Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Old people who don’t have pensions

How do they live?

by Anonymousreply 409September 14, 2021 10:56 PM

social security, savings and help from others?....

by Anonymousreply 1June 4, 2021 9:49 PM

Kindness of strangers

by Anonymousreply 2June 4, 2021 9:59 PM

The vast majority of older people do not have pensions. Certainly less than did prior generations of older people.

by Anonymousreply 3June 4, 2021 10:03 PM

Social security and interest from investments?

by Anonymousreply 4June 4, 2021 10:03 PM

My pension is shit, thank god for social security and my investments.

by Anonymousreply 5June 4, 2021 10:06 PM

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 Anonymousreply 6June 4, 2021 10:12 PM

Granny porn

by Anonymousreply 7June 4, 2021 10:14 PM

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)

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 8June 4, 2021 10:18 PM


by Anonymousreply 9June 4, 2021 10:58 PM

Other than government and blue collar/union workers, OP, few people have pensions in 2021.

Most white collar workers don't

by Anonymousreply 10June 4, 2021 11:01 PM

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 Anonymousreply 11June 4, 2021 11:15 PM

Social security and government cheese.

by Anonymousreply 12June 4, 2021 11:18 PM

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 Anonymousreply 13June 4, 2021 11:19 PM

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 Anonymousreply 14June 4, 2021 11:21 PM


by Anonymousreply 15June 4, 2021 11:24 PM

[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 Anonymousreply 16June 4, 2021 11:36 PM


Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 17June 4, 2021 11:38 PM

How do we survive?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 18June 4, 2021 11:51 PM

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 Anonymousreply 19June 4, 2021 11:52 PM

[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 Anonymousreply 20June 4, 2021 11:59 PM

Hardly, R20. They live in Flyoverstan and will be lucky to get 250k

by Anonymousreply 21June 5, 2021 12:05 AM

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 Anonymousreply 22June 5, 2021 12:12 AM

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 Anonymousreply 23June 5, 2021 12:15 AM

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 Anonymousreply 24June 5, 2021 12:26 AM

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 Anonymousreply 25June 5, 2021 12:28 AM

Sorry, meant Flyoverstan. ^^^^

by Anonymousreply 26June 5, 2021 12:29 AM

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 Anonymousreply 27June 5, 2021 12:34 AM

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 Anonymousreply 28June 5, 2021 12:59 AM

Social Security IS a pension. What you're talking about is employer-sponsored pensions.

by Anonymousreply 29June 5, 2021 1:16 AM

Civil servants have generous pensions.

by Anonymousreply 30June 5, 2021 1:24 AM

We would let them eat cake, but we ate it already.

by Anonymousreply 31June 5, 2021 2:00 AM


by Anonymousreply 32June 5, 2021 2:20 AM

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 Anonymousreply 33June 5, 2021 2:28 AM

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 Anonymousreply 34June 5, 2021 2:34 AM

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 Anonymousreply 35June 5, 2021 2:58 AM

^^ [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 Anonymousreply 36June 5, 2021 3:06 AM

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 Anonymousreply 37June 5, 2021 3:07 AM

R37 Amazon's market value is now more than the GDP of Australia. That is what "we" have let happen.

by Anonymousreply 38June 5, 2021 3:14 AM

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 Anonymousreply 39June 5, 2021 12:31 PM

r13 401K is not a scam and you don't have to invest in the market - you can invest in tbills.

by Anonymousreply 40June 5, 2021 12:38 PM

[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 Anonymousreply 41June 5, 2021 1:04 PM

OP, do you have a pension? How old are you and what do you do/where do you work?

by Anonymousreply 42June 5, 2021 1:06 PM

Costco catfood and washable cloth Depends.

by Anonymousreply 43June 5, 2021 1:24 PM

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 Anonymousreply 44June 5, 2021 1:40 PM

That's what you think, r39!

by Anonymousreply 45June 5, 2021 1:46 PM

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 Anonymousreply 46June 5, 2021 1:48 PM

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 Anonymousreply 47June 5, 2021 1:58 PM

“Mutual aid” from Antifa!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 48June 5, 2021 2:01 PM

Trans grannies want your cash too

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 49June 5, 2021 2:03 PM

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 Anonymousreply 50June 5, 2021 2:07 PM

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 Anonymousreply 51June 5, 2021 2:27 PM

I thought this thread was "old people who don't have penises" and I was very intrigued by the number of replies

by Anonymousreply 52June 5, 2021 2:39 PM

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.)

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 53June 5, 2021 3:04 PM

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 Anonymousreply 54June 5, 2021 4:18 PM

R54 Our family had a pet cow we called MariLou. Slaughtered her and ate well for a month!

by Anonymousreply 55June 5, 2021 4:28 PM

An artist never retires.

by Anonymousreply 56June 5, 2021 4:35 PM

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 Anonymousreply 57June 5, 2021 4:47 PM

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 Anonymousreply 58June 5, 2021 4:50 PM

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 Anonymousreply 59June 5, 2021 4:57 PM

I dunno what they do. Certainly not live on either coast.

by Anonymousreply 60June 5, 2021 5:20 PM

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 Anonymousreply 61June 5, 2021 6:13 PM

[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 Anonymousreply 62June 6, 2021 11:45 AM

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 Anonymousreply 63June 6, 2021 1:00 PM

For R62

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 Anonymousreply 64June 6, 2021 2:41 PM

Popping those dentures out and gummin cock.

