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.
Went to his web site - there is a $25 fee to sign up for his "opportunity".
There almost always is a start-up fee with work-from-home opportunities, Annie. It costs money to hire someone to send you your training material, even if the material is digital/virtual. $25 is nothing compared to other offers I've seen. Frequently, it costs hundreds of dollars for one's 'start-up' kit. If the company is on the up and up, $25 seems reasonable to me, but if it's a con, well....
You can believe what you want. I don't need to price it out. I know what it cost, for myself, as well as having been an executor of the estates of several deceased relatives in recent years. All of them had extensive hospital stays leading up to their deaths, and the estate owed nothing.
The problem is people like you and Mathjak live in that upper middle class east coast bubble, I spoke of very early in this thread. I have no doubt you are being truthful about your healthcare expenses. The issue is that you make dramatic, authoritarian, one size fits all statements. These statements are condescending, elitist, and stir up unneeded fear mongering. Leading uninformed lurkers to believe if they don't have a mid-7 figure net worth, they're doomed to the poor house.
wrong . my point is that blanket statements like you do not need a million dollars is bull-sh*t . one can't possibly make a blanket statement just because location is such a big factor as well as the life you want to live..
it has nothing to do with fear mongering but it has a whole lot to do with reality. your own life road map and needs and wants will determine the budget .
some expenses will drop but others will go up.
will you have a mortgage ? will you have car payments ? needs , wants and dreams for retirement are all over the place. we can't even find our own level and we are retiring now.
yes ,we know what our bills are but we have yet to see what life will cost us.
so how anyone can speak for anyone else escapes all logic.
that reality is healthcare costs can be devastating no matter where you live. some areas worse some a little cheaper.
but for those not retired yet it is the biggest area folks miscalculate as to what it will really cost them.
healthcare costs have been going up an average of 5% a year for quite a while now.
Last edited by mathjak107; 04-28-2015 at 03:39 AM..
I pay nothing, and neither does Darlin'. Because I've been disabled all my life, I don't have to pay a dime, and now that he's over 55, Darlin' (otherwise known as DH) doesn't have to pay either.
Canada's CPP - the equivalent of the US Social Security - may be pitiful (circa $1,000 for the average working man at age 65 - none of those $3,000 - $5,000 payouts that you get), but our insurance is covered, meds are covered, glasses, and dentists, and all other things medical are covered 'til you die, and if you can't afford your house anymore, why they'll just give you a subsidized apartment and take 80% of your CPP income (covers everything from laundry service to food (and all that)) to cover the overhead. And get this - you're allowed to work too and they don't touch that money.
Now, being on a disability pension allows me to leave the country, and since I can't take care of myself 100% alone, Darlin' gets to come too.
Not a bad arrangement, eh? That'll do us fine! Summer in Canada, winter in Maui, (which is what we like to do anyway), and keep on working at what we both love.
Oh, I almost forgot; there is a glitch. Darlin' and I each have to shell out something like $57 (it changes a wee bit every year) to cover medical emergencies anywhere in the world.
Considering how hard it is to get a job for many people once past 60, according to various posts here, I never can understand why the reduction in SS Benefits between 62 and FRA starts at so low an income. The people with the lowest SS, have the highest need and reason to want to work, and IF they can find a job, letting them work those 4-5 years could make all the difference in the world in their next 15-20 afterwards. I mean what the heck is $15k income got to do with decreasing someones $1000/mo SS check? Forcing them to "get used to living on a shoestring "? I can see them preventing someone that had filed with income over $100k a year for the last few years, or something along those lines, as then they are just padding what they already should have. Anyone that is a high wage earner typically doesn't have a physically demanding job that they couldnt do in later years, unlike lower wage earners that had it the hardest to save and often have to or need to the most. I KNOW the reason is to prevent people from filing early so they have a larger benefit, but again, larger is relative. Going from an early SS of $800 all the way "up" to $1100 isn't anywhere near the real world reward of delaying $1900 to $2700. In my case, it is fair to reduce any early SS due to my wanting to work. There is no reason I should get it if I continued to work at my high paying job.
You can believe what you want. I don't need to price it out. I know what it cost, for myself, as well as having been an executor of the estates of several deceased relatives in recent years. All of them had extensive hospital stays leading up to their deaths, and the estate owed nothing.
The problem is people like you and Mathjak live in that upper middle class east coast bubble, I spoke of very early in this thread. I have no doubt you are being truthful about your healthcare expenses. The issue is that you make dramatic, authoritarian, one size fits all statements. These statements are condescending, elitist, and stir up unneeded fear mongering. Leading uninformed lurkers to believe if they don't have a mid-7 figure net worth, they're doomed to the poor house.
Of course their estates didn't owe anything; they were hospitalized. There isn't any issue with hospitalization costs; the medical costs add up when you are at home. Prescription drugs alone an be extremely expensive - - - and it doesn't matter where you live.
Which is a nice segue into your next paragraph. Perhaps you can explain it to me because I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. Better yet, give me an example of these authoritarian elitist statements I have supposedly made. I can barely recall even opining on this or any similar subject in the past. I know that you and Mathjak have gone back and forth on this, but I can't think of any instance where I was involved. Feel free to refresh my memory.
ETA: I've been retired for a little over five years, the first three of which were spent living in Las Vegas on a full-time basis. I didn't realize that living in Nevada put me in an east coast bubble.
Last edited by MadManofBethesda; 04-28-2015 at 06:14 AM..
"Study after study shows that Americans are not saving for retirement like they should, and a new survey finds that nearly one third of people who have some sort of savings plan have amassed less than $1,000 for retirement. The survey titled “Preparing for Retirement in America,” by Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) and Greenwald and Associates, finds that only 65 percent of workers have any savings for retirement, a number that fell below the 75 percent figure from 2009. But 28 percent of workers report that they have saved less than $1,000 for retirement, and almost 6 in 10 Americans say that their financial planning needs improvement. Additionally, 34 percent say they have made no effort at all to saving anything or make a retirement plan."
There is a link in the article to the actual study.
What do you predict the 62% (28% that saved less than $1,000 and 34% who say they have made no effort at all to save for retirement) will say when they reach retirement age?
Not sure what you are asking here. That 62%, by the time they reach retirement age, will certainly have amassed somewhat more than they have now. I should think that would be obvious. And those that haven't? Well, many of them will work until they day they die. No way to tell what "the 62%" will say about anything many years from now.
I'm concerned about putting money in a bank or IRA or even investing in (say) real estate. In case of national emergency, those things will be of little help. Instead, I've put most of my income in my head, via education, martial arts training, and plenty of books, clothes, travel, and cash/food/water enough to cover six months. I never worry about money, as a result, no matter what happens.
The Japanese have this notion of wabi: a simple life, in retirement. Modest and humble, enjoyment of the simple things in life, like sunshine or a bike ride in Spring.
If everyone followed Mathjak's philosophy of not retiring until you have over $12,000 a year budgeted for health care, a whole lot of people would never be retiring.
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.
That 62%, by the time they reach retirement age, will certainly have amassed somewhat more than they have now. I should think that would be obvious. And those that haven't? Well, many of them will work until they day they die. No way to tell what "the 62%" will say about anything many years from now.
