Cut Your Living Expenses w/o Lowering Your Standard of Living

Connie said:
My husband lived in his mothers home - his dad had passed away - he moved in and took care of the place for his mom and I took her to her dr appointments, lunch engagements etc. She signed the home over to us and we put in the signing that she had life use. Fortunately we had the means to continue to pay the taxes and the bills. She eventually had to go to a nursing home as she had alzhiemers (sp?). When she moved to the nursing home the county tried to tell us we had to turn the home over to them. I called my lawyer who informed me that we did not have to because my husband had lived there for many years and that it was his residence. I called the county back and informed them of what the lawyer had said. The county said "yes, you are correct. But if you dont know that then we do whatever we can to get the homes." That really floored me!!!! That was 15 years ago, and I still cannot believe what I heard from that county worker.

Always ask for advice when someone is trying to take something from you or talk you into something. I am so glad I made that phone call.
Click to expand...
You're right Connie. I've learned that more than half the time you can't trust what the representative on the other end of the line tells you.
 

OneEyedDiva said:
You're right Connie. I've learned that more than half the time you can't trust what the representative on the other end of the line tells you.
Click to expand...

Absolutely! AND, far too many people would rather just take the "representative's" word as gospel than pay a reasonable amount to an expert for advice that can save them thousands of dollars. I can't even count how many people I've heard say "I can't afford to see a lawyer" when the truth is "you can't afford not to." I'm not advocating running to a lawyer every time you hit a small snag, but for big stuff like Connie is talking about you REALLY need expert advice.

Most communities nowdays have some version of a Senior Citizen's Legal Office, where you can get help and advice for little or nothing if you are over 55.
 
I so agree with Butterfly and our Diva ^^^

When it comes to anything to do with government we need to do our own research and hire experts when appropriate. (For instance, I researched SS like crazy before deciding on a filing strategy. I can't believe how many people take a SS rep's advice for when and how they should file. )

The internet is our friend when it comes to learning the basics of our rights and options, but there's nothing like getting expert advice - and then researching it all over again with that new information.
 

StarSong said:
I so agree with Butterfly and our Diva ^^^

When it comes to anything to do with government we need to do our own research and hire experts when appropriate. (For instance, I researched SS like crazy before deciding on a filing strategy. I can't believe how many people take a SS rep's advice for when and how they should file. )

The internet is our friend when it comes to learning the basics of our rights and options, but there's nothing like getting expert advice - and then researching it all over again with that new information.
Click to expand...

It seems like almost everyday I see at least one new article on the internet telling people that they should delay taking social security until later. I think the government is behind this because ideally they want you to wait until you are dead.
 
Trade said:
It seems like almost everyday I see at least one new article on the internet telling people that they should delay taking social security until later. I think the government is behind this because ideally they want you to wait until you are dead.
Click to expand...
Nonsense ...with life expectancy being what it is today , especially for a couple delayng would really hurt them more as they would pay out much more ...ss has not been actuarially neutral for a long time...that is why they did away with restricted application and file and suspend as more and more of the public learned about these things through the media and delaying started ramping up
 
We opted to delay to 70 for my husband, but file at 65 for me, and have him file spousal benefits (half of my SS) at his age 66. So we get 1-1/2 of my benefits each month while his continue to increase by 8% a year. At 70 he'll file against his own benefits. Between his full SS and mine we will be in pretty good shape each month just from SS without factoring in our retirement savings (no 401K or pension because we owned a small business).

Presuming we don't die at the same time, the surviving spouse will surely be glad to receive his 32% higher benefits than if he filed at 66, and a whopping 76% higher than if he filed at 62. All of our parents lived into their 90s and we're in good health, so it's a pretty good bet that at least one of us will hang around long enough to be grateful for the larger check.

Like I said, I researched this like crazy before deciding on a filing strategy. None of my friends who went to the SS for guidance were even advised of this strategy, nor to look at their family longevity.
 
