It Is Simple To Be Healthier and Happier

I will call this a myth because I don't think it is true for most of us, especially those of us raised in Calvinist traditions, where suffering is a sign of virtue and intelligence.  It isn't.

To the contrary, "Research suggests that the best self-help advice may have very little to do with yourself", according to this excellent Pocket article.  Instead, the key is learning to like other people.

Which is difficult given the evidence-free "stranger danger" conditioning we were saturated with as children and young parents (fact is, less than 1% of abductions are by strangers).

Here's the most fascinating cognitive bias in the article:
"Research shows that we tend to think we're better than average at almost everything, meaning that others are worse - including less trustworthy[emphasis mine] . . . we tend to think our own motivations are intrinsic whereas others' are extrinsic" (I work hard because I love my job.  They work hard only because they're getting paid).

Isn't it sad that that we have trouble assuming that others have good intentions?  We should give others the benefit of the doubt unless they provide evidence to the contrary, shouldn't we?

"Finally, while research on optimism—including assuming the best of others—almost universally shows its benefits for success and satisfaction in both work and life, people tend to fear being seen as an unrealistic “Pollyanna.”"

Gary

Your Constructive Comments are Welcome!

USAfacts.org publishes facts

Usafacts.org is entirely funded by Steve Ballmer, former Microsoft CEO.  Sorry Steve, but this portrayal of Social Security needs some help.  This article is packed with myths. See the full article and my comments (click on the link below):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/11DxsJjUVSrHwG-wrmwXnhagfXk8NOONt/view?usp=sharing

Your Constructive Comments are Welcome!

What Will We Do When AI & Robots Do Everything?

What Will We Do When AI & Robots Do Everything? 

We will live, that's what we'll do.  Maybe we will finally learn that our value lies not in what we produce but in who we are.  But I tend to think in terms of the end game and I fear that with their already overbearing influence, the most powerful people and companies will do anything they can to continue owning the means of production, to accelerate their hoarding:  AI and robots.  If, on the other hand, the current wealth hoarders can become, or be replaced by, altruistic humans, I'm sure they would choose to ensure that everyone and every thing on Earth can live a gratifying life.

Here are some numbers:

• Total GDP, end of 2022 was $25.46 Trillion
• The top five companies (used to be FAANG, now it's SAAMA-see below) have a combined market cap of about $10 tril.
  
  
  
  I know, those are measurements of different things, cash flow versus asset value.  But how difficult would it be for 5, or fewer, of the largest companies to dominate AI & robotics?

Here's the thing about hoarders.  Logic, ethics, shame, distraction, rewards, none of those tactics cure hoarders.  Usually it takes coercion.  We need to empower again the referees in our economy, and our society, to not only prevent the above hoarders from getting larger but to shrink their hoard.  Great wealth does not necessarily correlate with great wisdom.  In fact, they're mutually exclusive.

Your Constructive Comments are Welcome!

Venting Our Feelings is a Great Way to Appreciate the Good and Bad in Life.

Remember the Primal Scream? (No, not the Scottish rock band)  The theory was that if you've been repressing your emotions so completely and severely that you don't even know how you feel in a given situation, letting it all out in a therapeutic setting can be beneficial.  There is legitimacy to that.  But I think the title of this post is a solid myth, based on my personal experience as well as watching others.
But I also think the Primal Scream got corrupted into the belief that you should let it all out all the time everywhere. 
Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hahn wrote in his excellent book, "Anger" that if you vent anger you are just practicing anger.  He recommends recognizing the feeling of anger (or fear, or anxiety, etc.) and just watching it for a bit to see how it plays out, without repressing it.

Which applies quite well to these ten strategies to appreciate the good in life and benefit from the bad (Courtesy of ChatGPT, by the way).  I like the phrasing, the active intentional approach of each of the ten recommendations:  Celebrate, accept, learn, seek, foster.

1.    Acknowledge the complexity of life: Life is full of ups and downs, and it's important to recognize that both good and bad experiences are necessary for growth and development.

2.    Celebrate the good times: Take time to appreciate and celebrate the good moments in life, whether it's a personal accomplishment, a milestone, or a joyful event. Recognize the positive impact these experiences have on your life and the lives of those around you.

3.    Embrace challenges: Recognize that challenges are an opportunity for growth and learning. Approach challenges with a positive attitude and embrace the opportunity to learn and grow from them.

4.    Learn from mistakes: Recognize that mistakes are a natural part of life and provide an opportunity to learn and improve. Take responsibility for your mistakes and use them as a learning opportunity.

5.    Accept failure: Recognize that failure is a natural part of life and provides an opportunity to learn and grow. Use failure as a motivator to try harder and strive for success.

6.    Cultivate gratitude: Appreciate the good things in your life, no matter how small. Cultivate gratitude by regularly reflecting on the positive aspects of your life and expressing gratitude to others.

7.    Practice self-compassion: Recognize that it's natural to experience both “good” and “bad” moments in life. Be kind to yourself and practice self-compassion during difficult times.

8.    Seek support: Recognize that it's okay to ask for help and seek support from friends, family, or professionals during difficult times.

