For the past couple weeks, this blog series examined the individual nature of establishing retirement income goals. Finding no “magic bullet” number for the needed size of a “nest egg,” we concentrated on sources of retirement income in order to arrive at an individual income goal. We discussed the components of income, as well as the formulas for achieving success.

Today we ask the age-old question, “What could possibly go wrong?” The road to financial independence is paved with perils, some more controllable than others. Here are a few potential pitfalls for long-term planning:

  • Social Security is inadequately funded to maintain current levels beyond the year 2034, and a reduction of benefits for retirees may result (Congress can fix this, but I am not holding my breath)
  • Pensions (Defined Benefit Plans) are becoming scarce, as employers convert to Defined Contribution Plans such as 401(k)s and 403(b)s, placing the onus on the employee for long-term investing success
  • Educational Loans are hindering the savings levels of many Americans, and are not only affecting the very young; 35% of student loan balances are owed by people over age 40 (from MIT AgeLab)
  • Divorce, which can split assets and interrupt planned accumulation at any age; 34% of divorces occur between couple married at least 30 years, and 12% are among those married 40 or more years (from Pew Research)
  • Bear Markets can happen just before or just after retirement, causing disruptions in planning the “4% Withdrawal Rule”
  • Involuntary Retirement, which affects 1 in 4 Americans, whether from layoff, illness, or other factors, interrupts the last years of planned accumulation
  • Unexpected and Uninsured Expenses emanating from disasters, illnesses, family members’ needs, etc., can rapidly deplete assets
  • Inflation has occasional spikes, and can last for prolonged periods, driving down the value of your monthly income

The best-laid plans of mice and men, as Robert Burns noted, often go astray. Van Wie Financial has been party to some of the most successful retirement planning imaginable, but we have also witnessed situations where one or more of the above problems above have interrupted potential successes. We believe that planning should include a “fudge factor” for financial independence. For many young people, we are excluding consideration of Social Security benefits (at their request) when planning for financial independence. They believe that if they do receive any eventual benefits, it will be icing on the retirement cake. As much as we believe that there will remain some level of Social Security benefits, who could possibly argue with an approach so conservative that it doesn’t rely on Social Security?

Similarly, we treat expected inheritances as if they may never happen. In our lingo, it is a good to plan FOR an inheritance, but it is never good to plan ON an inheritance. Parents and grandparents have ways of spending down their net worth, often due to illness. They are also capable of changing their opinions regarding who is worthy of receiving an inheritance. As we said, what could possibly go wrong?

Whatever your age, and regardless of how much planning has already gotten done, there is an ongoing need for financial planning and continuous review for anyone interested in achieving their goal of true financial independence. No longer is a financial plan simply a printed document that hides on a shelf after a single reading. Modern planning is done with clients on an ongoing basis, and utilizes software that is adaptable enough to keep up with changes, both in personal lives and in markets. Trained Certified Financial Planners™ have the expertise and the tools to guide the process.

Van Wie Financial is fee-only. For a reason.

Last week, in this blog series, we examined the individual nature of establishing personal retirement income goals. There is no “magic bullet” number for accumulation of wealth prior to retirement. Everyone has an idea of the income they will need to live throughout retirement. Rather than targeting a preset amount of money in retirement accounts, we concentrate on sources of retirement income in order to arrive at an income-based goal.

Retirees will likely not be totally dependent on their savings in order to fund retirement. Most Americans will have Social Security benefits, and in addition, lesser numbers of people will have some combination of private pensions, public pensions, and private annuities. In each generation, many people will inherit wealth from parents and other relatives.

Once a desired income goal is agreed upon, all income sources are aggregated toward that goal. The difference (assuming it is a shortage) must be made up from savings (in both retirement and non-qualified accounts). It is generally not critical for income planning to have retirement assets of sufficient quantity to fund a complete retirement.

It is now time to introduce the concept of “Equivalent Net Worth,” or “ENW.” ENW is an intangible sum of money that works for you by supplying lifetime income, but you do not actually own the cash. For example, an income stream produced from a pension or annuity (Social Security qualifies as an annuity) has value, but you cannot actually touch the funds that produce the income.

