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 wife and I are getting over 70% of our retirement income from ss alone, boo hoo!
My benefit is estimated to be $3,050 while my wife's is etimated to be $1,125 for a combined ss benefit of $4,175 TAX FREE. Boo hoo!
If social security was 100% of our income when you figure we would not pay any federal or state taxes that's equivalent to having a full time job paying $67,000 per year here in Georgia. Boo hoo!
Social Security isn't tax free, is it? Part of it is taxed, I thought.
Are negative outlooks self-fulfilling prophesies or do they simply breed and promulgate negativity?
I lean toward the latter. And you?
The lack of retirement funds really is a problem for most boomers, I think. Remember that we just got out of a huge recession, in which many people lost a lot of their 401k savings to the stock market crash. The cost of living has continued to rise, at the same time. Other people haven't saved enough, to begin with. And a lot of older people were laid off during the recession.
I worked for 40 years. My SS will be maybe $24,000, if I'm lucky. I'm female, and we all know that women have been paid less than men for many years. So the poorest retirees will be women, as has been the case throughout our country's history. It might be better for women going forward, but boomers worked at a time when it was legal not to hire you because you were female, and it was legal to pay you less because you were female. That affected not just the money we earned and our standard of living at the time, it affects our retirement and everything else for the rest of our lives.
The lack of retirement funds really is a problem for most boomers, I think. Remember that we just got out of a huge recession, in which many people lost a lot of their 401k savings to the stock market crash. The cost of living has continued to rise, at the same time. Other people haven't saved enough, to begin with. And a lot of older people were laid off during the recession.
I worked for 40 years. My SS will be maybe $24,000, if I'm lucky. I'm female, and we all know that women have been paid less than men for many years. So the poorest retirees will be women, as has been the case throughout our country's history. It might be better for women going forward, but boomers worked at a time when it was legal not to hire you because you were female, and it was legal to pay you less because you were female. That affected not just the money we earned and our standard of living at the time, it affects our retirement and everything else for the rest of our lives.
I'm not saying that some women aren't paid less than men even for the same job, but I get sick and tired of hearing "women make on average less than men."
You have to compare the same job classification. Does a teacher in the same school with the exact same amount of experience, education, etc. make less because one is a woman? No.
In my workplace, people with the same job classifications and experience make the same exact amount whether they are a man or a woman.
Sure, a woman office clerk in an engineering firm makes less than a man who is an engineer. A man in an an engineering firm who is a tech also makes less than a WOMAN who is an engineer.
Most of these comparisons are apples to oranges. You have to compare the same exact job classification with the same exact duties. OK, done with my rant.
There is a "potential" crisis looming, but in general not yet. Continued Fed. govt. spending at deficit levels could bring on an economic or currency crisis. There are several states that have underfunded their pension system for state employees. Net family income is down, taxes are up, cuts in medicare are ongoing. So a real crisis is a possibility in the future. Some are sounding the warning bells so that wise people will plan ahead for the darker days to come, and they are coming. Our nation is in serious decline, like it or not.
Preparing for retirement is more than just accumulating enough money, it's an entire economic picture. Are you carrying debt into retirement? Did you retire early? Where do you live, are there cheaper options, areas that are more affordable? Is your money invested in growth funds? What are you willing to do without?
I agree that some people are victims of circumstance, but I have known and I'm sure that a lot of people crying crisis, are at least partly responsible for their situation.
I'm not saying that some women aren't paid less than men even for the same job, but I get sick and tired of hearing "women make on average less than men."
You have to compare the same job classification. Does a teacher in the same school with the exact same amount of experience, education, etc. make less because one is a woman? No.
In my workplace, people with the same job classifications and experience make the same exact amount whether they are a man or a woman.
Sure, a woman office clerk in an engineering firm makes less than a man who is an engineer. A man in an an engineering firm who is a tech also makes less than a WOMAN who is an engineer.
Most of these comparisons are apples to oranges. You have to compare the same exact job classification with the same exact duties. OK, done with my rant.
Where did you go to school? Did you not notice I said women WERE paid less? I didn't say that ARE paid less.
I hope you're not paid much, since you can't read very well.
I am 61. Yes, Virginia...it was legal not to hire women for jobs. Perfectly legal, and most people thought it correct. You didn't want to hire a woman for a job that a man might need. That was the thinking, and that was perfectly legal.
It was also legal to pay women less. It was common think that women would of course be paid less than men, since they weren't heads of household and responsible for providing for a family. Men were. This was the common thinking back then, and it was LEGAL. It was not thought to be incorrect thinking, either. Many women agreed. Most women were married.
