Trump Economic Policies

[Aseahawkfan]

At first I thought Big Tech would be unhappy with this fee, but I see Reed Hastings has made a good argument for the fee. Hastings is a big Democratic donor and supportive of Democratic policy.

https://www.businessinsider.com/reed-hastings-backs-trump-100k-h1b-fee-limit-visas-jobs-2025-9

I can see why Big Tech might support this. They may have even suggested it. A 100,000 fee means Big Tech can choose their talent with more precision pricing out smaller players with the immense fee. H1B visas are for high end jobs. Big Tech drives use of the H1B visa to hire programmers, engineers, and other high tech workers with high end skills for high paying jobs. So a 100,000 fee is nothing to them. It's a whole lot of money to smaller players in tech.

Trump has been spending a lot of time with Big Tech CEOs. J.D. Vance is very close with Silicon Valley. I'm thinking Big Tech may want a high fee on H1B visas to gain further control over the H1B visa program.

At the same time Trump can use this in negotiations with India and China as they they are main users of H1B visas. India is the biggest beneficiary of H1B visas by a country mile, followed by China. Everyone else is not even close. This is why I'm beginning to think Big Tech wants this fee and so do rich countries. They can freeze out poorer nations from the H1B visa program.

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/data/h-1b-petitions-by-gender-country-of-birth-fy2019.pdf

[Aseahawkfan]

The GENIUS Act. This is the Trump admins push into crypto currency. This bill is supported by younger tech workers that enjoy trading and investing in crypto currency as the future of digital money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GENIUS_Act

[Aseahawkfan]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/08/democratizing-access-to-alternative-assets-for-401k-investors/

Trump's executive order to expand investment options for retirement accounts. Many younger voters want more options for their retirement accounts as they are more savvy investing than their parents and grandparents.

[Aseahawkfan]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/08/trump-effect-a-running-list-of-new-u-s-investment-in-president-trumps-second-term/

All companies declaring investments in America to Trump admin.

[Aseahawkfan]

What this illustrates is why the Democrats are continuing with their "Trump is a tyrant" strategy to try to beat him and the Republicans in the midterms, Trump is showing people the money. He is setting up investments in America to create more jobs, protect American markets, provide more investment options for Americans, and grow the American economy.

Dems are stuck screaming, "Trump bad for free speech. Trump's a racist. Trump's a terrible guy." They have tried this strategy for going on 12 years now and it didn't work the two times Trump won office. The only reason he was voted out in 2020 is the COVID pandemic which he handled terribly.

Dems need to update their economic plans and show Americans the money. Trump is making a lot of moves that are going to make a lot of voters a lot of money. If he gets control of The Fed next year and starts dropping interest rates along with his other stimulative policies, he's going to charge the economy up more giving Republicans a strong chance to win the midterms.

[Aseahawkfan]

https://fortune.com/2025/10/01/why-trump-hib-visa-is-good-thing-immigrant-ceo-harry-singh/

Interesting take on the H1B visa. I think this was pushed on purpose so wealthier families and big tech can use this H1B 100k price to keep most of the talent for themselves. Wealthier families in foreign nations can push their rich kids through.

It's more of an example of Trump's dislike of the poor. He wants more well off people in the country from wealthy families used to living how Trump lives. He hasn't worked a blue collar job in his life. He's had servants since he was a child. He wants more people like him in America: super wealthy and used to that wealthy lifestyle. Immigrants from families that can drop a 100k without thinking about it.

[River Dog]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/08/democratizing-access-to-alternative-assets-for-401k-investors/

Trump's executive order to expand investment options for retirement accounts. Many younger voters want more options for their retirement accounts as they are more savvy investing than their parents and grandparents.

I'm actually for this EO. Too many people are reliant on Social Security for their retirement income. Giving them more investment opportunities makes sense. I'm also not a fan of pensions, for the same reason: Because they rely on contributions of future members to support retirees. Changes in demographics, life expectancy, and the labor market can all affect pension plans.

