- 398
LEAP is so much more than WL or avoiding taxes. Just like anything else, there are great practitioners, good ones, and evil ones. The great LEAP practitioners use it as a process, not simply to sell big WL policies.
Suze Orman
- Thread starter Clint
- Start date
- 10,330
Here is some simple math for you....
Most peoples problem is that they are not diversified enough...and not just in the market. No one should contribute 100% of their savings and/or investments to any one product. And all forms of savings or investments are products that can be "sold",.... or they can be utilized as part of a proper financial plan.
Permanent Insurance contracts (whole life, universal life, indexed UL, and variable UL) all have different purposes. There are permanent policies that are designed to purely protect and then there are others that are designed to have higher cash values. I am a big fan of UL and IUL, since in a UL policy you can skip premiums.
To intelligently argue against these products you would need to know all of the variations between them and their purposes. GonnaFlyNow, as one producer to another you should really take some time to find out the advantages/disadvantages of all the different types and how they work. Judging from your WL knowledge you have a lot learn about permanent insurance in general; and you are doing your clients a disservice by not educating yourself on them... whether you sell the product or not. ex: I dont sell ROP Term, but I do know all of the ins and outs of it, therefore I am able to intelligently argue against it.
You are asking some very elementary questions about WL after arguing against it for 14 pages... this tells me that your understanding of it is next to nothing....how can you intelligently & accurately argue against something you dont understand??
Here are some quick facts and some basic math comparing permanent insurance to what SO and DR recommend most people to do...which is max out your 401K and IRA, and invest them in mutual funds...
-Banks, Corporations, and Multi Millionaires use Permanent Insurance more than anyone. Over 70% of major depository banks utilize BOLI (bank owned life insurance) as their main Tier 1 asset (this is the banks safe/guaranteed investment funds)...its also used to fund exec comp. Over 50% of fortune 100 companies use COLI (corporate owned life insurance) as their main exec comp funding. Most extremely high net worth individuals have millions in PI CVs and even more in DBs. And its not just for estate taxes...they actively use the cash values.
-A good cash value oriented contract will grow at 3%-6% average (excluding VUL) over a long term period. This is after any internal expenses, its tax deferred, and has tax free distributions. The DB will always be higher than the CV so your loved ones will always be left with an enhanced DB...and of course that is tax free too....so this savings tool is TAX FREE, TAX FREE, TAX FREE!!!!
Math:
Assumptions: this is using low balled industry accepted averages from reputable sources such as ibbitson, morningstar, Callan & assoc., etc.
And using conservative values based on past performance of properly funded PI contracts that I have written or encountered. The 401K comparison is based on contributions in a traditional 401K above any employer match.
20 year timeline.
The problem is that most people dont consider the effect of yearly fees and taxes...
-401K comparison assumptions: $10K/year.
Mutual fund management fees of 1% .
Broker comp @ .5% . internal expenses/fees .5% .
Taxes @ 30% fed & 5% state.
$10K/year @ 8% in 401K, - 2% in fees/year = 6%= $390K after 20 years. - taxes @ 35% = $253,500
$10K/year at 4.5% in a UL = $327,831 Oh, and did I mention thats TAX FREE & totally liquid!!!!
Would you rather have $253.5K or $327K???
And to properly compare PI to any market investment you should use an IUL (5%-7%) or even a VUL (7%-10%)...Im not a VUL fan but I put that out there just for the sake of argument and reinforcing a point..lol
Now I know what your thinking....what about regular mutual funds that are not inside a 401K since they are only taxed at the Feds 15% + state(4%-7%) capital gains tax. Well here you go:
Assumptions:
--MF fees of 1.5%.
(its .5 higher than the 401K ex. since most newer 401Ks feature funds with lower expense ratios than the average. MF fees can vary from 1%-3%...last I looked the average was around 1.4 so I feel 1.5% is fair)
--Broker fees of 50bps (.5%).
--Fed cap gains of 15%, state cap gains of 5% for a total of 20% capital gains tax paid yearly on gains...$10K x 8%= $800 in gains - 20% taxes ($160)= $640 = 6.4% net yearly after tax gain (a reduction of 1.6%)
$10K/year over 20 years @ 8%. -2% (fees)= 6%. - 1.6% (taxes)= 4.4% = $324,108
$10K/year over 20 years into UL @ 4.5%= $327,831
Again permanent insurance comes out ahead.