I started mine at 65 to coincide with starting Medicare so I could get the double impact of paying less for Health Insurance, plus getting a monthly check. My wife did the same thing.

 
mathjak107 said:
Nonsense ...with life expectancy being what it is today , especially for a couple delayng would really hurt them more as they would pay out much more ...ss has not been actuarially neutral for a long time...that is why they did away with restricted application and file and suspend as more and more of the public learned about these things through the media and delaying started ramping up
Click to expand...

I don't believe a word of it. The government wants us peasants to work until we die.
 
Moving is not an easy option. True, a mover can be hired, but boxes still have to be packed, then unpacked. A new household set up. Personal items still have to be sorted.

We recently moved, and it was a disaster. My health failed, and everything was left in the hands of my spouse. With all respect to the suggestion, casually thinking of a move to lower housing costs isn't so casual. It really is a big deal. It sounds like a great idea, but being forced out of our home was a disaster. It was a job of gigantic proportions!
 
One time when I was having a garage sale, a man stopped. In conversation, it turned out he was a flipper and was interested in buying my house. I told him that I had no place to go if I did sell. Then he said that he would allow me to live there and pay rent to him and he would be responsible for taxes and maintenance. It just sounded fishy to me. What's to keep him from throwing me out after a few months or keep raising the rent until I couldn't afford it? I also wondered how diligently he would actually take care of the property. Something just set my alarm bells off.
 
@debodun, I would have been leary as well. Glad you said no. I know the same advice is given when people want to sign over their homes to kids or grandkids. What is to stop them from kicking you to the street, or selling the house from under you
 
Lara said:
Things you can do to cut your living expenses without lowering your standard of living:

1. Give your house to your children via an Irrevocable Trust. Then rent the house and live there. Have an estate attorney draft the documents and provisions.

2. Sell your home to your kids and live there...maybe pay rent, maybe not.

Gifting or selling your house to your children and then living there is the only option that will both maintain your lifestyle and reduce your costs according to Timothy Speises of the firm, EisnerAmper.

As long as your children are willing and able to pay for the property taxes, maintenance, repairs, and any remaining mortgage payments, your house costs will be low...maybe even non-existent.
Click to expand...
How about just not buying stuff because its 'newer' or supposedly better?
 
Pete said:
How about just not buying stuff because its 'newer' or supposedly better?
Click to expand...

True. This year I have been replacing several things, but because it was time, not because of better. Now that I am down to one income, I have rethought several of the entertainment things. I cut out Hulu, and will end Prime when it expires. I picked up cable, and get plenty enough for less monthly expense.
 
Trade said:
It seems like almost everyday I see at least one new article on the internet telling people that they should delay taking social security until later. I think the government is behind this because ideally they want you to wait until you are dead.
Click to expand...
Trade you are absolutely right!
 
based on the fact life expectancy has increased to the point a 65 year old couple has almost a 50% chance of one seeing 90 and a 73% chance of one seeing 85 they would pay out far more if everyone delayed .
ss is not neutral statistically ... it pays out way more based on life expectancy if people delay .
 
mathjak107 said:
based on the fact life expectancy has increased to the point a 65 year old couple has almost a 50% chance of one seeing 90 and a 73% chance of one seeing 85 they would pay out far more if everyone delayed .
ss is not neutral statistically ... it pays out way more based on life expectancy if people delay .
Click to expand...

So in other words instead of taking it at say 65 when you are still young enough to enjoy it, wait and take a chance that you will live long enough to collect a few more bucks when you are 85 or 90 and too old and feeble to enjoy it? Soiunds like a plan to me.
 
Trade said:
So in other words instead of taking it at say 65 when you are still young enough to enjoy it, wait and take a chance that you will live long enough to collect a few more bucks when you are 85 or 90 and too old and feeble to enjoy it? Soiunds like a plan to me.
Click to expand...
those would not be the words i would use ....

