# Haystack Mountain Private Resort



## darent (Jul 13, 2015)

Haystack has opened a office on Main Street in Nantucket seeking the summer 1% ers who frequent the Island.Their advertisement says " Get 50 Runs in a Day at New England only Private Ski Resort".


----------



## Tin (Jul 13, 2015)

darent said:


> Get 50 Runs in a Day at New England only Private Ski Resort".



There are a lot of places where 50 is possible. I bet 100 is possible at Crotched.


----------



## slatham (Jul 13, 2015)

Tin, it's not the number of runs that they are emphasizing. It's the "only private ski resort" phrase. That gets the 1%ers blood (and money) flowing. God bless America. God bless (and help) Magic.........


----------



## VTKilarney (Jul 13, 2015)

Didn't a second private resort open in Vermont this year?


.


----------



## Brad J (Jul 13, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> Didn't a second private resort open in Vermont this year?
> I believe the old Round Top is private


----------



## VTKilarney (Jul 13, 2015)

Here is what I was thinking of:
http://www.skithenotch.com/m/


.


----------



## Tin (Jul 13, 2015)

Oh I know. Just an interesting thing that I think overshadows the private part of it.


----------



## Quietman (Jul 13, 2015)

Tin said:


> There are a lot of places where 50 is possible. I bet 100 is possible at Crotched.



Especially if you ski from 9am-3am!  I can get 8-10 runs an hour even when I hit a few glades on the way down.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 13, 2015)

Don't be surprised if Stowe goes private in the not to distant future. Spruce Peak pretty much already is with no public parking available


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 13, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> Didn't a second private resort open in Vermont this year?
> 
> 
> .


Second attempt with Plymouth Notch. Bear Creek failed.


----------



## Newpylong (Jul 14, 2015)

Roundtop is a great little mountain.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 14, 2015)

Hypothetically if Hawk Mountain Resort bought Round Top, that might work well for making a private venture work there.  You've got all those houses and condos right there; hotel with pool, spa and F&B facilities and lake Amherst property for water sports.

The HOA would likely never agree to buy into Round Top, but it would be almost a plug and play situation where you wouldn't need to build all the new amenities.

It could be a much lower cost private ski experience.  You know for the 5% crowd instead of the 1% at Haystack


----------



## xwhaler (Jul 14, 2015)

Driving up to Pico from Ludlow a couple times last yr and passing by Round Top I was surprised at how big it was...I was expecting a 300' bump with open meadow skiing.
It looked like it had some pitch to it and trails retained classic New England character.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jul 14, 2015)

For those here who wish to be accurate in their derisive, green-eyed, attempts at labeling wealthy people via a percentage, financially speaking I'd say the private ski area market is more like ~7% or ~8%'ers.


----------



## Tin (Jul 14, 2015)

BenedictGomez said:


> For those here who wish to be accurate in their derisive, green-eyed, attempts at labeling wealthy people via a percentage, financially speaking I'd say the private ski area market is more like ~7% or ~8%'ers.




What's wrong with people who have green eyes?!

And ~7-8%? People who make $175k - $185k a year are not joining/probably can't afford to join Hermitage. People making $175k are not putting up over 40% of their annual income to join a ski club.

And $175k is being generous. Some government sources have 8% around $150-160k for an annual income.

Granted if they come from money sure it is possible, but I think you're pretty aloof when it comes to realizing how extreme economic stratification is in the U.S.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 14, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> Hypothetically if Hawk Mountain Resort bought Round Top, that might work well for making a private venture work there.  You've got all those houses and condos right there; hotel with pool, spa and F&B facilities and lake Amherst property for water sports.


From what I've heard Hawk Mountain Resort is not doing to well financially. I know the Inn & restaurant were closed in 2012, not sure if they've reopened since. I know a couple who own a home there & they've told me Hawk is not putting any money into the place.

From Rutland Herald - 

PLYMOUTH — A Plymouth vacation destination is closing its inn and restaurant due to difficult financial circumstances.

The Hawk Mountain Inn and Mountain Resort announced that its 50-room inn and award-winnng restaurant, The River Tavern, will no longer be serving guests as of Jan. 3. Jim Nielsen, Hawk Mountain executive vice president, confirmed the closures.

