Now, with the 2009 Lincoln cent errors, they finally have something worthwhile to search for in rolls and in U.S. Mint 'LP2' boxes of two-roll sets. Add to the scarcity of the errors the fact that the total Lincoln cent mintage numbers from 2009 were barely 1/10th the 'normal' Mint output in almost 50 years!
Go west for Elk and Muleys: How much scope magnification is enough if your max ethical shot is 400 yards??Enough? For elk, 4x is easily 'enough' out to 400 and beyond. For deer, maybe 6X. That being said, my elk rifle wears a 2.5 X 8.
I cannot imagine an ethical shot out to 600+ yards where I would need more than 8X. My primary 'deer' rifle wears a 3X9, deer being a bit smaller than elk, once again, out to 600+, no problems. Doping the drop and wind is a much bigger obstacle than worrying about counting the ticks on his butt. On the other hand, a lot more elk, and probably deer too, are taken in timber where average shots can be well under 100 yards, often under 50. For shots on a moving (running) animal in thick timber, under 50 yards, 2X or 3X is prefect, anything over 5X will cause you to miss more often than not. High power scopes are a lot of fun, but for hunting big game, a 3X9 is all you will ever really need, and if you hunt anything like I do, you will spend a lot more time with that scope set on 3x than you will set on 9X. I do with my muzzy, but only because I have to Yeah.
I hear ya' and don't get me wrong. I use a very nice scope on a great rifle as well.
I just kind of scratch my head these days in light of all these advanced products we use. The $200 you might spend on a lower tiered scope is plenty for top of the line iron sights, and they're accurate out to 300-400 yards depending on what you go with. Yes, I'm including rifle caliber in the selection process as well.
But, I'm really beginning to return to some basics & fundamentals. For instance, I'm fairly confident with my rifle at 500+ yards, but almost never find myself in that type of situation. Truthfully, I would be very doubtful if I'd take the shot even if I could make it; and I could. Since most of the shots I take are inside 300 yards, I'm beginning to consider a return to basics for more simplicity.
Especially, since more simplicity means a much more enjoyable hunt. Just my two pennies, but I know there's got to be some others out there. Looks the same as using iron sights at 100yds. Folks seem to have made that combo work for a few hundred years.I know what you're saying Pointer. All I'm saying is the dozen or so 'old timers' I grew up hunting elk around probably shot/packed more elk than the collective lifetime effort on this board (think Buzz's body count then add 30 years to it). 300 yards was a long, long shot for these average elk hunters.
They shot 300 Sav, 308, 270, or 30-06, and one had a 300 Magnum (wish I had it). Most either had old 3x Lyman or 4x Weaver scopes or if they were 'rich' a 4x Leupold. At 400 yards an elk was a blurry spot in most of these scopes.
I know the German post in 3x Lyman darn near covers an elk completely at 400 yards. The 400 yard shot was the the stuff of legends because no one took those kind of shots, they all believed in getting closer. Because they couldn't see it clearly in their scopes. Only in our generation has it become SOP to shoot if you can see it. Because you have a big azz scope and rifle to match.
If you plan on shooting long range, do yourself a favor and get a scope that you can see a lot of target at long range to make a good shot, and then practice a lot. I'm no crack shot, and know for a fact that I've killed exactly 1 animal out of a couple hundred that was over 400 yards. I know my limitations and stick to them. 3x9 or 4x12 work great for me. Last edited by Bambistew; at 11:16 AM.
The issue of whether or not to have joint accounts or separate accounts for married couples seems to be an issue about which people have strong views on both sides. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer, I think each couple can decide what is right for themselves, but I am curious to see the views of Bogleheads on this issue. Of course I have my view as well, but I do not want to sway the responses by advocating my view, so I will try to summarize the general categories of views that I have heard in the most objective way possible. The way I see it, there are three general categories of views: 1) All money should be joint to the extent permitted by law. (I said to the extent permitted by law because there are situations where the law does not allow joint accounts, for example, an IRA account can only be held by one person, it cannot be held jointly.) The people who espouse this view generally believe that when two people get married, 'two become one' and there is no more 'yours and mine,' everything is now 'ours,' and all money should be treated as one, regardless of how much is contributed by each person.