Im not saying that 100% of someones retirement savings should be invested in PI. If a client has a matching 401K, capturing that match (which is actually part of their salary) is priority #1. Then building a safe foundation of guaranteed/low risk long term retirement investments is #2. Then we can get into more aggressive investments.
I sell tons of term; on its own, or to supplement a permanent policy. Just like PI it has its place and I dont hesitate to utilize it.
PI is a long term investment...10+ years. You can skip premiums in a UL policy to some extent and your not breaking the contract. A WL will lapse if you miss a premium (generally speaking), but you still get the cash that you have accumulated...its not just gone...
All companies have their specialty. Just as there are good and bad mutual funds out there, the same goes for PI policies. WL should be with a highly rated mutual company that has a strong track record of paying a dividend (NYL, Mass, NW, ON). UL should be with a highly rated company that specializes in high cash accumulation ULs (LFG, JH, MoO, TA).
Any PI policy should be over funded if your purpose is cash accumulation. "designing" a proper policy that is overfunded..especially any form of UL, takes a decent amount of product knowledge.
Remember that all investments have three different rates of return:
Internal/IRR (before any outside influnces)
External/ERR (after any outside influences like taxes & fees)
Eternal/ExRR (after any taxes or fees associated with death)
The last two are the only ones that matter!
UL is by far the most flexible and versatile insurance policy that exists.
- 202
scankagent83,
I agree that WL and UL are GREAT PRODUCTS for the VERY WEALTHY.
The problem is that the LEAP people and other kool aid drinkers think that WL is a vehicle for creating wealth for the middle class. And they use silly arguments like, "If you want to be rich, then do what the rich do."
The middle class can do much better with BTID because they are in a lower tax bracket and they don't need the tax advantages (or the hefty loads) provided by permanent life insurance.
If you take the silly numbers you used in your example and put in something realistic for middle class and upper-middle class people, you wouldn't come to the same conclusion.
How about using a 15% or a 25% tax bracket and more like a 2% state income tax rate?
How about dumping the silly loaded mutual funds and high-fee funds and use some Vanguard index funds with fees of about 1%?
The middle-class and upper-middle class should FIRST maximize all their pre-tax and tax-deferred investment vehicles, like 401k's and IRA's, in no-load, low-fee mutual funds. Only after they've exhausted all of those vehicles should they consider permanent life insurance.
Please re-run your numbers for the middle-class and the upper-middle class (the majority of Dave's and Suze's audience) and you'll prove my point and their point.
GfN
p.s. the reason I ask basic questions is not because I don't understand WL/UL. I ask basic questions to try to point out the assumptions that are made by those who think WL/UL is "great for everybody". Go to Wikipedia and read about the "Socratic Method" and you'll better understand what I'm doing when I ask "basic questions".
I agree that WL and UL are GREAT PRODUCTS for the VERY WEALTHY.
The problem is that the LEAP people and other kool aid drinkers think that WL is a vehicle for creating wealth for the middle class. And they use silly arguments like, "If you want to be rich, then do what the rich do."
The middle class can do much better with BTID because they are in a lower tax bracket and they don't need the tax advantages (or the hefty loads) provided by permanent life insurance.
If you take the silly numbers you used in your example and put in something realistic for middle class and upper-middle class people, you wouldn't come to the same conclusion.
How about using a 15% or a 25% tax bracket and more like a 2% state income tax rate?
How about dumping the silly loaded mutual funds and high-fee funds and use some Vanguard index funds with fees of about 1%?
The middle-class and upper-middle class should FIRST maximize all their pre-tax and tax-deferred investment vehicles, like 401k's and IRA's, in no-load, low-fee mutual funds. Only after they've exhausted all of those vehicles should they consider permanent life insurance.
Please re-run your numbers for the middle-class and the upper-middle class (the majority of Dave's and Suze's audience) and you'll prove my point and their point.
GfN
p.s. the reason I ask basic questions is not because I don't understand WL/UL. I ask basic questions to try to point out the assumptions that are made by those who think WL/UL is "great for everybody". Go to Wikipedia and read about the "Socratic Method" and you'll better understand what I'm doing when I ask "basic questions".
Last edited:
- 10,330
2% state income tax? The average state income tax by the gainfully employed population is around 4%-5% per CBO taxation studies. But I will use your 2%...
OK. Since 77% of dual income households earn around 90K/ year I will use 25%...
....and I did use a 1% MF expense in the 401k example. The other 1% is from trails the broker gets paid and admin/maintence fees; these are associated with all 401Ks. Thus a 2% reduction.
401k @ 27% tax (25+2)= $285K
@ 22% tax= $304K
@ 17% tax= $324
Universal Life= $327.8K
That would be a 42K difference for 77% of american households...
So I think that I have established that for even middle class and lower class people, it is more efficient to contribute to a UL instead of contributing past the match in a 401K....unless your working with a married couple that makes less than $16.5K between the two!!
Plus your risk is significantly less, and you have guaranteed protection of your principle!
The math holds true for a traditional IRA as well for the 20% & 25% brackets.
I dont have the math handy for the roth comparison, but it does get closer to being equal. (Im a big fan of roth if you can do it, not getting hit on the large lump sum that has grown, usually far outweighs any immediate pre tax advantage)
But a roth is still not addressing the clients risk. If you are diversifying your clients investments you will have some of the bond funds and MM funds thrown in there....and I dont care how you go about it over an extended period the UL will beat the after tax...and even before tax amounts of these low risk investments. So bottom line a WL or UL is an excellent low risk investment. An IUL or VUL is a viable option for the client more prone to risk.
If I where to compare apples to apples as far as risk goes, the IUL & VUL will far outshine even mutual funds in a brokerage account. And I havent even hit upon the difference in rate of return to heirs!
I understand the socratic method... i dont remember the exact context to all your comments at the moment so I will take you at your word as to your intentions. But you did make multiple comments about the product that are not true....
Example: you just claimed WL has "hefty loads"
WL has a policy fee, admin charges, and a cost of insurance associated with it...just like a term policy. These three items actually cost less inside a PI policy than in a term. In otherwords a term policy might cost 50 cents per 1K in DB. But a PI would cost 40 cents per 1k. The overage that you pay is good faith that the company will return it to you plus dividends or interest. So you actually pay less per 1K in DB, plus you get all the other advantages. This is why I can design a UL for someone 60+, guarantee it until 90 or 100, and still beat term rates most of the time.
PI is also forced savings since it can be bank drafted. This is something that both SO & DR are fans of, and something that the majority of americans could benefit from...even if it was just to a simple savings account...lol
SO & DR are glorified debt counselors who have both been bankrupt before. And both have multiple disclosures before after and during their shows, and inside their books, about how their opinions are for entertainment purposes and that they are not qualified financial advisers! Think if I did that at the beginning and end of my meetings with clients!
You have to read the fine print. And when you do, read up on the non disclosed fees inside most all mutual funds which can be up to 4bps each....its probably on page 117 paragraph II, subsection Q of the funds prospectus...if its in there at all... hence the term non-disclosed!
Good luck to you.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Oh. and we wont even bother doing the comparison of the values of a WL or UL vs. a CD, MM, or gov Bond (3 things you claim perform better than WL) since I have already made my point against higher yielding products, plus the WL has tax deferral and better rates!
For those of you that keep up, the treasury just auctioned off 20y notes at 2.2% last week!..... "hey, invest in this and not keep up with inflation!"....lol...
OK. Since 77% of dual income households earn around 90K/ year I will use 25%...
....and I did use a 1% MF expense in the 401k example. The other 1% is from trails the broker gets paid and admin/maintence fees; these are associated with all 401Ks. Thus a 2% reduction.
401k @ 27% tax (25+2)= $285K
@ 22% tax= $304K
@ 17% tax= $324
Universal Life= $327.8K
That would be a 42K difference for 77% of american households...
So I think that I have established that for even middle class and lower class people, it is more efficient to contribute to a UL instead of contributing past the match in a 401K....unless your working with a married couple that makes less than $16.5K between the two!!
Plus your risk is significantly less, and you have guaranteed protection of your principle!
The math holds true for a traditional IRA as well for the 20% & 25% brackets.
I dont have the math handy for the roth comparison, but it does get closer to being equal. (Im a big fan of roth if you can do it, not getting hit on the large lump sum that has grown, usually far outweighs any immediate pre tax advantage)
But a roth is still not addressing the clients risk. If you are diversifying your clients investments you will have some of the bond funds and MM funds thrown in there....and I dont care how you go about it over an extended period the UL will beat the after tax...and even before tax amounts of these low risk investments. So bottom line a WL or UL is an excellent low risk investment. An IUL or VUL is a viable option for the client more prone to risk.