The Hawk Mountain Inn and Resort offered fine dining, rooms and suites, villas and seasonal rentals, a spa and fitness center and real estate.

Nielsen said the effects of a sluggish economy, Tropical Storm Irene and a poor 2011-12 winter compromised business. Inn reservations were lower than expected going into the 2012-13 winter season and owners and management took a month to make the decision.

“Guests who made inn reservations in February have either rebooked in our (mountain condos) or refunded. The economy hasn’t been as strong. It was a difficult decision to make,” Nielsen said.

Villas and seasonal rentals will remain open as will the pool and spa, ice skating and cross-country skiing. The Hawk Mountain Inn and Resort will now focus on summer weddings and fall foliage tours. 

Local residents were surprised by Hawk Mountain Inn and Restaurant’s abrupt closing. Chase Morsey of Plymouth lives near Hawk Mountain, uses the spa on occasion, and had several meals at the restaurant.

He hopes ownership will reconsider their decision for the benefit of the town. 

“Everything Plymouth had has gone away. Bear Creek ski area and our local general store and gas station are all gone. Now Hawk Mountain seems to be going. It was a great destination,” Morsey said.

Ursula DePaul of Plymouth knew people who worked at the restaurant and was concerned about their job statuses. She said she hopes their jobs will be spared and ownership can find a way to reopen again.

“I don’t know how it’s going to affect everyone. It brought in money. It’s a shame,” DePaul said.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 14, 2015)

Newpylong said:


> Roundtop is a great little mountain.


Agreed, skied there a lot when I was younger.


----------



## Jully (Jul 14, 2015)

Tin said:


> What's wrong with people who have green eyes?!
> 
> And ~7-8%? People who make $175k - $185k a year are not joining/probably can't afford to join Hermitage. People making $175k are not putting up over 40% of their annual income to join a ski club.
> 
> ...



Especially if they live in expensive places like NYC, Boston, Nantucket, etc. Maybe the argument could be made if this was the Midwest or rural CT, but in the suburbs of any eastern city 180k doesn't get you enough to be able to spend that kind of money on Hermitage. 

Besides, I thought the real cost of spending a year at Hermitage was much more than just $75,000 entrance fee if you included dues, staying there, food, etc. You could probably spend just the membership fee and the dues, but who on earth is going to drop 75k on something, not eat and spend money at the resort, and not have a house or a residence of sorts up there too?


----------



## Jully (Jul 14, 2015)

Don't some people fly into Hermitage too? I thought I saw an ad for Hermitage where it was someone leaving a crowded city and walking out from a private plane into the resort property.


----------



## Tin (Jul 14, 2015)

Jully said:


> Especially if they live in expensive places like NYC, Boston, Nantucket, etc. Maybe the argument could be made if this was the Midwest or rural CT, but in the suburbs of any eastern city 180k doesn't get you enough to be able to spend that kind of money on Hermitage.
> 
> Besides, I thought the real cost of spending a year at Hermitage was much more than just $75,000 entrance fee if you included dues, staying there, food, etc. You could probably spend just the membership fee and the dues, but who on earth is going to drop 75k on something, not eat and spend money at the resort, and not have a house or a residence of sorts up there too?




One option is paying $7,500 over the course of 10 years plus dues, that seems reasonable.. but one must be between the ages of 21 and 32. I would love to see the percentage of individuals that young that can afford $10k+ a year to join. I'm willing to bet it is a fraction of 1%.

Another family option is four yearly installments of $18k+. Probably the most reasonable way if you're making under $200k but as Jully mentioned cost of living probably does not allow for that in most areas of New England and you're putting about ~10% plus taxes and other membership fees towards a ski club.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 15, 2015)

Why does everyone like to count other peoples money?

Worry about yourself.

Could I afford it?

Probably.

Would I want to ski Haystack all the time?

Absolutely not.


