On 8/10/10 09:12 , J G Miller wrote:
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 22:25:36 -0700, John Higdon wrote:

That "purchasing habits are well-established by age 50" is the most
ridiculous nonsense I have ever heard in my life.

Not necessarily brands, but the type of products which you buy.

You are still buying automobiles, but it is unlikely that you
are now going to start buying hang-gliders.


Interested you should bring this up. In my ultralight club, only
one member is under 50. And we add new members every year. Of those
of us who own an ultralight, only three bought their first before
the age of 50.

The reasons? Well, discretionary income is higher at this age, so
there is money for it. And after the work-a-day/family grind begins
to fade, adults begin to look at resuming the adventures they put on
hold in their 20's.

A large percentage of pilots come to aviation later in life.
Because the opportunity to invest both the time and the money is now
available.

Now, what DOES seem to be the case, is that 50+ buyers are less
prone to being convinced by quick and dirty advertising, requiring a
more thoughtful, and informative approach to convince them to turn
loose of their cash.

But the priorities that guided the previous generation are not
ours. To borrow a line from Dennis Hopper, 'the generation that
wasn't going to get old...didn't.' The over 50 set is as
adventurous, and prone to taking on new life paths, as the younger,
so-called 'desirable demographics.' And they have greater
discretionary income to spend, and more maturity to guide them in
doing it. In many cases, it wasn't until their 50's, that many
people didn't have their **** together enough to begin new adventures.

That advertisers haven't learned to tap into this wealth is a
tribute to their shortsighted grasp on the limits that guided them
25 years ago.

As Brenda Ann pointed out, times, and the state of the population
has changed. It's time to catch up.

On Aug 10, 7:37*am, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:

* *The reasons? Well, discretionary income is higher at this age, so
there is money for it. And after the work-a-day/family grind begins
to fade, adults begin to look at resuming the adventures they put on
hold in their 20's.

Yep, those were the days alright... Now, so many over-50's have had
their retirement accounts ravaged, their home equity gone deeply into
the red, if not their home's loss completely, and face a dismal job
market competing with 30-somethings, and are only a few years away
from, what used to be, a normal retirement age. So, they're are really
pinching pennies and squeezing nickels. Fortunately, I guessed right
in major matters. Thus, so far-so good [knock wood] but I am even
nervous of letting go of my money like I used to.

An over-50 buddy of mine told me he bought a yacht a few months ago.
I told him I hadn't heard that. He replied that he had really been
down playing it, because of the hard times the other over-50's friends
have been having and it was too awkward to bring it up.

Ciccio

On 8/10/10 10:00 , Ciccio wrote:
On Aug 10, 7:37 am, "D. Peter wrote:

The reasons? Well, discretionary income is higher at this age, so
there is money for it. And after the work-a-day/family grind begins
to fade, adults begin to look at resuming the adventures they put on
hold in their 20's.

Yep, those were the days alright... Now, so many over-50's have had
their retirement accounts ravaged, their home equity gone deeply into
the red, if not their home's loss completely, and face a dismal job
market competing with 30-somethings, and are only a few years away
from, what used to be, a normal retirement age. So, they're are really
pinching pennies and squeezing nickels. Fortunately, I guessed right
in major matters. Thus, so far-so good [knock wood] but I am even
nervous of letting go of my money like I used to.

An over-50 buddy of mine told me he bought a yacht a few months ago.
I told him I hadn't heard that. He replied that he had really been
down playing it, because of the hard times the other over-50's friends
have been having and it was too awkward to bring it up.

Ciccio


The question is not whether he should play it quiet for a while.
The question is: how big is the yacht?

In article
,
Ciccio wrote:

Yep, those were the days alright... Now, so many over-50's have had
their retirement accounts ravaged, their home equity gone deeply into
the red, if not their home's loss completely, and face a dismal job
market competing with 30-somethings, and are only a few years away
from, what used to be, a normal retirement age. So, they're are really
pinching pennies and squeezing nickels. Fortunately, I guessed right
in major matters. Thus, so far-so good [knock wood] but I am even
nervous of letting go of my money like I used to.

It doesn't matter how much you may have, no one wants to see the state
draining one's life savings. California is throwing money down the
toilet. How many taxpayers does it take now to support one former
state-employed retiree (since the crash)? It would appear that anyone
with any money left at all is going to be taxed up to his eyes.

An over-50 buddy of mine told me he bought a yacht a few months ago.
I told him I hadn't heard that. He replied that he had really been
down playing it, because of the hard times the other over-50's friends
have been having and it was too awkward to bring it up.

Those who have nurtured a nest egg frequently find themselves resented
by those who haven't bothered.

--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

http://www.devilfinder.com
The BBC: still biased? Telegraph Blogs

BBC is Biased to the Enth Degree!
cuhulin

wrote:
http://www.devilfinder.com
The BBC: still biased? Telegraph Blogs

BBC is Biased to the Enth Degree!
cuhulin


Which BBC? Home Service? World Service? BBC America?

