How do they live?
Old people who don’t have pensions
|by Anonymous||reply 357||15 hours ago|
social security, savings and help from others?....
|by Anonymous||reply 1||06/04/2021|
Kindness of strangers
|by Anonymous||reply 2||06/04/2021|
The vast majority of older people do not have pensions. Certainly less than did prior generations of older people.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||06/04/2021|
Social security and interest from investments?
|by Anonymous||reply 4||06/04/2021|
My pension is shit, thank god for social security and my investments.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||06/04/2021|
I don't have a pension, but I have both 401K and Roth IRAs, as well as a lot of cash I've invested in mutual funds. I still haven't filed for Social Security, but I'll be doing that soon. I've only been an hourly worker my whole life, but I had my parents' example of living frugally and saving a percentage of every paycheck.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||06/04/2021|
|by Anonymous||reply 7||06/04/2021|
Who has pensions in the U.S, still? I'm surprised how many Americans (seemingly( mention them here, but DL is a bit retrograde in some things.
For the few people I know of not retired who have U.S. pensions, they were intended as a supplemental rather than a primary source of retirement income.
[quote]Given that less than 13 percent of Americans have pensions — though as recently as 25 years ago, that figure was 38 percent — and, for millions of U.S. workers, "the grand 401(k) experiment has been a failure," how will seniors cope? (2017)
|by Anonymous||reply 8||06/04/2021|
|by Anonymous||reply 9||06/04/2021|
Other than government and blue collar/union workers, OP, few people have pensions in 2021.
Most white collar workers don't
|by Anonymous||reply 10||06/04/2021|
And many current government workers are not eligible for pensions. In Michigan, that's true of those who were hired by the state beginning in the late '90s.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||06/04/2021|
Social security and government cheese.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||06/04/2021|
The 401k scam to get more people in the stock market. We'll contribute a lousy single percent of your salary (we'll MATCH what you're putting in!) each year to your retirement fund.
On the other hand, some of the city and government pension plans are fucking insane and over generous. It's literally bankrupting many cities.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||06/04/2021|
Well, once you turn 75 with no pension, since the paper route option is no longer viable there's always the midnight shift at the 7-11.
...and then you die.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||06/04/2021|
|by Anonymous||reply 15||06/04/2021|
[quote] Social security and interest from investments?
That's what I'm doing.
But I have friends in their 70s, a straight married couple who live in a fully paid-off house but have no savings or investments and have managed to run up their credit cards on stupid shit and are now forced to sell their house and move to an apartment in order to get out of debt. One hopes they can somehow manage to make ends meet going forward.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||06/04/2021|
|by Anonymous||reply 17||06/04/2021|
How do we survive?
|by Anonymous||reply 18||06/04/2021|
Does anyone or everyone believe in those lists that say how much at each age 40, 50, 60, 70 you are supposed to have for your retirement? including money everywhere (savings, social security, bank accounts, etc.)....
|by Anonymous||reply 19||06/04/2021|
[quote] and are now forced to sell their house and move to an apartment in order to get out of debt.
You mean their two million dollar homes that Dataloungers brag about? Hard to feel sorry for them, R16.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||06/04/2021|
Hardly, R20. They live in Flyoverstan and will be lucky to get 250k
|by Anonymous||reply 21||06/04/2021|
R19 - those articles are almost always written by people who work in investment banking and use it as a way to have people invest more in Wall Street. Most of those numbers are fantasy for the average person and are skewed by their own investment banking experience or NYC life.
Like they say a 30 year old should have between $50k to $100k saved. Really? They've been working for 8 years at some of the lowest salaries they're going to have in life with housing at its most expensive. They're supposed to have saved $500/month minimum since they started working? And this doesn't include saving for a house, wedding, or student loans?
It's fucking fantasy world and it shows how out of touch most of these investment types are.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||06/04/2021|
R19: By themselves they are not so useful except in the very broadest sense to suggest that at age 60, for example, you should have savings of 9x your current salary. If instead of that multiple you have 1.5x or 13x then it reliably tells you that you're in trouble in one case and needn't worry in the other.
Another guideline suggests that at 60 you should have saved 15x your annual expenses, with a goal of 25x annual expenses at retirement.
There are calculators to tell you how long your savings and projected retirement income will last - these range from very crude to very detailed and the results vary widely accordingly. Most, for example, use a life expectancy of 35 years after retirement at the age at which you can collect full Social Security benefits (age102 or 105 for most Americans. Most also ignore the value you may have in your home.
They are all guides to give a rough estimate if your standing and may turn heavily in assumptions that for you are very different than in the model.
For me they are useful when you explore with a wide range if them and start to understand the key factors that will come together for your situation. With that you start to understand where you are and the things you can do about improving things.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||06/04/2021|
I don’t have a pension, but I have 1.6 million in my 401K and another 3.5 million in investments. My house is paid for , and I have no debt.
I think I ‘ll be just fine..
|by Anonymous||reply 24||06/04/2021|
Everybody living on Social Security, without any other income, will have to move to flyoverland, where the $ goes much further.
There's also collective action of some sort, but we seem to have lost our appetite for those kinds of remedies.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||06/04/2021|
Sorry, meant Flyoverstan. ^^^^
|by Anonymous||reply 26||06/04/2021|
Cue all the DLers to post about their multimillion $ IRA on top of their multimillion $ properties. Maybe they should shut the fuck up and go read the Once poor, Always Poor thread and realize many DLers are extremely modest.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||06/04/2021|
Most Americans who don't save will be fucked - and not in a good way.
They will eat cat food.
I think there will be a HUGE uptick in elderly suicides in 20 - 30 years (or less) because elderly poverty and the insanity of current inflation is going to leave a lot of people broke.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||06/04/2021|
Social Security IS a pension. What you're talking about is employer-sponsored pensions.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||06/04/2021|
Civil servants have generous pensions.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||06/04/2021|
We would let them eat cake, but we ate it already.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||06/04/2021|
|by Anonymous||reply 32||06/04/2021|
It’s such a huge issue - but mainly affecting Gen X and later. Like they said, 25 years ago, almost 40% had it and now it is only 13%. We are hitting the wall of people who were told the 401k was a retirement “plan” - when it is really just a way to say “you’re on your own - good luck with that”.
The fraud and failure of the 401k scam perpetrated by Republicans in the 80s is coming home to roost. While it’s easy to believe everyone else has millions saved based on reading DL - these hard cold numbers tell the truth - most people have next to nothing. We will survive - it may not be pretty or luxurious but we will get by.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||06/04/2021|
R29 Exactly. The fact that folks don't even get this is indicative of how the "job creator class" (the 1% who mostly inherited capital) has successfully changed understandings in the Public Sphere. Private employers used to accept a certain responsibility to longterm employees. It was a characteristic of a quality company. Then MBAs and spreadsheet bottom lines and stockholders convinced the public that they were "on their own" - 401k tickets in the casino that stock and financial markets became. The Casino owners made a fortune... (capital accruing to capital if the capital is large enough). The Reagan Revolution... that and trickle down economics and the death of collective bargaining devastated the middle class. And "oh those poor Gen X, Millennials and Gen Zers" is the result.
I have a pension that allows me to live pretty much as I did when I was working. This should be the norm, not the exception.
May all sentient beings be relieved of suffering.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||06/04/2021|
At age 55, my father retired with a full pension and lifelong health insurance from his company. He started working there at age 19 with no college degree and worked his way up from sweeping floors to managing a major department. He also invested wisely, so he could get out after 35 years and be set for the rest of his life. He didn't have to apply for social security and Medicare until age 65, so he got his full benefit there, too.
He bought a house as a newlywed, paid it off in 20 years, and also benefitted from living in an area with low property taxes. My mother didn't even work full time for most of my childhood--she didn't need to. They put both of their kids through college and bought both me and my brother cars when we turned 20.
Mom and Dad are in their 80s now and still flush with cash. Their kind of story doesn't happen anymore.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||06/04/2021|
^^ [quote]Their kind of story doesn't happen anymore
Because we have accepted the argument it can't. Even those who would benefit from pensions (and affordable housing, and healthcare) have been convinced it's no longer possible.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||06/04/2021|
Of course it's not possible when the 1% suck up all of the wealth. I read the other day that Bezos is set to be the first trillionaire: You don't build that kind of fortune unless you are sucking the blood out of your employees at every turn.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||06/04/2021|
R37 Amazon's market value is now more than the GDP of Australia. That is what "we" have let happen.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||06/04/2021|
In my mid 50's, haven't worked like i really need to in years, my last full time permanent job was nearly a decade ago and that was downsized and i was let go after only 4 months... i've taken care of my elderly parents and their dog living with them for more years than i want to discuss....
I still owe 50 thousand in school loans and i have only 5000 to my name! no 401k, no pension, no emergency fund, etc....my social security right now? if i retire when i'm 70, would only be a bit over 1000 dollars a month and i suspect that is NOT taking out for Medicare!....
SO i'm trying to get my parents to give me the grand total of around 400 thousand when they pass since THAT is my 401k, that is my retirement, that is my social security, etc!... My other siblings would be left with around 40 thousand each. They all have husbands, wives, jobs, homes, etc...
400 thousand to 40 thousand sounds like a huge difference! But I think I deserve it, PLUS, the fact that "how much would I have made if i had been working like i should have for over 10 years?!"... Never mind, when i do start looking for work (when the dog passes away as he is elderly) how much money and what kind of great well paying job am I going to get at my age?..
|by Anonymous||reply 39||06/05/2021|
r13 401K is not a scam and you don't have to invest in the market - you can invest in tbills.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||06/05/2021|
[quote]401K is not a scam and you don't have to invest in the market - you can invest in tbills.
In which case you won't even keep up with inflation.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||06/05/2021|
OP, do you have a pension? How old are you and what do you do/where do you work?
|by Anonymous||reply 42||06/05/2021|
Costco catfood and washable cloth Depends.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||06/05/2021|
I am very fortunate. I worked as a teacher and administrator in New Jersey for 35 years and was able to retire at 56. My pension is 78,000 per year. In order to secure that for myself, I would had to have saved much more than I was able to. I also have lifetime health benefits. I worked as a consultant for ten years after retirement, then claimed social security benefits. Monthly net income now is about 7,000 total. In addition I have 401k savings, which I have not touched. I am living very comfortably. I am grateful.
True, the days of securing this for oneself are gone. Teachers now are paying for health care, and being moved to a hybrid system of retirement benefits and individual savings plans. When I was working, I had platinum level health insurance, vision, and dental insurance as part of my contract. We also had several employee/employer investment options.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||06/05/2021|
That's what you think, r39!
|by Anonymous||reply 45||06/05/2021|
In my mom's case, it's HUD housing and Medicaid. That's how she lives on $1,000 SS monthly. It's not great but both those programs provide a floor of stability. She was recently in a minor accident and was taken to the ER out of precaution. Health-wise, she was fine but then we started to freak out about the hospital bills. We have since found out her ER trip will be entirely/largely covered by Medicare and Medicaid. Lesson learned seems to be you're better off being indigent and qualifying for social welfare programs rather than scraping by on an income just above the poverty level.
In short, to retire in the US, you either have to either be at least upper middle class or be poverty-stricken (so you qualify for comprehensive social welfare programs).
|by Anonymous||reply 46||06/05/2021|
R44, most people don't realize how powerful a pension is. To generate 78K in annual income, you would need about $2M in an investment portfolio. How many people are going to retire with $2M in investments?
I worked in education in the first 5 years of my career. Every year I'm closer to retirement, the more I regret not sticking with education. I left to pursue a masters and now work in the corporate world. Sure I make $120K, but after years of saving and investing diligently, I just crossed the $1M mark. I know I'm incredibly fortunate. But...a $1M portfolio generates about 40K in annual income. It would take another 10 years for that 1M to grow to 2M to generate 78K in income. That's when you realize the compensation between public servants and lower level corporate bee workers (like I am) doesn't really favor the latter all that much. In the long term and for retirement, you're likely better off going the public servant route. I turned down so many public service job careers over the years.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||06/05/2021|
“Mutual aid” from Antifa!
|by Anonymous||reply 48||06/05/2021|
Trans grannies want your cash too
|by Anonymous||reply 49||06/05/2021|
My parents received a little of 700 per month in SS, this was back in the late 80’s. They received no government help. I don’t know how they did it. I did send my Mom money each month. My Mom never once complained. I feel guilty now. I retired at 51. Have a nice home and live fairly easily. I am 65 now. It still pisses me off that my parents, quietly struggled.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||06/05/2021|
I’m an old. I have a pension for when I retire, social security benefits, 401k (small) and I work full time. I’m actually in the best financial shape of my life as long as I keep working.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||06/05/2021|
I thought this thread was "old people who don't have penises" and I was very intrigued by the number of replies
|by Anonymous||reply 52||06/05/2021|
R50: Just from curiosity, that SS monthly payment of a little over $700 in 1987, for example, would be about $1700 in today's money.
One thing that may have contributed somewhat to the value of that small sum in the late 1980s (about the same time my parents retired) was a certain preparedness among middle class people. In some respects they had some greater sense of financial security that stemmed from a more predictable state of financial stability. The assumptions of that period, in retrospect at least, carried some weight against the less predictable financial future of people whose sole retirement income in in SS payments.
It was a more common expectation that a mortgage would be paid off by retirement, that any outstanding loans/debts would have been paid off.
The house you owned was seen as the security of a place to live — and less a bank from which to draw series of home equity loans. Reverse mortgages and allied products date to1961, and were somewhat popular in the 1980s but became especially popular from the 1990s and beyond, again undercutting the security of a wholly owned home with financial entanglements meant to fund long-term care, etc. The idea of breaking off pieces of your own gingerbread house and eating them (and the consequences of that) hadn't fully taken hold in the late 1980s.
That adult children would be fully providing for themselves by the time of your retirement.
That health care costs and their trajectory was somewhat less a concern (the link shows that the average American household spent $5000 per family member on healthcare in 2019, and $2500 in 1984 (figures inflation-adjusted.)
|by Anonymous||reply 53||06/05/2021|
As an aside, I’m always amazed at the cutesy names people give to the cows and other animals they raise and confine just to breed for slaughter:
Daisy, Bossie, Bessie, Pamela…
|by Anonymous||reply 54||06/05/2021|
R54 Our family had a pet cow we called MariLou. Slaughtered her and ate well for a month!
|by Anonymous||reply 55||06/05/2021|
An artist never retires.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||06/05/2021|
R55 A pet? I don’t think so. I don’t understand the cute name, since the cow was just a inanimate thing to you. Why not just call her “Cow?” Or “dinner?”
People are weird.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||06/05/2021|
Well, OP, for me it is long-con grifts and some big contract jobs.
I make a lot more now than when I was in the normies' work force. And no taxes.
|by Anonymous||reply 58||06/05/2021|
My retirement plan is to wait for at least one of my parents to pass away. Both of them retired the same year *their* remaining parent died, so I’d just be continuing a family tradition.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||06/05/2021|
I dunno what they do. Certainly not live on either coast.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||06/05/2021|
God Bless AT&T.
I first worked for AT&T (before divestiture) as a part time worker (at one of the local Bell companies) during high school and college. Later on in my career, I worked for AT&T Bell Labs and when I started with them, the HR team kindly reminded me that they could bridge my service to my earlier AT&T service. That action, which I would never have thought of myself, gave me a longer number of years of service, which meant that my pension would be larger when I hit age 65.
