Eldergays Who Have Not Saved for Retirement...

Generic cat food is better than it sounds.

I'm barely getting by. Need to start looking for some kind of supplemental work.

I hate that I now have to parcel out things like going to a movie or a club. Can't afford to do just whatever I want to as I could when I was working full time. And forget traveling, those days are over.

This is not supposed to be a snide thread.

They stay home as much as possible. Everything costs money. They keep the lights off as long as possible, keep the air or heat off until it is 95 degrees or 35 degrees inside, take the fastest showers if they pay for water, and definitely don't flush after only urinating.

They buy nothing unless absolutely necessary and on sale.

They defer all medical and dental treatment until their bodies and teeth are literally falling apart and are in excruciating pain. Then their treatment costs are astronomical and they buy and spend even less.

Learn to save now. Not even just for retirement. No one wants anything to do with some 35/45/55 year old single gay guy with nothing to his name and tens of thousands in credit card debt.

You're young and you're cute, so you don't get it yet. You will soon enough. Start reigning in those spending habits now - especially if on clothes and bars/clubs. Unless you're a fashion model and/or a 10, trust when I saw people give you two seconds of their thoughts and those dollars you spent to impress are forgotten after that. Also, you will never find the man of your dreams at the bottom of a bottle and that bar/club will be the last place you want to be at in 5 years, maybe 3.

Not that R4 is entirely wrong, but a person does not need X millions to retire. Yeah, retirement won't be great, but they will get by.

Home ownership and retirement is a huge thing. Having a house payment at retirement is not good. Either you live in the place and try to keep it up (which depending on the place isn't impossible), or you sell and get a check for $300,000+ (hopefully), and apply that to rent in the future.

OP, the percentage that save enough for their retirement goals is much larger than you suggest.

I'm going to be renting until I die, but saving as much as I can now will certainly make that more manageable.

The biggest issue with millennials retirement abilities will be homeownership. We have the lowest rate of homeownership. It’s nearly impossible with student loans (my potential down payment is going towards student loans). If and when we climb out of debt (that we were told was required in order to obtain a degree necessary to making a living), we will have zero equity.

[quote] R5: Having a house payment at retirement is not good.

I generally agree with R5, but nit necessary this statement. I owe $200,000 on my mortgage, and after living here for 25 years, I still have 20 years of payments on my mortgage.

That $200,000 I owe, I have instead invested in the stock market. My mortgage debt is at 4%, and is tax deductible. I make far more than that in the stock market, especially since 2009. I’m careful about selling so often pay 0% income tax on my earnings. It’s like investing on margin, but at half the interest rate.

I have the cash to pay off my mortgage if I chose to do so. This isn’t for everybody, but it literally pays to learn how to invest in the market. Alternately, you could invest in real estate. Yes, there is risk involved, in the market and in real estate, but I’ve done well enough.

By having a mortgage and cash, it gives me flexibility to use the cash as I see fit.

I am retired here in flyover land and able to live nicely on about 2000 USD a month from two pensions. My housing expenses are about 500 a month and I have 1500 month left over. I still am able to save for a yearly out of season vacation in Europe plus have two small trips to Mexico each year. I do have some money in saving for emergencies but not a lot. As I have aged I have noticed I spend way less money. No nights out on the town and few dinners out, It seems like a fine life really.

You go, R9. That’s sort of what I’m hoping for

We have not saved exactly. We bought our home in the early 80s and stayed put! We live in a now expensive area. We are not professionals so we worked for 35 plus years and paid the mortgage. I think having no debt is more important than savings. We can get by on less than $1000 per month. We have tons of equity and have a reverse mortgage which is guaranteed for life. We own an electric car so the price of gas does not affect us. Our property taxes are low because we have owned so long. We don't eat out much or travel. Those are very expensive activities. It takes some planning and luck, but not necessarily a huge savings account.

I’m almost 45 and have almost no money but my husband and I get by. I drive Uber and do magic. He teaches some. Next year, he’ll get SS. When I’m a senior citizen, I’ll get a pension from my previous acting work. I’m very happy and money has nothing to do with it.

Thanks for this thread OP. Because in the US, we’ve gone from thinking retirement is the Golden Years with pensions and health care and a home we own - to everyone being terrified of being broke and homeless because they don’t have the millions that they are told they must have to avoid being homeless at 80. All thanks to Republicans and the “gift” of the 401k that allowed corporations and the government to abandon any social responsibility for former workers and the elderly. And the brutal economic situation of the middle class.

From what I’ve seen, most retirees reduce spending at a certain age, because you realize spending money on stuff is 80% a marketing gimmick pawned by modern capitalism. You just don’t want as much stuff. Health care is much cheaper after 65 because of Medicaid - though you may need more of it, the base premiums and a lot of the costs I had to pay under my own health insurance were much higher. Eating simple small meals is often preferred. Traveling is a pain in the ass and can even be scary. And you don’t need to have the latest technology.

In reality, I know plenty of people who get by on $2,000/month after 65. Social Security plus a little something more. Not easy but can be done -and those people aren’t terrified about not enough money like many of the 50 year olds I know. They are more concerned about health, loved ones dying, loneliness.

We are being sold fear to further enrich Wall Street and ensure corporate servitude. Yes, prudent saving is always smart. But don’t buy into the fear economy of retirement saving. Save what you can. And live now - because I know a lot more people who died before they could retire than people who ran out of money and were broke at 80.

I will say, because of a different thread on here I have started saving for retirement. I didn't understand 401k's and some kind soul explained it all to me without making me feel even dumner (it was a 'whats a dumb question you have' thread). when I switched jobs soon after I had just enough information to jump on the 'if your last job was a 501c we can put 10 percent of your salary in retirement plan immediately if if do 2 percent of your salary rather than 3 years after you start. so, I'm doing that and also moved my kind of small but hey, I didn't even know about it plan from other jobs into it.

so, thank you kind anonymous datalounger! I would literally never have taken 2 percent of my pay towards anything non tangible without you or known to move my other money

Anyone else doing a reverse mortgage?

R15...Yes, It is great. Lots of federal protection. We had to take lessons first to qualify. This was for disclosure. Later we can refinance the loan for more monthly as the equity increases. Not having to pay a mortgage is better than money in the pocket.

There's only a small window of time between Retirement and "Mom can't take care of herself any more".

That’s what scares me: Shady Pines.

Family money.

"you realize spending money on stuff is 80% a marketing gimmick pawned by modern capitalism"

R13 is absolutely right. It baffles me how every weekend, thousands upon thousands of mindless souls walk around like zombies through malls, sales aisles, and these days Amazon looking for cheap Chinese made crap to add to the pile of cheap Chinese made crap in their closets, garages, storage units, etc.

Those clothes don't make them look more attractive, those gadgets don't make them look cooler, etc.

Millenials unfortunately learned the opposite from their Keeping Up With The Jones parents and the instant gratification that technology has enabled. That's where you're fucked. It's always more more more now now now and it's too easy.

I'm glad I learned how to not buy into the machine through a combination of life lessons, discipline, and meaningful pursuits that don't involve materialism. Those are rare qualities these days.

R20, actually millennials spend more on experiences such as eating out and travel. We also purchase used clothing, used cars (if we are ever able to purchase one) and thrift store items with more frequency than our parents. Boomers I think were the most materialistic of them all (the house, the cars, the fucking lawn landscaping).

If you saved $10,000 by age 30 and invested it conservatively you have more than enough.

I was poor and was able to do that.

This thread is a great one for the truism 'You should have thought of that before.'

One interesting note: I've noticed that often people with professional jobs (lawyers, doctors, bankers, Senators) often avoid retirement until they physically can't work anymore.

At some level their identity is so wrapped up in what they do, that the notion of not working is anathema. They may cut back on hours some, but they keep working.

I'd also say that DL Eldergays were probably better about saving because they did not have children, nor was that a possibility back in the day. So (a) they did not have the expenses of children and were better able to save than their peers and (b) they knew that they could not figure "oh, I'll just rely on my kids to take care of me when I'm old."

R23 My 93 yr old mother gave me a bit of a hard time when I retired at 60. both my siblings are tenured professors and will literally work til they drop.

I bought some land and gradually built a small cabin over the years and never took out a mortgage. Land is now paid off and the house is self-sustaining with solar, a well, and a state of the art septic system that should last until I die. I decided to buy the land in my 40's and used a cashed in IRA to do it. It was worth the penalty, in the long run, and I can run the place pretty cheaply. My biggest expenses are food ( I grow and preserve a lot) and car costs. I've been fortunate to have kept my health and still have all my teeth. At 59, I'm looking forward to retirement and will save a lot more in the coming years because I reduced housing and energy costs.

It's not for everyone, but I don't regret giving up the IRA for some land. If SS is still around, it will be enough, but I'll still manage to sock away enough to maintain me, hopefully, until I'm at least 80. With the way things are going these days, I'm not sure our species will last that long.

My Mother worked for attorney's her whole adult like, and as you said, they work till they drop dead, but at least in her expereince, it isn't about the identity.

They don't save a damn dime.

There is something to be said for working for a large company that offers a 401k/pension rather than being self employed (as most laywers and doctors are). If they aren't "forced" to save/pay taxes they often don't.

I'm 50. As a kid and young adult I was told I would be dead by 30 because I am gay. I never thought about living past 35 and I'm still shocked I did.

I think many of them get by, but only month by month on their Social Security and/or company pension. But they have no funds set aside for emergencies and until something happens they're okay. But when something breaks that has to be repaired they either have to get a loan from a bank or hopefully have family who can help out.

I think it would be a scary way to have to live but millions do every day.

I once worked with a guy who was the president of a company we bought out. We kept him on as president as he was just a few years from retirement. I had dinner with him during a visit and we got to talking about retirement. He admitted he had no savings and had never contributed to the 401K they had in place, mainly because his and his wife's living expenses did not allow it. He was already in his 60s by then. I later found out they were living in a huge home with an equally huge mortgage. All their children were grown and gone. The man made 175k/year plus quarterly bonuses and still lived above his means. When he finally retired he and his wife moved to Florida to be near their kids and she had to go to work at Saks to supplement their retirement income. They ended up in a place called The Villages in central Florida in a small 2 bedroom house. He died a few years ago. He was just another instance of poor decisions made by a smart person. I find it mind boggling when I see smart people doing stupid things that negatively affect them the rest of their lives.

R13 You're confusing Medicaid, a largely federally-funded, state-administered (and thus highly variable in terms of what's covered depending on where you live) means-tested medical assistance program for the poor of any age with Medicare, a federally-funded entitlement program for retired workers - and in some cases, the disabled - who, along with their employers, have paid in premiums to fund the program while they worked.

There are some elderly poor and disabled people who have both, with Medicaid supplementing their primary Medicare coverage. Most retirees pay for additional coverage from private insurors that covers what Medicare does not.

Whatever coverage you have, it's estimated that millennials will need to save at least $250,000 per person by the time they retire to cover medical care costs over and above what's covered by Medicare. That's in addition to the funds that need to be saved to fund retirement itself.

Depressing, I know.

I agree with others who say save your money I would like to add keep yourself out of debt, pay off your credit cards every month if you can or pay them down to a manageable balance. This will enable you to save on a regularly. If you can afford to buy a home you are lucky.

I'm retired and I paid off my mortgage & car before I retired this brought down what I needed to live every month by $2000 after tax dollars. The best thing I did with my retirement funds was convert 60% of my 401k money into a Roth IRA, you pay regular income taxes on that money but once it is in your account it will never be taxed again nor will the interest it earns. The account has tripled in value and is completely tax free plus when the IRS calculates you minimum withdrawal from your 401K accounts when you reach 70.5 years of age (it will come faster than you expected) it is not counted in the calculation.

The best advise my mother ever gave me was "always live below your means because one day you'll appreciate the money you have in the bank far more than the things you wanted but didn't need you could have bought with it".

R27 - that’s is exactly me. Grateful to be here at 50. Not going to waste my life worrying about being broke at 70. We never know what will happen.

I’m surprised at all the people talking about paying off their mortgage so they don’t have a mortgage payment. A significant portion of my retirement money will come from selling my house and using money for rent. Why do you want to die and leave a huge asset value on the table? My paid off house will pay for 10 years of retirement - including rent and all other expenses. Plus no home repair expense.

Upkeep is something to consider R32, but why take on the expense of rent when you already have somewhere "free" to live? Plus if it gets down to it, a person can always get a reverse mortgage and have almost the best of both worlds.

[quote] R22: If you saved $10,000 by age 30 and invested it conservatively you have more than enough.

I had $0 saved at age 30. It all went to grad school which I graduated at age 29, so congratulations to anyone who has such savings. I suggest it’s just a start, though. Hopefully, you can save throughout your lifetime.

$10,000 saved at age 30, earning 7% on average until retirement age of 67, will be worth $122,236. If it is not in a Roth IRA, it will be taxed upon withdrawal. That’ll eat up about half of it unless you’re careful. Also, inflation will lower its buying power, too. At least by 2% per year, but over 30 years, I’d guess it would be more like 4% on average. .

Rent would be less than $1,000 month more than my taxes and maintenance for the same house I own. A reverse mortgage takes a significant bite out of the equity built up in the house. The only reason I would maintain the house is emotional - financially it’s illogical. The cash equity you can take out today would pay rent for more than 30 years. Plus you don’t have the expense of home repairs.

Move to a state with no state tax like Florida or Arizona. Downsize your house considerably so you have no mortgage payments and hopefully made a profit on the sale of your bigger home. PAy off your car before retirement and hope it lasts another 30 years.

Yeah $10,000 at 30 is not enough. People need to stop looking at the returns of the past 9 years as normal. You WILL lose a significant chunk of the money you have in equities today. If you’re 60, you can get out. But if you have $10,000 in the market today, I would almost guarantee you will not have $10,000 in 3 years - unless you are a vey lucky gambler.

R32 your situation is different if you need the cash value of your house for retirement income. What I pay monthly for maintenance and taxes is 1/3 of what I would have to pay in rent for a similar size space in my location (NYC metro area). Plus I consider my property as an appreciating asset so if I need to move into an assisted living situation as I age the sale of my property would cover most of the costs.

Smart R38. But the idea of working another 10 years to create an additional cushion is soul crushing for me, so I’m going to cash out and live off the equity. Also genetically, my whole family gets cancer by 70 and none have lasted long enough to get dementia or need assisted living. Taking my chances - but I refuse to live what little life I have remaining being miserable every day in my career.

Are you talking about selling your house and then paying rent in “Senior “ living place , which I’ve heard are very expensive or just a regular apartment complex?

I plan on cashing out and getting a regular apartment. I pay almost $1,500 month in taxes, fees, trash. For $2,500, I can get a nice regular apartment. Though the risk exists that I will be incapacitated and need full time care, it’s more likely I’ll die before 75 of cancer.

I can’t imagine living in retirement without having saved and invested for it, always regretting all the poor choices in one’s career management and wasteful spending habits. You have to do the right thing starting early.

At 50, and seeing so many people die before or right after retirement, I’ve decided that I’m more likely to regret having worked a soul sucking job for the majority of my life than not working long enough to save enough to live until 95.

R14’s post make me smile

R43 50 here as well. Let’s make a suicide pact!

Health insurance. That’s what worries me. I’m 58 and have about $215,000 saved. I rent. No home or property. I have a a bit of retirement which I can’t access until 65. But, expenses not covered by Medicare scare the shit outta me. If hereditary is anything to go by, I’ll be spending a bunch of time with the doctor as I grow older.

Im turning 62 tomorrow and I don't have a cent out away for retirement. I live paycheck to paycheck. A chronic gambler. Im doing my best to stop and Im succeeding thank God. I will have to work till Im 70. I am beginning to save what I can (I make about$70K a year); social security will provide me with$3200/month. I have no one to blame but myself.

I think the biggest mistake people make is thinking they have more money than they do--they don't save when they're young and then they run into a major shock when it turns out that they needed to save money first for a house and then for retirement--and for the kid's college fund if they spawned. The college loan game doesn't help--big loans pretty much guarantee that you can't start saving when you need to.

It’s ok R47. A lot of people - I might argue most - are in the same situation. That’s a pretty healthy SS - I know people including my mother who lives on less than $2,000/month. Medicaid covers a lot of health stuff. As long as you can pay the rent, electricity and basic food, you will live. Maybe not luxurious - but being alive seems like enough of a luxury at some point.

I think way too many people are self-congratulatory on this board for being such good savers and investors. In reality, that huge returns on your basic investments which you consider “earned” can largely disappear in a downturn. I’ve seen the cycle so many times - everyone feels like they are on track for retirement and have done so well I. He 401k game - and then the market goes through a major downturn and people are complaining that they can’t retire or have to go back to work or give up their home. As long as retirement is dependent on Wall Street gambling - thanks to the “gift” of 401ks given by Republicans - we can never have a secure retirement plan.

Either save a lot or be very poor. My mom gets less than 1,000 a month in SS. Because her income is so low and she didn't own any property, not even a car, she qualified for HUD low income housing for seniors and MediCaid. She gets by with rent at $270 and no medical expenses. She has enough to cover day to day life. I pay for her annual travel to see family overseas and big expenses that pop up. My mom doesn't speak English fluently and is computer challenged so I ended up researching federal, state and local programs for seniors. There is a lot out there, you have to patiently look for and take advantage of them. One example, cities and counties offer free public transportation and very low cost door-to-door van pickups for the infirmed and disabled. My mom qualifies because she has bad knees and feet.