I was surprised when Boeing employees went on strike because they wanted to restore their pension plan, which was replaced years ago by a 401K. Lobby for a higher contribution rate to their 401K's if they want an improvement in their retirement package.

[Aseahawkfan]

I'm actually for this EO. Too many people are reliant on Social Security for their retirement income. Giving them more investment opportunities makes sense. I'm also not a fan of pensions, for the same reason: Because they rely on contributions of future members to support retirees. Changes in demographics, life expectancy, and the labor market can all affect pension plans.

I was surprised when Boeing employees went on strike because they wanted to restore their pension plan, which was replaced years ago by a 401K. Lobby for a higher contribution rate to their 401K's if they want an improvement in their retirement package.

The younger generation would probably be ok with alternative investments. They can learn. The older generation I'm not as sure of. I think they should do this using the K1 to 12 system. I don't believe the government wants to teach financial literacy. It seems that keeping Americans in the dark on how economics works seems to work in favor of both parties.

[River Dog]

I'm actually for this EO. Too many people are reliant on Social Security for their retirement income. Giving them more investment opportunities makes sense. I'm also not a fan of pensions, for the same reason: Because they rely on contributions of future members to support retirees. Changes in demographics, life expectancy, and the labor market can all affect pension plans.

I was surprised when Boeing employees went on strike because they wanted to restore their pension plan, which was replaced years ago by a 401K. Lobby for a higher contribution rate to their 401K's if they want an improvement in their retirement package.

The younger generation would probably be ok with alternative investments. They can learn. The older generation I'm not as sure of. I think they should do this using the K1 to 12 system. I don't believe the government wants to teach financial literacy. It seems that keeping Americans in the dark on how economics works seems to work in favor of both parties.

It's not just our educational system that's not teaching financial literacy. Employers aren't, either, or at least mine wasn't when I left.

Prior to my retirement, I had developed a reputation for knowing a thing or two about personal finance, and as a result, I had a number of employees approach me as to how to manage their 401K's. But as hourlys, they were covered under a different plan than I was as a salaried employee, so I wasn't as familiar with it as I was the plan I was in. Plus, I just didn't feel comfortable giving them advice. I went to everyone, our HR manager, plant manager, company execs and pleaded with them: Please set up something, a meeting of some sort or voluntary classes taught by a professional, to explain all this stuff to them. They all agreed with me, at least to my face, but they never acted. There would have been scores of financial professionals that would have loved the opportunity to hold classes for no charge so long as he/she was able to give them his/her business card.

I see dozens of my friends who don't have a clue how Social Security works, when they have to sign up for Medicare, what an annuity is, or what the difference is between a traditional and Roth 401K/IRA, this despite my mailbox being overloaded with free classes, some with free lunches or dinners. There're tons of resources out there, but individuals have to take the bull by the horns and make the first move. Too many people have this feeling that the government is going to take care of them. And to be honest, I don't see a lot of Gen X or Millennial's that are any better informed than those in my generation.

It's in an employer's best interest to have employees that are financially literate. In a lot of cases, a company's 401K contribution is dependent on the financial performance of the company, thus giving the employee a vested interest in how well the company does. I've always felt that the best way to compensate an individual was to give them a piece of the pie, reward them when the company does well, make them suffer consequences when it doesn't.

[Aseahawkfan]

I was working towards a business degree in college. I started investing when I was in my early to mid 20s. I found economics very interesting. It helped to see all the lies that both parties tend to push. Both parties are pretty terrible. Democrats are big proponents of Keynesian Economics with a touch of Marxist policy and a healthy dose of mistrusting and hating the wealthy. Biggest problems the left has is they teach wealth as a zero sum game with metrics attempting to paint the amount of wealth as the problem when the reality is wealth is a constantly changing, nearly meaningless number that can be manipulated heavily. It is based on wealth measures like company ownership or asset ownership absent real liquidity. They should track mainly liquid wealth to see how wealth is distributed because tracking wealth by company ownership like a super wealthy person should be taxed on just owning shares in a very valuable company is a ridiculous leftist idea aimed at trying to implement socialism through a tax on ownership that would require the owner to sell their company to pay the tax. Really stupid policy being pushed by a French socialist economist Thomas Piketty. Socialism implemented on a mass level has proven to be absolutely terrible for economic, technological, and societal advancement which is why Europe is in a period of serious economic stagnation as they find out they can't pay for their social systems if they don't have prosperous economies.

