Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics > Personal Finance
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-17-2010, 06:17 AM
 
106,060 posts, read 108,015,953 times
Reputation: 79628

Advertisements

if i had to survive on just ss i would have to work until i died....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-17-2010, 06:43 AM
 
Location: State of Superior
8,733 posts, read 15,895,282 times
Reputation: 2869
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
if i had to survive on just ss i would have to work until i died....
Many are in that mode, always will be. However , there will come a time when you will not be able to work anymore. There will come a time when assisted living becomes a necessary, and later , the Nursing Home. They cost a lot , way more than what Social Security and even average pensions can pay for.... Hopefully we will be able to live out our lives in our paid for homes, thats everyones hope and dream.... Regardless , age does do numbers on the mind and body..... It all has to do with your health, we are not 25 anymore and bulletproof. That said , all of us should be able to live out our final years with diginity...and a little fun also...we paid for it many times over.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2010, 09:27 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,017 posts, read 20,854,783 times
Reputation: 32530
Default Wild hyperbole

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
It was never the purpose of Social Security to provide a lavish and luxurious estate for a wealthy retiree to live in. Their mansion can be sold for enough money to live on for the rest of their lives.
It is not fair to criticize SS because a person who made millions during his lifetime does not receive enough benefits to continue his opulent lifestyle. Which appears to be Escort Rider's and Lakewooder's criticism.
Pointing out the reality of something is not the same as criticizing it. I did not intend my comments to be a criticism of Social Security. I think your wild hyperbole (above) serves only to sidetrack the discussion. I am not now, nor have I ever been, "wealthy". I do not now have, nor have I ever had, an "opulent lifestyle". Having a paid-for but modest two-bedroom townhouse (as I do) is not the same as "a lavish and luxurious estate" or a "mansion", rather, it is middle-class at best.

Just now I looked up the maximum monthly Social Security retirement benefit on their website. I agree with the figure you cited in another post (which I did not quote above), that a husband and wife, each drawing the maximum benefit, would have about $56,000 per year, which, as you say, would provide basic comfort and dignity.

However, let's analyze this a bit further. In order to get that maximum benefit of $2,346 per month, a person retiring at age 66 in 2010 would need to have had the maximum taxable amount of Soc. Sec. earnings every year after age 21. So for starters, relatively few people are going to have that. Most people's wages are below that maximum taxable amount (currently $106,800 per year), many people have suffered periods of unemployment, and some have not been able to wait until age 66 to start collecting (i.e., if they need the money earlier just to survive). Plus a couple (both drawing the max as per your example) can take advantage of certain financial efficiencies, such as housing for two at the cost of housing for one, basically. Let's cut the $56,000 in half for a single or divorced person or a worker with a stay-at-home spouse, and we are left with $28,000 per year for that rare maximum drawer. This is doable, but under most of the conditions I cited in my earlier post.

I stand by my earlier conclusions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2010, 09:40 AM
 
1 posts, read 1,290 times
Reputation: 10
I'm retiring in september this year. social security sent me a letter stating that signa bank owes me some retirement funds but they went out of business. but i need to know who do i contact about these funds.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2010, 02:09 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,579 posts, read 86,694,851 times
Reputation: 36642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
Pointing out the reality of something is not the same as criticizing it. I did not intend my comments to be a criticism of Social Security. I think your wild hyperbole (above) serves only to sidetrack the discussion. I am not now, nor have I ever been, "wealthy". I do not now have, nor have I ever had, an "opulent lifestyle". Having a paid-for but modest two-bedroom townhouse (as I do) is not the same as "a lavish and luxurious estate" or a "mansion", rather, it is middle-class at best.

Just now I looked up the maximum monthly Social Security retirement benefit on their website. I agree with the figure you cited in another post (which I did not quote above), that a husband and wife, each drawing the maximum benefit, would have about $56,000 per year, which, as you say, would provide basic comfort and dignity.

However, let's analyze this a bit further. In order to get that maximum benefit of $2,346 per month, a person retiring at age 66 in 2010 would need to have had the maximum taxable amount of Soc. Sec. earnings every year after age 21. So for starters, relatively few people are going to have that. Most people's wages are below that maximum taxable amount (currently $106,800 per year), many people have suffered periods of unemployment, and some have not been able to wait until age 66 to start collecting (i.e., if they need the money earlier just to survive). Plus a couple (both drawing the max as per your example) can take advantage of certain financial efficiencies, such as housing for two at the cost of housing for one, basically. Let's cut the $56,000 in half for a single or divorced person or a worker with a stay-at-home spouse, and we are left with $28,000 per year for that rare maximum drawer. This is doable, but under most of the conditions I cited in my earlier post.

I stand by my earlier conclusions.
You're standing by the conclusion that A) you are not resourceful enough to get by on $28K and B) SS is expected to pay everyone that much (or more), because you can't (read: don't want to) live on less.