On 2010-08-10 18:45:28 -0700, John Higdon said:

It doesn't matter how much you may have, no one wants to see the state
draining one's life savings. California is throwing money down the
toilet. How many taxpayers does it take now to support one former
state-employed retiree (since the crash)? It would appear that anyone
with any money left at all is going to be taxed up to his eyes.

OR ...

Such folks, like myself, are going to move to an adjacent no-tax state
(Nevada and Washington come immediately to mind).

It has already been decided by the SCOTUS that California, and other
states with high income taxes, CANNOT go after its former residents, to
tax them on on tax-sheltered income which was earned while a resident
of California.

Peter wrote:

Such folks, like myself, are going to move to an adjacent no-tax state
(Nevada and Washington come immediately to mind).

Heh...that's funny. If you smoke cigarettes you'll pay more tax in NV and WA
than in California. Both WA and NV charge lower sales taxes than CA, but WA
charges taxes on both goods AND services, which can be quite substantial. For
instance, a car repair might cost $100 in parts but $600 in labor. In CA the
labor isn't taxed.

Property taxes: Interesting note here. WA is willing to defer some or all
property taxes to the elderly, BUT they will then put a lien against the
property so that the person can't leave the property free and clear to anyone
without first paying off the property tax lien.

In CA the property tax is limited to 1% of assessed valuation, which can never
be more than market value. Neither WA nor NV had any limit on how high
property taxes can go relative to assessed valuation.

Good luck in finding that retirement bargain...

On Aug 10, 8:49*pm, Peter wrote:
On 2010-08-10 18:45:28 -0700, John Higdon said:

It doesn't matter how much you may have, no one wants to see the state
draining one's life savings. California is throwing money down the
toilet. How many taxpayers does it take now to support one former
state-employed retiree (since the crash)? It would appear that anyone
with any money left at all is going to be taxed up to his eyes.

OR ...

Such folks, like myself, are going to move to an adjacent no-tax state
(Nevada and Washington come immediately to mind).

Many already have been doing that for years.
* Taxes by State -source- Retirement Living
http://retirementliving.com/RLtaxes.html

Knew a Couple who Retired (1960s} in California;
Sold their home and Car and everything in California.
Bought an very nice RV along with a small Car in
Nevada. Build an RV Parking Pad and Hook-ups
at Son's House {Marin} and a Sister's House
{Auburn}; both in California. He was a Federal
Retiree and she eventually received Social Security.
They were On-the-Road for 6~8 Months a Year
and 'unofficial guests' in California for the remainder.

Maybe around 25% of the people in the SF Bay
Area that I retired with in the late 1990s are now
'former' Californians.

- It has already been decided by the SCOTUS that California, and other
- states with high income taxes, CANNOT go after its former residents,
to
- tax them on on tax-sheltered income which was earned while a
resident
- of California.

-IF- You are a CAL-PERS Retiree and have what
is called a California 'Source' Income : The State
of California will Tax that 'Source' Income as -if-
You were still Living in California.

First find a Job {any job} in another State; so that
the 'Move' is Tax Deductible.
Second - Sell your California Home and Buy a Home
in the new State.
Third - Move Everything Investment to your new State.
Fourth - Sell all California Real Property and reinvest
in Real-Estate in the new State.
Note - Do It all in the same Tax Year so you only
have one year to do the Double Tax Keeping from
California to the new State.

California Here I Come !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK0gLBqRIG0
-is-becoming-
California Her I Go . . . ~ RHF

On Aug 10, 7:37*am, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 8/10/10 09:12 , J G Miller wrote:

On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 22:25:36 -0700, John Higdon wrote:

That "purchasing habits are well-established by age 50" is the most
ridiculous nonsense I have ever heard in my life.

Not necessarily brands, but the type of products which you buy.

You are still buying automobiles, but it is unlikely that you
are now going to start buying hang-gliders.

* *Interested you should bring this up. In my ultralight club, only
one member is under 50. And we add new members every year. Of those
of us who own an ultralight, only three bought their first before
the age of 50.

* *The reasons? Well, discretionary income is higher at this age, so
there is money for it. And after the work-a-day/family grind begins
to fade, adults begin to look at resuming the adventures they put on
hold in their 20's.

....

* *But the priorities that guided the previous generation are not
ours. To borrow a line from Dennis Hopper, 'the generation that
wasn't going to get old...didn't.' The over 50 set is as
adventurous, and prone to taking on new life paths, as the younger,
so-called 'desirable demographics.' And they have greater
discretionary income to spend, and more maturity to guide them in
doing it. In many cases, it wasn't until their 50's, that many
people didn't have their **** together enough to begin new adventures.

* *That advertisers haven't learned to tap into this wealth is a
tribute to their shortsighted grasp on the limits that guided them
25 years ago.

This delayed daredeviltry reminded me: A friend of mine, going
apparently through a third "midlife crisis," bought his first
motorcycle a couple of years ago, at age 58. He uses it to commute to
his job.

He apparently had at least one close call, but no injuries.

In the absence of bikey ads on the radio, his chief source of
information was a neighbor in his sixties who has ridden since his
teens.