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 03-25-2015, 06:30 PM
 
Location: Tennessee
23,592 posts, read 17,582,380 times
Reputation: 27682

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southern man View Post
But that is the same IOU us folks that are now drawing got.
It may be the same IOU but there were smaller generations ahead of you and you had more contributors for fewer pensioners. The situation is the exact opposite now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-25-2015, 07:28 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
21,541 posts, read 44,028,155 times
Reputation: 15150
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
Welfare programs such as food stamps etc are available to them as well as Medicare at no cost and a lot of local federally at least partially funded programs.
I wouldn't count on that. Medicare is NOT at no cost unless one qualifies for Medicaid. In WI, Medicaid was not expanded.

Recent cut in SNAP program has resulted in some of our seniors receiving the grand sum of $16/mo. Previously got about $150, then reduced to $95; now $16. And, these are really poor people experiencing this.

A gotcha' in the law which has something to do with their rent including utilities, resulting in no LIHEAP contribution in the mix, so calculation for food benefits was decimated.

Go GOP!!!!
Quote:
  • "At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge, ... it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."
    "Are there no prisons?"
    "Plenty of prisons..."
    "And the Union workhouses." demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"
    "Both very busy, sir..."
    "Those who are badly off must go there."
    "Many can't go there; and many would rather die."
    "If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2015, 08:12 PM
 
2,421 posts, read 3,725,330 times
Reputation: 3455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariadne22 View Post
I wouldn't count on that. Medicare is NOT at no cost unless one qualifies for Medicaid. In WI, Medicaid was not expanded.

Recent cut in SNAP program has resulted in some of our seniors receiving the grand sum of $16/mo. Previously got about $150, then reduced to $95; now $16. And, these are really poor people experiencing this.



A gotcha' in the law which has something to do with their rent including utilities, resulting in no LIHEAP contribution in the mix, so calculation for food benefits was decimated.

Go GOP!!!!
You know, I HAVE A DREAM.

I have a dream of being handed the federal budget. And told "go forth old woman unto the lands, and pick 100 Centrist Americans. Two from each state, no religious affiliation, rational minded, informed on issues, with IQ's at least above 110." Then we are all handed markers to start eliminating programs. When we are finished with our cuts, we all sit down together and present our cases, argue for about 90 days, make adjustments and start taking votes.
Then I wake up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2015, 08:55 PM
 
4,574 posts, read 7,062,229 times
Reputation: 4222
As far as senior income inequality, let's remember that the leading edge of boomers (of which I am one) were still raised in a society where not everybody went to college, especially women, and if they did they were expected to be either teachers or librarians not CEO's, women were expected to get married and have children and take at least a few years off to raise their children, and then try to get back into the work force. Women have almost always been paid less than men. Women are generally financially hurt more in divorces than men, especially older women. And stats show that women live in poverty more than men. We hear about single working moms which is very difficult but not much about single working dads raising children. I'm not saying this as an assault again men by any means, as I know men work very hard too, but especially in our early working years it was definitely a man's world (think Mad Men) and to some extent it still is. I worked in corporate America so I know this first hand. So it bothers me when folks come down on women who are older and haven't gotten more education, or haven't "invested well" or made bad choices. Who was around to teach us about the financial world or the world of real estate? When I was growing up, women didn't know much about the finances in the family (and this is still true for a lot of older women today, their husbands take care of the finances and then they die and the wife hasn't a clue). This wasn't that long ago, it was in our lifetime. Yes, we've all made great strides but financially for most women it has been and still is a struggle, especially if one is not/no longer married. Until recently a woman buying a home by herself was unheard of. 401k's weren't even in existence until the 80's, which means most of us didn't have any retirement plan outside of SS for about 25 years...that's a lot of lost time for both men and women. IMO, most people who are well off in retirement is because of real estate, which was the biggest security/wealth generator in our lifetime. Sorry to rant, but as a woman in my late 60's I feel a lot of people don't get it that things for women were not always the way they are now, especially when it comes to money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2015, 09:48 PM
 
Location: Myrtle Beach
1,499 posts, read 1,191,335 times
Reputation: 3790
I think people don't remember (or maybe don't even know) what it's been like for women trying to earn a living in the last century. In1970 women earned 59 cents for each dollar a man made. We didn't have the opportunities women have now. If you've forgotten (or never knew) here's a great article.