During my main career years (other places as well), when my salary was high, I bought a house with a 30 year mortgage. While I recognized I was in my peak earning years, I added additional money to be applied to the remaining principal on my mortgage almost every month. The result was that the house was paid off long before the 30 year mark.
When I retired, I had some money in my 401K (I should have taken advantage of it much, much sooner), but my home was paid off and I had no big debts. My Social Security plus my AT&T pension, arrives monthly.
I have been lucky.
Some years back, AT&T presented the opportunity to accept a lump sum payment instead of the monthly pension. I decided to stick with the monthly payment. I just felt that it would make me more secure. Only after I die will it be known if I made to right choice.
When I read the frequent DL threads about all those renting in NYC for exorbitant costs, I can't help wondering if those people are considering at all if those paid out rentals are the right move for their future financial situation.
One last thing. When I worked for Bell Labs, they had a monthly newsletter for the entire company. On the back page were listed the names of former employees who had recently died. Along with their names was listed their date of retirement. I loved to see how many people who had retired long before, some as far back as the 1940s! And I would smile to think of those decades of reliable AT&T pensions that supported those people.
AT&T was a great company and I remain grateful every month when that pension payment arrives.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||06/05/2021|
[quote] It would take another 10 years for that 1M to grow to 2M to generate 78K in income. That's when you realize the compensation between public servants and lower level corporate bee workers (like I am) doesn't really favor the latter all that much
And guess who's subsidizing R44's 78,000 a year pension and retirement at age 56? You are, R47. Along with other worker bees. No wonder the cities are going broke.
|by Anonymous||reply 62||06/06/2021|
My company has provided pensions for all salaried employees hired before 2004. As of 2019, we now have the option to take a lump sum or receive monthly payments from the pension fund. I have a few years until I retire, but I am already thinking about which option would be the best for me.
|by Anonymous||reply 63||06/06/2021|
My pension was part of the contractual obligation on the part of the state of New Jersey. I contributed a portion of my salary every year while I worked. By 32, I had earned both a master's degree and doctorate, but I was working for 20 years before I made more than 40,000. My friends, few who had a master's or doctorate, were making much more than I, both at the beginning and throughout their careers. So, the state got a highly educated employee for low wages. The promised pension and future benefits were deferred compensation. New Jersey is currently highest rated state for education. So, not a bad deal.
Our state's pension issues are now due to the practice of the last 20 years or more of governors deferring revenues due to the fund, and even borrowing many millions from the once robust fund, refusing to pay it back. In addition, republican governors (Christie) directed pension fund investments through a hedge fund which charged exorbitant management fees, then went bust. The monies were not invested according to prudent guidelines. Guess what? No redress for what was lost or their fees. Had the fund been untouched, and properly managed, there would be no issue about "subsidizing".
I do understand that those who do not have pensions look at pensioners with resentment and envy. That doesn't make educator's pensions unfair. In New Jersey, one's pension is based on a percentage of the average of ones' five highest years salary. The average pension in New Jersey is about 40,000. Higher pensions reflect administrative positions and advanced degrees.
I know tl:dr, but complaints such as R62 posed are common but incorrect.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||06/06/2021|
Popping those dentures out and gummin cock.
|by Anonymous||reply 65||06/06/2021|
R65 is what brings me back to the DL whenever I swear it off!
|by Anonymous||reply 66||06/06/2021|
[quote] The vast majority of older people do not have pensions. Certainly less than did prior generations of older people.
I would say it's only been the last 5-8 years that a significant portion of the retirement age population does not have a pension. Anyone who was in the workforce prior to 1995 likely has a pension.
|by Anonymous||reply 67||06/06/2021|
[quote] Does anyone or everyone believe in those lists that say how much at each age 40, 50, 60, 70 you are supposed to have for your retirement? including money everywhere (savings, social security, bank accounts, etc.)....
No. Those metrics are created by financial services companies to scare consumers into investing.
|by Anonymous||reply 68||06/06/2021|
Another thing that folks don't understand about private pensions (as they were commonly structured in the past), contractually employee compensation was reduced so employers could pay pensions to retirees. It wasn't just a "gift" by well-intended employers.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||06/06/2021|
[quote] Had the fund been untouched, and properly managed, there would be no issue about "subsidizing".
Understood, r64. However, if you'd worked for a private employer and it f*cked up it's pension plan there'd be no "subsidizing" of those losses by taxpayers. Same thing is happening with teacher's pensions in Illinois and elsewhere. The Pension Fund is no longer adequate to pay the fixed benefits year after year (with increase for inflation) without new money from the State.
Also, the way those pensions work, you probably have received more benefits than you ever paid in after the 7th year of retirement. I do envy your position but do not begrudge you the benefit of your bargain. However, I think you recognize that you are in a privileged class of pensioner if your benefits are subsidized by current taxpayers.
|by Anonymous||reply 70||06/06/2021|
We are so easily manipulated into thinking what is and isn't possible. We invoke "management" of pension funding - management in the unbalanced financial sector - as some kind of absolute standard to determine how to use resources.
Marginal tax rate for the wealthy under Eisenhower - 90%. Current marginal tax rate - 37%. Jeff Bezos will soon be the first human whose personal wealth will exceed $1 trillion.
|by Anonymous||reply 71||06/06/2021|
R62, public service jobs generally pay less than private sector jobs. The pension and benefits are the tradeoff. I'm saying the worst of both worlds are folks who go into the private sector, make a decent living but not move up enough for the big bucks AND then not get the pension and benefits like the public sector worker bee. I make more money in the private sector but have come to realize it's not significantly enough to offset the loss of a pension and benefits if I had stayed in education or gone into public service. My grad degree was geared towards federal sector. I made more money than my grad school classmates initially but when you move up in the federal government, you can get salaries north of $125-175K. So after many years, friends working for the US government make more money AND have better benefits. Granted a traditional pension is no longer offered.
Friends who make 80K teaching and moan about it...in 10-15 years, they'll surpass me when they retire with a full pension and healthcare. Of course, I can mitigate it by making a lot more money but as a self-recognized corporate drone, the odds are I'm at my salary peak of 120K. I'm just trying to hang on for 10 more years and hoping all the years of saving and investing will result in a comfortable retirement.
|by Anonymous||reply 72||06/06/2021|
I retired after 37 years as a Federal employee (under the old retirement system, which only applies to people hired before 1984.) I now get around 71% of my "high-3" salary for life, with cost-of-living increases every year. When I retired 10 years ago, my pension was just under $100K/year; now it's around $108K. My net monthly payment (after deductions for taxes and health insurance) is over $6500/mo. I don't get Social Security, but I have over $400K in the government 401(k)-equivalent that I haven't touched yet. My house is paid for, and my living expenses are low. Frankly, I now realize I could've retired earlier.
That said -- I get really annoyed with people who begrudge me my pension. I gave up a LOT working for the government vs. the private sector. Other people made different choices. I wanted a job with security and stability, and good benefits. Other people went for immediate gratification in the form of higher salaries, better perks, etc. It's a trade-off.
|by Anonymous||reply 73||06/06/2021|
R73 Thanks for that. My circumstance is similar. When folks who didn't work in a context that promised them a pension my response often is, "don't resent my pension, you should organize and bargain for one of your own."
Many people just won't accept that some people who have consider responsibilities in the public sectors make far less than those with similar scale of responsibilities in the private sector. Bargaining compensation packages are always lower in order to fund pensions.
|by Anonymous||reply 74||06/06/2021|
It sounds like mostly millionaires replying in this thread. The ones OP is looking for, the ones without pensions or millions in other retirement accounts or kids to take care of them are either living in squalor, or possibly chose to exit with their dignity in tact.
|by Anonymous||reply 75||06/06/2021|
Garbage can food and cardbpard bpxes to sleep in.
|by Anonymous||reply 76||06/06/2021|
Can someone please explain to me why the 401K system is only a ploy from financial businesses to make money? I agree it’s part of it, but its also a great way to put money away for retirement if you don’t have a pension. How else does one prepare for retirement in that scenario? You have to put money away somehow, and doing it tax-free and have it grow seems like a win-win.
|by Anonymous||reply 77||06/06/2021|
my mom was a school teacher and had a pension; she 'went out at' (retired) 70%; she could have gotten more if she'd stayed a few more years but I recall she retired at 69...most people retire at 65.
My brother who's smart with money couldn't believe she just got this check every month until she died.
She had savings too; she left myself and my siblings some...I'm praying I don't go through it; I'm at the age now where I'm going to start being smarter about money. I have to be.
I have a 401K that continues to grow; savings, I'll get social security...don't want to rush into the grave but am hoping I don't live as long as she did because a) I'm alone b) I'll run out of money.
|by Anonymous||reply 78||06/06/2021|
I compulsively save money because my dad grew up poor and transferred his insecurity to me. I'm glad I elected to start a 401K 22 years ago. BUT...lots of young people don't understand the importance of opening up a 401k at their work; they need their full paycheck to afford their rent. And some don't think to do it until decades later.
But a 401k isn't always a lifesaver. My aunt worked a low-paying desk job at the same company for 20 years, and she contributed regularly to her 401k. It wasn't enough money to make her rich, but it was going to make her life comfortable for a few years after she retired. (Her tiny house was paid for.) But then she had some major health issues, and she was forced to retire early. Unfortunately, that happened in 2008/2009 right after the stock market crashed. Her 401ks savings were cut in half. Now she can't even afford to replace the stove in her house.
|by Anonymous||reply 79||06/06/2021|
They sell hot plates at Dollar General.
|by Anonymous||reply 80||06/06/2021|
R77, it’s possible they were referring to one or both of the following:
1) The elimination of pensions is a really shitty assumption from the start. It should have been unacceptable, but it was accepted by a brain-washed populace.
2) Then private investment firms were allowed to manage 401k accounts. You’re taking this to have been some saving grace. But why not a government agency who wouldn’t make profit? It’s just another sad step toward privatizing people’s well-being.
|by Anonymous||reply 81||06/06/2021|
This thread turned into a huge humblebrag. "Don't hate me because my pension is beautiful."
|by Anonymous||reply 82||06/06/2021|
[quote] Social security and government cheese.
Cheese? What state do you live in?
|by Anonymous||reply 83||06/06/2021|
[quote] "Don't hate me because my pension is beautiful."
For me it's more like "don't hate me because I made different choices than you." That's assuming, of course, that we had similar options in life.
|by Anonymous||reply 84||06/06/2021|
Well, R84, most jobs don't offer pensions. Consider yourself privileged. If you want to brag about your privilege, then go ahead.
|by Anonymous||reply 85||06/06/2021|
The problem with 401k is that YOU have to decide what to invest in. Not everybody is a Wall Street Whiz.
|by Anonymous||reply 86||06/06/2021|
Not everyone can get a government job. I have a Masters degree. I work for a private company, and I make less money than most teachers and police officers my age. But I'll pay for their retirement anyway. I guess that's fair somehow.
|by Anonymous||reply 87||06/06/2021|
every joyous, ever gay, happy, undeserving A
|by Anonymous||reply 88||06/06/2021|
I don't begrudge anyone their savings or pensions. Everyone makes choices and some turn out not to be wise. I work in a career I can continue as long as I wish. My savings are almost nothing due to a medical issue that cleaned me out. I prefer to work, and if one day I can't afford a place to live or a lifestyle that's decent I plan on ending it. The public housing options for the elderly are miserable and lots of the tenants move in (secretly) their extended families with teenage hooligans who pick off the elderly in the complex. No thanks. I hope some heart attack or fast virus takes me out before I get to that point, I'm content with the life I led.
|by Anonymous||reply 89||06/06/2021|
R82 No, you aren't hearing the message, I think.
The message: "Pensions used to be a standard expectation of having and holding a good job. Through the 70s and 80s workers were convinced by misinformation about pensions not being sustainable. We need to wake up and challenge this and determine if there are other more equitable solutions."
|by Anonymous||reply 90||06/06/2021|
R89 I don't think social policy should be predicated on "let them just kill themselves if they didn't figure it out." Call me old fashioned.
|by Anonymous||reply 91||06/06/2021|
[quote] Can someone please explain to me why the 401K system is only a ploy from financial businesses to make money? I agree it’s part of it, but its also a great way to put money away for retirement if you don’t have a pension. How else does one prepare for retirement in that scenario? You have to put money away somehow, and doing it tax-free and have it grow seems like a win-win.
401k plans are windfalls for institutional investors and corporations. It ensures huge capital investments in equities and the stock market. The companies that manage the funds reap enormous profits. Corporations that have 401k plans get tax benefits for their matching contributions. However, the reality is that the average middle-class family with 2.5 kids will never be able to save enough in a 401k - or earn enough in investment returns -- to retire and maintain their pre-retirement standard of living. Only high wage earners (125k+ for decades) even stand a chance of having a 401k that could fund a retirement. But those same high wage earners typically have some intergenerational wealth transfers, savings, home equity and other resources that create less reliance on retirement savings.
The whole idea that the average worker needs to save his current wages to provide for retirement is capitalist tyranny.
|by Anonymous||reply 92||06/06/2021|
R92 explains the issue. Capital accrues to capital. Capital builds on capital generationally (Thomas Piketty). And large amounts of capital (e.g. 401k plans) accrue to large amounts of capital (financial institutions and their 'owners').
|by Anonymous||reply 93||06/06/2021|
My grandmother died with more than a million dollars to her name in large part because she could collect her husband's pension - he was a city water employee - for nearly 40 years after he died. She died in the middle of the month and the city almost immediately sent a letter demanding my dad send back half that last pension check.
|by Anonymous||reply 94||06/06/2021|
R92 you’re right, but what else can a person do? I mean practically. Pensions are gone, SS doesn’t cut it, so in those circumstances, what can a working class/middle class person do?
|by Anonymous||reply 95||06/06/2021|
I think it's going to be interesting to see what happens in the next 5-10 years as more boomers retire. As discussed here, many of them don't have the income that their predecessors had, and things like retirement communities, assisted living, memory care, and skilled nursing are not cheap. I really don't see how many people are going to able to afford these things.
|by Anonymous||reply 96||06/06/2021|
Masses of people deciding their own exit might be the only thing that will sway popular opinion toward understanding that basic necessities need to be socialized. There’s no way around it. There’s no free market solution to caring for insane amounts of non-productive humans.
|by Anonymous||reply 97||06/06/2021|
R97 You've a limited idea of "productive" I fear. A grandmother as a presence in her grandchild's life is not production to measure on your spreadsheets.
|by Anonymous||reply 98||06/06/2021|
One problem with Regular IRAs and 401(s) are that when you hit 72, you have to take out RMD (required minimum distributions) every years, which is taxed like regular income, plus depending on your other income, can make some of your Social Security taxable (and if you make quite a bit, could also increase your Medicare payments each month). It's actually better to put money in Roth IRAs or Roth 401ks (or convert to Roths during say, low-income years or when you're not working much), since you don't have to take distributions from them, plus any distributions you take from them is not taxable and doesn't apply to hike your Social Security or Medicare. For example, someone who has $150,000 in 401(k) or a Regular IRA may really only have about $100,000 or so in spending money after taxes, while someone in a Roth IRA or Roth 401(k) has that entire $150,000 as spending money.
|by Anonymous||reply 99||06/06/2021|
R47 Someone who gets about $20,000 per year in Social Security has about the equivalent of a $500,000 pension or annuity, since with 4% withdrawal per $100,000 being considered the prudent rate per year, 5 times that would equal $20,000. Folks haven't been taught to think about Social Security that way, and it's pretty enlightening actually.
|by Anonymous||reply 100||06/06/2021|
Luckily my partner and I don't have to worry about this. We earn a combined $750,000+/year, and we will have a ton in savings and in our retirement plans by the time we reach the age of retirement 18 and 21 years from now, respectively. We both made the correct educational and career choices, so thankfully we won't be in dire straits like so many others.
|by Anonymous||reply 101||06/06/2021|
Well, I live on $800 a month. It's not so bad. I have section 8, food stamps, and Medicare/Medicaid. I don't own a car but live right downtown and can walk everywhere. I eat fine. I live in a studio. My rent is $170 a month and my electric bill is about $20 a month in the spring and fall and about $40 a month during summer and winter. I live in a blue state. Things can really go wrong. I used to have savings and after the crash of '08, I went through my savings and had to finally get ss at 62 to avoid homelessness and then got too sick to work. But it's not like I have to eat cat food.
|by Anonymous||reply 102||06/06/2021|
^^^and the weird thing is I always have at least 20 to 50 dollars left over when I get paid again. I am old and physically incapable of doing much anyway.
|by Anonymous||reply 103||06/06/2021|
Good for you, R101. Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand the purpose of the thread. This thread is about people who won't be able to afford bread in 20 years, and you're talking about all the cake you're going to be eating. Do you have any suggestions to help those of us who didn't have the same opportunities as you? Or are you just here to brag?
|by Anonymous||reply 104||06/06/2021|
There's one solution: legalize euthanasia. The religious folk will be against it. So will all the people who profit off nursing homes.
