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.
Yes, some people think it’s a dumb decision, because if I crock before 70, I lose. My estate gains nothing by waiting.
Of course I know there are people who take it at 62 because they must to survive, I think that’s valid reason for them. It’s the smarty pants who think they better take at 62 even if they don’t need it because they leave something to their heirs is the group I’m referring to. My plan seems dumb to them.
Last edited by NewbieHere; 03-04-2019 at 09:25 AM..
No, it happens outside of nursing homes, too. My 87-year old Dad isn't over-medicated but he's got a cardiologist, a urologist, a physical therapist as well as his PCP. My brother, who lives nearby, thinks they're all milking Medicare. The problems the urologist is treating are real but does he need a cardiologist at 87? He has no symptoms of cardiac problems, is active (but slow) and at a normal weight. Our conversations are mostly about what's being treated right now. When DH took in his mother, who was also in her 80s, he brought in a couple of bags with over a dozen prescriptions (including estrogen replacement!) and the new doc cut it down to four.
I do agree with Mircea on prevention even though it's not 100% guaranteed. (DH died of acute myeloid leukemia after 10 years of polycythemia, which may have been genetic, and my sister who's thin as a rail, eats healthy and runs a few times a week, developed breast cancer at age 62 and now has some liver damage from an antibiotic they used after her mastectomy.) Most people don't want to hear about personal responsibility, though. I live in an area with mixed demographics and I see people riding on scooters in the grocery store, with an empty sock where their foot used to be, buying ribs and Little Debbie cakes. I retired at age 61 and managed to get through the 4 years of high-deductible ACA coverage with nothing more serious than a couple of bad cases of poison ivy. Partly luck and good genes, I know, but also healthy habits.
I do agree, they do upsell some activities with me and my husband. We had to turn them down. Once they see you have good insurance they pile on. All these so-called preventive measures could end up hurting you. If you have a problem, have it treat, if not don’t.
Plus as a senior person, we would be spending enormous time to see doctors and such. That’s not how we want to live.
No, it happens outside of nursing homes, too. My 87-year old Dad isn't over-medicated but he's got a cardiologist, a urologist, a physical therapist as well as his PCP. My brother, who lives nearby, thinks they're all milking Medicare. The problems the urologist is treating are real but does he need a cardiologist at 87? He has no symptoms of cardiac problems, is active (but slow) and at a normal weight. Our conversations are mostly about what's being treated right now. When DH took in his mother, who was also in her 80s, he brought in a couple of bags with over a dozen prescriptions (including estrogen replacement!) and the new doc cut it down to four.
I do agree with Mircea on prevention even though it's not 100% guaranteed. (DH died of acute myeloid leukemia after 10 years of polycythemia, which may have been genetic, and my sister who's thin as a rail, eats healthy and runs a few times a week, developed breast cancer at age 62 and now has some liver damage from an antibiotic they used after her mastectomy.) Most people don't want to hear about personal responsibility, though. I live in an area with mixed demographics and I see people riding on scooters in the grocery store, with an empty sock where their foot used to be, buying ribs and Little Debbie cakes. I retired at age 61 and managed to get through the 4 years of high-deductible ACA coverage with nothing more serious than a couple of bad cases of poison ivy. Partly luck and good genes, I know, but also healthy habits.
I have never disagreed that healthy habits give everyone better odds. I have been a regular at the gym for over 35 years, so you are preaching to the choir on that point.
We lived in Staten Island. When we retired we sold the two story house and bought a small 1400 sq ft. energy efficient renovated ranch on 1/3 acre plot 50 miles south. After improvements on the new house, the money was basically a wash. The cost of living in our town in NJ, income tax, utilities, etc. are a lot less here. Since the house has no mortgage I'd say it costs a little over a thousand a month to live in this house, including about $425 for RE tax, $300 for utilities, $100 for garbage, water and sewer, $115 for insurance and $100 for lawn service/snow removal and leaf removal. Maybe it's time to downsize and relocate before your house expenses eat up your assets?
Quote:
Originally Posted by StealthRabbit
I had a pretty good idea of my projected costs when I retired at age 49. (No pension / no HC)
then...
1) Property taxes went up over 5x (same home, just more worn out) Currently >$46 / day, up from <$3 / day when I built the joint)
2) ALL my affordable Healthcare insurance options went away with the Affordable (?) Health Care Act (costs increased from $300 / month to $1700 / month in ONE year)
so... I 'adjusted' my income streams and asset positions.
Many yrs later, yet still a bit far from age 65 (Medicare)
Retirement assets are up ~ 30%, but I expect them to start declining soon and quickly. And nearly completely.
Objective: Live modestly, die with a < $5k for handling the estate / final needs . (already have the Funeral Co-op membership purchased / immediate cremation and burial (private)<$1000). Everything (anything) left over goes to charity.
As soon as I am gone... backfill, sell the dozer and backhoe, Party on.
I am very blessed.
It all could be gone tomorrow (Income, savings, health, life)
Most of it has been promulgated by the Financial Investment industry. They want you to starve yourself, live in substandard housing, etc. so you can put money in their pockets. Some even say ignore Social Security, though it is a major source of retirement income.
I’ve never seen a financial plan put together by any financial professional that suggested folks starve themselves or affix an outrageous final nest egg number and I’ve seen a lot of plans. A plan should include some variation of your current spending/expected spending in retirement and move from there. As someone in my 30s I am ignoring SS in my plan currently, if I was mid to late 50s I wouldn’t ignore it.
We lived in Staten Island. When we retired we sold the two story house and bought a small 1400 sq ft. energy efficient renovated ranch on 1/3 acre plot 50 miles south. After improvements on the new house, the money was basically a wash. The cost of living in our town in NJ, income tax, utilities, etc. are a lot less here. Since the house has no mortgage I'd say it costs a little over a thousand a month to live in this house, including about $425 for RE tax, $300 for utilities, $100 for garbage, water and sewer, $115 for insurance and $100 for lawn service/snow removal and leaf removal. Maybe it's time to downsize and relocate before your house expenses eat up your assets?
That's still awfully expensive. I have a house in Alaska and another one in Arizona and both are a little larger than yours. Neither one costs anywhere near those amounts to maintain.
I think too many near-retirees are relying on unrealistic market gains in their retirement calculations. I expect many to be ill-prepared when we enter a prolonged bear market. Most people have already forgotten what that actually is.....
We have family in the area, Staten Island, Brooklyn and NJ. Everyone is pretty much within an hour's drive. I'm pretty satisfied with $1,000 a month to have a house. In this area you couldn't rent a one bedroom apartment for that little. Doctors, shopping, services are all within a 10 minute to half hour drive. Only fill my gas tank about once a month. And we don't have Alaska winters or Arizona summers, neither one of which I'd want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlaskaErik
That's still awfully expensive. I have a house in Alaska and another one in Arizona and both are a little larger than yours. Neither one costs anywhere near those amounts to maintain.
I’ve never seen a financial plan put together by any financial professional that suggested folks starve themselves or affix an outrageous final nest egg number and I’ve seen a lot of plans. A plan should include some variation of your current spending/expected spending in retirement and move from there. As someone in my 30s I am ignoring SS in my plan currently, if I was mid to late 50s I wouldn’t ignore it.
I did the opposite. At around age 50, I did the math on what my retired cash flow would look like and started taking steps to adjust my lifestyle to that kind of cash flow. I should be able to live fairly comfortably on my delay-to-70 Social Security check if I spend everything else to zero and have nothing left but my house. I don’t expect to do that but I can live on $45k per year. The house then becomes my long term care policy.
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.
