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 main concern with baby boomers (I'm one of them) isn't so much financial but medical and every day home care once we are unable to live on our own.
There aren't enough nursing homes for the millions that will all be in the same boat at the same time.
I do NOT want to burden my two boys with us having to move into their houses any more than I would want mine or my husband's parents to live with us if it had gotten down to it (only one father left between us, and he still lives in his own home at 93)
I don't know about where other people live, but around here they seem to be closing down nursing homes, rather than building or creating more. Doesn't make any sense to me.
This articleOntario senior scares me to death! QUOTE: "Overcrowded hospitals in Ontario and across the country are desperate to free up beds occupied by frail seniors who no longer need acute care but have no place else to go, a problem that will grow worse as the greying of Canada’s population accelerates."
Yes, I guess you are right. With more than a 60% cut in income we will definitely slow down our spending drastically then. Still, we are contributing to the healthy economy as boomers that have not yet retired.
Part of the broad topic is how those with significant assets (investments/savings) allocate their investments and savings. I fully understand the study. There was a discussion in the forum about how much to hold in cash/bonds/equities in retirement
The thread title is taken from the title of the article: I am trying to sort out the underlying point of the article. Especially having participated in this forum for over a decade and knowing the wide range of opinions by the many in this forum over the years.
So MathJak stop worrying and go spend the millions now! I must be honest and admit on a personal level we have been thinking of ourselves within a similar context and our financial spending.
We have a perfect storm in the US. We have a significantly less generous social system than other advanced industrial countries. On the other hand, we are deindustrializing, and it is starving the system.
My main concern with baby boomers (I'm one of them) isn't so much financial but medical and every day home care once we are unable to live on our own.
There aren't enough nursing homes for the millions that will all be in the same boat at the same time.
I do NOT want to burden my two boys with us having to move into their houses any more than I would want mine or my husband's parents to live with us if it had gotten down to it (only one father left between us, and he still lives in his own home at 93)
I don't know about where other people live, but around here they seem to be closing down nursing homes, rather than building or creating more. Doesn't make any sense to me.
This articleOntario senior scares me to death! QUOTE: "Overcrowded hospitals in Ontario and across the country are desperate to free up beds occupied by frail seniors who no longer need acute care but have no place else to go, a problem that will grow worse as the greying of Canada’s population accelerates."
As I'm reading this (and the 'Ontario Senior' article), what scares me is the implied attitude that the government should provide cradle-to-grave housing, medical care and assistance for everyone "who thinks they need it." This may be a reflection of socialized medicine and government in Canada, but, I also see a growing shift toward this mindset in the U.S..
While I agree, it would be desirable to provide all citizens with all of these things, one must ask the obvious question: 'Who is going to pay for it?' -- Further, if the working population is simply expected to foot the entire bill for the non-working population, what is the incentive to keep the working population -working? The only time the liberals seem to shriek louder than over the prospect that everyone should not automatically receive free, lifetime healthcare and services... is over the prospect that those on the receiving end should be required to contribute anything!
Very few late-Boomers have a pension coming. If you're the last of the Boomers now 53 and not a state/local worker, it's very unusual to have one. 70th percentile household net worth for the last 10 years of Boomers is only about $350K. The median 53-year-old is looking at a near-poverty level retirement once they can't work. That's totally different retirement math from the first of the Boomers who are now age 74. Full retirement age was shifted up. No pensions. Their kids had enormous college bills and the parents were expected to pay much of it. Even worse, they had a lower birthrate and the kids they did have aren't as prosperous as 20 years earlier so most don't have children to help out financially.
One of the reasons Strauss and Howe place the Boomer cut off at the end of 1960 is guess what ....
check out the Social Security grandfathering. "If you were born after 1960 .... " and so on.
My main concern with baby boomers (I'm one of them) isn't so much financial but medical and every day home care once we are unable to live on our own.
There aren't enough nursing homes for the millions that will all be in the same boat at the same time.
This is why picking your location and housing properly makes such a big difference. It's the whole age in place thing. If you pick a rural place with no services, the day you can't fend for yourself, you're stuck. If you pick a dense suburban or urban place with lots of social services and a single floor residence, you can stay in your home even with mobility problems and quite a bit of cognitive impairment.
I think technology is going to make a big difference by the time I get there. Home security cameras with advanced software connected to the internet. Self-driving cars. Remote medical diagnosis. It will let me age in place without huge labor costs.
One of the reasons Strauss and Howe place the Boomer cut off at the end of 1960 is guess what ....
check out the Social Security grandfathering. "If you were born after 1960 .... " and so on.
Except that politicians never step on that electrified third rail. 15 years ago, it was "if you were born after 1950". If you're born in 1961, that makes you age 55 now. You're 7 to 10 years from retirement age. You'd tar & feather your Congressman if they killed Social Security and Medicare for anyone born after 1960. People over age 50 are the ones who vote. In 2017, I think it's unlikely anyone born before 1966 would be touched by any "reform". Congress can't even reform ACA which doesn't impact 70% of the population. You actually think they're going to touch entitlement programs that will eventually impact 100% of the population?
In the long term, Social Security is only 70% funded assuming very pessimistic low economic growth rates. It doesn't take much to fund it at 100%. A mix of raising the minimum retirement age a couple of years, hiking payroll taxes, and taxing all income instead of just W-2 and 1099 income up to the $124K cap. The richest 1% are trying to delay that as long as possible.
The thing that's going to see reform is Medicare. It's not sustainable. Social Security is already close enough that it won't take much to fully fund it.
Except that politicians never step on that electrified third rail. 15 years ago, it was "if you were born after 1950". If you're born in 1961, that makes you age 55 now. You're 7 to 10 years from retirement age. You'd tar & feather your Congressman if they killed Social Security and Medicare for anyone born after 1960. People over age 50 are the ones who vote. In 2017, I think it's unlikely anyone born before 1966 would be touched by any "reform". Congress can't even reform ACA which doesn't impact 70% of the population. You actually think they're going to touch entitlement programs that will eventually impact 100% of the population?
In the long term, Social Security is only 70% funded assuming very pessimistic low economic growth rates. It doesn't take much to fund it at 100%. A mix of raising the minimum retirement age a couple of years, hiking payroll taxes, and taxing all income instead of just W-2 and 1099 income up to the $124K cap. The richest 1% are trying to delay that as long as possible.
The thing that's going to see reform is Medicare. It's not sustainable. Social Security is already close enough that it won't take much to fully fund it.
FRA for a person born in 1961 is the current max ---- 67 years old.
That was the significance of 1960+ ... 1960+ = maximum FRA.
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.
