Where are the people who don't have enough to retire (years, payment)

[tomchard]

Originally Posted by modhatter

When anyone typically posts anything about having enough to retire on, it appears everyone on this board has enough, whether through pensions, double social security checks or larger portfolios. Yet statistically, many more people do not have enough to retire.

So how is it we never hear from them? Does the subject matter of this forum "Retirement" only attract people who are in a position to retire? Are there not people on here who would like to retire, but feel they can't? Are they afraid to speak up, or are they just not interested in the subject matter so they never come on this forum?

Well ... I know of some folks who are still working full-time; they may not have the time, or be allowed to respond, during work hours (like I can, on my job).

According to many of the "statistics", I should have retired about 3 years ago, when I reached FRA. But, having had 2 periods of not-being-employed in the last 15 years did a job on my retirement plans; especially on any retirement funding I was trying to accumulate.
It's only been in the last year - year-and-a-half - that my DW & I have felt a little more "secure" with what we have set aside for retirement. And, that's only because our retirement funds have "come back" a little, after the fiasco of 2008! And, residing in North California (SFBay Area), with its outrageous CoL, has only made it more difficult to put enough aside to retire on.

Sure, I'm on Medicare and a Supplement, and I began taking my SS benefit because I had no income; state unemployment benefits had run out. Were it not for DW's benefits from her employer, we'd be hard-pressed to have any $$$ to set aside, since she's not-quite FRA, yet.
I work as a "temp" because no one will hire me as a regular, full-time employee; I think I bring their "statistics" down, especially for health insurance programs; people like me cost them more to subsidize.

What I did see, in my many, bang-your-head-against-the-wall "job interviews" with young HR-types is: My qualifications were there; they chose someone else with less actual job experience (who just-happened to be around the HR-person's age (or less)). I'm not accusing - I'm jus' sayin' ...
But, I'm OK with that (now). I've been on this contract job for over 5 years, I like the work, and there's a certain amount of freedom that comes with not being beholden to the corporation, and concerned about who's going to "get the ax" next. The way I look at it is, if they walk me to the door later-today or tomorrow, that'll be it; I'll "officially" retire ... Ready or not!

Everyone's different, though - That's my 'Story' - which may not be anywhere-near yours! ... TC

[Petunia 100]

Originally Posted by Avalon08

I certainly didn't plan well. 401k plans became available when I was in my 30's, but I wasn't making much and certainly wasn't thinking of retirement, so for years I put in the bare minimum. It wasn't until my 50's when I was making decent money that I started maxing out and putting do in the extra contribution as well. I was on my way to what I thought would be a decent retirement fund, until the market collapsed and set me back quite a bit.

Anyway, about LTC: I am single and don't have it. I have this fear of being ripped off by the insurance company -- e.g., I assume they decide if you qualify for a claim, and do they use the same criteria (activities of daily living) as Medicare does? I know when my Mom was pretty feeble and frail, the social worker still said she wouldn't qualify for nursing home coverage because in their view, she was still able to handle some of the ADLs herself. So my point being, you have to be seriously incapacitated for nursing home coverage. And if the insurance company doesn't think you're incapacitated enough, they reject your claim and who's going to wage that battle? I think an assisted-living scenario is much more likely for most of us, and I don't think most of the LTC plans cover assisted-living, do they? I have asked this before but have never gotten any concrete examples of what exactly these plans pay for, how much they pay and for how long, and when coverage kicks in.

Has your portfolio recovered since?

Are you still working?

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by freemkt

Medicare does have an Rx plan, with means-tested premium levels.

I think you're confusing Medicare Party C, managed care, with fee-for-service Medicare which has only prescription benefits for a few, serious aliments. Or perhaps you're confusing it with Medicaid. That's means tested. Medicare isn't. People on FFS have to purchase Medicare Part D prescription coverage. Those plans all have different formularies, as if understanding Medicare for many seniors wasn't crazy-making enough already.