My wife and I have been living for 20 years on less than HALF of that together, and been a two-car family, and been around the world twice. If you can't figure out a way to be happy with that kind of income, that's nobody's fault but your own.

Last edited by jtur88; 08-18-2010 at 02:18 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2010, 02:11 PM
 
Location: southern california
61,289 posts, read 87,188,930 times
Reputation: 55551
get into a government job with a union, like yesterday.
do not do not get in debt.
stay out of debt. did i mention that you need to avoid debt?
listen to dave ramsey.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2010, 02:29 PM
 
Location: State of Superior
8,733 posts, read 15,895,282 times
Reputation: 2869
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
You're standing by the conclusion that A) you are not resourceful enough to get by on $28K and B) SS is expected to pay everyone that much (or more), because you can't (read: don't want to) live on less.

My wife and I have been living for 20 years on less than HALF of that together, and been a two-car family, and been around the world twice. If you can't figure out a way to be happy with that kind of income, that's nobody's fault but your own.
I give you amazing pluses for living 20 years on 14,000 a year. Thats below the poverty level, you must have a system of barter and be living off the land , to do all you have done on so little an amount.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2010, 03:41 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,017 posts, read 20,854,783 times
Reputation: 32530
Default Leaps of logic

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
You're standing by the conclusion that A) you are not resourceful enough to get by on $28K and B) SS is expected to pay everyone that much (or more), because you can't (read: don't want to) live on less.

My wife and I have been living for 20 years on less than HALF of that together, and been a two-car family, and been around the world twice. If you can't figure out a way to be happy with that kind of income, that's nobody's fault but your own.
My position that living on $28K per year is basically difficult is not the same as saying that I personally am not resourceful enough to do it. I am simply glad I don't have to do it, but since I am a very resourceful person I know I could if I had to. Nor did I ever say that SS benefits should be higher than they are; they are what they are because that is the level which is sustainable, for better or for worse. It is sad that you feel the need to attribute to me things which I did not in fact write, and it is regrettable that you feel the need to be insulting by attributing to me another false conclusion that I am not resourceful enough to live on a given level of income. How about some analysis instead of insults? Which of the conditions of that previous post of mine do you think one can do without and still live on the amounts we are talking about? How about sharing with us the cost of housing for you and your wife, your monthly food budget, how you get by with very little outlay for medical care, and so forth? That way you could contribute to other folks' resources and shed some light, rather than emotion, on the topic.

To do what you have accomplished takes a very resourceful person, so I compliment you on it. My point was (as I clearly stated in the earlier post), and my point remains, that some carefully thought-out strategies are required for that. It is a great mystery to me why you are reading in other conclusions. I have read some of your posts in the Frugal Living forum, and I know you go to rather extreme measures, and there is nothing wrong with that at all; you say you are happy and that is the main thing. Let us proceed on a more rational level.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2010, 03:54 PM
 
Location: Boise, ID
8,046 posts, read 28,396,396 times
Reputation: 9470
I actually find this argument encouraging. I would be thrilled to receive $20k a year when I retire in 35 years. Assuming that Social Security is still around (which in my opinion, it probably will be in some capacity, but perhaps drastically reduced). My husband and I are not "max earners", but will both work enough years, making enough money to be in the mid range. So even if SS gets cut to 50% of what it currently pays out, we still could potentially receive $20k or more a year (inflated dollars)

Figuring that inflation doubles costs every 20 years, at retirement age, things will cost about 4 times what they do today, we should be able to retire on about $60k a year ($15k in today's dollars), since our house will be paid off and we live very frugally. Even if only $20k a year is coming from SS, that is a sizable dent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2010, 07:16 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,579 posts, read 86,694,851 times
Reputation: 36642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
How about sharing with us the cost of housing for you and your wife, your monthly food budget, how you get by with very little outlay for medical care, and so forth? That way you could contribute to other folks' resources and shed some light, rather than emotion, on the topic.

.
Sure, no problem.
Apartment in a well-maintained and safe complex: $480 including water.
Electric, $50 in winter, $100 in summer because of AC.
Cable/internet/phone $130.
2001 Nissan Sentra, $3,000, from savings. Insurance $400. Gas variable (37 mpg), but we walk a lot. Gas and ins about $55 a month
Food $200 a month. We cook from scratch, dine out maybe once a month, lunchtime.
Insurance is medicare. Deductible and copays maybe $500 a year, $40 a month.
All clothing and home furnishings from thrift shops.
That comes almost right on $1,000.
We lived in South America for three years, on half of that, and could save the difference.
The trip around the world cost just over $8,000, we were gone 8 months, 16 countries. Even with plane fare, it was literally cheaper than staying home.

Last edited by jtur88; 08-18-2010 at 07:25 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics > Personal Finance
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:14 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top