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 08-11-2014, 05:30 PM
 
12,295 posts, read 18,417,176 times
Reputation: 19184

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRobin4564 View Post
$300,000 when we sell our home ...
You are better then a lot of others...except for the above statement. "When we sell our home....". I'm not sure what that means and haven't read the other 8 pages. Unless you plan to live in a tent, the sale price of your house should not really count as assets for retirements unless it's a second house or you already have housing provided for. That's a mistake many do. You sell your home, you buy a new one, or rent one which simply means a wash.

Although housing is cheaper at least in TN and you can get a smaller place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-12-2014, 12:30 AM
 
39 posts, read 76,553 times
Reputation: 53
Quote:
Although housing is cheaper at least in TN and you can get a smaller place.
That's part of the plan. Downsizing . It will be just the two of us in TN so we won't need a large home. I talked to our realtor today and we will probably realize more from the sale of our home than we previously thought. So that is good news.

Appreciate everyones posts and good advice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2014, 10:05 AM
 
Location: Seattle Area
1,716 posts, read 1,589,141 times
Reputation: 4125
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRobin4564 View Post
That's part of the plan. Downsizing . It will be just the two of us in TN so we won't need a large home. I talked to our realtor today and we will probably realize more from the sale of our home than we previously thought. So that is good news.

Appreciate everyones posts and good advice.
And maybe a reverse mortgage too? Depending on if you have inheritance issues to work with, that would add some more cash. For many people this is an underutilized tool.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2014, 01:27 AM
 
71,643 posts, read 71,777,271 times
Reputation: 49230
For many it would be a wrong tool.

Unless you live in an area condusive to aging it may be quite a poor move.

Nothing more horrible then being stuck with a reverse moretgage on a home and finding now you can't drive and there is no public transportation in the area.

Many lack the right medical facilities or specialists and now they will have no money and no house if they try to move.

Something to think about .

we had a 2nd home in an area where we thought we would retire to. then the more we thought about what the area lacked we realized we would not be doing a wise thing growing old there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2014, 07:05 AM
 
491 posts, read 598,360 times
Reputation: 2095
Wanted to add I planned(a lot) and you are probably better off than me, lol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2014, 09:01 AM
 
12,706 posts, read 9,978,586 times
Reputation: 9515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fran66 View Post
My massages were suggested by my doctor for health reasons -- altho', I grant, they are definitely a luxury.

Good grief -- I'm NOT angry for ME -- you're the second person who has suggested that -- how stupid do you think I am. I am angry for OTHER WHO DO NOT HAVE what I have. And, yes, I do believe others should give it to us. The government should grant everyone, 65 and over, $40000/yr. not subject to taxes and with 5% COLA every year. (Those who do not have a sustainable retirement income of at least $40,000 from other sources.) Every single person, which means that, yes, married couples -- straight and gay -- would get $80,000/yr. And I don't care if you've never worked outside the home -- at 65, everyone would get $40,000/yr. Health care should be 100% free (if you want to try to live forever, do it on your dime -- I've smoked all my life -- when I get lung cancer, just make me comfortable as possible -- why would I expect other taxpayers to pay for my treatment -- which, in the end, isn't going to cure me anyway?!).

I live in New Mexico. 29.9% of our children go to bed hungry every night (I have good reason to think that's an under-estimate) -- and I don't know what percentage of our seniors do but I'm sure it's up there. Add homeless Vets. This is all unconscionable! Especially when big US corporations pay little or no taxes!

You absolutely should not have to live on (essentially) $1227/mo. I don't care if you don't pay taxes on it and that your health care is free. It is WAY too little.
I must disagree. You are essentially advocating for a doubling of Social Security and Medicare. Given that the system we already have is so troubled, expanding it would only make the problems that much worse.

The "trustees" have raided the "trust" fund as is, and you want to trust them with even more money?

There's always been a conflict of interest here - if a private company financed its own operations by issuing bonds and buying them inside its employees' own pension funds, it would be guilty of fraud and/or embezzlement. The federal government does exactly the same thing by holding Treasury securities in the SS and Medicare "trust" funds, why is it acceptable? I'd argue that we as a nation tolerate it to some degree as the lesser of the two evils relative to having homeless seniors roaming the streets. But this doesn't mean we should have more of it, as we have enough to make sure this usually doesn't happen - even though it isn't enough to live on "comfortably", it does allow for *basic* subsistence.

To make an analogy, just because you may be forced to have the fox guard the henhouse doesn't mean you should have the fox guard two henhouses (fox = trustees/the country, henhouse = trust fund, hens = money in trust fund)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2014, 10:06 AM
 
Location: Seattle Area
1,716 posts, read 1,589,141 times
Reputation: 4125
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
For many it would be a wrong tool.

Unless you live in an area condusive to aging it may be quite a poor move.

Nothing more horrible then being stuck with a reverse moretgage on a home and finding now you can't drive and there is no public transportation in the area.