Critics of this view point out that it can lead to fights about how to handle money, and it can lead to unfairness if one spouse earns much more than the other and the marriage later ends in divorce. 2) Some or most of the money should be jointly held, with some money set aside for each person as an allowance or fun money. The people who espouse this view generally believe that there should be a joint account to pay for most expenses, but there should be an accommodation for each person to have some amount of money set aside to be spent how they see fit, with no questions asked. This is a hybrid between views 1 and 3. 3) All money should be held individually with no joint accounts. The people who espouse this view generally believe that you should keep the 'business' of marriage (i.e. Money) separate from the romantic aspects of marriage to avoid conflict, and they point out that fighting over money is one of the primary causes of relationship problems or divorce.
They suggest that if you separate the business aspect of marriage from the romantic aspect, you can avoid fighting about money. Critics of this view point out that this view can be problematic if one spouse does not contribute due to voluntary or involuntary unemployment, and they point out that if you are truly committed to your spouse, you should not be concerned about protecting your money from your spouse or about trusting your spouse, and if you are concerned about that you shouldn't be married to that person anyway. Please note that I am only referring to money earned or received during marriage, I am not asking about money that was accumulated before marriage.
I am also not asking you to judge others or tell other what to do, I am just asking for your view. I didn't know that the 'law' dictates how much a married or unmarried couple is permitted to keep in joint accounts. Must be some 'new law' that is out there. If a couple prior to marriage had independent lives with accumulated assets and liabilities in substantial amounts, then those amounts should remain separate. However, from day one of the marriage, all income, expenses, assets and liabilities should be jointly held (to the extent permitted by law ).
Assets held in accounts such as Individual Retirement Accounts that was earned from 'joint married income' should have each respective spouse listed as the sole beneficiary. After X number of years of marriage, even my separate accounts are going to my spouse less some agreed upon amount to my offspring. Others who know more about debt collection than I do can correct me if I'm wrong here. I thought that if one spouse owes a debt to a third party, it is more difficult for the creditor to collect on that debt from joint accounts than from accounts held only in the name of the debtor spouse.
Rare Penny
If so, this can be a reason to hold assets in joint accounts where possible. On the other hand, and unfortuately, spouses have been known to deplete joint accounts without the knowledge or specific consent of their spouses. We have a joint account, out of which all bills are paid and all of my expenses are covered. My DH has a separate 'fun money' account, to which he adds a portion of his income each month (the majority of it goes to taxable). I handle all of the bills/finances, so when we married last year, it made sense to turn my account into the joint account, since all of the auto-bill pay was already set up. My DH never looks at it. I don't even think he's ever used the ATM card yet!
We also have a linked credit card set up so it all goes on one bill. BL wrote:I was expecting a discussion on the tax (step-up) consequences of either.
We have just joint accounts, but that will mean only 1/2 step-up (different for community property states) after death of one spouse. I don't see it as a critical concern, but am wondering if it would have been better to have it split up. We are still accumulating a bit in retirement. I don't think changing ownership would have tax consequences. I wonder about changing ownership's tax consequences, if it was anything other than 50% to each husband/wife partner. It seems like it could trigger a gift tax assuming it was an amount greater than the allowable amount per year, around 14K.
Tax cost basis would also be a question on the gifted portion, It should go to 0. Otherwise I could envision a situation where the joint account was retitled to a terminally ill partner to get the stepped up cost basis on their passing. Mptfan wrote:The issue of whether or not to have joint accounts or separate accounts for married couples seems to be an issue about which people have strong views on both sides. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer, I think each couple can decide what is right for themselves, but I am curious to see the views of Bogleheads on this issue. Of course I have my view as well. /u Didn't Jonathan Swift write about this?
Oh no, that was the dispute over which end of the boiled egg had to be cracked open first! FWIW, we've had joint everything for over 30 years, until we've recently started rejiggering some assets outside of tax-deferred accounts to even things up for estate planning (although even those are functionally joint). Works for us, but we've also worked to keep ourselves on the same page for all those years.