For the young ones, set up a saving and investing scheme right off the bat. Even if it's $10 per paycheck. Do it and increase it as your career grows until you max out the federal limits. Time is on your side. I started doing it at 26 and I still kick myself for not starting a couple of years earlier.

If you haven’t already, don’t pay for an expensive college education - either yours or your children’s - unless the student is of the type who can really work he contacts he makes at a Harvard or Stanford AND actually gets into Harvard or Stanford. Otherwise, don’t. Times have changed, we have the internet now. Knowledge is free. There are all kinds of alternatives - move to California for a few years and take advantage of the public schools (two years at a junior college, then transfer to a UC school. Consider military service. Either ROTC for a full scholarship, or apply for financial aid based on the student’s income (not the the parents) at a younger age after an honorable discharge. Even in NYS there are community colleges with programs that allow a student to transfer to Cornell after a two-year associates. Not a bargain, but UK schools are cheaters, you can graduate in three years, and admissions policies are more transparent. Just don’t spend $300k on a bachelor’s degree. For yourself or anyone else. Put that $$ under your mattress.

UK schools are cheaper, not cheaters.

Well, 3200 a month social security is hardly nothing. I live on less in Phoenix. Way less in fact. What are you throwing your money at other than gambling?

R47's $3200/mo Soc. Sec. must be a future projection because in 2019 the most you can receive in SS payments is $2861/mo. But don't count on it if Trump wins in 2020 and if the Dems lose control of the House. Fucking over SS beneficiaries is and will always be one of the Republican's highest priorities.

I concur about expensive college tuition. If you're getting a free ride or mostly free ride or cheap state tuition, go for it. But college tuition is out of control now. I graduated from a UC with $6,000 in debt. And that's only because I wanted to live in an apartment near campus rather than commuting from home. I paid that off within a couple of years.

I left private school with a grad degree that had me in hock for about 70K and I will be paying it off until I retire. I could pay it all but the interest rate is less than 2%. And I'm in the DC area where a BA/BS isn't even going to get you an internship so a Masters was needed. But knowing what I know now...it would have made more sense to have gotten the Masters at a UC at a much cheaper cost.

[quote]Move to a state with no state tax like Florida or Arizona

Having no state income tax is not nearly enough incentive for me to move to one of those shitholes.

R55, I get 3,200 a month in SS. Depends on the age you retire.

R47 Said he would work until he was 70, I think delaying SS adds 8% a year to the amount you will receive when you finally take it, so his figure of 3200 could be correct. I delayed taking SS a year and it did add 8% to the amount I would receive annually. I think the same in reverse is true if you take SS at 62 they deduct 8% for every year taken early.

[quote]My Mother worked for attorney's her whole adult like,

Attorney’s what?

[quote]The best advise my mother ever gave me was

Oh, dear!

Don’t know why Americans have such a hard time saving.

My parents came to this country with nothing and managed to become millionaires by retirement. They also have a million dollars in equity in our home.

I’m on track to repeat and so is my brother.

Yes we made sacrifices and had to work hard. We also enjoy life from time to time, in moderation and with balance.

Most Americans are lazy and undisciplined. They also have little concept of planning for tomorrow.

Are you single, r25? I’ve got some money saved and a big dick. Can I retire with you?

I remember when I first learned about condos and co-ops in the 1970s. I think they were new, then, but not sure. I thought, “who would pay for an apartment”?

I eventually bought a condo. In 30 years, it’s worth almost 10x what I paid. I was smart and lucky.

A reminder, if you sell your home, you get all sorts of tax write-offs. If your home has appreciated a lot, you may wind up paying capital gain taxes.

If you die in your home, your heirs pay $0 in capital gain taxes on its appreciation.

If any of this make a difference to you.

[quote]A reminder, if you sell your home, you get all sorts of tax write-offs.

If you make any improvements to your home or condo you add what you've spent to the value of you property for tax purposes. Keep an accurate record of what you've spent.

Fidelity and Vanguard have estimators of what you will need when you retire. Put in your age and the value of your savings and they will let you know what additional savings are needed for retirement. I found this to be a good way to set savings goals. These are only estimates of what you will need but are good indicators.

You should be able to live on $3200 a month. A lot of people don’t even make that much working.

I have $4 million in the bank.. no debt, and I worry about not having enough for retirement. My father is 90 and his mother lived to 102. We’re practically immortal on that side. I plan to work 2.5 more years... I can’t imagine having to work until the day you die because you have no choice..

[quote]A reminder, if you sell your home, you get all sorts of tax write-offs. If your home has appreciated a lot, you may wind up paying capital gain taxes.

There are ZERO tax write-offs involved in selling a personal residence. None. The only tax implication/benefit is that you can exclude some or all of the capital gain you generated from the profit. ($250K if single/$500K on a joint return.) And as stated above, the capital gain is the difference between the sale price and the basis of the property (usually cost + major improvements made.)

meanwhile I just tried to log on to social security site to see how much I would get... the site is down... chaos is upon us!!!

^^^ Enjoy living off that 800 month when inflation causes eggs to cost $40 a crate and bread is $8.99 for a loaf

#socialsecurityisallineed

R47 here. I pour out my heart and soul and no one wishes me a Happy Birthday. Life sucks.

I didn’t because I took a gamble you wouldn’t be posting today. Plus you made several typos in your post at r47.

At least I have a good reason.

R72. Thank you. Life is good.

I’m considering retiring in some exotic but has low cost of living countries like Egypt or soulth East Asia like the Philippines or Vietnam.

On the topic of buying needless stuff: I have friends around my age (Gen X) who regularly refit their houses with new furniture, new appliances, etc. every few years even when the old stuff is perfectly good—just for an update, I guess. They get the latest iPhone and other gadgets when they come out. I can't imagine myself doing that; I'm too thrifty (= cheap). I got my grandparents' couch reupholstered; I use things till they wear out or even get them fixed; I don't care if my house doesn't look like the latest catalogue; I even resent the whole digital culture that makes us buy new laptops, tablets, phones, etc. every few years to keep them all compatible, even if they still work fine. My friends aren't spendthrifts; they're all pretty conservative with money and plan ahead, and I don't think they'll suffer in retirement. They just have different priorities than me.

R75 I keep all old media if it still works, the vcr I bought in the 80's just recently died, and I still have turntables and speakers, and also a 78 rpm wind-up player. Friends who upgrade computers give me their old ones which I use until they die on me. I've only bought one new desk top computer in my life. And I only have an old flip phone.

I'm going to start a GoFundMe for Miss R67. I urge you all to contribute as generously as possible. Just patch up a couple of your older caftans instead of buying new ones, and you'll have plenty of $$ to donate.

I retired on Friday. 63 years old. I am “ quilting” my retirement. Savings, investments, mom’s estate, tiny pension... planning on this for two years... then SS and Medicare. No kids. No legacy. No desire to see the world. I have everything I need and more. I LOVE my condo We have a pool, a gym, a dance studio , a sauna. Great neighbors. Tons of free or very cheap activities. I have plenty of room for visitors. I have tons of craft projects I’ve ignored for 20 years. I love cooking and eat simply...I’ve been to too many restaurants in my life. Only vice is excessive NYC theater, but with shit like King Kong and Pretty Woman, I think I can save even there! These are all the things considered before I went to HR and signed my papers.

R78- check out broadwayroulette.com . You can specify the date, how many tickets, play or musical and cross off 4 shows you don't want to see. Tickets $59.50 + $7.00 in fees. All shows are 8:00 pm (or evening) - and you find out the day of the show what you are seeing. Pick up tickets at will-call. Saw The Prom using broadway roulette and then went back again and spent $285 per ticket (I know, stupid but I was backed into a corner)

I'll be dead before I can retire so I really don't fucking care. I want the last check I write to bounce.

R78, congratulations, bully for you.

I'm in my mid-40's and at least 10 years away from retirement. I've been saving all my life and gritting my teeth at work. Today was one of those days where I wished I had the guts to junk it all in and walk off and do whatever the fuck I want. Then I think about eating cat food or my cats when I'm 79 and I'll go to bed tonight and be ready for another wonderful day at MegaCorpSuckMySoul, Inc tomorrow.

How in the fuck do u live in 2k a month? I live in a fly over state in a small town and can’t make it in 5k a month!

R78. Congrats! I’m 59 but love my creative freelance work, though it’s clearly a young persons world. Not craving retirement but thinking about it. I do have a decent amount saved for retirement for myself and my bf of 23 years. Will be interesting to see how it unfolds.

I have enough for 15 years. After that I’ll have to live on SS. But I have a cancer gene and everyone on my dads side dies of cancer before 70. So just debating how early I should retire. No way I’m waiting until 65 to start enjoying life.

Congrats to you, R78! Life away from the working world is grand. I retired at 57 after selling a business. I have a paid off house, a warehouse that was held back from the business sale that nets me over $2K per month, a small payout, and another condo rental as well as a paid off car. I struggled mightily in my earlier years and saved when I started to make any real money. While my retired life is not lavish, I can pay for some house and yard help and a big blowout trip once a year in NYC to see shows and have fun. And the occasional short trip and a dinner party once in awhile. I'll collect SS at 62 and not complaining about any of it.

I have a friend about my age who owns a similar business that I had. He has about $25K in an IRA and nothing else. He is always spending on the latest whatever, buys clothes and $2700 eyewear "because the clients expect it" (newsflash, they don't) and is never without a lease payment on an Audi or Mercedes - the Prius wasn't good enough. And daycare for the dog. Good luck, I say.

R84 You’re waiting until retirement to begin enjoying life?

If you have a job you like, good for you. But my job is horrible - a 24/7 on-call stress fest. Saving every penny I can to be able to quit and enjoy life,

i started my career in my late 20s and panicked that I was behind in my 401k (I dropped out of college for two years and came out, then returned). I put away 30% of my paycheck away in my Fidelity account all the while suffering the slings and arrows from my friends. They called me cheap and told me I was saying no to life when I would pass on expensive dinners or a night out. The tables have turned, I’ve socked away more than 2 million and paid off the house. They still make fun of me, now it’s because I’m still working at 60. Bottom line, the future is coming, save as much as you can. You can still have experiences, just use coupons.

Congrats to all the eldergays who managed to save for retirement! I hope you don't end up like some of my friends who saved and denied themselves. SO many died during the plague years, had heart attacks and died at age 50 something, even got ALS without seeing Paris or Rome, always driving ancient Hondas, bagging their lunch to work, etc. I decided long ago that I'd rather live a full life while I can enjoy it than pinch pennies and not travel, go to restaurants, drive nice cars, etc. I'm lucky that I can work as long as I want in my profession. I had 4 months off last year and was bored out of my mind! I'll off myself before I ever go to "Assisted Living" or live on $2800/month in SSI.

Agree R89. The retirement fear instilled by the post-pension era needs to be managed. Since the introduction of 401k and no guaranteed pension income, Americans have been catapulted into a state of perpetual financial worry - until the day they die. We’ve become enslaved by corporate America and the fear of going broke in old age. In reality, most of us will die before going broke - and we will not be worrying about our 401k on our death bed.

I think this is a horrible thing to say -- or highly practical -- but I'd like to take myself out if I'm old and have nothing.

I started a thread about my pal who committed suicide last year. He was 15 years younger, straight (I was NOT in love with him), and he had a kid and a sick wife.

he had everything to live for and he couldn't stay in this world. I have nothing except unrequited love, two asshole siblings, and friends telling me 'you're a great guy! You'll meet someone.'

We never know where life will take us, but I hope I'm strong enough to really take care of myself when I can't take care of myself.

It really is the main question R91. The medical system is structured to keep us alive at all costs. I hope I’m strong enough to reject the treatment to keep me alive. I’m not sure I will be.

Any 70+ Year old people here have opinions on the intentional exit strategy? Does the opinion change with age?

[quote]Move to a state with no state tax like Florida or Arizona. -- Having no state income tax is not nearly enough incentive for me to move to one of those shitholes.

Also Nevada has zero state taxes because they get all their money from the casinos. But again its a hot shit hole. If you have a shady past, Reno NV is the place you want to be. The biggest little shit hole you will ever see.

R93, when was the last time you were in Reno? Reno is gorgeous, with a stunning river front. I would rank it up there with Scottsdale as far as natural beauty.

Well I am 55 have less than 5,000 in the bank and no job. I have been HIV positive for 25 years so I wasn't supposed to live this long, my first partner die of AIDS in his 20's.

On the upside, I have been with my current partner for 20 years, he pays for everything and for some unknown reason still says he loves me every day. He's not rich, or even well off so he coves the house expenses and I work odd gigs whenever I can. I cook every day and buy the food so I guess that's something.

But if we ever broke up or he died suddenly, I would literately be out on the streets within a month. As much as I want a full time job, no one is going to hire someone 55 years old who has not worked full time in a decade. Saving is not even a possibility at this point.

I'm fucked, but for the moment I am just happy to be healthy with someone special in my life.

move to mexico, like thousands are doing,,,,,great health care, socialized, and 1900 bux a month soc sec goes twice as far and then some, ev thing sooo cheap.

lots of usa expats there

smog, heat, etc better now, kool spot to llive

Mexico is NOT safe anymore. Much worse now than it ever was.

Mexico is pretty safe if you don't get involved with the drug cartel.

not so, safe as hell, my friends all moved there and safer than nyc or chi town. yes!. and many cheap hot hot whores, its an international city, mex city with more whites than u would expect...big hot porn gods from all over who want cheap pussy

^^^We are seriously looking at retirement in Puerto Vallarta for the first 10 years or so of retirement (until 75ish). The plan operates under the assumption that we will be relatively mobile and active and not too batty yet. We both love the outdoors, and me particularly, travel, and it offers both given its geographic location and proximity to major travel hubs like Mexico City and LA.

We would not sell our place in San Francisco - we'd rent it out - current market rates are 2x what we pay for our mortgage. The profit would more than cover a respectable rental in PVR. There's a sizeable eldergay population there that is friendly and relatively down to earth - unlike PS and Provincetown with their elite gays and their cliques and atittudes and Keeping Up With The Jones materialism insecurity issues. PVR is open to gays and given the influx of North Americans it has the infrastructure to support them comfortably - including healthcare and native English speakers (I speak Spanish, so not an issue for me).

By 75 I think we'll be slowing down and needing more attention, at which point we'd return to the US - but probably not SF as it is no place for an old person these days. The lower cost of living in Mexico will stretch our retirement savings further.

Too bad too many Americans, including gays, are suffering from provincial cartel stereotypes - including here on DL - to realize the potential from retirement abroad.

Enjoy splitting your prescriptions, fenagling with e-coupons, etc. as you try to make your $2,000 SSI payments last in your safe American bubble.

R95 - there are a lot more of us in that situation than you would realize reading DL. Despite all the people with millions on here, if you look at median and average savings across US, there are millions of people in their 50s and 60s with little or no savings who are days or weeks away from being homeless in an emergency.

It’s good to hear you appreciate life - you have been through so much and it sounds like you learned what’s important. Money is necessary but the true gift of life doesn’t revolve around money. Unfortunately that’s the time and place we live in. But know you are definitely not alone - and as more baby boomers age and run out of money, hopefully there will be some mobilization of political will to address elder poverty. In the meantime, all we can do is try to enjoy what we have - and if you’ve got love, you are a very lucky man.

Depending on what you do for a living, you never know what might happen to your income. I was just plodding along, stupidly saving almost nothing, til I hit my mid-50s. Then weirdly, things clicked. I wrote some best-selling books and now have enough money to retire well.

Not saying this is a good plan. Not saying it'll happen to others. Just saying that you never know what'll happen in life, and that it isn't always bad. (I will add the those 30 years of struggling as a free-lance writer weren't necessarily fun. But it beat going to an office every day.)

R102 This really isn't the advice you should be giving.

"Who knows, maybe you'll get lucky one day!"

Geez, why don't you just tell OP to go buy some lottery tickets. And you wonder why so many of you are fucked.

R103 - If we want to know we are fucked, all we have to do is turn on cable news. The mass panic around retirement reminds me of a Patsy line at a climate change award show “Cheer up people, maybe it’s never going to happen”. Obsessively worrying about retirement is a guaranteed way to inject fear and anxiety into life - because 95% of us will never have enough to feel completely secure. Everything around us is telling us to fear. Fear won’t help anything when you are making $15/hour and are just managing to keep the lights on.

R104 So basically stick your head in the sand and hope for the best.

In that case, I'd take fear. It's what propelled me to make choices that are healthy for me and in the long run.

Stop blaming cable news and corporate America. People need to make informed choices for themselves and that seems to be what OP wants.

R95 I have relatives in similar situations and hope you take full advantage of any and all agencies and non profits that can assist you.

Hope this article helps in case you're interested in a work from home situation:

I love to travel the world but have put alot on hold because I have a job that doesn't give me much vacation.

I keep hoping I'll be able to travel when I retire, but I'll be older and won't have an income to fund it.

What's the point of work if all I do in retirement is stay home, afraid of spending the little money I have?

[quote] R89: I decided long ago that I'd rather live a full life while I can enjoy it than pinch pennies and not travel,

I’m frugal at home. I used to clip grocery coupons and reliably saved 15% on my groceries that way. I drive a 14 year old Honda, but I don’t live in an area where there is a car culture, like I imagine LA or Palm Springs are. Things like that.