Under this formula, Social Security recipients have an ENW based on their benefit level when they file. The ENW formula is based on the concept of a “safe withdrawal rate” of 4%. This means that a saver should be able to withdraw 4% of the balance from investment accounts annually, and still outlive the money. Calculating the amount of money needed simply uses the reciprocal of the withdrawal rate. This is done by multiplying annual cash income by 25.

Under this formula, every $10,000 of needed annual retirement income would require either a savings, or ENW, of $250,000 ($10,000 annually times 25). Today’s average Social Security benefit is $17,532 annually, the ENW of these recipients is $438,300 (25 times $17,532). Married couples have an even larger ENW, as spouses can collect from the other spouse’s Social Security account.

Having the above sum of $438,300 in cash will produce the same income as the Social Security payment. A saver with that much cash has a Net Worth (NW) that includes the base sum of $438,300. When the saver dies, his or her heirs will inherit the money in the account. However, when the Social Security recipient dies, the heirs have no cash to inherit. It is intangible, and therefore included as Equivalent Net Worth (ENW). The income stream is something of value, and reduces the need of the saver to reach a difficult savings goal.

A recent Charles Schwab & Co. survey revealed that the average targeted retirement savings for Americans is $1.7 Million. While very few people will ever save that much, the concept of Equivalent Net Worth tells us that we are more likely to reach our retirement income goals with a lesser savings goal. This observation should come as a relief to savers and investors.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (bls.gov), only 3% of private-sector employees have pension benefits. These fortunate few often receive more than $50,000 annually, which has an ENW of $1,250,000. We often say that there 2 types of people in the country; those who have pensions, and those who wish they did. The numbers illustrate why. However, non-pensioners have other means of producing retirement income. In many cases, they are wealthier than they thought.

Retirement income planning can be confusing, and we can assist anyone desiring eventual financial independence.

Van Wie Financial is fee-only. For a reason.

Recently, Charles Schwab & Co. asked investors how much money they thought would be adequate to fund their retirements. The consensus (we weren’t told whether this was an average or a median) was $1.7 Million.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that very few people will ever accumulate that much money prior to retirement. This was confirmed by a Fidelity study from early 2019 that showed an average 401(k) balance of $195,000 for the age group 60 – 69 years. Younger people, as expected, had less.

We believe that the Schwab survey asked the wrong question. We would have asked how much annual income people believed they needed to be comfortable retiring. For years now, Van Wie Financial has been examining the retirement asset formula more thoroughly than simply looking at 401(k) balances. Not only are our results somewhat more optimistic, but they also suggest that society is in somewhat better condition than the hard and fast 401(k) numeric suggests.

The reason Americans accumulate retirement assets in 401(k)s, IRAs, etc. is to eventually monetize account balances into income streams for retirement years. We all have the same objective — financial independence. Every individual determines their required income level without regard to other people’s objectives. Variables include age, marital status, geographic location, and lifestyle.

Averaging a need for $1.7 Million is the surest way to mislead Americans into believing they can never achieve a reasonably comfortable retirement lifestyle. Were this universally true, we’d be praising and reaffirming that number. Life is seldom so quantifiable, and this time is no exception. Determining your own personal financial independence level is, well, personal.

Comprehensive Personal Financial Planning has developed into a complex array of variables, both controllable and otherwise. Examining your complex and individual situation is a requirement for success. Most people need to have some help along the way. In a nutshell, that is our day job.

Rather than discouraging people who are trying hard to do the right thing by planning a certain level of personal retirement income, we prefer to educate them on the various elements of wealth and how they intersect later on. It is usually more achievable than originally thought.

Next week we’ll introduce the concept of “Equivalent Net Worth,” which allows a person to customize his/her/their variables to arrive at financial independence.

Van Wie Financial is fee-only. For a reason.

Financial advisors, according to a March, 2019 survey by the Journal of Financial Planning, get no respect. Rodney (“no respect”) Dangerfield would have had a heyday with this survey, had he chosen the financial services industry. The survey results are disheartening for many of us, but there is much to be gained from a deep dive into the data.

A disgustingly low 2% of surveyed people claimed to trust financial industry professionals. Given slightly more latitude, 15% admitted to trusting financial professionals “a little.” We remain unimpressed with these results, so we decided to look into the reasons why so little faith is evident in our industry. As with so many occupations, this seems to be a case of a minority of practitioners making it more difficult for all of us.