by Anonymousreply 65June 6, 2021 2:50 PM

R65 is what brings me back to the DL whenever I swear it off!

by Anonymousreply 66June 6, 2021 2:54 PM

[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 Anonymousreply 67June 6, 2021 3:30 PM

[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 Anonymousreply 68June 6, 2021 3:36 PM

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 Anonymousreply 69June 6, 2021 3:37 PM

[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 Anonymousreply 70June 6, 2021 3:58 PM

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 Anonymousreply 71June 6, 2021 4:12 PM

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 Anonymousreply 72June 6, 2021 4:23 PM

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 Anonymousreply 73June 6, 2021 4:23 PM

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 Anonymousreply 74June 6, 2021 4:37 PM

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 Anonymousreply 75June 6, 2021 5:09 PM

Garbage can food and cardbpard bpxes to sleep in.

by Anonymousreply 76June 6, 2021 5:12 PM

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 Anonymousreply 77June 6, 2021 5:14 PM

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 Anonymousreply 78June 6, 2021 5:20 PM

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 Anonymousreply 79June 6, 2021 5:21 PM

They sell hot plates at Dollar General.

by Anonymousreply 80June 6, 2021 5:23 PM

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 Anonymousreply 81June 6, 2021 5:23 PM

This thread turned into a huge humblebrag. "Don't hate me because my pension is beautiful."

by Anonymousreply 82June 6, 2021 5:23 PM

[quote] Social security and government cheese.

Cheese? What state do you live in?

by Anonymousreply 83June 6, 2021 5:30 PM

[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 Anonymousreply 84June 6, 2021 5:37 PM

Well, R84, most jobs don't offer pensions. Consider yourself privileged. If you want to brag about your privilege, then go ahead.

by Anonymousreply 85June 6, 2021 5:38 PM

The problem with 401k is that YOU have to decide what to invest in. Not everybody is a Wall Street Whiz.

by Anonymousreply 86June 6, 2021 5:42 PM

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 Anonymousreply 87June 6, 2021 5:55 PM

every joyous, ever gay, happy, undeserving A

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 88June 6, 2021 5:55 PM

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 Anonymousreply 89June 6, 2021 6:06 PM

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 Anonymousreply 90June 6, 2021 6:07 PM

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 Anonymousreply 91June 6, 2021 6:09 PM

[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 Anonymousreply 92June 6, 2021 6:11 PM

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 Anonymousreply 93June 6, 2021 6:16 PM

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 Anonymousreply 94June 6, 2021 6:28 PM

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 Anonymousreply 95June 6, 2021 7:22 PM

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 Anonymousreply 96June 6, 2021 7:25 PM

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 Anonymousreply 97June 6, 2021 7:36 PM

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 Anonymousreply 98June 6, 2021 7:44 PM

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 Anonymousreply 99June 6, 2021 7:47 PM

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 Anonymousreply 100June 6, 2021 7:51 PM

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 Anonymousreply 101June 6, 2021 7:51 PM

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 Anonymousreply 102June 6, 2021 7:53 PM

^^^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 Anonymousreply 103June 6, 2021 7:57 PM

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 Anonymousreply 104June 6, 2021 7:59 PM

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 Anonymousreply 105June 6, 2021 8:00 PM

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 Anonymousreply 106June 6, 2021 8:02 PM

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 Anonymousreply 107June 6, 2021 8:10 PM

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 Anonymousreply 108June 6, 2021 8:12 PM

R107 it’s a travesty that it isn’t. No one should have to continue to live, especially in pain.

by Anonymousreply 109June 6, 2021 8:12 PM

R108 read my mind.

by Anonymousreply 110June 6, 2021 8:13 PM

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 Anonymousreply 111June 6, 2021 8:16 PM

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.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 112June 6, 2021 8:17 PM

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 Anonymousreply 113June 6, 2021 8:20 PM

[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 Anonymousreply 114June 6, 2021 8:24 PM

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 Anonymousreply 115June 6, 2021 8:34 PM

Once you legalize euthanasia what's to stop a critical mass of mentally ill but otherwise healthy 30 year olds from doing it?

by Anonymousreply 116June 6, 2021 8:36 PM

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 Anonymousreply 117June 6, 2021 8:37 PM

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 Anonymousreply 118June 6, 2021 8:41 PM

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 Anonymousreply 119June 6, 2021 8:45 PM

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 Anonymousreply 120June 6, 2021 8:45 PM

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 Anonymousreply 121June 6, 2021 9:12 PM

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 Anonymousreply 122June 6, 2021 9:18 PM

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 Anonymousreply 123June 6, 2021 9:21 PM

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 Anonymousreply 124June 6, 2021 9:22 PM

Almost no one has pensions anymore. 401k, if lucky, and SS.

by Anonymousreply 125June 6, 2021 9:23 PM

R125 You didn't read the thread, did you? SS is a pension.

by Anonymousreply 126June 6, 2021 9:28 PM

[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 Anonymousreply 127June 6, 2021 10:29 PM

If anyone in this thread has extra income and would like to give me some, let me know. Thanks!

by Anonymousreply 128June 7, 2021 1:11 AM

[quote] the insanity of current inflation

Wake up. It's not the 1970s anymore.

by Anonymousreply 129June 7, 2021 1:28 AM

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 Anonymousreply 130June 7, 2021 1:34 AM

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 Anonymousreply 131June 7, 2021 1:35 AM

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 Anonymousreply 132June 7, 2021 1:39 AM

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 Anonymousreply 133June 7, 2021 2:05 AM

