Bankruptcy Booms Among Older Americans (high school, governor, retirement, money)
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.
Except that a consumer economy is like a gold mining town when the mine has played out.
It has been this way a long time, we have been encouraged to spend and spend to keep the economy rolling. Saving is discouraged. Of course a lot of people became addicted to the spending.
Uh-huh. And under which president and his policies did this country's medical expenses go up 69% and tuition rates more than double? You can stick your sanctimonious bs.
You're correct, the blame crosses all party affiliations and ages. This situation didn't happen overnight or for that matter over the last 4-8 years. It's been coming on for quite a while.
You're correct, the blame crosses all party affiliations and ages. This situation didn't happen overnight or for that matter over the last 4-8 years. It's been coming on for quite a while.
In 2008 both parties agreed the HC spending was out of control, with cost doubling every 7 years, so no, it is not new. More improvements are needed, but clearly nothing is happening at this time.
The banksters want you to believe that you can rent money from them indefinitely without consequences. This is the result.
The "banksters" are not responsible for government spending that creates deficits adding to the federal debt. You are responsible for that debt, because you won't elect good government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81
And others are too stupid to understand that not everyone stops buying homes when they're 30. I didn't buy a home until I was 33, and bought my second at 46.
I never stated, insinuated or implied that people over 30 should not buy homes.
My father bought a house at age 51, and then a condo at age 73. The only difference is he had a 15-year mortgage on the house, so he wouldn't have debt when he retired, and he used the proceeds from the sale of the house to pay for the condo, so he has no mortgage, and extra money in the bank.
That's what intelligent people do: they plan for the future, so that they aren't financially strapped.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81
Wow. I had no idea wanting a roof over your head was "hedonistic." I suppose putting food on the table should be considered luxuries for retirees as well, in this devoid-of-sympathy world?
Buying more house than you actually need is hedonistic.
The woman wasn't born at age 70. She's had plenty of time to plan her retirement, and she did a poor job, and it isn't my responsibility to rescue people that plan poorly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81
By the time I hit 67, I'll have been in the workforce - full time - for 49 years. Even retiring at 65, someone who entered the workforce at 21 will have been working for 44 years.
Wanna try again?
But you only have to work 10 years to be eligible for Social Security benefits. Most people voluntarily work 35 years or more to maximize their benefits, but it's not a requirement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
Except that a consumer economy is like a gold mining town when the mine has played out.
I wouldn't disagree.
A consumer-oriented economy doesn't produce anything of value.
The whole Socialist InSecurity system was a scam from day one. When conceived, in 1930s, the actuarial lifespan for men was under 60, while the retirement age was set for 65. In essence, the bulk of the taxpayers would die before receiving one dime of their "entitlement." Whereas the wives, who did not pay into SocSec, would receive benefits taxed from all those strapping workers.
The joke (on us) is that it is 100% voluntary, yet millions believe that we can't live and work in our own country without "the number."
. . .
And the debasement of the currency effectively penalized anyone who "saved" their worthless IOUs (Federal Reserve Notes).
Who else can you blame for inflation if not the socialist government in power since the 1930s?
. . .
Frankly, any system that rewards consumers and penalizes producers will generate a surplus of the former and a shortage of the latter.
Anyone with half a brain can see that it is going to collapse sooner or later. Do you have a contingency plan for that event?
The sad truth is that there are too many people who are having an increasingly hard time of saving on their own, so when pensions disappeared, they are left with nothing but a SS check, which is often not enough to get by. Going forward SS will also shrink, so the situation is only getting worse.
Some European countries have laws which mandate the worker, and the employer to invest a percentage of the salary to a private fund, so when the worker retires, he/she will live off of that money as opposed to government SS checks.
The rate of people 65 and older filing for bankruptcy is three times what it was in 1991, the study found, and the same group accounts for a far greater share of all filers.
Driving the surge, the study suggests, is a three-decade shift of financial risk from government and employers to individuals, who are bearing an ever-greater responsibility for their own financial well-being as the social safety net shrinks.
Sounds like the baby boomers are getting their comeuppance after decades of running the country into the ground.
Guess what? Millennials won't be running to save you this time.
Sad thing is what's going on now will not be even close to how bad things will be in 4-5 decades.
My generation probably won't have SS & millions fail to put anything into 401k or something related.
So how do these people expect to live? My fear is that some socialist will be in office & tax us to death on our 401k (what we take out).
I can just see people demanding money and saying how they can't survive yet many had a choice to save but never chose to because of ignorance or their own faults. Anybody who did save or put money into a 401k will be ridiculed as "privileged" and made to feel bad because they have money they saved while others did not.
I think the best action for somebody my age range (late 30's) is to try and buy real estate so that I can at least rent out properties that are paid off so I can get money that way.
This has been my fear for a while now. A bunch of entitled people who failed to prepare will come after the funds of those who sacrificed and planned.
This has been my fear for a while now. A bunch of entitled people who failed to prepare will come after the funds of those who sacrificed and planned.
I'm a little worried about some sort of means testing. Those of us who have saved will become ineligible which would leave me only slightly better off than if I hadn't saved.
I'm a little worried about some sort of means testing. Those of us who have saved will become ineligible which would leave me only slightly better off than if I hadn't saved.
True, I look at my retirement funds and plan without even including the potential of SS. If I get it, great, but I'm not factoring it in at all. Hopefully we are both proven wrong.
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.