But once people realize the huge potential market of people who can't afford to live, then lobbyists will make sure it becomes legal.
|by Anonymous||reply 105||06/06/2021|
Having seen a parent in an assisted living, I am adamant about euthanasia. I don’t want to live when I can’t move around and use the can by myself. F that. These days we focus on quantity over quality of life. It’s terrible.
|by Anonymous||reply 106||06/06/2021|
I completely agree with you R106. I have such severe back pain and can't get any pain meds. I want euthanasia, If it was legal I would do it in a New York second.
|by Anonymous||reply 107||06/06/2021|
I'm in favor of legalized euthanasia, not as some type of 'management of the poor' technique but simply as a matter of a right of self-determination. I don't want to live if I'm so sick I can't even enjoy my life anymore. Giving people access to a simple, painless way out when they are miserable and have no reasonably chance of changing that would improve the quality of one's end of life so much better.
|by Anonymous||reply 108||06/06/2021|
R107 it’s a travesty that it isn’t. No one should have to continue to live, especially in pain.
|by Anonymous||reply 109||06/06/2021|
R108 read my mind.
|by Anonymous||reply 110||06/06/2021|
I was visiting my mom the other day at her facility and I could hear an elderly man in his room yelling “Hello! Hello! Hello!” I knew the staff could hear a bit after 30 minutes I went and told them there is a guy calling them. One bored looked aide went in, came out and enlisted that help of two others. They emerged half an hour later with bags of soiled diapers, clothing and sheets.
NO THANK YOU. I am not about that life.
|by Anonymous||reply 111||06/06/2021|
Even people who have pensions have trouble making ends meet if they don’t have savings or own homes. That’s why many move to states which don’t tax retirement income.
|by Anonymous||reply 112||06/06/2021|
I had a friend who was wealthy enough to be able to fly to Switzerland to have an assisted suicide. He had gone blind and was going deaf, and was in his 90s. But is sucks that people without such means don't have access to a compassionate end of life.
|by Anonymous||reply 113||06/06/2021|
[quote] [R97] You've a limited idea of "productive" I fear. A grandmother as a presence in her grandchild's life is not production to measure on your spreadsheets.
Nothing about capitalism takes account of sentiment. Corporations don't even care about their employees. Why would they care about the intangible value of a non-working grandparent to a grandchild? This is exactly what is broken. People cannot retire from the workforce with dignity -- so they overstay their time which makes it harder for younger generations to get a foothold.
|by Anonymous||reply 114||06/06/2021|
Let's look at R101 and R102. That R101 thinks his good fortune is something inherently due him... good choices, hard work.... and doesn't see (I am extrapolating a characterization just for purposes of the argument) that R102 might not have had the same "choices" available to him... is a core problem we have in the 21st century. I suspect R101 thinks there is nothing he could do, he could have done, to make R102's lot different.
Cheers to you, R102... you are a great example of someone seeing reality, and "choosing" to be happy.
|by Anonymous||reply 115||06/06/2021|
Once you legalize euthanasia what's to stop a critical mass of mentally ill but otherwise healthy 30 year olds from doing it?
|by Anonymous||reply 116||06/06/2021|
R114 Hence the international movement to measure Gross National Happiness instead of GNP ... (Bhutan, Finland, et. al.)
The aim for "production" that means growth and expanded use of finite resources has, quite literally, destroyed life on the planet. The planet will be ok, but only after it's killed off its human capitalist blind men.
|by Anonymous||reply 117||06/06/2021|
R116, if they wanted to do it, I'm not sure what the problem is. Ultimately, if people are desperately unhappy, I'm not sure what the value is of keeping them alive by making suicide methods painful or unreliable.
|by Anonymous||reply 118||06/06/2021|
I think assisted suicide will be a part of the Advance Directive conversations that doctors have with their patients. My own thoughts in this area include psilocybin.
|by Anonymous||reply 119||06/06/2021|
Presumably there would be checks to make sure they were 100% sure. In fact, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be allowed to, at least at first. It would only be for terminally ill people who have almost no quality of life left.
|by Anonymous||reply 120||06/06/2021|
You can't do it unless you own a house that is paid off. I was laid off when I was 59, with no pension and was unable to find a job for over a year because of my age. I finally bit the bullet and started applying for government jobs and found a state job. Pay was shit. Management was shit. Place was shit. Job was shit. But had good benefits. I stayed there exactly 5 years to the day, so that I would be fully vested in their measly retirement/pension plan. I now am on Social Security and am living off investments, but still would not be able to do it without the $270 "pension" I now get from that horrible government job. And luckily for me my house is paid off.
|by Anonymous||reply 121||06/06/2021|
R121 A point of information... I get a pension from a "gov't job", and am not able to collect SS. One or the other, not both. My years of paying into SS without getting a benefit now.... is just fine with me.
|by Anonymous||reply 122||06/06/2021|
It is legal in CA for the terminally ill. I told my doc that instead of hospice I wanted a morphine drip. He agreed. It is stated in my advanced directive. I used to work in hospice and my boss would get so mad when the hospital would call us and we would do all the paperwork and then the person was put on a drip. She would do 3 hours of work and not get paid but I used to think *good* that person is out of pain.
|by Anonymous||reply 123||06/06/2021|
How do I live without you, I want to know, How do I breathe without you if you ever go, How do I ever, ever survive, How do I, how do I, oh, how do I live 😩
|by Anonymous||reply 124||06/06/2021|
Almost no one has pensions anymore. 401k, if lucky, and SS.
|by Anonymous||reply 125||06/06/2021|
R125 You didn't read the thread, did you? SS is a pension.
|by Anonymous||reply 126||06/06/2021|
[quite]Luckily my partner and I don't have to worry about this. We earn a combined $750,000+/year, and we will have a ton in savings and in our retirement plans by the time we reach the age of retirement 18 and 21 years from now, respectively.
R101: In your case, I'm puzzled why you allow your age of retirement turn on someone else's definition.
I shouldn't have liked to have waited for my official retirement eligibility date of, say, March 2020 to enjoy enjoy retirement, i.e. 18 months defined by Netflix watching and mask wearing. Most Americans can't risk or pay for a gap in health insurance, or live on savings and investments sooner rather than later, but those who have that option, there are other things that can trip up plans as well.
|by Anonymous||reply 127||06/06/2021|
If anyone in this thread has extra income and would like to give me some, let me know. Thanks!
|by Anonymous||reply 128||06/06/2021|
[quote] the insanity of current inflation
Wake up. It's not the 1970s anymore.
|by Anonymous||reply 129||06/06/2021|
R129 I am pretty much a socialist... with a good pension... and am very worried about the indicators showing inflation coming on strong... unlike anything in decades. Inflation is really destructive to those on pensions.
|by Anonymous||reply 130||06/06/2021|
I just heard that my cousin died yesterday. She was 77, but had been suffering from Lewy body dementia for almost ten years. This was the disease that Robin Williams had, and his prognosis caused him to commit suicide. My cousin was a well-educated, successful woman, who ended up spending the last seven or eight years in a memory care facility. She no longer recognized anyone, and at one point even forgot how to eat. I've told my relatives that if that should ever happen to me, I hope that will have the wherewithal to do myself in before I end up like that.
|by Anonymous||reply 131||06/06/2021|
R131 Very sad. All elderly people should have access to pentobarbital so they can have easy deaths. They shouldnt have to resort to buying it online or traveling to mexico for it. #MakeAssistedSuicideLegal
|by Anonymous||reply 132||06/06/2021|
R40 Better yet, a mix of stock index funds and US Treasury bond index funds that starts from a high percentage of stock funds and gradually changes to a high percentage of bond funds as you age towards retirement. Even easier is a target retirement date fund, which does all that work for you.
|by Anonymous||reply 133||06/06/2021|
R47 Sadly, the old 4% rule that says you can take $40,000 a year from $1 million in retirement (based on William Bengen’s research in the 1990s) is being seriously questioned now by some of the leaders in personal finance research. Bengen did his research when interest rates were much higher. Because of the ultra-low interest rate environment for the last 15+ years (an interest rate bubble perpetuated by the Federal Reserve that may explode and bankrupt the US economy; but that’s a different thread) $30,000 a year may be more realistic now.
|by Anonymous||reply 134||06/06/2021|
R25 Yes, and as more elderly are forced to move from expensive blue states to cheaper red states, the government may become permanently Republican, meaning there will be even less for the subsequent generations. Reagan was the leader of the “Evil Empire,” and like Republicans of today he used projection to distract from what he was doing to the USA.
|by Anonymous||reply 135||06/06/2021|
I love you guys. You gays are my only friends lol
|by Anonymous||reply 136||06/06/2021|
When I’m living in a hole in the wall, eating dog food like that lady on that one Good Times episode, I do honestly hope I’ll still be able to post on DataLounge. A good laugh is pretty valuable.
|by Anonymous||reply 137||06/06/2021|
R61 I believe you made the right choice to NOT cash in your pension, no matter what happens. A pension is a hedge against longevity risk that you transferred to AT&T or its insurance company. AT&T wanted to deleverage its risk so it offered a pension buyout. I believe it’s better to not think about “how much more I could have made,” because investing risk and longevity risk are separate components of financial planning and are not interchangeable.
|by Anonymous||reply 138||06/06/2021|
R61 Also, had you taken the lump-sum payout (which would have been taxable income), your marginal tax rate that year could have been very high, meaning you might have had the equivalent of a 25 to 40% permanent loss of your money.
|by Anonymous||reply 139||06/06/2021|
R63 See my replies (R138 & R139) to R61.
|by Anonymous||reply 140||06/06/2021|
R64 Welcome to government run like a business. Very sorry for what’s happened to your pension.
|by Anonymous||reply 141||06/06/2021|
R70 Yes, governments have privatized gains (such as hiring expensive financial managers of risky assets, who may have been politically and/or financially connected to politicians) and socialized losses. I’m not sure it’s been only Republican politicians that have done that.
|by Anonymous||reply 142||06/06/2021|
R77 401(k) and 403(b) accounts are tax-deferred, not tax-free, unless they are Roth 401(k)s/403(b)s, in which you pay taxes when you make the contribution. Either way 401(k)s/403(b)s are great savings vehicles especially when you use low-cost index funds. The problem with some plans is that employees are limited to investments in which a lot of money goes to investment managers, who grow the money statistically significantly less than in unmanaged index funds. It’s egregiously bad in most K-12 teachers’ 403(b) plans, and the Federal government specifically excludes those teachers from protections named ERISA that employees of private non-profits get for their 403(b) plans. Considering what K-12 teachers go through and how important education is to the future generations, this neglect of teachers by the government disgusts me.
|by Anonymous||reply 143||06/06/2021|
R86 What Wall St doesn’t want you to know is that you could invest in a Target Date Retirement Mutual Fund at a financial institution like Fidelity or Vanguard and do better than 95% of investment managers over your lifetime. In the 401(k)/403(b) world, a number of large employers have lost lawsuits for not permitting or not informing employees that these funds were one way to invest their retirement money. Luckily, due to the growing likelihood of lawsuits, many employers (including my own) make Target Date Retirement Funds the default option for employee participants.
|by Anonymous||reply 144||06/06/2021|
R94 If you die on the last day of a month and are one social security, they can claw back that month’s entire payment from the checking account it was deposited in because you didn’t live the entire month. I oversaw the estates of 5 of my elderly relatives, and it happened nearly every time. When it didn’t happen, it may have been a bureaucratic mistake.
|by Anonymous||reply 145||06/06/2021|
^^on not one
|by Anonymous||reply 146||06/06/2021|
R99 Yes, and Biden and Congress are working on Secure Act 2.0, which would gradually increase the RMD starting age to 75. From what I’ve read, there doesn’t seem to be much opposition to doing that.
|by Anonymous||reply 147||06/06/2021|
R100 Yes, SS is the best inflation-adjusted pension/annuity in the country, particularly for those that can wait until age 70 to begin taking their SS payments. You get a risk-free gain of approximately 8% for each year you don’t start SS after your SS full retirement age. In a world where interest rates are exceedingly low, it’s an astonishingly good deal.
|by Anonymous||reply 148||06/06/2021|
The 8% per year you get for holding off in SS has one risk: that you die before you turn 70. But if you're single, you'll be dead and won't miss the money -- if you live, you'll be getting bigger checks the rest of your life. Of course, there are implications for married (and now gay) couples which are complicated, but worth checking out.
|by Anonymous||reply 149||06/06/2021|
R149. Thank you for mentioning that. There are indeed spousal benefits that can be obtained while one spouse waits until 70. And yes, they are quite complicated, so it could be well worth married couples talking with a financial advisor who is a Social Security expert.
|by Anonymous||reply 150||06/06/2021|
If by "no pensions" you mean less well off to poor elderly... at least here in NYC they continue to work full or part time (on or off the books), live frugally by taking advantage of any and every sort of discount or whatever offered to senior citizens (NYS has a program that freezes rent for regulated units).
They dumpster dive, go to food banks,
|by Anonymous||reply 151||06/07/2021|
Far too many older Americans just cannot or will not wait until FRA, and claim SS benefits soon as they can.
As already stated waiting several years between 62, 66 or whatever until 70 gives the most bang for SS retirement bucks. But some people for various reasons just won't.
During each of the past several recessions or economic upheavals (including 2008 credit crisis and recession that followed), many older people who were let go/down sized just said "fuck it", and filed for SS or coasted along until reached time when they could. They were fed up with looking for work and facing age discrimination and other problems. Result is percentage of workforce that should still be active, isn't...
You're starting to see this with covid-19 fallout. Some close to retirement age have examined things and just don't want to go back to work.
|by Anonymous||reply 152||06/07/2021|
Euthanasia is used. Hospice always keeps that "special" dose in the fridge.
|by Anonymous||reply 153||06/07/2021|
Thank God I'm not an American. People without pensions and people filing for bankruptcy bc of medical bills.
|by Anonymous||reply 154||06/07/2021|
R139 et al. Where are you all getting the idea that a lump sum disbursement from a qualified retirement plan, assuming the participant’s age, length of service, and vesting requirements are met, is taxable?