----------



## ss20 (Jul 15, 2015)

Tin said:


> One option is paying $7,500 over the course of 10 years plus dues, that seems reasonable.. but one must be between the ages of 21 and 32. I would love to see the percentage of individuals that young that can afford $10k+ a year to join. I'm willing to bet it is a fraction of 1%.



Easy.  The children of the 1%er's who will never have to work a day in their lives.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 15, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> Why does everyone like to count other peoples money?
> 
> Worry about yourself.
> 
> ...


+1.


----------



## Tin (Jul 15, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> Why does everyone like to count other peoples money?
> 
> Worry about yourself.
> 
> ...



I agree with this but my comments had nothing to do with counting money. I was demonstrating how absurd BG's claim was. I'm very happy with the money and life I have and wouldn't change a thing.


----------



## drjeff (Jul 15, 2015)

ss20 said:


> Easy.  The children of the 1%er's who will never have to work a day in their lives.



I think that you need to be talking the children of the 0.1%er's or maybe even the 0.01%er's before you can get into the not having to work a day in their lives thing.....


----------



## VTKilarney (Jul 15, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> Why does everyone like to count other peoples money?
> 
> Worry about yourself.
> 
> ...



This comes across as somewhat arrogant when you realize that the statement is being made by a member of a generation that is leaving a whole lot less economic opportunity than their parents had left for them.  

While I don't think that it makes sense to look at individuals, I do think its fair game to look at a generation and recognize the fact that we are subsidizing, and will continue to be subsidizing this generation for a long time to come.  Enjoy your defined benefit pension and full social security - and thanks for forcing us to pick up the tab.


.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 15, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> This comes across as somewhat arrogant when you realize that the statement is being made by a member of a generation that is leaving a whole lot less economic opportunity than their parents had left for them.
> 
> While I don't think that it makes sense to look at individuals, I do think its fair game to look at a generation and recognize the fact that we are subsidizing, and will continue to be subsidizing this generation for a long time to come.  Enjoy your defined benefit pension and full social security - and thanks for forcing us to pick up the tab.
> 
> ...


I am not counting on SS to be there for my retirement. I am not quite sure what generation you are talking for one.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Jul 15, 2015)

Puck it said:


> I am not counting on SS to be there for my retirement. I am not quite sure what generation you are talking for one.


This exactly.I look at it like SS will be a bonus if its there for me.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jul 15, 2015)

Puck it said:


> I am not counting on SS to be there for my retirement. I am not quite sure what generation you are talking for one.



Nor am I.  And that is exactly my point.  The baby boomers are able to enjoy full social security benefits, whereas subsequent generations cannot count on doing so.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 15, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> Nor am I.  And that is exactly my point.  The baby boomers are able to enjoy full social security benefits, whereas subsequent generations cannot count on doing so.


I think that is the fault of the governments not the generations fault.  Their is not enough people paying in and too much going out.


----------



## Smellytele (Jul 15, 2015)

Puck it said:


> I think that is the fault of the governments not the generations fault.  Their is not enough people paying in and too much going out.



Really the problem with most types of Socialism.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 15, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> Nor am I.  And that is exactly my point.  The baby boomers are able to enjoy full social security benefits, whereas subsequent generations cannot count on doing so.





Puck it said:


> I think that is the fault of the governments not the generations fault.  Their is not enough people paying in and too much going out.


If the government had actually put the money collected from SS in a SS Fund like it was supposed to we wouldn't be having this discussion. Interest earned from the Fund would more than cover everyone. The government borrowed from SS & wrote IOU's in it's place so budget deficits wouldn't look so bad. Now the government nor SS can afford it. Who's fault is that?


----------



## VTKilarney (Jul 15, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> Who's fault is that?


The bottom line is that baby boomers are leaving less economic opportunity for their children than their parents left for them.  Period.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 15, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> The bottom line is that baby boomers are leaving less economic opportunity for their children than their parents left for them.  Period.


Why is that? Perhaps middle class mfg. jobs moved overseas because of cheaper labor costs not to mention lower corp. tax rates. We brought it upon ourselves. Everyone wants to be a Chief but no one wants to be an Indian. Is that PC?


----------



## Puck it (Jul 15, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> The bottom line is that baby boomers are leaving less economic opportunity for their children than their parents left for them.  Period.


