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)
 
Old 04-20-2015, 07:56 PM
 
Location: The New England part of Ohio
18,678 posts, read 23,252,262 times
Reputation: 48872

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Now if government had simply allowed low earners to buy tiny homes they could afford, he'd have a paid off tiny home by now and would not need taxpayer-subsidized housing.

I have been thinking this for years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-20-2015, 09:23 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
363 posts, read 418,870 times
Reputation: 400
Yes, but who wants to rely on SNAP to eat, or thrift shop clothing for food? I'm sorry, but that's not how I want live my senior years. Ick.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2015, 09:42 PM
 
Location: Ruidoso, NM
5,416 posts, read 5,111,103 times
Reputation: 4458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deelighted View Post
Universal basic benefits...sorry but that seems like a form of communism to me.
More like Libertarian Socialism... at least the way I'd like it to be. That means high social benefits with a very free market.

Think about this. We could afford a UBI of ~20% of per capita GDP, in addition to healthcare and education, and still easily have lower taxes than many developed countries. Taxes may not even go up at all, once you consider the benefits of getting rid of the bureaucracy. Faze out SS and medicare and the 1001 different "welfare" programs. No more gaming the system. No more minimum wage.

Meanwhile, break the education and medical monopolies. That's why they've become so expensive and ineffective. Use vouchers and competition to increase efficiency and productivity, and lower costs.

Anyway, sorry... this is all very OT. Just really annoys me the way our economy and society are going. When someone games the system and lives better than the poor slob working 40 hours a week, that just isn't right. Meanwhile the top .01% (whoever they are) have taken all the gains for the last 40 years, leaving us the scraps to fight over.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2015, 10:31 PM
 
511 posts, read 384,889 times
Reputation: 526
In California, he'd only get $16-26 per month in SNAP in this situation

And it's not likely theyd get that, as California doesn't like giving out food stamps.

I know someone who waited 8 years to get into low income housing in our area.


So not sure how likely this situation is, but I've met someone who does closely fall near this situation

Possible if you go offgrid, live in your own motorhome, grow your own food, and get rides into the nearest town to shop.

And that is only if you get a little help from a friend to get a ride into the closest town to buy groceries.

So you'd really need to drive a car....

Last edited by MrsApt; 04-20-2015 at 10:43 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2015, 11:57 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,062,610 times
Reputation: 8970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post
Wow! Three-for-three excuses all in a row. Well done. Bravo!

Unreal, and I mean that literally.

What's unreal about it? People were fleeing the entire Rust Belt at the time because jobs were scarce.

Ever been to Flint or Detroit or Allentown?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2015, 01:06 AM
 
825 posts, read 564,997 times
Reputation: 2603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perryinva View Post
You should read how SS has & ALWAYS was funded. It was insurance for the retired generation paid for by the current working generation. The current boomers have paid in more to SS than any generation to date because of higher limits, higher earnings, and higher number of contributors. In the long run, once all the boomers retired, there will theoretically be such a huge labor shortage, everyones wages should climb dramatically just because of the demands of all that retirement money being spent. Generations before the boomers typically got out of SS as much as 6 times what they paid in. Boomers will barely break even. The problem is either underfunding based on current payments or too much waste because of payments to the undeserving because of loopholes.

For instance, I was married as a young man for 10 years to a lazy, winey, spendthrift that almost bankrupt me. No kids, she literally contributed negatively to my life financially, emotionally, career wise, and spiritually. I started trying to divorce her after 8 years of hollow promises manipulation but her lawyer and her were able to constantly delay until we were legally married for 10 years and 1 week. My current wonderful DW,Nis a hard working, wonderful woman that helped me rebuild my life and helped me become the success I am. Guess what? Ex- bi+<!face is entitled to the exact same survivor benefits on MY FRA that she had NOTHING to do with, as my DW!! In fact, because EX is a lazy leach she lived with her mother the rest of her life, never remarried, and at 62 can collect a benefit when I start to retire, based on my earnings, because she had none to speak of, that is about equal to what DW will get because she worked all her life!!! So for doing nothing except marrying the right guy early in life she collects the same as DW who's been with me for 20 years. Thats not right, but its the law. If it was right, EX would only collect on a percentage of the earnings attributed to my FRA when we were married.
I understand that you think your ex-wife collecting on your record is unfair, but how else do we (as a society) provide for women who dedicated their lives to keeping the home fires burning for their husband and raising his children, only to be abandoned in middle age without the wherewithal to provide for themselves in retirement?

Many, many abandoned ex-wives and widows will be thrown a lifeline in the form of SS benefits based on their ex-husbands' records, which will allow them to eke out their lives with a bit of dignity, instead of sinking into desperate poverty. Will some former wives benefit undeservedly from society's decision to help displaced homemakers? Obviously. But that's the price we pay to lift the others from the gutter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2015, 02:08 AM
 
Location: Chesapeake Bay
6,048 posts, read 3,872,797 times
Reputation: 3502
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
What's unreal about it? People were fleeing the entire Rust Belt at the time because jobs were scarce.

Ever been to Flint or Detroit or Allentown?
Then why didn't you flee?

And forget the excuses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2015, 06:25 AM
 
7,928 posts, read 5,042,332 times
Reputation: 13582
The OP makes an excellent point, that even a parlous lack of planning/saving over a lifetime, need not result in dire misery in old age. Nevertheless, as others have pointed out, it's also true that the character "Dave" benefits from having a reasonable head on his shoulders. He makes sensible decisions in retirement (if not prior) and is fully aware of his options. Many of his peers lack his acumen and good sense. And those who do have such good sense, would perhaps have made different choices while still healthy and working.

There's also a good secondary point: while the champion-savers will indeed do OK in retirement, those who are only moderately successful won't necessarily do much better than those whose life-story follows Dave's. Thus for a broad swath of society there's a disincentive in punctilious saving, especially if these people aren't adroit investors. Corollary #2: if and when we do amass a certain amount of money, how we invest is at least as important as additional savings and good fiscal discipline.

We can debate interminably whether government benefits for the poor/elderly/infirm/unfortunate are excessively generous, or unconscionably stingy, or just right. This is as much of a political as an economic issue. But to me it seems that regardless of our position on the above, there's an obvious problem with "the system" – a problem on which most of us can agree: persons who receive benefits on account of not working, would lose most or all of those benefits if they attempted to work. If earning $1 necessarily phases out $1 in benefits (or sometimes $2 in benefits), why work?

We need to recast the benefits-system, so that those who do work can nevertheless continue to receive a modicum of assistance, and that only those outright unable to work receive a full package of aid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Themanwithnoname View Post
Actually the TRUTH is that most of the aid available is for women/children, not men.
From what I've seen, most of the aid is for single-parents. It's not for singles (male or female) without children.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100 View Post
I have never understood the resentment towards the poor. There is no reason to envy Dave. And if someone feels they really, really must envy him anyway, go right ahead and go broke then live off the system yourself. If it's such an awesome deal, get yours.
It's the parable of the prodigal son. The son who remains at home resents losing a portion of his inheritance - the portion that's used to replenish the returning prodigal son's inheritance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d View Post
If you see poverty in your old age as "financial freedom" why would you worry about housing and/or medical bills bankrupting you? If one or both did, then you would have all the "financial freedom" a person could enjoy.
Reminds me of the pursuit of "freedom" in Sartre's "The Age of Reason".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2015, 06:39 AM
 
Location: Jamestown, NY
7,841 posts, read 7,331,482 times
Reputation: 13779
Quote:
Originally Posted by josie13 View Post
I understand that you think your ex-wife collecting on your record is unfair, but how else do we (as a society) provide for women who dedicated their lives to keeping the home fires burning for their husband and raising his children, only to be abandoned in middle age without the wherewithal to provide for themselves in retirement?

Many, many abandoned ex-wives and widows will be thrown a lifeline in the form of SS benefits based on their ex-husbands' records, which will allow them to eke out their lives with a bit of dignity, instead of sinking into desperate poverty. Will some former wives benefit undeservedly from society's decision to help displaced homemakers? Obviously. But that's the price we pay to lift the others from the gutter.

Well said!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2015, 07:47 AM
 
Location: Ruidoso, NM
5,416 posts, read 5,111,103 times
Reputation: 4458
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsApt View Post
Possible if you go offgrid, live in your own motorhome, grow your own food, and get rides into the nearest town to shop.
And that is only if you get a little help from a friend to get a ride into the closest town to buy groceries.
So you'd really need to drive a car....
Piece of cake, just make your home and car the same thing. I lived in a camper I built on the back of a Toyota truck for 13 years. I bought food, gas, auto insurance, the occasional truck part, and not much else. I had a solar panel and extra batteries, and upgraded my laptop to a new 5 year old model every year or so. Spent most of my time camping on BLM or NF land in beautiful spots, moving with the seasons.

Even counting depreciation on the truck I'm sure I spent <$5k/yr (mostly in the 90s). I had enough saved prior that I was earning $7-8k/yr on interest from CDs. It's easy to do if you like nature and solitude, and don't feel the need to live next to a hospital.
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