It is NOT, assuming as any sane (or at least tax-averse) person getting it would that the lump sum amount is rolled it over into an individual retirement account within 60 days of receipt. Where the principal and interest would remain untaxed until withdrawn and the individual pensioner can make their own investment decisions as to how it’s invested.
|by Anonymous||reply 155||06/07/2021|
[quote]Far too many older Americans just cannot or will not wait until FRA, and claim SS benefits soon as they can.
[quote]As already stated waiting several years between 62, 66 or whatever until 70 gives the most bang for SS retirement bucks. But some people for various reasons just won't.
What do you mean by "far too many," R152?
SS is the sole source of income for some retirees; for others it's but one component of their retirement income. For those whose retirement doesn't hinge entirely or too substantially upon SS, what's the problem with retiring early or not holding off as long as possible to collect SS benefits?
Like everyone else, I would have a larger monthly SS payment (by about 8% for each year I delay collecting the benefit up to age 70), but I play to quit work soon, at age 62 or 63 depending on how I feel about it at the time. And once I've stopped work, I'll begin to collect — not postpone — the SS benefits. I will draw from retirement investments as the primary source of my income, and the regular SS payments will hep a bit in stretching out what investment capital I have.
SS payments will be used to stretch my larger retirement income from other sources. Further, my life expectancy should fall within the scope of average. I'm not planning for an exceptionally long life, but were that to somehow change or some other exigency arise I have real estate to draw upon.
I don't see the harm in early retirement or drawing early from one's SS benefits. Your linked article only mentions "many early retirees don’t have the resources for making the jump." Of course they don't; many Americans will have to get to their full retirement age of 67 or 70 to take their SS benefit *and continue to try to keep working* because they absolutely need the income. They do include this statistic showing that for a lot of Americans there's no choice at all, just more years of work:
[quote]Just over half of households with workers aged 55 to 64 have retirement accounts, and their median value is $134,000, a report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities showed.
Surely it's widely understood at some basic level that collecting SS benefits at the earliest opportunity comes with a penalty, and that the longer you delay up to age 70 the higher the monthly benefits you will received. (What is less well known is that each year delayed equals about an 8% gain in monthly benefits when you do begin to collect, and the bigger questions of how much money an individual needs, and how long his resources can be projected to last.)
[quote]Americans expecting to work past age 67 dipped to a low of 32.9% in March, a New York Federal Reserve survey uncovered.
Clearly. People have had a year for reflection, about their lives, their age, their future, their work. Employers are making decisions about returning to traditional work spaces or carrying on with working from home for many office workers; for people of a certain age or resources those decisions push people to say "I'll carry on for a well and see," or "fuck it, I'm done, I've got places to go and things to do before I'm old and hobbled."
|by Anonymous||reply 156||06/07/2021|
Well I have arrived into my retirement years already unemployed for 2 years, enough savings to live for 10 years at the poverty level, support my younger disabled sister, no inheritance to speak of coming…my country offers a pension at 67.5 years so when I qualify for that I will take it immediately. I did everything right, along the way. Bought an investment property, paid off the house as early as possible with the sale of the investment property, saved hard, have lived simply. I often ask myself: how long can I afford to live? The answer is, maybe into my early 70s and then that’s it.
My older sister meanwhile is living the dream. Government pension of 50k, stock dividends, investment accounts all the place, paid for house, wants for nothing. What did I do differently? I worked for a private firm, spent too much on travelling overseas to visit family, and as I said before have taken on the financial responsibility for my younger sister. I didn’t understand the stock market and didn’t try to understand it. So there you go. One example of how choices see us into our final years. I worry every day about how my future will play out (probably miserably) and I have aged too fast with my worries.
|by Anonymous||reply 157||06/07/2021|
R94, my mom was a teacher and she got her check at the END of the month. She died in the first 10 days so they only sent a third or so of that check which went to me.
She wasn't able to love me exactly the way I wanted but I try to focus on little things like that.
And, she was eventually fine with the whole gay thing...I told her once: when you're old, I'm not going to leave you; gay sons stick around. (I did.)
It's funny. Once she realized she'd benefit from my being gay, she looked at it differently. And then even bragged about it when she and her friends were discussing their kids like it was some kind of status symbol.
|by Anonymous||reply 158||06/07/2021|
Does the annual increase in benefits of 8% in SS start from one’s full retirement age, begin on or after your 66th birthday? Or does it begin at 62? If the latter, that would mean your benefits would increase by 64% if you deferred SS until the age of 70.
|by Anonymous||reply 159||06/07/2021|
It's works out to approx. 6% increase each year from 62, then at full retirement age (which falls now between 66 and 67) it increases 8% each year until 70. The 8% increase between 66-67 and 70 is a pretty darn good guaranteed return per year, better than probably any annuity out there that you can buy. Some financial experts suggest if you have retirement accounts and/or other resources, to use some of them if you can delay applying for S.S. so you can get bigger checks by waiting.
|by Anonymous||reply 160||06/07/2021|
R155 Thank you for correcting me. I didn't realize pensions were treated the same way as 401(k)s and 403(b)s in terms of IRA rollovers, but it makes perfect sense. It's probably obvious that I don't have a pension. It also makes me wonder whether the payouts from pensions are generally greater or less than IRA RMDs, i.e, which delays taxation longer.
Sorry about my incorrect answer R61!
|by Anonymous||reply 161||06/07/2021|
R155 I suppose if a particular pension’s payout must start before age 72 (i.e, the starting age for IRA RMDs), the answer to my question in R161 is obvious. What I was wondering more was whether the payout trajectory was likely to be slower with a pension once payments started, but it may not matter because earlier starting payouts from a pension would likely override any subsequent tax benefit from a slower payout trajectory once started.
|by Anonymous||reply 162||06/07/2021|
Pensions are generally annuities which end when you (or your surviving spouse) dies. IRAs are like bank accounts. The money can be passed on to your heirs.
|by Anonymous||reply 163||06/07/2021|
A whole generation of workers without pensions are now turning 65. Retirement will be a shit show
|by Anonymous||reply 164||06/07/2021|
By being huge burdens on everyone.
|by Anonymous||reply 165||06/07/2021|
Sadly, even with the existence of IRAs and 401ks, most have not saved nearly enough to last up to 30 years of retirement. Even those who did save, needed to have invested wisely (Index funds, everyone!!).
There will be lots of Walmart greeters.
|by Anonymous||reply 166||06/07/2021|
I have a pension, IRA, 401k, and will have SS...and I'm STILL freaked out whether I'll have enough to enjoy retirement without worrying about poverty
|by Anonymous||reply 167||06/07/2021|
"There will be lots of Walmart greeters."
Too bad Walmart got rid of their greeters.
|by Anonymous||reply 168||06/07/2021|
Pensions are deferred salary, which means that instead of paying you all your deserved salary now, the company will take part of it and pay it to you during retirement.
To save money, companies stopped paying pensions and said it would help you save for yourself via IRAs and 401Ks and would even match a certain percentage. The problem is even with maximizing the contributions to 401K and IRA, we'll have nowhere near what we need to live many years in retirement without a salary.
The main rule is to save 15-20% of your salary for retirement.
|by Anonymous||reply 169||06/07/2021|
Let's hope there's a demand for elder porn when I retire
|by Anonymous||reply 170||06/07/2021|
[quote] By being huge burdens on everyone.
Sadly that's capitalism. The second you're out of the work force, society doesnt give a crap about you. This is exactly why we were forced to create Medicare and Social Security as private companies just dropped the elderly once they retired.
|by Anonymous||reply 171||06/07/2021|
Watch "Make Way For Tomorrow", directed by Leo McCarey, one of the biggest tear-jerkers ever from 1936 about an older couple because of circumstances have been wiped out financially; they go to live with their children, with tragic results. I wonder if the film might have had a different ending when Social Security came in a few years later. Great film, but have several hankies at the ready.
|by Anonymous||reply 172||06/07/2021|
That film is great, the actors in the lead part are superb. What will happen to the old folks is a perennial theme, almost 90 years later same situation for many seniors. Ungrateful children and selfishness, older than time.
|by Anonymous||reply 173||06/07/2021|
[quote] I wonder if the film might have had a different ending when Social Security came in a few years later.
SS is credited with bringing millions of elderly out of poverty
|by Anonymous||reply 174||06/07/2021|
That film also deals with children who are juggling their own children as well as dealing with their parents, which is still an issue today. Unfortunately, back then there wasn't Social Security (or it was making its way through Congress), as I believe the first checks for Social Security were finally issued around 1940. The issues raised are still relevant, especially how children can be ungrateful and unhelpful after their parents raised them.
|by Anonymous||reply 175||06/07/2021|
Unless things have changed since this piece was written, retirement for a good number of boomers isn't gong to be what many expected.
|by Anonymous||reply 176||06/07/2021|
Low income seniors who meet criteria can also collect SSI on top of Social Security. It isn't much but something.....
|by Anonymous||reply 177||06/07/2021|
Key thing is something many younger or even middle aged persons don't fully understand, Social Security cannot and will not likely be enough to live upon in retirement. At best Social Security will replace about 40% of pre-retirement income. People need to really start thinking about how much they will need to live in retirement long before that event occurs.
For those who are having a difficult time making ends meet in their 50's or early 60's unless there's pots of money stashed away they can't get to yet, but will have access later on, they need to crunch numbers.
This is why you see many start sometime in their 50's or early 60's begin to "down size" or otherwise start making changes in their lives that will affect their finances.
For most Americans the largest retirement savings vehicle is owning a home. Which is fine if you do, but for those that don't they also need to figure out what else (savings, investments, pensions, etc... ) they will have as assets as they reach retirement age.
Of course the big outlier is fact Americans are living longer. Even those who thought they planned well, and on paper they did so, find there is a good chance of outliving whatever nest eggs they have. A pension and other guaranteed payments are good. The stock market being on a tear for nearly a decade or longer has allowed people to build up retirement savings. But for those who don't have any of that, retirement (such as it is) likely won't be very comfortable.
|by Anonymous||reply 178||06/07/2021|
Lol I already had R101 blocked. Probably a Trumper.
|by Anonymous||reply 179||06/07/2021|
[quote]Unless things have changed since this piece was written, retirement for a good number of boomers isn't gong to be what many expected.
R176, the whole nature of expectation about retirement has changed.
Among my parents generation retirement was a countdown, welcomed or feared, but with a relatively fixed date at the end of it. The people who retired early always knew they had plenty of money and will to do; those who didn't realized, too, they they would plug along until some date certain. Children on their own they winded down their financial affairs knowing they would be living on a pension and/or Social Security; they were not buying second homes and taking home equity loans against their principal residence to fund extensive travel and facelifts and experiences; instead they may have swapped their large family house with the smaller house of an adult child, now with children of their own and outgrown their home. Because of that always looming date certain of retirement they had long seen the future coming and adjusted savings as they could do to ease the transition, to leave a buffer for travel and luxuries as they could.
Now retirement is all rather vague. You could do 67, or 70, or 62 to borrow some Social Security milestones; you can change careers at 60 and buy an old Adirondack camp and attempt to run it as a small inn; a mountain bike rental shop in a resort town; you could open the flower shop that old people in TV advertisements seem to favor; you could make artisanal chocolates for fun and profit. Retirement is presented more as options: do what you want to do, when you want to do it. People are allowed encouraged to think that they can be vital members of their workplace into their seventies (never mind that their workplaces may have a different take on this plan, preferring some young, cheap blood with a fresh degree and a willingness to please.)
It's like deciding what you want to major in in college! Only it isn't for many people. The options that are presented in the media are available to the few who have excellent health and excellent finances; for the rest it's not opening up a chic shop of fresh flowers and French antiques in between art galleries and expensive coffee shops, it's feeling lucky to hustle up a few flower arrangements a month in your kitchen for clients who never see your space; or having to stay under the radar at a job you hate and seems increasingly to hate you, hoping you can hold out to 70 or 72 to retire and still not quite sure of your situation after that.
The vague elasticity of retirement dates and retirement options puts people off thinking about their choices and their repercussions so long as they have the idea that they have options. Options for many people are quite few, however, yet everyone keeps telling them that they are in charge of their retirement futures.
|by Anonymous||reply 180||06/07/2021|
For those unfamiliar with Secure Act provisions....
|by Anonymous||reply 181||06/08/2021|
R176, the article says "In fact, the vast majority of Americans have under $1,000 saved and half of all Americans have nothing at all put away for retirement."
Who would have ever predicted that?!!!
|by Anonymous||reply 182||06/08/2021|
I am absolutely obsessed with saving for retirement (Thank you, Suze Orman). It's tough but remember, we will likely live another 30 years after retirement but without any regular salary.
Save 15-20% from each paycheck. That money can go into an IRA and 401K. Invest those in Index funds. Save more if you can in your personal investment account in a discount brokerage like Fidelity or Vanguard. Be prepared to only take out 4% per year in retirement if you want your money to last long. That means, for every $40,000 you take out, you will have to save $1 million.
No wonder no one is prepared for retirement
|by Anonymous||reply 183||06/08/2021|
The concept of retirement is the result of our hyper capitalist system. We haven’t really figured it out. It’s kind of anti-capitalist - because capitalism looks at humans as economic machines. Specially in the US, we haven’t figured out how to weave humanity into capitalism -ex, the Republican platform. And given the reality that capital breeds capital, the issue is becoming more pressing as money concentrates in fewer hands.
We need another New Deal. Amazing that only once in the history of the US have we been successful in creating a “socialist” humanitarian system to offset the ferociousness of pure capitalism. Wonder what it will take to make it happen again - or if we will be manipulated by our overlords into ignoring the glaring disparities and huge population of desperately poor people.
|by Anonymous||reply 184||06/08/2021|
R183, like you, I’ve saved for retirement. I put away at least 15 percent of my salary in 401Ks, saved money traditionally in a bank, and invested in a few properties. But one point—i don’t have any children who will inherit the money I have. I don’t want to leave anything on the table, so the 40k thing per 1 million doesn’t work for me.
|by Anonymous||reply 185||06/08/2021|
[quote]I don’t want to leave anything on the table, so the 40k thing per 1 million doesn’t work for me.
Is the 40K per million guideline specifically meant to leave money behind for heirs?
|by Anonymous||reply 186||06/08/2021|
R186, it's so you don't run out of money before you die.
|by Anonymous||reply 187||06/08/2021|
I don't have children or nieces/nephews either. The plan is to live off of 4% of my savings/investments. At an age when managing finances becomes too much, I'll buy an annuity. That way if I'm doddering, I won't blow my life's savings by being swindled or clueless. The annuity stops when you do so there's nothing left to leave behind. It's basically a buying a pension.
|by Anonymous||reply 188||06/08/2021|
That's what I thought, R187, so I don't understand R185's comment. (But I'm not the best with the intricacies of investing.)
|by Anonymous||reply 189||06/08/2021|
My biggest concern in retirement is healthcare. I am 54 but anticipate being pushed out of the workforce/being made a consultant with no corporate benefits within the next five years.
I will probably leave NY and move to a no income tax state. My home in NU will be paid off in six years so I can pay cash for a cheaper place and invest the rest. If my retirement savings and SS dwindle, I will take out a reverse mortgage and live off that.
