Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Baby boomers near 65 with retirements in jeopardy

Mon Dec 27, 2010 3:03 PM EST
us-news, business, us, crisis, retirement-crisis
Dave Carpenter, AP Personal Finance Writer
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 6 photos
<p>In this photo taken Wednesday, Tuesday, Dec. 8, 2010, Michael Vanatta walks the beach near where he takes a photo each day of the sun rise in Vero Beach, Fla. for one of his blogs. Vanatta, 61, is paying the price for being a baby boomer who enjoyed life without saving for the future. He put a daughter through college, but he also spent plenty of money on indulgences like dining out and the latest electronic gadgets. Vanatta was laid off last January from his $100,000-a-year job as a sales executive for a turf company. And with savings of just $5,000, he's on a budget for the first time. In April, he will start taking Social Security at age 62. (AP Photo/J Pat Carter)</p>

In this photo taken Wednesday, Tuesday, Dec. 8, 2010, Michael Vanatta walks the beach near where he takes a photo each day of the sun rise in Vero Beach, Fla. for one of his blogs. Vanatta, 61, is paying the price for being a baby boomer who enjoyed life without saving for the future. He put a daughter through college, but he also spent plenty of money on indulgences like dining out and the latest electronic gadgets. Vanatta was laid off last January from his $100,000-a-year job as a sales executive for a turf company. And with savings of just $5,000, he's on a budget for the first time. In April, he will start taking Social Security at age 62. (AP Photo/J Pat Carter)

Advertise | AdChoices

CHICAGO — Through a combination of procrastination and bad timing, many baby boomers are facing a personal finance disaster just as they're hoping to retire. Starting in January, more than 10,000 baby boomers a day will turn 65, a pattern that will continue for the next 19 years.

The boomers, who in their youth revolutionized everything from music to race relations, are set to redefine retirement. But a generation that made its mark in the tumultuous 1960s now faces a crisis as it hits its own mid-60s.

"The situation is extremely serious because baby boomers have not saved very effectively for retirement and are still retiring too early," says Olivia Mitchell, director of the Boettner Center for Pensions and Retirement Research at the University of Pennsylvania.

There are several reasons to be concerned:

— The traditional pension plan is disappearing. In 1980, some 39 percent of private-sector workers had a pension that guaranteed a steady payout during retirement. Today that number stands closer to 15 percent, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute in Washington, D.C.

— Reliance on stocks in retirement plans is greater than ever; 42 percent of those workers now have 401(k)s. But the past decade has been a lost one for stocks, with the Standard & Poor's 500 index posting total returns of just 4 percent since the beginning of 2000.

— Many retirees banked on their homes as their retirement fund. But the crash in housing prices has slashed almost a third of a typical home's value. Now 22 percent of homeowners, or nearly 11 million people, owe more on their mortgage than their home is worth. Many are boomers.

Michael Vanatta, 61, of Vero Beach, Fla., is paying the price for being a boomer who enjoyed life without saving for the future. He put a daughter through college, but he also spent plenty of money on indulgences like dining out and the latest electronic gadgets.

Vanatta was laid off last January from his $100,000-a-year job as a sales executive for a turf company. And with savings of just $5,000, he's on a budget for the first time. In April, he will start taking Social Security at age 62.

"If I'd been smarter and planned and had the bucks, I'd wait until 70," says Vanatta, who is divorced and rents an apartment. "It's my fault. For years I was making plenty of money and spending plenty of money."

Vanatta is in the majority. Some 51 percent of early boomer households, headed by those ages 55 to 64, face a retirement with lower living standards, according to a 2009 study by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.

Too many boomers have ignored or underestimated the worsening outlook for their finances, says Jean Setzfand, director of financial security for AARP, the group that represents Americans over age 50. By far the greatest shortcoming has been a failure to save. The personal savings rate — the amount of disposable income unspent — averaged close to 10 percent in the 1970s and `80s. By late 2007, the rate had sunk to negative 1 percent.

The recession has helped improve the savings rate — it's now back above 5 percent. Yet typical boomers are still woefully short on retirement savings. Even those in their 50s and 60s with a 401(k) for at least six years had an average balance of less than $150,000 at the end of 2009, according to the EBRI.

Signs of coming trouble are visible on several other fronts, too:

— Mortgage Debt. Nearly two in three people age 55 to 64 had a mortgage in 2007, with a median debt of $85,000.