You've Come a Long Way, Baby (Or Have You?)*|*Ruth Rosen
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2015, 09:59 PM
 
Location: too far from the sea
19,846 posts, read 18,867,840 times
Reputation: 33754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retire in MB View Post
I think people don't remember (or maybe don't even know) what it's been like for women trying to earn a living in the last century. In1970 women earned 59 cents for each dollar a man made. We didn't have the opportunities women have now. If you've forgotten (or never knew) here's a great article.

You've Come a Long Way, Baby (Or Have You?)*|*Ruth Rosen
I don't know how it is now, but when I first started teaching in the late '60s I was paid less than my high school teacher husband. I was teaching first grade in the same town. The rationale was that elementary school teachers didn't have to know as much as high school teachers but the teachers always said that it was because most elementary school teachers were women. Women weren't paid as much.
__________________
my posts as moderator will be in red. Moderator: Health&Wellness~Genealogy. The Rules--read here>>> TOS. If someone attacks you, do not reply. Hit REPORT.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2015, 10:05 PM
 
2,421 posts, read 3,725,330 times
Reputation: 3455
Quote:
Originally Posted by loveautumn View Post
As far as senior income inequality, let's remember that the leading edge of boomers (of which I am one) were still raised in a society where not everybody went to college, especially women, and if they did they were expected to be either teachers or librarians not CEO's, women were expected to get married and have children and take at least a few years off to raise their children, and then try to get back into the work force. Women have almost always been paid less than men. Women are generally financially hurt more in divorces than men, especially older women. And stats show that women live in poverty more than men. We hear about single working moms which is very difficult but not much about single working dads raising children. I'm not saying this as an assault again men by any means, as I know men work very hard too, but especially in our early working years it was definitely a man's world (think Mad Men) and to some extent it still is. I worked in corporate America so I know this first hand. So it bothers me when folks come down on women who are older and haven't gotten more education, or haven't "invested well" or made bad choices. Who was around to teach us about the financial world or the world of real estate? When I was growing up, women didn't know much about the finances in the family (and this is still true for a lot of older women today, their husbands take care of the finances and then they die and the wife hasn't a clue). This wasn't that long ago, it was in our lifetime. Yes, we've all made great strides but financially for most women it has been and still is a struggle, especially if one is not/no longer married. Until recently a woman buying a home by herself was unheard of. 401k's weren't even in existence until the 80's, which means most of us didn't have any retirement plan outside of SS for about 25 years...that's a lot of lost time for both men and women. IMO, most people who are well off in retirement is because of real estate, which was the biggest security/wealth generator in our lifetime. Sorry to rant, but as a woman in my late 60's I feel a lot of people don't get it that things for women were not always the way they are now, especially when it comes to money.
Wow, great post and ooh so dead on. When I went for a job after having to leave school, I wanted to go into sales. I thought I would be good at it. But NO ONE would even consider hiring me, and told me right to my face (and they could back then) "This is not a job for a woman". Imagine that, I could not possibly do a man's job (that's what they called it back then - even if it was selling pencils). So I finally resorted to going to an employment agency to see if I might have better luck there. Well, I didn't, but the owner of the agency offered me the sales desk (commission only) stating if I could land a job through working on the sales desk, then good for me. I was there for a year and no one would even interview me for the available jobs and I was 100 times sharper - no a 1000 times sharper than any of the guys I sent over for interviews.

Eventually I landed a job, but was paid 1/2 (yes you read that right) of what my male co-workers were. I was told, I didn't need the money as much as a man who had a family to support. Absolutely true story.
When I became the top sales person there out of 24 men, they took my territory away from me, gave it to a new hire (man) Gave him twice my salary, and gave him a company car, and I had to use my own car. Then expected me to start all over again building a new territory from scratch with a smile on my face.

One more story, and I'll be quiet (you got my adrenalin going ) I remember once being in an office (Title Insurance Company) and I was buying an investment house. (It was a FHA assumption) My then boyfriend but soon to be husband was with me, but the title officer kept addressing my boyfriend on the matter and not me. I would ask a question and he would turn and answer to my boyfriend. I was so frustrated, I considered tearing off my clothes and standing there naked to get his attention.

Finally my boyfriend said to him. "You know she is buying the house, not me, so you should be taking to her." He still continued with this routine, until my boyfriend finally just got up and walked out of the room and he was forced with the unthinkable. Discuss business with a WOMAN. True stories. It was something else.