There is an age-old joke that says, “95% of all lawyers give the rest of them a bad name.” We believe that the situation in the financial services industry is more or less the reverse of that. A few truly unscrupulous advisors ruin the image of the many good practitioners.

Potential clients of financial advisors are fortunate to have a method by which they are able to ascertain the trustworthiness of their potential advisors. Thanks to the fiduciary rule, clients are able to know whether their advisor is legally, morally, and ethically required to place the interests of the client ahead of the interests of the advisor. Simply put, every advisor is either a fiduciary or not, and clients are allowed (and encouraged) to ask. In fact, we believe these potential clients are obligated (to themselves and to their families) to ask. A non-answer from an advisor should be taken as a resounding, “No.”

Over time there have been too many rogue financial “advisors;” we believe that the term “ financial advisor” is used entirely too generously. Insurance salespeople, brokers, and various other transaction-based activities do not qualify as true financial advising. 93% of Americans surveyed believe that the advisor’s interests should be second to their own. Yet only 50% of clients know whether their advisor is a fiduciary. This disconnect is upsetting, because it is critical to the ongoing success of the relationship.

Aretha Franklin was not only entertaining, but very clear about her desire for R-E-S-P-E-C-T. She earned it; she got it. At Van Wie Financial, we are doing our level best to earn it. Today there are many indicators available to investors seeking out reliable advisors. Look for fee-only fiduciary advisors, preferably holding the Certified Financial Planner™ (CFP®) designation, and doing business as a Registered Investment Advisor, or RIA. Your odds of success will be excellent.

Van Wie Financial is fee-only. For a reason.

Recent online articles by Bloomberg have been aimed at helping young professionals navigate their way to career success and financial independence. More than ever, young people are required to balance a competition of financial priorities, including school debt, transportation, housing, taxes, new families, and (not to be forgotten) future financial independence (what we used to call “retirement”).

At a time of maximum complexity, young people are weighed down by lack of financial knowledge and insufficient resources. In earlier American generations, financial advisors were mostly stockbrokers and insurance agents; all worked on commissions. ‘Investing” meant buying individual stocks, and brokers earned huge commissions. Only the well-to-do could afford the transaction costs.

Notably, brokers’ stock picks were often not their own, but rather recommendations developed by Company analysts, who were not independent. In many cases, they were selling shares their Companies already owned, but no longer wanted. Worse yet, recommendations seldom took into account the individual circumstances and/or preferences of the customer.

Stockbrokers and insurance agents executed transactions for a price. Brokers and agents made money by selling and trading. “Buy and hold” did them little good. The natural and expected result was often a conflict of interest between Seller and Buyer.

Further, there were few providers of these services who were knowledgeable in other aspects of personal finance. Financial planning was a “hit-and-miss” hodgepodge of (commission-driven) single transactions.

In 1969, 13 men gathered in Chicago to formulate a new financial advising plan; one that integrated the various aspects of personal finance under one profession. In 1972 the first group of students entered the newly-created College for Financial Planning in Colorado. In 1973 the 35-member graduating class formed the Institute of Certified Financial Planners™. Success of the program is evidenced by sheer numbers, as CFPs® approach 90,000 worldwide.

Formation of the Registered Investment Advisory (RIA) business model brought together the advanced qualifications required to become a CFP® and the Ethics Standards adopted by the CFP® Board. It also gave rise to the fee-only, fiduciary business model employed by Van Wie Financial and thousands of businesses world-wide. Fiduciaries are required to place the clients’ interests first in every decision. Fee-only means that there can be no commissions or other hidden costs of doing business with Van Wie Financial and other RIAs.

People who are beginning to formulate a plan for future financial independence can benefit from a relationship with a qualified, fee-only CFP®. It is never too early to begin a discussion about your future. Don’t get trapped a commissioned world where no one can be sure of the motivations of advisors. Avoid your fathers’ commissioned advisors for your financial advice.

Van Wie Financial is fee-only. For a reason.

Americans “of a certain age” know that their working days, at least in their current jobs, are numbered. Companies have opted for decades to replace older workers with younger, less expensive employees. This happens despite legal protections older workers first received in 1967, with passage of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Who doesn’t know of a story in which an older worker lost a job under circumstances that appear suspiciously like age discrimination? Perhaps a pension failed to vest, or a large salary was lost, or some desirable perks were costing the company money. We have seen it far too often in our business and in our families.