Joint accounts don't have to be shared. In the interests of practicality my spouse and I each have our own checking account which, even though they are joint accounts, which we do not share. Each of us wants to know the balance in their account at all times, the only way to do that is to have a single 'user' for each account. We each carried over all of our individual credit cards from before marriage and that should provide lots of back-up in case a particular card doesn't 'work' on a particular occasion. All our savings and non-ira investment accounts are joint. HomerJ wrote:When money is tight, I think 3 accounts (his, her, joint) is a good idea. When we were first married, I put $100 from every check into 'my' account, the rest into the joint.
Then if I wanted to splurge on something that was just for me (a new computer, going out to play pool with the guys, etc.), I could pull it from 'my' account, and there would be no arguments. We've been married 16 years now, and a have a ton more money, and we now basically just have a joint account. I like his, hers and ours and that's what we do regardless of how tight money is. It's more meaningful when we buy gifts for each other or say I want to take you out to dinner and meaning from my personal account instead of joint account if it's truly from the individual pool. That and she then can't complain about me spending $100/mo on Kindle books or me complaining about her saving up and buying a high end purse. Probably 98% of the money goes to joint though but the separate account adds flexibility and the ability to give something to the other and feel like it's actually a gift vs. Spending of joint money.
After 35+ years, we have everything pretty much in joint accounts. But more importantly we don't spend above a certain amount without checking with the other person. When we were first married, that was $5; nowadays it is like $200. And of course a purchase that we will both use, we discuss together. It would be perhaps easier to have separate accounts and do our own thing.but for us, those discussions have been part of our intertwining and becoming a single unit as a family. One of our biggest 'discussions' ever was when a daughter was in second grade, and I thought we should fund a prepaid tuition plan for her.
My spouse was skeptical. I talked with friends who didn't see any downside, and one ended up funding a plan for her own daughter because of my bringing it to her attention. Finally, my spouse agreed. It ended up saving us a bundle.
Not only was it cheaper to have paid the tuition at those lower rates, but in the meantime a bunch of new fees had been added, from which my daughter was excused as a plan participant, and that really made it financially worthwhile. At the time of the purchase, I had returned to the workplace and was earning a good salary. But it wasn't my money to spend.
For us, it was important that we discuss that through and decide together. I really like the book 'Financially Ever After: The Couples' Guide to Managing Money' by Jeff Opdyke. Of course other couples do things differently. I have friends who have been divorced and could never be comfortable without their own accounts and income. In the early days - think more than 50 years ago - all checking and savings accounts were joint. The checking accounts are still joint.
But after collecting a few pennies (as the sole wage slave), I opened individual investment accounts for two reasons: 1. To provide for some measure of asset protection 2. To provide my wife with a direct sense of ownership in our assets It is effectively one pot of money, but in fact my wife's taxable account is somewhat larger than mine, while my tax preferenced assets remain larger than hers. The 'his' and 'her's' is just a legal artifact that provides asset protection in excess of any umbrella insurance.
Other than the asset protection, I put 'joint' and 'separate but about equal' into the same boat. I wouldn't feel quite right about owning 99% of the assets within the marriage, despite having earned 100% of it in dollar terms. The assumption of OP and many responses is that this issue is just a matter of view of one's marriage and spending. But there are non subjective reasons not to have money in joint accounts.
Joint accounts can create greater or lesser complications when one owner dies. If you read around you'll notice lots of 'usually' qualifiers for whether the other person gets immediate access to the money; also depends on the paperwork being up to date. These potential wrinkles increase in case one might ever be subject to estate or gift tax and particularly, in the US, when one partner is not a US citizen. In that case joint accounts can cause disastrous gift tax effects. Also as mentioned there's asset protection in case one has any exposure to lawsuits.
My wife wasn't a US citizen the first 20 or so years we were married so we had almost everything in separate name, and there was no reason to change it since. It doesn't mean we don't view property as truly shared: our every day checking account is joint, as are all the credit card accounts.
And we put money into that checking account from our other accounts without regard to whose name it happens to be in, just whatever is paying a dividend, whatever larger bank account has the lowest rate of interest, etc. Also I believe joint accounts can complicate divorce depending on case and state, though I don't view that as too relevant personally. We both use the same bank so when we got married we found the easiest route was to open a joint savings account and connect it to both of our individual checking accounts. This way we didn't have to change any automatic billing or direct deposit setups and if one of us needs money from the other it can be accomplished with a few mouse clicks. It is effectively all joint though since we have access to each others log in information.
