imagine the rules are the same for other business property. Depreciation expense is great for reducing profits while you're taking it (on a rental house, it can easily reduce a profit to a loss, for tax purposes), but if/when you later sell the property for more than its depreciated value, the difference comes back as income. Uncle Sam says: "Pay me now, or pay me later ..."
Any time anyone asks about "which brand is better" on here, some folks will always chime in that their favorite manufacturer has "better quality" than the others. But too often, they ignore the price question -- which make/model will give me the most value for $xxx,000?
If you have unlimited funds, your "best quality" will be a Prevost, Newell, or Foretravel. But if you have a limited budget, let's say $100,000, you have to look across the board (and at actual discounted prices, not the fictional MSRPs), and see what that money gets you in different makes/models.
Our first coach was a Georgetown, and it provided great "bang for the buck." I'm sure other builders' entry-level models do too, but you've got to compare them at some price point, and see who gives you the best combination of quality and features at that level.
I didn't see anything about the date codes on your tires. They could easily be a year older than the model year of your motorhome, depending on when the chassis was built, and how fresh they were then. I would guess they are at least 6 years old, and if you're planning to keep the RV for years to come, and so would be replacing them next year anyway, I'd go ahead and do it now. I've heard too many stories about the damage done when a motorhome tire blows. Just my 2 cents ...
Not to be a smarta$$, but for a tire problem, I would go to a tire dealer (one who handles truck tires) -- they don't care whether your coach is gas or diesel, because they're not working on the engine.
For chassis-related mechanical issues, go to a Ford or GM truck dealer, whichever chassis you have. Many independent truck repair shops can service you too. There are plenty of gasoline-powered trucks out there, and the same people who service them can usually service an RV.
Answer to last post.
All true but enaugh is enaugh.
Behind the high pressure is probably yust needed, but at front a lot lower is probably even with a comfortable reserve .
My experience has been just the opposite -- higher in the front, lower in the rear, because of the dual wheels.