9.    Maintain perspective: Recognize that both good and bad experiences are relative & temporary.  Maintain perspective during difficult times. Remember that there is always hope for a better tomorrow.

10. Foster resilience: Recognize that both good and bad experiences provide an opportunity to build resilience. Use difficult experiences as an opportunity to develop coping skills and build emotional strength.  Strategic “adversity”, e.g. intentionally subjecting yourself to challenging situations, e.g. ice baths or public speaking, can be empowering.

Your Constructive Comments are Welcome!

Guest Column in the No Myth Zone by Frank Maselli

Frank is a brilliant, hyper-energetic, engaging presenter and teacher.  I've attended a couple of his seminar trainings back East.  We have completely opposite personalities- I'm fairly quiet and enjoy solitude -but Frank provides a great deal of value to all types of people.  I highly recommend his books on doing seminars.
But frankly (!), his one-page affirmation exercise has made the biggest difference in my life and practice.  I generally read this at the end of the day, more often than in the morning, so I can sleep on it and absorb it without getting distracted by the morning's inevitable craziness.

I've never been much of a believer in affirmations but these are powerful.  I not only feel better afterward but I behave better.  So whether you're a sole proprietor or manage large teams, I'll bet Frank's "3-Minute Brain Workout" will trigger noticeable benefit:

Your Constructive Comments are Welcome!

How Not to Panic About Social Security

Today's myth is from Paul Krugman’s erroneous How not to Panic About Social Security (2-28-23).  (A far more accurate, complete, useful and relevant take can be found at https://socialsecurityworks.org/).  Sloppy articles like this on such an important topic are my pet peeve.

First error:   "I haven’t studied the detailed history of the program’s origins [that would be advisable next time, Paul], but I’m pretty sure [what if I used that metric in my practice, pretty sure?] that it was set up to look like an ordinary pension fund [emphasis mine] because that made it politically easier to sell. . . it was designed to encourage misconceptions”
In reality, from day one its mission was inherent, transparent and politically popular as well:  To prevent poverty among widows, orphans and the elderly.  And later, the disabled. It was, and is, wage insurance.  It never was promoted as anything like a Federal pension.  And the only sales strategy needed was the Great Depression and 25% unemployment.  However, Social Security could not be "sold" to big business and the church.*  So Roosevelt just overpowered them.

 Next error:  "for the first half-century. . .it had almost no assets. . . it has always operated on a pay-as-you-go basis".  Totally wrong!  The trust funds were built up for three years before benefits began to be paid, at which point its balance was $2 bil.  The lowest trust fund balance ever was at the end of its first year in 1937:  $766 million.

Cavalierly written articles like Krugman's encourage people to file for benefits incorrectly, often losing hundreds of thousands in benefits.

But he's not the only one.  Ric Edelman writes in ThinkAdvisor:

"FDR [Franklin Delano Roosevelt] assumed that you’d retire at 62 and die by 65; the Social Security system worked well when people paid into the system for 40 years and withdrew from it for three years. The system was never meant to pay benefits to anyone for 20, 30 or 40 years."

This is simply not true.  FDR "assumed" nothing.  All he did was sign the legislation.  The actuaries serving on FDR's Committee for Economic Security (chaired by the brilliant Frances Perkins) did such a good job that they were only two years off on longevity estimates for beneficiaries, 90 years later.  Longevity risk was one of its main targets.

To his credit, Krugman goes on to point out that the rationale for further raising the Full Benefit Age- increasing longevity -simply isn’t valid for the wage earners who most depend on Social Security.  The bottom half of wage earners have gained one year in life expectancy since 1921.  And recently their longevity has been slipping  The top half of wage earners have gained seven years. 

The source of the problem is not the decline in number of workers in relation to beneficiaries.  That claim makes my hair catch fire.  The real funding problem is two-fold:

1. That only wages, or "earned" income, are taxed for Social Security.  And then only up to $160,400 taxable income.  The wealthy have gradually shifted their income sources to be tax advantaged as well as exempt from Social Security taxation.
2. That real wages, adjusted for inflation, have been flat for 30 years.

Social Security tax shortfalls will begin happening not because there aren't enough workers but because more and more of our economy's financial rewards are going to fewer and fewer people in forms that are not subject to Social Security tax.

What better place to seek additional funding for the Social Security trust funds than the top half of income earners rather than just wage earners?  That would also solve the problem of a shrinking pool of contributors.

 Nobody wins from anyone living in poverty, although many believe they do.  Everyone wins when no one lives in poverty, although many think they don't.

Gary Duell

*(big business because they don't like to pay any taxes at all, the church because they thought it would encourage sloth.).

Your Constructive Comments are Welcome!

Updated IRS TaxRefund Myths

(This post is copied from IRS's Tax Tips newsletter)

Issue Number:  Tax Tip 2023-38

___________________________________________________________

Don’t fall for these federal tax refund myths

Once people complete and file their tax return, many of them eagerly await any refund they may be owed. No matter how a taxpayer plans to use their tax refund, knowing fact from fiction can help manage expectations as they wait for their money. This tip dispels some federal tax refund myths that many people believe are fact, but they are pure fiction.

