one that people here don't talk about: making more financially

mhy12784 · May 31, 2014

Anyone who is on an extreme end of the political spectrum is a terrible person. (ok im exaggerating slightly)

Either to the left or right.

And just a bit of advice, if you look at people who are diehard political fanboys (on either side of the aisle) 99/100 times theyre completely bitter and miserable. Not to mention majorly pigheaded and ignorant.

tarotale · May 31, 2014

@ladyssolo: I live in Dallas, and I am mostly certain that NPs make 6 figures or at least close to it (maybe during no-experience years). It's not only the money though, I can't see myself doing staff RN for my career. I want autonomy, respect as a provider, and ability & education to meet the quality.

@rollernurse: somewhat extreme view of thought, but for odd reason, I can't disagree with you. Probably stems from my extreme hatred towards welfare and its abuse; but then again, there are somethings I am liberal about, some I am conservative about.

we might want to stay away from the whole politics thing before moderator gives us a bad eye. :)

OCNRN63, RN · May 31, 2014

There is nothing wrong with wanting to make more money, hey we all have bills to pay but it sounds like you don't really enjoy nursing. If that is true you might want to reevaluate your career choice. That said, does your hospital have a Clinical Ladder program. My hospital's program offers 5.5%, 6.5% and 7.5% pay increases respectively for levels II, III and IV. Look into legal nurse consulting. This is something you can do on the side and pays quite well. I worked home health for a while in the 90's and the grass is not always greener. It looks like a lot of money because you get paid by the visit but no one tells you about the time spent back at the office doing the extensive paperwork (although I'm sure it is computerized now) which is time you do not get paid for. Hope you find a happy solution.

Being a legal consultant requires that you be expert in your area of practice. A new nurse most likely does not have the knowledge/expertise for this.

The last thing you want to do is have your work shredded by defense counsel, particularly if your case requires you to testify as an expert witness. GrnTea could probably speak more to this matter.

OCNRN63, RN · May 31, 2014

quick question about 401/403 retirement funds by the way. Just saw a video about wallstreet and stocks, etc and how there's a chance where you don't come out so good. I know that retirement fund is not so much like stock since stock is considered more quickie-money and higher risk. But is there a chance that when you have saved a lot away on retirement funds and, I don't know, say at 65, couple years before you retire, the fund crashes and all the savings go to zero value, and you don't get a cent, or at best a tiny fraction of it?

It depends on how you invest. Generally, when you are younger, it's better to invest in stocks and bonds that are higher risk but have a higher yield. The closer you get to retirement age, you change your investments to ones that are lower risk; you won't earn as much, but you are less likely to lose money.

Most retirement programs will come out to the facility a couple of times a year to give you a chance to meet with someone and get some advice about what your best investments would be. The consutation is free, so it's to your benefit to take advantage of it.

MrChicagoRN, RN · Jul 12, 2014

It depends on how you invest. Generally, when you are younger, it's better to invest in stocks and bonds that are higher risk but have a higher yield. The closer you get to retirement age, you change your investments to ones that are lower risk; you won't earn as much, but you are less likely to lose money.

Exactly.

A growing trend, and a wise idea, is target dated retirement funds. This is great if you don't have a lot of time or inclination to actively manage your portfolio and move around funds. For example if someone is thirty, they will probably retire in 35-40 years. A good choice would be a 2050 fund. It would start at -90% stocks, 10% bonds. That gives greater returns , but greater risks to someone who has time to recover if there is a downturn. And stocks are cyclical. Sort of like driving on a hilly road, some ups some downs, and as long as you don't go off a cliff...all is well. As one ages, and becomes closer to retirement, you want to reduce risk. These funds will automatically adjust the stock: bond ratio over time so when retirement age hits your portfolio will be be ~10% stock, 90% bonds. This creates the greatest potential for financial growth at minimal risk.

mhy12784 · Jul 12, 2014

Exactly.
A growing trend, and a wise idea, is target dated retirement funds. This is great if you don't have a lot of time or inclination to actively manage your portfolio and move around funds. For example if someone is thirty, they will probably retire in 35-40 years. A good choice would be a 2050 fund. It would start at -90% stocks, 10% bonds. That gives greater returns , but greater risks to someone who has time to recover if there is a downturn. And stocks are cyclical. Sort of like driving on a hilly road, some ups some downs, and as long as you don't go off a cliff...all is well. As one ages, and becomes closer to retirement, you want to reduce risk. These funds will automatically adjust the stock: bond ratio over time so when retirement age hits your portfolio will be be ~10% stock, 90% bonds. This creates the greatest potential for financial growth at minimal risk.

A problem with target dated funds, is they overcharge you.

My companies 403b includes a ton of target dated funds, and they all charge 1.25%-2.00% annually (just the fund, plus the small amount from the group who runs the 403b)

'

That kind of completely cripples the advantage of using a targeted fund, when youll be eating away at your returns. Might only be getting a 5-10% a year depending on how the market is doing, and then youll be paying anywhere from 10-20% of that to the fund.

No thanks, ill stick with my vanguards and such

MrChicagoRN, RN · Jul 12, 2014

Every fund charges management funds, including all of Vanguards. Those fees are public are disclosed so the consumer to allow one to pick a fund with low expenses. You need to look at the total returns (returns after expenses and fees).

Vanguard, Fidelity, T.R.Price, etc all offer target date funds, and are no more expensive than their other funds.

mhy12784 · Jul 12, 2014

Every fund charges management funds, including all of Vanguards. Those fees are public are disclosed so the consumer to allow one to pick a fund with low expenses. You need to look at the total returns (returns after expenses and fees).
Vanguard, Fidelity, T.R.Price, etc all offer target date funds, and are no more expensive than their other funds.

