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.
What are you talking about? Name one thing the federal government has done to encourage people to work beyond the traditional retirement age.
The traditional retirement age is 65.
They bumped full retirement age from 65 to 67. The fraction of your full retirement age Social Security check you receive at age 62 was reduced significantly. The numbers are quite different for someone age 56 today compared to somebody who is now 78 who retired at age 62.
If you were born in 1937, if you retired at age 62, you received 20% less than your full retirement age benefits.
People retiring today at age 62 receive 25% less than their full retirement age Social Security benefits.
If you were born in 1960, if you retire at age 62, you will receive 30% less than your full retirement age benefits.
A much larger slice of the youngest of the Boomers born in 1960-1964 are going to work beyond age 65 because the retirement math doesn't work very well otherwise.
California housing prices make it tough to stay and retire there. So many continue to work.
Most people who live there have been making huge house payments for years. That left little for saving. Much of their net worth is tied up in an expensive house. Also, property taxes and sales and income taxes make the state hostile to retirees.
I've met several people who have cashed out of the expensive housing there and moved to Colorado.
The flip side of that is that California limits your property tax increase to 1% per year. If you've owned your home for 20+ years, you pay chump change for property taxes. There are many places where you'd be forced to sell because there's no way you could afford to pay high market rate property taxes. NYC tri-state is the poster child for it. A nothing house in an OK town is $750,000. The property tax rate is very high. 2%+ is pretty typical and 2.5% isn't unusual. You're taxed at market rate. If you're retired, you're not going to be able to handle a $15K to $20K property tax bill so you have no choice but to sell and move to lower cost of ownership housing. If you're widowed or otherwise filing your taxes as single, you only have a $250K exclusion on the gain from selling your house so you're also getting nailed with capital gains taxes when you're forced to sell.
Furthermore, if you have children who still live in the area, willing them your home preserves the rate lock on the property taxes in California. A child could end up with a million dollar home that has a couple thousand dollar property tax bill while the house next to it has a $10K property tax bill. The inheritance also resets the cost basis of the home so if the child sells the home, they don't pay capital gains tax on it.
...so there are some pretty big incentives to stay in your home in California if you can afford to do so.
What are you talking about? Name one thing the federal government has done to encourage people to work beyond the traditional retirement age.
Besides all the points that GeoffD mentioned, how long has it been since you've said or heard someone say "sue them for age discrimination"? I thought so. Thank the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.
We're now allowed to collect Social Security benefits at "full retirement age"--currently age 66--with no reduction for wage earnings--I believe the cutoff was age 70 earlier.
Plus the destruction of defined benefit pension plans by laws and regulations that make them unsupportable for private employers (but of course mostly still around for public employers). And 401(k) plans permitted since 1978 which allow people to elect to save and invest for their own retirement--great idea, I love mine, but what's this about a retirement income "crisis" I keep hearing about?
I should add that I used to work in the retirement benefits area, and I clearly remember a conversation that I had with a government official in the late 1970's who came right out and said this was the policy. And unlike most govt policies, they seemed to have accomplished it. Also don't forget Medicare--the longer you work, the less it costs the govt.
Last edited by Robert137; 06-29-2016 at 08:11 PM..
Reason: to add info
They bumped full retirement age from 65 to 67. The fraction of your full retirement age Social Security check you receive at age 62 was reduced significantly. The numbers are quite different for someone age 56 today compared to somebody who is now 78 who retired at age 62.
If you were born in 1937, if you retired at age 62, you received 20% less than your full retirement age benefits.
People retiring today at age 62 receive 25% less than their full retirement age Social Security benefits.
If you were born in 1960, if you retire at age 62, you will receive 30% less than your full retirement age benefits.
A much larger slice of the youngest of the Boomers born in 1960-1964 are going to work beyond age 65 because the retirement math doesn't work very well otherwise.
O.K., if traditional retirement age means 65, I understand. But it's been a long time since it was 65 for anybody in terms of Social Security. Yes, I was very much aware of the 65, then 66, then 67 Social Security full retirement age, but two years difference is really pretty negligible, so I was surprised someone was making such a big deal out of it. It just didn't occur to me that was what they had in mind.
O.K., if traditional retirement age means 65, I understand. But it's been a long time since it was 65 for anybody in terms of Social Security. Yes, I was very much aware of the 65, then 66, then 67 Social Security full retirement age, but two years difference is really pretty negligible, so I was surprised someone was making such a big deal out of it. It just didn't occur to me that was what they had in mind.
The change in retirement age decreased the value by over 13%, not huge but not necessarily negligible either.
