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)
 
Old 08-11-2014, 06:43 AM
 
29,815 posts, read 34,900,894 times
Reputation: 11735

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mlb View Post
We are not affluent either - nor do we have children..... but if you are not paying for their education (public schools) you will pay for their incarceration (jail).

Which do you prefer?
Unfortunately we are paying for both. Education and prison cost have skyrocketed and there is much being said about the school to
Prison pipeline . That rhetoric has gotten old and worked thirty years ago and now we have time to look for validation of.

Last edited by TuborgP; 08-11-2014 at 06:46 AM.. Reason: D
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-11-2014, 07:50 AM
 
Location: State of Being
35,885 posts, read 67,212,814 times
Reputation: 22375
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
bUU, you can moralize all you want but reality is reality and there is a large chunk of people who don't want to pay for other peoples decisions. They can and do flee high tax states with good social programs for low tax states with not so good social programs. For what ever reason many in this forum have fled higher taxes for lower taxes. It is reality and one that plays out in the voting booth with resulting fiscal policy at the local, state and federal level. We could agree as much as we want or disagree as much as we want but I am staking my well being on a read of the tea leaves and not what I might want to see happen. Heck I admit it I transplanted from a Democratic Liberal State with great social programs to a conservative now Republican state that didn't expand Medicaid and taxes were a reason. I am guilty as are many others in this forum. Regardless of intent we have taken our taxable income from one state to another and one needy population to another not being as well served. So enjoy your willingness to pay taxes but understand and observe many others don't and that's my point.
And your point should be well-taken, because it is true. We see it on this forum with people looking at taxation on such things as pensions but not thinking about "hidden" taxes (such as what I get with the sewer portion of my water bill; it is never less than $44/month and has been at a high of $132/month when I haven't even been in my home) -- and no thought given to what kinds of Senior Services are available in that lower tax city/county/state.

Last edited by brokensky; 08-11-2014 at 08:05 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2014, 07:56 AM
 
Location: State of Being
35,885 posts, read 67,212,814 times
Reputation: 22375
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlb View Post
We are not affluent either - nor do we have children..... but if you are not paying for their education (public schools) you will pay for their incarceration (jail).

Which do you prefer?
Or you can live where I do, and the majority of thugs are under 21, we have a revolving door of justice with these "kids" being back out on the streets through plea deals and subsequently, repeat offenses. And they started off with subsidized education programs at 4, were given every sort of resource to stay in school. But they don't take advantage of it (tutoring, for example), largely because of their family situations (drug addict parents, incarcerated parents). So it all starts at home, but the food stamps, Medicaid, subsidized housing all starts before their births.

I look at my city's budget and go cross-eyed. We have infrastructure in need of expansion and repair, but the bulk of our taxes go to social programs. We will even pay your baby momma child support while you are in jail.

So no wonder there isn't anything for Seniors.

Last edited by brokensky; 08-11-2014 at 08:06 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2014, 08:09 AM
 
Location: State of Being
35,885 posts, read 67,212,814 times
Reputation: 22375
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
Unfortunately we are paying for both. Education and prison cost have skyrocketed and there is much being said about the school to
Prison pipeline . That rhetoric has gotten old and worked thirty years ago and now we have time to look for validation of.
Absolutely true. Last time I checked, it costs on average about $65K a year to keep someone incarcerated.

I won't even get on my soap box about reconsidering the drug policy in this country, but will only allude to it as at least a part of the problem with so many folks spending time in jail when they should be in rehab (or at home).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2014, 08:33 AM
 
29,815 posts, read 34,900,894 times
Reputation: 11735
Quote:
Originally Posted by anifani821 View Post
And your point should be well-taken, because it is true. We see it on this forum with people looking at taxation on such things as pensions but not thinking about "hidden" taxes (such as what I get with the sewer portion of my water bill; it is never less than $44/month and has been at a high of $132/month when I haven't even been in my home) -- and no thought given to what kinds of Senior Services are available in that lower tax city/county/state.
I would not have moved to NC had we not had the resources to provide late life health services for ourselves. If you live in NC and some other states and expect late in life Medicaid to be there in twenty years oh well. I am not sure how many states and or will be willing in 20 years. Die broke because you want is a recipe for dying sooner than necessary down the road.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2014, 08:52 AM
 
Location: Seattle Area
1,716 posts, read 1,590,934 times
Reputation: 4125
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevek64 View Post
I think there's a fine balance of living for only tomorrow and not living for today. And the reverse also is true which is what a bunch of people are practicing today....save nothing/very little for their later years.