That is a broad generalization.  Please explain how they have done that?


----------



## VTKilarney (Jul 15, 2015)

Puck it said:


> That is a broad generalization.  Please explain how they have done that?



It's a ski forum.  Let's move on.


.


----------



## ThinkSnow (Jul 15, 2015)

Quietman said:


> Especially if you ski from 9am-3am!  I can get 8-10 runs an hour even when I hit a few glades on the way down.



Wow!  Where are you skiing at 3am?!? ;-)


----------



## drjeff (Jul 15, 2015)

ThinkSnow said:


> Wow!  Where are you skiing at 3am?!? ;-)



Crotched actually DOES keep the lifts spinning until 3AM on a few select days of the season


----------



## cdskier (Jul 15, 2015)

ThinkSnow said:


> Wow!  Where are you skiing at 3am?!? ;-)



On top of that, I hope the "8-10" runs comment was sarcasm. 10 runs an hour is 1 run every 6 minutes. 8 runs is one run every 7.5 minutes. Using Sugarbush as an example, the shortest lift ride time is on Gate House (just under 5 minutes). That leaves just over a minute to make it down and reload the lift to make the 1 run every 6 minutes mark. And honestly, who would want to lap GH that much?

Super Bravo's ride time is slightly over 6 minutes, so 10 runs is impossible right off the bat just from lift ride time. Even flying down the mountain non-stop would make the 7.5 minute mark tough to hit for the 8 runs an hour (and leaves no room for glades or moguls).


----------



## Jully (Jul 15, 2015)

Puck it said:


> That is a broad generalization.  Please explain how they have done that?



I agree we should move on, but I think all VTKilarney was trying to say was that regardless of how it happened, SS and other systems are being left in worse shape than they inherited them in. 

Don't think anyone is going to disagree in saying SS is a mess right now.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 15, 2015)

Jully said:


> I agree we should move on, but I think all VTKilarney was trying to say was that regardless of how it happened, SS and other systems are being left in worse shape than they inherited them in.
> 
> Don't think anyone is going to disagree in saying SS is a mess right now.


We agree but it is everyone's fault that votes not just baby boomers is the point.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jul 15, 2015)

Tin said:


> And ~7-8%? *People who make $175k - $185k a year are not joining/probably can't afford to join Hermitage. People making $175k are not putting up over 40% of their annual income to join a ski club.*



My understanding is that it's a one-time buy of roughly $65,000 to join, then annual fees that don't seem that egregious.  If I'm correct, this is very similar to the private golf course market (cheaper in many cases actually), and the 7% - 8% I'm rolling with is likely in the ballpark.

If you are correct, however, and it's $65,000 per year, then obviously that changes things.


----------



## drjeff (Jul 15, 2015)

BenedictGomez said:


> My understanding is that it's a one-time buy of roughly $65,000 to join, then annual fees that don't seem that egregious.  If I'm correct, this is very similar to the private golf course market (cheaper in many cases actually), and the 7% - 8% I'm rolling with is likely in the ballpark.
> 
> If you are correct, however, and it's $65,000 per year, then obviously that changes things.



The 65k is the current initiation fee.  They have a series of scheduled increases in the initiation fee up to about 100k over the next year or so if I recall correctly.  The initiation fee way back when, before the Hermitage Club was anything more than some land and a bunch of big dreams started off at 10k.

The annual dues are about 6k right now.  By the time you add in other things such as ski programs, food and beverage, spa services, golf, snowmobile rentals, tickets for various music and comedy acts, boat rentals, etc, etc, etc, one can end up spending far more than the annual dues fees for sure depending on how many other items they choose to partake in....


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 15, 2015)

Dues are right on the website

http://hermitageclub.com/join/membership-levels

So, yeah, maybe a 7-8%er can afford it if that's where they wish to spend most of their disposable income.  Can they afford the real estate there as well? Probably not.  1% has just become a catch all phrase for people with money.  There are obviously different levels of wealthy. I'm sure as time marches on the buy will become that much more difficult for the above average Joe; whatever percentage you wish to attach to their name.


