There Goes My retirement Plan!

[WinniWoman]

This.

It helps to look at SS in the context of when it was created. There weren't a lot of two earner families then, and I imagine that the numbers at that time were worked in a way that allowed for a benefit to be paid for the non-working spouse. Times and attitudes have, and continue, to change. Once the politicians feel that they can tinker with SS and not face any repercussions at the ballot box, they will make changes. They will probably have to, to keep the program afloat. My understanding was that SS was supposed to be a safety net. I think that we are headed back to that model.

My husband and I have never, ever had a pension plan. We started saving for retirement when we were in our early 20's (always a 401(k)). We started out saving 2% and bumped up that percentage whenever we received a raise. It took a few years, but lo and behold, eventually we were saving 15% of our salary. You never even miss it if you do it gradually. We have been lucky and have never had any job layoffs. But we have also lived frugally - still in the same house after nearly 30 years, drive "regular" cars - which we drive until they fall apart, we camped with our kids when we were younger - because we couldn't afford anything else. We stayed out of credit card debt. We paid off our student loans.

I have always worked part time because it was what worked best for our family, and also because I watched my mom struggle after my dad left our family. She had no skill, no degree, and no credit. I was determined to not wind up in that situation. But I certainly don't begrudge anything to those people who stayed home instead of working. It's just not for me.

Just read what Geekette wrote and I agree about the IRA limits, but if you are in that situation, put in the max and then save the rest in a regular account. I realize that you miss out on the tax benefit (and that is a shame) but it's not an excuse for not having enough retirement savings. If you don't have enough to retire on when you turn 65 (or whatever - my FRA is 67+ yay ) then you will have to dial back your lifestyle.

Edit - not going to take this out because that would be a chickensh!t move, but I want to clarify that the earlier part of my post is not directed at you (OP). I used to hate (HATE!) my job too. Sometimes you have to make a change even if it seems impossible. There are better things out there. OP - you need to make a change in your life. You aren't as stuck as you think you are. Trust me, if you were diagnosed with cancer tomorrow you would suddenly be able to see your options quite clearly. You have lived in your home for a long time - surely you can sell for enough to payoff your loan? Then move somewhere cheap and rent. There are places that have a very low cost of living. Life is too short.

FYI- our home has been paid off for quite a long time. It's the taxes that are a killer.

 

[am1]

Not sure what "near" means, but I'm within 10 years and I am ready to retire today. Too much of my life spent on call, fouling My Time. It's simply too many hours out of my life spent at someone elses direction, while I want control of my waking hours.

I have enjoyed my career but have hit burnout a few times and this time it is really enduring. Humans weren't meant to "be on" 24x7. I need more downtime that Sat and Sun provide.

Nearing retirement age. I guess maybe a lot like senioritis. Not a group I would want to take a chance on after hearing about how many do not like their jobs and it is a chore.

 

[WinniWoman]

OK, I'll try one more time, then give up. We're talking about two completely different things.

1. You've been talking about payback of benefits -- a strategy that used to work, but is now severely restricted. When it was possible, you'd file for bennies at FRA (66 in my case), and then at age 70, pay back everything you had collected (pocketing any interest you earned). The government would then act like you had never filed at all. You'd then file for increased benefits at age 70.

2. I'm talking about something totally different -- file and suspend. You file and suspend at age 66, thus putting a stake in the sand about your normal retirement bennies. You intend to not file for real until 70, when your bennies will be higher. But then, you get a bad health diagnosis. You're not gonna live long enough to make the increased bennies pay off. What do you do? You tell the government "Just kidding! I wanted to start bennies at age 66 after all! Please give me all the bennies I've been passing up the last 4 years, retroactivley. Thank you."

Case 1 - you take smaller bennies now, but pay them back to get bigger bennies later.

Case 2 - you pass up on the smaller bennies now, but then learn that your health is bad so you really should have taken them. The government lets you do that, as long as you had done a "file and suspend" at FRA.

Ok. Thanks. I got it now. That is definitely something to consider then strategy wise.

 

[VacationForever]

Two sides to the coin.

I also would go nuts "staying home" and doing housework and play dates, etc. But the fact of the matter is that for the propagation of the species, there will be pregnant females, and there will be young to raise. Society needs this. Starving the widowed females that brought up the youth is not an idea I would support, even tho I never had any interest in having children.

Females are already mommy-tracked on the basis of being female and we earn less, on the basis of being female, so we can save less, on the basis of being female since price of milk is not modified to female pay. To further punish the only gender that can bear children by not allowing them to stay home and raise their own children would be fairly devastating and we would have a lot more very poor women and kids bringing themselves up because Mommy has to work, too.

