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.
I think we aren't doing enough to educate the young about the need to set aside a small amount monthly, into a tax-advantaged account, with a diversified, low-cost portfolio. You don't let a commissioned advisor take his cut off the top. You don't raid it when you change jobs, get laid off, run up your credit cards, or want a vacation. You don't stop contributing because you want to spend that money on X instead. You need that money, so just do it.
If you invest $100 per month starting at age 25 and enjoy a 7% return, you will have $239,562.13 at age 65. Not a fortune, but good for an extra $800 per month of income. Along with your SS benefits, you can cover your basic living costs. Not glamorous, but so much better than not being able to cover them.
Good post. It certainly doesn't help that certain folks are constantly telling these young people that they will never see Social Security or are being ripped off by previous generations. This might make some people simple bury their heads, rather than making plans. Also, all the posts about how the US is going to heck in a hand basket, might make them go into a sort of denial and fail to take appropriate steps.
These articles about the high percentage of people who haven't got enough to retire, might be better titled: Most people are not prepared to retire without a significant change in lifestyle.
Last edited by shaker281; 03-05-2015 at 12:49 AM..
very good point as that is usually what it comes down to. folks make do on whatever they have , some may not like the lifestyle but it is what is by default.
one of the issues that folks have to remember is the more filled a retirement is with needs and the less wants the more effected by inflation they will be over retirement.
owning a home on a limited budget can go a long way making that retirement work as cost cutting can be as big a deal as more income.
even downsizing as a renter can be a big plus.
anything you do to improve cash flow will have the same net effect up to a point.
when you have a better funded retirement it can be filled with more wants . it is those wants that tend to diminish as we age and the things we are not doing or buying offsets much of the inflation in what we do continue to do and buy.
someone who's budget is all needs and few wants has nothing to cut back on as they age and inflation can have a much larger effect on them worsening the situation as time goes on..
for those it can apply to the best solution is work longer as those extra few years can make a huge difference in retirement results.
yeah i know many don't want to hear it , but ultimately that is a choice many will have to go with as they have little option to afford to retire early.'
no need to tell us how some folks can't get jobs or their health stops them . this solution is not for them .but for those who are wondering how they will ever afford to retire the positive results to the budget of working until 70 makes the impossible very possible if you can and want to do it..
remember -we are talking about people who can't afford to retire , as the subject line suggests , so save your comments about dying at 71.
as i said earlier working until 70 can alter even the most underfunded situation greatly .
not only is the social security check almost 2x larger but:
you do not spend down for 8 years from savings
you may be adding to savings
your savings and investments are still compounding
you have 8 years of life less to support .
much less is needed from savings at 70 with almost 2x the ss check
there is a huge difference between having enough at 62 and having enough at 70.
many folks will have to work longer if they can and they will be just fine.
Last edited by mathjak107; 03-05-2015 at 03:01 AM..
........ It certainly doesn't help that certain folks are constantly telling these young people that they will never see Social Security or are being ripped off by previous generations. This might make some people simple bury their heads, rather than making plans. Also, all the posts about how the US is going to heck in a hand basket, might make them go into a sort of denial and fail to take appropriate steps.
These articles about the high percentage of people who haven't got enough to retire, might be better titled: Most people are not prepared to retire without a significant change in lifestyle.
Very perceptive remarks, Shaker. Particularly in the Economics and Personal Finance Forums, the viciousness of the generational wars is amazing.
Your second paragraph is a nice summary of a number of posts in this thread in which people have given their own stories about how retirement was possible after all. Yes, so many of the magazine and newspaper articles operate on the tacit assumption that retired people are entitled to (fill in the blank with stuff like granite countertops, an upscale car, country club membership, international travel, designer clothes, $50 bottles of wine, frequent dining out at upscale restaurants, and so forth).
Except for some international travel done on a shoestring, I never had any of the above when I was working and I had no expectation of it in retirement. Therefore, I was fortunate to be able to continue the same relatively modest life style I always had. But if necessary I could go much father toward frugality. In college and in graduate school most of us in my age cohort lived very frugally indeed and I haven't forgotten how.
thats what makes us all unique and not cookie cutter.
i had no desire for international travel or expensive vacations earlier in life..
to much priority on saving for retirement as our expectations for retirement were much higher than while working and raising a family.
our goal has always been to try to live better in retirement then we did while working.
now we want to do as many of the things we put on the back burner earlier in life.
some people do the reverse , they do the above stuff early than downsize the retirement budget.
there is no right or wrong way , just what you want out of life.
some folks put all their attention on cheapening life in retirement and can't understand why others don't do the same. i get reply's all the time saying you should move from where you live ,it is to expensive.
my answer is if i could afford it in retirement i would love to live in manhattan near central park , i would increase my lifestyle if i could afford it . i can't afford that lifestyle but the point is i certainly would love it if i could do it even if it was even more than our expenses now.
commenting about the lifestyles of others and what their expectations are in retirement is just silly as well as wrong.
no one tells anyone how much they should make while working but time and time again you get general comments from mis-informed posters how no one should need more than x-amount in retirement .
Last edited by mathjak107; 03-05-2015 at 03:16 AM..