My house will be paid off in seven years
|by Anonymous||reply 190||06/08/2021|
R187 under that scenario, you wouldn’t run out of money, but you’d leave a lot on the table. I have no heirs, so I’d want to leave some to charity, but I also want to spend as much as I can.
|by Anonymous||reply 191||06/08/2021|
R190, ACA is based on income. If your income is lower due to underemployment, you'll qualify for cheaper plans. Hopefully the GOP doesn't do stupid things with the ACA before I reach Medicare age.
|by Anonymous||reply 192||06/08/2021|
R191, well, the only way you can spend as much as possible but not all before you die is to know the date of your death. Since that's not really going to happen for many of us, it's live prudently off of 4% and like I mentioned earlier, go with an annuity or similar.
|by Anonymous||reply 193||06/08/2021|
This is America. Pull your own weight.
|by Anonymous||reply 194||06/08/2021|
R189, under the 40k scenario, you don’t touch the principal. All that money is left to your heirs. That’s what I’m referring to. But it’s tricky, for sure. How do you delete the principal in a way where you don’t run out of money before your time.
|by Anonymous||reply 195||06/08/2021|
Almost 200 posts and one of the most significant principles of "life as an old person" hasn't been mentioned. In part because this is a Gay board, and in part because of the harsh cultural realities of our time.
Traditionally children would take care of aging parents. Have them live in the home. Have the grandparents help care for the children. Now, that most of the comments about "parents" on this thread is as source of income FOR the child, not a drain on the extended family's resources (which is one reason that SS was created).
|by Anonymous||reply 196||06/08/2021|
How does an annuity work? I’m curious since I never really considered doing that. How does it ensure you’re not depleting your money, yet fully uses what you have?
|by Anonymous||reply 197||06/08/2021|
Gay men and women should be leaving their money to other gay men and women. Period. Not to the straights or their children, not to charities, but their "family" who may well need it.
|by Anonymous||reply 198||06/08/2021|
Not leaving my money to people I don’t know r198. Sorry but they’re not my family.
|by Anonymous||reply 199||06/08/2021|
R197, "The Strong Case Against Buying Annuities" (Kiplinger.com)
|by Anonymous||reply 200||06/08/2021|
I left California when i retired and moved to a place with a lower cost of living. I have SS plus a government pension. Both total about 1800 a month. I am doing fine. It just seems like there is less to spend money on as i age. Having a partner to split housing expenses with helps too.
|by Anonymous||reply 201||06/08/2021|
R197, google for details but basically, you hand over a lump sum to a financial institution. They calculate how much they can give you annually/monthly and also make a tidy profit. You can buy annuities for a defined period or for a lifetime. For the latter, the financial company will give you an annuity based on actuary data of lifespan. Let's say you give them a million dollars at age 75. They calculate they can give you $7,000 a month and if you die at 85, they come out ahead. If you live past 85, they have to keep paying you the $7k monthly so you now come out ahead.
Of course financial institutions have all of this down to a science and they make sure there is a profit for them. That's why annuities aren't a good idea if you can take care of your own financial affairs. But for those who can't (financial dolts, minors, elderly, etc), they are a stable steady stream of income. If I'm lucky to grow old, I won't care about losing that extra 5-10% off handling my own investments. When I'm 85 and drooling into a sippy cup, I just want to make sure the monthly annuity and SS checks hit my account to pay for the retirement home or nursing care. Sure the annuity company is making money off my life's savings, but I also am protected against being scammed or making foolish financial decisions. If I'm scammed, it will only be whatever is in my bank account from my annuity rather than my entire life's savings.
|by Anonymous||reply 202||06/08/2021|
Some financial books I've read said that if you consider annuities to make sure you research the financial institution to make sure it's solvent and your money will still be there. Some books say to buy smaller annuities at different institutions (especially when interest rates are higher). It's complicated, but the best ones apparently are the immediate-annuities. Social Security is probably the best annuity/pension anyway, with the 8% per year increase from full-retirement age of 66-67 until 70 pretty hard to beat.
|by Anonymous||reply 203||06/08/2021|
If you are looking into an annuity, Vanguard's SPIA is probably the best way to go.
Annuities provide a nice commission to the person that sells it, that's why they are pushed so hard.
|by Anonymous||reply 204||06/08/2021|
R203, that's why I plan to hold off until 70, even though some retirement calculators figure I'd be better off taking SS at age 62. But if I wait until 70, my monthly total would be close to $4K. Even if SS is hit with cuts, I'm calculating 3K monthly would take care of my basic needs. It's a hedge if my investments go down the drain.
|by Anonymous||reply 205||06/08/2021|
My absolute favourite annuity of sorts:
[quote]In 1965, aged 90 and with no heirs left, Calment signed a life estate contract on her apartment with notary public André-François Raffray, selling the property in exchange for a right of occupancy and a monthly revenue of 2,500 francs (€380) until her death. Raffray died in 1995, by which time Calment had received more than double the apartment's value from him, and his family had to continue making payments. Calment commented on the situation by saying, "in life, one sometimes makes bad deals".
To be fair, Calment is the oldest documented human, dying at 122-years-old.
|by Anonymous||reply 206||06/08/2021|
If one is male, 72 this year, makes his first Required Minimum Distribution next year for tax year 2021, and has a $1,000,000 retirement account balance as of 12/31/2021 earning on average 5% each year, the Social Security Actuarial Life Table (which is not the same as life expectancy from birth) number of 26.5 years remaining to live is the basis of his RMD: $39,063. When he's 96, assuming he lives that long, his RMD will be $78,989. Given the potential for inflation over the next two and a half decades, the fact the RMD doubled is nice but hardly going to make him rich. No worries: if he needs it, he can always withdraw more.
Using those same assumptions - that he's alive (very important!) at 96 so he's lived that long, the account earned an average of 5% a year, and he only took the RMD each year - he'd still have $592,909 in his retirement account at the age of 96. The RMD projections I got at retirement said if I do as above and God forbid, lived as long as Mme. Calment, I'd still have about fifteen grand left on account at the age of122. I wouldn't likely know I did, much less know who I am by then, but it's nice to think I'd have a cushion besides the one I'll be sitting on.
But it also calls into question the assumption that anyone lives long enough to enjoy all that money. A little less than 30% of females in the US live to be 90 or older. Only 18% of US males live that long. By contrast, the longevity calculators I've seen (those that ask about family medical history, risk factors, and current diagnoses) have me living about half as long as the SS Actuarial Table does: somewhere between 82 and 83. Yet the odds - from birth in 2017 - of living to 110 are roughly one in a thousand. Why are we using longevity assumptions (and so saving enough to fund retirement) that 999 of us will never see?
We have to save for retirement ourselves, if only because one assumes financing retirement will only get more expensive, relatively speaking, not cheaper. It's usually better to have more of something you need than too little. But given the numbers, do you really need that much more? The supposed need to have a million dollars on account when you retire not only looks pretty excessive for most of us in terms of spending, but will be hard to achieve unless you start saving in your 20's and let's face it: when you're in your 20's you're not thinking about life as a 72 year old, let alone as a 96 year old.
The advantages of saving early and often and a lot are obvious: you will have the money because you will need it. The downside is obvious too: to accomplish this, most of us will need to beggar ourselves to some degree in the present to (theoretically, anyway) live better in the future. It's hard to get people to do that when they have pressing needs today, even as they'll have potential needs twenty to forty years from now.
To say everyone needs a million dollars in order to retire seems like a bit of a stretch.
|by Anonymous||reply 207||06/08/2021|
Financial companies make that $1 million as a marketing strategy to make people really get upset about not having enough. In reality, most people indeed haven't saved enough. But if folks have some multitudes of hundreds of thousands, and wait to not take Social Security for some years beyond 62 (more likely at full retirement age and even better up to age 70), more likely they can do all right without having $1 million in savings. But it's very disheartening that many folks have nothing saved, or in the low thousands. Social Security is supposed to replace about 40% of one's salary (more percentage for lower earner, less for higher earners). If $1 million is supposed to generate $40,000 a year at 4% withdrawal rates (plus Social Security), and if it's not in Roth IRA that amount is taxable, it's more like $30,000 spending money, plus Social Security would be taxed too. Folks have to make an itemized list (ok, dirty word: budget, though you don't have to stick to it), to at least figure out how much they spend now and how much they intend to spend when they stop working. Some things, like regular transportation, work clothes, dry cleaning, go down. Good to read some financial books - I like Jane Bryant Quinn's "How to Make Your Money Last" and books by Jonathan Clements, who used to be the personal finance writer for the "Wall Street Journal" and an oasis of practical, helpful advice within all the financial advertisements and complicated financial bloviating within that newspaper.
|by Anonymous||reply 208||06/08/2021|
Have MS, no family. I live on $700.00 a month. The direction this country seems to be taking has me in fear of disability and medicaid/medicare being taken away. I know I should be saving what little pain medication I get for my exit, but it is difficult to live in pain. I don't want to have to use a rope and a doorknob.
|by Anonymous||reply 209||06/08/2021|
Annuities are scams.
|by Anonymous||reply 210||06/08/2021|
The 4% out for retirement rule isn’t about keeping money on the table. It’s about taking out just enough that you don’t go broke before you hit 90.
It’s not just taking out the interest because who makes 4% in interest. You might make that in the st ok market or you could lose it all, so, when you’ve saved for retirement, don’t leave it all in the stock market, for god sakes
|by Anonymous||reply 211||06/08/2021|
R160 - thanks to you and the others for breaking down the benefit of waiting to take SS until after retirement age and if possible waiting = until age 70. I'm going to be 64 this year and have toyed with the idea of doing SS once I hit retirement age. H owever, I have a small 401k built up (about $250K at present) which might help until 70. I'm really burnt out working full-time, though. Perhaps in a year or so I can negotiate with my employer to shift to part-time while waiting until age 70 to apply for SS. The discussion in this thread is so helpful because I don't have a pension.
|by Anonymous||reply 212||06/08/2021|
R 160 here. You're welcome. Also, the benefit is based on your highest 35 years. If you're making more money now, if you keep working, you could be replacing any years where you didn't work or had low earnings, which would increase your checks. Sign up for a mysocialsecurity account and check your earnings. Also, a good idea if you have your old income tax records to check what you made against what they have on your record. They do make mistakes, and you can challenge them if you have W-2, etc. to send them copies.
|by Anonymous||reply 213||06/08/2021|
R213 - Brilliant, thank you. I have a my social security account but never check it. Need to start doing that regularly.
|by Anonymous||reply 214||06/08/2021|
Am all for 401, IRAs and other such retirement savings plans, but does this country need yet another way to leave vast sums to be inherited tax free?
|by Anonymous||reply 215||06/08/2021|
If money is in regular 401ks or Reg. IRAs, it's not inherited tax-free. The new laws say it has to be taken out by the 10th year after it is inherited (and it's taxable). Roth IRAs and Roth 401k also have to be taken by the 10th year, but yes, that is tax-free, since the money was already taxed. I'm not against that, as this helps a lot more people than just the richest.
|by Anonymous||reply 216||06/08/2021|
QUESTION: so on your my social security account where it shows you at the moment how much you would be getting in social security every month when your 62, 65, 67 and 70, is that amount BEFORE or AFTER amounts taken out for Medicare?
|by Anonymous||reply 217||06/08/2021|
I was just talking about this with my dad while we were looking at very old family photos around 1900. I remarked at the grandmothers living with their kids and my dad said “Well, there was no where else for them to go. Social security didn’t exist until 1935.” My mind was blown.
|by Anonymous||reply 218||06/08/2021|
R217: before. It’s not showing after Medicare amounts because it doesn’t assume everyone takes/gets that.
|by Anonymous||reply 219||06/08/2021|
Social Security & Medicare Tax Rates historical table.
|by Anonymous||reply 220||06/08/2021|
The first Social Security checks didn't go out until 1940.
|by Anonymous||reply 221||06/08/2021|
See link to AARP for answer to your query.
Short answer is what if anything is s deducted from SS checks for Medicare will vary by several factors.
|by Anonymous||reply 222||06/08/2021|
R221 the first one went to Ida Mae Fuller of Brattleboro, Vermont.
|by Anonymous||reply 223||06/08/2021|
"During her lifetime, she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits and paid in $24.75."
|by Anonymous||reply 224||06/08/2021|
She was ahead by the time she got the second check in February.
God love her.
|by Anonymous||reply 225||06/08/2021|
While not mentioned on this thread experts have predicted for some time now the large number of single baby boomers (widowed, divorced, never married) who are also childless is going to force major changes in society.
One thing expected is an increase in "Golden Girls" sort of living situations. That is two or more older single women and men who are not related living together to club expenses and so forth.
Related family members living together as seniors or even middle age happened often enough going back some time, and likely will also grow in future. Siblings and cousins living together again to make finances stretch.
For those who don't have enough income in their senior years, no family, and etc... Then options are going to be slim to grim. Meals on Wheels, home help aid (if on Medicaid or some other local government service this sometimes is covered), religious or other non-profit agencies often making heavy use of volunteers... All will need to be employed somehow to help.
|by Anonymous||reply 226||06/08/2021|
My mother had a lot of money in the bank -- for one person -- but just before she died she had deteriorated to where she was going to need round the clock care in a nursing home.
She had 'long term care' insurance but it wasn't going to cover anything.
I can't believe someday I'll be saying 'God, just take me.'
|by Anonymous||reply 227||06/08/2021|
R204 Vanguard no longer sells annuities to retail clients. There are many types of annuities, and many of them are complex. A key point is that annuities should not be thought of as investments They are a transfer of longevity risk to an insurance company. Immediate and deferred fixed income annuities are the types that do that. Most other types of annuities have an equity market component that in order to provide guaranteed payouts will have to hold back some of the market gains that you would otherwise receive if you invested directly yourself. That's why some advisors suggest thinking about annuities as being completely distinct from equity market investments.
|by Anonymous||reply 228||06/08/2021|
When someone plans to take 4% out of their retirement savings each year, it's important to distinguish between fixed distributions and variable distributions. A fixed distribution withdraws the same dollar amount each year (optionally plus an inflation adjustment each year). If you start with $1 million the day your retire, 4% of that is $40,000. Now you have $960,000 left. Let's say all your money is invested in US treasury bonds, and you earn 2% (not unreasonable for the ultra-low interest rate environment we're in). At the end of the year, you have $979,200 (ignoring tax payments). When you take out $40,000 for year 2 of retirement, you're taking 4.1% out (more if you've allowed yourself an inflation adjustment as most people do), and the percentage will increase every year of retirement until interest rates exceed 4%. Alternatively, let's say you have 100% invested in stocks. The market plunges 50% in your first year of retirement. Now you have $500,000 at the end of year one. When you take out $40,000, it's 8%. You can indeed run out of money before death if losses occur repeatedly, particularly in your early years of retirement (it's called sequence of return risk).
With a variable distribution, you withdraw 4% of the amount you had on December 31st of the preceding year. When you made money that year, you get more to live on the next year. When you lost money, you have to live on less. You will never run out of money using this method of distribution, but in the first example above, you will have to live on less and less each year until interest rates go higher than 4%, and in the second example, you will have to live on 50% less money in year 2 of retirement, which may not be feasible, so then you end up taking more than 4%, and you're doing something between a fixed and a variable distribution.