If I where to compare apples to apples as far as risk goes, the IUL & VUL will far outshine even mutual funds in a brokerage account. And I havent even hit upon the difference in rate of return to heirs!
I understand the socratic method... i dont remember the exact context to all your comments at the moment so I will take you at your word as to your intentions. But you did make multiple comments about the product that are not true....
Example: you just claimed WL has "hefty loads"
WL has a policy fee, admin charges, and a cost of insurance associated with it...just like a term policy. These three items actually cost less inside a PI policy than in a term. In otherwords a term policy might cost 50 cents per 1K in DB. But a PI would cost 40 cents per 1k. The overage that you pay is good faith that the company will return it to you plus dividends or interest. So you actually pay less per 1K in DB, plus you get all the other advantages. This is why I can design a UL for someone 60+, guarantee it until 90 or 100, and still beat term rates most of the time.
PI is also forced savings since it can be bank drafted. This is something that both SO & DR are fans of, and something that the majority of americans could benefit from...even if it was just to a simple savings account...lol
SO & DR are glorified debt counselors who have both been bankrupt before. And both have multiple disclosures before after and during their shows, and inside their books, about how their opinions are for entertainment purposes and that they are not qualified financial advisers! Think if I did that at the beginning and end of my meetings with clients!
You have to read the fine print. And when you do, read up on the non disclosed fees inside most all mutual funds which can be up to 4bps each....its probably on page 117 paragraph II, subsection Q of the funds prospectus...if its in there at all... hence the term non-disclosed!
Good luck to you.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Oh. and we wont even bother doing the comparison of the values of a WL or UL vs. a CD, MM, or gov Bond (3 things you claim perform better than WL) since I have already made my point against higher yielding products, plus the WL has tax deferral and better rates!
For those of you that keep up, the treasury just auctioned off 20y notes at 2.2% last week!..... "hey, invest in this and not keep up with inflation!"....lol...
Last edited:
- 398
Folks,
GFN has admitted she does not sell investments, and does very little life insurance. I suggest you bear as much in mind when considering her 'advice'. Much like Suze Orman and Dave Ramsey, she has no skin in the game and as such are able to make broad generalizations without consequence.
GFN has admitted she does not sell investments, and does very little life insurance. I suggest you bear as much in mind when considering her 'advice'. Much like Suze Orman and Dave Ramsey, she has no skin in the game and as such are able to make broad generalizations without consequence.
- 202
2% state income tax? The average state income tax by the gainfully employed population is around 4%-5% per CBO taxation studies. But I will use your 2%...
OK. Since 77% of dual income households earn around 90K/ year I will use 25%...
....and I did use a 1% MF expense in the 401k example. The other 1% is from trails the broker gets paid and admin/maintence fees; these are associated with all 401Ks. Thus a 2% reduction.
401k @ 27% tax (25+2)= $285K
@ 22% tax= $304K
@ 17% tax= $324
Universal Life= $327.8K
That would be a 42K difference for 77% of american households...
So I think that I have established that for even middle class and lower class people, it is more efficient to contribute to a UL instead of contributing past the match in a 401K....unless your working with a married couple that makes less than $16.5K between the two!!
Plus your risk is significantly less, and you have guaranteed protection of your principle!
The math holds true for a traditional IRA as well for the 20% & 25% brackets.
I dont have the math handy for the roth comparison, but it does get closer to being equal. (Im a big fan of roth if you can do it, not getting hit on the large lump sum that has grown, usually far outweighs any immediate pre tax advantage)
But a roth is still not addressing the clients risk. If you are diversifying your clients investments you will have some of the bond funds and MM funds thrown in there....and I dont care how you go about it over an extended period the UL will beat the after tax...and even before tax amounts of these low risk investments. So bottom line a WL or UL is an excellent low risk investment. An IUL or VUL is a viable option for the client more prone to risk.
If I where to compare apples to apples as far as risk goes, the IUL & VUL will far outshine even mutual funds in a brokerage account. And I havent even hit upon the difference in rate of return to heirs!
I understand the socratic method... i dont remember the exact context to all your comments at the moment so I will take you at your word as to your intentions. But you did make multiple comments about the product that are not true....