— Social Security. Nearly 3 out of 4 people file to claim Social Security benefits as soon as they're eligible at age 62. That locks them in at a much lower amount than they would get if they waited.

The monthly checks are about 25 percent less if you retire at 62 instead of full retirement age, which is 66 for those born from 1943 to 1954. If you wait until 70, your check can be 75 to 80 percent more than at 62. So, a boomer who claimed a $1,200 monthly benefit in 2008 at age 62 could have received about $2,000 by holding off until 70.

— Medical Costs. Health care expenses are soaring, and the availability of retiree benefits is declining.

"People cannot fathom how much money will be needed to simply cover out-of-pocket medical care costs," says Mitchell of the University of Pennsylvania.

A 55-year-old man with typical drug expenses needs to have about $187,000 just to cover future medical costs. That's if he wants to be 90 percent certain to have enough money to supplement Medicare coverage in retirement, the EBRI said. Because of greater longevity, a 65-year-old woman would need even more to cover her health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket health expenses: an estimated $213,000.

— Employment. Boomers both need and want to work longer than previous generations. But unemployment is near 10 percent, and many have lost their jobs.

The average unemployment period for those 55 and older was 45 weeks in November. That's 12 weeks longer than for younger job-seekers. It's also more than double the 20-week period this group faced at the beginning of the recession in December 2007.

If financial neglect turns out to be many boomers' undoing, challenging circumstances are stymieing others.

Linda Reaves of Silver Spring, Md., never had much opportunity to save as a single mother raising two sons and a daughter. After holding a variety of positions over the years — hotel office manager, research analyst for a mortgage company, hospital mental health counselor — she was still living paycheck to paycheck. Then she was laid off in 2007 at the age of 57.

She entered a training program to learn new skills, but all she has found since is a string of temporary jobs. In her daily quest for clerical or administrative work, she competes against much younger applicants.

Reaves, who turns 60 this month, plans to work until she's at least 70 and then wants to travel, even if she doesn't know where the money will come from.

"I just keep going. I don't really worry about it," she says.

Add this all up, and there's a "slow-burning" retirement crisis for boomers, says Anthony Webb, a research economist at the Center for Retirement Research.

"If you have a crisis where the adverse consequences are immediately clear, then people understand that they have to do something," Webb says. "When the consequences will be felt 20 or 30 years in the future, the temptation is that we kick the can down the road."

As a result, he believes many won't change their behavior.

For less affluent boomers, it won't take that long to feel the pain of poor planning. Concerns about financial trouble will hang over many of those 65th birthday celebrations in 2011.

Many seem to view their plight through rose-colored granny glasses. An AARP survey last month of boomers turning 65 next year found that they worry no more about money than they did at age 60 — before the recession or the collapse of home prices. But in an acknowledgement of reality, 40 percent said they plan to work "until I drop."

© 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Dave Carpenter's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: Chicago
  • Public Discussion (96)
rose-231178

"So, a boomer who claimed a $1,200 monthly benefit in 2008 at age 62 could have received about $2,000 by holding off until 70."

I could be way off on this but I just cannot see 800.00 more 8 years later as being all that different than 1200.00 at 62, not with the way things are going. I think I would rather take the 1200.00 at 62 and try to enjoy a few non working years then chance that I would live to 70 regardless of what the statistics say. (lies, damn lies and statistics)

  • 6 votes
#1 - Mon Dec 27, 2010 6:15 PM EST
American Idle

What an intellectually dishonest piece of crap. It starts off talking about how WE screwed up then enumerates one thing after another that was well beyond our control.

Save? Save what exactly? All the money from our nonunion stagnant wage jobs? And, oh, yeah, those jobs we don't have anymore because they've either been offshored, outsourced, or handed over to younger, less qualified workers?

Can't depend on a pension; the employer did away with those long ago; the 401k gave our money to the Wall Street criminals that tanked our economy and also caused the value of our one real asset, our homes, to go down somewhere between the crapper and whale @!$%#.

We're paying more for less, we're trying to take care of our kids and even grandkids, and our parents need our help too, which we provide, while younger people without these pressures can concentrate on their "careers."

We're the "sandwich generation"--and we're also the ones getting eaten alive. And the sad news is, the generations coming up behind us aren't likely to have it any better without a major revolution.