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 Anonymousreply 134June 7, 2021 2:07 AM

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 Anonymousreply 135June 7, 2021 2:18 AM

I love you guys. You gays are my only friends lol

by Anonymousreply 136June 7, 2021 2:23 AM

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 Anonymousreply 137June 7, 2021 2:35 AM

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 Anonymousreply 138June 7, 2021 2:35 AM

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 Anonymousreply 139June 7, 2021 2:40 AM

R63 See my replies (R138 & R139) to R61.

by Anonymousreply 140June 7, 2021 2:44 AM

R64 Welcome to government run like a business. Very sorry for what’s happened to your pension.

by Anonymousreply 141June 7, 2021 2:48 AM

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 Anonymousreply 142June 7, 2021 2:57 AM

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 Anonymousreply 143June 7, 2021 3:19 AM

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 Anonymousreply 144June 7, 2021 3:32 AM

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 Anonymousreply 145June 7, 2021 3:45 AM

^^on not one

by Anonymousreply 146June 7, 2021 3:45 AM

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 Anonymousreply 147June 7, 2021 3:53 AM

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 Anonymousreply 148June 7, 2021 4:01 AM

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 Anonymousreply 149June 7, 2021 6:41 AM

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 Anonymousreply 150June 7, 2021 6:51 AM

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 Anonymousreply 151June 7, 2021 8:26 AM

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.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 152June 7, 2021 8:39 AM

Euthanasia is used. Hospice always keeps that "special" dose in the fridge.

by Anonymousreply 153June 7, 2021 9:20 AM

Thank God I'm not an American. People without pensions and people filing for bankruptcy bc of medical bills.

by Anonymousreply 154June 7, 2021 9:30 AM

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 Anonymousreply 155June 7, 2021 11:28 AM

[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 Anonymousreply 156June 7, 2021 1:04 PM

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 Anonymousreply 157June 7, 2021 2:23 PM

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 Anonymousreply 158June 7, 2021 2:56 PM

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 Anonymousreply 159June 7, 2021 3:18 PM

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 Anonymousreply 160June 7, 2021 3:43 PM

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 Anonymousreply 161June 7, 2021 4:42 PM

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 Anonymousreply 162June 7, 2021 4:57 PM

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 Anonymousreply 163June 7, 2021 5:06 PM

A whole generation of workers without pensions are now turning 65. Retirement will be a shit show

by Anonymousreply 164June 7, 2021 5:07 PM

By being huge burdens on everyone.

by Anonymousreply 165June 7, 2021 5:08 PM

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 Anonymousreply 166June 7, 2021 5:09 PM

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 Anonymousreply 167June 7, 2021 5:11 PM

"There will be lots of Walmart greeters."

Too bad Walmart got rid of their greeters.

by Anonymousreply 168June 7, 2021 5:11 PM

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 Anonymousreply 169June 7, 2021 5:15 PM

Let's hope there's a demand for elder porn when I retire

by Anonymousreply 170June 7, 2021 5:16 PM

[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 Anonymousreply 171June 7, 2021 5:18 PM

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 Anonymousreply 172June 7, 2021 5:25 PM

R 172

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 Anonymousreply 173June 7, 2021 5:36 PM

[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 Anonymousreply 174June 7, 2021 5:38 PM

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 Anonymousreply 175June 7, 2021 7:48 PM

Unless things have changed since this piece was written, retirement for a good number of boomers isn't gong to be what many expected.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 176June 7, 2021 10:12 PM

Low income seniors who meet criteria can also collect SSI on top of Social Security. It isn't much but something.....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 177June 7, 2021 10:17 PM

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 Anonymousreply 178June 7, 2021 10:26 PM

Lol I already had R101 blocked. Probably a Trumper.

by Anonymousreply 179June 7, 2021 10:43 PM

[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 Anonymousreply 180June 8, 2021 6:52 AM

For those unfamiliar with Secure Act provisions....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 181June 8, 2021 9:42 AM

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 Anonymousreply 182June 8, 2021 1:16 PM

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 Anonymousreply 183June 8, 2021 1:21 PM

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 Anonymousreply 184June 8, 2021 1:46 PM

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 Anonymousreply 185June 8, 2021 2:38 PM

[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 Anonymousreply 186June 8, 2021 2:50 PM

R186, it's so you don't run out of money before you die.

by Anonymousreply 187June 8, 2021 3:09 PM

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 Anonymousreply 188June 8, 2021 3:13 PM

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 Anonymousreply 189June 8, 2021 3:14 PM

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 Anonymousreply 190June 8, 2021 3:19 PM

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 Anonymousreply 191June 8, 2021 3:27 PM

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 Anonymousreply 192June 8, 2021 3:27 PM

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 Anonymousreply 193June 8, 2021 3:29 PM

This is America. Pull your own weight.

by Anonymousreply 194June 8, 2021 3:29 PM

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 Anonymousreply 195June 8, 2021 3:30 PM

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).

