But I think the chief reason for that was the Eagles' O.
Yes, lots of yardage, lots of points.
I hope you saw the responses to Gisele's 6yo point about her spouse's catching ....
https://www.boston.com/sports/new-england-patriots/2018/02/04/tom-brady-drop-gisele-husband-cant-catch

Philly was the 4th ranked defense in the NFL in 2017, which makes Brady's numbers all the more ridiculous - 505 yards passing, 3 TDs and 115 passer rating. LOL ! Foles is a better receiver, I'll give him that. If not for Brady and a few other players on offense, this would have been a blow out.
Philly's offense was ranked 7th in the NFL in 2017 - pretty good but not great. Giving up 41 points to that offense is unacceptable. Hence, the loss.

I was wondering when you'd link to the njpp piece.
Look at the graphic showing the primary exodus states for NJ. Missing is where NJ stands relative to these states. According to the Tax Foundation (source cited by graphic) NJ had the third highest tax burden in the country; so except for NY, all of the exoduses shown were to lower tax states.
It's actually funny to see the piece lead off by arguing that Mass. has a comparable tax burden to NJ. Funny because the Tax Foundation source talks about a 1% difference in tax burdens not being significant, while the difference between NJ and Mass reported is double that (12.2% vs. 10.3%). To put it differently, NJ's tax burden is 19% higher than Massachusetts'. (I'm just repeating data from or cited by pages you gave.)
The piece says that a "substantial majority" of the emmigration is offset by immigration as though that were to diminish the exodus. What it really means is that a significant minority (about 20%, per CBPP article cited by the piece) of the emmigration is not offset. In fact, between 2010 and 2015, New Jersey had the "third largest net domestic out-migration, behind New York and Illinois and just ahead of California." (Those are four of the six top states in tax burdens, according to the Tax Foundation page. Mass. is #12)
Some parts of the piece sound like a sales pitch: "These valuable assets and others are what make New Jersey an attractive place to live, work and raise a family for almost 9 million people." Though taken at face value, all this does is give a reason why net emmigration is not even higher. It doesn't lend support to the argument that high taxes have no effect on how "sticky" New Jersey is to residents.
The second piece starts out acknowledging that "A new study finds that the wealthiest Americans are less mobile than lower income workers, but those who do relocate are looking for a tax cut." So despite all those valuable assets, the motivating factor for moving, if people can maintain their income levels elsewhere, is high taxes.
Getting back to the njpp piece, it notes that "More importantly, the amount of new revenue gained from the [income] tax change dwarfed the tax payments that would have been made by those few who left."
The aforementioned CBPP piece says something similar: "policymakers in most relatively high-tax states still have considerable room to increase income taxes on the affluent before they should worry about the potential effects on migration." Emphasis added.
Two takeaways:
1) Normally, when a state raises or preserves high income taxes it may net greater revenue albeit on a declining tax base. However, when people pay more in taxes (due to eliminating SaLT deductions), the state only loses revenue as its tax base erodes. That was the point of the Barrons article, and nothing here has refuted it.
2) New Jersey is different from other states - CBPP acknowledges that there are a few high tax states where increased taxes would have a worrisome effect on migration. My guess is those few states don't reach past the top ten for tax burdens. That would certainly explain your local observations.
Talk to your friends in New Jersey. Let us know their impressions.
For kicks, here's what may be the most detailed, quantified analysis of tax migration effects, national and NJ-specific, that I've found. It was prepared by staff of the NJ Treasury Dept. in 2011.
http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/gsef/Tax Migration Study_with tables.pdf
Like the CBPP paper, it states that "Clearly, our results do not suggest that tax-induced migration would come anywhere close to eclipsing the immediate revenue gain from an income tax increase". But also that "average marginal tax rates had a small but significant effect on migration decisions in the U.S. and in New Jersey. We estimate that higher New Jersey income taxes [2004-2008] was associated with a reduction of more than 20,000 taxpayers and a loss of annual income of at least $2 1/2 billion."

