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.
A perfect scenerio is someone saving up their money, having a retirement check, and moving to an area to try to be self sufficent.
However, more and more young people are looking at that scenario and want to do it soon.
Many state they will be paying no taxes cuz they don't plan on working for wages but just sell enough off the " homestead" to keep going.
Who will be suppoering them when they start aging and can no longer devote long hours to tending to their homestead?
If they started " homesteading " ( dropped out of society) at a younger age, they probably already usesd all their meager savings to buy a couple acres and build a small cabin.
Since they don't plan to file taxes or pay into SS, where will there be any income when they can no longer tend to a "homestead" that had been providing for all their needs?
Should the govt ( we the people) be responsible for you completely at age 65,70, or 75 ?
No one knows at what age they will no longer be able to maintain a " homestead" where they have been providing for their needs via self-sufficency.
Quite the irony if the ones blasting the govt the most end up being solely dependant on the govt the last 10,20,or 30 years of their life
What I am wondering, to young people, where is plan B ?
Your plan for as you age.
Why does the OP seem to assume that reliance on the government is the only option for the elderly? Why must government social programs for the elderly even be considered as "plan A"? There is such thing as savings, investment (IRA's, ROTH, pensions), insurance plans (life, long-term).
I'll go another step and suggest that homesteading does not equal dropping out of society but re-prioritizing one's social network to those more self-reliant and like minded away from large metropolises. A return to the interaction of small communities and the interconnections of that fabric.
To me, being personally responsible and family stepping up and caring for their elderly should always have been "plan A" rather than "plan B". I know these days many Americans seem to consider this a burden and often choose to put the aged in nursing homes/assisted living instead but I think those who are choosing homesteading already have made that mindset shift and hopefully are raising their family with similar values.
Mine, personal responsibility and advanced planning/savings/investing is a "plan A" and only if I am taken against my will to a nursing home is government dependence "plan B". YMMV. Do I fit into "young" category? Maybe not, but; I know I'll never see a dime I've paid into Social Security, so yes, it does affect those of us approaching or just arriving at "middle age" as well.
Edited to add:
One can either work for what they have or make what they have work for them. It is just as important, if not more, to make money earned work for you as it is to earn it initially. In many ways homesteading is similar. It is making the land continue to work for you in a productive manner rather than working for a land/house that only consumes rather than produces.
As missing4seasons pointed out, planning is key. Those who would fail to plan in an urban environment are equally likely to fail to plan as "homesteaders". Some who post here are in full swing of having implemented their plans, some are just beginning, and some fit somewhere in between.
There are many good points contained within the posts of this thread that prove that there are just as many ways of approaching old age on the homestead as their are viewpoints. Glean, learn. Optimism and the will to live will carry one through hard times more than cash or land.
Last edited by lifelongMOgal; 08-03-2010 at 12:43 PM..
Why does the OP seem to assume that reliance on the government is the only option for the elderly? Why must government social programs for the elderly even be considered as "plan A"? There is such thing as savings, investment (IRA's, ROTH, pensions), insurance plans (life, long-term).
He actually differentiated from those who PLAN and described why he was drawing that differentiation, giving details about the specific ones he was discussing.
He wasn't talking about "homesteaders"; he was talking about delusional homesteaders who have unrealistic notions in accordance to surviving with the proliferation of modern society.
Quote:
I'll go another step and suggest that homesteading does not equal dropping out of society but re-prioritizing one's social network to those more self-reliant and like minded away from large metropolises. A return to the interaction of small communities and the interconnections of that fabric.
"Homesteading", in and of itself, CAN involve those things; however, it's still a bit idealistic and goes against human nature. YOU may be willing to do all things necessary to sustain such a community lifestyle, and I may be willing right alongside you. It's when you begin to rely on others to hold up their end of the bargain it all unravels.
Quote:
To me, being personally responsible and family stepping up and caring for their elderly should always have been "plan A" rather than "plan B". I know these days many Americans seem to consider this a burden and often choose to put the aged in nursing homes/assisted living instead but I think those who are choosing homesteading already have made that mindset shift and hopefully are raising their family with similar values.
One of these bolded bits is the reality of modern society.
The other one, in red, is exactly what it says: Hopefully. As in "definitely no guarantee". See my own bolded, reddened statement in the previous portion of my response.
Quote:
Mine, personal responsibility and advanced planning/savings/investing is a "plan A" and only if I am taken against my will to a nursing home is government dependence "plan B". YMMV. Do I fit into "young" category? Maybe not, but; I know I'll never see a dime I've paid into Social Security, so yes, it does affect those of us approaching or just arriving at "middle age" as well.
Once again I'll point out -- he described the OPTIMAL situation as involving planning and saving, because that's the realistic way to do this. But those aren't the ones who will have a hand out to the government. It's the ones who DON'T do that who will be stretching the dry palm for a little grease.
He actually differentiated from those who PLAN and described why he was drawing that differentiation, giving details about the specific ones he was discussing.
