Most seniors in the US would be in poverty if not for social security...http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Featu...uld-be-in-Poverty-Without-Social-Security.htm
Majority of American Seniors Would Live in Poverty if Not For Social Security
- Thread starter SeaBreeze
- Start date
rkunsaw
Well-known Member
- Location
- Clarksville, Arkansas,USA
Even the highest rate of 14.6% and 6.5 million is far from a majority. Social security is part of ones retirement plan. Without social security most people would adjust their plans accordingly.
I think this is true... we learn to live with what we have, true not every one will be able to do so, but not I think will get by the best they can, I know people with lots of money who seam to struggle and I know people who make what is very little and live just fine......we have always lived within our means and made do and saved for rainy days .....now in retirement (part time work) we are better off dollar wise then when we were working.....well wife is still working at what she did our whole life she is a stay at home mother with me being the only child.... the other five have grown up and have children of their own....
We have a few in our church that would fit into this category, but they are so kind and gentle in nature that they have been the recipients of a lot of love from quite a few others in the congregation. I go to a church in the rural area where there are a lot of farms. Those that own the farms give to these people in the congregation a lot of vegetables and fruits, both fresh and canned for the winter. When they do their butchering, they will also see to it that they get some pork and beef. So, all of this really helps them out, I am sure.
The one farmer in our congregation has a hog farm. He butchers a hog and sells all of the meat to the members of the congregation and then donates the money to the church. Before he did this, his Father did it, so it has been going on for many years. I love his scrapple and sausage, so I generally buy 3 pounds of scrapple and maybe 5-10 pounds of sausage, if it's available.
The one farmer in our congregation has a hog farm. He butchers a hog and sells all of the meat to the members of the congregation and then donates the money to the church. Before he did this, his Father did it, so it has been going on for many years. I love his scrapple and sausage, so I generally buy 3 pounds of scrapple and maybe 5-10 pounds of sausage, if it's available.
TabbyAnn
Southern Indiana, U.S.A.
- Location
- Southern Indiana USA
I think Social Security is a great savings plan for workers because it is still there for people in their old age when other investments may have failed, or family emergencies may have drained other resources.
QuickSilver
SF VIP
- Location
- Midwest
Yes.... Those old folks need to get off their lazy arses...and figure out how to make ends meet like the rest of us!!
QuickSilver
SF VIP
- Location
- Midwest
Don M.
SF VIP
- Location
- central Missouri
If current reports are any indication, poverty among Seniors is going to rise substantially in the future. With the stagnation of the Middle Class over the past couple of decades, many of those nearing retirement have little or nothing set aside for their retirements. Company Defined Pension plans are almost unheard of anymore, and only a small number have been able to save enough to build up a decent IRA. Many were pinning their hopes on continuing rising house prices, and lost their Butts in the 2007/2008 collapse of the housing market. It all adds up to a pretty bleak picture for a lot of people in their 50's and 60's who will find some serious Sticker Shock when they try to retire.
ClassicRockr
Well-known Member
There are those that don't get a pension/retirement and have to rely only on SS. Many people don't stay on a job long enough to get a Retirement Package/Pension and, from what I've been told, some company's don't even offer retirement stuff. Neither wife or I get a Pension/Retirement. A person can be working for a company and really like there job, but that person can get laid-off, terminated or the company shuts down. After I left two different companies, I found out that within 6 months after I left, both of them ended up shutting down.
So, there are those Seniors that have to rely solely on SS because that's the only income they have.
So, there are those Seniors that have to rely solely on SS because that's the only income they have.
QuickSilver
SF VIP
- Location
- Midwest
Oh for sure, company pensions are a thing of the past. 401Ks and 403Bs have replaced them.. MAYBE a company will offer some matching funds, but only up to a small amount.. like up to 4 or 5%.. NO.. they figured out long ago to let people's retirement savings be at the mercy of the Markets.. and to absolve themselves of any risk.
As for housing.. the biggest asset of many people is their home.. many had hoped to sell the house and downsize in order to live off some of the built up equity.. That all went south with he housing bubble burst.. leaving many seniors without much of a cushion.. NOW there are "reverse mortgages" IMO just another scheme to relieve the middle class of it's assets and move more money to the top. People will not be able to leave much money to their children... the bank will take the house.