[rdflk]

Arizona, where was your daughter while he was spending all that money? To be fair -- didi she help him spend it? Or was she also begging him to save it? While he had the money, I'd have seen a lawyer about whether that was a marital asset -- and whether I could get my hands on some of it, before he blew it all. If they had kids? He wouldn't even put any away for them?

What does he do now? They have NOTHING to show for his inheritance? (I don't count the house, because if he'd have been wiling to work, they could have had a house without the inheritance.)

Also if I may, did he have a job when they got married? I suppose you raised your daughter to stick by her vows -- for richer or poorer. But I can be broke and poor by myself. I don't need the "help" of a husband to do that.

I have a son in law like your cousin. He's only in his mid 50s but the man hasn't worked in many years. He and my daughter have been married 27 years and he has NEVER had a job since they got married. Why is anybody's question to answer. He WAS working when they got married. My daughter works in a bank so she's not building up a lot of SS either. I wonder what they'll do when it's time to retire. And here is the really disgusting part...my son in law inherited 2.5M when his dad died. It would've been 5M but he had to share with his uncle. Anyway, I was thrilled for them because I figured my daughter and their kids would be 'okay' and I wouldn't have to worry about them. Well...he went through that money like water down the toilet. He had 'big ideas' that he never went forward with. He paid cash for a fixer upper house and 20 years later it STILL needs "fixing". I have no idea what the man does all day but he's well practiced for living on next to nothing in retirement. I begged them to invest that money but, no, he wanted it NOW to use as he saw fit. So I think watching them try to live later will be "heart-breaking to watch".

[Travelassie]

Originally Posted by oregonbirder

So I know (Hope) you are just joking but I INTENTIONALLY bought a newer single wide and I have a pc, tv, roku, kindle, iPhone, etc... and I know how to use them!

I will not be rich when I retire but I will have a place to live with minimum space rent that covers, water, garbage, sewer and security. I am close enough to neighbors to feel safe, yet far enough for privacy, have space for a garden and a big covered deck for me and the boys (2 cats). Should the park ever get sold it will work out to being less expensive than having paid rent for a house/ decent apartment if I have to move.

I will be able to walk or ride the bus wherever I need to go. I could most likely retire early now(actually October I will be 60) but I get caught up in the fear of not having enough money down the road when I read things here or articles. I have been supporting myself full-time for 42 years and ready to rest a bit. As a single person all my life I have never been able to qualify for any help even in the worst of times, but if it were to come to that I would certainly take what ever was offered. To the poster who lives by the coast and the redwoods - I am so envious, what you have sounds perfect!!

It sounds to me as though you've got the ingredients for a successful retirement, enough to cover your needs, and the intention of living within those means, as well as contentment with your lot in life.


IIRC from her earlier posts ( I think this poster is a she) this is essentially what the poster living by the coast and redwoods has. As I recall, she said she had a small income from (?SSI, SS?, can't remember which), I think her medical needs are taken care of and she's able to rent a small, subsidized apartment. She's described taking advantage of what's around for free for her entertainment, shopping at thrift shops for her clothing and food, driving a very old car (IIRC, again), and budgeting very carefully for those expenses that do come up. It can't be a easy way to live, and lesser individuals in her situation might waste their time lamenting the fates that put them where they are, envying anyone and everyone they think is better off than they are, and making their own lives miserable. But she doesn't do that. What shines in this poster's comments is her being able to find the joy in the little things around her, her determination to live within her means, as little as they are, appreciating what she does have, and being content with her lot in life. And that, IMO makes her among the richest of folks around here.

[modhatter]

Originally Posted by rdflk

Arizona, where was your daughter while he was spending all that money? To be fair -- didi she help him spend it? Or was she also begging him to save it? While he had the money, I'd have seen a lawyer about whether that was a marital asset -- and whether I could get my hands on some of it, before he blew it all. If they had kids? He wouldn't even put any away for them?

What does he do now? They have NOTHING to show for his inheritance? (I don't count the house, because if he'd have been wiling to work, they could have had a house without the inheritance.)

Also if I may, did he have a job when they got married? I suppose you raised your daughter to stick by her vows -- for richer or poorer. But I can be broke and poor by myself. I don't need the "help" of a husband to do that.