What went wrong with age protection? In its “wisdom,” Congress applied age-based discrimination standards to everyone over age 40. How many actual senior citizens are protected by a law that covers everyone 40 years or over? For any employer to skirt this law, only a breath of creativity would be required. Replace a 64-year-old with a 41-year-old, and voila, no age discrimination! Both workers are covered by age discrimination protections.

Age-related forces in the labor market are morphing from quantitative problems to quality problems. Quality of Labor has suddenly risen to the number 1 small business problem, recently mentioned by 25% of small businesses surveyed. For perspective, the number 2 problem cited was Taxation, mentioned by 16% of businesses, and Cost of Labor, which was only number 8 (at 8%).

A recent incident from our work at Van Wie Financial brought to our attention a subtle change in the outlook for older workers. We were discussing the job market with a client, who is nearly 55 and could soon retire with a vested pension. He announced that he was not going to take advantage of retirement benefits available to him today. Instead, he would continue to work for a few more years, with no fear of layoff or termination.

During our questioning we uncovered the reasoning for the employer’s actions, as it was hidden in plain sight. New hires have been of such poor quality lately that the senior employees are absolutely necessary for continuing smooth operations. People of “that certain age” have been proven to be invaluable to employers, and so much so that retention bonuses are now becoming commonplace among this age group.

Isn’t that grand?

Employers are being forced to reach down in age to find available workers, and that is where trouble is brewing. Preparation and work ethic in the younger generations is proving to be of questionable quality. Maintaining quality standards within an organization is easier when retaining older workers.

In 2019, we are in a strange new world; one where people “of a certain age” are not only getting jobs, but they are getting bonuses to stay put or join new companies. Baby Boomers have come a long way.

Van Wie Financial is fee-only. For a reason.

We are being lied to by our own government, which constantly understates the increase in the cost of living. We are told that prices are rising very slowly, and the “proof” is evidenced by the very slow and low increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Simply put, inflation is not a problem, they say. I beg to differ.

Inflation simply refers to reduced purchasing power of the dollars in your pocket. Since 1913 (when the Federal Reserve was created), the purchasing power of the American Dollar has fallen more that 96%. A home purchased in 1913 for $10,000 would cost $257,814 today. According to Uncle Sam, who contends that inflation has averaged 3.2% for the decade, everything is under control.

We don’t believe them (or the CPI), and neither does Ed Butowsky, the creator of the Chapwood Index, which measures our actual cost of living using a simple methodology – he tracks the cost of the same goods over time in constant select cities “across the fruited plain.”

According to Butowsky, “The CPI no longer measures the true increase required to maintain a constant standard of living. This is the main reason that more people are falling behind financially, and why more Americans rely on government entitlement programs.”

It gets worse from there, because Social Security has now adopted the so-called “chained CPI,” which takes into account changing consumer behavior. For instance, people shift to hamburger from steak when steak gets too expensive. That may be true, but it certainly isn’t voluntary!

One of the charges given to the Federal Reserve (FED) is to “control” inflation using monetary policy. They have, in an apparent attempt to make us believe them, defined their own measure of inflation, the “Personal Consumption Expenditure,” or PCE. This is, in fact, another way to deceive the public by informing them that they should not believe their own lying eyes.

When we go to the grocery store, and find that prices for our routine purchases are up 8%, 10% or more, we know that the rate of inflation is higher than the FED’s 2% “target.” Much higher. Over time, inflation gets muddled in our minds, but I am old enough (and many of you are, too) to remember 25-cent gas, 10-cent movies, $10,000 houses, and so on.

Don’t get me wrong – I love (some) inflation. Reasonable, consistent inflation. But I detest getting lied to about the magnitude we experience virtually every day. There is no end in sight.

The Chapwood Index (www.chapwoodindex.com) measures the cost of living in the top 50 cities in America. Jacksonville is one of them. For 2018, the Chapwood Index says that our local inflation rate is actually 8%. Further, our 5-year average is also 8%.

Jacksonville is low by comparison to most cities, especially those on the coasts. The highest is Oakland, CA at 13.4%, with a 5-year average of 13.1%. The cost of living in Oakland doubles every 5-1/2 years. Could you keep up?

