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.
Part of the trick with the change 25 years ago was what did you do with the money you got back and since you were no longer making a contribution did you spend that extra money or invest it in a 403B. Over the years that makes a big difference for those opting in the new system. The last change was nothing but a hit. Opting into the new system was a decision we have wondered about. We did well over the years with the equity increase from the house we used part of the money for and our continued investments. Anyone looking at our balance sheet would thing we were crazy to be upset about having done it.
I was in the first "new system" so didn't "get anything back". I paid into the State Retirement System every single day of my 32 years. The number of years ago should have been 35, not 25.
I was in the first "new system" so didn't "get anything back". I paid into the State Retirement System every single day of my 32 years. The number of years ago should have been 35, not 25.
In retirement the biggest long term difference could be the 3 percent COLA cap we have v the unlimited for now in the old system.
Yes, I know two families that have relocated to Costa Rica, but they are active, intelligent people who have adjusted easily to another language and culture. I know another family that tried, but six months later they were back in the US. They were overwhelmed by the challenges.
I have been here going on 13 years, so I guess I have adjusted, although I do not speak more than very basic Spanish. Luckily, it is one of the most exclusive area's and wealthy Peruvians all speak English.
If only we had a reliable crystal ball to tell us exactly what will happen in the future.
I have one, but it ran on batteries, and the batteries were only sold in Tibet, so when they ran out the dang machine was dead in the water. Tibet refused to ship the batteries out of the country.
LOL, from my perspective $250K annually is wealthy. I bet lots of other folks think so too.
But I am not complaining, those graphs show our annual income ( in retirement) in the top 18%. And with very little debt.
Debt is an important factor. I have none, and the house is fully paid for. But having no debt was a real pain when I was applying for college loans. Those are geared to put you in debt if you aren't already in debt.
Yeah but that's a paycheck. Lose the job and are you still "wealthy" ?
If you need the paycheck to be deemed "wealthy" then you're not really wealthy.
To me wealthy means not having to work. I guess it means other things to other people.
Being in the 1% means more than $900K in yearly income with more than $10,000,000 in assets. If you are just talking about wages and income, then the number is much smaller.
In about ten to fourteen years (give or take) the USA is going to be in for a huge shock. That is when the last wave of Boomers (those born late 1950's through 1962) reach retirement age and for *WAY* to many of them the financial outlook is bleak to even dire.
This will be the generation that grew up during the Stagflation of the 1970's came out of college during the recession and stock market crashes of the 1980's and suffered through a few more economic similar *upsets* along the way. They also are likely to be the first generation hit with companies fully cutting back on or not even offering pensions.
For a generation know for reinventing themselves and doing things "their way", most have. They married later in life and or also started families (40's or even 50's) thus are still paying the high costs of having children (such as college and the first few years afterwards until kiddos get themselves straight), during what should be their peak earning years for contributing to retirement funds.
Long story short there are going to be a whole lot of persons for who SS is going to be their only source of retirement income. Worse a large segment of this demographic will be females as for the first time in recent American history (if ever) the number of spinster, divorced, widowed or otherwise single women >65 will exceed those that are married.
Being a widow or divorcee isn't always bad economically but that depends upon what the women got or gets from her late/former husband. When you consider many of those women who will be seniors then spent their active working career lives under very different circumstances (lower paid positions or even careers), what they will get from their own SS benefit record is likely not to be nearly enough.
Senator Warren and some others want to address this looming crisis for both older women and quite frankly many others who will be solely or mostly dependent upon SS for their retirement funds. Problem is there isn't a way to do so without fiddling with the benefit system so someone pays more in order for someone else to get more.
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.
I bet lots of other folks think so too.