If your income allows, you can live frugally, and still splurge on vacations, and home improvements. When I go on vacation, I don’t worry about frugality, though I have been using my frequent flyer miles for years, and used to get a Marriott discount, but aside from that. And I buy stuff for my house. I also splurge when I have company.

It’s all a question of balance. That’s my suggestion. I try to live a full life, but also try to be frugal, depending on the situation.

If you have a low income, then I really don’t know what to suggest.

I occasionally apply for a new credit card to get the “card application” promotion. Just this year, two cards netted me $600. And it’s easy to do, online. Over seven years, I’ve made about$10,000, and it’s not taxed.

I also use cash back credit cards and try to use the cards that are offering 5% cash back.

OP, one thing I try to avoid is anything with a reoccurring charge. A small amount, taken regularly, can really add up.

R108 and R109 know what they are talking about.

People going on and on about pinching pennies and Hondas and living an unfulfilled life. To each their own, but it is disingenuous to argue that anyone remotely fiscally responsible is denying himself. The problem is people equate spending money for immediate gratification with happiness and saving even a modest amount as square, boring, and prohibitive to living life to the fullest.

You can live a happy now and have something saved for the future at the same time, OP. Don't believe these naysayers who were probably waiting for their knight on a white horse to save them... and he never came.

R4

MARY!

I knew this thread would bring out the humble bragging millionaires on here.

I knew this thread would bring out the perpetual victims whom life has thrown under the bus over and over and over again. Heaven forbid they should have to take any responsibility for their lives. Why bother? We're all going to die anyway---and judging by many in this thread---sooner than you think!

So let's just live for today! YOLO!!!!

My 401K is on track and the house will be paid off in just a few years. I'm more worried about my idiot brother. He and his loser wife have zero, ZERO saved, and I am certain that he/they will need constant help in the future. We're all in our early fifties. I'm not heartless enough to let him live on the street and I'm 99% sure that's where he is headed. I'll probably have to buy an RV and let him live in my driveway.

R115 - is that you Clark Griswold?

The generation retiring now is not the generation that is going to have a problem. They are the last generation with pensions. Plus, they are all going to reverse mortgage their homes while their parents left them their houses in their wills. It's Gen X that's going to be the first generation completely screwed by retirement. In fact, the majority of Gen X will not be retiring.

[quote]Too bad too many Americans, including gays, are suffering from provincial cartel stereotypes - including here on DL - to realize the potential from retirement abroad.

Queen, you think you are the first one to plan a retirement in a cheap 3rd world country? Its not the fantasy you think it is. One of my relatives did that for about 10 years and they just moved back to the states because one of them need real healthcare. Plus the crime rate was so high, even living on top of a hill in a gated community someone had to stay in the house at all times or they would be robbed.

Mexico: Where More Americans Are Murdered Than In All Other Foreign Countries Combined

Thank you R101.

We need to start some eldergay communes.

[quote]It's Gen X that's going to be the first generation completely screwed by retirement. In fact, the majority of Gen X will not be retiring.

Yep, all the Boomers on her humble bragging about all the money they have. " Just pick yourself up by your boot straps like we did". Except for the fact that they had everything handed to them on a silver platter from pensions and cheap college to homes and abundant job opportunities and still gratuitously managed to deplete the system dry for the rest of use.

And, R121, they are all now going to reverse mortgage the family home so there is no inheritance like the one they got. One of the reasons that we are so economically screwed is that the wealth that used to be spread over three generations is now spread over four, with the majority in the hands of the two oldest ones leaving Gen X and the Millennials fighting over crumbs. And now, here comes Gen Z.

One thing that might work in Gen X's favor is that the Boomers are building up an entire world that caters to old people. When we Gen Xers get old, it will all be in place and empty because we're such a small generation, so by supply and demand, costs should come down for things such as senior housing and health care.

I'm retired because I have chronic health issues. I get a pension which I took early because it comes with health insurance and I need that. But I only get about 75% of my pension. Social Security kicked in this year. I also took that early. I was lucky that I earned a good living so my benefits are not meagre, but I must live within my budget. If I do that, and I plan for big purchases and shop wisely I live quite well. Oh, and anyone who needs daily medication is a fool if the don't go to Costco pharmacy. I don't even use my co-pay for three of my prescriptions. I have a modest amount of money saved. I try to have healthy habits because I need to make sure there's money for emergency medical issues. But honestly, If I develop Cancer? I'm out a here. I will not mortgage my modest nicely decorated 900 SF condo to pay for medical care, and go into debt.

[quote] R121: Except for the fact that they (Boomers) had everything handed to them on a silver platter from pensions and cheap college to homes and abundant job opportunities and still gratuitously managed to deplete the system dry for the rest of use.

Wow, are you misinformed! Oh, crap, you’re just stupid. I’m sorry, but you are. Good jobs have always been hard to find. Every company I’ve worked for either had no pension, or cancelled it while I worked there. College has always been expensive, too. How about you spend your Saturday in line to get gas during one of the oil embargoes of the 1970s? Or deal with inflation of 13%? Or get drafted into the Vietnam War? Or get Polio? Or lost everything in the dot-com crash, or Great Recession. Learn some history, whiner.

Your complaint reads like you think that all these things should just fall into your lap, well, they don’t. People have always had to work to better their circumstances. It’s really pathetic to blame others because you’re a failure, R121.

R119 MARY, you don’t know how to read do you.

It must be hard walking through life with that chip on your

[quote] College has always been expensive.

WRONG - The average cost of college is twice as much today as it was for Boomers when adjusted for cost of living. The average 4 year college degree with interest cost $75,000 - $100,000 or 994%. Boomers were the first generation to blow off student loans with little to no repercussion at a rate of 50%. Because of them, laws changed and now not only will credit be ruined, but its the only thing you cant wipe clean from a bankruptcy court.

[quote]Saturday in line to get gas during one of the oil embargoes

Boo Hoo, that didn't last more than a year and the news reports were widely overblown. I was alive back then, most places did not have a line except for a hand full of gas stations in the big city. Would you like some cheese with that whine?

[quote] lost everything in the dot-com crash, or Great Recession.

You had enough money to gamble with it in the stock market? Poor little rich girl. A luxury Gen-X and Millennials can't even imagine.

[quote]Every company I’ve worked for either had no pension, or cancelled it while I worked there.

Well you had shitty jobs, but factually, most Boomers had and still do have pensions. They didn't go by by until Gen-X entered the workforce.

[quote]Or get Polio? Polio was cured in 1955, the vast majority of Boomers were vaccinated. How quaint that you see that as such a struggle. Get back to me when a whole generation dies of AIDS. Still No Cure. You know how many people died of Polio in 1953? 3,000. You know how many died of aids in 1981? 636,000! That's 10 times the amount lost in the Vietnam war.

[quote] Or deal with inflation of 13%? Most Boomers had the luxury of 2 parent households with one income strong enough for the whole family. Everyone after that grew up as a latch key kids with both parents working. Your you it was an option, for the rest of us it's survival.

Boomer were the first generation in their teens to have a high disposable income. They enjoyed the deal between employers and emplyee that hard work paid off with raises and job security, lost of generations to fallow. Now wages have been stagnate for the last 30 years. Guess which group controls most business and thereby control the rise or fall of the average wage rate? Boomers.

I see you left out medical. Most Boomers enjoyed very low cost medical care. The average cost of prescriptions for Boomers was a steady 272 per month, the cost today is over 1,000.

What about housing? The median price of a home sold in the United States in January 1970 was $23,600. The median price of a home sold in the United States in January 2011 was $240,100. That's an increase of 917%

It’s really pathetic to blame others for your greed and lack of knowledge about the damage your ME generation did to the world.

[quote] Or get Polio?

Polio was cured in 1955, the vast majority of Boomers were vaccinated. How quaint that you see that as such a struggle. Get back to me when a whole generation dies of AIDS. Still No Cure. You know how many people died of Polio in 1953? 3,000. You know how many died of aids in 1981? 636,000! That's 10 times the amount lost in the Vietnam war.

[quote]How in the fuck do u live in 2k a month? I live in a fly over state in a small town and can’t make it in 5k a month!

You must have VERY expensive tastes. While my pension is more than that, I rarely spend more than 3K a month and I live in Southern California. Of course my house is paid for and I'm pretty frugal.

Yeah - the “take responsibility” comment sounds scarily Republican. That’s how we got 401ks instead of pensions. It’s a horrible simplistic argument - because taking responsibility is only a small part of having a secure retirement.

Anyone with a pension should be very grateful for how lucky they have been. It’s the only thing that provides security.

"Take responsibility" sounds scarily Republican? Man, I'd love to live in a simplistic world as yours where name-calling (amateur at that) is your response people who say things you don't want to hear.

It's just as bad as people who use the "racist" and "bully" lines everyday when they don't get their way.

R129 is correct. When 401Ks became the new way of doing things, the responsibility of the employer to take care of their employee after 20 years of hard work shifted the burden to the employee over night. Effectively paying him much less in terms of a total package. And by doing so, forcing the employee to be subject to their future placed on the open stock market wild swings and no guarantees it could be all gone over night.

[quote] Polio was cured in 1955, the vast majority of Boomers were vaccinated. How quaint that you see that as such a struggle. Get back to me when a whole generation dies of AIDS. Still No Cure. You know how many people died of Polio in 1953? 3,000. You know how many died of aids in 1981? 636,000! That's 10 times the amount lost in the Vietnam war.

In 1955, the first Boomers were already 10 years old. The Boomers were the last generation to get Polio. I had a Boomer teacher who had leg braces from Polio.

As for AIDS, who do you think were the people getting AIDS in the 1980s? They were primarily the Boomers.

R123 = typical Boomer who doesn't seem to realize that those younger than him can't even dream of getting what he's been given his whole life.

This article says there were two periods of gas lines. And when there weren’t lines, gas was expensive.

Well, maybe you would not have been in such long gas lines if you were not so consumed with buying gas guzzling cars that got 12 miles a gallon.

[quote]As for AIDS, who do you think were the people getting AIDS in the 1980s? They were primarily the Boomers.

Um no dear, you cant claim an epidemic from the 50's and the 80's. Each generation has its own tragedies. Were you a teen just waiting for your first experience in 1981 afraid you might die from it? No you couldn't have been, most Boomers would have been in their 30's.

[quote] You had enough money to gamble with it in the stock market? Poor little rich girl. A luxury Gen-X and Millennials can't even imagine.

I don’t gamble. I worked hard, saved, planned, sacrificed, and learned how to invest it. You write like you think you somehow deserve to have money just dumped in your lap.

[quote] Well you had shitty jobs, but factually, most Boomers had and still do have pensions. They didn't go by by until Gen-X entered the workforce.

Shitty companies like General Dynamics, Fidelity Investments, JP Morgan, State Street Bank? Yeah, they don’t have pensions anymore.

^^^ People act like investing is Russian roulette.

Anyone with a modicum of initiative, discipline, and responsibility can learn very basic, sound investing principles. For those who have this, they realize prudent investing is actually in their favor - despite ups and downs.

But yeah, a lot of people think money should just fall in their laps just ‘cause.

[quote]Shitty companies like General Dynamics, Fidelity Investments, JP Morgan, State Street Bank? Yeah, they don’t have pensions anymore.

Yeah, because they are run by Boomers! Look at the age of the CEO's and Mangers in there Gramps.

"Millennials just want their piece of the pie.

Gen-Xes never got a piece of the pie.

Boomers, are eating all the pie, Put Down The Pie Grandpa!"

Boomers are the first generation to take so much that they've screwed over their own children and grandchildren. Then, they sit here and arrogantly defend it. They never moved beyond "Greed is good." as their generation's motto.

"Boomers, you are like the drunk guy at the party who pees in the sink puke in the bushes and then you ghost and everybody else has to clean it up."

Boomers were born between 1945 and 1964.

Therefore, the oldest Boomers lived at least 10 years before Polio was cured. (Just for fun, I checked and found that the last Smallpox case in the US wasn’t even until 1949. I was vaccinated for smallpox. I don’t think they do that any longer)

As for AIDS, a boomer born in 1960 was about 21 when AIDS became widespread. The oldest Boomer was about 36, peak sexual years. So, yes, the Boomers as a group were exposed to both Polio and AIDS, before there were any effective treatment for AIDS, I might add.

The thing that is most bothersome about R121 is firstly the gross generalization. Blaming all the Boomers for the troubles that later generations have, when it just reads like R121 is unsuccessful because he’s a whiny complainer and unwilling to work at being successful. The world doesn’t owe anybody a living.

In addition, these later generations were raised by Boomers. It’s not like the Boomers were living in luxury and raising their children in Russian orphanages. If a Boomer had a good job, his children were raised in a wealthy environment and ought to be grateful for the experience, instead of ingrates.

[quote] R141: Boomers are the first generation to take so much that they've screwed over their own children and grandchildren. Then, they sit here and arrogantly defend it. They never moved beyond "Greed is good." as their generation's motto.

I don’t know any Boomer who thinks that “Greed is Good” is their or their generation’s motto.

If you’re not successful, R141, it might be because you’ve had bad luck. But it sounds like you have a defeatist attitude, unreasonable expectations, are too lazy to work at bettering your situation, and prefer blaming others for imaginary reasons as to why you don’t have what you want in life. You’ll never get what you want in life with that attitude.

R143, how much did you pay for college? How much did your first car cost? How much did your first house cost? How much did you make five years into your first career?

I can't wait to hear these answers.

Also, R143/R144, what was your student loan debt upon graduation? What did you pay per month for your health insurance when you started your career?

I think every generation has their own challenges. It’s definitely harder for people now, you have the cunts who want to replace humans with machines, robots and AI, minimum wage went up but employers cut hours and replace with machines.

Boomers probably worked for only one or two companies their whole careers, now, every one is freelance or gotta work a few jobs just to pay rent

One can always commit a serious crime in one of the rich Northern European countries. The prisons there are quite nice I've heard and at least there you'll have a roof over your head, three meals, health car and some entertainment.

R148, it’s happening in japan. Old people are committing crimes just so that they can be taken care of in jail.

You can't compare prices and costs of things like that. My first job with the Federal government as a college graduate in 1974 paid $8,055. Per YEAR. My first apartment was $125/mo. I bought a used car; the only credit I could get at the time charged me a 28% interest rate. I couldn't afford a color TV until after my first promotion, and then it was a 15" model with no remote and cost $400. (This was 1975.)

[quote]I don’t know any Boomer who thinks that “Greed is Good” is their or their generation’s motto.

Except for this movie of art imitating life Circa 1985

Actually R150 you can compare. Since you said in 1974 your first job paid 8,055 per year, you might also note the average house cost 34,200. So basically, you could pay off a typical house in 4 years if you had no other expenses.

The average salary today is 34,000. The average house is around 500,000. That's 14 times more than the average salary!

[quote]$8,055. Per YEAR. My first apartment was $125/mo.

That turns out to be about 19% of your income.

Today the average rent is 1,900 in a big city, excluding the extremes like SF and NYC. That roughly 75% of today's average income.

So stop with the should work hard bullshit and admit Boomers had the world handed to them on a silver platter.

[quote]As for AIDS, a boomer born in 1960 was about 21 when AIDS became widespread. The oldest Boomer was about 36, peak sexual years. So, yes, the Boomers as a group were exposed to both Polio and AIDS, before there were any effective treatment for AIDS, I might add.

That's BS. Boomers are defined as the sexual revolution generation not the safe sex AIDS generation. At 36 you were more than a decade into adulthood. A generation is defined by your birth year up to 18 or 21.

1960 is the soft start of the Gen-X generation. Obama was born 1963 and he is considered Gen-X not a Boomer. It's Gen-Xers who took the AIDS hit.

Weird arguments about boomers here. The generation that is now retired in pleasant circumstances is the pre-Boomer generation. They were born in the 20s, 30s and early 40s. That was the generation that worked for US corporations in the post WWII boom, when most companies paid pensions, and the US also had a housing boom that added millions of homes to suburbs around the country. SOME of the boomers - those born between 1945 and about 1953 -are now retired and SOME of those got in on the pension-type retirements, particularly if they lived in heavily unionized parts of the country. But the vast majority of boomers have lived in the IRA and 401K era and don't have those luxurious retirements being talked about.

As a "younger" boomer, born in the late 50s, I can assure r154 that not only did I live through the AIDS era in the height of my sexual years, but I lost over 75 friends close to my age between 1982 and 1998 to the disease. Some people born in the early 50s, who would have been sexually most active in the mid-late 70s before anyone knew there was such a disease spreading rapidly among them, lost even a larger percentage of their friends at that time, and all of us consider it miraculous that we are alive today.

Re: home ownership vs renting at the time of retirement, I'm seeing both options play out in my family. I have an older brother who is just on the verge of retiring. (He's 65) . He never bought property when younger, he's always rented. He will have decent SS and his wife also has a pension and smaller SS, so on paper they should be comfortable. But they want to rent decent places. They are renting a nice small house in a very good neighborhood for about $1500/month - but they have NO control over the property, which they have lived in about 6 years. Recently the landlord was considering taking the house where they're living out of rental and giving it to his daughter to live in. My brother and his wife were rather stricken - because it's very comfortable for their needs and convenient to other family and shopping. The landlord has since changed his mind, but that's the problem when you don't own property - no control. Also, unless a person lives where rents are stabilized, people can come to the end of their leases and find that the landlord will only up their lease with a 20-40% rent increase, if they are living in a part of the country where housing is scarce. My brother and his wife may find that they are paying more than half of their income for housing after retirement, eventually, which is not going to allow them to do much in the way of fun stuff.