Here's an article worth reading on the topic of mutual fund draw down strategy for income that you might find helpful. Bonds may be a challenging space for income over the next few years, but a well managed fund should navigate these issues better than you or I. Also, keep it simple for you as well as you spouse to understand.
Good luck:
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4050402-long-term-growing-income-open-end-mutual-fund-possible
Also, A similar question on income was asked in this thread that may be of some interest:
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/96671/#Comment_96671

thank you Bee and Ted, My wife and I are the 85year old investors,
I have a post office pension and We have 2 small Social security
pension income. We would like 2 -6 mutual fund names to create
income for us at minimum risk. We have FAGIX and SPHIX from
Fidelity as a starting point. Sorry for the lack of information on my
part on Our 1st post.The amount is 125k to invest. Again sorry for the
sparse information on My part.
Highest Regards
circa33

Bee's points seem excellent as usual, to my mind, but I would think that $105k or whatever it is, even $205k, in cash at age 85 is not a bad thing.

@circa33: I recommend U.S. 2 Year Treasury Note, yield 2.15%
Regards,
Ted

My first thought when I read your question was a QLAC. This would have taken as much as $125K and bought a Qualified Longevity Annuity Contract the year prior to when the person turned 70.5.
Here's an Article against QLACs:
https://kitces.com/blog/why-a-qlac-in-an-ira-is-a-terrible-way-to-defer-the-required-minimum-distribution-rmd-obligation/
Here's an Article for QLACs:
https://marketwatch.com/story/13-reasons-why-a-qlac-belongs-in-your-ira-2014-11-18

I spent the last 5 years as a caregiver for my elderly parent. Things happen in steps as we age so prepare for these "steps" by trying to be one step ahead of the next "step". Most of these steps move in the opposite direction of what we are use to.
Income is a misnomer at this age (85 & older) because, as we age, less and less of our income is spent on maintaining a lifestyle and more is spent on maintaining a life.
A decision should be made on where this 85 year old will reside for their next 5-10-15 years. If the hope and desire is to stay at home (somewhat independently) realize that this can change instantly..a car crash, a fall, a major illness and this person will be unsafe living alone. Determine who (loved ones or community services or elderly care agencies) will dovetail with this independent living arrangement...often it is all three.
Outside of these personal resources (low six figure assets), what other resources will this 85 year old also have access to? This could be a VA Aid & Attendance benefit, community heating allowances, renters rebates, SS waivers (on premiums), subsidies for the costs of home care, family leave benefits for family members, Home modification loans or grants, and many many more that would be unique to where you live and how you qualify. Usually qualifying means being below an income and an asset threshold. Come up with a spend down plan for these assets to maximize the time that this elderly person can live independently.
Care changes as the elderly person's medical need increase. Spend down or transfer of assets need to occurred 5 years prior to medicaid becoming available for helping pay for LT care. I just completed this process with my elderly mom and it was an honor, a privileged and the hardest damn thing you'd ever want to do (mostly) alone.
Remember that care facility costs for LT care can be substantial...$4-7K / month is not uncommon.

They just seemed to be having their way from the getgo, mostly; of course I know it was close. But not as much as it looked. Pats could not stop the run, either JA or Blount, and JA was amazing. Eagles' D kept Pats run stifled, for its part. Most of the Pats afterward said as much, about not being to get going and get their typical game going, if you watched the post interviews (maybe available chiefly in Boston area). Discouraging to sit through, but good on Philly.

Neither team had a good defense, with Brady torching the Eagles for more than 500 yards passing with 3 TDs. The game really hinged on just a couple plays at the end. The Eagles eating up the clock in the 4th with that extended drive (terrible defense by NE) and Brady getting strip sacked near the end. Up to that point, the outcome was in question. Philly made a few more plays than NE. The Pats defense was about as bad as I've seen from that team in many years.