At the same time the right wing idea that capitalism fixes everything and trickle down economics works like Field of Dreams with a "build it and they will come" also doesn't work. You can't give tax breaks to businesses and expect real economic growth. The consumer still needs to be paid a good wage so they can build a life and have a positive ability to pursue beneficial consumption that leads to real economic growth. Capitalism must be regulated so we don't end up with destructive, criminal behavior that leads to permanent damage to the environment or really twisted businesses like child brothels and what we see with drug cartels.

Historically speaking, most successful economies are mostly capitalist which leverages economic growth and the creative and efficient capabilities of business people mixed with socialism which allows for society to share the cost and benefits of services you don't want individuals owning like the police, fire departments, military, and other such services. Though I would put medical services in this category for at least general practices and health, I would probably remove schools or lessen public schools to very focused education on basics to go to higher education over medical services. I think allowing education to compete more and pare down all the bloat in public universities requiring stupid and unnecessary electives and overly long programs to teach a job skill would greatly improve the economics of education.

I do my best to educate people and encourage them to invest. A lot of people think of the stock market as a casino. It does take skill to invest that we don't teach. With so much information available as well as automated programs and index investing, people should take a greater interest in ensuring they are putting their money to work in the most profitable capital markets in the world. I try to explain owning a stock is owning a company which is a bit like owning a house that increases in value over time but is able to increase in value often much faster and to a much greater amount due to the ability to grow market shares and revenues and earnings. I also explain they are not taking money from other places, but often creating an entirely new markets with new jobs and new wealth creation during this process as new industries are created. Sometimes they replace old industries, but often times they grow new industries entirely causing economic expansion and new wealth building.

[River Dog]

I was working towards a business degree in college. I started investing when I was in my early to mid 20s. I found economics very interesting. It helped to see all the lies that both parties tend to push. Both parties are pretty terrible. Democrats are big proponents of Keynesian Economics with a touch of Marxist policy and a healthy dose of mistrusting and hating the wealthy. Biggest problems the left has is they teach wealth as a zero sum game with metrics attempting to paint the amount of wealth as the problem when the reality is a constantly changing, nearly meaningless number that can be manipulated heavily. It is based on wealth measures like company ownership or asset ownership absent real liquidity. They should track mainly liquid wealth to see how wealth is distributed because tracking wealth by company ownership like a super wealthy person should be taxed on just owning shares in a very valuable company is a ridiculous leftist idea aimed at trying to implement socialism through a tax on ownership that would require the owner to sell their company to pay the tax. Really stupid policy being pushed by a French socialist economist. Socialism implemented on a mass level has proven to be absolutely terrible for economic, technological, and societal advancement which is why Europe is in a period of serious economic stagnation as they find out they can't pay for their social systems if they don't have prosperous economies.

At the same time the right wing idea that capitalism fixes everything and trickle down economics works like Field of Dreams with a "build it and they will come" also doesn't work. You can't give tax breaks to businesses and expect real economic growth. The consumer still needs to be paid a good wage so they can build a life and have a positive ability to pursue beneficial consumption that leads to real economic growth. Capitalism must be regulated so we don't end up with destructive, criminal behavior that leads to permanent damage to the environment or really twisted businesses like child brothels and what we see with drug cartels.

