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.
Since the 1980s, only 6% of wage earners max out Social Security. That’s $127,200. Dual income pushes the top 5% up to about $175k.
Just a minor nitpick, but it is $128,400 for 2018. I’m not sure how SS gets their numbers, but a significant more than 6% make the max. Multiple searches pop up similar numbers, but for instance: https://www.payscale.com/career-news...he-one-percent
Which falls a bit more in line with what I said, but I WAS off a little. The link above is 2011, so 7 years old, so I expect the percentages to be a little higher for the same incomes. I was remembering the top 20% for $120k, but that was more like the $100k number. (Which is why I said 15-20%, off the top of my head). The $120k number back in 2011 was 13%. I GUESS it is possible that the other 6-7 percent with that income don’t pay in to SS, but that seems a pretty high number to me.
Also, to the other poster, while the counting on SS in its same form if you are 30 is IMHO foolish, something WILL be there. For THIS thread, SS IS still a valid and sound income source, so telling a 60 year old “don’t count on it” is foolish.
As far as late in life LTC, yes, it has to be considered in the “risk”category. BUt clearly, very few people can afford LTCi or can possibly save enough to pay for a 5 year stay in a nice nursing home. It is likely to be that same 15-20% income where they have the income to accumulate assets or afford LTCi to cover it. That is where we see that most peoples largest net worth asset is their home, which a fairly large percentage do have paid off by the time they reach that age. And a large percentage that carry a mortgage at that age, do so intentionally so they have the equal (and usually more) invested. So there is the source of much LTC funds, which never show up as part of the $1M “saved”. And for everyone that has no one to help with them in their old age, just a casual look around tells me that there are 10 or more where family WILL take care of them. It is not unreasonable for many to assume and count on their heirs providing some aid, which is the most common source of aid in many other countries. There is not exactly a dearth of loving homes with well raised families.
The numbers bandied about here are often that 2-3% go in to a nursing home for more than 6 months. So those that can’t or couldn’t afford it are hoping that they are in the 90% that never need one. That’s a pretty good bet, but as mentioned a pretty bad bet to lose! I personally have never known a single immediate and extended family to ever have anyone in a nursing home. I know of 2 friends that have a parent in, and they are affording it. Many more pay for in home hospice care. I am lucky enough to personally afford to avoid the bet. But that also means my income is more than just enough for a comfortable retirement, it means it is enough that it allows a high percentage of investment growth during retirement. Clearly not the average. And I would be the first to say that one should plan on working longer to increase savings if LTC is a fear.
State provided comfortable nursing homes are a double edged sword. If everyone knew that it didn’t matter whether you saved or not, you would have an easy life in a nursing home, then where is the incentive to save for that? It is more a cultural failure in the US. The fact that programs exist, regardless of how most view them as “awful”, the fact remains (today anyway) that they DO exist, and the very elderly are not put out on an ice floe or forced to make a Logans Run. I don’t have a source, but I recall that the US does have one of the largest per capita charitable contribution rates in the world. We are not THAT shameful. Anyone that has traveled to other 1st world countries will tell you that there are the same or (way ) more homeless and poor to be seen in those countries than in average town USA or Canada. But there will ALWAYS be a percentage of poor and impoverished that that will have a rough life.
Last edited by Perryinva; 04-15-2018 at 06:34 AM..
It is a complete travesty in a country like America that we cannot find a way to make sure ALL senior citizens are properly cared for.
Welfare State is already not big enough for you? Perhaps you feel working Americans should be taxed as heavily as those in Europe? Workers then being taxed 60-70% is a travesty.
Make smart decisions in life and it's less likely you'll be on welfare as an senior American.
Welfare State is already not big enough for you? Perhaps you feel working Americans should be taxed as heavily as those in Europe? Workers then being taxed 60-70% is a travesty.
Make smart decisions in life and it's less likely you'll be on welfare as an senior American.
Have you not read my posts? I clearly believe and know first-hand it's possible to achieve the American dream. But I stand behind my earlier statement. I'm not sure what the solution is, but we can do better.
Have you not read my posts? I clearly believe and know first-hand it's possible to achieve the American dream. But I stand behind my earlier statement. I'm not sure what the solution is, but we can do better.
You have over a thousand posts. I really can't take the time to read all of them. Our country does a damn good job of taking care of the under privileged who can't pull their weight.
This has always been my solution. Rather than cut benefits seniors have been promised and are counting on the simple solution would be to raise SS withholding. Just a few bucks/week per worker would make a huge difference.
Regardless the idea that Social Security won't be there in any form is kind of ridiculous. Of course it will be there, no politician would survive voting for it to collapse.
But they won't be so foolish as to abolish SS...it will be much sneakier and come under different verbiage to sound as though it's the only way to save it. So be prepared to vote those politicians down as well.
So where is this very expensive place where you currently live? And are you talking about your neighborhood, town, or the general area?
I'm in Hawaii and the number was like 4-5M.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
So where is this very expensive place where you currently live? And are you talking about your neighborhood, town, or the general area?
North East Florida Beach Community, but not a expensive as California Beaches, Miami Beach or Palm Beach. Any place within walking distance to the ocean in a nice community is pretty much out of reach for a modest nest egg & SS in Retirement.
Last edited by shokwaverider; 04-15-2018 at 11:46 AM..
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.
)
