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.
People who are jealous of retirees don't have the big picture. All they see is the leisure. They don't see the lonliness of your friends dying around you, or the fixed income or the low income or the aches and pains or the age illnesses or the act of being old and only being able to associate with old people who only want to talk about their infirmities. The list goes on and on.
Youth have no clue about the bigger picture in being old.
I wish I could put them in my bod for a day or two and I'll take theirs. They would change their tunes really really fast.
You are right on! I might add that I've never been one to tell anyone about my aches and pains and I'm not going to start now that I'm 64. I don't like to hear it from others so I won't bore anyone! The fact is noone wants to hear about your ailments. When asked how I am, I'm just fine is my response.
Well, when we speak of retirement it's usally of those 60 and over and that's considered old/elderly! My point in why would young folks be jealous.
Yes life is more than work, but if no one worked nothing would get done! Somebody's got to do it! Not to mention the monetary value! Think about that. Work and then play. After 40 years I'm playing!
I'm not "Envious" of the age...
But I do not wish to do 'the rat race'
It's not the physical, but the Freedom which is desired.
Why can't old people get this!
(Yes, that IS A JOKE!)
Why can't old people get this!(Yes, that IS A JOKE!)
I get it. And I agree.
Regarding the poster who said she doesnt want to bore others with her ailments...actually, I find that's one of the benefits of getting older. When people for whom I dont really care call/email me and ask "how are you doing", I almost always respond with a long list of ailments and complaints (real or otherwise). At my age, all those ailments/problems are totally believable. And it doesnt take long before those people arent calling/emailing me so often anymore.
It is not retirees I resent, but a certain subset of retirees. I call them "Selfish Retirees," and I won't be one when I retire (early).
Selfish Retirees are those who loudly talk and vote liberal Big Government, because they were at the top (winning end) of all the government Ponzi Scams like Social Security. They paid the least and will get the most, and they absolutely refuse to share in the pain/cost when the Ponzi scams collapse. Fine if my generation doesn't get SS benefits until we are 67, or 76 for that matter--as long as they get their fat subsidy starting when THEY retire at 62. And cuts in benefits must be made on us, also, because we have "time" to save more (in a collapsed economy with few jobs, and 80 hours a week required if you do have one), who cares that their Social Security is just icing on the cake since they got lucrative pensions.
In our extended family we have a couple who retired at age 62 with full pensions and paid health care and Social Security and Medicare. They don't care that our pensions were legally stolen, and that we work many more hours than they did in their jobs, and we pay 30% of all our health care and insurance costs even while still working. They don't care that OUR Social Security retirement has already been moved to age 67, and will in all likelihood be 72 or 76 by the time we reach those ages--with less benefits. They don't care that our entire work lives were subject to the maximum SS taxes resulting from the 1983 legislation that created the SS Trust Fund (that would have paid for our retirement benefits), nor do they care that the politicians in Washington SPENT the SS Trust Fund on other things like senseless multiple foreign wars.
They LOVE government. It profited THEM. Tough cookies if everyone born after them pays the massive bills they racked up, and gets NOTHING in return. These Selfish Retirees are Looking out for #1 while at the same time telling the world they live for their grandchildren. But share the tax increases, or take less from the system? No way!
I resent that they are the richest generation ever, but will NOT share one iota of the cost/pain that is an inevitable result of the Big Government and massive overspending they supported and CAUSED. Their SS benefits are sacred, even though in their working lives they paid much smaller SS taxes prior to 1983, and planted themselves in all the well-paying/minimal-hours jobs that Robber-Baron CEOs simply eliminated when they retired. I resent people who don't care if a system works, but only care if the system worked FOR THEM.
We, too, did not have children, and stopped borrowing early on, and did everything we could to improve our financial situation. We intend to retire early, since by continuing to work 80 hours a week in stressful professional jobs, we simply increase our tax bill. But that doesn't change the fact that every paycheck we earned lost over 13% just to pay for the Social Security that will not be there when we retire, not to mention the equivalent of a luxury SUV we send every year for Washington to give to some Big Business like GE, or spend on some idiotic and pointless foreign war.
Does all that dislike of certain retirees include Joe Six pack who went to work at the factory for 40 years,contributed to a pension plan the whole time and is now retired at 60ish on that union pension plan?
Selfish Retirees are those who loudly talk and vote liberal Big Government, because they were at the top (winning end) of all the government Ponzi Scams like Social Security. They paid the least and will get the most, and they absolutely refuse to share in the pain/cost when the Ponzi scams collapse. Fine if my generation doesn't get SS benefits until we are 67, or 76 for that matter--as long as they get their fat subsidy starting when THEY retire at 62. And cuts in benefits must be made on us, also, because we have "time" to save more (in a collapsed economy with few jobs, and 80 hours a week required if you do have one), who cares that their Social Security is just icing on the cake since they got lucrative pensions.
In our extended family we have a couple who retired at age 62 with full pensions and paid health care and Social Security and Medicare. They don't care that our pensions were legally stolen, and that we work many more hours than they did in their jobs, and we pay 30% of all our health care and insurance costs even while still working. They don't care that OUR Social Security retirement has already been moved to age 67, and will in all likelihood be 72 or 76 by the time we reach those ages--with less benefits. They don't care that our entire work lives were subject to the maximum SS taxes resulting from the 1983 legislation that created the SS Trust Fund...