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 196June 8, 2021 3:32 PM

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 Anonymousreply 197June 8, 2021 3:32 PM

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 Anonymousreply 198June 8, 2021 3:41 PM

Not leaving my money to people I don’t know r198. Sorry but they’re not my family.

by Anonymousreply 199June 8, 2021 3:47 PM

R197, "The Strong Case Against Buying Annuities" (Kiplinger.com)

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 200June 8, 2021 3:49 PM

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 Anonymousreply 201June 8, 2021 3:50 PM

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 Anonymousreply 202June 8, 2021 3:52 PM

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 Anonymousreply 203June 8, 2021 4:01 PM

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 Anonymousreply 204June 8, 2021 4:08 PM

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 Anonymousreply 205June 8, 2021 4:09 PM

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 Anonymousreply 206June 8, 2021 5:23 PM

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 Anonymousreply 207June 8, 2021 7:19 PM

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 Anonymousreply 208June 8, 2021 7:46 PM

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 Anonymousreply 209June 8, 2021 8:56 PM

Annuities are scams.

by Anonymousreply 210June 8, 2021 9:03 PM

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 Anonymousreply 211June 8, 2021 9:05 PM

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 Anonymousreply 212June 8, 2021 9:35 PM

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 Anonymousreply 213June 8, 2021 9:49 PM

R213 - Brilliant, thank you. I have a my social security account but never check it. Need to start doing that regularly.

by Anonymousreply 214June 8, 2021 9:56 PM


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 Anonymousreply 215June 8, 2021 10:14 PM

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 Anonymousreply 216June 8, 2021 10:17 PM

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 Anonymousreply 217June 8, 2021 11:13 PM

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 Anonymousreply 218June 8, 2021 11:21 PM

R217: before. It’s not showing after Medicare amounts because it doesn’t assume everyone takes/gets that.

by Anonymousreply 219June 8, 2021 11:24 PM

Social Security & Medicare Tax Rates historical table.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 220June 8, 2021 11:35 PM

The first Social Security checks didn't go out until 1940.

by Anonymousreply 221June 8, 2021 11:35 PM


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.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 222June 8, 2021 11:38 PM

R221 the first one went to Ida Mae Fuller of Brattleboro, Vermont.

For $22.54

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 223June 9, 2021 12:26 AM

"During her lifetime, she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits and paid in $24.75."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 224June 9, 2021 12:35 AM

She was ahead by the time she got the second check in February.

God love her.

by Anonymousreply 225June 9, 2021 12:39 AM


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 Anonymousreply 226June 9, 2021 12:42 AM

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 Anonymousreply 227June 9, 2021 12:43 AM

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.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 228June 9, 2021 2:47 AM

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 Anonymousreply 229June 9, 2021 3:56 AM

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 Anonymousreply 230June 9, 2021 4:12 AM

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.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 231June 9, 2021 7:43 AM

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 Anonymousreply 232June 9, 2021 9:10 AM

I read this thread title as "Old People who don't have penises" and thought "poor things".

by Anonymousreply 233June 9, 2021 10:22 AM

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 Anonymousreply 234June 9, 2021 11:07 AM

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 Anonymousreply 235June 9, 2021 11:19 AM

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 Anonymousreply 236June 9, 2021 11:23 AM

^ “as well”

by Anonymousreply 237June 9, 2021 11:24 AM

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 Anonymousreply 238June 9, 2021 11:24 AM

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 Anonymousreply 239June 9, 2021 11:27 AM

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 Anonymousreply 240June 9, 2021 11:39 AM

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 Anonymousreply 241June 9, 2021 12:01 PM

I still call Australia home!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 242June 9, 2021 12:10 PM

I think Peter Allen would approve and is smiling wherever he is now.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 243June 9, 2021 12:12 PM

Qantas must be paying the Peter Allen estate a pretty penny.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 244June 9, 2021 12:15 PM

Fuck! Damn wrong thread.....

Disregard R244, R243 and R242

Carry on!

by Anonymousreply 245June 9, 2021 12:17 PM

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 Anonymousreply 246June 9, 2021 1:29 PM

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 Anonymousreply 247June 9, 2021 1:36 PM

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 Anonymousreply 248June 9, 2021 3:10 PM

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 Anonymousreply 249June 9, 2021 3:15 PM

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 Anonymousreply 250June 9, 2021 3:18 PM

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 Anonymousreply 251June 9, 2021 3:35 PM

"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 Anonymousreply 252June 9, 2021 3:38 PM

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 Anonymousreply 253June 9, 2021 3:53 PM

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 Anonymousreply 254June 9, 2021 4:07 PM

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 Anonymousreply 255June 9, 2021 4:22 PM

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 Anonymousreply 256June 9, 2021 5:14 PM

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 Anonymousreply 257June 9, 2021 5:14 PM

[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 Anonymousreply 258June 9, 2021 5:15 PM

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 Anonymousreply 259June 9, 2021 5:26 PM

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.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 260June 9, 2021 6:32 PM

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 Anonymousreply 261June 9, 2021 6:50 PM

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 Anonymousreply 262June 9, 2021 7:24 PM

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 Anonymousreply 263June 9, 2021 7:31 PM

Hillary Clinton might have some useful pointers for you, R262.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 264June 9, 2021 8:06 PM

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 Anonymousreply 265June 9, 2021 8:22 PM

[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 Anonymousreply 266June 9, 2021 8:50 PM


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.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 267June 9, 2021 11:08 PM

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 Anonymousreply 268June 9, 2021 11:18 PM


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 Anonymousreply 269June 9, 2021 11:26 PM

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 Anonymousreply 270June 9, 2021 11:40 PM

"It may be boring but it's cheap."

The world of the heterosexual is a sick and boring life.

by Anonymousreply 271June 9, 2021 11:47 PM

For LGBT it's a mixed bag about incomes....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 272June 10, 2021 12:02 AM

At least in Europe gay couples have higher household incomes on average than straights.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 273June 10, 2021 12:04 AM

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.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 274June 10, 2021 12:07 AM

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 Anonymousreply 275June 10, 2021 12:36 AM

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 Anonymousreply 276June 10, 2021 12:44 AM

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 Anonymousreply 277June 10, 2021 12:48 AM

Why did you put "male" in quotes R276?