----------



## x10003q (Jul 15, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> Nor am I.  And that is exactly my point.  The baby boomers are able to enjoy full social security benefits, whereas subsequent generations cannot count on doing so.



Spare us your whining. I have been paying more than 6% of my earnings for most of my working years. Tack on the employer match and you are at more than 12%. In addition my full retirement age is 67. Send your misplaced anger to the clowns in DC who misuse the SS fund. 

I wouldn't pay $1000/year to ski haystack in its current form.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jul 15, 2015)

You think that I'm not paying into SS as well?  You got what you paid for.  Don't complain. I won't get what I paid for. 


.


----------



## JamaicaMan (Jul 15, 2015)

slatham said:


> Tin, it's not the number of runs that they are emphasizing. It's the "only private ski resort" phrase. That gets the 1%ers blood (and money) flowing. God bless America. God bless (and help) Magic.........



Magic is like a private mountain for the 99%ers.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## darent (Jul 15, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> Nor am I.  And that is exactly my point.  The baby boomers are able to enjoy full social security benefits, whereas subsequent generations cannot count on doing so.


why shouldn't we enjoy full SS benefits, we are the first ones who paid into it our whole working lives. we have earned it. If the government would have taken care of it we wouldn't be  discussing its could be failure.  all who have paid in would benefit


----------



## VTKilarney (Jul 15, 2015)

And do you think that the government who blew it was comprised of and/or elected by my generation?


.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 15, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> And do you think that the government who blew it was comprised of and/or elected by my generation?
> 
> 
> .


No, recently they're screwing things up even worse.

Who's going to pay off $18+ trillion in debt.

You're screwed.


----------



## prsboogie (Jul 16, 2015)

darent said:


> why shouldn't we enjoy full SS benefits, we are the first ones who paid into it our whole working lives. we have earned it. If the government would have taken care of it we wouldn't be  discussing its could be failure.  all who have paid in would benefit



Maybe if the gov didn't allow people who have never paid into collect from it, maybe I would feel like I have a shot at collecting from them money that it being wasted for me.


----------



## drjeff (Jul 16, 2015)

darent said:


> why shouldn't we enjoy full SS benefits, we are the first ones who paid into it our whole working lives. we have earned it. If the government would have taken care of it we wouldn't be  discussing its could be failure.  all who have paid in would benefit




The real problem with SS is that when it was 1st implemented, the average lifespan of an American was roughly age 65, which was age that SS kicked in, and also back then, SS was "working" like it was intended (I.E> as a way for those 65 and older to receive some monthly income to live on, and there were both way more people paying into the system than receiving benefits from it, and also a large percentage of people who were paying into the system either passed away before their SS benefits kicked in, or passed away before they had received more from SS than they had paid into it.

That has changed dramatically in the last 1/2 century or so.  The average lifespan is now about age 75, more people who actually paid into the system are living long enough to end up receiving more in benefits than they actually paid into the system all along.  More people, some for just reasons and others for questionable reasons, are receiving SS benefits at ages far younger than 65, some of whom have never paid into the SS system in the first place, and are a significant drain on the system.  Additionally, demographics wise, their are more Baby Boomers receiving SS benefits than Gen X'ers and Millenials paying into SS, let alone paying into SS at the maximum legal amount per year right now.  Lastly, as we all know, congress (and both parties are to blame for this) has raided the SS "lock box" far too often for to long a time now.

The math isn't pretty for SS right now.  I know that I've been paying into SS now for over 20 years, and have another 20+ years to go until I hit age 65 and would be eligible for receiving my SS income.  Looking at things as objectively as possible, and having talked to my financial planner and friends in the finance world, I figure the chances of me getting my SS benefits in 20+ years, short of the government taking possession of a large amount of peoples personal, private retirement funds in IRA's, etc (or maybe the gov't finding those mythical trees that money grows on  ), is maybe 10 to 20% at best


----------



## x10003q (Jul 16, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> You think that I'm not paying into SS as well?  You got what you paid for.  Don't complain. I won't get what I paid for.
> 
> 
> .