  • 7 votes
#1.1 - Mon Dec 27, 2010 9:39 PM EST
Shugga-Shugga

Oh well, 2012 is just around the corner. We won't be worrying for too long.

  • 5 votes
#1.2 - Mon Dec 27, 2010 10:17 PM EST
Elbonian

Rose: It all depends upon your personal life expectancy. My dad died young at 88 (lung cancer). His dad died at 86. I have every reason to expect to live to 90. Thus, my personal best bet is to wait until age 70 to begin collecting Social Security, which will arrive automatically even if I'm still able to work. If your personal life expectancy is low (because your mother and grandmothers all died young), then you would want to retire at 62 and try to enjoy whatever is left of your life. The straight-dollar break-even point would be death at age 81. Death anytime after then would put you ahead of the game by waiting until age 70 before you begin to take Social Security payments. A present-value analysis would probably yield different results, and the biggest unknown is future inflation rates versus cost-of-living increases in benefits.

  • 2 votes
#1.3 - Mon Dec 27, 2010 10:36 PM EST
DEATHNELL J.

Shugga-Shugga, in 2012...we'll still be here!! Work til ya drop....the "real" 2012, 2013,2014,2015.........!!

  • 3 votes
#1.4 - Mon Dec 27, 2010 10:40 PM EST
rose-231178

The straight-dollar break-even point would be death at age 81. Death anytime after then would put you ahead of the game by waiting until age 70 before you begin to take Social Security payments. A present-value analysis would probably yield different results, and the biggest unknown is future inflation rates versus cost-of-living increases in benefits.


Guess i am to damn ignint for your analysis!

Just keep my paid in to a "reuirment fund" away from wall street greed.

Time will tell.

  • 1 vote
#1.5 - Mon Dec 27, 2010 11:34 PM EST
Aunk (The Cultural Health Guy)

Hetep and Respect rose, nice math. since I plan to live out my full biological design specification of 120 year, I guess I should wait till 70.

Just keep my paid in to a "reuirment fund" away from wall street greed

Advice, stay far away from Republicans, especially baggers.

Repubs have touched the SS third rail (changed SS deduction). With 10,000 boomers a day coming it sounds like the Repubs are not long for this world.

I am with U, keep your mitts off my RT$

  • 4 votes
#1.6 - Mon Dec 27, 2010 11:47 PM EST
cried

100% correct Elbonian.

American Idle; anything you save would be better than not saving anything. Take for example if you have a 401(k) and your company has a 50% match on the first 6%, then you should at least try to put in that 6%. You are otherwise giving away free money (basically a 3% raise which you've deferred). Maybe it seems like a lot, but start small and get used to living on a little less (1% maybe) surely everyone could find a way to live on 1% less. Then slowley increase it. over the years this money adds up. That person in the article with the $100K job he was laid off from would certainly have had much more than $5K saved up if only he had saved 1% of his salary during his working life, whether in a 401(k) or an IRA.

  • 2 votes
#1.7 - Tue Dec 28, 2010 12:02 AM EST
nel1944Deleted
American Idle

cried. good advice to be sure, but life happens. there was a period in our lives where we both lost our jobs TWICE in the space of just ten years; you never get back to where you were, ever.

we'll be OK, it's just the tone of the article that ticks me off. there is real suffering in the world, and the way this was written was just sort of insensitive and hackneyed, at least starting out.

Few writers really want to tell it like it is.

nel,, sorry to hear of your troubles. don't understand the dig at Pelosi. I lived in her district a long time and she is a real fighter for working people and has been all her political career. she gets a bad rap from repubs because she's tough and gets stuff done they don't like. just so you know

  • 4 votes
#1.9 - Tue Dec 28, 2010 2:48 AM EST
cried

Ouch! nel1944n I am sorry for your loss there, and wish you could have stayed in (I do understand about needing that money to survive when you are laid off).

No I am not being smug about it, I too have worked and saved, and been laid off, and still not had an AGI above $24K. Living in eastern MA I also understand about an HCOL.

Good luck to you, I do hope things turn around for you.

American Idle; Yes I know, life happens. There are some, certainly not all, though who could have done more for themselves but just didn't even try.