Are the nurses transgender?

by Anonymousreply 278June 10, 2021 12:49 AM

You do realize those posts were likely from two different people. You know that, don't you?

by Anonymousreply 279June 10, 2021 12:50 AM


Because saying just "nurses" would imply both female and male, which wasn't the point one was trying to make at all.

by Anonymousreply 280June 10, 2021 12:51 AM

My retirement plan is to die.

by Anonymousreply 281June 10, 2021 12:55 AM

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 Anonymousreply 282June 10, 2021 1:06 AM

[quote] How do they live?


As a bodega cat you should know better than anyone.

by Anonymousreply 283June 10, 2021 1:07 AM

[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 Anonymousreply 284June 10, 2021 1:11 AM

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 Anonymousreply 285June 10, 2021 1:14 AM

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 Anonymousreply 286June 10, 2021 1:32 AM

Dame Maggie did old woman living in a van first you know....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 287June 10, 2021 1:38 AM

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 Anonymousreply 288June 10, 2021 1:39 AM

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 Anonymousreply 289June 10, 2021 1:57 AM

R298 you can't compare McDormand whose husband gave her most of her one-note roles to Dame Maggie.

by Anonymousreply 290June 10, 2021 2:55 AM

[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 Anonymousreply 291June 10, 2021 3:23 AM

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 Anonymousreply 292June 10, 2021 3:44 AM

[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 Anonymousreply 293June 10, 2021 9:47 AM

I'm confused R293. Who put an adjective in parentheses? Did you mean quotes?

by Anonymousreply 294June 10, 2021 10:23 AM

[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 Anonymousreply 295June 10, 2021 11:16 AM

Yes. R294. Pre-cofffee posting

by Anonymousreply 296June 10, 2021 11:18 AM


Go soak your head you tiresome old grammar troll.

by Anonymousreply 297June 10, 2021 11:39 AM

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 Anonymousreply 298June 10, 2021 11:43 AM

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 Anonymousreply 299June 10, 2021 12:12 PM

"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 Anonymousreply 300June 10, 2021 1:02 PM

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 Anonymousreply 301June 10, 2021 1:23 PM

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 Anonymousreply 302June 10, 2021 1:34 PM

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 Anonymousreply 303June 10, 2021 5:15 PM

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 Anonymousreply 304June 10, 2021 5:33 PM

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 Anonymousreply 305June 10, 2021 5:37 PM

The penalty is like 10%, btw.

by Anonymousreply 306June 10, 2021 5:38 PM

Plus after 59 1/2 there is no penalty, as well.

by Anonymousreply 307June 10, 2021 5:39 PM

I read that as Old people who don't have penises...

by Anonymousreply 308June 11, 2021 2:38 AM

R308 So did R52 and others. It might be why a financial thread started 6 days ago has 309 replies at this point.

by Anonymousreply 309June 11, 2021 3:18 AM

So Kaitlyn doesn't qualify? Maybe she has a pension though?

by Anonymousreply 310June 11, 2021 3:39 PM

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 Anonymousreply 311June 12, 2021 2:35 AM

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 Anonymousreply 312June 12, 2021 2:44 AM

What's the definition of a "millionaire"? Is it based on assets? Income? Net worth?

by Anonymousreply 313June 12, 2021 2:48 AM

R312: I would say net worth.

by Anonymousreply 314June 12, 2021 2:52 AM

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 Anonymousreply 315June 12, 2021 3:00 AM

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 Anonymousreply 316June 12, 2021 3:28 PM

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 Anonymousreply 317June 12, 2021 4:47 PM

[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 Anonymousreply 318June 13, 2021 2:17 AM

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 Anonymousreply 319June 13, 2021 2:36 AM

[quote]The Me Generation (whatever that means) didn’t change the nature of work or foreign competition, employee loyalty,

OK Boomer.

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 Anonymousreply 320June 13, 2021 6:12 AM

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 Anonymousreply 321June 13, 2021 12:42 PM

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?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 322June 13, 2021 12:57 PM

[quote] i 'll be coming into a few hundred thousands of dollars what should i do with this money, where should i put it?...

Beanie Babies.

by Anonymousreply 323June 13, 2021 7:02 PM

R323, it's cryptocurrency these days.

by Anonymousreply 324June 13, 2021 7:03 PM

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 Anonymousreply 325June 13, 2021 7:21 PM

[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 Anonymousreply 326June 13, 2021 7:32 PM

R326 Been there, done that.

by Anonymousreply 327June 13, 2021 7:33 PM

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 Anonymousreply 328June 13, 2021 7:41 PM

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 Anonymousreply 329June 13, 2021 8:24 PM

Oh, dear. Years, not Year’s. Damn that spell checker.

by Anonymousreply 330June 13, 2021 8:26 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 Anonymousreply 331June 15, 2021 6:55 AM

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 Anonymousreply 332June 15, 2021 4:17 PM

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 Anonymousreply 333June 15, 2021 5:24 PM

I knew someone who taught High School for the Brooklyn Diocese and she gets $110. per month pension.

by Anonymousreply 334June 15, 2021 5:35 PM

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 Anonymousreply 335June 15, 2021 5:46 PM

