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.
A perfect scenerio is someone saving up their money, having a retirement check, and moving to an area to try to be self sufficent.
However, more and more young people are looking at that scenario and want to do it soon.
Many state they will be paying no taxes cuz they don't plan on working for wages but just sell enough off the " homestead" to keep going.
Who will be suppoering them when they start aging and can no longer devote long hours to tending to their homestead?
If they started " homesteading " ( dropped out of society) at a younger age, they probably already usesd all their meager savings to buy a couple acres and build a small cabin.
Since they don't plan to file taxes or pay into SS, where will there be any income when they can no longer tend to a "homestead" that had been providing for all their needs?
Should the govt ( we the people) be responsible for you completely at age 65,70, or 75 ?
No one knows at what age they will no longer be able to maintain a " homestead" where they have been providing for their needs via self-sufficency.
Quite the irony if the ones blasting the govt the most end up being solely dependant on the govt the last 10,20,or 30 years of their life
What I am wondering, to young people, where is plan B ?
Your plan for as you age.
On one hand fleeing civilization is pretty much nonsense these days; the planet has grown smaller, not larger, and the hand of government can and will ultimately reach out for its cut of things whether we like it or not.
A more realistic (from a personal perspective, not a TOPIC perspective) is what marmac said at the beginning: Hopefully folks are looking for homestead "peace of mind", a kind of sustained way of minimizing overall costs rather than "this is how we make our living".
Self-sufficiency is a loaded term. True self-sufficiency would pretty much require that one live out in the wilds of Alaska (assuming one remains an American citizen without expatriation) since that's about all the wilderness we have left, AND that one thoroughly eschew the majority of human contact.
Every other form of self-sufficiency pretty much has caveats attached and is far from "pure".
My personal version (and note, I'm fully aware it's my version) tries to minimize my reliance on the power grid and on the supermarket. This is further shored up by attempting to use those minimalisations by banking up whatever I manage to save, either for expenditures which might enhance my self-reliance OR saving for the day when my knees no longer allow me to work quite so much out in the garden/orchard/berry field, when my hands no longer milk a cow so efficiently...
For when the body just plain, old wears out.
Because the question arises for those who wish the self-sufficient lifestyle to the best of their ability: What then?
It's well and good to imagine walking off into the forest like some claptrap out of Native lore (The Old Ones walk out onto the ice and we never see them again... the "spirits" take them, coincidentally leaving behind only bones and bloody tatters of clothing... it's quite dignified) but that's a lot different when the jewel in your hand starts blinking and you head for Arena.
My personal version (and note, I'm fully aware it's my version) tries to minimize my reliance on the power grid and on the supermarket.
Same here. Plus, to get out of the big city, I am finding it more and more stressful to live here... I think I am getting old Joking...
I know I am getting older and wiser , thus, my priorities are shifting
I consider myself being a fairly realistic person and, therefore, do not expect my future homestead to support me and my family completely. I do plan to work until my retirement age.
This is another reason why moving onto the homestead location takes extra time - the job stars have align just right, which in today's economy is not happening as fast as I had hoped...
A perfect scenerio is someone saving up their money, having a retirement check, and moving to an area to try to be self sufficent.
However, more and more young people are looking at that scenario and want to do it soon.
Many state they will be paying no taxes cuz they don't plan on working for wages but just sell enough off the " homestead" to keep going.
Who will be suppoering them when they start aging and can no longer devote long hours to tending to their homestead?
If they started " homesteading " ( dropped out of society) at a younger age, they probably already usesd all their meager savings to buy a couple acres and build a small cabin.
Since they don't plan to file taxes or pay into SS, where will there be any income when they can no longer tend to a "homestead" that had been providing for all their needs?
Should the govt ( we the people) be responsible for you completely at age 65,70, or 75 ?
No one knows at what age they will no longer be able to maintain a " homestead" where they have been providing for their needs via self-sufficency.
Quite the irony if the ones blasting the govt the most end up being solely dependant on the govt the last 10,20,or 30 years of their life
What I am wondering, to young people, where is plan B ?
Your plan for as you age.
My response is going to sound callous and unorthodox. Oh well. Let's see how many people I can offend today.
You asked if "we the people" should sustain these people. The answer, in my mind, is no. Somewhere along the line, our society got the idea that everyone should have his/her butt wiped (in large part, wiped by the taxes we pay, which in reality should seldom be used for such). Somewhere along the line, our "collective" decided that there should be no such thing as an individual who is responsible for his/her own victories and defeats. Everybody rides the gravy train. It's BS. And it's not sustainable in the long run. There are very few who "we the people" should be carrying.