    #1.10 - Tue Dec 28, 2010 3:50 AM EST
    Davy-755715

    Damn chickens! They come home to roost at the worst possible time!

    Here are some steps to take, to bring the system back in line:

    1. If ya wanna sell it here, MAKE IT HERE! Imagine that, a level playing field that' actually level, where all the balls don't roll to the top and the people making the product get a living wage for their effort.

    2. Tax income at the same rate, no matter where it comes from.

    3. Social Security: Remove the taxable maximum; base eligibility on need instead of greed; don't send a dime out of the country.

    These things would amount to a painful rollback, no doubt about it; but the longer we avoid it, the worse the fix will be, if the country is to survive.

      #1.11 - Tue Dec 28, 2010 9:33 AM EST
      Michael in S J

      I lived in her district a long time and she is a real fighter for working people and has been all her political career. she gets a bad rap from repubs because she's tough and gets stuff done they don't like. just so you know

      I live close to Pelosi's district and I would have her over anyone on the other side of the aisle, and nearly everyone on my side.

      She is tough, she get's thing done and has always been their for us, all of us.

      • 1 vote
      #1.12 - Tue Dec 28, 2010 3:02 PM EST
      Smokie-788412

      Too much Christmas cheer I see! Maybe you should stay away from the bottle for 2011. It has effected your outlook on things.

        #1.13 - Tue Dec 28, 2010 5:31 PM EST
        cried

        Davy-755715 ...

        3. Social Security: Remove the taxable maximum; base eligibility on need instead of greed; don't send a dime out of the country.

        Davy the problem I see with this is determining what is need vs what is greed - is it greed when a low wage earner for life saves up $1M and then also wants to collect? or is need that person in the 2000+ sq ft home with all the latest gadgets, but no savings. Yes I know that person with the big home may have had extenuating circumstances which prevented him/her/them from saving, but still I feel my question is valid.

        • 1 vote
        #1.14 - Wed Dec 29, 2010 12:10 AM EST
        Davy-755715

        cried - Well, I could figure my determination and others could have theirs (assuming they would have any limits at all). A committee of number-crunchers could come up with a recommendation that few if any recipients likely would agree with, but the bottom line is the country's heading for a fall. The fairest part of the fix would be means testing for all. This is done for all other forms of welfare, and let's face it: That's exactly what SS is. If the country is to survive, the kids can't be expected to furnish checks for millionaires. BTW, the guy in this story is about a month older than me. This means what I propose could affect me too; but I have kids and I think what we've done to the young people in general, is inexcusable.

          #1.15 - Wed Dec 29, 2010 11:08 AM EST
          Shugga-Shugga

          This is really troublesome. People are going to work all their life and get nothing back, but all our politicians are taking the tax-dollar from the people to pay their salaries. We really need a REVOLUTION and change this once and for all. These politicians have made it so that they all get rich off the backs of the people, especially the poor ones.

          • 1 vote
          #1.16 - Wed Dec 29, 2010 11:55 AM EST
          Reply
          Candide and Me

          So we may finally have people forced to live within their means. What is wrong with that?

          • 7 votes
          Reply#2 - Mon Dec 27, 2010 6:42 PM EST
          Max 3PO

          That's the name of the game, don't bite off more than you can chew, it will choke you. I think a lot of boomers know that lesson, it's the youngsters ,20 to 50, of today that want to be it all before they reach 50. I hear people in their 30's complaining about having to work.

          • 4 votes
          #2.1 - Mon Dec 27, 2010 7:08 PM EST
          rose-231178

          You have picked up on one point of the article-they did not save enough, spent to much, etc. "Alas, to soon old, to late wise"?

          The fact of the matter is, we are human. We try and plan for a future but when times are good, few see the future as being bad. We spend, save, spend. But this is how we have grown up.

          I believe most people try to live within their means, but I also believe, that in our society it has been highly advertised, that if you do not have some symbols of wealth, you must be a "low life"-look at what they say of the unemployed! Look at that commercial about some car or other where there is a young kid just Horrified that his parents are driving a "perfectly good vehicle"-perceived to be a dump owned by a weird family-because they do not own the one that is being advertised. Who is that ad directed at?

          As I see it, once the "Fed" was suckered, sneaked, snaked in, under a lame duck session, we have been a country living off of credit. Without people spending on credit (and the same old tricks are not working this time around-meaning people are trying to live w/in means when able to do so, though lacking income for this) this is where we have landed.