Example: you just claimed WL has "hefty loads"
WL has a policy fee, admin charges, and a cost of insurance associated with it...just like a term policy. These three items actually cost less inside a PI policy than in a term. In otherwords a term policy might cost 50 cents per 1K in DB. But a PI would cost 40 cents per 1k. The overage that you pay is good faith that the company will return it to you plus dividends or interest. So you actually pay less per 1K in DB, plus you get all the other advantages. This is why I can design a UL for someone 60+, guarantee it until 90 or 100, and still beat term rates most of the time.
PI is also forced savings since it can be bank drafted. This is something that both SO & DR are fans of, and something that the majority of americans could benefit from...even if it was just to a simple savings account...lol
SO & DR are glorified debt counselors who have both been bankrupt before. And both have multiple disclosures before after and during their shows, and inside their books, about how their opinions are for entertainment purposes and that they are not qualified financial advisers! Think if I did that at the beginning and end of my meetings with clients!
You have to read the fine print. And when you do, read up on the non disclosed fees inside most all mutual funds which can be up to 4bps each....its probably on page 117 paragraph II, subsection Q of the funds prospectus...if its in there at all... hence the term non-disclosed!
Good luck to you.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Oh. and we wont even bother doing the comparison of the values of a WL or UL vs. a CD, MM, or gov Bond (3 things you claim perform better than WL) since I have already made my point against higher yielding products, plus the WL has tax deferral and better rates!
For those of you that keep up, the treasury just auctioned off 20y notes at 2.2% last week!..... "hey, invest in this and not keep up with inflation!"....lol...
in case u werent aware of it, 401ks and iras are tax-deferred. you need to apply the compounded tax deferred growth before taking out the taxes.
try those numbers again.
- 15,041
He did genius. $10,000 a year, at a net of 6% is $389,927.27. He rounded it up to an even $390,000. Don't be upset just because Dave and Suze aren't always right.
- 202
he's assuming that the *** who owns the 401k will take all the money out at once.
he might be dumb enough to do that, but most people aren't.
the reason people don't trust insurance agents is because you guys are a master at the shell game. this thread is a perfect example.
77% of Americans would be much better off keeping the $390K in the 401k, taking the RMD's and paying tax on the RMD's, than they would having whatever your PI might have grown to.
re-do the numbers scagnknt83 with a reasonable return on the 401k. then calculate the lower tax rate for the couple after they retire. then reduce the fees on the 401k after they roll it over. then calculate the tax only on the amount they withdraw.
and please use guaranteed interest rates on your UL, not the pie-in-the sky rates ur using now.
- 398
As opposed to Dave Ramsey, who assumes someone gets 12% per year EVERY YEAR on a mutual fund investment? The only difference is Dave doesn't get held accountable. If we gave that advice, we'd be out on our ear.
77%?! Where the hell do you get your statistics? That seems made up.
- 10,330
good lord.....where to start...
1st thank you volsagent.
at least there is someone else who takes the time to actually do the math! The fact that she just "assumed" my math was wrong ... or either didnt fully understand it... only proves multiple points made already...
The taxes in the 401k will be paid at some point or another... it dosent matter if its through a lump sum, distributions, forced RMDs, or by heirs (the rmd statement is just silly to me, you are assuming that they will not need to use any of their 401k $$ before age 70 1/2...plus RMDs are taxed just like any other qualified distribution...so your argument is null and void on that)
Even with a lower tax rate (if you go back and actually read the math) your client would have to have a joint retirement income lower than $16k/year for the 401k to be more advantageous... And thats even using a 15% fed and your 2% state rates!
Do you have many clients who plan to only live on 16k per year??? I hope not!!
Your previous posts where arguing the accumulation phase of retirement savings, not the distribution phase when it is rolled out of the 401K... but out of curiosity, what low fee/low risk retirement appropriate product will you roll it into that will keep the high rate of return needed to compete with the tax free status of the LI money???
And even if you dont use all of the qualified money, the tax free DB once invested will vastly outperform any stretch IRA calculations.
You say to use a realistic return on the 401k. I used 8%.. that is what most people say they are shooting for in their 401k. The nationwide 20 year average of 401k returns as of 07' was only 6%...this was not an investor poll, but a study by Callan on actual existing 401K plans from a multitude of carriers. So I think 8% is an extremely realistic number...if not a bit high...
Again, you put your foot in your mouth when talking about PI.
