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 03-21-2015, 12:58 PM
 
Location: Grove City, Ohio
10,133 posts, read 12,383,606 times
Reputation: 13971

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
I found the article too simplistic. As for the "issues", the full retirement age is going up only a year, from 66 to 67. Yes, that makes a difference, but not an earth-shattering one.

"Medicare premiums are going up". The article states that they are "expected" to go up. Indeed the expectation may be met, but it remains speculation.

"More SS benefits are taxed". This is because of inflation, not because of any increase in the percentage of benefits subject to taxation or increase in tax rates. Since the tipping points for triggering taxation of SS (set in 1984, if I recall correctly) are not indexed for inflation, over the years (gradually) more and more people reach those tipping points.

The "steps to take" are rather obvious and have been discussed ad nauseam.

I agree that many people will be between a rock and a hard place going forward, but the article is too short to be very meaningful. It's sort of a sound bite.
The Imaginary Retirement-Income Crisis
Quote:
Politicians are stirring up alarm in order to raise Social Security benefits and reduce tax incentives for saving.

Do Americans face a retirement crisis? One way to answer is to look at other wealthy, developed countries. In a 2013 study the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development compared the incomes of a country's retirees with the average income in that country. The results are surprising. Despite a supposedly stingy Social Security program and ineffective retirement-savings vehicles, the average U.S. retiree has an income equal to 92% of the average American income, handily outpacing the Scandinavian countries (81%), Germany (85%), Belgium (77%) and many others.
The study, 2013 study the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, flies in the face of everything we've been told over the past few years. In America retirees are actually doing well when compared to other countries.

It appears to be all about where you live and not so much about the money you expect to get in retirement. Here in Georgia I am convinced a married couple with a paid off mortgage and without debts can live reasonably well and comfortable on $3,000/month and very comfortably on $3,600.

If that $3,000 or $3,600 is social security only then it's equivalent to take home pay because you are not going to have federal income taxes and little, if any, state income taxes because most states exempt social security from state income taxes up to pretty high limits. Not sure about Georgia but I know at least $60,000 is exempt for a couple and I do believe they raised this from last year.

The biggest single expense will be medical and a good Plan G along with D should take care of a lot that comes up costing what; $700/couple per month which includes the Part B for each?

That would leave $500/week for a couple and while Paris might not be on the list I just have to think two people can live reasonably well on $500/week after medical is paid.

But sure, if in California, New York, New Jersey and a few other places it might be a severe probably but in many areas of the country it just isn't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-23-2015, 11:35 AM
 
12,825 posts, read 20,138,510 times
Reputation: 10910
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
The equity market crash in late 2008/09 followed by a massive bull market with low interest rates has been a retirement finances reset for millions. Some great, some bad and some not at all or somewhere between great and bad. We all had our reset or opportunity for one for better or worse. How many of us would in hindsight have loved to be 55 in May 2099 and starting on not just maxing out retirement accounts but makeup years etc and embarking on the investing homestretch. Others lost much and locked in those losses at low savings rate. Others had not much and not much chance to take advantage of. Truly impactful retirement time. Consider the young couple starting out and thinking this is the new investment normal. A real game changer it has been for many and others a non event. A true mixed impact bag.
As a dollar cost averaging, long investor, who has nerves of steel, I can state without hesitation that while the recovery after the crash of the late 00s has been handsome, no one can bring back those lost times, when the market was flagging, and, write offs of bad debt / failed enterprises /etc abounded. Even for those of us who did not "pull during the decline" and who instead got some great bargains, those years did hurt a bit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2015, 11:36 AM
 
12,825 posts, read 20,138,510 times
Reputation: 10910
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicet4 View Post
The Imaginary Retirement-Income Crisis


The study, 2013 study the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, flies in the face of everything we've been told over the past few years. In America retirees are actually doing well when compared to other countries.

It appears to be all about where you live and not so much about the money you expect to get in retirement. Here in Georgia I am convinced a married couple with a paid off mortgage and without debts can live reasonably well and comfortable on $3,000/month and very comfortably on $3,600.

If that $3,000 or $3,600 is social security only then it's equivalent to take home pay because you are not going to have federal income taxes and little, if any, state income taxes because most states exempt social security from state income taxes up to pretty high limits. Not sure about Georgia but I know at least $60,000 is exempt for a couple and I do believe they raised this from last year.

The biggest single expense will be medical and a good Plan G along with D should take care of a lot that comes up costing what; $700/couple per month which includes the Part B for each?