          Where is "Old Hickory" when you need him.

          • 1 vote
          #2.2 - Mon Dec 27, 2010 7:22 PM EST
          rose-231178

          Max3PO, I had to smile.

          I see teenagers thinking minimum wage is too low for the work they do. If they only knew how much work went into/or they should be putting into 7.00 an hour. I remember .25 for baby siting, and that included vacuuming and doing dishes, watching the children and NO boyfriends. I remember 1.65 at my first grown up job. I also remember getting a dime increase, just to find min wage had gone up and that dime was down the drain. I do not have to remember that after all of these years, it is still going on.

          • 4 votes
          #2.3 - Mon Dec 27, 2010 7:33 PM EST
          granny22

          my first paycheck was for $36.00 for a 44 hour week (no 1.5 for overtime) 1963------thought i was doing great when the # of dollars exceeded the # of hours-----the good ole days-only good thing is that we were young--makes up for alot-----

          • 5 votes
          #2.4 - Mon Dec 27, 2010 8:05 PM EST
          DEATHNELL J.

          granny22, I remember when you could rent a house for $40.00 a month(1967)....IN MIAMI!!! Wa happen??

          • 4 votes
          #2.5 - Mon Dec 27, 2010 10:43 PM EST
          Neil-525568

          You are right. People should live within thier means. However your Congress men and women get full pension for life. After serving only one term in office. Absolutly no drop in pay. Even though they have ran the Social Security fund as the biggest ponzi scheme of them all. They used the SS. fund like a piggy bank all these years to fund thier over indulgence, and lack of fiscal responsibility.

          Do you realize that your senator does"nt even pay into social security. Not to mention thier untaxed campainge funds that they simply just put in thier pocket when they leave office.

          This country needs drastic changes to stop the inconsistancies. Starting with those that Govern.

          • 5 votes
          #2.6 - Mon Dec 27, 2010 11:05 PM EST
          DEATHNELL J.

          Neil....sounds like a nice, cushy gig!

          • 2 votes
          #2.7 - Mon Dec 27, 2010 11:25 PM EST
          s0yuz

          Boomers lived off the fruits of the labors of the Greatest Generation and then called themselves great.

          • 1 vote
          #2.8 - Tue Dec 28, 2010 11:57 AM EST
          Michael in S J

          Most of you are forgeting the fact that if the Boomers hadn't spent like we did, the non-Boomers would be a lot, A LOT, worse off today.

          Sure, we effed ourselves, but we also created a lot of wealth (mostly for others) with our spending.

          • 3 votes
          #2.9 - Tue Dec 28, 2010 3:05 PM EST
          Smokie-788412

          s0yuz=====Who supported you? Maybe you did that all by yourself? My kids did well and I'm sure that all the Boomers kids did a lot better than we did. It a generational thing. Your kids are always to have a better life than what the parents had. It may seem they we did too much for the younger generation. Spoiled rotten comes to mind.

          • 2 votes
          #2.10 - Tue Dec 28, 2010 5:36 PM EST
          Reply
          johnny angel

          My wife's career (38yrs) teaching high school ended 10yrs ago. My job went to China 9yrs ago. A (one) major-medical event wiped out the 401 and more. The bankruptsy is complete. The home is underwater but we don't have to move. We live on Social-Secutity (2) and (1) pension. We are grateful to have it. Living within this budget is not always fun but its done, by us and millions others. Factors other than sloth and poor planning define our lifetimes. What a long, strange trip its been...

          • 5 votes
          Reply#3 - Mon Dec 27, 2010 7:28 PM EST
          rose-231178

          Factors other than sloth and poor planning define our lifetimes.

          Most people are not lazy in my estimate but I think this trip will become stranger yet. Hope it's a good strange.

          • 2 votes
          #3.1 - Mon Dec 27, 2010 7:37 PM EST
          Reply
          psychokiller

          The article is misleading. I am receiving Social Security at 62. I was laid off in January 2009, and have been on UI since. I made a decision to take SS at 62. I have paying into SS since 16, and now they pay me. I cannot find a job, age discrimination, so retirement is my only other alternative. I aam looking for a part time job, and living within my means. When the communist Obama comes after my SS, then it is time for another revolution. Let us take the wealth that was stolen by the corrupt politicians in Washington. The problem is that Washington spends too much, pockets too much for themselves. I think the corrupt past and present legislatures should have their wealth taken from them, I am tired of being robbed, and live with the prospect of having my SS cut because of thieves and crooks that stole my money. I put money in the system, leave it alone.