[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 Anonymousreply 336June 15, 2021 8:56 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 Anonymousreply 337June 15, 2021 8:59 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 Anonymousreply 338June 15, 2021 9:07 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 Anonymousreply 339June 15, 2021 9:16 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 Anonymousreply 340June 15, 2021 9:19 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 Anonymousreply 341June 15, 2021 9:20 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 Anonymousreply 342June 15, 2021 9:23 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 Anonymousreply 343June 15, 2021 9:26 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 Anonymousreply 344June 15, 2021 9:32 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 Anonymousreply 345June 15, 2021 9:45 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 Anonymousreply 346June 15, 2021 9:49 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 Anonymousreply 347June 15, 2021 11:46 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 Anonymousreply 348June 15, 2021 11:47 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 Anonymousreply 349June 16, 2021 12:36 AM

Like u OP??

by Anonymousreply 350June 16, 2021 12:38 AM

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 Anonymousreply 351June 16, 2021 2:07 AM

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 Anonymousreply 352June 16, 2021 3:04 AM

[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 Anonymousreply 353June 17, 2021 10:50 AM

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 Anonymousreply 354June 17, 2021 12:52 PM

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 Anonymousreply 355June 17, 2021 4:24 PM

And yet, if you ask a Boomer, they will tell you that Reagan was the greatest president we ever had.


by Anonymousreply 356June 17, 2021 7:58 PM

Umm, no we wouldn't, R356. Nice try though.

by Anonymousreply 357June 17, 2021 8:01 PM

[quote]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.

Nixon has shame and in his own mind, loved his country. Enough so that he resigned from office. Trump had no shame and sold America out to Putin. Trump was Impeached twice! Trump caused an insurrection. I think the jury is in on who of the two will go down in history as the worst president.

by Anonymousreply 358June 19, 2021 10:45 AM

That so-called insurrection was justified, R358.

by Anonymousreply 359June 19, 2021 10:47 AM

[quote]Boomer, they will tell you that Reagan was the greatest president we ever had

That's because Reagan was a Daddy figure and most Boomers are selfish children deep down in the core of their emotional maturity or lack there of.

by Anonymousreply 360June 19, 2021 10:48 AM

[quote]so-called insurrection

The Insurrection is a fact, it's on video, not "so called" except in the mind of cult followers of the orange turd who cant get over the fact he lost an election and is a total loser.

by Anonymousreply 361June 19, 2021 10:51 AM

Don't kid yourself, Boomers hated Reagan. It was their parents who put him over the top. Don't forget how many old people who are now dead were still alive then.

by Anonymousreply 362June 19, 2021 10:52 AM

Boomers put Regan into office. They need to own it. Regan won by a landslide almost all 50 states. It wasn't just Boomers parents who did that.

by Anonymousreply 363June 19, 2021 10:59 AM

R358, the only reason Nixon resigned was because he was going to be impeached and removed as president. He fought it the whole way until tapes were released that confirmed he was in on the planning of the Watergate coverup. He was no patriot, he was a crook, like he denied he wasn’t.

by Anonymousreply 364June 19, 2021 11:31 AM

[quote]Boomers put Regan into office. They need to own it. Regan won by a landslide almost all 50 states.

Oh, dear.

by Anonymousreply 365June 19, 2021 10:27 PM

Most of the boomer generation I know LOVED Reagan and even some X'ers who were brainwashed by their parents in thinking that Reagan and Reaganomics were brilliant. They loved his allowing of more religion into the White House and his foreign policies. I remember studying the Iran-Contra affair in political science in high school and mentioning to my aunt that Oliver North was a criminal and she got SO offended and said, "He's a HERO!"

by Anonymousreply 366June 19, 2021 10:32 PM

49% voted against Reagan in 1980. And even in '84, 40% is a lot of people.

1980: Reagan won 489 of 538 electoral votes and 50.7 percent of the popular vote, while Carter won 41.0 percent of the popular vote and independent candidate John B. Anderson took 6.6 percent of the vote. 1984: Reagan won 58.8 percent of the popular vote to Mondale's 40.6 percent.

by Anonymousreply 367June 20, 2021 1:44 AM

The Silent Majority elected Reagan. The Hippies and liberals of the 70s were never an entrenched majority. Progressivism is never easily accomplished and will always be pushed back against.

by Anonymousreply 368June 20, 2021 3:06 AM

Except most Hippies I know theirs days who are not in their 60's and 70's are not liberals. They are Boomers who don't want the label of establishment but they act and think like closet Republicans. Most will claim they are independent but if you talk to them, they don't compare apples to apples. They are too intellectually lazy to do the work and instead live in a bubble where they see themselves as above it all with little real knowledge of what is going on in the world. They know more about conspiracy theories than they do about current issues. They don't see Trump as any worse than any other politician because they are not aware of all the shit he did.

by Anonymousreply 369June 20, 2021 9:53 AM

R369 The gay Boomers I know are nothing like that. My experience is with that generation that grew up in the NE. Maybe it's more accurate in the South. Nothing like painting with the broadest brush possible!

by Anonymousreply 370June 21, 2021 5:33 AM

I'm 66 and grew up in Mississippi (still there though I lived in Ireland a while). Anyway, the small college I went to had a small subset of "hippies" (counter-culture, druggy types). The ones I've kept up with (maybe a dozen) are all still liberal, although one inherited money and voted for Reagan once (which I've never let her forget about!)