I own a rental house free and clear which I plan to move into at retirement time. My housing expenses will be about $2000/year in property taxes, about $500/year in insurance, about $1400/year in water/sewer/garbage collection, and another $1500/year towards a maintenance fund (to be used in case a water heater or,furnace needs to be replaced, or, painting, or roof repair is needed). That adds up to approximately $5500/year vs. nearly $15000/year if I were renting. That frees up about $10,000/year for me to use on other things in my retirement that I'd like to be doing.

[quote]As a "younger" boomer, born in the late 50s, I can assure [R154] that not only did I live through the AIDS era in the height of my sexual years,

You were in your 30's! That's not your prime Dear. Sorry you lost people you knew, so did my grandmother, but that doesn't make the AIDS crisis part of her generation any more than an a middle age Boomer who thinks it was part of his.

r157, you are apparently challenged in the math department. In 1981, when the first AIDS death was reported to the CDC, I was 23 years old. Many thousands were already infected at that point and died over the next several years.

Has this thread turned into a who suffered more contest?

I can't believe these Boomer trolls pushing their Republican talking points. "Nobody owes you a living!" Seriously, on a gay website?! I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the discrimination people experienced when they were read as gay! I was the top salesman in my co., in NYC and had to cede territory to a straight guy because "He has a family." Also, not everyone is suited to the corporate world where Boomers were able to hide in their cubicles doing as little as possible in the 80's. Health insurance was included in every job I had with zero co-pay. The Boomers were the original spoiled generation and now they have the nerve to bitch about Millennials? My fellow upper middle class boomers were the classic helicopter parents who created the millennials.

Don’t you guys get pensions ?

R160 is correct. Most boomers had basically free healthcare in a professional job. Little or no co-pay. Drugs that cost $10 prescription etc. Most good jobs offered that as standard perk. I know one guy that also gave him a health savings account. A tax free way to hold money for "health issues". He used that to get personal massages tax free.

[quote]My fellow upper middle class boomers were the classic helicopter parents who created the millennials.

For the most part, Millenials parents are actually Boomers. Which explains a lot.

The Gen-X offspring are Gen -Y and Z.

Sadly, sometimes things are out of your control.

When I was younger, I had a lot of medical problems so I could only get a part time job. It never offered a pension for part timers until I had been working there 10 years. Then my parents died and left a ton of debt to pay off.

I still have nearly 7-10 years of work left- if I can stay healthy. And the only upside is that I know how to live cheap. I don't like travelling anyway, so it's not like I'd be missing out on that. Right now, I've got about $30,000 in savings but I know next to nothing about investment so I'm too scared to try and invest in anything in case I lose it.

The only advantage I have is that I have no credit card debt but I doubt even that will help me when it comes time to retire. Maybe I'll just have to keep working until I literally drop dead.

[quote] Look at the age of the CEO's and Mangers in there Gramps.

Away in a manger, indeed.

I was talking to a guy who was 50+ and had nothing because he has spent his entire life doing his own thing rather than being a corporate droid. When his mother died, his share of the estate was $300k. I asked him what he was going to do. Answer: retire in paradise. Sure enough he has. He spent just under $200k buying a house in a semi-hippy collective community (one of the many set up in the never-never world of the 1970s). Has always been alternative, and a real manly capable man, so perfect fit.

I had a hot bf who never was able to save money if he has a few dollars at the end of the week he would find a way to spend it. He retired at 62 so I don't think his SS is very high. I suspect his credit cards are maxed out just like they were when he had a job.

Most of you guys who think Boomers have it easy in retirement most are probably in a similar situation, less than 10% have been able to put away enough money or have a pension to retire on.

People often mock those in section 8 housing but you pay 30 percent of your salary which is half of what you make clear and every time you get a raise most of that goes to HUD. And the housing is for shit.

You are much better off in a comfortable rent controlled apartment but you are still ripping off tax payers.

Yes I am now an elder gay on SS and it is the only time section 8 is a good 'deal.' But the housing is still for shit.

Many boomers haven't been able to save because they are still supporting their children. It used to be that the kids could support themselves at 21 or 22, but, with college debt and lack of employment opportunities, they still depend on their parents.

I agree upthread that the amount of money that a person who lives modestly needs in retirement has been grossly exaggerated. That said, a good wodge of emergency money is always necessary — including if you should need to insulate, move, or sue to protect your sanity.

I am planning to move to Costa Rica for retirement. It is a safe country with strong democratic government, good infrastructure and medical care - and is very beautiful. Amazing beaches, rain forests, mountains....Costa Rica has it all.

Puerto Vallarta is quite expensive now.

R171 here. I spent a few months in south Florida/Fort Lauderdale (I work remotely) and did not like it. Crowded loud beaches, horrible drivers and traffic, and the guns/conservative attitudes...Wilton Manors is a gay oasis, but is not an attractive area, full of hustlers (like all of Florida) - and expensive. All of south Florida is quite expensive.

Costar Rica is very expat-friendly as well, and residents there hold very positive attitudes towards Americans.

R154, Obama was born in 61

I invest in Crypto. I bought Bitcoin in 2015 for about 260 per. I bought 20 of them, and cashed 10 out last year and put 200 grand in savings. I bought more as it dropped earlier this year, and it has since tripled. For anyone that thinks its a scam, fine.Its as scammish as the stock market, only the financial windfall is exponential.

Research crypto and buy it now while you can. XRP is currently 43 cents. It will likely be well over 100 dollars in a few years.

I’m on the cusp of Gen-X and millennial and although the Boomers may have had advantages that subsequent generations didn’t, we also have advantages that they did not. The key to success is to learn the rules of the game you are playing and use that knowledge to improve yourself. Yes, it is true that with hard work and motivation, any American (unless he has a serious illness or handicap) can have a very comfortable life.

My parents were the children of immigrants, have always been lower middle class, and never went to college. I never had any connections, but I always worked my ass off and now earn about 500K/year. After taxes/deductions, that only leaves me with ~ 250, and I have a lot of student loans to pay, but I am able to pay my mortgage, save and live fairly comfortable.

Could I complain that I pay too many taxes? That i shouldn’t have had to take out so many student loans? That my parents never helped me financially? Of course I could, but those are the rules of the game I am playing. Before anyone complains, go to Southeast Asia, rural South America, pretty much any African country and see what being dealt a hard hand really is.

[quote] Most boomers had basically free healthcare in a professional job. Little or no co-pay. Drugs that cost $10 prescription etc. Most good jobs offered that as standard perk.

Sort of.

In the late '70s - early '80s I had a union job and, yes, medical was free.

When I graduated college and went into the corporate world in 1984, I cannot honestly remember if I paid my own medical or not. But I do know that, for at least the last 30 years I've had to pay at least something.

I'm 62 and would LOVE to retire. Between SS and my 401(k) I would make it, but every health insurance I've looked at has a monthly premium of $400 with a deductible of over $6000. That's over $10,000 out of pocket before I see any real benefit. If I retire at 63 1/2 I can go on COBRA for 18 months until Medicare kicks in, but that's expensive too. I'm in reasonably good health but, just my luck, the day after I retire I'll wake up with a pain and they'll find a tumor.

To those of you who retired before 65 I'd love to know what you're doing for health insurance.

R176 was thinking’s the same thing. Looking to go out early at 59. I realize we’re all one diagnosis away from bankruptcy. What do all you early retirees do for health coverage? (and no, I’m not moving to Mexico.)

You know, back in 2000, I had about a half million dollars in my retirement funds. Then, after 9/11, the stock market tanked, and by 2004 I had about 250K. I had a health crisis. I was unemployed for five fucking years. Trying to sell real estate in a very depressed market. I need to withdraw funds from my retirement to live off of, buy groceries, pay bills. Now, I feel lucky that I have managed to regroup and save about $125K. That's it. I get a pension, I get social security, but that's all I have and it was through no fault of my own. So to all of you who want to judge us, and criticize, and make assumptions because you know so damned muc, go fuck yourselves.

Yeah R178 - the genius investors here need to come back in 2 years to reiterate that all you have to do is invest and you are guaranteed to double your money. I saw the same talk in 2000 and 2008 - then for the next 4-5 years, all you heard was “I lost everything”, “I can’t retire now”.

[quote]We need to start some eldergay communes.

They’re already doing it!

Very few investors “lost everything” in 2008-09.

Most investors lost 25-40% for a few years.

“I can’t retire now” == “I have to wait to retire”

“I have to wait to retire” > “SSI will hopefully cover me, hopefully”

Some of you really act like entitled, whiny millennials. Yet you fault millennials.

Some of you act like entitled, self-righteous eldergays who think just because you got yours, anyone who didn’t just didn’t try hard enough. While I am comfortable now, I know that a life circumstance or market crash or physical disability or company bankruptcy could leave me struggling to make ends meet by the time I hit retirement age. The majority of Americans are not in a position to ever retire - which doesn’t mean the majority of Americans didn’t try. Don’t be so smug.

R176, R177 I retired at 57 and stayed on the group HMO plan at my old company. I pay for it though: a little over $10K per year, plus some reasonable co-pays for appointments/prescriptions. Healthcare is the big hurdle for most

The large mutual funds take a long term approach to investing, they will buy a stock and hold it for several years before they sell. This approach to investing is what you should do whether it is stocks, real estate or collectibles such as antiques or fine art. This is the best approach to make solid gains from your investments.

When the stock market tanked in 2008 I stopped looking at my investments because it would depress me, I knew it wouldn't stay down forever and that wealthier people with bigger portfolios suffered more. I had a friend who panicked and sold everything turning s paper loss into a real loss. He's still working at 75.

And also, the brokers at mutual funds will buy other equities at discount when the market is down, so if you continue to contribute via your 401 and/or IRA, you will bounce back.

I used to think this stuff was so mysterious, and "for other people" until I wanted to not be poor in later years, so I started paying attention. Learning and preparing is not the same thing as being "smug", as has been suggested upthread.

The problem is if you dare to suggest learning and preparing (i.e, taking responsibility for your own fate) you are a smug Republican!!!!

MARY!

[quote]I agree upthread that the amount of money that a person who lives modestly needs in retirement has been grossly exaggerated.

I remember reading an article in Money magazine where a money manager admitted they tell people that they needed several million dollars to retire. The reason for this is that as a manager of retirement portfolios they make more managing a multi million dollar portfolio as opposed to a say a $800K portfolio.

^^^ True. Also, it’s really simplistic to argue you need 20x your earnings at 35/45 (when spending is at its higher ends) at 65/75 (when spending trends down).

Everything is marketing - except for maxing out your employer match with your 401k, contributing as much as possible pre-tax - that’s entirely up to each and every one of us.

However, many Americans continue to ignore this very free, very simple, very smart advice.

Smug? Nah, not stupid is more like it.

R151, I think we’re all familiar with the movie Wall Street. The reason the character utters those words and that they are so memorable is because they shocked the conscience of the audience, not because they were the generation’s mantra. Jeesh!

[quote] R147: Boomers probably worked for only one or two companies their whole careers...

This is incorrect. Certainly for younger boomers, it is untrue. I’m a Boomer and had 8 main employers. I also worked in two or three entirely different careers.

When I was young, I heard this said of the generation that came before me, but can’t say if that as true from my experience. I think it might have applied to those born into “company towns” from the 1920s to the 1960s, when you were raised in Detroit, so you assembled cars for life; or you were raised in West Virginia, so you worked in the mine, etc. But those days were long gone, at least by the 1970s.

R153, you can’t use one person’s anecdotal info to characterize and damn an entire generation. If we were talking race or sexuality, you’d all be up in arms over the gross generalizations, falsehoods, and condemnations being made here of the Boomers.

I think the overstatement of need in retirement should be emphasized. Because financial advisors and Wall Street have used fear tactics to terrify us that we won’t have enough for retirement. The government set up the 401k scam at the encouragement of Wall Street for this exact reason. Now retirement security is a marketing scam that plays on a perpetual and undeniable fear of being homeless and broke in old age.

Agree with all of the above to be prudent and save as much as you can. But do not live your life in constant fear that you won’t have enough - because MOST of us will never have “enough” and Wall Street knows it. I’ve known 2 people who have had financial issues in old age - and even they ended up getting subsidized housing and being ok. But I’ve known over 20 people who died before they ever made it to retirement or soon after retirement - who should have spent much more time appreciating life and indulging their bucket list and not being terrified of going broke.

Thanks, R155. I’m a boomer born in 1960 and could have written the exact same thing, if not quite as eloquently.

R122 I may differ on many of you statements, but there is one that angers me the most. "And, [R121], they are all now going to reverse mortgage the family home so there is no inheritance like the one they got. One of the reasons that we are so economically screwed is that the wealth that used to be spread over three generations is now spread over four, with the majority in the hands of the two oldest ones leaving Gen X and the Millennials fighting over crumbs." You are not entitled to one cent of the money your parents earned and invested. An inheritance is not an entitlement program. The world does not owe you anything just for breathing. Focus more on earning your own income and not what you expect someone else to give you because of your DNA.

R158, maybe that lazy Gen-Xer with the poor math skills can take over the History Department?

Sex work. You’d be surprised to hear about how lucrative it can be at my age.

I've enjoyed the perspective on here regarding the hysteria on retirement savings and the overstatement of need. I made the mistake a while back on another thread of mentioning that I'm nervous about retirement despite having savings that are somewhat higher than some others mentioned, and i was attacked for humblebragging. I've been genuinely concerned, but I'm learning that much of my concern may really be due to the marketing of financial institutions incentivized to overstate need and encourage investment. So I'm trying to learn how to relax more on the subject.

In all fairness, r197, when people are discussing limited means, worries about running out of money, how they’ll pay for retirement, etc., and you come into the thread and boast...er, say, you have $4 million in the bank, yeah you’ll be called out.

[quote] Some of you act like entitled, self-righteous eldergays

SMELL Miss R182!

SMELL Her!

R197 how could you worry that 4 MILLION is not enough to carry your retirement? I mean, either you are really bad at math or you are def humblebragging.

Yeah - the median retirement savings is about $100,000 - for everybody of all ages. Under 55 is way less than that and even 60-65 is $120,000. So Wall Street is clearly full of shit. Probably the top 5-10% of earners have anywhere close to the $1 million+ that they say you “need” - but clearly the vast majority of people are retiring and surviving on nowhere near that.

I wasted 25 years of my life in a soul destroying, all consuming job that kept me away from home 80% of the time. Now at 52, having witnessed 3 people very close to me die before 55, I am refusing to waste any more time on a life that I hate out of fear I wont have enough at 80.

So glad so many people fear so little about retirement yet obviously care about it so much.

It’s like death - you can fear it and do everything possible to keep yourself healthy but you a have to accept a lot of it is out of your control and keep it from ruining the actually living of your life. Things will happen and you can’t control all outcomes. You can prepare all you want - but life will surprise you for better or worse.

I found obsessing about retirement was a way to make me feel like I was protecting myself against any bad things happening. But we can’t - we don’t know how long we are going to live or what world events could ruin our best laid plans. Some optimism is required to get through life.

R198, thanks for making up an inflated number and then attacking me for it. (And thanks to R200 for just assuming R198's number was correct.) I was feeling good about Datalounge for making me consider other perspectives, and now you reminded me that many people here are just dicks.

Someone asked abut medical insurance before getting Medicare. Yes, you can get an Obama plan that is around $400/month with a $6500 deductible.

I am a physician who is self employed and I just stopped paying for my Obabamcare high deductible plan. I hate giving money to insurance companies. I am able to order labs and treat myself for many conditions that don't involve surgery/infusions, etc. I got Lyme Disease (I diagnosed myself within 2 days), called Right Aid and paid $30 for generic antibiotics that successfully treated it. I have actinic keratoses and I just ordered a topical gel for it through an onliine US pharmacy . My local Rite Aid quoted me a cost of $500 but I paid $50 to the online pharmacy. I also order my allergy/asthma medication from India (I know they work, because my symptoms are reduced).

If I do get really sick (not an accident) I am getting on a plane from NY to my hometown of LA and registering for BruinCare (UCLA's ACA plan) . I trained at UCLA and that is where I want to be if I get seriously ill. If you "move" you can apply for a new plan outside of the enrollment plan.

Medicine as a career has been a shit fest for decades and is now in free fall, but at least I can order labs/imaging and medications for myself.

While growing up almost no one in my family and immediate community had health insurance, The plan was to get to age 65 and not get ill before. No one seemed to worry about it so much. In some ways it appears we have been sold a lot of fear regarding insurance the same way we have been sold fear regarding not having huge amounts of money at retirement.

R204 Nah, just a lot of bitter queens who can't stand it when someone has made better circumstances than them. So go ahead and rub it in their faces, they only care when they can feel better about themselves and you are a reminder that they can't.

R206, that may be true, but did they face bills of thousands of dollars for routine care, like for a broken arm? Health care costs have skyrocketed—you’re playing Russian roulette if you don’t mitigate the risk of getting ill. The fact that the biggest cause of bankruptcies is due to health costs is very telling.

R205 - thanks, that’s really insightful. I’m on a low deductible Obamacare plan in NY and debating switching to a high deductible plan next year. I pay $920 month at 51. I have a very high risk of cancer (BRCA2) so want to be prepared when it hits. But realizing I will end up spending $5,000 this year on premiums I could have saved if I did a higher deductible.

