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 03-26-2016, 08:04 AM
 
71,548 posts, read 71,712,424 times
Reputation: 49132

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by biscuitmom View Post
I doubt those figures from insurance companies. Poster didn't give source.
i think you are right looking at the ages . i hope the poster does not base his retirement plan on those numbers . i got a nice shopping cart for sale .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-26-2016, 08:20 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
12,494 posts, read 4,223,982 times
Reputation: 9809
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHartphotog View Post
Funny how every single financial advisor tells us all to wait as long as possible to begin taking SS, in order to maximize the amount of the check (though the increase is typically negligible). You have to question their motives when you have worked long enough to notice that many of your peers died before reaching even the earliest age to take Social Security.

Do you realize that 50% of all men will be diagnosed with cancer, and a third of all women--and most of the time they are still of working age. Even if you manage to survive, very few people are still active and healthy at age 67 (the age when my generation qualifies for Social Security). And how much energy do you have at 67, compared to 25?

Other considerations ignored by the media are:

--You have no legal right to a single dollar of SS benefits, no matter how much you paid in SS taxes. Your promised SS benefits WILL be cut--there is no way the decimated working class can pay the benefits promised to Baby Boomers, particularly considering how much money Washington has already printed/borrowed and the interest payments resulting.
All Ponzi Scams eventually crash, and there's no way around it.

--If you have saved for retirement outside of SS, that money will definitely be used to disqualify you from your promised benefits, and will probably be targeted for additional taxation to keep the system going a little while longer. Waiting only makes it less likely you'll be saved by being grandfathered.

--Maximizing your Social Security income may very well disqualify you from various government assistance programs. I remember a CPA writing an article of how he had advised a very nice, frugal older woman to delay SS as long as possible, only to find that those few extra dollars disqualified her from several generous assistance programs.

--The longer you wait to take SS, the less your SS dollar will buy--thanks to endless currency devaluation and the inflation that government pretends barely exists.

--Do we really want to sell the vast majority of our healthy lives, in order to have a bigger bank account to pay for medical and nursing home costs that the government would otherwise pay for? Whether you save nothing or work like a dog to save $1 million, you are identical to the guy in the next nursing home bed--crying for the pain medication you have been prescribed, but won't get, because the government's War on Drugs makes it well worth stealing.


While a few lucky people live a long time, only a small portion of them are mobile, active and pain-free when they have the means to retire.


One of the best postings I've read on CD. Amen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2016, 09:38 AM
 
11,985 posts, read 5,119,111 times
Reputation: 18734
Quote:
Originally Posted by Full Spring Greenery View Post
My brother hated his job but followed the financial experts who said he should wait until he was 67 before he retired and collect social security. The experts said he needed at least a million in investment and retirement accounts or he could not retire. He was just short of that figure so he decided to wait and collect more money.


The years between his 62nd and 67th birthday were tough. He hated working and his employer was always trying to get him to quit. It was tough on his mind body and spirit. Finally he reached age 67 and formally retired. A few months later he died suddenly of a massive heart attack.


If only he did not follow those silly experts, maybe he would still be alive today or at least his last five years would have been better!
This is the problem when you put all your faith in financial experts. There was another thread in here recently talking about how you need not one million but two million in order to even think about retiring. What a bunch of crap both these figures are.
Personally, I believe many people that "choose" to work into their late sixties and seventies do so because they really like their easy jobs and feel useless without going to work everyday. Your brother was the exception and was given very bad advice. Very sadly he listened to them instead of doing what he wanted to.
I'm so tired of "experts" telling me I need to be wealthy in order to retire. I'm not wealthy, never have been and never will be. That doesn't mean I can't be happy, have a nice little inexpensive house or apartment in a nice little town and live the way I want to. Will I be taking trips around the world, eating at 5 star restaurants, attending the opera and ballet on a regular basis and buying expensive gifts for Grandkids? NO. And I don't care.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2016, 09:41 AM
 
30,087 posts, read 47,327,614 times
Reputation: 16027
We both deferred taking SS because my husband was working past 62 and frankly any SS money would have returned to the government as taxes...they got enough of our money as it was...we didn't see any benefit in giving them more...

Every person had a different situation--mentally, emotionally, financially, and health-wise.
There is NO one-size fits all answer.

I agree that forward planning and anticipating how income will impact Medicare surcharge levels is very important for some people and MIGHT make it worth taking early SS to grandfather into the system...
But there are some aspects that are outside an individual's control and can't be anticipated 3 years down the road...we had no choice but to participate in sale of income-producing properties which gave us a big tax bill in 2012 and in 2014 so we are paying higherMedicare premiums now...