But we do warn each other not to look at recent purchases around birthdays and holidays so we don't accidentally discover our gifts. We have a joint account: All income goes into it. The majority of expenses are paid from it. We also each have a personal checking account for 'fun' money. I can spend 'my' fun money on mani/pedi's or gifting the grandkids without worrying that he'll think I'm being a spendthrift. He can spend 'his' fun money any way he wants (I really do not want to know how much he spends on car stuff).
Each of us has named the other to be the reciepent of the personal account in the event of death. All three accounts are at the same credit union and money can easily be transferred between them. Money is no longer tight.
This works for us. MichDad wrote:Others who know more about debt collection than I do can correct me if I'm wrong here. I thought that if one spouse owes a debt to a third party, it is more difficult for the creditor to collect on that debt from joint accounts than from accounts held only in the name of the debtor spouse. If so, this can be a reason to hold assets in joint accounts where possible.
On the other hand, and unfortuately, spouses have been known to deplete joint accounts without the knowledge or specific consent of their spouses. MichDad This protection from creditors is state specific, that is to say it varies by state of domicile. In Florida, for example, which tends to be a debtor friendly jurisdiction, a married couple whose assets are held as tenancy by the entireties generally have protection of those jointly titled assets from state court judgment creditors of only one of the spouses, subject to exceptions like fraud.
This advice, like many others on this site, is worth every penny paid for it. Our main accounts are separate, but each of us is listed as joint on the other person's accounts. So they are joint accounts, but only one person uses them. We split the bills according to our incomes. Our income is high enough that neither of us needs to be accountable to the other for spending, but we do pay attention to the other's financial stability.
I have seen disasters where the person who managed the finances died, leaving someone without experience to cope with the bills. I do not think that anyone should be put in that position. I have noticed among my children's friends that many relationships are built or destroyed over perceived financial responsibility or irresponsibility. People who are responsible and solvent are afraid of relationships with spendthrifts or debtors.
HomerJ wrote: It's more meaningful when we buy gifts for each other or say I want to take you out to dinner and meaning from my personal account instead of joint account if it's truly from the individual pool. That and she then can't complain about me spending $100/mo on Kindle books or me complaining about her saving up and buying a high end purse. Probably 98% of the money goes to joint though but the separate account adds flexibility and the ability to give something to the other and feel like it's actually a gift vs.
Spending of joint money. +1 We have long had the ours/hers/his accounts. I manage our finances so there are never multiple people writing checks and he uses our (joint) credit card then reimburses when necessary if he's gotten something that will be paid from his individual account. It's worked out well for us. I have lately been thinking about how we will manage money in retirement.
Without the individual savings regimen of our 403b withdrawals, maybe it would make more sense to transition into a single joint account. Have to start that conversation; the original impetus for the 3-account system was intense stress on both sides about our different money management styles. One of us is an extreme saver, one of us is not and and this proved to be a very workable compromise. As others have also mentioned, in our case over the years our resources have grown and our financial drains have decreased so at this point money management isn't such a burning issue for either of us any more. When we were married DW was a student and I was unemployed and deep in debt. So we started out 'below zero' I thought I was cheap, she was cheaper.
We bought our first new car 10 years after she became a doctor! So spending was never an issue. DW always kept her inherited money separate. I never had separate money.
All Earned money of any kind has always been joint. We even have a written agreement that our pensions and retirement accounts are owned 50-50 no matter how they are titled. Makes life much simpler. The TSP account in her name is all stock, The IRA account in my name is all Wellesley etc and it doesn't matter. Wildebeest wrote:We are living in a very litigious society and how you set up your financial house may have great consequences.
Divorce happens and that may cause devastation if hard feelings overtake reason. ( Urban legend?: Blind couple divorcing and going to court over the photo album). The spouse may develop an addiction, mania, gambling habit etc or may be 'just may be a big spender'. That said, we have everything in joint accounts except when our lawyer advises us otherwise. In virtually all states how money is titled has almost no effect on property division in a divorce. (Where the money came from may make a difference but not how it's titled.) I do have my doubts about any suggestion that you can distinguish hard feelings from reason in a divorce.