I don't think there were a lot of hippies down here - the vast majority were sorority or frat guys, jocks, or religious nuts, and hippies were a small slice. Like Trent Lott once said, Ole Miss tried to have these Yale-educated lawyers down here to school us on socialist theories but we ain't havin' none of that -- the guy who lost his Speakership because he said Strom Thurmond should have won the presidency on the Segregationist ticket in 1948...

I can't explain why apparently most hippies from less medieval parts of the US turned into conservatives. Methinks they never did much thinking to begin with, just followed along with the crowd.

by Anonymousreply 371June 21, 2021 12:28 PM

Who is it that said it's impossible to underestimate the intelligence of the average American. P. T. Barnum? H. L. Mencken? Mark Twain?

Well, whoever said it, it's true. With Americans, you have to stir in a large portion of arrogance to get the mess we have now. Superpowers with ignorant/religious populations don't mix well.

by Anonymousreply 372June 21, 2021 12:32 PM

H.L. Mencken said that.

PT Barnum said, “This way to the Egress.”

by Anonymousreply 373June 21, 2021 12:59 PM

This thread makes it clear that I should be sure to invest in an exit bag early on, so that I don’t end up elderly and in poverty.

by Anonymousreply 374June 21, 2021 2:33 PM

R374 even that may not work anymore - they've been deliberately making helium impure to prevent that. It's like they want you to suffer.

by Anonymousreply 375June 21, 2021 2:35 PM

[quote]PT Barnum said, “This way to the Egress.”

Don't forget "there's a sucker born every minute."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 376June 21, 2021 9:10 PM

[quote]I can't explain why apparently most hippies from less medieval parts of the US turned into conservatives.

I think it's simple. The ME generation AKA Boomers were literally all about themselves with far less concern than previous generations. Becoming a Hippy might sound cool, out of the box, individualist, but in reality they were just rejecting being told what to do so they could be even more self involved. As they aged out, and finally "tuned in" the GOP me, me, me, mantra and suddenly needing money and not wanting to share with "those people" was catnip to their souls.

I have truly never met a generous Hippy. Oh, they might offer to read your palm, or get you high without asking but they usually EXPECT some kind of pay back after they have so "generously" done things for you. Purely transactional. Republican in disguise. They don't understand Pay it Forward.

by Anonymousreply 377June 24, 2021 7:01 AM

R377, the Me Generation were not the Boomers, that’s the millennials. And I say this not to disparage millennials. They saw their parents work jobs whose employers were not loyal to them, who laid them off after years of loyalty. So millennials have no loyalty to any company—they jump from job to job looking for advancement and they have lives outside of their jobs. This is a good thing btw.

by Anonymousreply 378June 24, 2021 11:45 AM

We get it R377, you hate boomers. Every fucking post in this thread is how you hate boomers, and hippies who are really boomers. Or something. Message heard. Loud and clear. Yup, you hates you some boomers. Firing on all cylinders with the boomer hate. Hates 'em ya does. Fucked ya over, they did. Christ on a cracker, get some damn therapy for your daddy doesn't love me issues.

by Anonymousreply 379June 24, 2021 11:57 AM

R379, I love ya!

by Anonymousreply 380June 24, 2021 1:06 PM

[quote]the Me Generation were not the Boomers, that’s the millennials. And I say this not to disparage millennials.

Goggle some history Dear. The Me Generation was a term coined for Boomers long before you were born. You are basically Me Millennial Spawn. Which makes sense why you think your gen is the selfish one because as they say, the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree. Your parents the Boomers just had more opportunities to pilfer society than you do. And they still do. They will be the last generation to benefit from Social Security and bankrupt it for the generations to fallow.

by Anonymousreply 381June 27, 2021 8:56 AM

[quote]Christ on a cracker, get some damn therapy for your daddy doesn't love me issues.

OK Boomer. Calm down, you sound triggered. Is the clubhouse still closed at your 55+ community resort Dear?

by Anonymousreply 382June 27, 2021 9:04 AM

R382, using that tired old phrase? It was tired two days after it was said. This is DL, show a little more wit and imagination. Are you sure you’re not geriatric?

by Anonymousreply 383June 27, 2021 2:02 PM

Two things that don’t work, me and my pennis!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 384June 27, 2021 2:09 PM

A lot of people live on SS and a small supplement. There are plenty of places to live in the US on $3,000 /month. May not be a glamorous big city - but you really don’t need that in old age. A 1BR apartment, simple food and money for utilities. Medicare is a huge benefit after 65. It will cut my health care costs by 75%.

by Anonymousreply 385June 27, 2021 2:17 PM

I just moved to a very boomer-filled area, and from what I observed, most are Trumpers because most want it to be 1980 again.

Their ability to understand many of the complicated things that have happened in the world in the last 50 years - deindustrialization, workforce changes, shifts between cities and suburbs, corporate consolidation and media changes - is nil. They want to blame someone else for their lost savings/401K losses and/or the reasons why their kids/grandkids are failing.

by Anonymousreply 386June 27, 2021 2:28 PM

Since social security and SSI are both a form of pension, there are actually very few elderly people who don't have a pension. Obviously that doesn't mean they're on easy street.

by Anonymousreply 387June 27, 2021 2:35 PM

Different counties have supplemental services for the poor elders.

by Anonymousreply 388June 27, 2021 2:40 PM

R387 An important distinction between Social Security and pensions is that there is no contractual guarantee for SS as there is for true pensions. For example, if Congress doesn’t act in time, SS payments are projected to decrease by around 25% starting between 2030 and 2035 depending on which estimates you look at.

by Anonymousreply 389June 27, 2021 7:39 PM

Was that a nerve R382?