I haven't been paid a nickel as I have many years to go. You are the one complaining. What is your suggestion - people should skip taking ss? You can skip your ss when you retire.

FYI - BB age group is considered to be those born between 1946 and 1964. Somebody born in 1950 won't reach full retirement age until next year at 66. Only 4 years of the BBs have reached full retirement. You are complaining about people who mostly have not started taking ss.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jul 16, 2015)

drjeff said:


> The real problem with SS is that when it was 1st implemented, the average lifespan of an American was roughly age 65



That is a problem.  

But the real problem with SS is that it was 1st implemented in the 1st place.  Horrible program.  Horrible concept.  Horrible execution.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 16, 2015)

Millions upon millions of beneficiaries over the decades would completely disagree with you.


----------



## ss20 (Jul 16, 2015)

BenedictGomez said:


> That is a problem.
> 
> But the real problem with SS is that it was 1st implemented in the 1st place.  Horrible program.  Horrible concept.  Horrible execution.



Not everyone's rich.  Not everyone can invest in stocks enough to make it worth it.  Those who live paycheck to paycheck their whole lives would not have the retirement they wanted if it weren't for SS.


----------



## darent (Jul 16, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> And do you think that the government who blew it was comprised of and/or elected by my generation?
> 
> 
> .


no,  it was my parents generation that started the downfall, then it was the boomers who continued it and so on down the line. It just seems when the Government gets it hands on things  it turns to shit. Oh!! can we name the programs that are out of control!


----------



## darent (Jul 16, 2015)

drjeff said:


> The real problem with SS is that when it was 1st implemented, the average lifespan of an American was roughly age 65, which was age that SS kicked in, and also back then, SS was "working" like it was intended (I.E> as a way for those 65 and older to receive some monthly income to live on, and there were both way more people paying into the system than receiving benefits from it, and also a large percentage of people who were paying into the system either passed away before their SS benefits kicked in, or passed away before they had received more from SS than they had paid into it.
> 
> That has changed dramatically in the last 1/2 century or so.  The average lifespan is now about age 75, more people who actually paid into the system are living long enough to end up receiving more in benefits than they actually paid into the system all along.  More people, some for just reasons and others for questionable reasons, are receiving SS benefits at ages far younger than 65, some of whom have never paid into the SS system in the first place, and are a significant drain on the system.  Additionally, demographics wise, their are more Baby Boomers receiving SS benefits than Gen X'ers and Millenials paying into SS, let alone paying into SS at the maximum legal amount per year right now.  Lastly, as we all know, congress (and both parties are to blame for this) has raided the SS "lock box" far too often for to long a time now.
> 
> The math isn't pretty for SS right now.  I know that I've been paying into SS now for over 20 years, and have another 20+ years to go until I hit age 65 and would be eligible for receiving my SS income.  Looking at things as objectively as possible, and having talked to my financial planner and friends in the finance world, I figure the chances of me getting my SS benefits in 20+ years, short of the government taking possession of a large amount of peoples personal, private retirement funds in IRA's, etc (or maybe the gov't finding those mythical trees that money grows on  ), is maybe 10 to 20% at best


great explanation!!


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jul 16, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> Why is that? Perhaps middle class mfg. jobs moved overseas because of cheaper labor costs not to mention lower corp. tax rates. We brought it upon ourselves. Everyone wants to be a Chief but no one wants to be an Indian. Is that PC?



https://youtu.be/Ec7rCsNFn30


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jul 17, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> Millions upon millions of beneficiaries over the decades would completely disagree with you.



This is like exclaiming shock that, after being robbed of thousands of dollars, the victim should have the audacity to want the money back.



ss20 said:


> Not everyone's rich.  Not everyone can invest in stocks enough to make it worth it.  Those who live paycheck to paycheck their whole lives would not have the retirement they wanted if it weren't for SS.




You, like the US government, believe that people are inherently stupid.