They do

But the vanguards in my 403b charge me roughly 1% every 15-20 years or something (I dont remember the exact numbers off the top of my head, but its in the ballpark of 0.05% a year or something)

The T-Row price targeted funds are around 1.5% annually

Despite the annual-5-10 year returns all being incredibly similar.

I dont think the overwhelming majority of people who use their companies 403b have any idea what the expenses are to the funds they use (hell I doubt most even know that they have annual fees)

At an older age closer to retirement, I can understand why someone might want to be more conservative and look at targeted funds. But for younger investors, 1.25%-2% a year lost to fees, which could be compounded for 40 + years can end up being an obscene amount of money gone

I almost feel like why be "aggressive" (which generally have far more variability) and pay larger fees, then take the smart and steady approach.

Not that im suggesting to be overly conservative, id just rather keep my money than give it to an investment group.

edit-

Ah yea very true I guess you could always just use a targeted vanguard as well, I really didnt think of that. Since the only targeted funds my 403b offered were the T-Rowe Price ones which im not a fan of at all.

brandy1017, ASN, RN · Jul 12, 2014

Just one more comment, concerning additional income taxes for extra hours worked: it's something of a misconception that you lose "too much" in taxes when you work additional hours. It's still a percentage of what you earned; if you earn more, you make more, simply put. While no one likes seeing more money on the 'outgoing' column of paystubs, the fact is you are putting more into your earnings column as well.

I love your specialty pulling patients back from the Light! Isn't that the truth many times that is what we are doing!

brandy1017, ASN, RN · Jul 12, 2014

You can save money on taxes by living in a state with no or low income taxes. Another great way to save on taxes is by funding an HSA and choosing a high deductible health insurance plan. That money grows entirely tax free, not even social security taxes are paid on it, it can roll over and can be used at a later time for any medical or dental expenses. Ideally you would allow that money to grow to retirement and then use it after 65 for medical expenses or insurance.

A roth IRA is a better way to save for retirement because it is yours free and clear, no penalties for early withdrawal and the interest is tax free. While a 401k or 403b allows a tax deducation, it is only temporary and you will pay taxes on withdrawal, also comes with strings and early penalty clause. Then it is taxed at ordinary income rates which may be more than capital gains tax rate and on top of that you are paying taxes on the interest. If you choose a Roth it is all yours and it is all tax free!

To save on taxes you need to be able to itemize and that requires deductions such as home mortgage interest, student loans, charity or business expenses. But I wouldn't buy a house just for a tax deduction, rather I would make sure I wanted to stay in the house and the area for a long time and had a secure job.

Overtime or agency is the quickest way to make money, but I find nursing too stressful to actually do this. You could climb the ladder if you don't mind all the BS that comes with it. I for one never did this because there was too many strings attached with ever changing requirements and the threat of a demotion and pay cut in the future. While I have missed out on all the money that raise could have given me over the years, I have kept my self respect and my sanity. The rest who climbed the ladder find themselves subjected to ever changing rules, being twisted like a pretzel for a one time raise. I've seen the rules change so often and are changing once again to prove to me I made the right decision not to climb the ladder!

brandy1017, ASN, RN · Jul 12, 2014

Max out your 401 or 403B if your facility matches to a max percentage. Once you have a nice little nest egg, you can borrow against it. The intrest rate will be lower than your credit card or loan interest rate. The really plus side is that the money you pay back is going mostly back to you. You now have something to borrow against should you feel like you need to pull some money out for another endeavor.
Talk to a financial advisor about this. but you should look into it. just my advice.
Also all the money you put into the 401 or 403 is before taxes, so you actually decrease your taxable income.

I've done this myself. In fact the only reason I started a retirement account was knowing I could take out a loan against it. I took out a loan for a new car and for when I bought my house. While it is true the rates are usually lower than a credit card and you are paying yourself, you are actually allowing yourself to be double taxed. First you have to pay back the loan with after tax money and then when you want to withdraw the money for retirement it will be taxed again. Also if you quit or lose your job you may find the loan due in full and find yourself in a pickle when the loan becomes a early withdrawal complete with the early penalty and taxes due! So taking out a loan is not always the best idea. Make sure if you take out a loan you can afford to pay it back. Remember retirement accounts are protected from bankruptcy. Many times people spend their retirement funds to pay off medical debts etc and find themselves broke in the end when they would have been better off filing bankruptcy and preserving their retirement money!

MrChicagoRN, RN · Jul 12, 2014

A roth IRA is a better way to save for retirement because it is yours free and clear, no penalties for early withdrawal and the interest is tax free. While a 401k or 403b allows a tax deducation, it is only temporary and you will pay taxes on withdrawal, also comes with strings and early penalty clause. Then it is taxed at ordinary income rates which may be more than capital gains tax rate and on top of that you are paying taxes on the interest. If you choose a Roth it is all yours and it is all tax free!

ROTH's are great, and a few lucky people even have Roth 401k/403b available to them. But they're not always better for all. While any growth is tax free, any money going in post-tax dollars. You are paying income tax now, probably at a higher rate than you'll be paying after retirement. It's nice that you can take out what you put as needed, but that can be dangerous if someone ends up depleting their retirement fund needlessly. Also, any investment returns may be taxable for early withdrawal. Taxes can either be paid going in (Roth) or going out (traditional), but they'll get you one way or the other.

Generally, the younger the investor, the greater the tax advantage is to go Roth. Either way, everyone should at least invest enough in their employee plan to gain the maximum employer match. Don't throw 3-6% matching funds away.