I can't count the conversations I had, or heard, where it was discussed why it was not a good idea to hire women for jobs. It was commonly thought that they just weren't as good workers as men were, and besides, their place was in the home. This was not thought to be wrong at all. It was the way most people thought, and acted on. And it was LEGAL.
That resulted in lower pay for the women who did work, which affected the standard of living at the time, and their Social Security. Throughout our country's history, it has been WOMEN who have been the poverty stricken elderly. Not men.
I'm not saying that some women aren't paid less than men even for the same job, but I get sick and tired of hearing "women make on average less than men."
You have to compare the same job classification. Does a teacher in the same school with the exact same amount of experience, education, etc. make less because one is a woman? No.
In my workplace, people with the same job classifications and experience make the same exact amount whether they are a man or a woman.
Sure, a woman office clerk in an engineering firm makes less than a man who is an engineer. A man in an an engineering firm who is a tech also makes less than a WOMAN who is an engineer.
Most of these comparisons are apples to oranges. You have to compare the same exact job classification with the same exact duties. OK, done with my rant.
Where did you go to school? Did you not notice I said women WERE paid less? I didn't say that ARE paid less.
I hope you're not paid much, since you can't read very well.
I am 61. Yes, Burkie...it was legal not to hire women for jobs. Perfectly legal, and most people thought it correct. You didn't want to hire a woman for a job that a man might need. That was the thinking, and that was perfectly legal.
It was also legal to pay women less. It was common think that women would of course be paid less than men, since they weren't heads of household and responsible for providing for a family. Men were. This was the common thinking back then, and it was LEGAL. It was not thought to be incorrect thinking, either. Many women agreed. Most women were married. Most women did not work. It wasn't considered something a good wife and mother did.
For those that did work, their low pay (for the limited types of jobs that they could get) resulted in lower a lower standard of living at the time, and resulted in lower Social Security than if they had been male workers. Throughout our country's history, it has been WOMEN who have been the poverty stricken elderly.
White men have trouble accepting these things that point to the advantages that they have had in our country for centuries. I can understand that. It means that there are no excuses for the men who have failed. It is also hard to see clearly over the fence, when you are firmly in the green pasture on only one side of it.
This was the way it was. It was all legal. It confounds me how men can still be in denial over this. We saw it during WWII in a big way, but it continued long after.
Things are different now. It is now ILLEGAL to pay women lower for the same job as a man (that was just passed a few years ago...the Lilly Ledbetter law signed by Obama). It is now ILLEGAL to use one's gender as a reason not to hire someone, unless there is something about the job that requires the male gender. But it wasn't this way when I was growing up and for most of my career.
Burkie, you speak of engineers. You are talking of TODAY. When I was growing up and through most of my young adult life, it was unthinkable to hire a woman as an engineer. It was considered a man's job. She "wouldn't fit in," and her brain just wouldn't work properly to be an engineer, was the thinking.
You are woefully uneducated about these things. I lived them. I know for personal experience. I've had men tell me outright that they don't think women should be hired for jobs that a man could get, because he needs the money more (this was years ago). I had a job as a "gofer." I was replaced by a young man, who was automatically paid more. It was accepted practice and understood that males were paid more than females. That was years ago. I had my father in law tell me he didn't think women should do "this" type of work or "that" type of work...that's man's work. I saw someone on tv explaining how women couldn't work for a phone company as a lineman because her body shape would prevent her from going up the telephone poles as fast as a man. And on and on. This was the way it was.
Social Security isn't tax free, is it? Part of it is taxed, I thought.
Not necessarily. Usually depends upon how much other income you have. In the example you quoted from the earlier poster, he was showing $4175/month from Social Security and stated that it would be 100% of his retirement income. In that example, his entire SS benefit would be free from all federal income taxes.
Now contrast that with say a couple whose combined SS benefit is only $2000/month, but also draw $5000/month from their IRAs. Even though their Social Security is less than 1/2 of the previous poster's benefit, since they have other retirement income, 85% of their Social Security benefit is taxable.
Certainly we are approaching crisis in many government programs only some of which are retirement related and eve then individual as to effect. Everyone in government acknowledges it but like nothing dome until its a crisis like everything else. What; three or four president warned by SS trustees as required by law.
Not necessarily. Usually depends upon how much other income you have. In the example you quoted from the earlier poster, he was showing $4175/month from Social Security and stated that it would be 100% of his retirement income. In that example, his entire SS benefit would be free from all federal income taxes.
Now contrast that with say a couple whose combined SS benefit is only $2000/month, but also draw $5000/month from their IRAs. Even though their Social Security is less than 1/2 of the previous poster's benefit, since they have other retirement income, 85% of their Social Security benefit is taxable.
I see. Well, how about that. That's good news.
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.