Waiting until 70 which my husband is doing will make an appreciable monthly difference but it will still take years to recoup the difference between what he could take now and what he will draw at 70. He is in great health and there is no reason to think now he won't live long enough to recoup that difference. What he does give up now will be beneficial to me if he dies first because it gives me a larger widow's portion...and women live longer than men on average.
But there is no way to predict tomorrow with any true certainty...
You just have to make the best rational assessment and try not to second-guess yourself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2016, 10:01 AM
 
Location: North West Arkansas (zone 6b)
2,672 posts, read 2,012,094 times
Reputation: 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYgal2NC View Post
Money has become a God too many people bow down to and worship daily. How sickening. I was thinking earlier about how many folks write here and talk about how many millions are required in order to have a "good" or "successful" retirement. What ridiculous thinking. And Fidelity and other companies who "manage" our money and dictate how much you need in order to retire make me sick.

I may drive a 7-year old car, live in a senior apartment complex with rent based on income, can't go on wonderful trips, own 2 or 3 homes, maybe a few boats, ...... well you get the picture. But I am healthy, happy, and having fun with a whole lot less than a million.

It seems some are in this contest, who will retire with the most.

You find out that you can get by on a lot less, find true happiness, and maybe even save your life because you got off the treadmill of making money for a company doing a job you absolutely can't stand.
It's unfortunate that the OP's brother did not have a have a happy final chapter, but we have several factors to consider here.

-Government averages say people are living longer and there are not enough people paying taxes to support payments
-Investment companies make % off your money so more money means more fees
-fear of being poor will drive people to work longer than they need to

It's very easy for marketers to play into people's fears to get them to at least strive for that million. Waiting longer helps the government and the investment companies but we must figure out if indeed it works for our individual situations.

Unfortunately, people can't imagine living on less or giving up the mcmansions, trips and boats etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2016, 10:12 AM
 
Location: North West Arkansas (zone 6b)
2,672 posts, read 2,012,094 times
Reputation: 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
except ever born is not the correct way to view life expectancy in retirement .

the real deal is once you thin the herd and weed out the very sickly and weak and those with no longevity by age 65 a man has a 43% chance of seeing 85
a woman a woman 54% but a couple a whopping 73% chance of one of them making it.

you can all most bet the ranch one of you will be here at 85 .

in fact that same 65 year old couple has a 47% chance of one of them seeing 90 . that is almost a coin toss.

couples have a lot longer expectancy since either one can outlive the other . you have two horses in the race with one bet.


looking at from birth is very skewed once you are in to older ages and have eliminated those poised to die young .

if that isn't long enough , well we have been adding 1 year of life every four years since 2000.

plan accordingly unless you know which side of the statistic you are on.

as humans statistics don't mean much here . we only have 2 outcomes . we are dead or we are alive . dead is dead so you need to plan like it will be you or your spouse that lives .
My grandfather died at 77 of a stroke and his wife died at 93
His son (My dad) died at 81 of a head injury and his wife is still alive at 80

My dad was a mechanic and as a child, I was sure he would die of unnatural causes (work accident, cancer etc) due to the dangers of his work place. In some ways, I'm less healthy than he was but with the technological advancements I think I could hit at least 80.

I plan on taking social security as early as I can (perhaps age 64 with 20% reduction in benefits) and getting past the break even age
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2016, 10:31 AM
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
747 posts, read 609,917 times
Reputation: 1572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Full Spring Greenery View Post
My brother hated his job but followed the financial experts who said he should wait until he was 67 before he retired and collect social security. The experts said he needed at least a million in investment and retirement accounts or he could not retire. He was just short of that figure so he decided to wait and collect more money.


The years between his 62nd and 67th birthday were tough. He hated working and his employer was always trying to get him to quit. It was tough on his mind body and spirit. Finally he reached age 67 and formally retired. A few months later he died suddenly of a massive heart attack.


If only he did not follow those silly experts, maybe he would still be alive today or at least his last five years would have been better!
I'm sorry for your loss and sorry your brother didn't get to enjoy retirement. That's why I'm retiring at 65 (when I can receive Medicare) and not 67. My full Social Security would be 70 and I'd get $300 a month more waiting until 67, but it just isn't worth it to me. I know things change in life, but we're going to stay the course and hope to stay healthy and working in the meantime.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2016, 10:36 AM
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
747 posts, read 609,917 times
Reputation: 1572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous Lurker View Post
I was once told by someone to start paying attention to how many people that I personally know who began to collect social security, then watch to see how long they live after their benefits begin and notice how many die not long afterwards. This person claimed that there was some sort of conspiracy that caused people who began collecting Social Security to die shortly after because the system didn't want to pay out the money.