On the other hand, you have to wonder why so many "young" folks don't want to be a part of the collective system "we the people" have constructed. I'll tell you why: the system sucks. Not everyone wears a size 15EEEE shoe, and not everyone looks forward to living life as a tax slave just so they can live like a pig and get a cancellation check in the mail each month when they are no longer useful to the collective. I applaud anyone who breaks from the collective and can live reasonably on $10,000 or $15,000 a year (on their OWN). But do so at your own risk. No safety net. Most who do this do so because they don't want to be part of the collective. That's fine. Good. But once you're out of the "family," you're out. Did Al Capone support folks once they left the family? The option to do so should always be there, but the choice should stand through better or worse.
As for making a living when you get too old to toil, there is an old saying about saving for a rainy day. Our society has the false impression of what is needed to live. If one honestly assess his/her reasonable NEEDS, they are FAR fewer than most of us have been programmed to expect. What is truly needed is far less expensive than what most people think. I can get an entire years worth of food right now for less than $1000. That's less than three dollars a day. And I really don't have to look that hard to find it.
But, if you plan on living like a king in a 5000 sq ft debtor's prison, driving a new Lexus, and eating caviar every day, you may as well forget it. You're in the collective to stay. Work your ass off so you can drive a road yacht on the government dime when you're used up and too senile to remember where you've been for the last month.
Chris------I have seen many young people in my lifetime.
Anti-government, " rugged individualism"--------but somewhere along the line the words----earning money has to come in play.
Raising ones own food and bragging about self sufficency is fine .
What happens when they get old.
I am specifically referring to the younger people who want to " live off the land" when young with no concern for earning money to tide them over when they age.
You mention the answer is--------"saving for a rainy day"
I agree.
However one has to produce money on that " homestead" in order to --save for a rainy day.
Many young posters state their desire is to only produce enough money to cover bare necessities ( property taxes, supplies for the " homestead"
When a" homesteader's " goal is to only survive in the prime years of their life, what will be available for those rainy days when they get old ?
I also noticed many people near me who were quite vocal 30 years ago about their anti-government, self sufficent views, are now living in govt senior citizen housing in small towns and using food stamps to get by.
At the core, it's the age-old clash of collectivism vs individualism (I'm not talking about a single person, per se, I'm including family and community as more of an individualist approach). It will never be resolved, just like it's never resolved in nature. You have "collectivist bees, ants, wasps, wildebeest... and lemming. You have "individualist" leaning creatures such as bear, foxes, moose, etc.
I believe in free agency. Those who want to be collectivist/socialist can do so, those who don't, don't have to. It's really too bad that one side wishes to force their path on the other. But now I'm straying far from the original point (although it's related).
To get back to your point, I don't think it's feasible in our modern society, for the most part, because we've been beaten into dependency for generations. My grandfather (yes, I'll bring him up again) lived much as you described above. He almost never worked for anyone off his small farm. Funny thing is, though, although it was a hard life, he lived that way to nearly 90 years of age and never once got welfare or social security. Oh my god!!! How did he do that? Magic? Well, I guess it's a lost art that he took to his grave. The individualist has gone the way of the dodo bird. We're programmed differently nowadays.
Chris------I have seen many young people in my lifetime.
Anti-government, " rugged individualism"--------but somewhere along the line the words----earning money has to come in play.
Raising ones own food and bragging about self sufficency is fine .
What happens when they get old.
I am specifically referring to the younger people who want to " live off the land" when young with no concern for earning money to tide them over when they age.
You mention the answer is--------"saving for a rainy day"
I agree.
However one has to produce money on that " homestead" in order to --save for a rainy day.
Many young posters state their desire is to only produce enough money to cover bare necessities ( property taxes, supplies for the " homestead"
When a" homesteader's " goal is to only survive in the prime years of their life, what will be available for those rainy days when they get old ?
You didn't seem to address that in your post.
Some additional thoughts that came to mind after my last post:
We can agree, for the most part, that plopping oneself down on a chunk of land with absolutely nothing else is not going to work unless one is some sort of highly trained and practiced survivalist (as in primitive skills expert) and even then, it's just not really realistic in our modern world (at least in this country). On the other hand, I continue to insist that it is possible to live on very little income if one is willing to forgo the fluff we are led to believe is necessity. If one has very little to spend money on, one can get by on very little income and STILL save for a rainy day.
Even at $8 an hour (16,640 per year), if you have no mortgage, minimal utilities in a small home, low taxes, cook your own meals from basic ingredients, etc... you are going to have sufficient for your needs. I say even at that low level of income, it's possible to live fairly comfortably and have enough left over to save for that rainy day. It all has to do with your expectations, how frugally you are willing to live, and where you are willing to live. I also say that it is possible to find that minimum income even in the smallest of small town America. You just have to get past the idea that since you are a trained rocket scientist, everything else is beneath you. I've found it works well for me.
I think many of us who are used to the status quo have forgotten that there is, indeed, more than one way to skin a cat. And almost everyone has forgotten that there are two ways to make economics work for you (and an entire spectrum in between). You can strive to maximize income and/or you can strive to minimize expenses. I think the advantage the "minimizers" have when things go to hell is that they never had grand expectations in the first place.
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.
Joking... 
, thus, my priorities are shifting 