Also, NY is awesome when it comes to access to health care and always has been. I have always been grateful that I don’t live in one of those anti-ACA shitholes.

The last majority of people with no health insurance never declare bankruptcy. The selling of fear keeps us all in line so we spend millions on health insurance premiums.

[quote]The problem is if you dare to suggest learning and preparing (i.e, taking responsibility for your own fate) you are a smug Republican!!!!

And the related problem is that if you dare to suggest that the playing field is not level for many people from birth, then you are an ultra liberal socialist.

When, in recorded history, has the playing field ever been level for anyone?

And that makes it okay not to try to level it?

^^^ Meanwhile life goes on and instead of whining on Datalounge you could be reading about Investments 101, but let's face it - it's easier to be a victim because LIFE'S NOT FAIR!!!!

And it’s easier to be a know it all, arrogant poster patting yourself in the back for how smart you are than someone who learns how to sympathize and understand why some people end up without any or very little retirement savings. Which is the majority of Americans - who should be learning how to understand financial instruments to invest their non-existent savings from their crappy low wage jobs.

These anti-boomer crybaby trolls sound awfully familiar and they seem to be quoting word for word from other divisive datalounge threads that were prominent and repetitive during the 2016 and 2018 election cycles.

Sounds like a divide and conquer strategy to me. Democrats need to be smart and not allow operatives with a hidden agenda to divert and dissuade us from keeping our eye on the prize- uniting around candidates who can win. The pendulum needs to swing back toward pension reform ,better access to education, healthcare and housing . By now everyone should understand that that will not happen without a Democratic House, Senate and Presidency.

[quote] R23: ...So (a) they did not have the expenses of children and were better able to save than their peers and (b) they knew that they could not figure "oh, I'll just rely on my kids to take care of me when I'm old."

Interesting post.

I always think that, after a person has children, they will literally never have enough money, because there’s always a loved one to give it to, or buy things for.

And about children, you’re absolutely right. It never occurred to me that I should/could/would marry, nor that I would ever have children. A friend of mine once said that the whole purpose of being Gay is that you didn’t have to get married or follow other straight traditions. I don’t think he was speaking literally about the “whole purpose”.

I’m not sure that anyone should rely on their children taking care of them.

[quote] One interesting note: I've noticed that often people with professional jobs (lawyers, doctors, bankers, Senators) often avoid retirement until they physically can't work anymore.

Hopefully, you enjoy your work, hence your observation. I think it was Freud who said that a happy life was about “to work and to love”.

I've never been sure why the Boomer/Gen X cut-off is 1964. The book, Generation X, was written by a guy born in 1961 and is about his peers. Obama was born in 1961 and was substantially different than what I think of as the real Boomers before him. Being born 1960 or after is different than being born before--no memory of the Kennedy assassination, not part of the whole 60's youth quake thing. Also part of the group that graduated during the Reagan era, which was the real beginning of the destruction of the working, then middle class--or what I think of as the Great Republican Lie--where the GOP figured out that you could get people to vote against their self-interest if you just demonized some poor people.

Things were actually better for people born a few years later--aka the diaper dip--less competition for jobs because they were a smaller group. The richest person in my family isn't 40--but got into one of the big dot-coms when he graduated from college. By the same token, I expect the kids born during the 2008 recession and later will have an easier time than the big millennial group--again, less competition.

I noticed a while ago that I wasn't wild about millennials as a group--a friend said, "think who their parents are." It's true--annoying boomers spawned annoying millennials. Not all of them, of course, just enough to color the overall impression of them.

R218, writing just for myself:

I’m the youngest child of seven, born in 1960. My Dad and Mom lived through the Great Depression, and my Dad fought in WWII. As the child of those in the Greatest Generation, with siblings who are older and clearly Boomers, I identify with being a Boomer. If a child was born in the same year, to precocious parents who were Boomers themselves, then perhaps might identify as a Gen X or as a Millennial, or whatever.

I’ve seen articles that put the end of the Boomers as 1964; but in any event, bear in mind that these labels are just constructs. They’re not immutable like the laws of physics or math. .

The Boomers got their label because WWII caused a delay in normal reproduction by their elders. After the war, people made up for the lost time and had lots of kids, all in the same period.. Schools had to be expanded, new housing built, etc.

I don’t see the Gen X, Y, and Z; and millennials having the same impact because they don’t have the oversized numbers of births in a society that had to adjust to the changing demographics.

[quote€] R176: I'm 62 and would LOVE to retire. Between SS and my 401(k) I would make it, but every health insurance I've looked at has a monthly premium of $400 with a deductible of over $6000. That's over $10,000 out of pocket before I see any real benefit.

R176, you can buy a “Gap Plan” to cover most of your medical expenses after Medicare pays its share. I have such a plan via AARP. You might want to see if you can get a gap plan.

[quote] R206: While growing up almost no one in my family and immediate community had health insurance,

I was always healthy and am still, except in 2007 when I got pneumonia. I spent five days in the hospital. The cost was about $32,000, IIRC, but my insurance covered the whole thing. I paid nothing.

My point being, I’d prefer to have the insurance than risk being financially ruined by a black swan illness.

[quote] R162: [R160] is correct. Most boomers had basically free healthcare in a professional job. Little or no co-pay. Drugs that cost $10 prescription etc. Most good jobs offered that as standard perk. I know one guy that also gave him a health savings account. A tax free way to hold money for "health issues". He used that to get personal massages tax free

Employer provided healthcare insurance isn’t ever “free”. It is part of the compensation you work for, as much as your salary is.

I think health savings accounts still exist. They seem similar to Flexible Savings Accounts. I believe that they are funded by the employee, so it’s not free,

[quote] R136: Were you a teen just waiting for your first experience in 1981 afraid you might die from it (AIDS)?

Ironic. I distinctly remember sitting on a curb stone in Ptown, sometime between the ages of 19 and 23, and concluding that I would die from AIDS, since so many of my friends and acquaintances were sick or dead.

[quote] Then my parents died and left a ton of debt to pay off.

Who told you you were responsible for your parents' debts? Debts die with the debtor. The estate is responsible for paying off any creditors with the assets from the estate, not you.

Screw worrying about the majority of Americans and their low paying jobs that many brought on themselves.

The majority of Americans think gay people are less than and don’t deserve the same rights as them.

I’m supposed to worry about them over some Pollyanna notion of level playing field???

MARY!

Hearing about these deductibles makes me grateful for universal health care because I could never afford the deductible. I've recently had a detached retina that required surgery and then a broken ankle. I didn't have to pay for any of it and the cost of it would have put a dent in my savings if I had to pay out of pocket for it.

[quote]Obama was born in 61

Yes, but is not considered a Boomer. He is considered Gen-X by most historians. That generation started much earlier than the typical 1964 date everyone so blindly copies and pastes. That date was made up by insurance companies. In reality, if you look into it beyond what you clip from Wikipedia, it starts around 1960, goes into full force around 1963.

r228, someone earlier said Obama was born in 63, which is incorrect .

[quote] The majority of Americans are not in a position to ever retire - which doesn’t mean the majority of Americans didn’t try. Don’t be so smug.

This needs to be said to all the uppity Boomer queens. Straight or gay, sounds like Boomers are truly clueless to anyone else's struggle actually being harder than what they had to overcome when they were young. I guess a life of privilege does that.

One of my Boomer relatives does that. She doesn't understand why black people just don't "get over it" and work hard like she did. She claims that when she was a single mother 30 years ago, several places would not rent to her with 2 kids. She equates that to being black. She hooked up with the local multi-millionaire in the town. Her argument is that she sucked it up and had to deal with discrimination so why don't other people do the same. She is clueless that people still struggle with discrimination and unfortunate parenting, health or life circumstances. Never mind that she is only where she is at because she married a millionaire. She sees them all as taking from her "hard work" from high taxes from lazy welfare moms on food stamps. No surprise, she is a Trumpeter.

[quote]You can't compare prices and costs of things like that.

Sure you can. It's called an inflation calculator.

[quote]My first job with the Federal government as a college graduate in 1974 paid $8,055. Per YEAR. My first apartment was $125/mo. I bought a used car; the only credit I could get at the time charged me a 28% interest rate. I couldn't afford a color TV until after my first promotion, and then it was a 15" model with no remote and cost $400. (This was 1975.)

$8,055 starting salary = $42,000 today

$125 rent = $650 today

Good luck getting anywhere close to those today.

You forgot to answer a lot of pertinent financial questions, though. Here are the rest because I'm sure you just forgot and didn't purposefully skip these because they would completely disprove your point...

[quote]...how much did you pay for college? How much did your first car cost? How much did your first house cost? How much did you make five years into your first career?

[quote]Also, [R143]/[R144], what was your student loan debt upon graduation? What did you pay per month for your health insurance when you started your career?

I don’t think it’s clear which generation Obama belongs to. I think the 1964 date as the end of the Boomers is the most widely used, meaning that he’d be a late Boomer.

However, Obama’s mother was born on November 29, 1942. A year or two early to be a boomer herself, but pretty close to it. In which case, as I write in R219, older Boomers wouldn’t be parents of later Boomers. That’s the only argument as to why he might be considered a gen-x, as far as I can see.

R230, so, you have a Boomer relative who is a racist, and therefore all Boomers live a life of privilege. Yeah, ok.

I think the only ones who need to be really concerned about this topic are Boomers and Gen X. Let’s keep millennials out of this. They have a long time to go. I didn’t start saving until I was 35- and not seriously until 42 or so.

Generally, people born before 1958 or so got a lot of the benefits that started disappearing in the Reagan years. The conservative, individualist philosophy took over and the concept of social support systems and curbs on capitalism were abandoned by society.

[quote]^^^ Meanwhile life goes on and instead of whining on Datalounge you could be reading about Investments 101, but let's face it - it's easier to be a victim because LIFE'S NOT FAIR!!!!

You cant invest if you don't have money Dear. Jeeze, get a clue. No one can afford to put money away on a job that pays close to minimum wage in this economy. The game is different now Gramps.

I'm 57, I've got $250K in a 401k. Will probably have to retire around 70, but the financial calculators tell me I'll have around $2M by then.

If capitalism hasn't collapsed by then and we all aren't surviving on cockroaches, of course.

No, President Obama is a later Boomer. 1961 is late Boomer, always has been, probably always will be.

There was some odd talk of a mini-generation that covered a period of Boomer to GenX years but I don't recall the name they gave it. It's not in common usage.

[quote]so, you have a Boomer relative who is a racist, and therefore all Boomers live a life of privilege. Yeah, ok.

Its called and EXAMPLE you nitwit.

R237, I think that's Generation Jones.

I’m a boomer. I graduated college during one of the two recessions in the early 1980s. Neither my brother, who is two years older, nor my twin, nor I, could find a job for a very long time. These recessions hit my state harder and for longer than the Great Recession actually did, so many years later.

We all eventually found some work, though my brother and I had to take crappy jobs at first until the economy recovered. Then I went to grad school and graduated in the middle of the G. H. W. Bush recession. This is the recession that finally killed off the Rt. 128 hi-tech companies that had sprung up around Boston. So, hi-tech jobs were hard to find and the Boston real estate market collapsed at that time, too.

My point is that the ignoramus who claims that Boomers had plentiful jobs whereas things are so hard for him, is just an ignoramus.

It helps if you inherit from your parents and grandparents.

[quote]No, President Obama is a later Boomer. 1961 is late Boomer,

NOPE. Just because you say that, doesn't make it so. Facts are different than opinions. He is the son of a Boomer. By definition he is Gen-X.

[quote] I think that's Generation Jones.

Gen Jons is not widely accepted as a legitimate category. It's merely a marketing construct.

R243, they are all marketing constructs.

R235 Mary please.

My partner has over 100,000 grand in his retirement account and he makes minimum wage as a cashier. He lives simply and traded a lower rent payment for helping out on his old landlord’s property - in the morning before work and in the evening after work.

We’re both in our 40s and not living off some Boomer privileged fantasy you’ve made up in your mind to justify your poor life choices.

My best friend also managed to save hundreds of thousands after growing up in a single family household since his Dad was an alcoholic. Not another privileged Boomer living on some imaginary pension.

Get over yourself. You’ll need the humility when you’re standing in the food line.

[quote]My point is that the ignoramus who claims that Boomers had plentiful jobs whereas things are so hard for him, is just an ignoramus.

30% of Boomers have nothing saved for retirement. 70% of the rest of us have nothing either. Sounds like you are in the minority of your gen. The loser part of Boomers if you will.

R245 here. Just to clarify, my best friend has never made more than 5 figures. We’ve lived in coastal CA cities for two decades as well, no low cost of living areas.

[quote]My partner has over 100,000 grand in his retirement account

Humble Bragging is also your specialty it seems.

The Boomers got a name because they were an unusual phenomena that caused numerous changes to society. Schools had to be built. And prisons had to be built, too. There were all sorts of businesses that were built to cater to families with children.

So, once there was a precedence for naming a generation, people have been creating names and definitions for subsequent generations. But these subsequent generations haven’t had the impact on society that the Boomers had. For example, is there really that much of a difference between GenX and GenY, or whatever they’re calling themselves? Doesn’t seem so to me. It seems like a distinction without a difference. .

I love the Republicans called the law they passed in the 80s for elimination of pensions “The Retirement Equity Act”. . In 1980 about 50% of people in the private sector were enrolled in defined benefit pension plans. Now it’s less than 12%. That alone accounts for a huge component of the retirement insecurity Americans are facing. Thanks Republicans.

[quote]I think that's Generation Jones.

I think he played starting forward on my high school basketball team.

R242, an article from Politico does not constitute a “fact” just because it was published. What I found when I skimmed it was an opinion piece.

[quote]100,000 grand in his retirement account and he makes minimum wage as a cashier.

Cough, cough, BULL SHIT. In what world do you live where cashiers make minimum wage? Not in California. I had that job when I was still in college, its the best paying job you can get working in a market next to management. He is making at least 25,000 -35,000 or more if he is union.

[quote]My best friend also managed to save hundreds of thousands after growing up in a single family household since his Dad was an alcoholic

And Oprah is a Billionaire, what's your point.

[quote] R121: Yep, all the Boomers on her humble bragging about all the money they have. " Just pick yourself up by your boot straps like we did". Except for the fact that they had everything handed to them on a silver platter from pensions and cheap college to homes and abundant job opportunities and still gratuitously managed to deplete the system dry for the rest of use.

I am not R245, but I imagine he, like I, am responding to the initial accusation made by R121 that somehow, an entire 15 year long generation of Boomers “had everything handed to them on a silver platter”, wrecked everything for everyone that followed, and subsequent nonsense like that.

Yeah, R242, President Obama is still a Boomer. I don't care what you think about it or his mother.

Everyone thinks of Boomers as ending in 63/64. He was born in1961, he's a Boomer.

R248 That's not humble bragging. That's shoving it your face. 100k for retirement is nothing, but it proves your silly point wrong.

R253 Uh your idiotic post speaks for itself: "In what world do you live where cashiers make minimum wage?" - just WOW. Also, you'll note nowhere did I state he works a union, grocery store.

Believe me or not, but all you whining about how impossible it is to save unless you're the 1% in the US in 2019 don't realize how out of touch you are.

[quote]President Obama is still a Boomer. I don't care what you think about it or his mother.

Its not my opinion, its FACT. Obama was raised by Boomer age parents. A generation is the offspring of the one that came before it. By definition that makes him Gen - X.

Sorry you feel butt hurt, facts are facts.

Nope, sorry, R258, he's still a Boomer. His grandparents raised him.

Obama is a god damn baby boomer. He was born in 1961. Boomer.

Boomers: Baby Boomers: Baby boomers were born between 1944 and 1964. They're current between 55-75 years old (76 million in U.S.)

R254 That even poor kids who aren't born with a silver spoon in their mouth can save/invest despite what all the "whoa-is-me I can't save because I don't make $500k a year and I don't have a Boomer pension" blowhards in this post say.

[quote]just WOW. Also, you'll note nowhere did I state he works a union, grocery store.

Put up or shut up, where dose this loser husband of your work at minimum wage as a cashier at the age of 40? Even non-union stores pay more than that.

Union places like Costco make 50,000 a year. Non Union 35,000 average.

R260 is Triggers.

Sorry girl, your blog link is laughable. All it proves is your inability to accept facts and poor attempt to counter with weak blog site proclamations.

Uh, dummies saying that Obama has to be Gen X because he was raised by a Boomer...his mother is part of the Silent Generation, not a Boomer. She was born almost five years before the start of the Boomers.

That "loser" husband of mine works in a in local feed store working with the local Sonoma County community he grew up in and loves and around animals he also grew up around and loves. I should clarify that he worked himself up from minimum wage, but not much more and started saving at those earnings.

Despite his being a loser to some old lonely DLer like you with your amazing life and salary, he's got me and isn't whining on and on about being deprived the ability to take care of himself like a man when he grows old.

R263 You must be the Obama is Gen X troll, lol.

Well, this thread has devolved into what this thread devolves onto every time someone re-creates it. Everyone had a harder life than everyone else, every generation other than their own is the cause of all evil in the world and has ruined life for everyone else, everyone either has a fortune saved for retirement even though they can barely hold a job OR they make a mid 6-figure income and have nothing saved, bla bla bla. Get some new material.