          • 3 votes
          Reply#4 - Mon Dec 27, 2010 8:12 PM EST
          wjm5-0

          Psychokiller,

          You should have had your head cleared over thirty years ago when Reagan first began using your Social Security to answer for other items he supported that had to be paid for, such as the beginning of tax cuts for the wealthy. The government began borrowing from your money when Reagan was in office and it became a silent grabfest for him and apparently no one let that little tidbit become part of the public knowledge.

          Obama is not the one after your Social Security. Get an education on budget balancing and cutting the deficit spending by the Republicans and you will know for a fact exactly who is causing your retirement plans to be up for cutting.

          I can remember when the shouting from the Tea Party was so loud about Obama being a socialist and none of those 'Real Americans' had a notion that SS and Medicare were social programs. They just needed a way to scare the unaware in the country about the President being some sort of enemy of America.

          After Obama's election, the newly-formed angry Tea Party groups even foolishly shouted about, "Keep your socialist hand off my Medicare and my Social Security!" To this very date the very person they disliked has been trying to protect their programs and protect the middleclass from the questionable practices of Corporate America when he installed the new consumer protection laws and regulations and his name has been unfairly dragged through the dirt. I wonder why?

          Also, guess who intend to repeal the new consumer-protection financial regulations and laws set in place by the Obama administration to keep the financial markets from taking more of your hard-earned money? Before you answer, if you voted Republican, call your representative who gained the power you gave them, and hear what they have to say about it.

          • 7 votes
          #4.1 - Mon Dec 27, 2010 9:05 PM EST
          psychokiller

          wjm, I do understand what your point. I used to be a Democrat, even voted for Jimmy Carter. And what I received for voting for the far left progressives, was massive financial mess. So if you can tell me the difference between Obama and Carter, I would like for you to tell me the difference.

          • 1 vote
          #4.2 - Mon Dec 27, 2010 11:46 PM EST
          Michael in S J

          And what I received for voting for the far left progressives, was massive financial mess.

          No, you did not. First of all, unless you live in San Francisco ( a great place BTW) New York or Boston, you have never, ever, voted for a far left progressive. Even in your wildest dream, Nancy Pelosi doesn't even come close to what you call a "a far left progressive".

          And, if you ever had a chance to research your comments, you would realize that virtually all of the debt we have accumulated since Carter has been created by Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2. Do your research.

          • 2 votes
          #4.3 - Tue Dec 28, 2010 3:16 PM EST
          wjm5-0

          Michael in S J

          I just returned to this seed today, so I didn't see the question from psychokiller.

          Thank you for this answer to what he said. I have been aware of how the various administrations have handled the public trust and though we are not always aware of how our elected officials do questionable things, I think that we all have a propensity to ignore this, especially when we are not personally affected by their actions.

          We appear to have ignore this to our own peril, but at this point in time, I am concerned for those who will be less able to meet their financial concerns in this economy. The young, elderly, and the disabled are the ones who will feel the pinch the most, and whether or not the Republicans will admit this, especially when it comes to SS and Medicare, the future adjustments to these programs started when the so-called "locked box" was just a phrase to protect these programs and it was brought into existence by Al Gore, under Cinton.

          The Clinton administration knew what the future would hold for these programs. Though I voted for Clinton, his methods did not cause the attack on these programs. The borrowing from them started under Reagan, and it was never paid back. After that, other Republicans, I just get tired of naming, continued the assault on what was susposed to be our gauranteed savings accounts for our retirement or disabled years, even umployment insurance.

          I am sorry that psychokiller is facing this, but he must be made aware of the truth. Like I said, if the seniors and the disabled, are among those who voted to give the Republicans power, they voted against their own best interests. I'm tired of saying this, too.

          I understand that Obama is no walk in the park, but he is more for the middleclass and the poor in our society than that group I just mentioned. He knows that the spending has got to stop, but where he will allow them to begin will be more about what they intend to begin with.

          Psychokiller, but this is just my opinion. I'm sure there are those who will disagree with me.