The FED is signaling a recent rise in reported inflation, and this adds to the many reasons they should NOT cut interest rates. However, I believe they will do so, and then will live to regret their action. In the near future we will discuss investments that thrive during inflationary periods.

Van Wie Financial is fee-only. For a reason.

As it stands now, social security is scheduled to run out of money by 2034. If that is allowed to happen, about 62 million recipients, or 1 out of every 6 Americans, will have their benefits cut to 79% of the current level. Clearly, no politician would allow this to happen, but fixing the problem needs to start now, not in 15 years when the system is bankrupt.

Here are twelve ideas that could help fix the system.

  1. Reduce current benefits
  2. Lower benefits for future recipients
  3. Allow the system to reduce benefits in 2035
  4. Increase current payroll taxes now or in the future
  5. Raise or lift the cap on payroll taxes now or in the future
  6. Raise the age to receive social security in the future
  7. Allow privatization of part or all social security accounts
  8. Eliminate early filing
  9. Change benefit accruals
  10. Change Cost of Living adjustments
  11. Tax State and Federal workers who are eligible for Social Security
  12. Invest the Trust Fund in a diverse portfolio to increase returns

I took these twelve ideas and ranked them on the following criteria:

  1. The positive impact on retirees and near-retirees
  2. Political Popularity
  3. Impact on the Social Security system

The results of my test yielded 4 ideas that scored a 7 or above, and here they are:

4) Raise or Lift the Payroll Taxes Now or in the Future: The problem with this one is that it is just another massively unfair wealth redistribution plan that punishes success. Should this pass, this would mean that W-2 employees would pay an additional 6.2% on income above $132,900. Self employed people would pay 12.4% more on every dollar earned above that threshold. For that additional tax, they would receive no future benefit, so it is transferring their current income to the future income of someone else. I think this would need to be tweaked by either lowering the rate paid or giving some benefit accrual for dollars paid in above the limit.

3) Invest the Trust Fund in a Diverse Portfolio to Increase Returns: The Trust Fund is invested entirely in U.S. Treasury securities that return almost nothing. Investing a diversified, conservative portfolio would amplify those returns. Why are we not doing this yet?

2) Change benefit accruals: This one could be done behind the scenes and would be the hardest to understand and explain politically. Essentially, it would change the way benefits are calculated for future recipients, so the payouts would be lower. This would have a large impact on the system, and could be slanted toward lower income earners to be sold to the public.

1) Raise the Age to Receive Benefits in the Future: I am 42 years old. That means it will be 20 years before I am eligible to receive my first check. If the government came to me and said you can receive 79% of what you though you would be getting in 20 years, or 100% of it in 21 or 22 years, that is a trade-off I will make. Do I love it? No. Is it a better deal? Yes.

  Positive Impact on retirees Popularity Impact on System Total
Reduce current benefits 1 1 3 5
Lower benefits for future recipients 2 2 2 6
Allow the system to reduce benefits in 2035 2 1 2 5
Increase current payroll taxes 3 1 2 6
Raise or lift the cap on payroll taxes now or in the future 3 1 3 7
Raise the age to receive social security in the future 3 2 3 8
Allow privatization of part or all social security accounts 3 1 1 5
Eliminate early filing 1 1 2 4
Change benefit accruals 2 2 3 7
Change Cost of Living adjustments 1 1 3 5
Tax State and Federal workers who are eligible for Social Security 2 2 2 6
Invest the Trust Fund in a diverse portfolio to increase returns 3 2 2 7

 

Ask any mature adult, say, over about 40 years old, if he or she would take a 1-time deal to go back to an younger age, and the answer is almost universally, “Sure, I’d love to be younger, but only if I can take with me everything I know today.” There is no direct replacement for experience in life. But, extensive learning and planning provide a healthy boost to the accumulation of wisdom that comes with age.

Perhaps the most difficult period of a young person’s life begins with the realization that it is time to get married and start a family. There is so much to do with so little cash flow, and so many concurrent demands to obstruct the path to a successful financial future. The early years of child rearing present young parents with constant demands for time and money, and conflicts are inevitable.

When presented with the reality that there will soon be three people in the family, a common and natural reaction is panic. Since this is a financial blog, here is a “short list” of financial obligations that will soon be competing for dollars of new parents-to-be.

