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.
That's an eye opener. Reverse mortgages fairly common then?
One of the articles that quoted the figures was from a reverse mortgage site that said reverse mortgage was not an option for people in those circumstances, which makes sense.
I saw the same figures elsewhere. One thing I am not sure of is whether this includes seconds. Lots of lenders do "semi-secured" (my word, not theirs) seconds and loan you more than your estimated equity. I know a few people who don't have much, if any, equity because of a second.
I am a boomer [born 1959], I have been retired for 18 years. I have a pension and my investments were enough that I could have self-funded a retirement even without the pension.
That being said, it is very obvious to me that the other 99.95% of boomers have not planned for retiring. Most of them appear to lack investments or a plan.
I have seen that too. All of our siblings with zero savings and zero retirement plan have serious health issues as well. None had any savings prior to the health issues arising, so none are in the situation where medical costs have impoverished them. Poor planning all around, some lousy luck, but the inability to plan and react made even simple issues devastatingly worse.
Low savings likely correlates with things like poor medical coverage/financial ability to take care of health issues, and might also serve as a proxy for the lifestyle problems that a lot of people face. It's not surprising.
I assume the ones with no savings are trying to keep from retiring, but that may not be so easy. Anyone here in that boat, or know people who are, how and what are they doing?
We have some retirement savings but nowhere near the millions some tell us we must have.
I did what I had to do and that was work until 70 delaying social security until then so I could collect 32% more in benefits.
My social security is right at $3,000/month tax free. If I was single I could live comfortably on that alone.
My wife receives $1,300 in social security which includes a small state pension. Together we will do just fine without savings. In the midwest if you can not live on $1,000 per week in take home income you have a spending problem especially if you own your home.
Things are rarely so cut-and-dried as the linked article would have people believe. There are SOO many possible "no savings" scenarios, such as:
Boomer with no savings and no income except Social Security at the national average ($1400/mo) or below
Boomer with no savings and no income except Social Security above the national average for FRA ($1400 - $2900)
Boomer with no savings and no income except Social Security at max for delayed benefit to 70 (about $3700)
Boomer with no savings but has income from a 401K or pension or some other "numbered" retirement income vehicle, plus average or lower Social Security
Boomer with no savings but has income from a 401K or pension or some other "numbered" retirement income vehicle, plus above average Social Security
Boomer with no savings, just Social Security in whatever amount, and owns a mortgage-free house on which they would easily realize profit of several hundred thousand dollars if/when sold.
In fact one could add several possible categories simply based on whether the no-savings Boomer owns no real estate at all; or owns a house free and clear on which they would realize a profit ranging from small to several hundred thousand in current market; or owns a house with a mortgage that would reduce said profit; and so on and on.
These general "the sky is falling and retirees will be living under bridges and eating dog food" articles have been widely circulated for years. Like this one, they are generally sponsored by companies in the insurance and investment industries ... and are more like TV commercials pitching financial services, than actual, fact-supported research.
For one thing, baby boomers are generally identified as those between 56 and 73 (1946-1964), of which 10,000 retirees per day (out of an estimated 76 million boomers) only represents about 3.6-percent annually!
These articles also usually talk only about "savings" (bank savings accounts?) while ignoring other sources of wealth and income, such as highlighted by BBCJunkie above. Typically, they also carefully make meaningless blanket statements like, "many baby boomers have little saved towards retirement," rather than identifying what percentage of those actually retiring each year, veritably have absolutely no assets or income resources."
We have some retirement savings but nowhere near the millions some tell us we must have.
I did what I had to do and that was work until 70 delaying social security until then so I could collect 32% more in benefits.
My social security is right at $3,000/month tax free. If I was single I could live comfortably on that alone.
My wife receives $1,300 in social security which includes a small state pension. Together we will do just fine without savings. In the midwest if you can not live on $1,000 per week in take home income you have a spending problem especially if you own your home.
I believe that Social Security is subject to federal tax. It would take a lot of allowable deductions to get you to a zero federal tax rate, especially with your wife’s income and income from investments. Some states and localities exempt SS distributions from their taxes, but their rates are typically much lower than the fed’s.
I am among the last of the baby boomers, and I have been retired for 18 years already. Most boomers are older than I am. Yet they have not figured out how to retire, yet.
[quote=BBMW;55885603]I keep seeing articles how almost half of baby boomers have no retirement savings, and boomers are starting to retire en-mass. An example below:
Welfare recipients receive entitled benefits totaling about $40,000 each year according to estimates. So these folks can't be the boomers you are speaking of.
So I guess we are talking about the working poor at the end of their useful lives with no more than 20% of their years left if they all die at 80?
Everyone that was a wage slave involuntarily paid into social security. So there's that. Some folks have pensions from defined benefits programs and/or at retirement receive cash from IRA programs. So there's that. And with Medicare paying for most of their medical bills -there's that. Maintenance drugs are an expense but health plans and/or employer group plans pay a portion of those - so there's that.
So my question is, "What does savings have to do with it?" If you are not counting IRA programs savings?
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.
Be Real
