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.
If someone made $50,000 each year, inflation adjusted for 45 years, they would still get nothing more, than based on 35 years worth of payments. 10 years of extra contributions would pay them nothing. Some people will work over 50 years.
If someone made $50,000 each year, inflation adjusted for 45 years, they would still get nothing more, than based on 35 years worth of payments. 10 years of extra contributions would pay them nothing. Some people will work over 50 years.
Many of the strategies are not intended for people with limited income growth from year to year. They are intended for people with higher incomes who can reasonably expect their incomes to grow at rates above inflation. The problem is people reading the articles who they weren't written for. It is sorta like going in the Boglehead forum with no investments and no real options to start them.
There simply aren't that many people who can show 35 years of 6-figure income. Certainly less than 5%.
What ever the number is they are more likely to be the readership base of the original source of the articles. Sources like Bloomberg, CNBC, Money, Forbes, Smart Money, Kiplinger. NYT, WSJ etc etc. Not Yahoo, USA Today etc who often link the articles to a broader readership base. Truth be told many don't bother reading the frugality threads because they know that isn't their lane. Soothers have their lane.
What ever the number is they are more likely to be the readership base of the original source of the articles. Sources like Bloomberg, CNBC, Money, Forbes, Smart Money, Kiplinger. NYT, WSJ etc etc. Not Yahoo, USA Today etc who often link the articles to a broader readership base. Truth be told many don't bother reading the frugality threads because they know that isn't their lane. Soothers have their lane.
No point in writing articles for people that don't have much choice in when to take it (once they aren't working by choice or not, the low income workers pretty much have to take it).
No point in writing articles for people that don't have much choice in when to take it (once they aren't working by choice or not, the low income workers pretty much have to take it).
They aren't writing them for them thats' my point they have a targeted audience. The question is why do Yahoo and USA Today etc link them. Social Security when viewed by investors can take on a very different look. Investors understand compounding and long term strategies. I have for years calculated my presented SS benefit options based on ages 62, 66 and 70. Then applied different compounding rates for those same benefits at 75, 80, 85, 90 and 94 which I was originally planning for age wise. That is being rethought upwards. The spread between those benefits obviously grows as the same oh say 1.5% annual compounded COLA increases differently on the higher amount and the spread growsssssssss. MathJak has similar goals but a different set of planning assumptions because he has not pension and his wife has a not real big one. Were and are close to saying have banked on that compounded age 70 COLA for the surviving spouse which would leave them in verrrrrrry good shape well down the road barring a pension or SS collapse. Even in this low COLA world the growth in our pensions from compounded COLA over the seven years of applied COLA has been sweet and that includes one year with no COLA.
living poor aint a lot of fun either and can be pretty miserable . sweating every bill can be more stress then likely working so if you are underfunded the choice is yours .
Just want to add one more dimension and that is can you retire if you never worked?
I manage property and some people that qualify as poor really don't sweat much... literally and figuratively.
One single family home I manage has been rented to the same family since 1988... the family pays about $80 a month and three generations live or have lived there.
The current head of household has never filed a tax return ever... she has her home, income, health insurance, food, school lunch, reduced utilities, free cell phones, etc all covered... it really is amazing just how much assistance there is when you add it all up... even free tuition and transportation services are provided.
It is the working poor I know that are stressed and have to choose what bill they are gong to pay now and what can wait and often just one calamity from the financial abyss...
Just for reference the single family home on a tree lined street with lawns and gardeners the family rents would sell for 450k...
Last edited by Ultrarunner; 10-20-2015 at 12:06 PM..
Oh yeah, I see people dropping left and right at 68 or 69 ... after all, those actuarial tables are just government lies, we all KNOW that, don't we? / sarc
FWIW, in 1963 and 1964, 1 & 2 years out of high school, I maxed out the SS deduction of $4800 those years. This on a $1.695 hourly pay. (How, you ask ? Lots of overtime). As such, those are years 31 & 32 of my top 35. When SSA did its AIME adjustment, they were worth $37390 & $38919. Eventually 26 of my final top 35 years were at those years max. This resulted in my receiving 86% of the max benefit for the year I started benefits at age 70 in 2014.
Well done!
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.
(How, you ask ? Lots of overtime). As such, those are years 31 & 32 of my top 35. When SSA did its AIME adjustment, they were worth $37390 & $38919. Eventually 26 of my final top 35 years were at those years max. 
This resulted in my receiving 86% of the max benefit for the year I started benefits at age 70 in 2014.