Although Petunia 100 was not responding to me, but to someone else, I couldn't help but think of the pot and the kettle. And what sort of remarks are those? Haven't we had enough nastiness in this thread? How about admitting differences of opinion without being insulting?
I agree. It is a two way street. It looked like marcopolo was just making a joke anyhow, in reference to nomoresnowforme's comment that "people are always saying that" to him on forums.
There is some truth to marcopolo's contention that some folks worked hard and paid funds into government and do not mind that others benefit from that. Even so, I know a lot of people who will end up on public assistance directly because of poor choices they have made earlier in life.
I know a couple with children who gave up 2 good jobs to relocate to a better climate where there were no jobs. A bit of a pipe dream. Ten years later they were back in the midwest, broke, divorced and both are currently on public assistance. And will be for the rest of their lives.
I know other couples who splurged on many things, pulled money from home equity at every opportunity, and eventually went bankrupt. Their kids are acquiring college debt as a result. they will be relying heavily on taxpayer assistance.
Then there are those who trudged off to work for 40 years, nose to grind stone, all the while paying their taxes that went to help others. Maybe they do deserve a "Thank You"? They certainly do not deserve condescension for not being a burden on society.
I just read an article about a woman who is 117 years old. She was born in 1898. My first thought was wondering whether she planned for 117 years old when she retired.
They say her hearing is starting to go and she slowed down in the last few months.
The woman is Japanese but there are 5 people born in the 1800s that are still alive, all women, and 3 of them live in the USA, so retirement planning as we know it, might come into play.
With regard to the OP question, I'm thinking a lot of people check out this forum when they are or should be 10 years from retirement but don't hang around to post more than once because they have no positive or negative retirement experiences to share yet. You know, other than being excited about being able to retire or worried they will be unable to retire or adamant they will never retire because they don't want to, they can't contribute to other threads in the forum unless they have a question.
Perhaps the ones who are unable to retire don't want pity.
Or, it could be they just don't find this forum all that interesting.
I agree. It is a two way street. It looked like marcopolo was just making a joke anyhow, in reference to nomoresnowforme's comment that "people are always saying that" to him on forums.
There is some truth to marcopolo's contention that some folks worked hard and paid funds into government and do not mind that others benefit from that. Even so, I know a lot of people who will end up on public assistance directly because of poor choices they have made earlier in life.
I know a couple with children who gave up 2 good jobs to relocate to a better climate where there were no jobs. A bit of a pipe dream. Ten years later they were back in the midwest, broke, divorced and both are currently on public assistance. And will be for the rest of their lives.
I know other couples who splurged on many things, pulled money from home equity at every opportunity, and eventually went bankrupt. Their kids are acquiring college debt as a result. they will be relying heavily on taxpayer assistance.
Then there are those who trudged off to work for 40 years, nose to grind stone, all the while paying their taxes that went to help others. Maybe they do deserve a "Thank You"? They certainly do not deserve condescension for not being a burden on society.
you will always get those who at the drop of a hat will always take the flip side of things when a fact is stated so as to find the exceptions to the fact.
we all get it , exceptions exist , but facts are facts and who the exceptions are known only to those who truely are the exceptions.
making comments disputing what was said because you want to play the great defender because exceptions exist is usually not changing facts at all. we all know not everything apply's to every case.
when things do not apply , it does not mean the statement is wrong , it just does not apply to you.
Then there are those who trudged off to work for 40 years, nose to grind stone, all the while paying their taxes that went to help others. Maybe they do deserve a "Thank You"? They certainly do not deserve condescension for not being a burden on society.
The taxes I paid, and pay now, didn't just go to help others. A percentage did, with my full knowledge, but as someone said above, I also sent my children to public schools, drove on the highways, etc, etc. I also reaped the benefits of the taxes I paid.
I pay sales tax (nearly 10% and that includes groceries) and I paid property taxes before I sold my home, and other taxes that I can't think of. I pay a big chunk of tax on my phone bill. I do complain about that one. My husband and I both paid FICA all of our working lives. He is dead and I collect a small part of what we would have collected together if he had lived. Neither one of us used Medicare.
It is irritating to me when someone claims to be paying my way or assumes they will have to pay my way because they pay taxes. Look at many of the threads that talk about insurance and LTC. You will find someone popping up to say that they will end up paying for me because they made wise choices, worked, and paid their taxes.
If I resented paying taxes that much, I'd be working under the table and growing my own food.
And its not funny* and it is painful to be called a burden on society, or to be disabled and have someone question the legitimacy of your claim.
*need to say here that I realize a good many of my own jokes are not funny
but by the same token many situations were the result of poor choices and bad decisions in life . it wasn't the final act that did these folks in but their own choices leading up to it.
how many who ended up being disabled before full retirement had cell phones , cable tv , drove new cars instead of private disability insurance that pays 80% of their salary until fra before they had any issues surfacing ?
no need to tell us about the exceptions , of course they exist . but the fact is many situations while they appear random and unavoidable were just the result of choice's made earlier.
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.
My husband and I both paid FICA all of our working lives. He is dead and I collect a small part of what we would have collected together if he had lived. Neither one of us used Medicare.