The answer, unfortunately for most people, is to have saved and invested/earned enough money while you're working to be able to live on appreciably less than 4% in certain years whether you're using fixed or variable distributions. Social security is thankfully not subject to investment or interest rate risk (but remember when GW Bush and some Republicans wanted to privatize SS?). Some people buy a fixed income annuity (not variable; not indexed to the stock market; just fixed income) to supplement SS to cover all necessities. Then the rest (if any) of your financial assets is "gravy" that you use for the nicer things of life.
|by Anonymous||reply 229||06/08/2021|
R216, Yes, it's called the SECURE Act (for anyone that wants to read more about it). Note that spouses, beneficiaries not more than 10 years younger than the deceased, disabled beneficiaries, and some others, are still permitted to stretch the distributions from an inherited IRA or qualified retirement plan over the beneficiary's life expectancy. BTW, SECURE Act 2 is now being worked on by Biden and Congress, and among other things, may gradually raise the first required minimum distribution (RMD) age from 72 to 75.
|by Anonymous||reply 230||06/08/2021|
The *Four-Percent Rule* seems to have a different definition for everyone. It does not leave capital "untouched."
From my understanding it preserves capital -- but for a number of years, not in perpetuity so that you can draw 4% for many decades and still leave your your heirs a cool $1M or wherever you started. In fact they dwindle over time, and will be exhausted completely in not so many years.
[quote]The Four Percent Rule was created using historical data on stock and bond returns over the 50-year period from 1926 to 1976. Before the early 1990s, experts generally considered 5% to be a safe amount for retirees to withdraw each year.
[quote]Skeptical of whether this amount was sufficient, financial advisor William Bengen conducted an exhaustive study of historical returns in 1994, focusing heavily on the severe market downturns of the 1930s and early 1970s. Bengen concluded that, [bold]even during untenable markets, no historical case existed in which a four percent annual withdrawal exhausted a retirement portfolio in less than 33 years.[/bold]
[quote]The Four Percent Rule is intended to make your retirement savings last for 30 years (or more).
[quote]The Four Percent Rule is focused on a traditional, 30-year retirement. So, the rule is valid for those retiring at 65 or older.
[quote]How Long Will $500,000 Last in Retirement? It depends on how much money you withdraw each year. If you have saved $500,000 for retirement and you withdraw $20,000 per year, this amount will last you approximately 25 years.
[quote]Does the 4% Rule Still Work?
[quote]Not only is the Four Percent Rule outdated, but it also doesn't account for changing market conditions. It's important to keep in mind that following the rule doesn't guarantee you won't run short of funds. In addition, the rule was developed when bond interest rates were much higher than they are now.
|by Anonymous||reply 231||06/08/2021|
I think I read somewhere that historically the average stock market return is 5.4%. So if you want to theoretically leave the capital intact at the end, we'd have to allocate some of that to inflation and any tax due. I'd suggest withdrawing 2% but of course nobody can really say for sure what the average inflation and market return will be in the future.
|by Anonymous||reply 232||06/09/2021|
I read this thread title as "Old People who don't have penises" and thought "poor things".
|by Anonymous||reply 233||06/09/2021|
R232 Once one is (nowadays) 72 and must take out the retirement account’s RMD or Required Minimum Distribution each year based on the account’s prior-year-end balance, your suggestion to take out 2% of the account balance annually would result in a penalty equal to 50% of the RMD which at 72 assumes a balance sufficient for another 25 - 30 years of withdrawals. Why would someone take half of what they are required to withdraw anyway and spend it while the money they didn’t withdraw would then go towards paying a penalty? You may want to leave it in the account but the Treasury wants to start taxing it.
There’s a reason they call it a REQUIRED MINIMUM Distribution. You can withdraw as much as you like each year but not less than the amount the Treasury requires which is initially about 4% annually.
Also, during the years 1971 to the present, the S&P 500’s return, including reinvested dividends, has averaged 10.4% annually. V
|by Anonymous||reply 234||06/09/2021|
My husband is a retired union plumber and through the union we will always have full health and prescription insurance for the princely sum of $250 per month, secondary to Medicare. If he predeceases me, I will continue to be covered.
That should not be considered a luxury. Yet here we are.
|by Anonymous||reply 235||06/09/2021|
3/4 of the population will never be able to retire. This is happening in the EU is well, and older people are encouraged to go back to college and learn new skills.
|by Anonymous||reply 236||06/09/2021|
^ “as well”
|by Anonymous||reply 237||06/09/2021|
R234, while you're required to withdraw the RMD from the qualified plan (and thus to pay taxes on it), you aren't required to actually spend it. You can just sock it away in an after tax savings/investment account. While you will be "out" the amount of taxes, you'll still have a chunk of it saved for continued growth or later use. So I don't think R232 was suggesting you leave it in the account and pay half of it in penalties.
|by Anonymous||reply 238||06/09/2021|
If you don't take your social security right away and take a delayed distribution, you get a lot more money. For details go to Social Security.gov. I read and researched for months. When I first retired I claimed on my first husbands more substantial earnings until I qualified for the higher rate on my own. You must research this and also visit the local SS office. I also have a good amount of cash that I touch rarely. My social security covers apt rent with a bit left over. I am very careful with the money I have left. I did the trip to Europe etc while I was still able to travel. I now have RA znd OA, so a trip to the grocery store is way too much.
|by Anonymous||reply 239||06/09/2021|
Social Security won't be around forever. Wait until the last of the boomer generation, born in the mid-1960's, retires. There will not be enough workers earning enough to cover the outlays.
|by Anonymous||reply 240||06/09/2021|
When someone says “I’d suggest withdrawing 2%” and says nothing about the disposition of the withdrawal, not that it would matter how the spent or invested it once withdrawn, I take them at their word, not someone else’s potential hypothetical possibility. The “suggestion” to withdraw 2% annually from a qualified account when a 2% withdrawal will always be less than the RMD will always result in a penalty IN ADDITION to the taxes levied on the insufficient (less than the RMD) amount the recipient did withdraw. And the penalty is not deductible.
The fact one would now have money to sock away is exactly the point: they would have half as much to sock away, taxed or untaxed, because no-one is paying a 50% tax rate on money they withdrew. They’re paying a 50% “tax” the IRS calls a penalty on money they didn’t withdraw.
Example: your RMD is $40,000. You withdraw only $20,000. You now owe the income tax applicable on the $20,000 you took out and a 50% penalty on the $20,000 you were required to withdraw but didn’t withdraw so an additional $10,000. Put another way, take out the $40k and pay taxes on it. The amount you’ll be taxed depends on your total income, but let’s say 20%. You’d have $32,000 left. Take out $20k instead, and for simplicity’s sake say the tax rate is 10%. You’d be left with $18,000. And a $10,000 fine. Take the $40 grand and you have $32,000 to sock away, or 80%. Take the $20 grand and you have $8,000 left, or 40% of the amount withdraw. Nowhere would that make sense.
Uncle wants a taste of the money that has accumulated tax free. He will get it. Why give him more than you have to?
|by Anonymous||reply 241||06/09/2021|
I still call Australia home!
|by Anonymous||reply 242||06/09/2021|
I think Peter Allen would approve and is smiling wherever he is now.
|by Anonymous||reply 243||06/09/2021|
Qantas must be paying the Peter Allen estate a pretty penny.
|by Anonymous||reply 244||06/09/2021|
Fuck! Damn wrong thread.....
Disregard R244, R243 and R242
|by Anonymous||reply 245||06/09/2021|
R241, you must be fun at parties. You assume a ridiculous position by the poster based on a hyper literal interpretation of their words, then you chastise them for it. Any reasonable reader would assume the poster doesn’t want to lose half the RMD to penalties and would just take the RMD and bank anything that exceeded the 2% they intended as a conservative suggestion on spending. You don’t have to be a dick.
|by Anonymous||reply 246||06/09/2021|
I should be clear that I'm not American so I wasn't coming from that perspective either - we don't have RMD here for example.
|by Anonymous||reply 247||06/09/2021|
R239, do you how to find what your SS is at 70? My mom is 69 and she is on my deceased father's SS. She turns 70 later this year. We want to see what HER SS would be at 70. Since it has been growing by 8% the last 4 years, if it is greater than my dad's total, we would switch my mom to her own SS. Problem is I can't find this info on her My SS account. The only data I see is her current SS amount. Is this data we can only find by calling SS administration? Or god forbid, going to a SS office?
|by Anonymous||reply 248||06/09/2021|
I've posted in other threads this chilling fact: a new, common, element in financial planning as people retire is how to restructure student loan debt on a fixed income.
Stop, and consider: people are paying off their student loans with SS dollars. Just this week a report showed that Buffet, Bezos, Zuckerburg, Gates - men approaching $1 trillion in personal wealth... paid, proportionately, virtually no taxes.
We are broken, as a society.
|by Anonymous||reply 249||06/09/2021|
R248 here...I apologize for the abominable post...I'll try again.
Do you know how to find your SS total at age 70? My mom is 69 and she is on my deceased father's SS. When she was 65, her SS was lower so we went with my dad's slightly higher SS. She turns 70 later this year. We want to see what her SS payment would be at age 70. We're hoping it will have grown and surpassed my dad's SS payment total. The problem is that I can't my mom's own SS total on her online MY SS account. I only see her current monthly (from my dad) SS total. Where can I find my mom's own SS payment data? Is it something we have to find out by phone? In writing? A visit to a SS office?
|by Anonymous||reply 250||06/09/2021|
If you start receiving retirement benefits at age: 67, you'll get 108 percent of the monthly benefit because you delayed getting benefits for 12 months. 70, you'll get 132 percent of the monthly benefit because you delayed getting benefits for 48 months.
|by Anonymous||reply 251||06/09/2021|
"That should not be considered a luxury. Yet here we are."
Same. My husband is in the Dept of Ed here in NYC. He has a double master's and could easily have gone the private sector route. But he took lower pay, first at a city job then at the schools. He has two pensions coming to him and we will have medical, dental plus prescription coverage for both us - which will cost us a total two hundred dollars a month.
I'm not bragging. This is how it should be REGARDLESS of employment status. But this country is too fucked up to address what will be a massive crisis in less than a decade when the silver tsunami hits critical mass. Oh that, and homelessness. It's going to triple among baby boomers in the next decade.
America, fuck yeah!
|by Anonymous||reply 252||06/09/2021|
R233 Yes, that’s a hazard of reading financial threads on DL! But your post did generate a joke in my warped mind: On DL, bottoms lose their ass when they go broke, and tops lose their penises.
|by Anonymous||reply 253||06/09/2021|
R245 No worries. If ever a thread could use an entertainment break, it's this one, between my long-winded posts and the sad nature of the topic for many readers.
|by Anonymous||reply 254||06/09/2021|
I plan on taking SS at 62 as I have a 90%+ chance of dying before 75. Delaying SS until late 60s only benefits you if you die after 80. Men tend to die before then. Women are the ones who need to plan for longevity - something biological makes them live longer than men.
I am not wasting one more month than necessary working. Life exists outside work - I plan to maximize it.
|by Anonymous||reply 255||06/09/2021|
While some claim the 4% rule is outdated, other studies shows that, when adjusted for inflation, it still holds.
All it says it that, if you want your money to last for 30 years, you should only take out about 4% per year of your savings.
So whether you retire at age 40, 60, 70, 4% withdrawal per year has a 90% chance of your having money for 30 years.
|by Anonymous||reply 256||06/09/2021|
If you have some retirement accounts and/or other funds to draw on, you can stop working (or work part-time for others), take from those accounts for your bills, and wait some time before starting S.S. and you'll get bigger checks. That's another option.
|by Anonymous||reply 257||06/09/2021|
[quote] I plan on taking SS at 62 as I have a 90%+ chance of dying before 75.
Do you have some terminal disease? Lifespan averages include infant deaths--so, in fact, the longer you live, the longer you will live.
If you make it to 62, you have a strong chance of making it to 75.
|by Anonymous||reply 258||06/09/2021|
R256 To add on, people's asset allocations (how much they have in stocks/bonds/cash) also play a part. Years ago, it was considered good advice for seniors to have mostly bonds, CDs, etc. which was for safety and for income. Nowadays, most CDs, bank accounts, etc. pay less than 1% and bonds might do a few percentage points more, which won't keep up with inflation. So now, many advisors say seniors should keep some percentage in stocks so there will be growth as well to keep ahead of inflation. They're all over the place in what percentage stocks to bonds, but most are saying don't be 100% in either. 100% in bonds/cash might be safe, but you'll earn very little in income. 100% in stock, you'll be in trouble if the market crashes. Somewhere in between -- 50/50% or some variation might actually be more prudent these days.
|by Anonymous||reply 259||06/09/2021|
R259 To decide what stock/bond asset allocation to use, it’s often helpful to first figure out how much loss you can tolerate. Otherwise, many investors panic in a downturn and sell when it would be better in the long term to hold (e.g., February through March 2020). Most investors greatly underperform even the S&P 500 index because they sell low and buy high due to human nature, whereas successful investors do the opposite (buy low and sell high). Table 3 at the link shows the 50-year average returns and various loss measurements of the S&P 500 alone and with mixtures of the S&P 500 and fixed income (treasury bond funds, not corporate bond funds) in 10% increments. The risk of each mixture is shown by the standard deviation of each return and loss measurement. One conclusion from the data is that when you add more fixed income, the percent change decrease in risk is greater than the percent change decrease in gain. The rest of the document shows the data for other portfolios described on the website.
The data are from the Merriman Financial Education Foundation. I have no relationship with it, other than I have been reading and listening to Paul Merriman about personal finance for at least 15 years. He has been retired from being a financial planner for many years now, so he's not selling anything. His information is based on peer-reviewed academic financial research and his own, such as at the link. His teachings have helped me immensely with my investing strategy.
|by Anonymous||reply 260||06/09/2021|
Thanks for that. I also recommend the bogleheads.org forum for some great financial discussions. I've found Jonathan Clements, Jason Zweig, John Bogle (of course) and Jane Bryant Quinn among some of the best financial writers for good, practical advice over the years.
|by Anonymous||reply 261||06/09/2021|
would love to be able (is it possible) to buy stock ina company with i don't know 50 dollars, in a day or two or a week, make 500 to 1000 dollars and then quickly "cash that in that profit" and quit that stock and take the money? i'm stupid though, so i don't know if stocks work that way...
|by Anonymous||reply 262||06/09/2021|
During the high tech runup, I bought some stock for $2 and it quickly ran up to $43 per share, r262. Those were weird times though. To find a stock that goes up tenfold plus in a day or 2 or even a week is pretty unheard of and you will owe short term capital gains.
|by Anonymous||reply 263||06/09/2021|
Hillary Clinton might have some useful pointers for you, R262.
|by Anonymous||reply 264||06/09/2021|
Just put our money in Index Funds. Stop trying to beat the market with any other kind of fund or individual stock. By the time you learn about a hot stock like Game Stop, it's already risen to the point you won't make much money. Unless you're seasoned, you 'll likely leave the money in the hot stock even as it's falling--and you lose alot.
|by Anonymous||reply 265||06/09/2021|
[quote]I am pretty much a socialist... with a good pension... and am very worried about the indicators showing inflation coming on strong... unlike anything in decades. Inflation is really destructive to those on pensions.
The new housing sector is particularly insane at the moment: new construction is up 50-100% over the past 36 months. This is largely due to massive increases in basic lumber prices by the producers, such as Weyerhaeuser, and Georgia-Pacific (i.e. Koch Industries). This is exerting upward pressure on all home and rental prices.