I do not.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 17, 2015)

Can't turn it down when I hit the age whether 62 or 70 since I paid into it. They don't leave you much of a choice. Many don't need it but can't turn it down. Keep earning past the age & they'll give you even more. Gotta love America.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jul 17, 2015)

Failed social and economic policies because no one can agree on anything. Everyone thinks their shit don't stink. I'm conservative but guess what liberals have some good ideas too. It's the folks that are polarizing that refuse to compromise on anything that have been responsible for most of these issues. It's no wonder that every president looks like they have aged 30 years when they leave office


----------



## Tin (Jul 17, 2015)

MadMadWorld said:


> Failed social and economic policies because no one can agree on anything. Everyone thinks their shit don't stink. I'm conservative but guess what liberals have some good ideas too. It's the folks that are polarizing that refuse to compromise on anything that have been responsible for most of these issues. It's no wonder that every president looks like they have aged 30 years when they leave office



For once, we completely agree. :flag:


----------



## drjeff (Jul 17, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> Can't turn it down when I hit the age whether 62 or 70 since I paid into it. They don't leave you much of a choice. Many don't need it but can't turn it down. Keep earning past the age & they'll give you even more. Gotta love America.



True, you can't turn it down.  What you could do though if you feel like you don't need it/want it, or have "overdrawn" what you paid into it, is voluntarily overpay that same amount of $$ back to the gov't in extra taxes - they will never go after you for paying too much in taxes, but will almost always eventually go after you if you don't pay enough in taxes.  I don't know of too many people, across any economic demographic, who voluntarily pay more in taxes (of any type) that they owe....


----------



## HowieT2 (Jul 17, 2015)

geez, as drjeff said, the problem with SS is a demographic issue.  The baby boomer bulge in population combined with longer life spans.  It will be worked out. the bigger problem is the media getting people worked up about every issue, blame the liberals, blame the republicans, the old people, the wasted youth, immigrants and on and on and on.  Can't we all just ski and be happy?


----------



## cdskier (Jul 17, 2015)

HowieT2 said:


> Can't we all just ski and be happy?



+1!


----------



## Tin (Jul 17, 2015)

No! It is summer and there must be much philosophical debate about nothing!


----------



## HowieT2 (Jul 17, 2015)

Tin said:


> No! It is summer and there must be much philosophical debate about nothing!



okay, gotcha.  I'm going to finish off the crap on my desk and go home so I can get a bike ride and swim in before dark.


----------



## The Sneak (Jul 17, 2015)

Nantucket...such a beautiful place spoiled by the sweaters over the shoulders set. (
I swear to God there were guys my age there (30s) who looked like Francis from Pee Wee's Big Adventure.

Downtown is vile BC of this...but the nature preserves there are awesome

I digress


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mbedle (Jul 20, 2015)

drjeff said:


> The real problem with SS is that when it was 1st implemented, the average lifespan of an American was roughly age 65, which was age that SS kicked in, and also back then, SS was "working" like it was intended (I.E> as a way for those 65 and older to receive some monthly income to live on, and there were both way more people paying into the system than receiving benefits from it, and also a large percentage of people who were paying into the system either passed away before their SS benefits kicked in, or passed away before they had received more from SS than they had paid into it.
> 
> That has changed dramatically in the last 1/2 century or so.  The average lifespan is now about age 75, more people who actually paid into the system are living long enough to end up receiving more in benefits than they actually paid into the system all along.  More people, some for just reasons and others for questionable reasons, are receiving SS benefits at ages far younger than 65, some of whom have never paid into the SS system in the first place, and are a significant drain on the system.  Additionally, demographics wise, their are more Baby Boomers receiving SS benefits than Gen X'ers and Millenials paying into SS, let alone paying into SS at the maximum legal amount per year right now.  Lastly, as we all know, congress (and both parties are to blame for this) has raided the SS "lock box" far too often for to long a time now.
> 
> The math isn't pretty for SS right now.  I know that I've been paying into SS now for over 20 years, and have another 20+ years to go until I hit age 65 and would be eligible for receiving my SS income.  Looking at things as objectively as possible, and having talked to my financial planner and friends in the finance world, I figure the chances of me getting my SS benefits in 20+ years, short of the government taking possession of a large amount of peoples personal, private retirement funds in IRA's, etc (or maybe the gov't finding those mythical trees that money grows on  ), is maybe 10 to 20% at best



Do you really believe that in 20 years we are going to have millions of retired people dying on the streets in every city/town in our country? We are in a country that bailed out an failing auto industry, but we are going to let millions of retires starve to death.