Where to start? Let's start with your statement about people getting Social Security retirement benefits at age 62, which you contrast with your getting them at 72 or 76 "in all likelihood". You must know that when people take Social Security retirement at age 62, they receive reduced benefits for life. For most current retirees, the "full retirement age" is 66, and for you it is 67, unless raised by Congress, which is possible. However, in all likelihood, the full retirement age will not be raised to anywhere near your wildly pessimistic figures of 72 to 76. My mother, who would be 97 if she were still alive, had a full retirement age of 65. Am I supposed to resent it because mine was 66? You sure resent it because yours is 67. Big deal.
You state that you know a couple in your extended family who "retired at age 62 with full pensions and paid health and Soc. Sec. and Medicare". Well, part of that is baloney because Medicare doesn't kick in until age 65.
And why do you make such a big deal about the increase in Social Security payroll taxes way back in 1983 (taking effect in 1984)? It is truly a minor matter if current retirees paid in at a slightly lower rate during the early part of their careers. The rates were raised to keep the system solvent, which is exactly what was accomplished during the 27 years since 1984. And yes, more modest tweaks in the system will be necessary in the next few years.
It sounds like you have a high-paying job, so there is no reason why you won't be just fine in retirement provided that you have been half-way smart about your spending and planning. Where does all the extreme bitterness and resentment come from, which you post over and over again? Your statement (not in the portions I quoted above) that working long hours "only" increases your tax bill - as if you weren't realizing any gain from the extra income - is ludicrous in the extreme. All anyone needs to do to verify that is to look at the federal tax tables. Aren't you even embarrassed to post such nonsense?
At my age, all those ailments/problems are totally believable. And it doesnt take long before those people arent calling/emailing me so often anymore.
You're serious? You don't want contact with people? Heck, why the subterfuge, simply tell them to stop calling you becuase you don't want their company!
Not that they'll listen. I told my crew at work(and an associate did also, who is retiring with me in 9 "some of us still have to work, you know" days that we wanted NO RETIRMENT CELEBRATIONS. I have to be nice if they do it, and I heard through the grapevine(I asked someone who would tell me so that if they were going to do it that I would actually be there, since it would not be nice to be somewhere else), and as it turned out they are planning something and I was planning on being somewhere else that day.
They don't listen. Generally, people do stuff for themselves not you. My wife says its for closure for them and has nothing to do with me. For some of them I've been the only elementary school counselor that any of them have known for their entire professional work life(and for some of them since they were little kids since they came back to teach in the same building they were elementary children in).
And, while I will miss some of them, also there are some who I will be quite grateful that I never have to see or talk to ever again.
You must know that when people take Social Security retirement at age 62, they receive reduced benefits for life.
Actually they expect you to die early which is why they want to give you reduced benefits. If you wait until 70 for the super benefits, you will have to be in your late 80's before you will get more money back than if you took the money at 62 and banked it, and if you did, you would not have that nest egg that retirement people sometimes need for an emergency.
If you wait until 66, you will still need to live until you are about 76 or 77 to get more than if you sarted at 62 and banked the money. And if you get any interest or dividends or something from it, it could be age 80.
If you can live without it until you are order, take it anyway and bank or invest the money, you'll come out way ahead unless you are still running marathons at age 98.
Actually they expect you to die early which is why they want to give you reduced benefits. If you wait until 70 for the super benefits, you will have to be in your late 80's before you will get more money back than if you took the money at 62 and banked it, and if you did, you would not have that nest egg that retirement people sometimes need for an emergency.
If you wait until 66, you will still need to live until you are about 76 or 77 to get more than if you sarted at 62 and banked the money. And if you get any interest or dividends or something from it, it could be age 80.
If you can live without it until you are order, take it anyway and bank or invest the money, you'll come out way ahead unless you are still running marathons at age 98.
You act like "they" have some nefarious plan to catch people up. Actually, it is all a wash! Statistically, you stand the same chance of breaking even as to the total amount of money you will collect whether you start Social Security retirement benefits at age 62, 66, or 70. In a given individual case, of course, it may not work out that way, as you may die young, or die old, or die at the average statistical point. I took SS retirement at 62 because I don't have much confidence in living past 77 or 78, which is about my "break-even" point. I just wanted to be sure of getting something rather than nothing.
But my whole point, and what so many fail to realize, is that it doesn't make a whole lot of difference either way.
You act like "they" have some nefarious plan to catch people up. Actually, it is all a wash! Statistically, you stand the same chance of breaking even as to the total amount of money you will collect whether you start Social Security retirement benefits at age 62, 66, or 70. In a given individual case, of course, it may not work out that way, as you may die young, or die old, or die at the average statistical point. I took SS retirement at 62 because I don't have much confidence in living past 77 or 78, which is about my "break-even" point. I just wanted to be sure of getting something rather than nothing.
But my whole point, and what so many fail to realize, is that it doesn't make a whole lot of difference either way.
It can make a ton of difference one way or the other. The problem is you probably won't know which way until later. However some one with considerable illness at 62 has a definite clue. That's one of the advantages of the 62/70 strategies for SOME couples. It enables you to collectively hedge your bets each way.
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.
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.
And I agree.
Distortions and exaggerations