I'm on SS with a smallish income from an annuity, some savings, and I'm getting more worried. Note that the COLA formula which underlies yearly SS adjustments for inflation is not particularly tied to housing, which is wacked.
|by Anonymous||reply 266||06/09/2021|
As with numbers used to measure inflation federal government long stripped out "volatile" housing, food and a few other prices from COLA. Real intent was obvious, to reduce federal exposure to automatic or whatever cost adjustments for a whole host of programs that are index linked.
Those around (even as children) during 1970's may remember stories about seniors or SS eating pet food because they couldn't afford anything better. The stagflation of 1970's hit all Americans hard, but those on fixed incomes got an extra helping of financial pain. Congress finally did something by enacting Cost Of Living Adjustments (COLA) as part of Social Security which helped. That being said COLA really hasn't kept up with true costs of living faced by seniors. Since it doesn't cover housing, food, healthcare and other things those on SS must pay for , it tends to lag behind curve.
This is one reason why democrats always insist or otherwise manage to have those on SS get a share of any money that's on the table. Those getting SS were largely eligible for all three stimulus checks for instance.
Reforming COLA should be part of overall Social Security reform, but many are loathe to open that floor up because who knows what may come out of the process. If GOP has anything to say whatever wins seniors get in COLA calculations will be offset by reductions elsewhere in the program in great name of fiscal stability.
|by Anonymous||reply 267||06/09/2021|
I'm sort of surprised--gay men without children should be in much better shape than people with kids.
The upper middle classes spend something like a million dollars to raise two kids (much of that is paying for college, which in 2021, is around $300K/kid for four years.)
While Boomer parents who bought real estate in the 80s often have big real estate-based nest eggs to pass on, I'm not sure the Gen X parents of Zoomers will, especially if they bought their houses in the late 90s/early-mid 00s. Some appreciation, but not the crazy numbers that Boomers got.
|by Anonymous||reply 268||06/09/2021|
Why would you be surprised?
Only thing that binds gay men into the lose confederation of warring tribes that community is comes from primary object of love or sex. Otherwise socio-economics of gays are all over the place.
There are well off to wealthy gays, then there are middle class to working and downright poor.
Long held view of all gays was that because they lacked a wife and children to support by extension were loading with plenty of discretionary income. That may be true, maybe not. But consider often the public face in advertising and other media of such gays were always white affluent. The community as a whole is far more diverse.
|by Anonymous||reply 269||06/09/2021|
R268: The idea of DINK Rich Gay Men is something of a myth, a myth confirmed by a number of economic studies in last couple of decades.
Not all gay men are making great salaries and being model consumers of expensive merchandise and services, a lot don't get the same education as straight peers, or are distracted by drugs and alcohol; they may lack some of the inside advantage of straight men in landing a job through family networks; they may get promoted less often. Maybe they make good money but spend too much of it flying about to circuit parties and buying Nasty Pig jockstraps in every color.
Consumption is not unimportant with anyone, but at a point straights have a sort of limit to not being serious; after that, though, there's a pressure to confirm, to become a serious adult. The goal is expensive house and expensive children but the house usually turns out to be a good long term investment. Some parents are eager to help put them in those nice big houses.
But In gay men the more serious their careers the more some piss away their salaries on showy shit that doesn't appreciate in value. There's no end goal of marriage or big house for two people; there's less help from well off parents to put their gay sons in "forever homes." Straight dads. Gay cat dads.
There are a lot of distractions for a gay man on the road to financial well being. Straight men get prodded through the cattle shoot to end up with diaper service and a mortgage and a wife with her own set if parents who might one day being in some nice inheritance. Just as they start spending money in children they often stop spending it in themselves. Long weekend buddy trips with fast spending are replaced by backyard barbeques that cost next to nothing. It may be boring but it's cheap.
|by Anonymous||reply 270||06/09/2021|
"It may be boring but it's cheap."
The world of the heterosexual is a sick and boring life.
|by Anonymous||reply 271||06/09/2021|
For LGBT it's a mixed bag about incomes....
|by Anonymous||reply 272||06/09/2021|
At least in Europe gay couples have higher household incomes on average than straights.
|by Anonymous||reply 273||06/09/2021|
STEM isn't that great for gay males either.
Bottom line is overall at least in USA there really hasn't been much firm research done on matter.
|by Anonymous||reply 274||06/09/2021|
R274 I can only speak for my own experience of 40+ years as a gay man in a biomedical science, but it was mostly a desert. I do think it's getting better now, but it's starting from such a low baseline that it will take time before it becomes commonplace.
|by Anonymous||reply 275||06/09/2021|
Know a few "male" RNs here in NYC. They make bank because not only do they pick-up plenty of OT, but have the credentials hospitals want. Certs up the ass, impeccable references, discliplined work habits. What seems more important they don't get involved in the BS that often plagues work spaces dominated by females. They come in, do their job and go home. No drama, no fuss....
One of them is married to a doctor and I swear they are on a mission for world domination.... They're always investing, buying properties, etc.. everything seems to be with an eye on the next step up.
|by Anonymous||reply 276||06/09/2021|
TBH R268, R269, those sound like excuses rather than reasons.
And you've basically presented a bunch of ridiculous stereotypes to bolster your argument::
* Gay men are all running off to circuit parties
* Gay men are spending all their money partying and on conspicuous consumption
* Straight couples spend their weekends having backyard barbecues and don't spend ostentatiously or recklessly
* Straight men are more likely to be promoted (it's 2021, not 1981)
* Parents are more likely to give straight children the down payment for a house
* Gay men are all renting apartments
|by Anonymous||reply 277||06/09/2021|
Why did you put "male" in quotes R276?
Are the nurses transgender?
|by Anonymous||reply 278||06/09/2021|
You do realize those posts were likely from two different people. You know that, don't you?
|by Anonymous||reply 279||06/09/2021|
Because saying just "nurses" would imply both female and male, which wasn't the point one was trying to make at all.
|by Anonymous||reply 280||06/09/2021|
My retirement plan is to die.
|by Anonymous||reply 281||06/09/2021|
My lover/husband is 54. I am 70. We've been together 26 years. I used to introduce him as "here's my retirement plan."
E.g. I've medicare, of course, but am also fully covered by his insurance.
|by Anonymous||reply 282||06/09/2021|
[quote] How do they live?
As a bodega cat you should know better than anyone.
|by Anonymous||reply 283||06/09/2021|
[quote] My retirement plan is to die.
In all seriousness, we all have as long as we have, and none of us know how long that’s going to be. A lot of us fret and worry about a time in our lives we never live to see.
I knew a guy who never had a moments relaxation without worrying about how he was going to make ends meet when he retired. It could be exhausting, him and his worry. He died in the shower when he was 59.
|by Anonymous||reply 284||06/09/2021|
this is why people in the 3rd world have a shitload of kids: they hope some of them will survive to adulthood and some of the ones who do, will look after their parents in old age
|by Anonymous||reply 285||06/09/2021|
I watched "Nomadland" the other day and thought of this thread. That's what happens to some of the older people who don't have pensions or enough savings to support themselves.
If you haven't seen it then the film is worth a look.
|by Anonymous||reply 286||06/09/2021|
Dame Maggie did old woman living in a van first you know....
|by Anonymous||reply 287||06/09/2021|
Maggie deserved a 3rd Oscar for Lady in the Van. Can't believe no talent Fran has 3 and Legend Maggie only has 2.
|by Anonymous||reply 288||06/09/2021|
Yes that was an excellent film too R287.
But not the same situation though between drifting around the country and being allowed to park a van in someone's driveway and reside there for years.
R288 - are you trying to say that Frances McDormand is not talented? That's ridiculous!
|by Anonymous||reply 289||06/09/2021|
R298 you can't compare McDormand whose husband gave her most of her one-note roles to Dame Maggie.
|by Anonymous||reply 290||06/09/2021|
[quote]What seems more important they don't get involved in the BS that often plagues work spaces dominated by females. They come in, do their job and go home. No drama, no fuss....
And gay men are never into drama or gossip, right? ;^)
|by Anonymous||reply 291||06/09/2021|
Some gay men are one of the girls, others aren't.
As with everything else there are some gay men you'd never know in a million years. Others are so much all girls together you want to buy them a purse as a present.
In any event nursing is still an overwhelming female profession in USA. Less than 10% of RNs are male, so don't think there's any huge worries about them taking over that profession anytime soon.
|by Anonymous||reply 292||06/09/2021|
[quote] Because saying just "nurses" would imply both female and male, which wasn't the point one was trying to make at all.
One does not put adjectives in parentheses.
Neither do two or three.
|by Anonymous||reply 293||06/10/2021|
I'm confused R293. Who put an adjective in parentheses? Did you mean quotes?
|by Anonymous||reply 294||06/10/2021|
[quote]Can someone please explain to me why the 401K system is only a ploy from financial businesses to make money? I agree it’s part of it, but its also a great way to put money away for retirement
Because prior to the 401K the expectation was to depend on a pension provided by an employer you stayed with for 30 years. Companies had to put money away for their pensions plans. By selling everyone on the idea of investing in the stock market, it switched the burden of retirement away from the employer to the employee. Ergo, more money for the company and no responsibility for their old loyal employees one they have been used, chewed up and spit out. Viva La Boomer! Greed is Good, thanks to the "ME" generation.
|by Anonymous||reply 295||06/10/2021|
Yes. R294. Pre-cofffee posting
|by Anonymous||reply 296||06/10/2021|
Go soak your head you tiresome old grammar troll.
|by Anonymous||reply 297||06/10/2021|
It's not a grammar thing R297
If you put a word in quotes it's a way of indicated that you don't think it's accurate.
You know, how people post on here that Tom is a "straight" gay porn star and all that.
|by Anonymous||reply 298||06/10/2021|
R295 The Me Generation (whatever that means) didn’t change the nature of work or foreign competition, employee loyalty, or the crying need for better education in the US, Republican corporate “Corporations are people too” America did that.
And has apparently failed to educate a lot of people about the new reality. If you’re not going to work for the same company for years and not get a pension, it’s incumbent on you to find and fund an alternative. If not, poverty is the alternative. Social Security was not designed to replace pensions but to supplement one’s own savings in old age.
|by Anonymous||reply 299||06/10/2021|
"By selling everyone on the idea of investing in the stock market, it switched the burden of retirement away from the employer to the employee."
Don't forget all of the money you lose having a 401k via fees that over the long haul can take up to 1/3 or more of your potential gains.
|by Anonymous||reply 300||06/10/2021|
R300, and the fact that if you don't put in enough or don't invest in the right funds, you could be so screwed. The same if the stock market crashes just as you're about to retire.
|by Anonymous||reply 301||06/10/2021|
R309 and R301. Exactly. So don’t do anything, because that way, you can be certain you’ll be screwed. And cold and hungry, too.
That fact that I will - not “might” but “will” - die has never stopped me from living. Why do you mention a possibility without addressing a certainty: do nothing and you’re screwed.
|by Anonymous||reply 302||06/10/2021|
R300 You're actually better off investing in Roth or Regular IRAs where you don't have the additional (and usually hidden) fees which your company is paying (possibly in co-hoots with) the financial company, who in tandem are taking from your account, in addition to the expense fees from each individual mutual fund. I say "in co-hoots" since some really expensive mutual funds might be part of your company's 401k holdings because someone from the financial company might have treated someone in your company to an expensive dinner, or made some side deal, to offer some expensive active fund, instead of a similar, but very low expense index fund in your company's 401k offerings for its employees. In an IRA (Roth IRA), you choose whatever you want to invest in, screw the middleman.
|by Anonymous||reply 303||06/10/2021|
Really stupid question. If you contribute, say, 7k to a Roth IRA and it grows to 10K, do you pay taxes on the gain?
|by Anonymous||reply 304||06/10/2021|
If it's a Roth IRA, you pay nothing. However, it depends when you take it out. Any contributions you put in are yours, no penalty. So you can take out the $7000 anytime. But the account has to be open 5 years and you have to be older than 59 1/2 to avoid getting a penalty on the $3,000 that you made on it, except for some hardship exceptions. After 59 1/2, you can take out everything tax-free. But your original contributions you can take out anytime, free and clear. No taxes on any, just penalties on what it made if you take it out early.
|by Anonymous||reply 305||06/10/2021|
The penalty is like 10%, btw.
|by Anonymous||reply 306||06/10/2021|
Plus after 59 1/2 there is no penalty, as well.
|by Anonymous||reply 307||06/10/2021|
I read that as Old people who don't have penises...
|by Anonymous||reply 308||06/10/2021|
R308 So did R52 and others. It might be why a financial thread started 6 days ago has 309 replies at this point.
|by Anonymous||reply 309||06/10/2021|
So Kaitlyn doesn't qualify? Maybe she has a pension though?
|by Anonymous||reply 310||06/11/2021|
Given that less than 10% of people are millionaires, it always confuses me why financial planners say you should have $2 million. It’s clearly an impossible goal made to make you feel like you will never have enough. The whole retirement planning scam that’s been developed in the past 35 years is going to be exposed for the fraud that it is as Gen X - the first generation to have no pensions - hits retirement age. No one has enough. But then many of us are going to die before 65 - so it won’t matter.
|by Anonymous||reply 311||06/11/2021|
R311 You’re right to be confused. There's no one amount for everyone. Imagine the difference needed for people retiring in Arkansas versus NYC. The answer is different for each person.
|by Anonymous||reply 312||06/11/2021|
What's the definition of a "millionaire"? Is it based on assets? Income? Net worth?
|by Anonymous||reply 313||06/11/2021|
R312: I would say net worth.
|by Anonymous||reply 314||06/11/2021|
R314 Agree, with net worth having had estimated tax liability subtracted. There can be a big difference in net worth between $1M in a tax-deferred retirement account and a non-retirement account.
|by Anonymous||reply 315||06/11/2021|
Even more difference between $1M in a Roth (where there's no tax on withdrawals) and $1M in a Reg. IRA or 401K, where it is taxed and might be really worth about $650,000 or so in spending money as RMDs require you to take it out and be taxed on it.
|by Anonymous||reply 316||Last Saturday at 7:28 AM|
True, but how much did the Roth contributor already pay in taxes on the money before depositing it into the account?
Uncle Sam wants his cut. He's willing to wait, but like the grim reaper, he'll get it eventually. And as a rule, one's tax rate in retirement is lower than when they're working.
|by Anonymous||reply 317||Last Saturday at 8:47 AM|
[quote]True, but how much did the Roth contributor already pay in taxes on the money before depositing it into the account?
That's why Roth's are especially good for people who are young and in low tax brackets. They don't pay much when investing it and it may have decades to grow tax free.
|by Anonymous||reply 318||Last Saturday at 6:17 PM|
Roth are also good if you aren't making, lost your job recently but still had income you could put away, and for almost nothing if the standard deduction on your taxes is taken.
|by Anonymous||reply 319||Last Saturday at 6:36 PM|
[quote]The Me Generation (whatever that means) didn’t change the nature of work or foreign competition, employee loyalty,
But yes things did change, just not for your gen who had the pick of the litter with more privileges than any other generation before or after. White collar jobs were not typically outsourced back in the Boomer days, you had the privilege of entering the workforce and skating off the post WW2 Gen who set up the most stable middle class well paid jobs and opportunity in American history.
|by Anonymous||reply 320||Last Saturday at 10:12 PM|
Okay, so for someone like me in my mid 50's who when my parents pass i suspect sooner than later, and i 'll be coming into a few hundred thousands of dollars what should i do with this money, where should i put it?...
|by Anonymous||reply 321||Last Sunday at 4:42 AM|
That all depends upon age old investing dilemma; how much risk are you willing to take?
