The following is a guest post from Marotta Wealth Management. As a resident of a battleground state, I'm already tired of the political campaign/ads. I thought this tongue-in-cheek piece was a funny take on the election and yet contains a solid truth -- what you do impacts your finances much more than what politicians do for you.
I hate election years. I suspect that many of you feel the same way. In fact I'm sure that half of you don't like one candidate and the rest don't like the other candidate. Many of you probably don't like either of the choices.
During elections the political dialogue assumes that the well-being of your future is out of your control and in the hands of politicians. This is simply not true. You have the freedom to take control of your finances and your life.
To provide a forum for this alternative point of view and also to lighten up an otherwise difficult season to stomach, I am pleased to announce my own candidacy for president under the self-proclaimed Financial Freedom Party.
Our platform of living within your means and taking control of your own financial future will become apparent in subsequent months, but I would like to establish the ground rules for my campaign.
First, I am refusing any matching federal money, and I am suggesting that you should refuse to provide it. Please check "No" for contributing $3 toward the presidential public financing system on your tax return. I know that I have the backing of most Americans on this issue. The number of taxpayers checking "Yes" has fallen from a high of about 29% in 1980 down to about 5%.
This fund is used to match the first $250 contribution from individuals. In 2012, each major party is entitled to $18.2 million in public funds for their conventions, and an additional $91.2 million in public funds for their nominees. I can't think of an easier way for individual taxpayers to trim $219 million from the federal deficit than by simply checking "No." If you believe that putting $250 toward the presidential candidate of your choice is what will have the most impact on your future, then the Financial Freedom Party is not the party for you.
If you are tempted to contribute $250 to my candidacy, don't. Contributing $250 every four years during your working years makes you more than $27,000 poorer when you start your retirement. Save and invest that money and increase your own nest egg by $27,000. Perhaps you will be able to afford to pay for your own health care! Having the money will certainly help you more than any government program you could buy with a $250 contribution!
Second, I am not even willing to be on the ballot. Getting your name on the ballot requires a tremendous amount of volunteer effort and expense. I understand it costs about a half a million dollars to get your name on the ballot in Virginia alone. If it wasn't worth your $250, it certainly isn't worth a half million to me! So if you want to vote for me, you will have to write in "David John Marotta" on November 6. Better yet, write your own name in, because it is your choices that will have the most effect on your future.
I have a quiz to help you determine if you are a good candidate for membership in the Financial Freedom Party. This quiz comes from Bert Whitehead's book "Why Smart People Do Stupid Things with Money: Overcoming Financial Dysfunction." Bert Whitehead is a fellow member of the National Association of Personal Finance Advisors (NAPFA), and I highly recommend his book (at least until my presidential memoirs have been published). I will not deny the rumor that Bert could be drafted as my vice president, and his self-test is a good method to determine how much control you have of your financial freedom. For each of the following seven options, select which of the two choices you think will most impact your financial future:
1. a) Interest rates b) Taxes
2. a) The specific investments you choose b) The diversification of your investments across all asset classes
3. a) Inflation b) Being a wise shopper
4. a) Technology b) How much you earn
5. a) The political climate b) The stability of your relationships
6. a) Globalization b) The house that you purchase
7. a) The rate of return on your investments b) How much you save in permanent savings
If you answered A for any of the choices, you might want to consider backing the presidential aspirations of one of those other guys. You aren't yet fully in control of your own finances. Our party platform sides firmly with Bert Whitehead in claiming that in each case, choice B will have a much greater impact on your life than choice A.
You may believe that some of the A choices are critical to your future well-being. They are not as critical as your own choices. Now that my candidacy is formally announced, I will expand on the Financial Freedom Party platform. And you can best support my efforts by joining the grassroots movement to ensure your own financial freedom.
Some good points.
Maybe a little too much of the chicken little mentality of the sky is falling brings on negative attitudes. Easy access to changing your investments via an smartphone and you have a receipt of a volital market that has nothing to do with sound principles of investing but influenced by media driven dribble.
Posted by: Matt | August 22, 2012 at 07:12 AM
You're absolutely right. There are enough things we can control that it doesn't make a difference who is in Washington. If we focus on what we can control (our decisions) and do the right things, things will work out OK.
As a general rule (and this is stepping in the off-topic direction) my wife and I have stopped watching television news and reading newspapers. Those media tend to focus on negative stuff, and stuff we can't control. What's the point of getting riled up over things we can have no impact on?
With the internet, we can stay up to date on what's important in far less time. Time which we can spend on making better decisions with our finances.
Posted by: William @ Drop Dead Money | August 22, 2012 at 07:47 AM
This was a nice fresh spin on how people focus so much on how politics will shape their future one in every four years then blame the Guy who got elected for everything that goes wrong financially for the next 3 years. Instead improve what you Dan control and the small part you can't control wont matter so much.
Posted by: Lance@MoneyLife&More | August 22, 2012 at 09:53 AM
Yes, you make some great points. I've been disheartened over the years at how so many people have become dependent upon the government. I think I ready nearly 40 or 50% of Americans get some kind of aid or benefit from some level of government. That is not healthy, nor is it sustainable.
Posted by: Rich@MoneyWisePastor | August 22, 2012 at 11:41 AM
1) A. ,2) A. ,3) A. ,4) B. ,5) B. ,6) B. ,7) A.
As a result of a lifetime of living well within our means, having a 56 year marriage, still saving because our annual income is far larger than we ever expected at 78 & 79, minding our own business, being as anonymous as we possibly can, and always making smart financial decisions, we are very well off financially, couldn't be happier, and have everything we could possibly want.
Our bucket list became empty in 2010, and life is as good as it can get at our age.