Obama is Gen-X,

Dont feed the Obama is a Boomer Troll.

In the face of facts, she is triggered!

* devolves INTO. Pardon my error.

[quote] I should clarify that he worked himself up from minimum wage, but not much more and started saving at those earnings.

So basically you lied when you said he saved 100,000 on minim wage. Sort of defeats your WHOLE ARGUMENT that people just need to suck it up, scrimp and save on a nothing income.

r270, give it a rest. ...it must be painful for you to make minimum wage and have nothing saved, it sounds like this guys partner achieved financial stability by hard work and living within his means.

R270 Oh Mary, get over it. My whole argument is not defeated because his savings/investments grew in large part from his managing his money and spending prudently despite not making much of it - including at minimum wage.

Meanwhile you're clearly triggered and for what? Your own inability to handle your non-loser finances? Yeah and he's the loser. Please.

I never said I was broke R272, quit the opposite. However, life is not as simplistic as you want to make it sound. Just save and be frugal is not an answer to the bigger issues people are struggling with today. Bully for you that your boyfriend never had a health issue where he couldn't work for example. Or lives in one of the richest states in the country.

All the generations aren't blaming all the other generations. We're all blaming the greedy Boomers who have sucked this country dry and left an empty husk or the rest of us. Even the Silent Generation thinks their kids are greedy and selfish.

R274 + 1.

[quote] R267: Well, this thread has devolved into what this thread devolves onto every time someone re-creates it. Everyone had a harder life than everyone else,..

You’ve missed the context of the conversation. This is why I just reposted R121’s post in R255. We have a ignoramus who started the conversation by asserting that Boomers “had everything handed to them on a silver platter, and wrecked everything for everyone that followed.” This nonsense is countered by others trying to educate the ignoramus that Boomers did not, in fact, have everything handed to them; that they had challenges of their own; and that blaming Boomers for the ignoramus‘ own failures isn’t going to make the ignoramus’ life any better, but that the ignoramus could make something of his life if he applied himself. Further, that a gross generalization like blaming all Boomers for something the ignoramus’s Boomer neighbor did once, and similar, is pretty offensive.

According to this article, one-third of Americans have no savings and another third have less than $1000 in the bank. Are there that many people making bad decisions, or are there other factors at play? The article gives a breakdown.

[quote] I just tried to log on to social security site to see how much I would get... the site is down

That's very common for all government run (local, state, and federal) websites. They put very little effort into their websites. They all look like they were programmed by middle school kids and they all break down constantly.

R225, I took that guy’s post to mean the estate paid off the debts, not that he did, but when those debts were paid, there was nothing left, i.e., no inheritance.

[quote]all the "whoa-is-me I can't save

Oh, dear!

R276: You were expecting a rational discussion here? That's not how the blame game is played.

To the point made above: you "need" the amounts the retirement planning people suggest IF and only if you plan to continue your lifestyle exactly as it was when you were working with an allowance, it seems, to take a round-the-world cruise every winter and, when that's no longer feasible, to move into a high-end assisted living facility. And then live long enough for your own entry in the Guiness Book of Records as one of the oldest people on earth.

Looking at the chart offered by Vanguard, if I in retirement take more or less the "required minimum distribution" mandated by law starting the year I turn 70 and half (an amount which when combined with my Social Security benefits will replace about three-quarters of my last pre-retirement salary) there will be money in my retirement account until I'm 115. Hell: my RMD at the age of 95 will be $101,900. Not sure how I'll spend it at that age, though. The assumptions this is based upon are an average annual withdrawal of about 4% increased annually by the amount of inflation and average returns on investment of about 5% annually.

I keep hearing about breakthroughs in life-extension but given the health issues I deal with now at the age of 68, living for another 46 years or so seems overly optimistic.

R277 40% of Americans do not have $400 saved for emergency expenses.

I grew up with 5 siblings in a working poor family; we worked our way up to lower middle class so this does not surprise me. It does really make me mad though. The middle class is being decimated. Granted too many live way beyond their means but costs of housing and healthcare and food and education have outpaced wages.

[quote] R281: Hell: my RMD at the age of 95 will be $101,900.

R281, I gather that at your age, you are no longer adding to your 401k? Future withdrawals from a 401k will be taxed at regular income tax rates. Some people, such as yourself, probably shouldn’t add any more to their 401k, as the required RMD, plus social security and other investment returns, will put them in a higher tax bracket. In such a case as yours, it’s only worth adding more to your 401k if you’re getting an employer match.

R281, you’ll have new expenses as you age, but some expenses disappear. For example, you no longer need to save for the future. (Not everyone, but this gentleman in particular.) You may also be able to manipulate your income to reduce your taxes. I’m retired and have some investment income, but sometimes manage to pay no Federal taxes. My State always manages to require tax payment, but the Feds don’t.

I think the most relevant data here is R277 and R282. The majority of Americans have little or nothing saved. Even 65 year olds have maybe $100,000 at median (averages are meaningless because they are totally distorted by the huge amounts that the top 1-5% have).

I can’t imagine that the current policies can hold when these people start aging and almost no one has any money other than SS. The effects of the 80s Retirement Equality Act are just starting to be felt by those retiring in the next 10 years - the majority of elders will be living in poverty. The reality of the complete failure of the 401k system will become apparent. The only question is what political action results when 80% of retirees are living in poverty.

I've seen several articles recently suggesting that people convert IRAs (and other retirement accounts) to Roth IRAs now when tax rates are (supposedly) temporarily lower. You have to pay all the tax now, but all of the earnings and distributions are tax-free in the future, and you aren't subject to the Required Minimum Distribution rules. Thoughts? I have about $400K in a 401(k)-type plan and I'm 66 now. I don't really need the money and don't want to take the RMDs when I'm 70 1/2. But I'm, a high tax bracket, too.

R286 I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to pay all those taxes now especially since you are in a high tax bracket. I have seen the same train of thought, but I have always interpreted that the conversion be in some harmony with a traditional 401k, which will presumably be taxed at a lower income rate when you do start withdrawing. You could convert some, but not all, depending on how much of the tax hit you can/want to absorb.

Roths were actually my first saving/investing mechanism and I'm surprised most people don't take advantage of them. Their tax-free benefits upon withdrawal eligibility is undeniable and the ability to withdraw what you've put in without penalty is equally helpful for those concern they won't be able to touch their money for decades. I still actively contribute even though I am fast approaching the income cap and will continue pumping up the Roth until I can't.

Worth looking into.

R286, my 401k consisted of several groupings, or tranches, of money that my employer tracked, such as rollovers from a previous employer, and after-tax contributions. The distinction was invisible to me, but it allowed me to transfer some of these tranches to a Roth via a “backdoor” conversion. I could control the conversion to keep my taxes low. It’s taken me eight years, to move the money with low or no taxes on the conversion, and I only expect to be finished next year. So, speak to your 401k manager. Maybe you could move some of the money.

Suzie Orman has pushed ROTH IRa's forever. Now that I am in retirement I see the advantages (that I am not realizing as I only have a 401k)

As I live in NYC and intend to leave when I retire, I think Roth IRAs are a bad idea. I am paying 10%+ taxes on income in NYC that I won’t be paying in Texas or Florida when I retire.

I believe that having your money spread across different kinds of accounts, such as some in a 401k, some in a Roth, etc., is a form of diversification that is wise to take advantage of. And I like Roth’s.

The only downsides I know of are:

The conversion is taxed.

The money in a 401k cannot be seized if you lose a civil suit. The money in an IRA can be seized, depending on your state laws, which vary. In my State, IRA money can only be seized in a civil suit, if you’ve previously lost a related criminal case. (I once had a litigious, bullying neighbor and I had to consider this.)

[quote]and will continue pumping up the Roth until I can't.

Is that what you kids are calling it these days? We used to just say choking the chicken.

R291 Your neighbor sounds like an asshole. An umbrella policy may have come in handy for such situations.

So, R143/R144 doesn't feel like laying out the actual numbers that will disprove his whining about Boomers having it just as rough as anyone. Come on, answer the relevant questions at R231 or do you just want to tell us again how expensive your tv was instead?

R293, thanks. I had gotten an umbrella policy, and needed it, too. They paid for a lawyer for me. I think there was really something wrong with my neighbor, more than just being a dick. He threatened to sue the Condo Association at least twice in writing, more verbally, IIRC. One of his other neighbors was afraid to enter the hall when/if he was in it. The other neighbor would listen for him before opening the door to exit. He had a shister lawyer seemingly on speed dial. He’s gone now, but the relationships here are strained, now, because he stirred so much up.

R284, you’ve jumped the shark with your trolling, and you’re mixing up multiple people, thinking they are one person.

Why don’t you tell us about your situation? Did you go to college, or is it not for you? If not, is it because you’re not academically inclined (no fault in that); because you couldn’t afford it; or something else?

How old are you? Do you work? What kind of job are you in?

People on DataLounge might have some helpful advice for you.

[quote]I can’t imagine that the current policies can hold when these people start aging and almost no one has any money other than SS.

That’s the scary thing, that people who made proper choices and saved a lot for retirement will lose their well earned nest egg to those who were wasteful.

OP writes,

[Quote]This is not meant in a snide way, but how are you getting by? People often say that a person needs X million in the bank in order to retire comfortably, but clearly only a very tiny percentage of the population accomplishes this.

Suze Orman has given that kind of advice. Problem: One in every five adults are living paycheck to paycheck. The U.S economy is for the oligarchs and those who are among the have-nots are enslaved. So, when it comes time to retire, people are in a position to have to make do with what they brought into retirement and then rely on Social Security.

I’m a late Boomer, and worry that after my predecessor Boomers have passed on, and I’m 80+, that the depleted Boomer numbers won’t have any influence with politicians, and that the ignorant masses who follow and think they will never age, or similar, will vote to cancel social security, Medicare, and so forth. Imagine if they decide to tax Roth account withdrawals, after a lifetime of planning, understanding that they won’t be taxed, as they aren’t today.

R297 Pray tell, how? Perhaps higher taxes, but that's about it.

R298, I wish we raised the minimum wage, reinstated the inheritance tax, and repealed the Trump and Dubya tax cuts, for starters. Also either reinstated Obamacare, or expanded Medicare for all. We should do better.

R285 No wonder the suicide rates are the highest they've been since WWII.

Ahh the gay tagline emerges again "just off yourself when you're old!"

Said in one's 20s when some old geezer sends a smile their way

Said in one's 30s when one swears they still look 28

Said in one's 40s when still young because one's at least not 50 or above

Said in one's 50s when the realization arrives that D-Day has come

Let's just not worry about tomorrow, because tomorrow is a long time away. Oh wait...

[quote]Roths were actually my first saving/investing mechanism and I'm surprised most people don't take advantage of them.

I'm already retired so I can't contribute -- only convert. And when I was working, my income was always too high to be eligible for a Roth. And now I have a six-figure pension (but no Social Security), so I'm always going to be in a high tax bracket -- the issue is whether or not the tax rates themselves will revert to their earlier, higher numbers once the recent tax law provisions sunset in a few years.

R304 & R286 Might be worth enlisting the aid of a financial planner which it sounds like you can afford. Not a broker, but the kind that for a flat fee sits down over your finances and helps you determine various courses of actions to take. They are out there.

I did this a few years ago because I was struggling with the best strategy to deal with significant student loans (6 figures), a mortgage, multiple retirement accounts from different employers, and projected developments in my finances over the next decade. Paid $2k and it was worth it. I took the knowledge that was provided me and did further research on that. Most of the recommendations were accurate and in my better interest and I was able to confirm I wasn't being misguided.

I plan on doing it again at 50 and 60 to revisit and reassess against my long-term goals and changes in the finance world and society.

You'd be well-served and better informed.

Here’s a suggestion about a Roth conversion:

If you believe that the market will rebound after it takes a fall, that’s a good time to contribute to a Roth, when it is down. The reason being that, once the market rebounds, those gains will be in a non-taxed Roth. The tricky part is determining when the market is at its lowest. At the least, one can avoid converting to a Roth when the market is at record levels.

R306 Not sure that's R304's concern specific concern, but I agree with you. Roth contribution limits are so low that one should be throwing extra cash in one every year along with their 401k.

I've tried eyeing the lows and dumping then and man we've had plenty of opportunities in the last five years. I think I've got a 60-40 success rate, but that's still better than doing nothing.

I contributed to a regular IRA because of the tax savings for my most of working life. I figured my income in retirement isn't going to be higher than I was earning so I would take my chances with taxes in the future. It's only recently that I earn too much for a regular IRA so now I go with a Roth. Now that I'm thinking about retirement more--I wondered if I should have gone with a Roth all along.

[quote]He had a shister lawyer

Oh, dear!

Single-Best Reason for Boomers and Gen Xers to Take Social Security at Age 62:

R310, that article states something similar to what I posted in R199. However, I think the conventional wisdom is to wait until age 70 to collect, if you can. My family typically lives to 90+, so I’ll probably delay taking SS. But it’s premature for me, in my 50s, to think about it, since so much can change by then.

My family typically dies before 70 - 6 out of 8 uncles and aunts - all cancer. And I have the cancer gene. So I’ve decided at 50 to stop worrying and am looking to retire with $350,000 401k at 55. The chances of me living past 75 are about 20%.

The most important thing in retirement planning is life expectancy. All the $1 million+ advice assumes living to 80+. I have no desire to sacrifice my current happiness and my one life to leave money to other people. I want to die with $5 to my name and hospital bills unpaid.

R312 is spot on to some degree. A lot of the advice out there assumes people want to leave something for a spouse and kids/grandkids.

I can count on one hand the number of family members who might survive me who I care to leave any significant inheritance to and that depends on how they sustain their relationship with me as I age.

My family lives to about 80-85. However, my partner has a history of living well into their 90s on both sides of his family. I do want to care for him in the future. Still, I don't think it's necessary to save what straight couples with kids and grandkids and suburban homes and lifestyles to maintain are told they should.

R312 reminds me of two important issues. One is anticipated life expectancy. Though I’d hate to run out of money at 75.

But the second important issue is finding work that you enjoy enough that you don’t consider it to be “sacrificing your happiness and life”. If your job or career sucks, it needn’t remain so. Find something you look forward to doing every day, which someone is willing to pay you for doing.

[quote]Find something you look forward to doing every day, which someone is willing to pay you for doing.

Nobody is going to pay them for giving blowjobs.

Or post on DL while in caftans.

How many Boomers spent almost their entire careers as "contract workers" with no benefits and no stability?

[quote]reminds me of two important issues. One is anticipated life expectancy.

General life expectancy is how long newborns on average can expect to live. If you make it to retirement age, having survived all the things that cause premature death, your life expectancy is longer.

Re Medicare - I have had Medicare Advantage for quite a few years. It is fine. All the best doctors participate as well as most hospitals. I have nowhere near 250K in savings. I am careful what I spend but I live nicely. When you are over 70 you don't have much desire to travel. I did travel the world when young, however. Don't put it off till retirement since you may not make it and won't have the stamina for Italian Hill towns. My Total Hip replacement was covered with a small copay. Most hospitals have plans in place for the lower income people, info usually on their websites. This allows them to get gov't subsidies. I find most of the people recommending high retirement savings are selling retirement plans to gullible people.

[quote]That’s the scary thing, that people who made proper choices and saved a lot for retirement will lose their well earned nest egg to those who were wasteful.

Translation = I am a hard core Republican. I worked hard for my money, everyone else is lazy.

How many Boomer went to college for a basic 4 year degree and fished with a student loan that on average would take 10 to 20 years to pay off before they could even think about putting money away or money down on a house?

R320,

You didn’t quote me. You are what is wrong with our country. You expect to be careless your entire life and then have hard-working people foot your bills. Where do you think the money comes from to pay for assistance programs? You are such an entitled cunt.

[quote] If you saved $10,000 by age 30 and invested it conservatively you have more than enough.

The best advice I never received was to start saving EARLY. I didn't start saving in a 401k until 35 and it's been constant catch up. If I'd started at 25 I'd have three times as much. And I could have started modestly at 25 (@$300 per month) and I'd be a millionaire by now.

If your employer offers a 401k, start saving early, no matter how little the amount.

R323 Rest easy. 35 is not too late at all. It's when I started and absent any catastrophic events in my life, what I've saved since then should be more than enough. And even if there are any, I'll make do. You will too.

Besides, if you were a millionaire by now, you wouldn't be really. You'd be a millionaire on paper, saving that "million" for some future date that you may never see.

My best friend started saving his first job out of college at 22. Yes he is a millionaire. Damn he was so cheap in his 20s though. He tells me he wishes he could go back in time and do some of the carefree stupid things I did in my 20s.

[quote] R321: How many Boomer went to college for a basic 4 year degree and fished with a student loan that on average would take 10 to 20 years to pay off before they could even think about putting money away or money down on a house?

Me. 10 years.

R317: why do you ask?

"Contract workers" - as you well know - didn't exist then because boomer workers wouldn't stand for it.

I’m a boomer and my first professional job in 1984 was as a contractor.

I later worked again as a contract worker at another company, until they hired me as regular salaried full time.

I have everything I need and have done most of what I have wanted to do, and I also max every retirement savings opportunity so that I have my first million. It’s not an either-or situation. Maximize your income and minimize your living expenses and don’t carelessly waste money. It’s not rocket science. One of the most important things you can do is to choose a place to live and work that has low cost of living and low taxes.

