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.
The way it's worded, this is a misleading question and poll. It seems to assume that if one "works past 66," one is continuing to work at one's current or former job at 40 hrs/week. There are so, so many ways to "work" after retirement, from just a few hours on site to consulting to freelance to teaching a class. Can you please clarify what you mean?
Why didn't you retire or plan on retiring on time?
What an absurdity. On time? On whose time? Just because Social Security has an age with a bureaucratic name attached to it ("full retirement age") doesn't mean everybody is expected to dance to Social Security's tune. The nature of people's work differs, and people's attitudes toward their work differ, and people's life-long spending habits differ, and people's responsibilities towards others such as elderly parents differ, so why phrase the question in such a way as to imply there is something wrong, or unusual, or requiring justification if one works past some arbitrary retirement age?
The thread title question is phrased in a slightly more neutral manner (since the words "on time" are not included), but I can easily imagine someone answering, "Why not?".
To those of you that worked past 66 or plan on it. Why?
To increase balance in retirement funds. "Position eliminated" at age 67-1/2. So, I retired - 20 months past my full SS retirement age. That's really old. Lots of people here have retired very comfortably in their 50's - but I also wasn't married so no dual income household nor did I work full-time steadily until starting about age 41 - and, unfortunately, private employer discontinued its pension plan ten years after I was hired, so, for me, the "pension" is the equivalent of my utilities/cable bill - even after working 26 years. Fortunately, SS is pretty decent and I have other income. Moral of my story is get a govt job.
Last edited by Ariadne22; 09-02-2015 at 06:28 PM..
Having retired at 60-61, I can perhaps shed some light on the other side of the proposition - We were in a position between SS and a pension to be able to set-aside 401K and 403B and retire with a reasonable income and no mortgage. We didn't have to retire early, but, it was nice to be in a position to do so when the 'urge came.'
On the age 66-side of the coin, I can understand people who are in a position to retire, but, choose to keep working (full or part-time). But, IMO, being in a position of 'needing' to work until age 66 or beyond, would not be desirable -- or leave one with many alternatives in the face of 'late life' unforeseen circumstances.
Your selection #1 said "I cannot afford to retire, too many bills."
A better statement would be "I cannot afford to retire." I would have chosen such a statement (but instead I had to choose "Other.")
"I cannot afford to retire" is a more encompassing assessment that includes risk management. "Too many bills" is at the living paycheck to paycheck level. There are many people way above that level, but who would be wiped out completely by one health disaster. Such a person cannot afford to retire.
Therefore, to avoid that sort of fate I will work until at least 72 or I die on the job (or am involuntarily excluded from the labor market).
I'm stuck between two answers. I would be bored at home but I don't love my job. I love making money but I have no interest in leaving a strong legacy behind being as any legacy is going to a charity. My answer would be I would be bored at home and I love making money.
My husband and I have been having this discussion because I keep saying that I don't know what I will do to entertain myself in retirement; and he keeps telling me to volunteer; and I keep telling him that if I am going to work I might as well be paid for it.
......... he keeps telling me to volunteer; and I keep telling him that if I am going to work I might as well be paid for it.
Strong logic there and I see nothing wrong with continuing to work provided people don't hate their jobs. However, I would like to suggest some possible differences between paid work and volunteer work as a counterpoint to what you said:
1. Have you thought that volunteer work can usually be structured so it's much less than full time? Mine is three days a week and not even full days at that. This is an excellent splitting of the difference for me personally.
2. Volunteer work often provides a shot at something more fulfilling than the jobs that many people hold. At the very least it may be a welcome change of pace for some who have had the same paid job for a long time and are ready to chuck it.
I keep telling him that if I am going to work I might as well be paid for it.
My sentiments, exactly. Work is work. Show me the money, honey. Actually, I always enjoyed working. Worked for money at one thing or another all my life. I did some volunteer tutoring 'work' years ago at the Literacy Center in my 40's. Waaaay harder than I thought it would be. Ideal 'job' for a former teacher - certainly not for me - or at least not at that time in my life. Dunno if, today, I would feel differently. First, I've gotta get out of bed before noon.
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.
