You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I completely missed this until someone reviewed it. The Percent of Portfolio spending method should always have a floor/ceiling available, not just if you change the "percentage type".
I believe that the dropdowns in the form should be reworked to be closer to the legacy code, and the spending method itself needs to be adjusted to accept floor/ceiling for this whole spending method. I'm guessing that taking about "percentage type" altogether would be the best path.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Are you thinking the "percentage type" field should just be removed and have the floor/ceiling options merged from both types? So for the floor have the options:
I think that is exactly what needs to happen. Because the standard percent
of portfolio method goes up and down and could use floor and ceiling.
On Aug 13, 2015 3:55 PM, "Jonathan Christian" notifications@github.com
wrote:
Are you thinking the "percentage type" field should just be removed and
have the floor/ceiling options merged from both types? So for the floor
have the options:
No Floor
Pensions/SS
Defined Value (Inflation Adjusted)
As a Percentage of Portfolio
Percentage of Previous Year
And ceiling would have the options:
No Ceiling
Defined Value (Inflation Adjusted)
As a Percentage of Portfolio
—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub #18 (comment)
.
I completely missed this until someone reviewed it. The Percent of Portfolio spending method should always have a floor/ceiling available, not just if you change the "percentage type".
I believe that the dropdowns in the form should be reworked to be closer to the legacy code, and the spending method itself needs to be adjusted to accept floor/ceiling for this whole spending method. I'm guessing that taking about "percentage type" altogether would be the best path.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: