U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-27-2014, 02:51 AM
 
72,003 posts, read 72,043,164 times
Reputation: 49565

Advertisements

i think they can be an excellent planning tool. it allows one to put a date on their own longevity . they can plan to 80-85 instead of 95 and not fear running out of money.

if you die, well dead is dead game over .

i predict more and more insurance products will be used to fund retirements more and more.

while markets can't be counted on anymore dead bodies are predictable.

it is another asset class in a way ,to diversify in to.

we insure all aspects of our lives but we rarely insure the one thing that paying all the other insuramces hinge on , insuring our income in retirement.


larry i agree 100% , more and more folks are going to want guarantees especially if shillers cape ratio is an accurate prediuctor of what retirees can expect down the road.

the perfect plan would be a guaranteed annuity for income and life insurance for heirs. everything locked in advance and guaranteed more or less.

throw in a bunch of non crucial investments for the wants and inflation protection and you may be looking at the retirement plan of the future.


nice work on the articles.

Last edited by mathjak107; 09-27-2014 at 02:59 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-27-2014, 06:57 AM
 
29,866 posts, read 34,936,573 times
Reputation: 11788
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
which is exactly why any statistic about longevity is meaningless. unless you know who is going to die you still need to plan to a ripe old age regardless anyway.
Even sub group demographics are useless to the individual.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2014, 06:59 AM
 
72,003 posts, read 72,043,164 times
Reputation: 49565
that is why this constant citing of statistics about life expectancy ,long term care odds or wealth really is useless info. we all have to still plan like we are the one things either apply to or don't apply to.

only one outcome can apply with nothing in the middle.

insurers can use these statistics as they know how many of us are going to die each year within reason.. but they can't tell us who so to us the info is meaningless and to base your decisions on it are foolish most of the time.

remember average life expectancy is only the point 1/2 of us are dead and half alive. there is just as great a chance you will live from that point as die.

you still need to plan like you will beat methuslas record regardless.

Last edited by mathjak107; 09-27-2014 at 07:20 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2014, 02:45 PM
 
Location: Northern Wisconsin
8,867 posts, read 7,748,239 times
Reputation: 15279
Larry S said:

Quote:
Don't bet on it. There is absolutely no evidence in the mortality statistics of the trend you're describing. You need to budget to live to a very old age.
Larry, you're absolutely correct. I don't bet on anything anymore. I'm just going by general observations of what I've seen the last few years or so. My wife is on the front lines concerning payments from SS. She comes home and tells me of all the ways that govt. and insurers are cutting payouts. I don't expect that to get better. If anything, with the baby boom, it will almost certainly get worse. I'm also watching what I see with the birth rate, which is on a downward trend. Finally, there have been already reported some sections of the country, where the average lifespan is decreasing. Put it all together, and you've got a whole lot of people might end up not getting the healthcare that their parents got.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2014, 03:32 PM
 
1,228 posts, read 1,264,090 times
Reputation: 4315
Regarding Larry S's post above:

I do agree with you to an extent. I like the idea of longevity insurance and, in point of fact, I've discussed this with 3 different certified financial planners but I really need to find one that charges hourly rather than commission-based. All three are trying to dissuade me from it because age 85 is so far away for me. They want me to start a deferred annuity with payment beginning at age 65. I could do both, but with interest rates poised to rise (as we are being told, but not sure by how much they will rise) I keep thinking it isn't a great idea to buy any deferred annuity just yet. At age 70 I had planned to buy an immediate annuity.

Also, I've sat down with an Excel spreadsheet because I am OCD and I see that by paying for the deferred annuity at my age I do wind up with less spending money in my older years. Using the figures given to me, purchasing the deferred annuity with a guaranteed 5% minimum growth that pays $10,204 beginning when I turn 65 at a cost today of $110K leaves me negative $1134 per year by the time I am 95 vs had I not purchased it. On the positive side, it guarantees that I will always have that additional $10,204 annually in addition to social security assuming I outlive my assets. On the realistic side, what exactly is $10,204 going to purchase 40 plus years into my future?

So, which company is offering an income stream of $100K at age 85 for $150,000 today?

This was an interesting read: The Longevity Insurance Dilemma - Forbes
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2014, 10:14 PM
 
Location: Chandler, AZ
5,802 posts, read 5,474,710 times
Reputation: 3113
Those stats regarding increasing longevity for most folks doesn't mean that that everyone will live longer, so how much faith you put in such stats is an individual choice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2014, 12:39 AM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,127,115 times
Reputation: 8970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
In the business section of the Sunday, June 15, 2014 Los Angeles Times, financial advice columnist Liz Weston, whom I have always found to be accurate, reliable, and well informed, made the following point in one of her responses. I quote the two relevant sentences:

"Starting benefits early locks you into lower payments for life and will result in significantly smaller lifetime benefits for most people.That's in part because Social Security hasn't adjusted its payment formulas even as life expectancies have expanded, so most people will live beyond the "break-even" point where delayed benefits exceed the amounts they could have received had they started earlier." (Emphasis mine).

I had always thought, perhaps ignorantly, that it was a statistical wash for Social Security whether people took their benefits early or late - and apparently that was the case at one time. Now, if the L.A. Times columnist is correct, it seems we are better off in the aggregate waiting until full retirement age or beyond because "life expectancies have expanded".

As a pessimist who has never expected to reach my statistical life expectancy, I have long been aware of this aspect of Social Security - and thus I expect that drawing early will be the better choice for me.

Even so, getting on disability before reaching 62 would be even better, since that 'lower payment' does not lock in for SSDI recipients until they reach Full Retirement Age (FRA) - at which time that 'lower payment' has increased to the 'normal' level that would be received by someone claiming at FRA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2014, 01:02 PM
 
Location: Henderson, NV
1,091 posts, read 1,219,460 times
Reputation: 1765
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfingduo View Post
I believe the break even point is just about 80.

As for being single and having IRA/401k income it might be better to convert it quicker and then take SS at a later date say age 70 for the stated reasons of reaching that 85% marginal rate.
That's pretty close, the break even point is 12 years, not accounting for investing or cost of living increases.

Say you started collecting at age 62: When you'd actually reach FRA at age 66, you would already have received 4 years of payments. IF your payment was $2000 a month, that's $96,000 in your pocket at age 66. If you had waited until age 66 (when you'd get the higher payment, you would have an increase of roughly $666 a month) but, you obviously wouldn't have had that money ($96,000) in hand. It would take until age 78 for you to acquire that money ($96,000) with the higher payment. 12 years would be age 78. After you reached age 78 you would then be making $666 more a month than if you'd have retired at age 62.

So it's basically a bet as to how long you think you'll live.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2014, 01:31 PM
 
72,003 posts, read 72,043,164 times
Reputation: 49565
a great bet with a great payoff.

if you or your spouse die you can't use the money anymore and if you or your spouse live you can use it.

it isn't often you get a payoff that is one sided like it is.

if anyone is so concerned about heirs why not just buy a small single premium policy for the amount they might get cheated out of if you die?

it will cost less then you give up .

odds are though if a couple one will certainly live long enough to have it pay off.

Last edited by mathjak107; 10-04-2014 at 01:56 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2014, 06:07 AM
 
199 posts, read 453,795 times
Reputation: 341
If my wife would of waited to 66 to start SS she would of received nothing. Healthy all her life and family all lived to ripe old age. SS is only a small part of our retirement portfolio and $600 is pocket change for me to worry about. So 4 years of retirement is better than none. For me the break even point is 77, doubt I'll make that, but I live life to the fullest.
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 > Retirement
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top