I had a friend who in 40 years never worked for a company with pension plan. Never saved. Retired with Social Security. Lived in city-owned housing taking 30% of his SS for rent. He used food stamps, Claimed to love cats, but didn't take them to a vet until they were so sick they died. Couldn't afford it. Had no relatives. Each time he was taken to a hospital by ambulance, refused to stay overnight because he had to get back to his cat. He died at a hospital after heart attack. The manager of his building took the car to a non-kill shelter,

[quote]"Contract workers" - as you well know - didn't exist then because boomer workers wouldn't stand for it.

You are hilarious. Must be nice not having any contact with reality. Guess which generation started this whole "contract worker" hiring bullshit as soon as they were the ones in charge. Yep...Boomers.

Come on, R143/144. Prove yourself a liar.

Here, for the Repug Boomer, are the questions from R231 to make it easier for you...

[quote]...how much did you pay for college? How much did your first car cost? How much did your first house cost? How much did you make five years into your first career?

[quote]Also, [[R143]]/[[R144]], what was your student loan debt upon graduation? What did you pay per month for your health insurance when you started your career?

[quote] R142: The thing that is most bothersome about [R121] is firstly the gross generalization. Blaming all the Boomers for the troubles that later generations have, when it just reads like [R121] is unsuccessful because he’s a whiny complainer and unwilling to work at being successful. The world doesn’t owe anybody a living. ... In addition, these later generations were raised by Boomers. It’s not like the Boomers were living in luxury and raising their children in Russian orphanages. If a Boomer had a good job, his children were raised in a wealthy environment and ought to be grateful for the experience, instead of ingrates.

[R284], you’ve jumped the shark with your trolling, and you’re mixing up multiple people, thinking they are one person.

Why don’t you tell us about your situation? Did you go to college, or is it not for you? If not, is it because you’re not academically inclined (no fault in that); because you couldn’t afford it; or something else?

How old are you? Do you work? What kind of job are you in?

People on DataLounge might have some helpful advice for you.

R174, can you recommend one or two websites for info regarding crypto? or books etc?

I bought a nano wallet last year and was looking into investing but totally lost track.

I am recently retired in my late 60's. My spouse and I own our home, worth about 750K. Property taxes and insurance and maintenance are about $1500 a month because we live in a state with very high taxes and a high cost of living. Our retirement income is 8K a month without going into our savings which is about $500 K. Sounds pretty good, right? But health insurance is $1250 a month, even though one of us is on Medicare, with no dental or vision coverage for either of us. And even with insurance, a serious medical condition could take much of our savings. Moreover, our 8K monthly income is via pensions and social security. If the economy tanks or the Republicans have their way with Social Security and Medicare, how secure are those sources of income? We continue to save and are really conscious of finances--I drive a 10 year old subcompact, for example--but I don't think there is any such thing as financial security for most of us. Sure, I and my spouse are better off than 80% of people our age, but given the fiscal recklessness of our government, the pervasive fraud and theft of the financial sector, and massive investments in derivatives that are not regulated AT ALL, there is no guarantee. Trump, Mnuchin (fucker made his fortune on mortgage foreclosures that were not exactly kosher), McConnell, all the other kleptocrats who are running things now....We could be on the brink. Meanwhile, keep putting that 20% of every paycheck away. Who knows?

[quote]Sure, I and my spouse are better off

Oh, dear!

[quote]Nobody is going to pay them for giving blowjobs.

If they're under 70 and live in Palm Springs, they'll be turning away customers.

Don’t forget, aging DLer. You can have “Walmart greeter” on your resume once you retire

R336 you need a change of mindset. The numbers that you tout should provide you with completely carefree living

[quote] R336: but I don't think there is any such thing as financial security for most ...

That’s the truth! Chances are, just statistically speaking, that the US will experience another severe financial shock within the next 30 years, so, within your and my lifetimes. I got through the Great Recession and dot-com crashes pretty well, but who knows how things will go the next time!?

Can someone explain ROTH IRA in the simplest way? Is it merely contributing directly from money i have saved - let say from a savings account? And that i can just open a ROTH account and fund it from my savings account?

The average 401(k) balance among workers 65 and older is $192,877, according to Vanguard's "How America Saves 2019" report. That might seem like a lot of money, but in reality, it's a fairly small sum over the course of what could be a 30-year retirement.

r342 It's just like a regular IRA in that you have to have earned income. (From a job--not rental income or interest.) The differences are in how it's taxed.

My 401(k)-type plan just crested $400K. But I have an excellent pension so I don't really want to take distributions when I hit 70.5. That's why I'm thinking of the Roth conversion. Although since I don't have heirs ...

[quote] Can someone explain ROTH IRA in the simplest way? Is it merely contributing directly from money i have saved - let say from a savings account? And that i can just open a ROTH account and fund it from my savings account?

Yes, yes, and yes.

You open the account at a place like Fidelity or Vanguard. Then you fund the account with some money. Then you invest the money in the account into something, such as a mutual fund. That’s it.

The benefit is that the money in the account grows tax free. In other words, suppose you put $5000 from your savings into it and invest the money in a mutual fund. In 10 years, it has grown to $9,000, meaning you have a $4000 profit. You could withdraw all the money, and there is no income tax on any of it, not even on the profit. You can leave it in the Roth forever, and not be forced to ever withdraw from it, or you could withdraw everything from it after 5 years without penalty or tax.

There are some rules about it, but wherever you have the account, such as Fidelity, will help you with the rules. Here are the rules I remember:

The account has to be open for 5 years before you can withdraw the money from it without a penalty.

There is a maximum amount you can contribute to it yearly. It is $6000 ($7000 if aged 50 or older) in 2019.

The contribution might have to be from earned income. Not from investment income, or from gifts.

I also seem to recall that you cannot contribute to the account if you are eligible for an employer’s 401k.

R342, IRA = you don't pay taxes on the money you put into an IRA account, but you pay taxes on the funds when you take them out in retirement. Roth IRA = no tax deduction on the money you put into an IRA, but when you take the funds out in retirement, you do not pay taxes.

IRAs and Roth IRAs also have different max income thresholds.

Oh, right, as R347 wrote. If you make more than about $120,000, you can’t contribute, but ask Fidelity or. A guard, or google it.

There are more Boomer Braggers on this thread than people answering the original question posed to elder gays who have not saved.

No one really cares to hear about how much money you have Dear, its very déclassé.

So spare me the good advice excuse to your bragging. The question was people who have not saved by the time they were and elder gay. Telling them they "should have or could have" is just throwing shade and shame on people who already know they are in tough situation.

My husband and I started to save late (in our 40's). We'll both will get the max SSI and we have been throwing every dollar allowable into low risk. pre-taxed guaranteed SEP accounts and a little into high risk post-tax accounts. I have enormous medical expenses b/c of cancer drugs. My advice would be to see a wealth management professional (no matter what your financial situation is - we're not wealthy) and an insurance broker when you're ready to buy supplemental medicare insurance. If you search and ask around, you can find both with no charge to you. Seek recommendations. We're going to be OK. But start as early as you can.

[quote]Oh, right, as [R347] wrote. If you make more than about $120,000, you can’t contribute, but ask Fidelity or. A guard, or google it.

You can't contribute, but you can CONVERT.

There is a separate thing you can do with a Roth. It’s called a backdoor conversion. If you have pre-tax money in a 401k, you can “rollover” this money into a pre-tax rollover IRA. There is no income tax on this. Then, you can immediately “convert” some or all of the money from the rollover IRA account into the Roth account. You will owe income tax on the amount you convert. There is no cap on the sum you choose to convert, as there is on a yearly contribution. Your Fidelity or Vanguard rep can help you with this.

In 2011, I took a rollover of some of the money in my 401k, and put it in a pre-tax IRA. Then, each year since then, I’ve been converting a small sum from my Rollover IRA into my Roth IRA. I keep the amount of the yearly conversion to be small so that it doesn’t push me into a higher tax bracket. I hope to be finished converting the sum in 2021.

One downside of doing this is that your 401k cannot be seized by someone if they sue you. Depending on your state law, the contents of a Rollover IRA or Roth IRA might possibly be seized in a civil suit. You have to look at your individual state’s laws to know about that.

R346, how would one determine if the ROTH contribution is coming from earned income and not from gifts nor investments if they are all saved in the same savings account?

[quote]I also seem to recall that you cannot contribute to the account if you are eligible for an employer’s 401k.

This may be incorrect. I say that because my company offers a 401(k) and a Roth. You can contribute a percentage of your salary to each.

Hmmm, R349, is it considered "classy" for The Poors to discuss how much money they DON'T have? Just eat your cat food and shut up about it, no one wants to hear why you couldn't take even the tiniest responsibility for your own damn retirement.

[quote]The average 401(k) balance among workers 65 and older is $192,877, according to Vanguard's "How America Saves 2019" report. That might seem like a lot of money

No, it doesn’t seem like a lot. A 65 year old should have accumulated well over a million in a 401k. People need to contribute the maximum allowed and invest aggressively in their early and middle years.

And what’s crazy about the $192,877 “average” 401k is that it includes the top 5% who have over a million. So the median - the amount that 50% of people have less than - is closer to $60,000. The majority of 65 year old Americans - probably close to 80% - have less than $192,877. In fact, most 65 year olds have less than $65,000.

Agree with R336 - even the rich don’t ave financial security in retirement in the US. But cheer up people, most of us don’t have anywhere near enough. Don’t be stressed by all of these DL millionaires - they are a very small %. Most of us don’t have and will never have “enough”. But let’s try to enjoy life along the way.

[quote] R353: [R346], how would one determine if the ROTH contribution is coming from earned income and not from gifts nor investments if they are all saved in the same savings account?

The IRS gets a report from your employer as to your yearly compensation. If you have a $6000 IRA deposit, but only $5000 in reported yearly earnings, it would trigger an IRS investigation. If you earn $75,000 and make a $6000 Roth contribution, you’d be fine. As long as your reported income is greater than the sum of your Roth contributions, you’ll probably be okay.

[quote] R345: I also seem to recall that you cannot contribute to the account if you are eligible for an employer’s 401k.

[quote] R345: This may be incorrect. I say that because my company offers a 401(k) and a Roth. You can contribute a percentage of your salary to each.

I suspect your employer is offering a traditional 401k and a Roth 401k. Those are different from a Roth IRA.

So many ppl on this thread casting shade. calm down UR not special.

[quote]I have enormous medical expenses b/c of cancer drugs.

Just curious, r350, why is your insurance not paying for it? I've had cancer twice and all the bills after the out of pocket max were paid by the insurance. There was nothing excluded.

R361 - The copay on just one of my drugs is nearly $600 per month. (The actual cost is around $10,000 - thanks big pharma.) Every year in January, I have to pay $2,000 to $3,000 for my first round of refill copays which immediately throws me into "catastrophic" category and all of my copays are reduced. I pay $7,000/yr for my part B insurance because I can't have a basic plan. So even with medicare, my out-of-pocket expenses are over $20,000 per year. But I'm lucky. Without insurance I'd be dead.

Thanks, r359.

Quite a bit of misinformation about Roth IRAs in here.

https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/investing/what-is-a-roth-ira

5 key points for the poster who wanted to know the low down on Roth IRAs in simple terms:

1) It is an after tax investment. What you get from your paycheck, you can put in a Roth IRA.

2) You can have a Roth IRA and a 401k. Some employers offer traditional 401k and Roth 401ks - however the question was about Roth IRAs.

3) You have limits to what you can contribute. In 2019 - $6,000 or $7,000 if you are over 50. Also if you hit a certain income level (around $120,000-130,000) you hit a limit to what you can contribute (I'll keep it simple, once you start making these figures your adjusted gross income from your tax returns will come into play to reduce and eventually bar contributions. If you are making this much I would hope you know how to research and understand this limit. If you are not, don't even worry about it.

4) Anything you put it you can withdraw at any time without any penalty or taxes. Example: you put in $10,000. You can always take out $10,000.

5) Any profits from above in No. 4 you have to wait until you are 59 1/2 to take out without penalty or taxes. Example: you put in $10,000 and you make a profit of $2,000. That $10,000 can be taken out at any time no problem. $2,000 can only be taken out without taxes or penalties after you are 59 1/2. It is supposed to be retirement account after all. (Yes, you do have to have the account open for at least 5 years to do this).

Roth IRAs are great retirement AND savings vehicles. I prefer them to a Savings account or CD making no virtually no interest. Roths, when invested moderately aggressively, generally make 10-12%% a year. If you need to tap into that money, it's there. However, barring no emergencies you will find you're much happier to see your money grow and you'll leave it alone.

I started with Roth IRAs in 2006. No I was not making six figures - quite the opposite - $40,000 with credit card and student loan debt while living in Los Angeles (not at home or in some low cost of living city). However I did have some discipline and foresight and contributed the max limit every year since then except for 4 years around the recession. So, I have put in about $50,000. Today the balance is $98,000.

It's that easy.

[quote] R364: You can have a Roth IRA and a 401k. Some employers offer traditional 401k and Roth 401ks - however the question was about Roth IRAs.

Ok, R354 is correct about this. You can contribute to both. I concede the point.

If you’re 59½ or older, and have owned the Roth IRA for 5 years or more, you can withdraw earnings with no tax or penalty. Under that age, the principle can be withdrawn, but not the earnings, without penalty, as R354 stated. (Though there are a few circumstances that allow early, penalty-free withdrawals of earnings.)

I concede this point, too.

Some cities have subsidized housing for elders, but there is nearly always a waiting list. Get on a list as soon as you can! Also, there are free meals and food banks, free medical and dental clinics. In Seattle, an elder can use public transportation for one dollar and libraries have all sorts of media and banks of free computers.

Oh, if you intend to withdraw your principle from your Roth IRA and leave your earnings, you needn’t identify the specific physical dollar bills that are your principle. It’s just the [italic] sum total [/italic] of your contributions that I mean. Your Roth manager, like Fidelity or Vanguard, probably track principle contributions and earnings, in case you’ve lost track yourself. Just ask them, if it matters to you.

R364 here. Taxidermist, thanks for conceding your errors without become a defensive old twat like 98% of DLers.

It's really easy to keep track of your principal. When I started, I literally just wrote down what I contributed in a notebook. (2006 - $4,000, 2007 - $4,000). No complex formulas needed. Just addition.

Also, most brokerages these days (Fidelity, Vanguard, T Rowe Price) display such information online with your account profile (like your checking or savings accounts).

[quote] The five-year rule for Roth IRA withdrawals of investment earnings requires that you hold your account for at least five years before you can tap those earnings without incurring a penalty.

Here’s some practical advice about a Roth IRA:

You’ll note there has been some discussion about the 5-year rule. This references your account-opening date. [bold] My practical advice is that you open a Roth IRA now, even if you can only contribute a tiny sum to it. [/bold] The reason for this is because the “account opening date” starts that 5-year clock. If you later have some circumstance where the 5 year rule comes into play, you’ll hopefully already be far past the account opening date, and well into or past the 5th year after the account opening.

Your Roth account manager (Vanguard, Fidelity, other) might have a minimum required initial contribution amount, I don’t know. You’ll have to ask them.

[quote]In Seattle, an elder can use public transportation for one dollar and libraries have all sorts of media and banks of free computers.

Even better in LA ... you can ride in one direction during off-peak hours throughout the Metro train and bus system for 35 cents.

I'll be inheriting. I highly recommend having a rich dad.

In LA County, you apply for the Access program. If you qualify, you get free public transportation and door to door service. It's a program for the disabled and those who can demonstrate taking public transportation is a hardship. My mom isn't disabled but has feet and knee pain which makes walking long distances difficult. She brought a doctor's note to the qualification interview. She still takes public transportation especially since it's now free for her. But for more difficult trips, she can request a door to door pickup for $2.75 or $3.50.

Pasadena, CA has a similar program to LA County's Access but it's restricted to travel within the city. But it's free to anyone over 62, you don't need to demonstrate a need. Pasadena city buses are also free for anyone over 62.

Retirement Housing Foundation has homes all over the nation. Check out the site and look for homes in your area. Call each one and ask when they are accepting applications. That's really the only one to found out, they don't have an announcement platform.

Waiting lists for many places number into years. I was pretty discouraged when each call resulted in "waiting closed...for 5-10 years." But finally I got one that was going to open up the application process within a couple of months and advised me to check in weekly to find out the date. I did and shortly the application window opened. I made sure to mail the application to arrive on or near the first day of the window. I lucked out and got it in on day one--anything in early would not be considered. I did this for my mom and she moved into her apartment within 7 months.

The only downside is that she had to move out of her longtime neighborhood and she's pretty lonely in her senior apartment. It's in an area most people in LA would love to live in but not for her. It's frustrating.

I have never saved a dime and I’m 50 next year. The only way I’ve been able to not stress is an inheritance of $800,000 from parents. Otherwise I don’t know what I’d do.....I always see a cashier in this late 60s at my local grocery store working 5days a week and wonder if that would have been me without the inheritance.

R371 and r375

How YOU doin’ bae?

*wink*

❤️❤️

R376 - Lol......hey who knows? I’m newly single......

If you reach menopause and can't afford decent workout costumes, you're not serious about retirement.

Question about Roth IRAs. Is there any chance of losing your money? I've saved up some money and need to start investing it but really can't afford to lose any of it. Where can I put it safely?

Your mattress?

