Blueprint Financial Advisors, LLC

08/11/2026

Quick pet peeve before I get into this: you know those viral "I make $500K and I'm barely scraping by" budget breakdowns? The ones where somehow there's $75K for private school, $40K for vacations, a $2K/month car lease, and then the poster acts shocked they have nothing left over? That's not a hardship story, that's a lifestyle choice with extra steps. I have zero patience for that genre.

This is not that.

We're raised on a pretty specific story in this country: work hard, make good choices, and you'll be fine. Not rich, necessarily, just fine. Secure. That belief is baked in deep enough that most of us don't even notice we're carrying it.

So, I ran some numbers. I spend most of my day thinking about money, both micro and macro, and I wanted to put some numbers around some concepts. For someone starting out today, what are the real odds of that story being true? TL;DR. Not great.

Take a household earning $150,000 a year, genuinely a good outcome, roughly the top 25% of the country. Start at 25 years old (pretty good starting point), save 10% into a 401(k) every year without fail, get a 3% employer match, let the market do its thing at a solid 8% a year, for 40 straight years. Retire at 65 with $2.2 million in today's dollars. Combined with Social Security, something like $10,000+ a month. That's the story working out. That's "you made it.” To quote Lee Corso: “Not so fast, my friend”, there is more to the story and most of it isn’t good…

Here's what I can't stop thinking about: that outcome requires absolutely nothing to go wrong, for forty years, in a row. No layoff. No health scare. No bad decade in the market at the wrong moment. No kid who needs braces or a semester abroad or help with a down payment. No parent who needs care. Not one vacation, not one dinner out, not one unbudgeted dollar, for four decades. I built out the actual monthly budget behind this and there isn't a dollar of margin in it , not for emergencies, not for college, not for anything. In fact, it runs at a deficit each month…

Now ask yourself honestly: what are the real odds that a family goes 40 years without a single one of those things happening? Not "if you're careful." Not "if you make good choices." Just what are the actual odds, for anyone, over four decades of being alive?

I think most of us already know the answer, we just don't like sitting with it. Something happens. It happens to almost everyone eventually. And when it does, this system asks each household to absorb it completely alone, out of a budget that, even at a top-25% income, never had any room for it in the first place. (67% of households have less than three months of expenses saved.)

I don't think we talk honestly enough about this, and I think it matters, because if people actually understood the real odds (and risks) not the folklore, the actual math, I think a lot more of them would be open to a different conversation. Socialism! :) Not because they've become radicals. Because the story we were told doesn't match what the numbers say, and most people can tell the difference once someone shows them.

Oh, and for the folks about to tell me they don't need "socialism," they're just fine relying on Social Security and Medicare. Guess what those two programs actually are? 😉

And here's the part that worries me most as someone who watches numbers for a living: a K-shaped economy isn't just unfair, it's unstable. When one branch of the K keeps climbing and the other keeps falling, you don't get a permanent equilibrium, you get a shrinking base of consumers who can actually spend, more households one shock away from collapse, and more of that collapse eventually showing up as bad debt, foreclosures, and depressed demand that drags on everyone, including the people doing fine. An economy that only works for the top of the K forever isn't a stable system. It's a countdown.

Here's the part I think gets lost in the "socialism" panic: none of this is anti-market. In fact, I'd argue the opposite. A family with zero financial cushion doesn't smooth their spending through a rough patch, they slam the brakes, all at once, which makes recessions worse for everyone, not just them. A workforce that's terrified of losing health insurance can't take the entrepreneurial leap to start a business or switch to a better job. Debt-financed survival (credit cards covering the gap between income and essentials) quietly drains money that could otherwise be saved, invested, or spent growing the economy instead of paying 22% interest to a bank. Denmark, interestingly, pairs a strong safety net with one of the easiest countries in the world to hire and fire workers because the safety net protects the person, not the specific job, which makes the whole labor market more flexible, not less. Economists actually have a word for that: flexicurity.

Financial stability isn't the opposite of a dynamic, ambitious economy. It's usually the precondition for one. The families with the most room to take a smart risk: Start a business, change careers, invest for 30 years instead of living quarter to quarter, are the ones with the fewest unprotected gaps in their life.

So what would actually move the needle for most people's bottom line? Not slogans, just a handful of specific, unsexy things that pool risk instead of leaving it on one household at a time:

-Healthcare that isn't tied to your paycheck, so a layoff doesn't also cost you your coverage. (Looking at you Medicare For All).
-A real cap on childcare costs, often the single biggest line item for a young family, bigger than their mortgage in a lot of cases
-Paid family leave, so a new kid or a sick parent doesn't force a choice between income and caregiving
-A guaranteed retirement floor underneath personal savings, so a bad decade in the market right before retirement doesn't undo 40 years of doing everything right
-Shoring up Social Security now, while it's still a choice, instead of letting it become an automatic cut later (raise the cap!)

None of these require reinventing the American economy. They require deciding that a household earning a genuinely good, top-25% income shouldn't be one bad year away from losing everything they built. That is our economic system today, it sucks.