I could have chosen to be a housewife and pop out kids as my life's work and get old age pay on the basis of spousehood. None of this is perfect, but denying females some kind of widow offset is very important to people like my mother, who already is barely making it on Dad's pension and SS. She raised me to be a productive citizen so in some ways, she paid her debt to society, it's just that society didn't value it in dollars and cents. And never will.

No one said anything about denying widow/widower benefits.

 

[geekette]

No one said anything about denying widow/widower benefits.

What would you call denying benefits to someone that never worked?

 

[VacationForever]

What would you call denying benefits to someone that never worked?

No. The deceased spouse worked, so SS contributions were made. So there is no double-dipping. The widow/widower gets to continue to receive benefits that were made by the deceased spouse.

 

[geekette]

Nearing retirement age. I guess maybe a lot like senioritis. Not a group I would want to take a chance on after hearing about how many do not like their jobs and it is a chore.

Didn't say I don't like my work, I'm saying it takes a lot out of me and too many years of 60-80 hour weeks where evenings and weekends were not my own. I began vacationing out of country in order to not be called while on "time off". Difficult to ever relax if you never get a chance to think your own thoughts.

Some lines of work are a sacrifice and some are 40 hours and out the door. I'm tired, that's all. I would not stay with a job I didn't like, I move on to what I do like. Makes it easier to heed the alarm clock, makes it easier to do the work, makes it easier to be pleasant when taking after hours calls.

You can certainly choose to not hire anyone over the age of 50, but aside from that being illegal, you would bypass a lot of great experience and a lot of knowledge about what it takes to get things done.

senioritis for a decade? Don't think so, Pal, I'd be stark raving mad well before the end of that time period.

 

[WinniWoman]

Nearing retirement age. I guess maybe a lot like senioritis. Not a group I would want to take a chance on after hearing about how many do not like their jobs and it is a chore.

I think there are different situations.

There are people who are older and have been working all their lives and are burned out and tired of the rat race and can't wait to do things on their own terms and enjoy life. They have lots of outside interests and work just gets in the way of their life. (that's the camp I am in- work is this huge chunk of time taken out of my day that I would rather being doing a hundred other things). You don't have to worry about hiring them- they are done. Many didn't start out that way (although I did! Lol!). They initially were enthusiastic and motivated when younger, but over time become jaded, tired and unmotivated. They just want a change- whatever.

The other is people that realize after being retired for awhile that they are bored to death and want to go back to work to keep busy and maybe have some social interaction. Those are ones you would want to hire.

Then there are those who loved their pre-retirement jobs but had to retire for whatever reason and are looking for another great job in retirement (which, to me- isn't retiring). Those you want to hire.

Then there are those who have to go back to work for financial reasons. They can be good to hire also because they really NEED the work.

There is nothing wrong with people who have worked over 40 years not liking their jobs. Some, like myself, are actually very good workers. To overcome our feelings of drudgery, we have to be pretty strong and disciplined individuals- good qualities for sure. I never call out: I am always at work; I always take care of my responsibilities. I can run rings around many of the younger ones. All despite that I hate going to work. So, you really can't judge.

Here's the thing- I venture to guess that if given the chance NOT to work at their jobs- like winning the lottery or something like that- most people would quit in a heartbeat. Just the way it is. Most don't live to work they work to live.

 

[geekette]

No. The deceased spouse worked, so SS contributions were made. So there is no double-dipping. The widow/widower gets to continue to receive benefits that were made by the deceased spouse.

Elsewhere in the thread, someone mentioned they don't like that someone that never worked receives benefits, there was no "unless they married someone that worked". It was about dipping at all, not double dipping.

I'm cool with it, else mom would be living in a cardboard box eating cat food.

 

[VacationForever]

Elsewhere in the thread, someone mentioned they don't like that someone that never worked receives benefits, there was no "unless they married someone that worked". It was about dipping at all, not double dipping.

I'm cool with it, else mom would be living in a cardboard box eating cat food.

The issue is the extra 50%. Never an issue about the full 100% benefits and widow/widower benefits and children/dependent benefits. I am not going to into whether a divorcee (>=10 years of marriage) should get benefits or not. It gets too complicated for me to have an opinion on that.

 

[SMHarman]

The NYT article on this says 1/10 of 1% so 0.1% use this strategy.

I guess most of them also own timeshares!

 

[Sugarcubesea]

Sharebuilder.com (now Capital One Investing). There are fund families with no transaction fees, plenty of index funds in those families, and you can also invest in stocks. Sometimes you can find a special promo where transferring your existing account in gains $ or free trades.