Perhaps a little judgmental here? If I were made to second guess the situation, I would say her daughter probably had very little influence in what her husband chose to do or not do. Typically inheritances are off limits for other family members. That is not to say that buying a house or a large flat screen TV, would not have been equally enjoyable to her daughter, but it sounds like it went a little further than buying some new toys.

It is also very typical for people who have never had any money before, who suddenly come into a great deal of money to go out and blow it all. Look at half of the athletes out there who made millions and are now as poor as the day before they became famous. Yes, very sad to see, but the world if full of people cut from different cloths, backgrounds and intellect.

[AZDesertBrat]

Originally Posted by rdflk

Arizona, where was your daughter while he was spending all that money? To be fair -- didi she help him spend it? Or was she also begging him to save it? While he had the money, I'd have seen a lawyer about whether that was a marital asset -- and whether I could get my hands on some of it, before he blew it all. If they had kids? He wouldn't even put any away for them?

What does he do now? They have NOTHING to show for his inheritance? (I don't count the house, because if he'd have been wiling to work, they could have had a house without the inheritance.)

Also if I may, did he have a job when they got married? I suppose you raised your daughter to stick by her vows -- for richer or poorer. But I can be broke and poor by myself. I don't need the "help" of a husband to do that.

My daughter had little to say about it. He is the "boss". If I were her I'd have dumped his butt years ago. Why she stays, I don't know, unless it's a matter of wanting to be the one in the family who didn't get divorced. No, she didn't help him spend the money. If she wanted curtains for her kitchen...or whatever...she had to take it out of her 'household money'. She wasn't 'allowed' to have a credit card. He did buy her a new car and she was thrilled with that. No, he didn't put any away for the kids either. He's a jerk and nobody in the family can stand him.

He does nothing now. I have no idea how he lives his life except that he has religious stations on the TV all day. You can't have a conversation with him without him trying to convert you or tell you why HIS 'religion' is the 'best'.

Yes, he had a job when they got married. It's where they met, on the job. I tried to raise my daughter to think for herself and make the right choices. It don't feel this marriage is the "right" choice for her but it's her life. She doesn't like it but refuses to budge. So be it. I do feel for my grandkids though.

I've tried to show my daughter that being on your own doesn't mean you have to be poor and broke. Her kids are grown and her expenses aren't that much. I've wished, for years, she'd get rid of him. She would be so much happier.

[AZDesertBrat]

Originally Posted by modhatter

If I were made to second guess the situation, I would say her daughter probably had very little influence in what her husband chose to do or not do. Typically inheritances are off limits for other family members. That is not to say that buying a house or a large flat screen TV, would not have been equally enjoyable to her daughter, but it sounds like it went a little further than buying some new toys.

It is also very typical for people who have never had any money before, who suddenly come into a great deal of money to go out and blow it all. Look at half of the athletes out there who made millions and are now as poor as the day before they became famous. Yes, very sad to see, but the world if full of people cut from different cloths, backgrounds and intellect.

Thanks but you really didn't need to 'defend' me. You're right that my daughter had little say in how that money was spent. Yes, some of the things he bought...like the $250,000 RV that he got for a "steal" at $190,000...were "enjoyed" by my daughter and the kids. Likewise the boat and all the water toys. But to not take care of your family's future is a huge failure.

They had a money manager but my SIL is pretty headstrong and will do what he will do.

[lenora]

Originally Posted by Submariner

A single person making $1k/month and he still gets SNAP, wow.

In our town we know disabled singles who bring in $800/month, but still do not qualify for SNAP.

[Though it may be because they are home-owners]

The home is excluded from countable resources, so homeownership is not the issue. However, it is possible that your disabled single friends have more than $2,250 in countable resources (or $3,250 if they are 60 or older).

[ByeByeLW]

If I retire now, I can exist. But if I stay another 2 or 3 years, then I'll probably be able to travel and buy some camera equipment and gadgets I can't help wanting. These will have to be very frugal years.