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.
Well, they should've started saving from the time they started working... I can't wait until SS is abolished.
Well I hope you aren't holding your breath. The reason Social Security serves an important purpose is simply human nature: People "should have" done what you said, but large numbers of them simply do not do it. Therefore, the forced nature of SS requires them to and assures that they will not be totally destitute in old age.
It is not realistic to say that if only most people were far-sighted, disciplined, rational, and objective, then we wouldn't need SS. Most people are not those things, and that is the reality.
Well, they should've started saving from the time they started working... I can't wait until SS is abolished.
There's an old saying -- make plans, God laughs. Sometimes even when you do all the right things, stuff happens and you find that safety net of SS a welcome benefit.
not so ---boomers are not drowning ---boomers are not that weak, they are good swimmers, provided they dont have a 35 year old skate board wonder and his 3 babies clinging to his leg as he swims.
Well as you get older and the average death date nears your age the worries sort of shift. Keeping up with the Jones fell by the wayside a long time back and frankly you don't give a ****** because your more interested in completely different things..We spend about $35,000 a year and live a comfortable life..We own our home and drive a two year old car for trips and shopping. I think someone decided to write an article and just jammed some government figures together without doing any real fact finding..Maybe if you live in a high tax area like Long Island NY you get jammed up with that amount of money...I left there 6 years ago when my real estate tax bill passed $14,000 a year,and that was with senior citizen tax breaks...Now I'm not limiting our spending,that's just how it works out..We have a very healthy savings plan so when the day inflation kicks in,,and it will...we will be able to continue on as we do so today..
I say the article is pure BS.....because of the dollar figures used...Now if it was living on just SS,,,,that's a whole different story.....written by a life poorly planned out..
I believe personally that two age groups (those 62+ and over and those 17 and younger) should be given everything they need to live a decent life and have a roof over their heads and food on their tables. Medical and dental care should be available to those in these age groups that require it.
Other than that, EVERYONE else should get services as they earn. You need, you earn. You don't earn, you don't get.
If we lived by these rules, many would be employed that choose to live a life of handouts, and those that are of age (either older or younger) would have the resources needed should they be unable to provider for themselves.
Those exempt from the age rules should only be those that are unable to support themselves, not those that find minimum wages jobs "beneath" them. If we, as a nation, started enforcing those requirements, those who are too young (or old) to meet their needs would have a wealth of resources to assist.
I believe personally that two age groups (those 62+ and over and those 17 and younger) should be given everything they need to live a decent life and have a roof over their heads and food on their tables. Medical and dental care should be available to those in these age groups that require it.
Other than that, EVERYONE else should get services as they earn. You need, you earn. You don't earn, you don't get.
If we lived by these rules, many would be employed that choose to live a life of handouts, and those that are of age (either older or younger) would have the resources needed should they be unable to provider for themselves.
Those exempt from the age rules should only be those that are unable to support themselves, not those that find minimum wages jobs "beneath" them. If we, as a nation, started enforcing those requirements, those who are too young (or old) to meet their needs would have a wealth of resources to assist.
Both philosophically and practically, there is a lot to discuss in your post. In the interest of brevity, however, I'd like to ask how you chose age 62 as your cut-off point at the upper end? That seems too young to me. At 62, we are not doddering old fools. For the most part people in their mid-sixties retain both mental and physical capability. Assuming for the sake of argument that your general paradigm is valid, I think age 70 or 75 would be more appropriate.
I love threads like this because they highlight the differences between all of us.
We all have unique needs and goals. Most likely how you see your retirement is different from how I see mine.
My wife and I could live just fine on $37,847 and with very few exceptions we would have everything I would want.
On $37,847 you're not likely to have any federal or state taxes so it's all take home.
Travel? I've already done all the traveling I want to do and when I was younger I was a ferry pilot delivering new airplanes to just about anywhere. I've already been to Alaska, all over Canada, every state with the exception of Vermont, Mexico, the Caribbean and Central America. If someone gave me tickets to a Bahama resort I most likely wouldn't go. I have no desire to travel other than to see the grand kids. My idea of traveling is a three hour drive to a rented condo on the beach for two weeks in June. In September my idea of traveling is to rent a cabin five hours away in the Smokey Mountains for two weeks so we can watch the leaves change.
And a week long trip every two years to California and Idaho where we can attend the weddings of nieces and nephews.
We've already taken some cruises and we would probably go if someone gave us the tickets but it wouldn't be the highest priority thing on our list.
House is paid for, car is relatively new and we don't have any debt.
Eight years ago we downsized our house to one half the size we had and our property taxes went from $4,000 per year to $1,100 per year so there is our trip to California every couple years.
Out to dinner once or twice a week, a movie when a decent one comes out and our church where we spent our efforts helping others less fortunate.
All I need is medical taken care of (Medicare with good supplements ($552/month so we are good to go there), all utilities paid for (Electric, water, gas, garbage pickup, cell phones, internet and cable television which run under $600/month). For utilities I never scrimp by we keep the house always well lit up and very comfortable with the thermostat set exactly where we want it.
We're set at $1,500/month to take care of all our home needs which would leave $1,600 for food and entertainment. We could do that and be comfortable thinking we had everything we would need.
That might not sound ideal to all of you but it would fit me nicely.
Like you, I am frugal and could live fine on a lot less than experts tell me I can. But your budget...hmmm. I wonder.
You say you have $1600 left over every month for food & entertainment. But if you're a home owner and car owner, that's not quite true (for me, anyway). You have car maintenance and repairs, home maintenance and repairs, car taxes (if you have them), car tags & inspections, lawn supplies, do you have a mower man?, a stash of $ for insurance deductibles in the case of home or car damage. Also, you don't have pets? My couple of dogs cost me about $2,000 a year (food, treats, vet appointments, supplies).
Then of course there are taxes, if you live in a state with income tax. Or taxes, if you are withdrawing from a tax deferred IRA.
Then add gifts, if you give Christmas or birthday gifts or baby shower gifts.
But other than the various & sundry odd expenses, I, like you, can do okay on far less than 70% of my pre-retirement income. I am moving, too, like you, to save property taxes. I pay $6,500 in property taxes. I will either downsize, reducing that to hopefully $5,000 (I live in TX, a high property tax state), OR move to a state with low property taxes, which could reduce that to $1,000 (saving $5,500 a year! That's $30,000 in five years!), but that's offset by the state income tax (which isn't much for a retiree like me).
But I do want to do more than just get by. So I work temp jobs right now, and will be looking for part time employment after my move. Supplemental income to buy extras, put toward my next car, or use for fun.
Another current thread makes me wonder at what financial level can you afford to not worry about the cost of a mattress and get the best one for your old bones? Isn't the best most comfortable nights sleep a need?
It took years for me to accept what my wife's Dad (and her) always said. It is not how much you make, it is how much you spend.
One of the key goals of retiring/old age is to have no debt structure. Meaning own everything and owe no one. There will always be expenses like utilities, taxes, insurance, food, housing expenses even if no mortgage, etc. One can eat chopped steak versus Filet Mignon but one still has to eat so some expenses cannot be eliminated but they can be reduced. $18 bottles of scotch instead of $30 bottles. Cheaper golf expenses, etc.
Some could live well with $35K income. Some are living poorly with $80K income.
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.
Not all your expenses?