That would leave $500/week for a couple and while Paris might not be on the list I just have to think two people can live reasonably well on $500/week after medical is paid.

But sure, if in California, New York, New Jersey and a few other places it might be a severe probably but in many areas of the country it just isn't.
Current retirees are doing well. Multiple studies prove that the Silent Generation are the richest elder generation in the history of the US. So what?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2015, 06:33 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,053,448 times
Reputation: 8970
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicet4 View Post
The Imaginary Retirement-Income Crisis


The study, 2013 study the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, flies in the face of everything we've been told over the past few years. In America retirees are actually doing well when compared to other countries.

It appears to be all about where you live and not so much about the money you expect to get in retirement. Here in Georgia I am convinced a married couple with a paid off mortgage and without debts can live reasonably well and comfortable on $3,000/month and very comfortably on $3,600.

If that $3,000 or $3,600 is social security only then it's equivalent to take home pay because you are not going to have federal income taxes and little, if any, state income taxes because most states exempt social security from state income taxes up to pretty high limits. Not sure about Georgia but I know at least $60,000 is exempt for a couple and I do believe they raised this from last year.

The biggest single expense will be medical and a good Plan G along with D should take care of a lot that comes up costing what; $700/couple per month which includes the Part B for each?

That would leave $500/week for a couple and while Paris might not be on the list I just have to think two people can live reasonably well on $500/week after medical is paid.

But sure, if in California, New York, New Jersey and a few other places it might be a severe probably but in many areas of the country it just isn't.

While the schlubs who have to work until they drop get taxed up the wazoo.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2015, 06:51 PM
 
Location: SW Florida
9,753 posts, read 7,033,290 times
Reputation: 14285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
Sorry, but under normal conditions 85% of Social Security benefits are subject to federal income taxation. They are only tax free IF one has no other income, or very little other income in addition to Social Security.

I can see that you are postulating a case wherein the SS would indeed be tax free. That is well and good, but I would not like other readers to skim over this and get the idea that SS is tax free as a general rule.
i
By the way, I agree with you 100% that if a married couple cannot live on SS alone of $50,000 a year, then they have a spending problem, not an income problem. I would even go farther and say that they should be able to live on a taxable income of $50,000 a year.
I can tell you that if I had an income of $50,000/year, I WOULD live on it, whatever I had to do, or forego, as the case may be, to do so. IMO regardless of one's retirement income, the best thing someone can do to prepare for retirement is to aim to be as debt free as possible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2015, 07:08 PM
 
Location: Chesapeake Bay
6,048 posts, read 3,871,434 times
Reputation: 3502
Quote:
Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly View Post
Yes of course, many of us spend a lot of energy acquiring marketable skills. And meanwhile, there are massive, secular, structural macro changes going on at a high rate.

My finding is, the game is a certain percentage what a person brings to the table, and certain percentage dumb luck (aka right place a right time ... or not).

I've seen people with questionable skills who were at the right place at the right time (say, a pre IPO start up that actually made it, as opposed to the typical start up that either folds or never really takes off). I've also seen people with great skills that happened to be an an Enron at the wrong time. Are they the masters of their fate, or, is there something more?

In any case, rather than castigating those who many not have a really great nest egg, how about some compassion here? That might be nice.
freemkt has issues. Personal issues. One of them being telling the truth. He has been known to stretch it a bit in the past.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2015, 09:31 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,053,448 times
Reputation: 8970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weichert View Post
freemkt has issues. Personal issues. One of them being telling the truth. He has been known to stretch it a bit in the past.

Okay, give us a cite.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2015, 09:38 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,053,448 times
Reputation: 8970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100 View Post
Actually, the trend supports the logic of proactively acquiring new marketable skills. There is no logic at all whatsoever behind not acquiring any marketable skills and then being surprised that no one is willing to pay you for what you don't bring to the table.

Except that employers demand credible evidence of marketable skills; this is why certifications are valuable today. Skills without the right credentials are of dubious value today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2015, 10:29 PM
 
Location: Chesapeake Bay
6,048 posts, read 3,871,434 times
Reputation: 3502
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Okay, give us a cite.
Do you really want to start that up again? Remember the discussion on the Econ forum a few months ago re you and Medicare?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2015, 06:29 AM
 
15,734 posts, read 9,249,739 times
Reputation: 14217
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Except that employers demand credible evidence of marketable skills; this is why certifications are valuable today. Skills without the right credentials are of dubious value today.
Those are just excuses. Most employers rely on resumes, the interview process and calls to references to determine whether the potential employee's skill are what they are looking for.
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