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 04-26-2015, 05:52 PM
 
29,815 posts, read 34,900,894 times
Reputation: 11735

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Not really, I have no hedge against skyrocketing rents. My rent (for a ROOM) has soared over 60% in six years and currently after taxes and a student loan payment, rent consumes more than half of what's left.

I can easily see myself homeless before long.
Then buy a used bike and tent now while you can. Seriously what plans and strategies are you considering to adapt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-26-2015, 05:55 PM
 
12,709 posts, read 9,992,785 times
Reputation: 9521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emigrations View Post
Home equity is usually fairly illiquid, which is why a lot of people exclude it. Still, it's not as if the home has no value, or that the equity can't be realized over a medium term.

I know a few people personally who moved from their rich states up north to somewhere cheap in the South or Midwest. They'd sell the house in the rich area then move to the low cost area, still living mortgage free, and possibly pocketing hundreds of thousands of dollars after all costs are accounted for. For people in low cost, poor areas, they can't count on this, but people from the rich, populous states often can.

IMO, the amount of money you can pocket at retirement from selling your home is one of the biggest arguments for being in a rich, coastal area.
Real estate usually does not grow as fast as the stock market over the long run. Better to buy a cheaper home and invest the difference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2015, 05:57 PM
 
12,709 posts, read 9,992,785 times
Reputation: 9521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100 View Post
An election is going to make others choose to save for their own retirements? I don't think so.
No, but public policies which promote automatic 401(k) enrollment do have a real effect.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2015, 06:34 PM
 
29,815 posts, read 34,900,894 times
Reputation: 11735
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1 View Post
No, but public policies which promote automatic 401(k) enrollment do have a real effect.
I strongly believe that if the current administration had spent as much time, effort and used their leadership to promote wealth creation as much as they have inequality discussion and wealth transfer they could have.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2015, 08:43 PM
 
Location: Amongst the AZ Cactus
7,074 posts, read 4,932,841 times
Reputation: 7701
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1 View Post
No, but public policies which promote automatic 401(k) enrollment do have a real effect.
The numbers seem to indicate that. But for myself, coming from a "we are responsible for our own way in life" mode of thought, it's sad to me that people can't take even the slightest effort to prepare elements of their own future.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2015, 12:34 AM
 
26,148 posts, read 28,548,775 times
Reputation: 24868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
Perhaps I am belaboring the obvious, but the tacit implication of some of the quotes from the article is that if people have made no retirement plan and have no savings whatsoever, that they will have nothing in retirement and will be totally destitute. That thinking ignores Social Security. Someone with 35 years of earnings at more than minimal levels who is able to wait until full retirement age to draw SS retirement benefits will be able to live in reasonable, albeit rather frugal, comfort, even if there are no other savings.

Now I am not arguing that such total reliance on Social Security is a good idea, nor would I be personally satisfied with such a non-plan and its concomitant life style.

So while it is a bit scary and also puzzling that so many people have no plan and/or no savings at all, the picture is not totally bleak either. Excellent rationale for the mandatory nature of SS, which is a real life saver on a societal level.
I agree with this. The problem is the finances of SS are shaky.

We could solve this problem in a heartbeat if we had universal 401ks with index based target retirement funds based on the plan the federal government provides its employees. It's cheap and cost effective and the target date fund takes care of the asset allocation. We should have automatic enrollment with at least 4% taken out of the employee's check and have it escalate up by 1% every time the employee gets a raise of more than 1%. We could allow the employee to opt out. Fortunately, they've found most people won't opt out, which is the beauty of it.

All of this is very doable. As I said in another post, I hate the idea of trying to force people to save, but I have come to the conclusion there is no other way to get the majority of Americans to not be impoverished or quasi-impoverished in old age.

It's time to push for real solutions instead of fretting over it or judging people for their lack of savings. All the hand wringing and scolding doesn't work (and yes, I know, I have been quite the scold on this subject over the years).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2015, 02:06 AM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,092,919 times
Reputation: 8970
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
I strongly believe that if the current administration had spent as much time, effort and used their leadership to promote wealth creation as much as they have inequality discussion and wealth transfer they could have.

Which would have probably made low-skilled workers even worse off.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2015, 03:45 AM
 
Location: Metropolis IL
1,603 posts, read 1,896,091 times
Reputation: 2352
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
This is why I shake my head in wonderment when so many are negative about the recommendations of X percent of your working income as a annual retirement budget amount. Take your 12K for both of you and multiply it times 30 years for the two of you and you are at 360K. What does Medicare cost per year now and once reformed? Yes you can have employee provided secondary/supplemental/medicap insurance but that is going by the wayside faster than pensions. Also when the affordable care act Cadillac insurance punishment kicks in a whole lot of folks are going to be saying WTF when they get their letter notifying them of employer benefit changes. Fidelity and others have been giving retirement insurance cost expectations for years. And retirees even with employer benefits would be wise to plan accordingly.
https://www.fidelity.com/viewpoints/...dical-expenses

People need to evaluate their retirement medical cost not just on a yearly basis but on a life time of thirty plus years basis.
Obamacare Cadillac plans? You're gonna pay for that...
I don't know where you live or how you live, but none of the seniors I know on Medicare are paying $12k a year for healthcare. Many don't have an income much greater than that. And none of them are being denied care, or filing for bankruptcy because of it. As for nursing homes, they surrender what income and assets they have, and Medicaid makes up the difference. That's how the common folks roll. That's how all folks roll, if they don't have the money. It's not the end of the world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2015, 03:49 AM
 
71,806 posts, read 71,896,917 times
Reputation: 49359
price it yourself . it is all right on line.

per person basic medicare and drug plan is about 1600 or so depending on location .that is 3200 per couple.

an f-medigap plan is about 3200 in some locations like ours per person . that is about 10k and covers no dental , vision , hearing adds or any number of health related things.

that is going to be about 11-12k a year for a couple in some locations..

many go with advantage plans which are cheaper and many are pay as you go . exposure can be open ended ,especially if you need care and no one is in network when you need it.

you can't just go anywhere with an advantage plan nor is everything covered. things are only cheap until they aren't with an advantage plan

traveling can be a big risk .

my co-worker raved about how little his advantage plan cost until his wife needed chemo at 4500 a co-pay per treatment.

if medicaid is your goal then just stay poor , maybe you enjoy that life but i doubt many others would if they could help it....

Last edited by mathjak107; 04-27-2015 at 04:14 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2015, 04:41 AM
 
Location: Metropolis IL
1,603 posts, read 1,896,091 times
Reputation: 2352
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
price it yourself . it is all right on line.

per person basic medicare and drug plan is about 1600 or so depending on location .that is 3200 per couple.

an f-medigap plan is about 3200 in some locations like ours per person . that is about 10k and covers no dental , vision , hearing adds or any number of health related things.

that is going to be about 11-12k a year for a couple in some locations..

many go with advantage plans which are cheaper and many are pay as you go . exposure can be open ended ,especially if you need care and no one is in network when you need it.

you can't just go anywhere with an advantage plan nor is everything covered. things are only cheap until they aren't with an advantage plan

traveling can be a big risk .

my co-worker raved about how little his advantage plan cost until his wife needed chemo at 4500 a co-pay per treatment.

if medicaid is your goal then just stay poor , maybe you enjoy that life but i doubt many others would if they could help it....
Well...your definition of poor is obviously different than mine. I've never known anyone who can afford an extended stay in a nursing home 100% out-of-pocket. If it wasn't for Medicaid, most nursing homes would be out of business.

We obviously live in two completely different economies.
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