Roth IRAs are investments in the stock market. So yes you absolutely can lose money with them

"I've saved up some money and need to start investing it but really can't afford to lose any of it." --> That's not how investments work. There will always be a risk of losing money. However if you invest conservatively you will likely come out better in the long run.

In the 12 years I've held a Roth I only lost what I contributed in 2008-09. I remember vividly. I had put in $8,000 and the balance went down to $6,000. Since then what I've put in has doubled. Sure, there are periods when my total balance (my contribution and profits) dips, but it has risen much much more.

Perhaps invest some of what you have in a Roth IRA for a little bit (one or two years) and see for yourself. Then your confidence will grow - as did mine. It was the basis for all my future investment efforts, and yes it did take some time.

[quote]Roth IRAs are investments in the stock market.

They don't have to be. You can invest it in a CD that's FDIC-insured -- can't get much safer than that. Not much return, but safe.

R382 I never considered that because I knew I wanted higher risk (and returns) than CDs could offer. Good point though.

[quote] R379 asks, “Question about Roth IRAs. Is there any chance of losing your money? I've saved up some money and need to start investing it but really can't afford to lose any of it. Where can I put it safely?”

This is from R346: You open the account at a place like Fidelity or Vanguard. Then you fund the account with some money. Then you invest the money in the account into something, such as a mutual fund. That’s it.

My Roth money is in mutual funds. I have a friend who put his money in real estate. You can buy bonds with Roth money. There’s lots of options. Some things are prohibited.

As for risk/reward, usually, if something is very risky, it will earn the most, or lose the most. If something is very low risk, like government bonds, then the return will be very low. That’s the trade off.

There is another type of risk, R379, it is the risk that you will outlive your savings. Or, if you invest too conservatively, there’s a risk that your return might be so low that your savings don’t keep up with the rate of inflation. In such case, you might have more money than ever before, but find it doesn’t have the buying power it used to.

One of the mutual funds I invest in is Fidelity’s FBALX “Balanced Fund”. The return is decent and I found during the crash that it was less volatile than my other investments, by which I mean, it lost money, but not as much as my other investments.

[quote]I have never saved a dime and I’m 50 next year.

No offense, but how are you not deeply ashamed by that?

I wonder if most people even know that there used to be 7-10% interest rates on personal savings accounts in the past. This country is a consumerist shithole.

"I'll off myself before I ever go to "Assisted Living" or live on $2800/month in SSI."

You're thinking of ssdi or ss. Ssi is for poor disabled people and only pays $771. per month, which is an outrage. Can you imagine living on $771. a month, especially when you are disabled and vulnerable?!

How are we as a society and as a country allowing this to happen to our most vulnerable citizens? Our handicapped family members and friends? Our countrymen?

Sick and twisted.

I invest in index bond funds with my Roth accounts as bonds are more conservative. Of course that means the growth is also really conservative. The logic is that I can dip into my Roth accounts for emergencies so I want the funds to be fairly stable. For my 401K where I can't touch the money before retirement (barring penalties) and the money will grow over decades, I am in stock funds 100%.

R388 Honestly you could invest in some mutual funds or ETFs and realize more growth. Perhaps not all of your balance, but some of it? Your risk would still be fairly low.

R371, how rich is yo daddy? Is he currently married or seeing anyone? What health problems might he have that could make him die sooner as opposed to later?

[quote]is it considered "classy" for The Poors to discuss how much money they DON'T have? Just eat your cat food and shut up about it, no one wants to hear why you couldn't take even the tiniest responsibility for your own damn retirement.

Translation = Boomer Bragging

I have two pensions and Social Security. My monthly net cash flow is more than when I worked. I use public transportation. No Uber for me. Cook at home. Don’t have much CC debt. No outstanding loans to pay off. I rent which I prefer because I don’t pay for heat or water, or garbage pickup, and I don’t have to shovel snow and if something breaks it’s my landlord’s responsibility. Plus, at my age I like the option of being able to move to another city without the headache of selling a house. I buy my clothes at Eddie Bauer and Target. Mostly jeans and t-shirts and cheap underwear, and Champion slides around the house. I discovered Riteaid.com and save a bundle on over the counter medications, toiletries, and household items and it’s delivered to my door with free shipping. I read books on-line for free and listen to new music for 9.99 a month and can download what I like. I have Roku and Netflix and subscribe to CBS All Access when a new season of The Good Fight is about to air. My biggest expenses are rent, food, and the fucking cable bill. I don’t want for anything.

How did this thread addressed to all those who have not saved after its too late turn into the rich folk discussing their wealth?

I’m not rich. I have 39K in savings. I just don’t need much but the basics. But I do manage to save something each month so I don’t have to dip into my savings for monthly expenses like some retirees.

R393 Because all the poor folk aren't using laptops to save electricity. Hell they are sitting in their apartments somewhere in the middle of June with no AC.

This should be a message to you to start saving now.

R393 It always does.

DL = common scolds.

[quote]Because all the poor folk aren't using laptops to save electricity.

Laptops are the worst investment you can make R395. To get them to that size you sacrifice processing power and storage as well as decent screen size. You could buy an equally powerful desktop for less than half the price!

I for one don't care about the OP's question, who cares about poor people, I for one have BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars and I want the world to know who I am.

Interesting, R388. At the moment, I’m in bond mutual funds because I anticipate a wild ride due to something stupid Trump does. Normally i invest very aggressively..

Usually, I assume the market will probably go up. I therefore put my most conservative investments in my 401k, since withdraws from it are taxed at regular rates. I put my most volatile investments in my Roth, since withdraws from it are not taxed. Then I put something in between, in my brokerage account, since withdraws from it will probably be taxed at 15%l.

Overall, my investments are balanced. Do you see anything wrong with this approach?

I'm in my mid 40s and have $50,000 to invest. I don't make a lot of money annually, though. Suggestions?

Now is not the time to invest in the stock market “because it always goes up”. Invest in bond funds or safer investments and wait a year or two for the market to drop. It will. Then invest in an index fund.

Statistically, Boomers paid about 10% of their income for housing or rent when they were young. That leaves 90% to put away or use on other things. Millenials now pay 39% to 35% for the same level of housing. That's a big slice of income when you are just starting out. Boomers did in fact have it easier even if they didn't all end up rich. And that's just the tip of the ice berg. Cost of schooling is up 600% compared to what Boomers paid, while salaries stayed relative stagnate for 30 years.

r402, I doubt your figures. The ratio of income spent on housing has remained about 1/3rd for many DECADES, and in fact that has been the benchmark for deciding what size of house a person can afford based upon income. (ie His payment should be about 1/3rd of his take home pay). The Census bureau defined affordable housing as 30% of income starting in 1969, which is exactly when the baby boomers were coming of age. However, I would agree that rents as a proportion of income have been rising, and are now somewhere between 35% and 40%, which does put an additional squeeze on millennials. Also student debt has risen astronomically and those who have gone to college in the past 20 years have had to struggle to pay down those debts.

I had an annuity where I dumped an inheritance so the 2008 crash didn’t really tank it. Now in my 50’s and wondering if it’s worth it anymore as I hopefully near retirement sooner than later. I have a 401k also, and have participated since my 30’s. Medical coverage will be my biggest hurdle due to some health issues.

I would love to hear what others do—and recommend—for medical stuff. I am 60 and retired a few months ago, but medical costs worry me. I’m in good shape, but insurance premiums and deductibles are getting worse. My pension is enough to live on but not huge, and I don’t have to pay a huge premium because of the tax break, but we know Dump is trying to destroy Obamacare so I can’t depend on it being there.

I don’t want anyone to think I’m boasting—I have quite a lot of money saved up and don’t want to lose it. The money is saved because of no kids and no partner. If you think that’s envious, I would have traded it all for a few kids and a partner in life.

I'm a few years away from Medicare, and I'll have up to $200 per month in supplemental coverage (as a benefit from my former company). Hopefully, I won't have any expensive medications that chip away at my savings, but if I do, I'll have to find a way to negotiate that. With the optimistic hope that Trump and his ilk might be gone from the scene by then, I keep wondering what my major health expenses will be, providing nothing catastrophic happens.

Scrolling through this thread, so much of it seems to be about healthcare, and how expensive it is and how Americans are constantly worrying about it.

R407, because it is.

If I start to run out of money I'll just start maxing out credit cards. I have no kids to saddle with the debt. They can take my stuff when I'm dead.

R399, I see your logic. I'm not enough of an expert to tell you why your approach is flawed. I've read a handful of index fund books and use to post on the Boglehead. I definitely need a refresher and probably need to take a good look at my investment approach. It's been a few years so I'm due.

Again, I invest mostly in stocks with my 401K because that's money I can't touch and it has decades to go up and down. History has shown if you invest for decades and ride out the bad spots, you usually come out ahead. The biggest portion of my investment pot is my 401K so I want that to be in stocks because I shoot for a 75% stock, 20% bond and 5% cash portfolio.

I am going to start splitting my Roth investments to 50% stocks and 50% bonds. With my bank account and Roth principle, I now have enough emergency cash to last two years so there's no need to keep all my Roth in bonds.

Thanks R399, for asking and making me think about it!

Ooops, please revise the first sentence to:

[R399], I see your logic. I'm not enough of an expert to tell you IF your approach is flawed.

How does anybody get extended healthcare benefits from an employer after retirement? I didn’t even know that was a thing.

Examples would be government and education? A friend retired at 60 from LA Unified School District and she has a very good healthcare plan until she turns 65 and moves to Medicare.

[quote]How does anybody get extended healthcare benefits from an employer after retirement? I didn’t even know that was a thing.

Federal employees are eligible for FEHB for life. It's not free; you pay the same premiums that you did when you were employed. Extends to your family as well.

So ... anyone out there want to marry a 66-year-old with a six-figure pension and health care? (Oh, and a net worth of $2.5 million and no heirs.)

It's a different thread, but with so many younger people (correctly) bitching they will never have what their parents' did, I'd be surprised R414 if you aren't inundated with offers.

R412 As part of the retirement benefits where I worked (a wealthy and unionized university.) It's not w/o some limits: you have to have worked there for more than 20 years to get the maximum subsidy, which is 80% of the premium cost of the most-expensive Medicare supplementary plan or, if you're under 65 but pension-eligible, 80% of the premium cost of the most-expensive group health insurance plan.

The transition was seamless: same doctors and hospitals, but I'm paying more in retirement: before I paid $110 a month for medical insurance. Under Medicare, it's $204/mo ($135 for Medicare B and $69 for a Medicare Advantage plan. No Flexible Spending Account anymore, either.

"How does anybody get extended healthcare benefits from an employer after retirement? I didn’t even know that was a thing."

My partner is in the NYC Department of Education. He will retire with our current level of healthcare benefits. Plus a 70k a year pension and he's socking money away in a union-secured investment fund with a guaranteed 7% return. Once he leaves, he'll have just over one million in it. That plus the healthcare package is our safety net. The moment he's done (5 years) we will scurry out of NYC to the Hudson Valley to Kingston or around Rhinebeck.

Given the awful state of healthcare in this country, and how so many people have been fucked over by late-stage capitalism, I am beyond grateful for his union.

There are plenty of cities in the U.S. where the rent costs are below 30% of income, as this map shows. Again, the most important financial decision you can make is where you choose to live. If you have an ordinary job with an ordinary income, you should be living in a low-cost city, not in an extremely expensive metropolis.

[quote]If you have an ordinary job with an ordinary income, you should be living in a low-cost city, not in an extremely expensive metropolis.

What if that’s where the job is?

Sometimes your commuting costs, not to mention the aggravation of the rat race, can make it a wash.

There exists more than one job.

What happened to all those who didn't want to worry about pinching every penny because they might die tomorrow?

Did they die?

Yes, at the request of that Millennial who thinks all boomers ought to retire so he can get a job as a senior welding and non-destructive testing engineer.

R421, No but the wifi sucks under the bridges in LA, so we don't hear from them that much any more.

So for the Roth IRA, suppose you invest $10,000 in a Fidelity account, and then it earns $1000 dividends and appreciation. Then you transfer the $11,000 to Vanguard. Will Vanguard think your contribution is $10,000 or $11,000?

R424, 11k.

Then r425 how am I supposed to know how much I can withdraw? Over 20 or so years I've moved funds in and out of several funds in various different mutual fund companies.

How much you can withdraw for WHAT?

R426, you are supposed to track your contributions over the years. TurboTax asks me for the total sum to date, every year. IIRC, in any event, since your account is over 5 years old, if you are over 59.5, you can withdraw all of the funds at anytime. The principal, and the profit.

in case I lose my job some day, r427.

NOW you tell me, r428.

I'm not sure what you mean by "how much" can you withdraw. There are no limits on withdrawals, just a penalty if you take them before 59 1/2. Are you asking how much you can withdraw to make sure you have enough for the rest of your life? We obviously can't answer that.

I mean how can I figure out the amount of my contributions (from over 5 years ago) and I am under age 59.5. I need to know how much I can withdraw without a penalty in the event that I lose my job before age 59.5 and have problems finding another job.

Call your fund company. They may have been told when you moved the money there, as to the principle.

R431, let us know if calling the fund company helps at all.

I’m in my sixties and manage to save a grand a month with just my pension and SS income. And I pay market rate rent in Brooklyn. Lately I have been thinking about buying a small house or condo in another city. My mortgage would be a lot less than my rent and I would be investing my money instead of leaving it in a savings account accruing thirty cents in interest each month. Also tired of the daily grind of living in New York. But where to go?

Look..Do a monthly budget.How much does it cost you to live month to month? Let's say it costs you about 4,000 a month. You pay for housing,car or transportation, utilities, groceries, and miscellaneous stuff, like dry cleaning, a haircut, maintenance and repairs that might come up unexpectedly. You should have a clothing allowance,a budget for entertainment and recreation.Do you have gym or club memberships? Are you a member of a fraternity or professional group? Do you take prescription medication?etc. if you're 25 or 30 years away from retirement you need to save enough money so that you will be able to have an income that is at least 4,500 to 5,000 a month. One thing you can do, is get yourself an annuity. Go to a legitimate financial planner and find out about annuities and get one.YOu will be very glad you did. Anyone can get one. Even if you only have ten or 15 years until you need it.

annuities ? that's what I was told to stay away from! Only financial planners benefit ($$) from those...from you.

I believe that if you lose your job after age 55, you can take partial yearly withdrawals from your 401K without penalties.

Life sucks when you're poor.

When retirement communities run about a hundred thousand a year, nobody has enough. And people living to 100 and beyond means at some point you will run out of money.

With so many Boomers becoming elderly without any sort of retirement savings, there will have to be some kind of "welfare" and vast, low-income housing facilities to deal with this catastrophe. Social Security (if it survives) will not be enough.

R437 wrong.This happened to my brother-in-law. You have to pay the penalty.

This sire answers a lot of questions posed here. Scroll through it.

Social security has a huge affect on reducing poverty among the elderly.

I’m looking square at retirement in 3 years and only started getting serious about saving a couple of years ago.

My financial adviser did suggest rolling my 401k into an annuity, which isn’t right for everyone. This doubles what I’ll get with social security though. Selling my house and moving south, paying cash or retiring outside the US are viable options.

Even if you’re late to starting savings, you might look at Acorns or Stash to get started. It’s nowhere as intimidating as E*TRADE. You can pull small amounts into savings, like $5 a week. They’re automatically invested into portfolios without having to know intricacies of bonds and stocks.

I looked at Fidelity annuities a while ago. I’m no expert, but this is what I concluded:

They were better suited for investment in a high capital gain tax environment. They offered some tax sheltering or deferring, I forget specifically what. However, with Federal long term capital gains taxes at only 15%*, I think it is better to pay that tax now, than to put the money in the annuity and have it taxed when I start collecting from the annuity in the future, because, I figure, Federal LT capital gains taxes won’t ever go lower than 15%, But they may go higher.

*LT Cap Gain Taxes are more precisely 0% initially, then rises to 15%, and then rises higher, but I’m simplifying.

The other possible advantage to annuities is the type where you contract with a company to pay them a lump sum now, in exchange for a yearly payment back. In this case, you can rely on that income regardless of anything, provided only that the company remains in business. I guess that provides some peace of mind, but it’s not for me.

I think one of the important factors to economic security is being married. It's really hard for a single person to save enough money to retire on. I really takes two incomes to be able to have enough money to live on AND save. We have been together for a long time - but we have many single friends who struggle to stay afloat. I am keenly aware of how fortunate I have been compared with our friends.

The other big factor is luck!! Being lucky to enjoy good health. Being lucky to not lose a job. Being lucky to be born to a certain family with parents who cared about their children, lucky enough to have an college education, lucky to get breaks that were given to you and not others. As Jack Nicholson said in "As Good As It Gets," "Some of us have great stories, pretty stories that take place at lakes with boats and friends and noodle salad. Just no one in this car. But a lot of people, that's their story. Good times, noodle salad. What makes it so hard is not that you had it bad, but that you're that pissed that so many others had it good."

R444, rather than being single, I think kids are what puts a dent in trying to save for retirement. If you have 2-3, you’re spending 250,000 on them before they even get to college. As a single person, I found that I was able to save because I didn’t have to support kids. I also bought a house with a 15-year mortgage and paid it off in 7 years. It’s a twin rancher, so it’s no McMansion, but once I paid it off, I was able to put quite a lot of money away.

I always say, once you have kids, you will never have enough money, ever again.

(Simply because there is always someone you love to give money away to)

Any funds to recommend? Is the market gonna crash ?