Last edited by modhatter; 03-25-2015 at 10:32 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2015, 10:24 PM
 
Location: Myrtle Creek, Oregon
12,268 posts, read 12,511,970 times
Reputation: 19430
Quote:
Originally Posted by modhatter View Post
I agree with all of these excellent points with the exception of the 10% flat tax. First I don't think that would be sufficient and would have to be calculated and probably change from time to time. But I also see the merit in having some deductions that will better society as a whole (but nothing resembling tax avoidance)


I TOTALLY agree but would like to see classes in high school on basic finance. In fact I think it should be taught at higher and higher levels = Daily living & Finance 101, Daily Living & Finance 102 and Daily Living & finance 103. (You want to really make it sink in)



Yes, this point is often overlooked. As we all know social security is underfunded, we must make some adjustments that add up mathematically. I do not feel it would be fair to keep the current cap in place but continue to tax the higher wages without further benefit. But perhaps those increases in benefits would be at a much lesser level once you pass certain marks. As the idea in doing this is to make up the short fall in social security which is largely due to our longer life expectancy. It is either this or withholding a greater percentage for social security from each pay check. Something I would be open to, because without forced savings, many people will wind up in the poor house when they get old.

Something else I would like to see as I think it might be a win win situation for everybody. I'd like to see a government program for younger able bodied seniors to be able to help other seniors in need. Whereby, a senior who could use extra money themselves to supplement their social security, can take a class sponsored by the government on elder care, and spend five or six hours a day helping another senior in need of cooking, doing laundry, house stuff and shopping, bathing and meds, etc.

If a physician or social worker can verify an elder person can no longer perform these things themselves but they don't want to go into a nursing home, it would seem much more cost effective for the government to delay that inevitability as long as possible and certainly be less costly.($1,000 to $1,600 vs $5,500+ mo for nursing home)

If they owned their own home (which was paid for of course) that could be sold after death. Or if later admitted into a nursing home (whichever comes first), the government could be repaid for some if not all of the debt through the sale of the home. To me this would get three birds at the same time. Help an aging person remain in their own home as long as possible, save gov. money by keeping elder out of nursing home either entirely or as long as possible, and help a second senior by providing a means of earning additional money to help supplement their own income.

I know there are some programs like this for people on disability and others (Seniors helping seniors), but the latter is not free and not affordable for seniors with low incomes. And as that is the subject at hand, as to what can be done to aide in the inequality gap, this is something that I think could be done.
Many people do not realize that there is already a means test for social security recipients. Last year my wife and I paid income tax on 80% of our social security payments. That money went into the general fund rather than back into the SS system. If taxes paid on SS went back to the SS system, much of the funding shortfall would disappear.

On the retirement planning side, I did not realize the tax liability of SS when I was saving for retirement. Income taxes do a lot to tilt the scales to a Roth IRA rather than a 401k or traditional IRA. I'm thinking about rolling the 401k into a Roth and taking the tax hit for one year to keep from being taxed on my SS forever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2015, 01:29 AM
 
71,651 posts, read 71,777,271 times
Reputation: 49240
depending how much is involved the conversions late in life may accomplish little . in our case it is out of the question as everything is in the 25% bracket regardless .

we would just end up just paying earlier than we had to and give up any gains from a hot market on that money we pay the taxes with..

the big advantage to those roths is doing them very early on when you are first ramping up your income over decades of time and start out in lower brackets.

it is that lower average tax rate that tends to be lower than your final years . that can have a roth giving you about 20% more spending money even if brackets do not change in retirement.

that big advantage is lost in life as well as tax brackets allow more and more money to pass at lower tax rates each year so waiting to pay can be an advantage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2015, 04:32 AM
 
29,782 posts, read 34,876,173 times
Reputation: 11705
Quote:
Originally Posted by in_newengland View Post
I don't know how it is now, but when I first started teaching in the late '60s I was paid less than my high school teacher husband. I was teaching first grade in the same town. The rationale was that elementary school teachers didn't have to know as much as high school teachers but the teachers always said that it was because most elementary school teachers were women. Women weren't paid as much.
Very true. Same salary scale now but women make less in their careers as they tend to have fewer years of uninterrupted work years as men. Thus men tend to have higher pensions in the aggregate.
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