You want me to assume over an 8% return for the 401k, which is not a guaranteed value. But then you want me to only use the guaranteed values for the PI, when some of the strong mutual WL providers can prove that over the past 100 years they have never once failed to pay a dividend!?? How many MFs can say that they have had a gain every single year for the past 100 years? None!!!
And there is not a single UL from a quality company that has never earned a higher rate than what was guaranteed!
My "pie in the sky" rates are very realistic for an overfunded PI policy. The 4.5% was not the "credited rate" it was what the CV came out to be after 20 years! I have seen inforce UL policies that had a return of more than 4.5%! So I can back up my rates of return with cold hard facts!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
talk about a shell game! I disprove your theory; and you back track, double talk, and have me readjust figures that are based on factual evidence!
But I rearranged the shells your way...twice, and the math is still against you....
Yes I am an insurance agent, and proud of it! But I am also a series 7 rep, and a business planner who does deferred comp & exec retirement plans. I prove the value of PI inside these plans not only to business owners, but to their accountants and lawyers too! I cant use a shell game, or they will tear my math .. and me apart!!
My largest source of referrals comes from a CPA who has a PHD in finance and economics. After he saw the numbers I didnt even have to ask for referrals, he just gave them to me!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
not sure if that was directed at me or her, but here is the source.
Census bureau, 07'. -77% of gainfully employed 2 income households who are at or above the median US income level, have a household income of $90k or above.
(Currently placing them in a 25% federal tax bracket when filling jointly)
1st thank you volsagent.
at least there is someone else who takes the time to actually do the math! The fact that she just "assumed" my math was wrong ... or either didnt fully understand it... only proves multiple points made already...
The taxes in the 401k will be paid at some point or another... it dosent matter if its through a lump sum, distributions, forced RMDs, or by heirs (the rmd statement is just silly to me, you are assuming that they will not need to use any of their 401k $$ before age 70 1/2...plus RMDs are taxed just like any other qualified distribution...so your argument is null and void on that)
Even with a lower tax rate (if you go back and actually read the math) your client would have to have a joint retirement income lower than $16k/year for the 401k to be more advantageous... And thats even using a 15% fed and your 2% state rates!
Do you have many clients who plan to only live on 16k per year??? I hope not!!
Your previous posts where arguing the accumulation phase of retirement savings, not the distribution phase when it is rolled out of the 401K... but out of curiosity, what low fee/low risk retirement appropriate product will you roll it into that will keep the high rate of return needed to compete with the tax free status of the LI money???
And even if you dont use all of the qualified money, the tax free DB once invested will vastly outperform any stretch IRA calculations.
You say to use a realistic return on the 401k. I used 8%.. that is what most people say they are shooting for in their 401k. The nationwide 20 year average of 401k returns as of 07' was only 6%...this was not an investor poll, but a study by Callan on actual existing 401K plans from a multitude of carriers. So I think 8% is an extremely realistic number...if not a bit high...
Again, you put your foot in your mouth when talking about PI.
You want me to assume over an 8% return for the 401k, which is not a guaranteed value. But then you want me to only use the guaranteed values for the PI, when some of the strong mutual WL providers can prove that over the past 100 years they have never once failed to pay a dividend!?? How many MFs can say that they have had a gain every single year for the past 100 years? None!!!
And there is not a single UL from a quality company that has never earned a higher rate than what was guaranteed!
My "pie in the sky" rates are very realistic for an overfunded PI policy. The 4.5% was not the "credited rate" it was what the CV came out to be after 20 years! I have seen inforce UL policies that had a return of more than 4.5%! So I can back up my rates of return with cold hard facts!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
talk about a shell game! I disprove your theory; and you back track, double talk, and have me readjust figures that are based on factual evidence!
But I rearranged the shells your way...twice, and the math is still against you....
Yes I am an insurance agent, and proud of it! But I am also a series 7 rep, and a business planner who does deferred comp & exec retirement plans. I prove the value of PI inside these plans not only to business owners, but to their accountants and lawyers too! I cant use a shell game, or they will tear my math .. and me apart!!
My largest source of referrals comes from a CPA who has a PHD in finance and economics. After he saw the numbers I didnt even have to ask for referrals, he just gave them to me!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
not sure if that was directed at me or her, but here is the source.
Census bureau, 07'. -77% of gainfully employed 2 income households who are at or above the median US income level, have a household income of $90k or above.
(Currently placing them in a 25% federal tax bracket when filling jointly)
Last edited:
Similar threads