Historically speaking, most successful economies are mostly capitalist which leverages economic growth and the creative and efficient capabilities of business people mixed with socialism which allows for society to share the cost and benefits of services you don't want individuals owning like the police, fire departments, military, and other such services. Though I would put medical services in this category for at least general practices and health, I would probably remove schools or lessen public schools to very focused education on basics to go to higher education over medical services. I think allowing education to compete more and pare down all the bloat in public universities requiring stupid and unnecessary electives and overly long programs to teach a job skill would greatly improve the economics of education.

I do my best to educate people and encourage them to invest. A lot of people think of the stock market as a casino. It does take skill to invest that we don't teach. With so much information available as well as automated programs and index investing, people should take a greater interest in ensuring they are putting their money to work in the most profitable capital markets in the world. I try to explain owning a stock is owning a company which is a bit like owning a house that increases in value over time but is able to increase in value often much faster and to a much greater amount due to the ability to grow market shares and revenues and earnings. I also explain they are not taking money from other places, but often creating an entirely new market with new jobs and new wealth creation during this process as new industries are created. Sometimes they replace old industries, but often times they grow new industries entirely causing economic expansion and new wealth building.

I graduated from college with a BA in Business Administration, so I had quite a bit of exposure to finance. To give you an idea how long ago that was, I remember our professor telling us how the Dow Jones would never go below 800 points or above 1200. Shows you how much he knew. But it was my dad who taught me the value of personal finance. He was a clerk for a grain co-op, did the payroll for them, bought and sold grain, etc, so he taught me how to balance my checkbook, showed me how to do my taxes, explained how compound interest works, etc. Most people don't get that kind of paternal guidance.

I encourage people to invest, too, but unless they're really on top of things like you are, to go with a trained professional of whom they can trust. I don't consider myself to be a babe in the woods when it comes to personal finance, yet I have all of my money with a New York Life agent of whom I really like and meet with him once every 6 months to review my holdings. I also think that credit card companies that allow people to borrow money at ungodly high interest rates should be prevented from doing so. Put a cap on the interest they can charge, a limit on how much they can allow a customer to borrow. I had employees that were making the minimum payment on credit cards charging 18% interest. Except for a period of time right after I got divorced, I have always paid off my credit cards in full each month. That was another lesson I got from my old man.

I would like to see us move away from Social Security or reform it to where each person has an individual account and not responsible for paying for their predecessors. That's how it got so screwed up, that the worker-to-retiree ratio got so out of whack. I do see the need for those in high paying jobs to supplement to some degree those in lower paying occupations, have the higher paying brackets contribute to a fund that supplements the accounts of the minimum wage earners. But I don't know how we would get out from under the current system. We're pretty much committed to SS.

[Aseahawkfan]

I graduated from college with a BA in Business Administration, so I had quite a bit of exposure to finance. To give you an idea how long ago that was, I remember our professor telling us how the Dow Jones would never go below 800 points or above 1200. Shows you how much he knew. But it was my dad who taught me the value of personal finance. He was a clerk for a grain co-op, did the payroll for them, bought and sold grain, etc, so he taught me how to balance my checkbook, showed me how to do my taxes, explained how compound interest works, etc. Most people don't get that kind of paternal guidance.

I encourage people to invest, too, but unless they're really on top of things like you are, to go with a trained professional of whom they can trust. I don't consider myself to be a babe in the woods when it comes to personal finance, yet I have all of my money with a New York Life agent of whom I really like and meet with him once every 6 months to review my holdings. I also think that credit card companies that allow people to borrow money at ungodly high interest rates should be prevented from doing so. Put a cap on the interest they can charge, a limit on how much they can allow a customer to borrow. I had employees that were making the minimum payment on credit cards charging 18% interest. Except for a period of time right after I got divorced, I have always paid off my credit cards in full each month. That was another lesson I got from my old man.

I would like to see us move away from Social Security or reform it to where each person has an individual account and not responsible for paying for their predecessors. That's how it got so screwed up, that the worker-to-retiree ratio got so out of whack. I do see the need for those in high paying jobs to supplement to some degree those in lower paying occupations, have the higher paying brackets contribute to a fund that supplements the accounts of the minimum wage earners. But I don't know how we would get out from under the current system. We're pretty much committed to SS.