I'm not trying to score political points here (ok, maybe a little). I’m trying to look past the rhetoric and ask what actually keeps people financially secure over a lifetime because that's genuinely the job. And right now, Capitalism is failing a huge chunk of Americans, especially the younger generations. So, speaking both professionally and personally, I hope to see more progress from progressives in this space...

04/05/2026

Happy Easter!

Putting all your eggs in one basket might feel efficient… until that basket tips over and suddenly you’re explaining your life choices to a licensed professional (or even worse, a spouse!). A well-diversified portfolio accepts that uncertainty is part of the game and builds in protection against it. Instead of betting everything on a single outcome, you’re giving yourself multiple ways to succeed—less drama, fewer emergency therapy sessions, and a much smoother path toward long-term goals. A diversified approach helps absorb those shocks, so one bad break doesn’t send your entire plan into a tailspin.

If you are in your 20's and 30's and have some "fun" money, sure, buy that stock your dad's friend, who has a cousin, who has a brother who manages a hedge fund in Panama thinks everyone should get in on. Just don't risk anything you aren't wiling to lose everything on.

01/31/2026

TL;DR No. Trump accounts suck. UTMAs are a better option in most cases. All hat, no cattle.

As someone who prides himself on looking at investments and finances holistically, I feel like a conversation is missing...

There’s been a lot of breathless coverage lately about “Trump Accounts” — government-seeded investment accounts for kids that are being pitched as some bold new solution to wealth inequality. Start early, let compounding do the work, give every child a head start. I understand why that sounds compelling. But once you move past the slogans and actually look at the mechanics, the whole thing feels far less impressive.

At their core, Trump Accounts are just tax-deferred investment accounts with distributions taxed as ordinary income. That’s it. And that detail matters far more than the headlines suggest. Tax deferral is helpful, sure, but ordinary income taxation on the back end is a meaningful downgrade compared to capital gains treatment — and it’s nowhere near as powerful as tax-free growth. Delaying taxes is not the same thing as eliminating them, and pretending otherwise is how people end up disappointed at exactly the wrong moment.

What really gets me is how these accounts are being marketed. Trump officials keep boosting them by saying things like, “If you just contribute $400 a month, your child could have $100,000 by age 18.” Yeah, no s**t. That’s how saving and compound interest works. You don’t need a new government-branded account to demonstrate the math of regular contributions over 18 years. That example says nothing about whether the account structure is actually good — just that compounding exists.

What’s even more frustrating is that we already have better tools, right now, and almost no one in the public conversation is talking about them. Take UTMAs. They’re routinely dismissed as “just taxable accounts for kids,” which is technically true and practically misleading. Thanks to the kiddie tax rules, a child can earn a meaningful amount of unearned income each year before their parents’ marginal tax rate even applies. When those dollars are invested in tax-efficient index funds, a UTMA can compound with surprisingly little tax drag for a long time. In real planning terms, many UTMAs behave like a light tax-deferred wrapper well into six figures — but you wouldn’t know that from most media coverage.

Then there’s the moment everyone ignores: age 18. This is where all the theory collides with reality. Trump Account withdrawals become taxable ordinary income right when a young adult is trying to get started. UTMA withdrawals are typically capital gains, often taxed at very low rates. Roth IRA dollars are tax-free. Same market returns, wildly different outcomes, purely because of tax structure. That difference compounds just as powerfully as investment returns do — and it’s almost completely absent from the conversation.

And of course, Roth IRAs for kids with earned income barely get mentioned at all. If a child has earned income, parents can cover living expenses while wages flow into a Roth. That’s decades of tax-free compounding starting absurdly early in life. No new program. No press release. Just understanding how the existing rules actually work.

What bothers me about the Trump Account hype isn’t the idea of encouraging investing — that part is fine. It’s the way shiny new programs get promoted without any serious discussion of tax mechanics, withdrawal timing, or real-world tradeoffs. Real wealth isn’t built by novelty. It’s built by understanding the system as it exists and using it deliberately.

Side note for those who really want something to chew on: there are ways families quietly use UTMAs in combination with Roth IRAs to convert taxable dollars into long-term tax-free wealth once kids start working. It’s completely legal, deeply under-discussed, and far more powerful than most headline-friendly proposals. I’ll leave that there.

This is the kind of stuff I think about when I plan. Not slogans. Not shiny accounts. The math. The timing. The tax consequences no one wants to talk about — but everyone eventually feels.

Real planning happens in the details — not in slogans designed to sound good on cable news.

Side note: If you've read this far along, I will also like to add F**k ICE! Values and integrity matter more than optimizing a balance sheet. Being good with money is not an excuse to be indifferent to cruelty, state violence, or the harm done to people who are already vulnerable. I’m not interested in separating “financial success” from basic human decency.

With strict rules and limited tax benefits, Trump accounts aren’t right for every family—particularly if they’ re not eligible for government or private seed contributions.