You could also take your view in other directions....why should someone in their 20's bother working at all because they may die early? They should spend it not working. Why bother having kids that a couple really wants when some kids turn out horrible....darn mythical parenthood! Why get married because so many end in divorce? Sounds like a fatalistic way of looking at life, no?

I think you'll find many people in their 60's and 70's who took care of themselves throughout their lives health wise are active and truly can enjoy a retirement with the money they saved. Their retirement isn't "mythical". I live in the Phoenix AZ metro area and we see the snowbirds arrive in droves in the winter. Many are in great shape and getting out there hiking, traveling, golfing, etc. We know a couple in their early 70's in the picture of health and very active, travel a great deal, and have told me they are very happy they saved money steadily throughout their working lives so they can enjoy their freedom now and for the rest of their lives without worrying about money to have the little extra things in life.

I think it illustrates life is what one makes of it....in both earlier years and later years.
Sure if you are unable to separate and moderate, it would be a fatalistic way to live. on the other hand, if you can see that fatalistic view ONLY on retirement, it can work. There are of course no right and wrongs here. but to me, seeing old blue haired people on a city bus tour of Paris is sad. There is just no way you can do or see as much at 70 that you did at 40, no matter how healthy they are. We were never retirement oriented and without kids, I have no vision of being old, it just doesn't exist. We have a suicide pact at the time that it is no longer fun and away we go. So since I control the end (in the long game), there was no reason to plan for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2014, 09:03 AM
 
3,492 posts, read 4,963,974 times
Reputation: 5383
We put away (into retirement accounts) around 30% of gross pre-tax income. That does not include the amounts spent on paying down the mortgage or eliminating student loans. I'm planning to be able to retire by 40. Currently I'm on pace for around 45, but our savings are picking up steam as I picked up another job while working on the Master's degree. (Not having kids frees me up to spend more time accomplishing long term financial planning goals)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2014, 09:05 AM
 
29,815 posts, read 34,900,894 times
Reputation: 11735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yakscsd View Post
Sure if you are unable to separate and moderate, it would be a fatalistic way to live. on the other hand, if you can see that fatalistic view ONLY on retirement, it can work. There are of course no right and wrongs here. but to me, seeing old blue haired people on a city bus tour of Paris is sad. There is just no way you can do or see as much at 70 that you did at 40, no matter how healthy they are. We were never retirement oriented and without kids, I have no vision of being old, it just doesn't exist. We have a suicide pact at the time that it is no longer fun and away we go. So since I control the end (in the long game), there was no reason to plan for it.
I hear you and accept your position. Unfortunately there are ideology hounds who reject your acceptance and want someone to provide for you down the road. There are a lot of people who accept ownership and consequences for their decisions. The reality is there are pundits and related sorts who don't. I keep hearing people complain about lower income people in the South voting against their own self interest by voting Republican. The reality is they value their independence and don't want government handouts or someone else's money unless they voluntarily contribute.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2014, 09:31 AM
 
Location: Glenbogle
730 posts, read 1,028,973 times
Reputation: 1046
Quote:
Originally Posted by anifani821 View Post
Absolutely true. Last time I checked, it costs on average about $65K a year to keep someone incarcerated.
Out of curiosity I checked my school district's budget site to see the average per-pupil expenditure (from K-12). The most recent year posted is 2010 and the figure is $17,400 . So I pulled out my tax bill for the year 2010 to see how much I paid in SCHOOL taxes (alone... not including all the other property tax elements) and it was $12,600. So by those numbers I personally paid out of my own pocket for the education of approximately 3/4 of one student that year; if that kid eventually goes to jail I want my money back, LOL.

Of course I'm being facetious and know that the bloated salaries of the school district administrations in our region is factored into that "cost" but don't get me started on that subject.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2014, 09:36 AM
 
8,870 posts, read 5,149,988 times
Reputation: 10159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Never2L8 View Post
True, and if on top of that your retirement vehicles were gutted by the recession, you are toast.
Only an issue if you do something foolish, like move to cash after a downturn. Or, at the point to make withdrawals and have nothing in cash or short-term bonds.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Never2L8 View Post
My retirement investments got a double whammy: First by the Gulf oil spill (the majority of it was in BP, which before Deepwater was $106/share and paying a handsome dividend four times a year; it bottomed out at $29/share and they suspended dividends entirely for almost 3 years afterward -- the highest it's ever crawled back up to has been about $54/share just this year and now with the Russian sanctions it's down in the mid-40s) and then by the recession in 08. Which just goes to show that no matter how much you have, it might not be enough if the 'right' combination of wrong things happen.

Maybe that's the whole point of the $1Mil articles: In order to save "enough", one has to save many times MORE than what would be "enough".
A diversified portfolio would fix this problem.
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