I can't support moving away from social security. I've found there are too many people that don't care about money and don't know how to invest or manage it well. So providing them with a minimum income and teaching them to focus on taking care of shelter needs in old age allows us to maintain a floor for poverty with the elderly. Like I joke about, I don't want to get robbed by senior citizens. Poverty is the primary driver of crime of all sorts. The more impoverished you allow your people to become, the more likely you are to have crime or something worse like violent attempts to force socialism on a nation in an ill-designed attempt to create a better life for everyone that doesn't work. But the people in power don't care once they take power and start deciding who deserves what and trying to maintain a minimum subsistence life with no or very little economic growth or activity.

My parents weren't great with money. No one in my family taught me. I learned I didn't want to be poor when I read a book called The Art of the Deal about our current president when I was 17. I found his story fascinating in how he used leverage in real estate, how he was in bankruptcy owing 4 billion against 2 billion in assets, how he extricated himself from the situation during a severe real estate downturn, and how he lived on a 100,000 a month which he considered living on a budget which blew my mind. I thought after reading this that wealthy people have a completely different view of the world than working people. Then I read Rich Dad, Poor Dad by Robert Kiyosaki. Nicely written book also illustrating the difference between how a working person thinks of money and assets and how a wealthy person thinks of money and assets.

After reading these books, I decided to get into investing. I wanted to use my money to buy assets that grew in value rather than spend on consumption. Never got into property as I don't enjoy owning property because I don't care about taking care of it or all the associated expenses, but I like owning companies through stock ownership. Took a huge loss during the Tech Bubble burst, but recovered from it over the years. I imagine everyone learns a hard lesson investing if they do it long enough. I didn't know how to protect myself from a catastrophic loss back then as I do now.

I look at humans and some are very good or at least adequate at managing finances and retirement. Some are great at it and they benefit immensely. Most are pretty bad at money management and burn through cash thinking they're doing a good job because they get something on sale or use coupons. It's pretty sad to watch given America has the most incredible wealth building tools in the history of the world that so few people know how to use.

And credit should be more regulated. Most people can barely calculate what they will owe on a loan to see how much future earnings they are giving up to make a purchase now. They don't understand the idea of compound interest for their benefit must less grasp the power of compound interest against them when they pay for something with a high interest rate. I haven't kept long-term debt for probably 25 years or so now. I cleared my debt out and never touched it again. Debt is stress and negative income. I want nothing to do with it unless I am using it to purchase an asset that will make more than it costs.

I've never been much sure how you manage a nation of humans of differing intelligence and capabilities. Hard place to legislate and regulate for some kind of equity. All I know is right now they are not doing a great job, especially when it comes to property ownership and medical costs. It will be interesting to see if the younger generation can use these new tools available to them to improve things or just get lost in the digital world and forget like some dystopian movies seem to think they will do.

[River Dog]

I can't support moving away from social security. I've found there are too many people that don't care about money and don't know how to invest or manage it well. So providing them with a minimum income and teaching them to focus on taking care of shelter needs in old age allows us to maintain a floor for poverty with the elderly. Like I joke about, I don't want to get robbed by senior citizens. Poverty is the primary driver of crime of all sorts. The more impoverished you allow your people to become, the more likely you are to have crime or something worse like violent attempts to force socialism on a nation in an ill-designed attempt to create a better life for everyone that doesn't work. But they people in power don't care once they take power and start deciding who deserves what and trying to maintain a minimum subsistence life with no or very little economic growth or activity.

My parents weren't great with money. No one in my family taught me. I learned I didn't want to be poor when I read a book called The Art of the Deal about our current president when I was 17. I found his story fascinating in how he used leverage in real estate, how he was in bankruptcy owing 4 billion against 2 billion in assets, how he extricated himself from the situation during a severe real estate downturn, and how he lived on a 100,000 a month which he considered living on a budget which blew my mind. I thought after reading this that wealthy people have a completely different view of the world than working people. Then I read Rich Dad, Poor Dad by Robert Kiyosaki. Nicely written book also illustrating the difference between how a working person thinks of money and assets and how a wealthy person thinks of money and assets.