          Though I am retired now and on disability, I too will have to see what the future holds for those like me.

          There is one belief that I have always held.........Since I always had to punch a clock to make a living, there is no way I can vote Republican.

            #4.4 - Tue Dec 28, 2010 3:59 PM EST
            network-gal

            Hey! My situation is exactly the same I'm a 99er and I took early SS too to cover my ass while the dysfunctional Senate sat on their asses instead of extending the UI like they should have. It was the GOP blocking 3 extensions not the Dems..... And you and I wouldn't be retired right now.

            And it's not the Dems that are coming after your SS it's the damn GOP--You have a right to be angry but you are angry at the wrong people. I watched those votes like a hawk and KYL and Bunning were the culprits that blocked them.

            • 1 vote
            #4.5 - Tue Dec 28, 2010 11:02 PM EST
            Reply
            Jerryb12

            Starting in January, more than 10,000 baby boomers a day will turn 65, a pattern that will continue for the next 19 years.

            Now you know why they are starting death panels.

            http://patriot-8888.newsvine.com/_news/2010/12/26/5717166-and-the-death-panels-beginbreast-cancer-drug-is-denied?threadId=3013705&commentId=50368235#c50368235

            • 1 vote
            Reply#5 - Mon Dec 27, 2010 8:18 PM EST
            American Latina

            lol, if you read the majority of the educated responses in that thread you will realize that the fda pulled this drug because of its possible side effects. Nothing to do with death panels and health care reform. Your lies and delusions will not work amongst us that can think for ourselves.

            • 4 votes
            #5.1 - Mon Dec 27, 2010 9:17 PM EST
            Reply
            Aunk (The Cultural Health Guy)

            Hetep and Respect I am a boomer 10,000 of us a day for the next 19 years I think I just heard the number on 2012 political issue. Who will protect our SS and private retirement and how.

            1. I expect the Dems leadership in the person of our President to have a clear answer and plan to do both by the end of second term.

            2. I expect the Republicans to continue their plan to repeal my SS and/or put it in their Wall Street gambling house. They will continuing to pass laws to allow corporate criminals that I have a pension with to loop hole out.

            This reality spells big growth in Dem voters. 10,000 a day is a good growth number.

            Boomer Battle Cry

            What to the retirement you paid for? Elect a Democrat near you.

            • 5 votes
            Reply#6 - Mon Dec 27, 2010 8:21 PM EST
            mfk

            you do so have to get off this battle cry of yours before the block falls on your head. the Dem's are just as bad as the re-pubs. elect the person of your choose just don't be surprised when ya don't get what ya thought ya were going to get.

            • 1 vote
            #6.1 - Mon Dec 27, 2010 8:46 PM EST
            wjm5-0

            mfk

            Though you speak some truth in what you say, this administration has been trying to put relief for the middleclass consumers and taxpayers at the top of its budget initatives.

            HCR, finance reform, the Lily Ledbetter Law, college tuition grants, extention of unemployment benefits, and a whole lot of other proposals and new regulations were set in place to aid the middleclass. These were in answer to what had happened before this administration came into office.

            I am not trying open a dialogue about what happened before 2009, but the crisis had to start somewhere. How are the damages to be answered and how it will be answered by causing suffering for the ones on the lower income strata has got to be addressed.

            Think of this as a surgeon who has to operate and never tells the patient why he no anesthesia to ease the pain.

            Paying for 2 wars, the weathy tax breaks, prescription drug plans, and other past items which had already put the budget in the red cannot be discounted and left out of the conversation. It's as if we only came to life after Bush left office and didn't like the face we see in the White House, and no matter what he does to address the issue, America doesn't want to hear it.

            How can we be such ostriches with our heads in the sand when it comes to the past. Will we ever learn? Not if we continue to deny the causes and possible repeat it.

            • 2 votes
            #6.2 - Mon Dec 27, 2010 9:38 PM EST
            Aunk (The Cultural Health Guy)

            Hetep and Respect wjm5-0, well said. Amen!

            It's as if we only came to life after Bush left office and didn't like the face we see in the White House,

            "Came to life after Bush" a telling truth. It is most noteworthy that I never seem to hear from these "critics" When Bush and the forty thieves were tearing up the Nation. They never link to their 2000 or 2005 quotes of Bush criticism to substantiate their equal criticism employer claim. Reality is interesting.