Think of walking up to someone, punching them and then suggesting that reason rather than hard feelings are now the order of the day in determining payment. Perhaps because we have been a one income family, at the very beginning of our marriage we consolidated our debts (which amounted to all of $700), and we have had joint accounts and joint ownership of everything. Although we each have Social Security income, the monthly payments go into an account held in common.
We did the same with inheritances from both sides of the family: pooled the inheritance money together to be invested or spent. Our own estate will be divided equally between our kids.
ADDED: This approach worked well for us. Been married for 45 years. I think we're compatible. We use joint accounts. Neither one of us had any debt coming into the marriage, and we both had about $50k in assets, which we combined into one account at Fidelity.
Crack Think3 2009 Penny Worth
Initially, we used separate accounts, but also had a joint checking account. I felt like we were both spending on things we probably shouldn't be, and also keeping too much extra cash in our individual accounts. I suggested that we use only joint accounts, and that it would make accounting for everything easier.
Since we came without a huge amount of assets, and both contribute equally to our finances, the concern of divorce didn't really worry me. We'd end up splitting our assets evenly anyways (though I hope of course that divorce never happens). Anyways, combining our assets into only joint accounts had a profound effect on our savings rate. For whatever reason, we suddenly went from saving $1000-$2000/month to $3000-$4000/month. I think we just became acutely aware of our shared finances, and stopped spending in the places that were really a waste, and focused more on building our joint investment accounts. Overall, it has only had a positive effect for us, but this is a personal decision and might be different for other people. Wildebeest wrote.We are living in a very litigious society.What's your evidence for that?
It gets said a lot, but I'm not convinced the U.S. Is particularly litigious or that it is any more or less litigious than it was fifty years ago. Nisiprius, You made me look. I ended up reading the first 10 items on Google 'Litigiousness in the US'.
Highlights: Of all civil lawsuits 15% of money recovered goes to the plaintiff. 80% of all the lawyers in the world live in the US. 15 million civil lawsuits are filed per year. Tort cost per capita in 1950 was $ 106 and in 2009 it was $ 508 inflation adjusted. Personally I have been sued three times. IMO frivolously but ended up paying in one case over $ 200000 in lawyer fees after 'winning'.
Think3 Innovations
It dragged on for 5 years and I was fortunate that I did not end up as a Charles Dickens character in Bleak House. The other two times I was insured and it only cost me time, frustration and a anger about the unfairness of it all. And then I have been lucky. I have been very happily married. However going through a law suit put a large strain on the marriage. I should have gotten Frivolous lawsuit insurance to start with.
If I would start new ventures, it would be 'justice' that one would a Law school and the other The Frivilous Civil law suit Insurance Company. Wildebeest wrote:Divorce happens and that may cause devastation if hard feelings overtake reason. ( Urban legend?: Blind couple divorcing and going to court over the photo album). The spouse may develop an addiction, mania, gambling habit etc or may be 'just may be a big spender'.
That said, we have everything in joint accounts except when our lawyer advises us otherwise. In virtually all states how money is titled has almost no effect on property division in a divorce. (Where the money came from may make a difference but not how it's titled.) I do have my doubts about any suggestion that you can distinguish hard feelings from reason in a divorce. Think of walking up to someone, punching them and then suggesting that reason rather than hard feelings are now the order of the day in determining payment. Professor Emeritus rereading my post I agree with you. I should have kept hard feelings/ reason out of the equation.
Separate accounts may work best if there was no premarital financial counseling till you find out that the two of you are financially compatible or when you may a target for frivolous suits. Wildebeest wrote: Professor Emeritus rereading my post I agree with you. I should have kept hard feelings/ reason out of the equation. Separate accounts may work best if there was no premarital financial counseling till you find out that the two of you are financially compatible or when you may a target for frivolous suits. I hope you saw the smiley!! If you need separate accounts till you find out if you are financially compatible IMHO you are not ready to get married. I knew DW was cheaper than I was.
She sometimes wondered if I was cheap or just poor. My car had a log for a parking brake. I had a cable spool for a dining room table. My apartment looked like the discard pile from Goodwill. But we were compatible.