07/04/2025

First item, I am sure most people who have activated their online Social Security got one of these emails stating that "90% of beneficiaires will no longer pay taxes". Pardon my French, but that is total bulls**t. 1) 64% of SS recipients already don't pay any taxes on their benefits, so they absolutely misrepresenting the impact of the BBB and also destroying the credibilty of a non-partisan org. 2) The BBB merely adding a $6k or $12k/yr dedution. Helpful sure, but there is also a phaseout above $75k/$150k. So, there is a chunk of retirees who will benefit from this, which is great, I just don't like them lying about it.

Second, this whole conversation is WAY beyond money at this point. Across the board, in this bill, folks got little breaks for tip income, overtime income, SALT deduction, etc. There are all sorts of qualifying language that limits these benefits to certain incomes and for a certain period of time. HOWEVER, the cost of getting an extra $1,000-$2,000/yr is the absolute destruction of the social safey net for A LOT of vulnerable Americans. Both professionally and personally, I think it is disgusting.

Lastly, maybe this is an odd post for a financial planner who manages investments. I don't think it is. At my firm, I believe financial planning isn’t just about numbers—it’s about people, purpose, and the kind of future we want to build together. Holistic planning means seeing the full picture: not just how much money you have, but how that money supports your values, relationships, goals, and legacy.

We also believe that the same principles apply to society as a whole. When wealth is concentrated at the top and opportunity is stripped from the bottom, everyone loses. A healthy society, like a healthy financial plan, works best when everyone has a stake in the outcome. We grow stronger—not just richer—when we invest in each other, when we lift others up financially and emotionally, and when we measure success not just by profit, but by impact.

Thanks for listening to my Teddy talk ;) *don't sue me!*

09/13/2024

I spend much of my time thinking about wealth, money, opportunity, legacy, etc. Yes, it is my job to do those things. But I mean, more abstractly, as well. I think it is interesting and heartbreaking at the same time...(plus I am sure I am thinking about this more since my kiddos are now 9 and has me thinking about my childhood).

I grew up in a small, rural, logging community in Southern Oregon. My life then is much different than my life now. However, that experience has deeply influenced my thoughts on hard work, success, the urban/rural divide, etc. It has also had a profound impact on my view of government/federal support as it relates to kids. To be clear, I am not one of those "I made it because I worked hard" type of folks, I have major disdain for the Horatio Alger myth. I wouldn't be where I was without major financial support in college (and a lot of luck). In this article below (I'll add some charts from it in the comments section as well), it lays out that the best indicator that a child will be successful in life is if they have successful parents. Pretty simple, right? Does this mean that folks with higher incomes "deserve" it, absolutely not. I guess what I am saying is that the government should be there to level the playing field more than they are. Most of that support would/should go to rural areas, which is ironic, because they usually have the whole "don't tread of me" vibe as of late, but they need it.

The data is clear, the economic divide is getting worse and we are asleep at the wheel hiding behind strange beliefs like "having a bad credit score makes you a bad person". No, it doesn't, it just means you don't have any money. Or that if you have a high income you must've deserved that. Nope, I know plenty of people (I see you teachers, social workers, etc), who bust their asses and deserve much more than they get.

Maybe more soon on this...

Thanks for coming to my Talks with Ted :) (sue me!) hahaha

The presidential debate accomplished more for Harris than it did for Trump The presidential debate accomplished more for Harris than it did for Trump

02/01/2024

The answer: Probably. Yes. Well, it depends :)

First, you determine a figure that Social Security calls “combined income” (also sometimes called “provisional income”). The formula to calculate your combined income is:

Combined income = Adjusted gross income + Nontaxable interest + 50% of your Social Security benefit

From there, you can determine how much of your Social Security benefits are subject to taxes:

After that, it gets really tricky: The tax impact of tax-deferred withdrawals or required minimum distributions, IRMAA surcharges (Part B and D Medicare premiums, etc.

It is doubtful, even if you have a modest amount of investment assets that you'll be able to avoid social security taxation altogether, but with some careful (and strategic) planning you can lessen the load and increase your net income in retirement.

I know this is my job, but I love this phase of retirement planning, it is like a jigsaw puzzle, but with money ;)

Here’s how to determine what you owe this tax season.

12/02/2022

Mutual funds are great for diversification but oftentimes terrible for tax efficiency. The first tip, is don't hold actively managed mutual funds in your taxable account. Why? Well, this year will be a great example where the fund is down 10%-15%, yet is going to pay out sizeable capital gain distributions. So, not only are you losing money, but you now also have to pay taxes on cap gains disbursement. So, if you happen to own an actively managed fund in a taxable account, be prepared to be disappointed...

Despite poor returns for most funds this year, many are distributing capital gains.

10/26/2022

There is a reason I don't take on investment clients without doing any financial planning work. How can you create a professional investment portfolio without knowing what you are trying to achieve? And no, "more", is not a good answer. I want to retire early, why? I want to invest in sustainable companies, why? I want to pay as in taxes as possible, why? You get the point...

Don't let your portfolio guide your financial values, let your financial values guide your portfolio.