Posted by: Old Limey | August 22, 2012 at 12:49 PM
The problem with the underlying philosophy of this post is that politics IS intruding more and more into our lives. It seems our lives have become more and more dominated by a crony-capitalist elite on one hand and a heavy handed government elite on the other. Obviously, living below your means is the only sensible thing to do....but I have my doubts as to whether that will be enough.
Posted by: Mark | August 22, 2012 at 01:55 PM
I see what your saying Mark, but is it any better anywhere else in the world? I figure everywhere has its problems that people have to just get over.
Posted by: JayB | August 22, 2012 at 03:36 PM
Mark & JayB:
I agree, our political system has stopped working. Things didn't use to be like this. There was a lot of cooperation between the two parties in earlier times that seems to have vanished.
I also think that religion is also intruding far too much into politics and people's private lives, especially with regard to controversial issues like abortion, birth control, and gay and lesbian relationships. Personally I would like to see the gun control laws change dramatically. It's just too easy for guns to get into the hands of people that have no compunction about using them to kill people, especially now that we have so many unemployed people that are angry and desperate for money.
Posted by: Old Limey | August 22, 2012 at 04:13 PM
I agree on the intrusion of religion as well. That said, I am gay and many gays in the San Francisco crows are every bit as intolerant as the fundamentalists. I've experienced it first hand, so it definitely cuts both ways.
As far as guns go, I think many of these mass shooters are deliberately mind controlled. Start researching it for yourself. The elites don't want people to have guns. They know how to use mind control to get people to do mass shootings, so that people will be willing to give up guns. I know, you probably think I'm crazy. But the gun issue is part of a larger plan to accrue power at the top. It's called: Problem. Reaction. Solution. The problem is deliberately created (or often just the perception of a problem). Then there's the reaction from the general public "Something must be done!". Then they imiplement the "solution" which is the thing they always wanted to do anyway. The "solution" always involves more restrictions on freedom and centralizes political and economic power at the top. Now you probably think I'm a nut, but there you have it. Sorry for veering off topic, but I think it's important for peole from across the political spectrum to start seeing what is really going on.
Posted by: Mark | August 22, 2012 at 08:26 PM
You've got MY vote! I know you're not on the ballot, but I'm writin' you in!
Posted by: Chris @ Awesome Financial Future | August 22, 2012 at 08:49 PM
That was a good perspective to get people back involved with their finances. Focusing too much on the uncontrolables leaves you losing control of what you can control.
Posted by: Ornella @ Moneylicious | August 22, 2012 at 10:45 PM
This is great! It is so true that too many people place heavy emphasis on what the candidates are promising and how they each view the future of the company. In reality, our votes aren't really directly choosing them anyway, so why not take control of your own financial situation and stop being so worried about the plans of other people saying they know what will happen with your money. Only you do, because you're in control of it.
Posted by: Kelly@FinancialBailoutNews | August 23, 2012 at 09:40 AM
I guess what I was trying to get at was this. I feel like the underlying philosophy of this post is valid. We can ignore the uncontrolables and focus on what we can control, (that I feel is the underlying philosophy).
Now, I do agree that politics do intrude more and more in our lives. But what I want to know is given all of this, where is it any better? Canada? Australia? Eurpope? China?
I hear all of this complaining about our system, and a lot of it is valid, but given the whole picture, I feel like we are still in the best system in the world. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm not sure, but it's what we have, and we have to deal with it. If that means ignoring it and doing our own thing like the post says, then I'm in 100% agreement with the post.
Posted by: JayB | August 23, 2012 at 11:05 AM
It can be difficult trying to plan for financial freedom when no one knows what Social Security will look like in 20 years.
Posted by: Squeezer @Personal Finance Success | August 23, 2012 at 01:31 PM
Squeezer --
That's why I'm planning as if I'll get ZERO from SS...
Posted by: FMF | August 23, 2012 at 01:32 PM
"Now, I do agree that politics do intrude more and more in our lives. But what I want to know is given all of this, where is it any better? Canada? Australia? Eurpope? China?""
It's an excellent question, and therein lies the problem. There isn't anywhere to run. When people really start understanding that over the last 100 years or so, the foundation has now been laid for a global dictatorship (single world currency (Euro is the first step), single world army (NATO), single government (UN), plus a few cartel-like businesses/industries (pharmaceuticals/oil/banks/media)) maybe then we can start taking back our own power.
Like I said, individual effort can do a lot, but it won't be enough to combat the plans of the global elite, which go back centures. Research for yourselves.
Posted by: Mark | August 23, 2012 at 01:36 PM
Well, I'm kind of depressed now, but look what I found.
http://www.aurorabeachfront.com/nicaraguarealestate/property/Surf%20view%20condo%20at%20Playa%20Maderas%20.php
Apparently people are moving to Nicaragua when they retire because the cost of living is so much cheaper. Now this would be an ideal situation for me, given there is clean water, food, ample power, communication with the outside world, etc... the necessities.
Anyone know of any other places that retirement could be more feasible? Hope I am not getting to far off topic, but financial freedom is what I want, and it might be more easily obtained elsewhere. Just a thought.
Posted by: JayB | August 23, 2012 at 03:10 PM
JayB --
Since you asked, check these out:
http://www.freemoneyfinance.com/2010/08/five-places-to-retire-on-social-security-alone.html
http://www.freemoneyfinance.com/2011/10/retirement-costs-in-13-countries.html
http://www.freemoneyfinance.com/2009/05/how-to-afford-retirement-move-to-a-foreign-country.html
http://www.freemoneyfinance.com/2010/02/more-on-retiring-inexpensively-abroad.html
http://www.freemoneyfinance.com/2012/04/seven-great-reasons-to-retire-overseas.html
Posted by: FMF | August 23, 2012 at 03:14 PM
Awesome, Thanks!
Posted by: JayB | August 23, 2012 at 03:46 PM