----------



## drjeff (Jul 20, 2015)

mbedle said:


> Do you really believe that in 20 years we are going to have millions of retired people dying on the streets in every city/town in our country? We are in a country that bailed out an failing auto industry, but we are going to let millions of retires starve to death.



Since that wasn't happening during the Great Depression long before SS began, I doubt it would happen in the future. Dare I say it, but people might find out they can actually take care of themselves once again, rather than thinking that only the gov't can...


----------



## dlague (Jul 20, 2015)

This thread got super hijacked!  What was the original topic?  I forget.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jul 20, 2015)

mbedle said:


> Do you really believe that in 20 years we are going to have millions of retired people dying on the streets in every city/town in our country? We are in a country that bailed out an failing auto industry, but we are going to let millions of retires starve to death.



Split the difference.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 20, 2015)

mbedle said:


> Do you really believe that in 20 years we are going to have millions of retired people dying on the streets in every city/town in our country? We are in a country that bailed out an failing auto industry, but we are going to let millions of retires starve to death.


Hate to break the news to you but it's still failing.


----------



## dlague (Jul 21, 2015)

My guess - SS will eventually be a needs based retirement solution eventually.  Those that have significant savings or retirement accounts will no longer qualify but will have to contribute still.


----------



## mbedle (Jul 21, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> Hate to break the news to you but it's still failing.



I'm not doubting that the financial state of social security isn't failing. What I doubt is that it ultimately will be phased out, without an alternative.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 21, 2015)

mbedle said:


> I'm not doubting that the financial state of social security isn't failing. What I doubt is that it ultimately will be phased out, without an alternative.


Wasn't talking about SS.


----------



## vonski (Aug 5, 2015)

I work at a Country Club had a benefit charity event the other night! They auctioned off a year membership to the Hermitage. It went for $7,000.00   Lucky Family wife didn't ski and kids were around 9 to 11 years old apparently.  I hope they don't have to pay the initiation fee!   But was a steal I guess!


----------



## xwhaler (Aug 6, 2015)

vonski said:


> I work at a Country Club had a benefit charity event the other night! They auctioned off a year membership to the Hermitage. It went for $7,000.00   Lucky Family wife didn't ski and kids were around 9 to 11 years old apparently.  I hope they don't have to pay the initiation fee!   But was a steal I guess!



If that includes golf and unlimited skiing with no other fees that's a great value if the family who won is local and could use it yr round.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Aug 6, 2015)

I assume they have a monthly "use it or lose it" food & bevy fee (like most private golf courses)?


----------



## marcski (Aug 6, 2015)

The mountain looked good this past weekend.


----------



## drjeff (Aug 7, 2015)

xwhaler said:


> If that includes golf and unlimited skiing with no other fees that's a great value if the family who won is local and could use it yr round.



The typical annual membership includes 1 unlimited season pass and then 140 individual lift tickets for the rest of your family + friends to use. Unlimited greens fees (cart fees are your responsibility), and then use of their facilities (fees do apply for things like snowmobile rentals, ski lessons, stand up paddle board use, music/comedy shows, etc)


----------



## xwhaler (Aug 7, 2015)

drjeff said:


> The typical annual membership includes 1 unlimited season pass and then 140 individual lift tickets for the rest of your family + friends to use. Unlimited greens fees (cart fees are your responsibility), and then use of their facilities (fees do apply for things like snowmobile rentals, ski lessons, stand up paddle board use, music/comedy shows, etc)



So a great value for what those folks got it on the auction for. Given that my 2 sports are golf and skiing that is something I would do if I lived in the area.


----------



## drjeff (Aug 7, 2015)

xwhaler said:


> So a great value for what those folks got it on the auction for. Given that my 2 sports are golf and skiing that is something I would do if I lived in the area.



Yup! If I was at that auction, I would of been involved in that bidding for sure - great value at that price point for someone with those interests in that area!


----------