Many lack the right medical facilities or specialists and now they will have no money and no house if they try to move.

Something to think about .

we had a 2nd home in an area where we thought we would retire to. then the more we thought about what the area lacked we realized we would not be doing a wise thing growing old there.
I would disagree with the descriptive and dramatic use of the word "many". Are their some people for which a RM is a bad option? Of course, but that is true of every option.

Also, you aren't "stuck", you can leave whenever you want. The RM does't say you have to live in the home for the rest of your life. I'm not sure how you arrived at the results that a person with a Rm who needs medical care would not have money or a house? With a RM they would have the house, and the monthly income. If they moved, they would have the value of the home, less payments already received. From that money they could move to a new house or apartment. It's as if you don't understand how a RM mortgage works, or the meds were kicking in?

The RM isn't for everyone, but in the OP's case it may be a tool that would work for them. Some people don't like them simply because they want the feeling of owning their home.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2014, 10:42 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
23,587 posts, read 17,582,380 times
Reputation: 27677
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRobin4564 View Post
Ok, first off, I think your reply was rude. Second. I've lived in CA all my life. It's not just finding someplace cheap to live. It's all the TAXES!!! It's the cost of living. I live in the poorest area in the state and the cost of living is still 25% more than TN. And people are crazy here. Did I mention the TAXES!!!

My millions...you make me laugh. Yeah, it's more than $877/mo. SSI but I bet you're not living alone and if you have SSI you have some sort of "free" medical care and maybe other assistance like so many do in CA. You **** me off.

So it's humid in TN. It was 110 here the other day. And it stays that way for days. We're having a drought. Everyones wells are drying up. It was below freezing for at least a week this past winter. So it's not all fun and games in CA.
I am a TN native, and while I think you would be totally fine *financially* in most of TN, please DO NOT move there just because of the taxes. We receive thread after thread on the TN boards where "I'm moving from (insert liberal state) and want everything CHEAP, low taxes, great schools, etc." It doesn't work that way. Taxation is important to consider, but certainly shouldn't be your only reason (or even a main reason) to move to or from somewhere.

Sure, taxes are very low in TN, but you also get very little in return. Schools aren't very good, social/public services are overburdened or nonexistent, and crime (particularly drug and domestic crime) is high all throughout the state. Lots of transplants think rural TN is some kind of quaint Mayberry, but the truth is that rural TN is plagued by poverty, crime, and drugs.

If you stay within a suburb of Knoxville, Nashville, or Chattanooga, or within those cities, you'll be fine. Rural and small town TN is struggling immensely.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2014, 11:07 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,018 posts, read 17,744,100 times
Reputation: 32304
Default All or nothing thinking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yakscsd View Post
Not everyone lives life fixated on saving for a retirement that may or may not happen. You chose to be a saver and as a result you probably had to pass on some purchases or experiences that you have rather not. Your payoff is that when your old you can experience what they did in their younger years. As I ofrten post on CD, I agree with their "decision" and have done the same. the last thing i wanted was to be old and then enjoying things that are best enjoyed in youth when you can move and travel in a much more carefree environment. Beaches of St Tropez at 30 or at 70, you decide.
It doesn't have to be all or nothing. On can spend money on travel and other enjoyable experiences when young at the same time one has one's eye on the ball in terms of retirement planning. One aspect doesn't have to be totally ignored in order to absolutely maximize the other aspect. There is such a thing as balance, such a thing as a happy medium between two extremes.

I did some pretty cool travel when young - Alaska and the Caribbean for example. But I didn't choose to blow all my money on such stuff. Now, at age 70, I am very glad not to be destitute.

Just last night I returned home from a 25-day car trip extending as far east as Blue Ridge, Georgia. It was very enjoyable. Lots of people are still active and enjoying life in their 70's.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2014, 11:21 AM
 
Location: SW Florida
9,759 posts, read 7,041,256 times
Reputation: 14295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yakscsd View Post
Not everyone lives life fixated on saving for a retirement that may or may not happen. You chose to be a saver and as a result you probably had to pass on some purchases or experiences that you have rather not. Your payoff is that when your old you can experience what they did in their younger years. As I ofrten post on CD, I agree with their "decision" and have done the same. the last thing i wanted was to be old and then enjoying things that are best enjoyed in youth when you can move and travel in a much more carefree environment. Beaches of St Tropez at 30 or at 70, you decide.
Ok, then as I see it you live with the consequences of your decisions. You can spend all your resources, traveling, living the high life, doing anything you fancy when you're young, and saving nothing for later when you no longer earn those resources.

If that is your choice, you have no right when you're old and destitute, to demand that others who have denied themselves some of those pleasures/adventures- to save for a later day, support you because you insisted on instant gratification of your whims and now have nothing to show for all those years of fun.

And no amount of pontificating, appealing to civic responsibilities, trying to lay blame or guilt-trips on
the savers changes this basic fact.

I'm not saying you personally do any of this, but we do know there's an entire establishment who does. Look left.
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
Similar Threads
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