Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Money and Finances
Reply to "Kavanaugh's finances"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I had a job that involved reviewing the financial disclosure statements of nominees in multiple (both R and D administrations), and, in the beginning, I was surprised by how little most nominees had in the way of savings. There were always the few very wealthy types, who'd been in the private sector a long time, or had family money, but the ones who'd been working on Capital Hill or other branches of government most of their career generally didn't have much. This is not a new insight, but [b]many people on this board have a warped view of how most Americans live[/b]. [/quote] I don't think so. Many people on this board understand that most people don't have savings, carry balances on their ccs, etc. But we all know what people are [i]supposed [/i]to do, which, as you noted, many don't, including this Supreme Court nominee. [/quote] I'm so confused. If hes had a pension since 2006, why would someone put money into TSP after that? Also, how is that even fair that someone get a lifetime pension and still be allowed to contribute to tax deferred retirement accounts? Additionally I'm not a federal worker, and have to plan, but why would someone save aggressively if he had a lifetime job and lifetime pension? All one would need is insurance. He does have 500k in TSP, plus that pension, not sure why he's not supposed to spend his disposable income. [b]Is there some special virtue in hoarding money? [/b] [/quote] No but there’s value in building wealth. If he stays on his current track he will have made millions over his career and spent almost ALL of it. That’s a waste of a good salary. He doesn’t make a ton but enough to not be living paycheck to paycheck. There’s a difference between hoarding money and living paycheck to paycheck. [/quote] [b]Why is he supposed to build wealth? [/b]Me, as a someone who works in the private sector MUST build wealth in order to secure my future. I do not do this to be virtuous, I do this for my survival. That's the only reason I build wealth. I'm also 41. If today someone gave me a lifetime job with a lifetime pension, I dont see any value in building wealth. Heck, how much is that pension worth? 4M 5M? Despite my financially conservative nature, my 401k will never look like that. I honestly dont understand the uproar over someone who is spending his money, has 500k saved, and who has a lifetime pension that only a fraction of the population could ever have. Again, why should be build wealth given the security he has had as an appointee for over a decade? I truly dont fer it.[/quote] He should build wealth so he earns MORE money. A dollar invested should yield earnings. 200k isn’t a lot, especially considering his spending. He needs to make more money than 200k. One way to do this is to earn a higher salary/bonus. Another way is to invest. [/quote] Why does he need to earn more money and build wealth? He makes 250k and is free of debt. He also has 500k in a tax deferred account and on average given his position will retire at 79. I seriously do not understand why he MUST do this and why this has anything to do with the supreme court. Should every appointee be required to be an investor? What is the value to the American people in that? [/quote] Because he can’t live off of only 200k!!!!! He hasn’t been able to do so yet so he’s not going to be able to do so in the future. [/quote] What do you mean he can't live off 200k? Are we looking at the same article? He has no debt, 2 kids in private school. His mortgage is in good standing, he had 500k saved. He will be collecting at least 250k or more and will nearly die on the job. What am I missing? Why are you so worried about him? Why are you worrying about someone with his excellent financial picture? As a private sector employee this would be amazing if I had this and I'm speaking as a 40yr old who just broke 1M in retirement savings. I'm not being an ass, I'm just baffled by these 20 pages of handwringing over this guy.[/quote] Why do you keep saying he has no debt? He does have debt -- a large outstanding mortgage (in his 50s). More importantly, he has refinanced his mortgage multiple times in order to pull cash out, and had $60-200k in credit card debt as of 1 year ago. He's clearly living beyond his means.[/quote] So now a supreme court nominee should not carry a mortgage? Or is it just people in their 50s who should not carry a mortgage? The guy has 65k in his bank account, 500k in retirement, and carried debt that was paid off in a year. The article also states that some of that debt was because he paid for tix he was reimbursed for. He also purchased a home for 1.2M and now has a mortgage of 865K...so what? that is not a smoking gun of any sorts. That's a 4K mortgage for a guy working in DC. Do you expect him to live in Ashburn? Oh and BTW, MANY of us who have owned homes in the last 12 years have refinanced multiple times. In 2006, the average mortgage rate was 6.4%. Rates in 2015 when he last refinanced were under 4%. I refinanced myself for just under 3% [b]Just curious, how do you know he pulled money out of his home?[/b] You do not need to refinance a home to pull money out. he's sitting on prime real estate, worth AT LEAST 2M I'm sure he could get a HELOC. I personally do not think that is a moral failing either, but I'm curious to know where you found that info. I cannot find that anywhere. Again, why are you so worried about him? Personally, I do not spend time worrying about the financial soul of people who have had a lifetime job for over a decade and have a full lifetime pension, and a net worth of over 1M according to the article: [b]“At this time the Kavanaughs have no debt beyond their home mortgage,” Shah said. He said that Kavanaugh has assets of nearly $1 million between the equity in his home and his retirement account.[/b][/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics