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 04-17-2015, 01:11 PM
 
Location: Eastern Washington
14,228 posts, read 44,887,015 times
Reputation: 12798

Advertisements

To me, the only thing that's a little unrealistic about the original post, IMHO, is that if "Dave" is smart enough to manage his small income so well, seems to me he has to be smart enough to have had a better income when working, and for that matter just because he can't walk without a cane does not mean he can't work at all. If he's good at making and sticking to a budget, there are all sorts of management and project management jobs he could do while sitting down.

Not to thread-jack too much, but I see this as an overall problem of a lot of low income people - in today's economy, for the most part you have to be intelligent to make much income. People with brains make good bank, and then in turn, the best of them anyway do a good job of managing the money they have. People with limited intelligence tend to earn less and at the same time manage what they do get less well. Just sayin'.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-17-2015, 01:39 PM
 
Location: Tennessee
23,572 posts, read 17,544,804 times
Reputation: 27640
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
How does that asset limit work out? I have two old debts I hope to eventually resolve with discounted lump sum settlements, e.g. pay $X,000 on each. If I'm not allowed to have more than X dollars, doesn't that screw my creditors if I am not allowed to save up enough to settle the debt?
If the debt is dischargeable, this is what bankruptcy is designed for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2015, 02:12 PM
 
Location: Florida
2,291 posts, read 4,944,698 times
Reputation: 5236
Lenora....


Are you kidding me, I worked 48 years, non-stop. I contributed to my family income a minimum of 50%, I have taken my mortgage interest as single (he died) for the last 10 years, and for many years earned more than my husband did, thus & % wise, I contributed more. And, for the last 12 years of his life, he had cancer, and, did not work, I cared for him AND worked full time.

As for my yearly income, that is none of your business, and, whatever I have, is because of what I saved and invested and yes, sacrificed. I invested in MY IRA's, and 401K's....not my husbands.

Yes, I took his SS first, my choice, it was a simple mathematical determination. Anyone, who has a half a brain would do that.

As for her, not he, being my friend, she is, and, sorry to tell you, she agrees with me, she knows that the system is skewed, and, yes, she spent many a year...not working...unlike my father. I don't begrudge her, it is just reality, she works the system.

You obviously have some issues, stand in line for all the freebee's you want, I really don't care, I, however, if I can, pay my way...I do, I leave the freebee's for the less fortunate...shocked, huh?

As for women playing the SAHM card, and, not raised to have career aspirations.... that went out with the wringer washer.

Last edited by Dollydo; 04-17-2015 at 02:43 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2015, 02:14 PM
 
1,971 posts, read 2,716,176 times
Reputation: 3457
Quote:
Originally Posted by cindersslipper View Post
The problem occurs when the cost of living goes up, as it inevitably does, and your income remains fixed.
The problem occurs when we're 20 and we don't realize that we're going to be 65 someday and will need money to retire on.

I was just plain damned fortunate. Through the grace of whatever god there might be, I landed a good-paying career, with a defined-benefit pension plan, in my early 30s. And then in my 50s, I really woke up to the reality of retirement.

My oldest son was somehow wise at 18; he and his wife started saving for retirement then. By the time he learned to play the stock market in his early 30s, he had enough money to do so. At the age of 44, he's a multi-millionaire.

'Income Management' (i.e., 'budget') should be a required course, in HS, each year for four years, with an emphasis on how to live in the present, while prudently providing for retirement.

As I said before, there are very good reasons why some people need assistance in retirement, and I'd be willing to pay more taxes to ensure that they live better than they do now (not all poor people are living well while they live 'on the dole'). But I'm not willing to help support those who played away their life, just for the H of it or because they were stupid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2015, 03:23 PM
 
8,199 posts, read 6,125,356 times
Reputation: 11731
"Dave" sounds like a parasite to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2015, 04:25 PM
 
293 posts, read 437,958 times
Reputation: 1318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paka View Post
^^^^^^^Amen!!! The fact that those that have not planned seem to be much better off than those that have made the efforts makes you wonder HOW social services ever got to this point that the handouts are greater than the benefits earned for working your fair share if physically able.

All that "free" stuff comes from someone's pockets!!! It only appears free to those that have never had their pockets picked to receive it!

For ANYONE under the age of 60 I think that this kind of assistance should be on a WPA type of program, where no matter WHAT you could do, you were held accountable to show up and provide SOME kind of "community service" allowing you to both remain active and involved, and giving you the gumption to better yourself.
I agree with this, but I would raise the age to 65. Or 70. Provided the person's reasonable healthy. Many employed people have to work beyond age 60, after all, and many retirees have to take a part time job to make ends meet.

One of the problems with living on a shoestring is that emergencies happen to everyone, and they're equally expensive no matter whose problem it is, and the working people at closest range usually get hit up for help when that person runs into trouble. Like my mother (retired, on SSI and Medicare) who needed help with the $4,000 copayment for rehab after her knee surgery. Or my sister, on SSDI, who can't afford to have her car (which was a gift from me) or her teeth fixed. Or my good friend (also on SSDI) who needed to see a specialist who wouldn't accept her Medicaid. Not only are we paying their benefits with our tax dollars, but it's a liability to have such people in your circle of family or friends. Not for me. I would never want to have to hit up friends or family when my needs exceed my "shoestring" income.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2015, 04:31 PM
 
5,619 posts, read 8,548,332 times
Reputation: 7705
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
You're saying that people should NOT be allowed to buy what they can afford?

Yes, you should hit yourself.... And you knw I never said that.
The property-owning majority is rent-seeking (in the economic sense) and uses government to that end in order to redistribute wealth upward from renters to owners...and you have no problem with that.

Move to where? Rent-seeking property owners are the majority pretty much everywhere, so there's effectively no place for the minority to escape oppression.
There are many places where there are no building codes.... Spend some of that time you waste researching and improving yourself.... For once in your life!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2015, 09:47 PM
 
Location: Henderson, NV
548 posts, read 493,498 times
Reputation: 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowsnow View Post
He gets $200 in SNAP every month(actually $194 but we are making the math easy) to use for food,
Yellowsnow, I can tell you this, because I live in Henderson. My Mother moved here from Florida 18 months ago. She go into a brand new senior apartment NOT because any of the social services departments helped her (there is a big waitlist, section 8 is probably not taking any waitlist names for the next decade, either) but because I was nosy and saw the Tempo Apartment building being built (Off Boulder Hwy on Russell) and called the building company to ask what was being built. After a process that required a down payments, which I had to pay, we rented a brand new 1br/1bth sight unseen.

We applied her for SNAP, praying that would help her get over the hump of having ZERO retirement saving and only disability to live on (about $1,100/mo.) SNAP offered up a grand total of $15.00 per month. Nope, I didn't leave off any zeros or misplace a decimal point.....

In Florida, she got $200 per month. Welcome to Las Vegas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2015, 10:04 PM
 
28,237 posts, read 39,879,137 times
Reputation: 36740
I've been poor. Very poor

Anyone that tells you being poor isn't THAT bad has never been there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2015, 10:50 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,018 posts, read 17,729,443 times
Reputation: 32304
I was also very poor when I was going to college, but it wasn't so bad for the following reasons:

1. I knew it was a temporary situation, i.e., I knew that obtaining a college degree would allow me to find a decent job. (That was still true when I graduated in 1965).

2. I wasn't alone; there were lots of students working their way through college back then (1962-1965).

3. A rather intense focus on studying didn't leave much room for regretting being poor, i.e., my mental energies were on the goal of graduating.

4. Poor is relative, and although I had almost no discretionary money, I did not go hungry and I had a roof over my head (a bare-bones college dorm not even air-conditioned - I doubt if such a thing even exists now). So maybe some would argue that I wasn't really poor.

I think I did it in the right order in any case - poor from 18 to 21, but able to live in reasonable comfort, though not lavishly, at 71.
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