Hi, David.
He's using average, which is inflated relative to Leuthold's calculation and including the frothiest part of the tech/telecom bubble (1997-20) in his calculation of what's normal. Using the average overweights the impact of the largest, priciest stocks relative to the majority of stocks in the index.
Here are Leuthold's 1957 to date historical median numbers on the S&P 500 for what interest they hold:
normalized p/e: 19 (now 25.3)
non-normalized, operating p/e: 16.8 (21 now)
ROE based p/e: 18.1 (25.4 now)
price/cash flow: 9.9 (14.3 now)
dividend yield: 2.9 (1.9 now)
price/book: 2.0 (2.0 now)
I think Grantham is using 1990 - present in his writing, as a nod to the argument that we're in the whole new era in which long-term data (back to 1927 or, in some cases, the late 1800s) is irrelevant.
As ever,
David

Would really like ideas for income for an age bracket of an 85 year
old and anyone of that age. no debt and no heirs.very low 6 figure
assets
regards
oramac

Leuthold (usually bearish [edited], iirc) contrasts interestingly with this from Marvin Schwartz of NB; really makes you want to check his history:
\\ For 20 years, the average price/earnings ratio has been 19.3. If you go back 50 years, it’s 15.6 times. In periods where inflation grew 3% or less—which is 22 of the past 50 years—the P/E of the market was 19.7. Now, at 17 for 2019 and 15.9 for 2020, P/Es don’t look particularly stretched.

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2016/06/do-taxes-really-cause-the-rich-to-move/487835/
https://www.njpp.org/budget/the-exodus-is-more-like-a-trickle
>> gut feel based on a sample size of one?
too funny
>> The fact that some of your neighbors are inured to rising taxes doesn't mean the other 99% take them in stride.
Right again. If you went to town meetings in the expensive suburbs you would know that many do not take them in stride at all, although of course the very wealthy, many of whom do take it in stride, tend not to speak about it at town meetings. I'm a believer in taxes but the tensions among class diversification, fair compensation of public employees (average Wayland teacher salary is $94k or so, well above Weston), and tax burden often seem intractable.

FYI: The world's elite are partying like it's 2006, and that should probably scare us. Top business and political leaders, who met last week in the quaint ski chalet town of Davos, Switzerland, couldn't stop talking about the booming global economy, record stock markets and President Trump's tax cuts. They toasted the good times with bottles of bourbon that cost several thousand dollars each.
But there is something unnerving about all of this: 2006 was followed by 2008, the worst financial crisis of just about everyone's lifetime. Some of the wisest minds at Davos said it feels eerily similar right now, and that's not comforting.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/01/30/it-feels-a-bit-like-2006-for-stocks-and-the-economy-that-should-scare-us/?utm_term=.661bb5048b46

FYI: I am jealous.
Any time you can protect your money from the tax man, I want in.
George Papadopoulos is 50 years old and has a tax-free stash to cover health care expenses that is close to $100,000 and growing. It will continue to grow for the rest of his life just like an Individual Retirement Account.
“It’s a nice bucket of totally tax-free money,” the wealth manager from Novi, Mich., said.
The account is known as a Health Savings account, a financial device that is growing in popularity as the Baby Boomer generation chews through its golden years and their attendant health issues.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2018/02/01/here-is-another-totally-legitimate-way-to-shield-money-from-taxes/?utm_term=.080c24bc89a3

I simply asked you to substantiate or at least quantify your statement that taxes were close (very or not). Or was this just a gut feel based on a sample size of one?
In any case please let us know how your NJ friends are feeling about their taxes these days after you ask them. For NJ, emmigration has been a problem for over a decade, even if your friends are staying.