..... no one should ever delay taking ss unless they can lay out the ss they are delaying to draw the same budget ... all that should shift is the make up of your income from more your own money to more ss money and less of yours if you delay .

in my opinion if you can not afford to delay and lay out the ss up front and enjoy the same budget all the way through then delaying should really not be an option .

those who think those who delay wait 8 years to spend more are very wrong in most cases , it is not how it should work nor do most do it that way ..

what you really are doing is betting more on longevity if you delay and less on markets and rates . if you take it early the smaller check has you betting more on markets and rates ...

most Americans can not afford to delay properly so stopping work early and delaying is not really a good option for them . waiting 8 years makes little sense to first incorporate that money in to your lifestyle .
 
mathjak107 said:
those would not be the words i would use ....

..... no one should ever delay taking ss unless they can lay out the ss they are delaying to draw the same budget ... all that should shift is the make up of your income from more your own money to more ss money and less of yours if you delay .

in my opinion if you can not afford to delay and lay out the ss up front and enjoy the same budget all the way through then delaying should really not be an option .

those who think those who delay wait 8 years to spend more are very wrong in most cases , it is not how it should work nor do most do it that way ..

what you really are doing is betting more on longevity if you delay and less on markets and rates . if you take it early the smaller check has you betting more on markets and rates ...

most Americans can not afford to delay properly so stopping work early and delaying is not really a good option for them . waiting 8 years makes little sense to first incorporate that money in to your lifestyle .
Click to expand...

I took mine at 65 because in 1963 when I got my social security card and started my first job at age 16 my government made a solemn promise to me that I would be able to collect full social security at age 65. Then in 1983 my government reneged on said solemn promise and raised the age that I could collect full social security to 66. I do not recognize this as a legitimate act on their part. Therefore I started mine at 65 like I was promised. However my government only gave me 93 and 1/3 percent of what I feel I was owed. So as far as I am concerned every month they are robbing me of that other 6 and 2/3 percent. At the present time this amounts to $143.75 every month.
 
same , i took it at 65 . i was spending down invested assets , i was working one day a week and made to much to file earlier , for every year i delayed we did not get 4500 in spousal added to my wifes a year .
 
Last edited:
Trade said:
I took mine at 65 because in 1963 when I got my social security card and started my first job at age 16 my government made a solemn promise to me that I would be able to collect full social security at age 65. Then in 1983 my government reneged on said solemn promise and raised the age that I could collect full social security to 66. I do not recognize this as a legitimate act on their part. Therefore I started mine at 65 like I was promised. However my government only gave me 93 and 1/3 percent of what I feel I was owed. So as far as I am concerned every month they are robbing me of that other 6 and 2/3 percent. At the present time this amounts to $143.75 every month.
Click to expand...


there are always changes in everything in life .... people see pensions slashed , taxes raised , even things like social security were originally not taxed at all ...

we may have had file and suspend or restricted application in our plans and that is gone ... but the flip side is back in the 1970's cola raises were added ... when i started working there were no cola raises yet ...
 
Trade said:
I don't believe a word of it. The government wants us peasants to work until we die.
Click to expand...
Like you, I've felt that "the government" is behind the push to wait until full retirement age. I'm glad to see that now more financial planners are publishing articles that cover the pros (as well as cons) of taking it early and the need for some to do so. The articles mention the break even age...the age at which it makes no real difference when you started. Mine is 78. Obviously for those who don't live that long, taking it early was the right decision. Same for people who can't make ends meet without it. Although I took mine at 62 and don't regret it, the only reason I would give for waiting these days is the looming possibility of a 23% cut in benefits starting in 2034 unless some serious fixes are initiated. This is only one of many articles about it:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/07/23/whos-ready-for-a-23-cut-to-their-social-security-b.aspx
 
Funny, when I first saw the title of this post, I thought it would apply to all. Unfortunately, we don't have kids, but we figured out a way to do what the title implies anyway. It seems we are the only ones that don't have kids...c'est la vie.
 

Back
Top