After reading these books, I decided to get into investing. I wanted to use my money to buy assets that grew in value rather than spend on consumption. Never got into property as I don't enjoy owning property because I don't care about taking care of it or all the associated expenses, but I like owning companies through stock ownership. Took a huge loss during the Tech Bubble burst, but recovered from it over the years. I imagine everyone learns a hard lesson investing if they do it long enough. I didn't know how to protect myself from a catastrophic loss back then as I do now.

I look at humans and some are very good or at least adequate at managing finances and retirement. Some are great at it and they benefit immensely. Most are pretty bad at money management and burn through cash thinking they're doing a good job because they get something on sale or use coupons. It's pretty sad to watch given America has the most incredible wealth building tools in the history of the world that so few people know how to use.

And credit should be more regulated. Most people can barely calculate what they will owe on a loan to see how much future earnings they are giving up to make a purchase now. They don't understand the idea of compound interest for their benefit must less grasp the power of compound interest against them when they pay for something with a high interest rate. I haven't kept long-term debt for probably 25 years or so now. I cleared my debt out and never touched it again. Debt is stress and negative income. I want nothing to do with it unless I am using it to purchase an asset that will make more than it costs.

I've never been much sure how you manage a nation of humans of differing intelligence and capabilities. Hard place to legislate and regulate for some kind of equity. All I know is right now they are not doing a great job, especially when it comes to property ownership and medical costs. It will be interesting to see if the younger generation can use these new tools available to them to improve things or just get lost in the digital world and forget like some dystopian movies seem to think they will do.

I'm not advocating moving away from Social Security, either. It's too entrenched, would be prohibitively expensive to buy out current retirees, politically unfeasible. I'm just wishing that if we were to design a system from the get-go, that I wouldn't use current workers to support retirees.

I've read a few books prior to my retirement regarding Social Security. The one that I got the most out of was titled "Get What's Yours". It argued that people shouldn't look at their SS benefit as an accountant would, in other words, trying to figure out how to get the maximum number of dollars over your expected lifetime. Rather, they encouraged people to look at their SS benefit as insurance against a retiree's greatest fear, running out of money before they die. That resonated with me, so I delayed taking my SS benefit until I was 70, which increased my monthly premium by 132% of my FRA, or full retirement amount, the amount I would have collected had I started taking my SS at 66, my FRA date (it's now age 67).

My wife has both MS and Rheumatoid Arthritis, and can't get LTC insurance, and if I die before her, she'll get my benefit amount. I figured that one of us should live long enough to where one of us could take advantage of that higher benefit. It's really paid off now as I've been drawing $4k/month on my SS alone for almost a year now.

In the meantime, not taking my SS kept my income low, which allowed me to transfer funds from my traditional IRA to my Roth and pay tax at 10% vs. 22%, the next highest tax bracket. I heard of that little trick by going to a free SS class a few years before I retired, and the strategy was reinforced by my financial advisor.

I agree completely with credit being more regulated and said so earlier. I hate saying it, but we have to protect the idiots from themselves. There are credit card companies that literally prey on those idiots who spend money they don't have. I keep hearing these advertising slogans that get me upset: "Good, credit, bad credit, no credit, no problem!" But liberals will argue that in restricting access to credit that you're punishing poor people from obtaining credit that the rich people already have. I don't see it that way.

[Aseahawkfan]

I'm not advocating moving away from Social Security, either. It's too entrenched, would be prohibitively expensive to buy out current retirees, politically unfeasible. I'm just wishing that if we were to design a system from the get-go, that I wouldn't use current workers to support retirees.

