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.
I answered no. Yes, it is becoming more difficult for many people to retire, but there are many people that are not willing to make tradeoffs during their working years. Many people that make a decent living choose to live paycheck to paycheck by living in their oversized homes, expensive cars, having large debts for their "wants", and do not plan ahead.
As a previous poster stated, he retired at 61, did not make a "huge" salary, yet lived within his means. How about the concept of trying to payoff a mortgage? I think that will help a retiree quite a bit. Too many people live with this attitude of "enjoy life while I am alive", but when they reach retirement and planned poorly in the process, they pay the consequences of their poor financial choices throughout their lives.
I believe in enjoying life today, but also plan for tomorrow.
I thnk the topic is more about the changing retirement landscape to include more people ahvig to plan to finance it themselves and not some pernsion that foten took care of the plannig for mnay.Its a different work as we have seen even the number that have at least five jobs in their working career. For some it amybe a chocie of living a unconfortabel life style while workig or later then retired ad its alweays been for some.Many may be in a no choice with both deodnding on mnay factors beyond their control. he eprosn with a r indic vivudfal retire accu t is likely makig adjustemtn eve now to what the losses eman in last years and going forward.Most mat ybe where they were years ago or higher but have loss those year gains forever.Other will have pension based o interest eraned and will mean lower guarnateed income in retirement of tkaen at same time.
So you're saying that that anyone who collects SS, but has no other source of income can provide life basics (food, housing, medical care above what medicare pays, etc.)?
Yes. One can do it on the average SS benefit without much hardship. Maybe not where you live, or within your social circle, but it's not uncommon.
A couple could very easily collect $45,000k/yr in SS alone with just one high-earner, or two average earners. With no mortgage, and virtually no income taxes, SS can provide a modest living with a few frills. The average w/spousal would provide $25k/yr. Not huge but, again, with no mortgage, people can get by.
I don't think these people plan on spending for medical beyond what is paid by Medicare. Some may spend a lot at the dentist. Others won't. The $25k/yr couple probably won't be buying Medicare supplements but then, again, you never know. I met an elderly couple (80s) who said hubby was going on Advantage b/c they couldn't handle the $300/mo each premiums anymore. She needed her Supplement, he was healthier. So, they cut their health insurance costs $300/mo, and put him on zero premium Advantage.
I retired when i was 55 and kept on working full time until i was 70. I still do some consulting, but it is bottom-feeding type work that I can do from habit. I have enjoyed my retirement a lot.
So you're saying that that anyone who collects SS, but has no other source of income can provide life basics (food, housing, medical care above what medicare pays, etc.)? In can be done minimally, but it's very difficult. I'm not talking toys, I'm talking basics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLS2753
Yes. One can do it on the average SS benefit without much hardship. Maybe not where you live, or within your social circle, but it's not uncommon.
+1. Soc Sec was never meant to provide a sole source of income, and evidently it's not for about 86% of the retired population, so the question is misguided to begin with.
The current average Soc Sec benefit for retirees is just over $15K/yr. It wouldn't be pretty, but it's certainly doable for the "basics." It might require some radical changes in lifestyle and expenses, and you might not be able to afford a single family detached home (hopefully you own outright once retired) in a average or high COL area or any frills, but people are doing it now. It wouldn't be a glamorous life and financial vulnerability could be high - again Soc Sec was not meant to provide anything but the basics in stark terms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssa.gov
- Nine out of ten individuals age 65 and older receive Social Security benefits.
- Social Security benefits represent about 39% of the income of the elderly.
^^^^ Midpack, thanks for the data above. According to the chart, 22.7% of older Americans derive between 90% and 100% of their income from Social Security. Of those, an unknown number probably have assets which can be converted to income if necessary, such as various investments or a paid-off house (convertible to income via a reverse mortgage).
So often we argue back and forth without having hard data at hand. Therefore posts such as yours are refreshing.
Those currently retiring though still have pensions. The trend though is future retirees won't have company pensions and SS just might replace that steady income stream. I don't think a 401K can replace a company pension plan based on what I've read about balances and financial astuteness of your typical American worker.
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.