  • Who should continue to work; one or both?
  • Can we afford today’s astronomical Day Care expenses?
  • Do we need life insurance; what kind, and how much?
  • What expenses will our health insurance not cover?
  • Should we keep renting, or is it time to buy?
  • How will we be able to retire our student debt?
  • Will our current vehicles be large enough and safe enough?
  • When should we start saving for college?
  • Should we make a formal Will?
  • Can we continue to fund our own retirement savings?
  • What changes are needed to our home?
  • How will this impact our social life?

While not an exhaustive list, it is nonetheless daunting. With increasing priorities demanding the attention to allocation of expenses and savings, managing money is a critical priority. Yet, most young adults have little-to-no experience doing exactly that.

Establishing a relationship with a competent financial advisor seems out of reach for most young people, as they believe they do not yet have sufficient net worth to justify professional wealth management. Fortunately, financial planning during this period is primarily a process of identifying and ordering priorities.

There are an increasing number of young couples seeking professional financial advice. The number one caution for young people should be to avoid commissioned salespeople calling themselves financial planners in order to sell insurance and/or annuities. Salespeople are not fiduciaries with respect to their clients of any age. The fiduciary standard, which you can reference using a simple search, is critical to avoid making seriously costly financial mistakes.

Start any search for a fiduciary planner using online resources, such as the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standardsâ (letsmakeaplan.org) or the National Association of Personal Financial Advisorsâ (NAPFA.org). These professional organizations will steer you to the right planner for your situation, and will help you avoid commissioned product peddlers looking for gullible young customers.

Free financial resources are invaluable, but only if they are trustworthy. That is the reason we started the Van Wie Financial Hour, our 1-hour radio program heard every Saturday morning from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. on WBOB radio, 600AM and 101.1FM, and streaming on the Internet at wbob.com. You can also hear prior shows through our website, strivuswealth.com, where all past programs are archived. While on our website, look around for other solid financial information and guidelines.

Van Wie Financial is fee-only. For a reason.

As someone who has long supported a Tax Code change to index capital gains for inflation, I am very happy to have read more than one recent story about a proposal currently in Congress. Indexing has failed many prior attempts over three decades, but this time just might be different.

Many people know the difference between “real” and “nominal” profits. “Nominal” refers to an actual numerical gain; i.e. buy a stock for $100, and sell it later for $200, and the “nominal” profit = $100. In the current Tax Code, the entire $100 is taxable. “Real” profit however, is the reduced value of the profit due to inflation incurred during the holding period. In the last example, if inflation had been 20% during the holding period, the “real” profit (the taxable part) would only be $80.

There is a simple argument in favor of indexing capital gains, as taxing the inflationary part of the gain is unfair and discourages investment. In Washington, D.C., of course, nothing is simple, and few things are considered “fair.” Opponents claim that the distribution of tax savings would benefit primarily wealthier people.

There are several considerations that have given me recent optimism for passage of indexing. In no particular order, they include:

  • Having a businessman President steeped in real estate, depreciation, capital gains, and inflation, makes Trump the logical person to drive the current discussion
  • Among the proponents pushing this through Congress is Grover Norquist (from Americans for Tax Reform), who understands far better than most elected officials the benefits of passing tax reform, and many Washington insiders listen to him
  • The current crop of White House economic advisors, including Larry Kudlow and Art Laffer, are not Keynesians, and understand that economic activity in the private sector is far more important than in government (Governments can print money, but they can’t print wealth)
  • Having seen the success of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, many more elected Republicans have come to understand Economics 101 regarding lower taxes
  • The public taste for tax cuts is still fresh, though the Administration did not do a good job educating the public on the concept, and then highlighting the results

There are also reasons for trepidation, including, in no special order:

  • Virtually the entire media complex tries to make Trump look bad, at least until the 2020 election
  • The government is loath to use dynamic scoring for economic proposals, preferring the old static process (Dynamic scoring would show that increased economic activity from the indexing proposal would raise revenue for the public and the government)
  • Indexing is a complex issue that will require extensive planning and design

Still, this time I do believe that the indexing push may produce results. If so, income planning, tax planning, and estate planning will all be enhanced for the average citizen – you do not have to be a “one-percent” upper-income American to benefit from user-friendly tax law. My fingers are crossed.

Van Wie Financial is fee-only. For a reason.