I've read a few books prior to my retirement regarding Social Security. The one that I got the most out of was titled "Get What's Yours". It argued that people shouldn't look at their SS benefit as an accountant would, in other words, trying to figure out how to get the maximum number of dollars over your expected lifetime. Rather, they encouraged people to look at their SS benefit as insurance against a retiree's greatest fear, running out of money before they die. That resonated with me, so I delayed taking my SS benefit until I was 70, which increased my monthly premium by 132% of my FRA, or full retirement amount, the amount I would have collected had I started taking my SS at 66, my FRA date (it's now age 67).

My wife has both MS and Rheumatoid Arthritis, and can't get LTC insurance, and if I die before her, she'll get my benefit amount. I figured that one of us should live long enough to where one of us could take advantage of that higher benefit. It's really paid off now as I've been drawing $4k/month on my SS alone for almost a year now.

In the meantime, not taking my SS kept my income low, which allowed me to transfer funds from my traditional IRA to my Roth and pay tax at 10% vs. 22%, the next highest tax bracket. I heard of that little trick by going to a free SS class a few years before I retired, and the strategy was reinforced by my financial advisor.

I agree completely with credit being more regulated and said so earlier. I hate saying it, but we have to protect the idiots from themselves. There are credit card companies that literally prey on those idiots who spend money they don't have. I keep hearing these advertising slogans that get me upset: "Good, credit, bad credit, no credit, no problem!" But liberals will argue that in restricting access to credit that you're punishing poor people from obtaining credit that the rich people already have. I don't see it that way.

I plan to wait until 70 as well for SS. I'm hoping by that time SS is just an extra bit of money to spend as I wish. I did not take advantage of Roths and IRAs. I've always been of the mind to "get rich or die trying" as the rap lyric goes. I'm still focused on that and like to have full access to my capital without concern for tax penalties or rules as I move as fast as I can in the market. I also haven't worked for a company with 401k matching or quality investments. I tend to invest in a wide variety of sectors and investment types as well as use options to boost income while managing a position.

Did you see the "buy now, pay later" space which is more consumer access to credit? I don't think it will end well. I've avoided investing in these companies because I see it as another credit time bomb building. You shouldn't need credit for most purchases. If you're using a credit card, personal loans, payday loans, then adding in "buy now, pay later", you're adding to your misery. It's like it's raining and the turkeys are getting ready to drown. We need to regulate credit so the turkeys don't drown on all that credit and take a bunch of bad loans with them when companies are desperate to make more money by adding new ways to use credit and debt.

[River Dog]

I plan to wait until 70 as well for SS. I'm hoping by that time SS is just an extra bit of money to spend as I wish. I did not take advantage of Roths and IRAs. I've always been of the mind to "get rich or die trying" as the rap lyric goes. I'm still focused on that and like to have full access to my capital without concern for tax penalties or rules as I move as fast as I can in the market. I also haven't worked for a company with 401k matching or quality investments. I tend to invest in a wide variety of sectors and investment types as well as use options to boost income while managing a position.

Did you see the "buy now, pay later" space which is more consumer access to credit? I don't think it will end well. I've avoided investing in these companies because I see it as another credit time bomb building. You shouldn't need credit for most purchases. If you're using a credit card, personal loans, payday loans, then adding in "buy now, pay later", you're adding to your misery. It's like it's raining and the turkeys are getting ready to drown. We need to regulate credit so the turkeys don't drown on all that credit and take a bunch of bad loans with them when companies are desperate to make more money by adding new ways to use credit and debt.

Good on you for waiting to draw your SS. I'm sure glad I did.

Something else you might want to check into is a health savings account. My employer sponsored one, but in my younger years, I had almost no medical expenses, so it didn't make a lot of sense contributing to one. But when I got closer to retirement, I discovered that there are some significant tax advantages, plus my employer contributed to it. One mistake I made was waiting too long before I started bumping up my contribution to the max. Anyway, it's something to think about.

You're preaching to the choir when it comes to regulating credit and debt. I saw lots of my employees driving cars and towing boats that I knew that they couldn't afford then turn around and have to issue discipline to them because they had their wages garnished. Pretty sad.