@@fictitiousnightmares you are doing better than many. Seems like you are not lavish with your lifestyle, have a pension, and a nest egg that can provide decent income if you play your cards right. 👌

@@masoncnc wrong, the balance goes to the beneficiary. Typical misperception perpetuated by anti annuity trolls

@@charliegipplecfpcluchfc9533 That would depend on the annuity. There are a ton of different contract types all with different benefits. There are plenty of reasons to avoid annuities for most people. Most can't afford them and would be better off investing in the stock market as you need to have them 'on the side'/'in addition to' the rest of your portfolio and not as your entire portfolio. The insurance companies selling annuities scam a lot of people who don't know better and there are a ton of bad contract deals if you aren't careful and plenty that just don't meet your goals appropriately and therefore you would be better off not buying them. It isn't black and white, annuity good/annuity bad, pro-annuity/anti-annuity. If you ignore the fact that there are a TON of reasons never to buy an annuity while only focusing on the reasons TO buy one, you are just as ignorant as those who are 100% against them.

@@frankmagnifico3160 great question. Completely different. Annuitization means you just turn it into a payment stream. A guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefit rider is an overarching guarantee of withdrawals that you can take from your annuity and even if the annuity value hit zero, that payment still continues. GLWB’s mean that you don’t lose complete control when you start taking income. Relatively new invention as of a couple of decades ago.

@@JasonBrown033 one “advisor”, to use the term loosely, suggested that the only reason I chose to rip myself off with an annuity was because it paid me a commission. 😂 Data and facts doesn’t matter to some of these people.

@@charliegipplecfpcluchfc9533 OMG! I guess you just can't fix stupid, right? As Forest Gump once said, "Stupid is as Stupid does." Ripping yourself off?! That is classic, man.

@@jimmyoandrhondalee7431 it depends on what index you have. But that is just one day that I discussed. Your iul is likely an annual point of point. Which means that the rest of the year’s performance is what matters.

One America has pretty much always been best in class when it comes to these types of products. However, there are some features and benefits that other companies have that, yes, one America is now addressing. Other competitors of note are securian, nationwide, Lincoln, And maybe a couple others. One America is where it is at though in my opinion.

That's just wrong. 1. Social programs existed LONG before socialism was even a concept. It's just a theft of a phrase socialists and tankies love to steal, and too few people call them out on. And most of the "socialist" European countries people try and claim as such aren't. They've said so themselves. The economic model doesn't equate to socialism. In most countries neither the states nor the people collectively own the means of production, which is the definition of socialism. The means of production are still (as a whole) owned privately with a free market system. Now, some states HEAVILY regulate those industries, but the individual ones are still primarily privately owned.

@@Mikakarot23 You are describing communism, not socialism. the government owning the means of production is communism. Socialism is just countries with extensive social programs, which are either financed with very high taxes (like Sweden, Netherlands, Germany) or with huge public deficits cleared by continuous devaluations of the currency (like all of south-America) which causes permanent high inflation, trapping people at the bottom of earnings in perpetual poverty (Brazil, Argentina). I am not defending socialism, or communism, or anarcho-capitalism... I prefer a balanced government with very limited social programs (like basic universal healthcare, and public schools) and a strong private sector of public services... it might sound like an oxymoron, but privately owned public services were the norm before the 1920's, private healthcare, private schools, private bus companies, private rail companies, private couriers (post), you pay as you use and if you can't afford it you get a coupon from the government to redeem while using those basic services like education and healthcare. it is cheaper.

@@pedrolopes3542 You have no Idea what your talking about. 1. In socialism/communism, the government is by design "the people." Every socialist writer and philosopher explains this in their works. The means of production are collectively owned and resources are redistributed as seen fit by "the people." Private ownership of business in both systems is seen as a moral wrong. The difference between the two is their state. Socialism is simply "the people" owning production. Communism is Utopic civilization without class, government, and everyone working for the common good. It's basically a pipedream. 2. Social program doesn't not equal socialism. As I stated before, the concept of social programs existed a millenia before the first socialist philosopher was even born. Rome alternated between republic and dictatorship throughout its history and they had social programs. Nowhere in capitalism is it against social programs either. Capitalism is just individualism and free/fair exchange along with private ownership.

@@Mikakarot23 You claim to be knowledgeable when in reality you are just gullible. Who cares what Engels and Karl Marx wrote, if you look around you will find other authors that wrote entirely different definitions/interpretations of what communism/socialism is. You just choose to believe Marx over Ayn Rand or even Milton Friedman. By the way, Socialism and communism are two different things. The reality of the attempts at the implementation of both systems (socialism and communism) showed us a very different picture of what they really are in practice. Communism is a dictatorship in which "the means of production" are confiscated by a dictatorial elite that evolves over time to be a dynasty of politicians who capture the power in due time (China, north Korea, The USSR). Then you have the attempts at socialism (like the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) or more moderated ones like the social democrats in the 1950's and 1960's in Europe who developed extensive social programs for housing, healthcare, job loss protections, maternity, childcare programs, the list goes on and on, all public, all "free" for the consumer/citizen, and all paid with hight taxes and debt. I prefer freer societies than socialists and communists ones, but if I had to choose one of the two I would choose socialism over communism. meanwhile you linger in dusty old scribblings from sexist, racist, alcoholics (Marx) to get your definitions of communist and socialist, I look at the history of the attempts at implementing both ideologies, and formulate the definition by observing what they really are.

and yet you used the communist definition for socialism and made up a new definition for communism and barely touched the main idea behind capitalism. he is partially wrong, but you are more wrong than him.

@@pedrolopes3542 A classless society is a society in which no one is born into a social class like in a class society. Distinctions of wealth, income, education, culture, or social network might arise and would only be determined by individual experience and achievement in such a society. Thus, the concept posits not the absence of a social hierarchy but the uninheritability of class status. Hopefully that clarifies it for you.

@@covidiotseverywhere2179 I don't need "clarifications", I understand the systems discussed very well, I just don't like the system you described, it is dictatorial and abusive of individual rights, like private property rights, personal choices, individuality... all the things that make society happy and prosperous.

Brett Danko’s preparation program is who I would recommend. But by now you probably have one chosen.