He wasn't talking about "homesteaders"; he was talking about delusional homesteaders who have unrealistic notions in accordance to surviving with the proliferation of modern society.
"Homesteading", in and of itself, CAN involve those things; however, it's still a bit idealistic and goes against human nature. YOU may be willing to do all things necessary to sustain such a community lifestyle, and I may be willing right alongside you. It's when you begin to rely on others to hold up their end of the bargain it all unravels.
One of these bolded bits is the reality of modern society.
The other one, in red, is exactly what it says: Hopefully. As in "definitely no guarantee". See my own bolded, reddened statement in the previous portion of my response.
Once again I'll point out -- he described the OPTIMAL situation as involving planning and saving, because that's the realistic way to do this. But those aren't the ones who will have a hand out to the government. It's the ones who DON'T do that who will be stretching the dry palm for a little grease.
You are one of the few posters who took the time to read my OP before responding to it.
He actually differentiated from those who PLAN and described why he was drawing that differentiation, giving details about the specific ones he was discussing.
He wasn't talking about "homesteaders"; he was talking about delusional homesteaders who have unrealistic notions in accordance to surviving with the proliferation of modern society.
"Homesteading", in and of itself, CAN involve those things; however, it's still a bit idealistic and goes against human nature. YOU may be willing to do all things necessary to sustain such a community lifestyle, and I may be willing right alongside you. It's when you begin to rely on others to hold up their end of the bargain it all unravels.
One of these bolded bits is the reality of modern society.
The other one, in red, is exactly what it says: Hopefully. As in "definitely no guarantee". See my own bolded, reddened statement in the previous portion of my response.
Once again I'll point out -- he described the OPTIMAL situation as involving planning and saving, because that's the realistic way to do this. But those aren't the ones who will have a hand out to the government. It's the ones who DON'T do that who will be stretching the dry palm for a little grease.
Thanks. I've re-read the OP several times and still don't see where what you have pointed out is crystal clear. Follow-up posts by the OP did clarify his original intent but the original post seemed to me to be based on a number of faulty assumptions.
When I was growing up down on the farm out in a rural community, there was an old man who lived out back of our place on two acres he got from Mammaw and Pappaw.
He never went to school past second grade in the one-room (which was, incidentally, practically out his front door), he lived in a two-room cabin with no electricity or running water, with an old upright barrel stove for heat and a wood-burning kitchen stove where he'd heat up a few beans.
He did odd jobs for people and allegedly watched one woman's cattle. I say allegedly because he was afraid of them and many died under his watch, dying of injuries or disease while he still said things like "The holler-tail got 'em." Croop... rheumatiz... what has ye...
It's one thing to think of dying in one's sleep on one's parcel, having lived like George and Lenny off the fat o' the land; quite another when reality comes crashing in.
We always knew we would find him dead there one day. After he hadn't been around for a while my dad drove back there and found him dead and rotting in his chair where he'd gotten diarrhea and given out, a trail of dried and stinking liquid feces back and forth from an old ****-pot in one room to the chair where he sat, naked and dead and covered with flies, in a pile of his own excrement as his carcass bloated in the heat.
Just a little something to think about when seeking maximum isolation and off-the-grid living. There are ways to live better than that guy did, certainly -- but the more one seeks a primitive lifestyle, the more likely one is to meet a primitive end.
We all die,and once you ARE dead it matters little what happens to your body.
He probably lived the life he wanted,although I would probably want more to eat than beans....
Do I fit into "young" category? Maybe not, but; I know I'll never see a dime I've paid into Social Security, so yes, it does affect those of us approaching or just arriving at "middle age.
This is an absurd statement. The only way you can know that you'll never see a dime you've paid into Social Security is to know that you will die before reaching age 62. To say that you prefer not to count on Social Security as part of your planning would be a reasonable statement.
But it is in fact almost certain that you will indeed receive retirement benefits from Social Security if you live long enough to apply for them. For the government to eliminate Soc. Sec. would be politically impossible. There would be such a hue and cry which would make it impossible. And those who counterfactually claim that Soc. Sec. is "broke" or about to be broke have a hidden agenda of privatization which is driven by the greed of Wall Street. Of course Wall Street would love to get its hands on all that money.
This is an absurd statement. The only way you can know that you'll never see a dime you've paid into Social Security is to know that you will die before reaching age 62. To say that you prefer not to count on Social Security as part of your planning would be a reasonable statement.
But it is in fact almost certain that you will indeed receive retirement benefits from Social Security if you live long enough to apply for them. For the government to eliminate Soc. Sec. would be politically impossible. There would be such a hue and cry which would make it impossible. And those who counterfactually claim that Soc. Sec. is "broke" or about to be broke have a hidden agenda of privatization which is driven by the greed of Wall Street. Of course Wall Street would love to get its hands on all that money.
Social Security benefits will end being "means tested." Meaning that if you don't need it in the opinion of the Government, you won't get it. Count on it. I guaranty it. By 2025.
Oh, and BTW, there isn't any money for Wall Street to get. It all IOU's of the government.
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.
Will Social Security still be there?