OMG, Thank you so much….

 

[Talent312]

Originally Posted by Sugarcubesea:
Does anyone have any low cost Roth IRA to invest with. I have one that I don't want to put any more money into as the fees nickle and dime me.
--------------------------------------
Geekette suggested Capital One Investing. -- which may be fine.

Over my lifetime, I've used these discount online brokers who also have commission-free no-load funds and ETF's, without any set-up or maintenance fees:
... E-Trade
... Scottrade
... TD Ameritrade.
We're currently at Ameritrade w- 2 Roth + 2 Rollover IRA's for me and DW.
https://www.tdameritrade.com/home.page
.

 

[VacationForever]

Nearing retirement age. I guess maybe a lot like senioritis. Not a group I would want to take a chance on after hearing about how many do not like their jobs and it is a chore.

Beware of making statements like that. It is called age discrimination. Hiring is based on skillset and track record. Promotion is based on performance. Don't mix age into any of this.

 

[klpca]

FYI- our home has been paid off for quite a long time. It's the taxes that are a killer.

Time to move

 

[Jason245]

Time to move

Florida has all kinds of tax exemptions.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

 

[Sugarcubesea]

Originally Posted by Sugarcubesea:
Does anyone have any low cost Roth IRA to invest with. I have one that I don't want to put any more money into as the fees nickle and dime me.
--------------------------------------
Geekette suggested Capital One Investing. -- which may be fine.

Over my lifetime, I've used these discount online brokers who also have commission-free no-load funds and ETF's, without any set-up or maintenance fees:
... E-Trade
... Scottrade
... TD Ameritrade.
We're currently at Ameritrade w- 2 Roth + 2 Rollover IRA's for me and DW.
https://www.tdameritrade.com/home.page
.

I never thought of these other places. Thanks

 

[am1]

Beware of making statements like that. It is called age discrimination. Hiring is based on skillset and track record. Promotion is based on performance. Don't mix age into any of this.

I am just going off of some of the posts on here. I have no interest in hiring anyone or trying to get hired a few years before retirement.

But lets lot think that age discrimination does not exist. No doubt a lot are hard workers with lot of knowledge but I would not want to work with people or have them work for me if they do not want to be there. Even if they think it does not show.

I do not think I will ever "retire" but working till the age of 65 seems too long. Would we all not be better off if those jobs were given to younger people who are currently unemployed? On an overall basis not individual.

 

[WinniWoman]

Time to move

Can't- our jobs....have to wait until retirement. Hubby has 4 years to go.

 

[VacationForever]

I do not think I will ever "retire" but working till the age of 65 seems too long. Would we all not be better off if those jobs were given to younger people who are currently unemployed? On an overall basis not individual.

No. It is called meritocracy. Best person, performer, should have the job.

 

[klpca]

Can't- our jobs....have to wait until retirement. Hubby has 4 years to go.

Then hang in there and have fun planning your exit strategy It will be here before you know it.

 

[FLDVCFamily]

Florida has all kinds of tax exemptions.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

Yup. We moved from MA to FL before we had kids. We aren't retirement age by any stretch, but we still appreciate the much lower cost of living. Cost of living matters for a lot before retirement and especially after.

 

[WinniWoman]

http://www.kiplinger.com/tool/retir...by-state-guide-to-taxes-on-retirees/index.php

IMO, best of its kind for figuring out what taxes you will Really face in different states.

Thanks for this link. This is great.

 

[tompalm]

Thanks for this link. This is great.

If you consider moving, take a hard look at Las Vegas. Once you get in the suburbs, you forget that you are in Vegas and feel like it is any other city. Utilities, tax, food and housing cost are very cheap. Lots to do and see and lots of day trips to explore that will keep you entertained.

 

[WinniWoman]

If you consider moving, take a hard look at Las Vegas. Once you get in the suburbs, you forget that you are in Vegas and feel like it is any other city. Utilities, tax, food and housing cost are very cheap. Lots to do and see and lots of day trips to explore that will keep you entertained.

Only been to Las Vegas city- not suburbs. I know it is tax friendly- but - well- don't like traffic or crowds or cities- like a lot of greenery and mountains and lakes and small rural towns, like in New England. Don't like excessive heat. I also don't like living in an area where there are water shortages. No deserts for me.

Thinking NH, North Carolina (never been), maybe PA, or possibly Colorado- (never been). My favorite place is Vermont, but not tax friendly. If Alaska wasn't so cold, dark and far away, I would even consider there. Then- there's always Hawaii- not tax friendly, but who cares! LOL!