The flip side of that is that California limits your property tax increase to 1% per year. If you've owned your home for 20+ years, you pay chump change for property taxes. There are many places where you'd be forced to sell because there's no way you could afford to pay high market rate property taxes. NYC tri-state is the poster child for it. A nothing house in an OK town is $750,000. The property tax rate is very high. 2%+ is pretty typical and 2.5% isn't unusual. You're taxed at market rate. If you're retired, you're not going to be able to handle a $15K to $20K property tax bill so you have no choice but to sell and move to lower cost of ownership housing. If you're widowed or otherwise filing your taxes as single, you only have a $250K exclusion on the gain from selling your house so you're also getting nailed with capital gains taxes when you're forced to sell.
Furthermore, if you have children who still live in the area, willing them your home preserves the rate lock on the property taxes in California. A child could end up with a million dollar home that has a couple thousand dollar property tax bill while the house next to it has a $10K property tax bill. The inheritance also resets the cost basis of the home so if the child sells the home, they don't pay capital gains tax on it.
...so there are some pretty big incentives to stay in your home in California if you can afford to do so.
Yes- I can see why you want to stay. Although Cali is NOW very expensive, if you were lucky enough to own a home for many, many yrs, you're housing costs are lower than what you'd pay (including the cost OF the house) than many -if most- "low cost of living" states.
My parents- with us kids- moved to Cali in '69- didn't like it (tho they had NY friends that moved out there), tried Seattle (didn't like the weather) and moved back to LI in NY. Their life - and mine has been down hill since then. (e-xhubbie tried to get job transfers and couldn't because everyone wanted them). Then life happens and you get stuck.
Plus you have great Cali weather, and the roots you put down- hell-I'd stay too.
Things aren't like they use to be where ppl could move around for jobs or something different. That's why there are things like CD.
And baby boomers aren't screwing over the millennial generation? hahaha
and you are going the route of Britain and doing stupid things (like electing Trump) that my generation will have to clean up.
your parents left you a strong economy (where you could actually save for retirement if you had brains) and you are such self centered brats that you screwed it up
and now you want to blame millennials for the mess you created.
can you say worst generation to exist?
Warren Buffet said its not the worst economy for millennials. But you seem to like to blame people for everything. Perhaps you are part of the problem. Go Trump.
I don't get why the number is such an issue. Don't 20 percent or more of people work past 65.
In the 21 years at my job ONE person has retired before 65. And that person was a single manager with no kids who'd started when she was in her 20s, risen through the ranks, and had 30 years of service by age 55, when there was a corporate change and she had had enough.
With Soc Sec. FRA being at least 66 for older boomers and 67 for younger ones like me….is it that newsworthy that people are working past 65. Really?
I don't have an issue with people working past 65, why is it a problem. Two people I know are in this category. They will ever get fired and they want to maximize their retirement income. Not if they have to work.
Warren Buffet said its not the worst economy for millennials. But you seem to like to blame people for everything. Perhaps you are part of the problem. Go Trump.
Technically, the Boomers screwed over the Millennials by having such a low birth rate. The reason we are facing this Social Security and Medicare funding problem is because we're converging on 2 workers for every retiree. Most other first world countries have it far worse than the United States.
I've written any number of times that from where I sit, the economic outcome of the Millennials looks like it will be roughly the same as the late-Boomers. The problem is that we're flooded with the internet presence of very average Millennials who think they're entitled to 5%er income and wealth accumulation. Didn't do your K-12 school work diligently? Didn't get admitted to a good college? Didn't take a "hard" major where employers want to hire you? Didn't spend your early work years becoming the go-to employee who took responsibility for all the hard problems? Don't save 20% of your gross income to create wealth? Then why are you entitled to the pay check and wealth that only 5% to 10% of the late-Boomers have?
Warren Buffet said its not the worst economy for millennials. But you seem to like to blame people for everything. Perhaps you are part of the problem. Go Trump.
warren buffet is also disappointed the current state of the economy.
he believes America will always do well compared to the rest of the world...well the rest of the world is doing pretty terribly too. what he is saying is that America is a 4/10 on the economic scale while the rest of the world is at a 2/10)
Trump will burn ties with China, mexico, other trading partners. When you finally die, we'll have to remake the ties.
thanks for contributing to the downfall of America. Thanks for being so materialistic that you couldn't save for retirement and are now preventing the next generation from entry into the job market because you are still working.
Thanks for the great recession (the housing crash was due to materialism. you don't deserve a house you can't afford. It's not predatory lending. your generation is just materialistic).
Also, thanks for destroying social security.
really, is there anything your generation is capable of besides limiting the opportunities of the younger generation?
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.