Old mantra is younger the investor greater portion of their portfolio should be in stocks compared to bonds and cash (such as money market, CDs, etc...).
Past decade or so things have shifted and become confusing.
"You can count on stocks to beat bonds over the long haul. That, at least, is the common wisdom, and much of the time it has even been true.
But not over long stretches lately.
With the chaos in the stock market in recent months, some advantages for bonds might be expected. But the outperformance of bonds isn’t just a short-term effect of the coronavirus downturn or of the economic conditions that preceded it in 2020.
Over the last 20 years — which counts as a very long time for me — investments in important kinds of bonds have outperformed the stock market. That includes long-term Treasuries, long-term corporate bonds and high-yield (or junk) bonds. It is true even after the startling rally in the stock market since March 23.
But the remarkable performance of bonds — and of bond funds — isn’t cause for celebration, and it’s not a recipe for building wealth in the future. To the contrary, the reversal of the customary bond-stock performance is deeply troubling. It is a sign of how unreliable many assumptions about financial markets actually are these days — of how risky the markets have become and of how difficult it is to invest sensibly for the future."
Many are in equities today because that really is only place they are seeing decent to great returns. Many who pulled out of stocks in 2008 after the big crash and were slow to get back in (if they did at all), now are trying to make up for lost time. Who knew the S&P would be on a tear for so long?
|by Anonymous||reply 322||Last Sunday at 4:57 AM|
[quote] i 'll be coming into a few hundred thousands of dollars what should i do with this money, where should i put it?...
|by Anonymous||reply 323||Last Sunday at 11:02 AM|
R323, it's cryptocurrency these days.
|by Anonymous||reply 324||Last Sunday at 11:03 AM|
I'm in the process of switching over to Vanguard from Edward Jones. I'm 60. The move to Vanguard has been long overdue, but for too many years, first with Edward Jones, and before that, Merrill Lynch, I foolishly allowed myself to be taken in by personalities to be my financial advisors. Yes, they made my portfolio grow, but I often wonder at what cost with the fees. I've calculated some of this and angry for being loyal for too long.
That being said, I know I've done a lot of correct moves regarding finances, and also, luck played a part. I'm lucky enough to get a very small pension and I have saved a fair amount to live comfortably. "Fair amount" and "living comfortably," as recently noted above, are relative. I don't live in an expensive state, and my mid-sized city has a low cost of living. Because of this, I think I'm going to take social security at 62. (I retired at 56 and work part-time gigs.) I suspect I'm going to visit and revisit and revisit again all of the social security threads on here and on financial sites about the advantages and disadvantages of taking early social security. I'm choosing 62, most likely, because tomorrow isn't promised, a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow, and so forth.
One thing I also discovered years ago is that all of the articles that tell you (or even assume) you have or need $1M to retire are cookie cutter articles, often designed for straight folks with children to put through college, and living in an expensive area. For those articles, I take what I can from them, and leave the rest.
|by Anonymous||reply 325||Last Sunday at 11:21 AM|
[quote]Okay, so for someone like me in my mid 50's who when my parents pass i suspect sooner than later, and i 'll be coming into a few hundred thousands of dollars what should i do with this money, where should i put it?...
Hookers and Blow.
|by Anonymous||reply 326||Last Sunday at 11:32 AM|
R326 Been there, done that.
|by Anonymous||reply 327||Last Sunday at 11:33 AM|
I know a guy that worked hard all his life saving and planning for his retirement. Passed on trips with friends, beautiful things he wanted for his home, and going out to eat so he could retire comfortably some day. Dropped dead at age 52 of massive heart attack. No he was not a fatty. It happens. I actually know 3 or 4 men who this happened to. Although one was cancer. It's great to plan for the future but keep in mind sacrificing living life in the moment, you may never get to that pay off date years into the future. It happens to more people than you think.
|by Anonymous||reply 328||Last Sunday at 11:41 AM|
R322 There have been a number of time periods, some quite long, since the 1920s when US Treasury bonds have been beaten stocks. The last 20 year's are not an anomaly. Media get more attention when they declare “This time it's different.” Search Larry Swedroe, a very smart personal finance writer, for more details.
|by Anonymous||reply 329||Last Sunday at 12:24 PM|
Oh, dear. Years, not Year’s. Damn that spell checker.
|by Anonymous||reply 330||Last Sunday at 12:26 PM|
Why is it every time someone asks on the DL about how you are getting by with no money or shitty jobs, all the millionaires feel compelled to chime in and brag about their financial status as if we give a shit?
|by Anonymous||reply 331||Last Monday at 10:55 PM|
R311 - I agree. Reality = less than 15% of people are true millionaires. DL threads = 75% of people are millionaires. Like social media, a false representation of reality where only the enviable appear.
|by Anonymous||reply 332||Last Tuesday at 8:17 AM|
I didn't get out of graduate school until my 30's so I didn't have a real job until then. I'm trying to save aggressively for retirement.
Apparently for those who were disciplined and knowledgeable enough to start in their early 20's, by retirement, they will have an extra $1 million than those who started at 30.
|by Anonymous||reply 333||Last Tuesday at 9:24 AM|
I knew someone who taught High School for the Brooklyn Diocese and she gets $110. per month pension.
|by Anonymous||reply 334||Last Tuesday at 9:35 AM|
R333, magic of time and compounding returns. I know it can sometimes seem impossible, but in my middle age, my advice to the youngsters, is to invest as early as you can and keep at it steadily. You don't need enormous amounts when you start early. $100 at age 24 will go lot further than $200 at 44 when you retire at 65. At least try to invest enough to get your company to match (if they offer a 401K or 403b, etc).
|by Anonymous||reply 335||Last Tuesday at 9:46 AM|
[quote]I didn't get out of graduate school until my 30's so I didn't have a real job until then.
And who paid for your rent, tuition, food during that time? Do you really think 90% of Americas are that fortunate enough to get a graduate degree?
|by Anonymous||reply 336||Last Tuesday at 12:56 PM|
[quote]At least try to invest enough to get your company to match
OK Boomer. That's just not a reality anymore. Most companies do not match shit. That's your problem not theirs. Unless you are talking old school IBM type of companies, this is not a common thing offered to employees anymore.
|by Anonymous||reply 337||Last Tuesday at 12:59 PM|
[quote]Given that less than 10% of people are millionaires, it always confuses me why financial planners say you should have $2 million.
Exactly, in their mind everyone should be a millionaire. You save a million dollars, and you save a million dollars everyone saved a million dollars! Seriously it's foolish advice to expect an entire society to all be millionaires by the time they retire. In what country has they ever been achieved? Only 36.% of the US population even have a college degree. Even if it were achievable, the cost of everything would go up proportionally and the disparity would put us right back where we started.
|by Anonymous||reply 338||Last Tuesday at 1:07 PM|
My old company matched my 401k up to 6%. That's it. When I left for a new job, the new job doesn't offer a 401k at all. So I've left my old 401K where it is and in the 5 years since I've been with the new company, I earned $55 grand on it. Not bad considering I'm no longer contributing to it. I keep thinking I should move it, but I'm ok with it earning 10 grand per year.
|by Anonymous||reply 339||Last Tuesday at 1:16 PM|
R337 I don’t believe that’s true. However, a lot of companies offer matching only with their own stock—which benefits them of course.
|by Anonymous||reply 340||Last Tuesday at 1:19 PM|
R339 You could pay less fees (usually undisclosed by the company for administering the 401k) and move it to an IRA and have a wider range of funds and investments to choose from. You could even keep, mostly likely the same investments you have and cut out the middleman's administration's fees. Btw, KO, Gen X or Y.
|by Anonymous||reply 341||Last Tuesday at 1:20 PM|
I'm a gen X. I don't have much saved as throughout my life, most of the companies I worked for did not offer a 401k. But I'm glad I started contributing to the one I had.
I will look into that r341. Thank you!
|by Anonymous||reply 342||Last Tuesday at 1:23 PM|
Just make sure that you have the financial institutions make the transfer between them , without a check issued to you, which could then become taxable.
|by Anonymous||reply 343||Last Tuesday at 1:26 PM|
[quote]owever, a lot of companies offer matching only with their own stock—
Most companies don't have their own stock Boomer. Over 99 percent of America’s 28.7 million firms are small businesses. The vast majority (88 percent) of employer firms have fewer than 20 employees, none of which are big enough to even think about offering stock.
In a Boomer world, everyone bootstraps their way to success working at a fortune 500 company with generous stock options and bonuses. With no student debt, affordable housing on an average salary, Just don't know why people cant save a million dollars like they did.
|by Anonymous||reply 344||Last Tuesday at 1:32 PM|
Blame your own boomer parents, Gen Y or X. Boomers had to deal with lines for gas, the draft during Vietnam, bringing back draft registration by Jimmy Carter, the AIDS crisis, Nancy and Ronald Reagan, and other shit by generations before them. Grow a pair and go out and better yourself.
|by Anonymous||reply 345||Last Tuesday at 1:45 PM|
Right, r344? I had student loan debt that took me 18 YEARS to pay off. I borrowed $25,000 (back in the 90s) and my interest with Sallie Mae after I consolidated was 9%. I did the math and after paying on them for 18 years (two of those years I was in forbearance because I wasn't making enough money) I paid about $75,000 to Sallie Mae. They made a fortune off of me. If I had had that money to put away my life would have been very different. My parents were boomers and they kicked me out when I hit 18 years old, so I was on my own, making $12 an hour and renting a room in a house. I had to pay for everything myself. I don't own a house nor do I make enough to afford one now despite making a lot now. It wasn't until last year that I had myself completely out of debt and am now able to save but the Boomers were able to buy houses in their 20s on one income and have two cars and start a family. I've pulled myself up by my "bootstraps" with zero help from my parents but my life is nothing like the life they were able to afford and enjoy. It's been nothing but financial struggle for my entire life. I don't regret going to college but I do regret the student loans. Mind you, I spent 5 years at Junior Colleges that I paid for on my own, but once I transferred to UCLA, my choices were either don't go or take out loans.
|by Anonymous||reply 346||Last Tuesday at 1:49 PM|
R337, not a Boomer, right smack in the middle Gen X. I've been fortunate enough to have jobs that offer retirement fund match. And I have had jobs that didn't. So if they don't, you don't save or invest? The point is that however little, investing early and steady will make a big difference. I don't make the compounding rules--they're there, take advantage of them as much as you can. If you can't, you can't. But if you can, even if it's only $25 per paycheck, do it. Investing for yourself is a priority. if this advice is so offensive to you, then don't bother.
|by Anonymous||reply 347||Last Tuesday at 3:46 PM|
R346 Why did they kick you out?
That’s not the normal transition from home to school or a job. Most Boomer parents I knew who had kids go to college paid (or borrowed to pay) for some of it. My Greatest Generation parents, children of the Depression who saw what a college degree could do, would have thrown me out if I didn’t go.
You should be bitter for your parents treating you that way, but it’s hard to see your experience as universal.
|by Anonymous||reply 348||Last Tuesday at 3:47 PM|
R348, my parents kicked ALL their kids out. My older sister came home from her first year in college. They went through her things and found a bottle of wine and birth control pills when she was at work. They took all the phones out of the house and told me to tell her she had to get out when she got home. So since there were no cell phones then, my sister had to walk to the liquor store and call our father (they were divorced and so when I say "my parents" I mean my mom and step father). She lived with my dad for the summer and then never came home again.
My two younger brothers were being abused by my step father for all sorts of shit and my father kept calling Child Protective Services on him so my mother came home one day, told them to get their stuff and dropped them off at my dads. They were 11 and 9. And then my dad never made them go to school as revenge on my mom for divorcing him so neither of them even went to high school.
When I turned 18, I was informed I would have to start paying rent to live there. I was working two jobs and going to junior College and my life there was a nightmare. Lots of drunken, screaming lectures about what a terrible kid I was, how I didn't respect them etc. None of which was true as I was a good kid, didn't drink or smoke, honors classes, drum major of the marching band, etc. They said, "pay us $300 a month in rent or get the fuck out." I got the fuck out. Best thing I ever did. So they didn't "kick" me out so to speak but it was only a matter of time. I remember my mom crying when I told her I was leaving, not because she would miss me but because who would help her out with the housework if ALL her kids were gone? I had already purchased a car on my own with no help from them (crappy Hyundi but it got me where I needed to go) and I was tired of their abuse.
|by Anonymous||reply 349||Last Tuesday at 4:36 PM|
Like u OP??
|by Anonymous||reply 350||Last Tuesday at 4:38 PM|
R349, seriously, your parents and step-father sound like people who never should have birthed or parented. I'm really sorry you had to grow up with them. I have issues with my mom and my absent deadbeat dad killed himself drunk driving. So it's not like I had a bed of roses either. But my mom never wanted me to leave--actually I had/have the opposite problem. In any case, no matter what, my mom would never have kicked out her kids for financial reasons. And she worked 60 hours a week at crappy minimum wage jobs. I actually encouraged her to cut off my low level financial criminal brother but she said no matter what he did, he was always going to be her son.
|by Anonymous||reply 351||Last Tuesday at 6:07 PM|
Thanks, 351. There's a lot more of that story but in general, my parents should not have been parents. They were also the type who thought people who go to college think they are better than those who don't and so it was never really something they encouraged. I have a lot of anger/bitterness towards them and what we went through because we've all suffered in life. But everyone suffers in some way so I'm not special either. I often wonder though, how my life would have turned out if things had been different. I'm the first one who will say "bootstraps!" sometimes only because I'm living proof that it can be done solely on your own but I'm also sympathetic to those who have to and envious of those who don't. The game is rigged against those who are single and who don't have money. I don't have much to my name in terms of things but I also don't need as much as some. My one regret is not buying a condo or house when I was younger, but it wasn't ever financially feasible for me to do so. And not being able to retire does bother me but I also have faith that I will survive. I always have. r349
|by Anonymous||reply 352||Last Tuesday at 7:04 PM|
[quote]Blame your own boomer parents, Gen Y or X. Boomers had to deal with lines for gas,
Smallest violin in the world, you had to wait in your car for gas? WHAAAAA! So first world problem. How long did that last, one summer.
Gen X parents were not Boomers, they were the gen before that. Boomers were too busy worrying about ME, and being YUPPIES and delayed having kids so most of their spawn are Millennials.
|by Anonymous||reply 353||a day ago|
R353, I’m not a boomer, but you skipped over the draft issue, AIDS, and Reagan that Boomers had to deal with. The energy crisis was real, and it wasn’t just gas lines, it permeated and greatly damaged the economy. We also had stagflation—an economic recession coupled with soaring prices.
Every generation deals with difficult circumstances. This generation actually isn’t in the most tumultuous. That was definitely the 60s, which saw numerous leaders assassinated, a horrible war, race riots and division which believe me today doesn’t equal the division back then. Dump is an arrogant fool, but Nixon was arrogant, evil, and effective (in a bad way) much more so than even Dump.
|by Anonymous||reply 354||a day ago|
I'd say Dumpf was evil as well, but fortunately he wasn't as effective in getting his minions's ideas (who would flatter him to make it seem like his ideas) done. Nixon was actually very smart, but quite devious and better at hiding it.
|by Anonymous||reply 355||19 hours ago|
And yet, if you ask a Boomer, they will tell you that Reagan was the greatest president we ever had.
|by Anonymous||reply 356||15 hours ago|
Umm, no we wouldn't, R356. Nice try though.
|by Anonymous||reply 357||15 hours ago|