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.
The problem is terminology. It isn't life expectancy it is average life expectancy that is meant.
Average life expectancy is the 50% point where 1/2 go on.
For a 65 year old it is 83 today for a man , 85 for a women and 87 for a couple.
That is only the 50% point.
Right....so why do we believe that so many men will get cheated if they don't start collecting at age 62 (ha - we all know that WOMEN live to be old crones!) ? There's no conspiracy here, just anecdotes of men dying the day they turn 62, repeated over and over and over.
When you have a pension the pay check never stops , same with social security. You know what your means are the same as when working . But when living off your own pile of savings and it has to last longer then you do it is more complex.
It's been recommended that if you don't have a pension to take some of your savings and invest in an annuity to create your own pension.
Then you at least have that steady income coming in each month.
The article was about savings.
Among those 41% that have little to no savings...over 1/2 own their home and 1/3 have pensions.
So it's not really like they have "nothing".
If they are only looking at 'savings,' then it's somewhat meaningless. My investments in real estate and other investments exceed my 'savings.'
I suspect that a lot of the pensions late-Boomers will be getting are quite low.
Geoff, by the time late-boomers retire we could be hit with a whole lot more changes. God only knows what the situation will be with: Social Security, Medicare, health care in general and long term care options -- right about the time the bulk of late-boomers retire say -- 10 years from now.
Just my luck that when I'm about to retire $#!t hits the fan. I really hope we don't get screwed.
-- Sure as for health care there'll be more and better medical treatments and more cures for things by then…but how will it be delivered and paid for.
-- By then will they have raised the Medicare eligibility age. Chris Christie propose that already. And is a current 55 year-old old enough yet so they WON'T be affected.
-- Sure Social Security will be around (I guess) -- but is a current 55 year-old old enough yet so they WON'T be affected by means testing, should that happen. And if they start that at a given cut off age…SOME one will get screwed. If it's not the 55 year old now, if could be the 54-year-old who misses the cut of by one year. Look at how notch babies got screwed, or how they raised the FRA age to 67 already.
-- Will they change the rules on retirement accounts. O.b.a.m.a. already tried that.
-- How many years warning will we get…and even if we do know it's coming that still doesn't mean we aren't being screwed. If just means we'll KNOW it's happening.
Look at the rule change for Soc Sec. affecting file and suspend…they passed that -- and made it effective in less than six months from passage. Or there abouts, right? Forcing some people to scramble.
The problem is terminology. It isn't life expectancy it is average life expectancy that is meant.
Average life expectancy is the 50% point where 1/2 go on.
For a 65 year old it is 83 today for a man , 85 for a women and 87 for a couple.
That is only the 50% point.
This isn't at all correct.
You need to understand the probability of surviving to a certain age. There are both genetic components and environmental components and there is no one-size-fits-all answer.
I'm 57. I'm a professional and a doctor's kid so I've always had great health care and nutrition. I don't smoke. I don't do drugs. I drink in moderation. I've been an office drone so I've had minimal exposure to workplace carcinogens. My dad made it to 85. My mom is about to turn 84. I just got off the ski slopes so I'm far more active than most 57 year old men. I have a better than 50% probability of surviving until age 85 and it quickly drops off from there. I have about a 10% chance of getting to 90. Knowing the rough probability of reaching those ages impacts my retirement planning. Deferring Social Security to age 70 makes sense since the odds are high that I'll cross the break-even point.
If you're 57, a smoker, and have been on Medicaid or with no health care at all most of your life, the odds of making age 85 are pretty low. They get worse if your parents died young and if you've been exposed to hazardous work places. The top half lives 5+ years longer than the bottom half.
None of us have an "expires on" stamp on our arm but you can make a fairly good guess based on socioeconomic class, genetics, environment, and behavior.
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.
