Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Senior Contributor

Re: pensions r3020

I agree Don that farm land can be a good investment but not always is it a good retirement strategy.  Just ask the farmers that were retiring during the 1980's farm crisis.

Veteran Advisor

Re: Farmland as pension

As in all things there is no guarantee.

Land in the late 1920ies never reached that value again until the mid 50ies in Ontario. During the thirties cash was king, those with cash could buy almost anything they wanted cheap.

Other problem with land is you do have to sell it to have the funds for retirement unless you have a lot of land to rent out.

If you have some other income in retirement then you may be able to enhance your income from your land rental.

Variety in pension income is good.

Veteran Advisor

Re: pensions r3020

  Dagwud, teachers here I believe don't pay into S.S., and that's why whenever there are articles or reports about their high pensions, that isn't known and explains the higher amounts. There was some state recently on the East coast that was thinking of taking their state employees from the same setup to paying into S.S. to lower their pension costs. I don't think that they have an option because the pension and the way it's funded and is done by statute.

  After becoming a trustee to those funds, I have got to see an inside look of how investment brokers or managers manipulate and game the system, and how rigged the markets are. They charge fees and commissions for everything that they do on top of maintenance fees and charges also. Yes, they do provide a service, but I'm not going to pay somebody to do something that I can do the same or better, or can do without them and come out farther ahead. They don't create or add anymore value to anything, they just manipulate moves to their advantage, which is to bleed revenues from your value/money. Hyped, exaggerated, or outright fraudulent information is the norm, to guide people or funds to flow to where they can skim the most off of them. Myself and a few others have been pushing the move for two year management contracts, and they counter that the longer contracts can lower management fees and costs, and it never has. We want them to actually compete for the management of those funds, and to reward the most efficient and successful managers, not be stuck paying for substandard performance. But, they fix their costs uniformly between companies, whether they are justified or not. It's quite a racket, and they really put on the song and dance/baffle you with bulls##t routines when they see the gravy train coming to an end.