Don M.
SF VIP
- Location
- central Missouri
That's right...the days of a company looking out for its employees are long gone. Today, if a person waits until they are 50 years old before they realize that they, too, will grow old, and need to retire, they are Skrewed! The time to begin planning for retirement is when a person is still young enough, and disciplined enough, to begin saving for their own retirement. With the stagnation of the Middle Class, and the increasing disparity of wealth in this nation, that is becoming harder and harder to do. Time will tell what the Senior population looks like in another couple of decades....but the prognosis is Not Good.
QuickSilver
SF VIP
- Location
- Midwest
And yet most times it's not possible to begin before.. not when you are raising a family, and perhaps contributing to your children's education. It isn't until your 50's that you may get some relief from the responsibility of children. I don't think it has a thing to do with not being disciplined.. it's more to do with money needed elsewhere..
rkunsaw
Well-known Member
- Location
- Clarksville, Arkansas,USA
Although traditional company pensions are all but gone, most companies today offer 401k plans. I think those will turn out to be better than the old pensions if people will take advantage of them.
Don M.
SF VIP
- Location
- central Missouri
You Betcha....I just wish these plans had been around the day I started working. I only had about 15 years to contribute to mine, but had it been available for my entire working career, I would be a millionaire. The smartest thing a working person can do today, is to maximize their 401K ASAP. The 401K plan is probably the ONLY thing our government has done in the past 50 years that is of any real value to the average person.
LogicsHere
Member
Or the nursing home.
QuickSilver
SF VIP
- Location
- Midwest
Until the market tanks and most of your retirement savings goes away.... 401Ks were a GIFT to corporations.. NOT to the worker. We take ALL the risk now... they have none.. Some might contribute a pittance in matching funds... but never very much. Give me the old Pension plans any day.
I got in our company's 401(k) the year they began, 1978. Although I could not max out in the beginning, I did manage to save a nice junk of change each payday. I had 31 years in the plan, even through layoffs, when I could not contribute, I still had my IRA going at the bank and contributed to it.
In my opinion, under the right conditions, a reverse mortgage can be a good thing. However, I am not in favor of everyone pulling out their equity to take a vacation or buy a new car. I know of people that were of retirement age (over 62) that had lost their job and could not get another job in 2009 and were forced into retirement after their unemployment ran out. One fellow in particular was 64 years old when he lost his job in 2009 and could not find another job, so he took his unemployment for about 2 years (with the extensions) and then started taking his SS. He could not afford his house payments and rather than sell it and downsize, he took out a reverse mortgage, but no additional equity from the house. He did this for a couple of years and then paid off the loan with money he had in his 401(k). He had only a small mortgage left, I think it was around $30,000, so it all worked out for him.
Another wasn't as frugal. He still had a mortgage left on his home owing around maybe $40-50 K (I can't remember exact numbers) and an $800.00 a month payment. He took out a RM, plus some $60,000.00 or more of the equity of his house and now is stuck with the RM because he spent the equity money on new trucks for him and his wife and a hunting trip to Alaska. He has started to draw from his 401(k) to supplement his SS because as he puts it, "I don't want to lower my standard of living and if the kids don't get any money from us, meaning him and his wife, then so be it. I earned it and I'm going to spend it." Some people may think that's good or acceptable behavior, but I believe that unless we have issues with our children, it is better to leave them something to help them to build their nest egg on. My parents did for my wife and I, so naturally, we feel obliged to 'try' to do the same for our kids.
I know that this is an argumentative opinion, but it is just our decision to do what we want to do for our children. Everyone decides for their selves what is best for their situation.
In my opinion, under the right conditions, a reverse mortgage can be a good thing. However, I am not in favor of everyone pulling out their equity to take a vacation or buy a new car. I know of people that were of retirement age (over 62) that had lost their job and could not get another job in 2009 and were forced into retirement after their unemployment ran out. One fellow in particular was 64 years old when he lost his job in 2009 and could not find another job, so he took his unemployment for about 2 years (with the extensions) and then started taking his SS. He could not afford his house payments and rather than sell it and downsize, he took out a reverse mortgage, but no additional equity from the house. He did this for a couple of years and then paid off the loan with money he had in his 401(k). He had only a small mortgage left, I think it was around $30,000, so it all worked out for him.