by Anonymousreply 390June 27, 2021 11:07 PM

r389, pensions aren't guaranteed either. United Airline employees and many others have had their pensions reduced or taken away or altered in a negative way. The safest pensions are from the Federal Government, but it is not a given either.

by Anonymousreply 391June 28, 2021 1:59 AM

R389 Thanks for correcting me. Wow, there's not much you can count on these days.

by Anonymousreply 392June 28, 2021 2:56 AM

R391 Thanks for correcting me. Wow, there's not much you can count on these days.

by Anonymousreply 393June 28, 2021 2:57 AM

Nose employer-sponsored defined benefit pension plans are guaranteed by the Federal government through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (sort of like the FDIC.) Of course there are limits and wife a DB plan goes under, not everyone will get what they were promised. But it's better than nothing.

by Anonymousreply 394June 28, 2021 3:02 AM

Nose = Most (damned autocorrect!)

by Anonymousreply 395June 28, 2021 3:02 AM

r394, exactly, pensions can be cut and can not be counted on. United even cut plans on people who had already retired. Of course the CEOS and VPs had exit packages and cleaned up as did the attorneys,

by Anonymousreply 396June 28, 2021 4:41 AM

SSI could be fixed immediately if they would just raise the amount of of what you would pay taxes on. I believe they only deduct from incomes up to $125 or $150k. Hillary proposed making that deduction for incomes up to $250k. (Aka, the people who could afford it more.) Would solve the problem in less than a year.

by Anonymousreply 397June 28, 2021 12:50 PM

I should clarify, you do pay up to 125k or 150k, whatever it is. But that's it. You don't pay on the rest of your income. (I'm R397)

by Anonymousreply 398June 28, 2021 12:53 PM

R397 Unfortunately, that may never happen. Increases in SS benefits as a percentage of lifetime payroll tax contributions decrease drastically as total contributions get close to the contributions ceiling. In other words, people with less lifetime SS contributions get more “bang for each buck” they contributed. Drastically raising the ceiling for contributions would result in little or no additional SS payments for the folks that paid most of the increase. I’m not sure even many Democratic politicians want to go to their wealthy constituents with that plan.

by Anonymousreply 399June 29, 2021 7:53 AM

[quote]Drastically raising the ceiling for contributions would result in little or no additional SS payments for the folks that paid most of the increase. I’m not sure even many Democratic politicians want to go to their wealthy constituents with that plan.

And what's the problem with that, R399?

Because the program was begun as a scheme with a more or less proportional contribution-benefit ratio, rich and poor getting back in some rough sense what each had contributed doesn't mean that, 86 years later, everyone carries the same rigid expectation. 70% of Americans think that SS benefits will be cut or disappear before they retire, so allegiance to their grandparents' concept of contribute X/receive Y would seem not to be on such sure footing as you imply.

Tax deductions for beneficiaries benefit the people with the least income to contribute toward income taxes. So does spending for public schools. So do a lot of things. The contributions ceiling of SS is very reasonably a target for reconsideration.

by Anonymousreply 400June 29, 2021 11:57 AM

R400, the 'rough justice' of or a more-or-less proportional contribution-benefit ratio has been one reason SS has always remained so popular among people of all income levels. Taking away that general view of the program could destroy its support and end up hurting the poor the most.

by Anonymousreply 401June 29, 2021 2:11 PM

R400, people are so bamboozled. They just buy into the propaganda. There is no earthly reason for the ceiling not to be raised.

by Anonymousreply 402June 29, 2021 2:13 PM

[quote]the 'rough justice' of or a more-or-less proportional contribution-benefit ratio has been one reason SS has always remained so popular among people of all income levels. Taking away that general view of the program could destroy its support and end up hurting the poor the most.

Spoken like someone anxious to not pay one thin dime more in taxes than he has to do.

I would argue that the popularity of SS has much more to do with the fact that everyone, eventually, gets money back from from the scheme and has far less to do with the beauty of its "rough justice" formula which assiduously avoids charging the people who need it least and can afford most to provide for the general good.

by Anonymousreply 403June 29, 2021 2:37 PM

R403, you'd be wrong about that. I actually want both my income taxes and payroll taxes raised as I can easily afford it. I'm just skeptical that many other people in my tax bracket will be glad to hear "we are raising your social security taxes by $10,000 a year, but not increasing your benefits at all".

by Anonymousreply 404June 29, 2021 4:02 PM

[quote]Drastically raising the ceiling for contributions would result in little or no additional SS payments for the folks that paid most of the increase. I’m not sure even many Democratic politicians want to go to their wealthy constituents with that plan.

I was one of those who made more than the SS limit, I would have been fine with being taxed on my entire income. I was able to fully fund my 401k and Roth IRA and save in taxable accounts as well. The people earning lower wages often can't afford to save much for retirement.

Our country's income inequality is a disgrace. I spent the 4 years prior to the pandemic traveling overseas and I can not believe what a shithole the US looks like compared to every other 1st world country.

by Anonymousreply 405June 29, 2021 10:17 PM

Any new old people out there without pensions?

by Anonymousreply 406September 13, 2021 9:12 PM

Eat dog food

by Anonymousreply 407September 13, 2021 9:14 PM

Meals without wheels!

by Anonymousreply 408September 14, 2021 1:41 AM

This sounds like a Family Feud question: We surveyed 100 people and asked them how old people who don't have pensions survive.

by Anonymousreply 409September 14, 2021 10:56 PM
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.


Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!