I laughed it off as being unfounded and nutty... that was until my father retied and began collecting his social security and 5 months later he died. The social security had recently sent him his payment but there is a clause in Social Security that says if the person dies within 8-10 days? after receiving their last SS payment that the payment must be returned to the government. Of course even if the individual paid into SS their entire life once they die their benefits (their money) cannot be given or transferred to their heirs, the government keeps it all.

It wasn't a few months later I then noticed another person I knew begin to collect SS and they too died soon after. Then a year later the same thing with my uncle, he began collecting SS and within 5-6 months he died too.
Years ago a coworker of mine dropped dead upon returning home from filling out his retirement papers with our employer. Poor guy really got screwed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2016, 10:47 AM
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
747 posts, read 609,917 times
Reputation: 1572
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHartphotog View Post
Funny how every single financial advisor tells us all to wait as long as possible to begin taking SS, in order to maximize the amount of the check (though the increase is typically negligible). You have to question their motives when you have worked long enough to notice that many of your peers died before reaching even the earliest age to take Social Security.

Do you realize that 50% of all men will be diagnosed with cancer, and a third of all women--and most of the time they are still of working age. Even if you manage to survive, very few people are still active and healthy at age 67 (the age when my generation qualifies for Social Security). And how much energy do you have at 67, compared to 25?

Other considerations ignored by the media are:

--You have no legal right to a single dollar of SS benefits, no matter how much you paid in SS taxes. Your promised SS benefits WILL be cut--there is no way the decimated working class can pay the benefits promised to Baby Boomers, particularly considering how much money Washington has already printed/borrowed and the interest payments resulting.
All Ponzi Scams eventually crash, and there's no way around it.

--If you have saved for retirement outside of SS, that money will definitely be used to disqualify you from your promised benefits, and will probably be targeted for additional taxation to keep the system going a little while longer. Waiting only makes it less likely you'll be saved by being grandfathered.

--Maximizing your Social Security income may very well disqualify you from various government assistance programs. I remember a CPA writing an article of how he had advised a very nice, frugal older woman to delay SS as long as possible, only to find that those few extra dollars disqualified her from several generous assistance programs.

--The longer you wait to take SS, the less your SS dollar will buy--thanks to endless currency devaluation and the inflation that government pretends barely exists.

--Do we really want to sell the vast majority of our healthy lives, in order to have a bigger bank account to pay for medical and nursing home costs that the government would otherwise pay for? Whether you save nothing or work like a dog to save $1 million, you are identical to the guy in the next nursing home bed--crying for the pain medication you have been prescribed, but won't get, because the government's War on Drugs makes it well worth stealing.


While a few lucky people live a long time, only a small portion of them are mobile, active and pain-free when they have the means to retire.
Great ... Now I feel like killing myself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2016, 11:53 AM
 
1,882 posts, read 1,438,452 times
Reputation: 2735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garthur View Post
Financial planners make money by keeping you investing with them as long as possible. They will always tell you to wait to 66-70YOA before taking retirement.

If you think that this is not correct then when has a financial planner ever said that taking SS at 62 was your smartest move. In some situations taking SS at 62 is the best choice depending on their financial situation, job difficulties, their general health and family history of life expectancy.

Also, ask 100 people how long they expect to live and 90 of the 100 will say that they expect to live to 90+. But the truth is that most people will die in their 70's and maybe 80's and some will go in their 60's. My Grand Father died at 62, 4 weeks after getting his first SS check. My Father died at 77, and my mother at 78. Of all my relatives, none of them have ever lived past 84. Here is what most don't talk about, for years (3-15 years) before their death they suffered with debilitating illness that ruined their retirement.

I keep a list of people that I have known as friends and close coworkers that have died at ages close to mine at the time of their death and the list is now up to 38. In fact very few of the people that I have grown up with are still alive and I'm 62.

To the OP, sorry for your lose.
What you describe is based on your own personal experiences with people you knew. The world is a giant place filled with billions of people, so I don't think it's accurate to make generalized statements about how 'most' people are infirm, or sick, or suffering by a certain age, or about how 'most' people die at a certain age. The word 'MOST' covers a lot of people; knowing 10 or 20 or even 100 or 500 people who fit a certain profile does little to prove that the majority of people fit that profile. For what it's worth, which is probably little, I know several people between the ages of 69 - 82 who are very active and robust. My grandmother was mentally sharp and healthy right up until her death at 96. My parents are 72 and 69, respectively, and they are both healthy, sharp, mobile, and active. (I am 41 by the way, but I enjoy reading the retirement section here).

It would be inaccurate for me to use anecdotal evidence to prove a greater point about how 'most' older people are active, healthy, and robust at x, y, z ages; but the opposite is true as well: it would be inaccurate to use anecdotal evidence to prove how infirm, sick, and debilitated 'most' people are at various ages.

People are tremendously varied.
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
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