Another wasn't as frugal. He still had a mortgage left on his home owing around maybe $40-50 K (I can't remember exact numbers) and an $800.00 a month payment. He took out a RM, plus some $60,000.00 or more of the equity of his house and now is stuck with the RM because he spent the equity money on new trucks for him and his wife and a hunting trip to Alaska. He has started to draw from his 401(k) to supplement his SS because as he puts it, "I don't want to lower my standard of living and if the kids don't get any money from us, meaning him and his wife, then so be it. I earned it and I'm going to spend it." Some people may think that's good or acceptable behavior, but I believe that unless we have issues with our children, it is better to leave them something to help them to build their nest egg on. My parents did for my wife and I, so naturally, we feel obliged to 'try' to do the same for our kids.
I know that this is an argumentative opinion, but it is just our decision to do what we want to do for our children. Everyone decides for their selves what is best for their situation.
QuickSilver
SF VIP
- Location
- Midwest
Yes... I agree.. some people are plain idiots when it comes to financial decisions. You are never going to do away with all the "grasshoppers" in society. Not everyone is the little worker Ant.
| Aesop The Ant and the Grasshopper In a field one summer's day a Grasshopper was hopping about, chirping and singing to its heart's content. An Ant passed by, bearing along with great toil an ear of corn he was taking to the nest. "Why not come and chat with me," said the Grasshopper, "instead of toiling and moiling in that way?" "I am helping to lay up food for the winter," said the Ant, "and recommend you to do the same." "Why bother about winter?" said the Grasshopper; "We have got plenty of food at present." But the Ant went on its way and continued its toil. When the winter came the Grasshopper had no food and found itself dying of hunger - while it saw the ants distributing every day corn and grain from the stores they had collected in the summer. Then the Grasshopper knew: It is best to prepare for days of need. top |
Don M.
SF VIP
- Location
- central Missouri
A 401K is the BEST thing a person can do for themselves in preparation for retirement. How it builds is determined by the investment options a person chooses, and how closely and carefully they monitor it. Like anything else, a person gets rewarded by how much time and effort they expend. While there are inherent risks in the markets, if a person takes the time to learn the basics, and monitors their funds closely, they can usually come out ahead. Like it or not, as time passes, more and more people are going to be responsible for their own financial well being, as companies get out of the pension business. Even the days of Social Security are numbered unless Congress does some major revamping of funding that program in the near future. If left alone, SS will be little more than a welfare program for the very poor in another 2 or 3 decades...some in Washington are already talking about "Means Testing" for SS recipients who have other sources of income.
QuickSilver
SF VIP
- Location
- Midwest
I respectfully disagree. A 401K shifts all the risk away from the Company and squarely on the shoulders of the retiree. Pensions were the opposite.. Companies were obligated to pay regardless.. So If I had a choice in a nice fat pension or a 401K plan.. I'd prefer the pension. Unfortunately we don't have a choice.
AZ Jim
R.I.P. With Us In Spirit Only
- Location
- SURPRISE, ARIZONA
Not all seniors live in rural areas or attend church. If it were not for social security most seniors would be candidates for poverty if not total poverty damn close to it. It is not just a gift, we paid into our entire working lives. Many do not have either the education or wherewithal to have "other" plans. There has been a concerted effort to eliminate it for over 40 years. Our politicos have succeeded in removing it as a "trust fun" to the general fund. So now, we buy bombers and bullets with the money we invest in our own future.
I don't mean to come off as hostile but I will come down on the side of struggling elders every time.
Last edited:
It seems this new generation will be in much worse shape, "saving up" doesn't seem to be a cool thing nowadays. I am thankful I was taught about saving from an early age, however at the same time I do have friends who had some very unfortunate incidents that ruined their savings so in these cases SS becomes essential even for these people who thought they had prepped.
QuickSilver
SF VIP
- Location
- Midwest
OR could it be that with wage increases virtually flat for the last 30 years... there really isn't anything much to save after all the essentials are paid for?
rkunsaw
Well-known Member
- Location
- Clarksville, Arkansas,USA
I agree it is hard to save when you are barely scraping by, but all else being equal, those who make the sacrifice and put some (even a small amount) in savings every payday are always better off than those who don't save.