Myth: Calling the IRS, a tax software provider or a tax professional will provide a more accurate refund date
Many people think talking to the IRS or to their tax software provider or tax professional is the best way to find out when they will get their refund. The best way to check the status of a refund is through the “Where's My Refund?” tool or the IRS2Go app.
Taxpayers can also call the automated refund hotline at 800-829-1954 to get their refund status. This hotline has the same information as “Where's My Refund?”. There is no need to call the IRS unless “Where's My Refund?” says to do so.

Myth: “Where's My Refund?” must be wrong because there's no deposit date yet
Updates to “Where's My Refund?” ‎and to the IRS2Go mobile app are made once a day, usually overnight. Even though the IRS issues most refunds within 21 days, it's possible a refund may take longer. If the IRS needs more information to process a tax return, the agency will contact the taxpayer by mail. Taxpayers should also consider the time it takes for the banks to post the refund to the taxpayer's account. People waiting for a refund in the mail should plan for extra time.

Myth: “Where's My Refund?” must be wrong because the refund amount is less than expected
There are several factors that could cause a tax refund to be less than expected. The IRS will mail the taxpayer a letter of explanation if it makes adjustments. Some taxpayers may also receive a letter from the Department of Treasury's Bureau of the Fiscal Service if their refund was reduced to offset certain financial obligations. Before calling, taxpayers should check the “Where's My Refund” tool or wait for the letter to understand why the change occurred. This can help taxpayers know how to respond.

Myth: Getting a refund this year means there's no need to adjust withholding for tax year 2023
To avoid a surprise next year, taxpayers should make changes now. One way to do this is to adjust their tax withholding with their employer. The “Tax Withholding Estimator” tool can help taxpayers determine if their employer is withholding the right amount.

Taxpayers who experience a life event such as marriage, divorce, or the birth or adoption of a child, or are no longer able to claim a person as a dependent, are encouraged to check their withholding. Taxpayers can use the results from the “Tax Withholding Estimator” to complete a new Form W-4, Employee's Withholding Certificate, and submit it to their employer as soon as possible. Withholding takes place throughout the year, so it's better to take this step as soon as possible.

Share this tip on social media -- #IRSTaxTip: Don’t fall for these federal tax refund myths. http://ow.ly/6jvW50Nn46f

Your Constructive Comments are Welcome!

I Can Trust Licensed Fiduciaries With My Money

In general, yes, you can trust a fiduciary adviser with your money.  But why would you??

Weekly, in the many financial journals I read, are one or more news stories about "financial advisers" who have outright stolen their clients' money.  Here's an especially egregious one involving the elderly:

https://www.financial-planning.com/news/ex-lpl-advisor-bradley-a-goodbred-charged-with-felonies

And this one involving twin brothers who stole $5 mil. from friends, family and others:

https://www.financial-planning.com/news/sec-charges-adam-and-daniel-kaplan-with-5-million-fraud

(These crooks all seem to spend their ill gotten gains on the same facile trinkets.  This pair spent $68,000 on handbags.  $58,000 on watches.  $30,000 on  a "matchmaking" service.  Wow.  They must really have needed some matchmaking!  Or it was one of those not-so-legal matchmakers.)

I could go on and on.  No wonder you don't trust us!  But out of the over 1.0 million registered advisers in the USA,about 76,000 have financial misconduct disclosures on their records, or about 1 in 13.  When I researched this I expected a much smaller number, and was prepared to say that it was a "tiny minority of bad apples" that are rotting the entire industry.  76,000 isn't tiny by any stretch.  One out of every thirteen!

So you must take responsibility.  How?  Here's a To Do list:

• Check the adviser's background, and the background of their firm, before engaging with them
• Avoid firms with high percentages of misconduct (Oppenheimer was acquired by Invesco):
  
• Avoid doing business in states with high misconduct rates
  
• MOST IMPORTANT:  Don't give money to your adviser unless it is for a contractually agreed upon financial planning fee.  Personally, I don't want to be anywhere near your money.  Large accounts such as 401(k)s & brokerage accounts should be sent directly to, and held by, an independent custodian, not your adviser nor their firm.  And the custodian should be easily vetted online.
• Don't accept statements compiled and issued by your adviser nor their firm(s).  This rule alone would have prevented the Bernie Madoff fraud. 
• Be suspicious of claims of outlandish returns.  Greed and fear of missing out (FOMO) are the worst investor motivators.  Focus instead on your written financial plan and the necessary elements to make it successful.  If your plan needs 20% rates of return to succeed then it is a lousy plan.
• Check with your state regulators before investing in any security or insurance product.  They must be approved by your state before they can be offered for sale.  Even I was tempted by Woodbridge Group's pitch.  But checking with the Oregon Dept of Financial Regulation revealed it was not approved.
  
  Just remember that statistic: One in Thirteen.

Best Always,

Gary Duell

Your Constructive Comments are Welcome! 

Source of above images:  https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/misconduct-under-microscope-examining-bad-behavior-financial-advisers