[Scanner]

Actually, it could be made serious if you twist it around from the obvious "I've got something to sell (MLM)" to an investing question.

Investing for income used to be really in but in the 80's and 90's, it was more "in vogue" to invest for growth.

Sometimes I think about constructing an entire portfolio on income and "easing" my way into retirement.

Let's figure for every $100,000 you have, you can average $5000/year on 5% interest. You just keep buying treasuries, muni's, CD's, and dividend stocks (utilities are good) and every year, your paycheck means less and less.

Now, before you poo-poo me, think about this for a minute. You get up to $500,000 and you now have $25,000/year in passive income. If you are a family that makes $75,000/year. . .you don't worry so much if you get a disability, lose a job, etc.

However, if it's in a Roth, well. . .it may as well be buried in a box in Fiji, right?

I often wonder if stuffing our retirement money in tax shelters (ROTHS, SEP's, 401(k)'s) just because the pundits tell us to do this is really the right idea. I mean, we all save and save and save and save, for that magic age of 65 (67.5 for my generation) when we can go on Medicare and we don't get to enjoy any of the fruits of our savings.

I'm not sure this entirely makes sense sometimes.

I'm always one to question the status quo and give a contrarian idea some due.

My mentor in my field just bought muni bonds, never had an IRA or any other shelter. While that was a conservative investment philosophy, esp. in the roaring 80's and 90's, when he became disabled, he had a lot of passive income from them (plus more than a little principal) and he didn't have to go raid or borrow from a Roth or 401(k).

Something to think about. . .although I know contrarian thoughts don't usually go over well here at savingadvice.com