quote: I am positive about this. If you don't carry a balance, it isn't credit, and does not effectively raise your credit score.
Well, if 20% of the credit score comes from length of time held and I believe around 30% comes from percentage of credit used, then half of your score will still be positively affected by not carrying a balance even if you are correct. But looking at my credit report, which is all anybody else sees, I don't see how they could differentiate between whether I'm carrying a balance or paying it off. Also, in March I had a 700+ credit score and at that time one credit card was the only thing on my account. How did the score get so high if paying it off every month doesn't raise your score?
Sorry to be a nuisance about this, but I'd really like to understand this process. What makes you so certain that it works the way you said?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not as sure as either of you gentlemen, but most of the articles and interviews I've read and listened to recommend having a small balance on at least one credit card to improve your credit score.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:And as I've already stated, most people are dead within five years of achieving that status.
You've stated it, yes. That doesn't mean it's true. Can you support it with any recent statistics?
Depends on whom you want to listen to. Financial institutions will tell you that it's not unusual to live 30 years after retirement. The Boeing study has you dead within a year and a half.
posted
According to that article, those "working retired" are exactly the people who didn't plan for it. Insufficient savings, mortgages that aren't yet paid off, et cetera. They're a perfect example of why you should plan for it.
Added: The obvious thing to do is look at life expectancy, which shows that the 1.5/5-year death and the 30-year death are both outliers given the average retirement age.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Beyond that, this article provides some compelling reasons why saving for retirement isn't stupid:
quote:A closer look at the working retired population reveals a dichotomy: two-thirds of working retired survey respondents returned to the workforce because they "wanted to," but the remaining one-third went back out of economic necessity. They "had to." Average household investable assets for these "wanted to" workers are almost $550,000, compared to average investable assets of $140,000 for the "had to" worker.
A large group of these "wanted to" workers went back to work expecting non-financial rewards. Close to half thought working might make them healthier and more energetic, and they also saw it as a way to keep themselves in top mental form. These were motivations of less than one-third of those working from necessity.
...
"Our study reveals an important message for today's workers," Mr. Tyrie said. "A significant subset of working retirees today are forced to return to the workforce because of inadequate saving and investing. Working in their seventies to pay bills is not the portrait of retirement most Americans envision."
posted
The Boeing study, with people dying within 18 months, was backed by a group that wanted to prove that the pension fund was over-funded, so that they could dip into it for other corporate purposes.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