The increase in the loss of tax revenue from New Jersey has plagued the state since 2004, when state legislators imposed the infamous “millionaire’s tax.” The inception of this tax, coupled with New Jersey’s already high property and estate taxes, leaves no mystery about why the term “tax migration” has become a buzzword among state residents and financial, legal, and political professionals.

https://regentatlantic.com/File Library/Tax paper/Exodus-on-the-Parkway-2-25-14-FINAL-VERSION.pdf
I'm pretty sure that Danoff doesn't care what his taxes are. The fact that some of your neighbors are inured to rising taxes doesn't mean the other 99% take them in stride.
Weston median income (2015): $201K (from Census survey).
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/12/18/town-town-look-income-massachusetts/cFBfhWvbzEDp5tWUSfIBVJ/story.html
(CNN thinks it's over $600K, but you can't trust everything you read on the web.)

But as you like to tutor us, averages can be so misleading. (And rates mean little.) The tax on my old 3ksf ranched-out cape worth a little over $1M in a town next to Weston Mass. is within a few percent of the average of the NJ towns listed above

You wrote that taxes in eastern Mass suburbs were very close to the NJ level. I'm fine discussing whatever metric you had in mind when observing that the levels of taxes were close.
Rates mean little when they're just the "official" figures. The state rates given in the USA Today article were "effective" rates, i.e. actual percentages after exemptions, abatements, whatever chicanery goes into one's tax bill. For example, the official rate for California is 1% (Prop 13), while the effective rate in the article is 0.77%. That's because Prop 13 caps annual increases, so the effective rate of each home is reduced over time. (California is the oddball state where property taxes are standardized.)
Geographically, you must be right on the Weston border: "Danoff my neighbor in Weston"
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/92578/#Comment_92578

Just a little math and a little music...To qualify for a $800K mortgage in any of these high tax communities requires an pretty sizeable income...your call.
Let say this process of home "loanership" is a 30 year adventure...a decent career for you and a time spread for all your kids to get out on their own. Half of us will have divorced and need additional resources to somehow make two households work.
In Milburn, a $1M home will require a $200K down payment to avoid PMI...good luck with that as you are just out of college with $200K in student loan debt. An $800K mortgage (P&I @ 4% for 30 yrs) will run you about $3800/ month. Add almost $2K/M for taxes and $200/M for insurance and as a "home loaner' you will need $6K/month or $72K/YR to hang your hat. I have not mentioned the lifestyle costs nor the $250K/kid costs you will encounter...I did mention the likelihood of divorce.
Over 30 years the cumulative cost of property taxes alone will equal or exceed the $800k mortgage. So the banks gets paid...the city gets paid...the ex gets paid... the dentist gets paid...the utilities get paid...you get screwed.
You get to wake up everyday and try to prove to your boss that you are worthy of this rat race salary so you have the privilege of getting clipped to cover all these costs plus the ongoing cost of maintaining the properties (after the divorce your property is a little smaller and a little outside of Milburn, but still costly) and other monthly bills.
Welcome...Home Sweat Home...here's to a simpler time that we threw away:

Mass: 17th highest property tax rate, 1.21%
NJ: 1st highest property tax rate: 2.31%
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2017/04/16/comparing-average-property-taxes-all-50-states-and-dc/100314754/
Highest average property tax for a town in Mass: Weston, MA $18,059
http://realestate.boston.com/luxury/2017/02/14/like-live-weston/
Highest average property tax for towns in NJ:
Millburn $23,327 ($1M average home value)
Loch Arbour $22,323 ($1M average home) - hardly counts, just 189 people
Tavistock $21,689 ($1.7M average home) - only 4% as large, just 8 people
Alpine $20,910 ($2.7M average home) - property tax rate a relative bargain for NJ
Tenafly $19,866 ($800K average home)
Mountain Lakes $19,775 ($800K average home)
Rumson $19,146 ($1.3M average home)
Glen Ridge $19,045 ($500K average home)
Mendham Township $18,752 ($900K average home)
Essex Fells $18,743 ($900K average home)
https://www.app.com/story/news/investigations/data/2017/07/31/highest-property-taxes-nj/487845001/