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.
My sympathy to you at the loss of your brother. Very tragic for everyone around.
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.
I find the crude "jokes" offered here are really rude and thoughtless. Does anyone care the OP lost his brother who bought into the system?
While not the case with the OP's brother, we must be mindful that some people who work later in their years and then retire only to die a short time later may have enjoyed the heck out of their golden years working as much as some of those enjoy retirement in their golden years. Lets not be quick to judge the "foolishness" of that deceased fellow or gal who keeled over on the job or a short time later. One never knows.
Gary Shandling, I'm sure enjoyed the heck out of his work, and recently died at age 66. And I'm sure your friend, but not mine, Donald Trump, is enjoying his work as he approaches a new decade of life.
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.
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.
I'm not advocating taking the benefits right away or delaying, but this post has the BS klaxons wailing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHartphotog
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.
How can you possible know what every single financial advisor has told their client? The amount of the increase isn't necessarily negligible, here is for someone who average $50k salary:
I don't know about you, but to me having a fixed income of $31k or $41k is a completely different lifestyle than having $23k. Negligible? Come on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHartphotog
very few people are still active and healthy at age 67 (the age when my generation qualifies for Social Security).
Can you provide a source for this? Not only are terms like "active and healthy" nebulous and impossible to quantify, "very few" is equally useless as a measure. You might be right (I have no idea) but I'd be curious of the source of your claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHartphotog
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.
There are funding issues with social security, but that doesn't support an argument that benefits will be cut.
Social security isn't a ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme is an investment scam that promises returns is deceptive in that it doesn't actually invest in anything and isn't sustainable because it will run out of investors. Social security isn't an investment promising certain returns, it is a tax and benefit. Social security isn't deceptive it is quite transparent they issue very detailed reports on the state of the program and finances, and it sure won't run out of people entering the program until we stop having babies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHartphotog
--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.
Again... proof? If someone has $500k saved up how exactly does that qualify them from social security benefits if they have worked the min years?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHartphotog
--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.
Of course inflation erosion would impact future benefits but this statement isn't true, the government acknowledges inflation exists. It just isn't very high.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHartphotog
--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.
It is a decision that varies from person to person, and shouldn't be influenced by a serial exaggerator implying everyone ends up in convalescent care and everyone who works hates their life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHartphotog
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.
Again, source? You seem to have your fingers on the pulse of the retirement community where do you get these "facts" you keep throwing about?
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.
"Earlier this year, I took a call from Carl who is getting ready to retire within the next few years. His advisor was suggesting that upon retirement, Carl rollover his 401(k) to an IRA and start collecting his Social Security benefit at age 62."
Sorry that HE lost. I know at least 3 other people that died within 6 months of retiring, just like your brother, trying to maximize their pension and/or SS benefits. I, too, hated my job that I held for 28 years. So when the early retirement package rolled around at age 55, I jumped on it, and now collect a pension at age 58. Because my wife refused to let me just sit home, and because the pension is no where near what we currently need, I took a job doing something I liked, that pays half of what I was making before I retired. One can do this with some spending modification and the addition of supplemental income, such as a pension, prior to SS age. It's a much less-stressful job...and I love working and being around the younger people...they add energy to the workforce, and remind me of what it was like for me when just beginning a career.
When age 62 rolls around, I will take early SS. While the payments will be lower than if I take them at Normal Retirement age (NRA), the average breakeven age (where the full amount received) is somewhere between 78-80. To the OP's point...who knows what will happen between age 62 and 80? And to his point, our own retirement strategies should be based on our own needs assessment and risk.
The way I look at it...is if I make it to 80, I got my life's worth out of it. After that, if any major health issues arise, I pray they take my life as quickly and painlessly as possible.
Do your own thing...your own way...and life can be much more rewarding and fulfilling. It may even last longer.
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!
The problem is the advice can be good for all but bad for any one individual.
The planer was assuming the person would live and was planning on a long life. If the planner knew he had a family history of health problems or he had health problems the advice might have been different.
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.