            • 2 votes
            #6.3 - Mon Dec 27, 2010 11:34 PM EST
            mfk

            and how many DEMS voted right along with all they did.

            • 1 vote
            #6.4 - Tue Dec 28, 2010 6:40 PM EST
            Aunk (The Cultural Health Guy)

            H&R mfk, yes there are corporate Dems and we democratic voters need to weed these bad actors out.

            Dem's are just as bad as the re-pubs.

            this is an error.

            HCR Dems pro Repub con

            SS and Private pension Dems Pro Repubs Con

            Here is a list of what the President and the Dems I elected did Click Here

            Put the facts on the table were is the Republican list just as "good/bad".

            • 1 vote
            #6.5 - Tue Dec 28, 2010 10:41 PM EST
            network-gal

            I can't wait to see the conversations in the retirement communities suddenly start turning seriously Dem! Seniors will no longer be assumed to be R voters!

              #6.6 - Tue Dec 28, 2010 11:06 PM EST
              mfk

              aunk---

              do ya think that the Dem's didn't get rich doing all your so called PRO come on now not one of then is going to do anything if it means losing there job. some times ya have to just do what is right show me one that does not have there best interest in mind. well ok more then one.

                #6.7 - Wed Dec 29, 2010 8:51 PM EST
                Reply
                delherren

                Am I the only 53 year old who saw this coming? I'm not ready, but I knew this day would come. We started investing in our 401(k) 20 years ago when my husband's employer took away our pension. We saved the top amount allowed, and yet we lost more than 1/2 of it less than 5 years ago. Here we are starting over after my husband's job got shipped overseas. But, of course, it's our fault for not knowing when we were in our teens that our parents would be the last generation to receive pensions and social security. Dumb us not being able to see the future.

                • 4 votes
                Reply#7 - Mon Dec 27, 2010 8:21 PM EST
                granny22

                i did not heed my fathers advise and seek a job with the government-just chalked it off to the fact that he was affected by the depression. after working for 30 years as a self employed real estate sales agent who did not pay into social security i was entitled to a benefit of $495.00 a month. still have to pay $50.00 of that for medicare part D. my father was absolutely correct----retirement benefits can exceed $100k a year with all health benefits to a retired lifeguard in san diego-----the unions and the county supervisors colluded and have provided for themselves exhorbitantly and it seems nothing can be done about it-the city is broke and on verge of bankruptcy. even filing bankruptcy will not relieve this obligation. news reports sighted several retired firemen receiving over $500k. the numbers are staggering so people while you are looking at wall street for robbing us blind---look a little closer to home. one county exec in medium sized town in california was receiving yearly salary of $300k and of course public was outraged when this was disclosed. my life time mistakes are too numerous to mention----poor choice of husband who paid no child support. i am now able to earn enough to support myself but i have no hopes of retiring and i'm 67-----young people plan carefully----

                • 4 votes
                #7.1 - Mon Dec 27, 2010 8:44 PM EST
                delherren

                I agree with you on at least one point. Young people--plan carefully. If you really care about surviving our current financial systems complete with a lack of safety nets or regulation for those of us just trying to get out of this system what we put into it, then I suggest finding a tree in a forest to bury your money under. It worked for my grandfather. Of course, he was drunk when he hid it, so some developer found it several decades later under a Redwood Grove. Oh, well, some of us are not meant for greatness.

                • 2 votes
                #7.2 - Tue Dec 28, 2010 12:00 AM EST
                Reply
                wjm5-0

                Well, if you were supporters of the Republicans who gained the House, then you must have been aware of what their intentions are for those Social Security and Medicare programs that support the retired, elderly and the disabled.

                When they wanted that tax cut for the wealthy so-called job creators, they also were working on a plan that would include cutting what they call entitlements and guess what two much relied-upon programs are included in the cutting debate.

                They never told of this in their campaign platform because they counted on the emotional tidalwave caused by the dislike for the President to gain power and apparently it worked.

                When people tried to warn the elderly and dependents among the Republican and Teaparty supporters of this and how Rand Paul was a leader in support of the cuts to SS and Medicare, it was shouted down and ignored.

                I actually (though I knew better) thought there were no such entitlement recipients among the rightwing, independent, and libertarian supporters of the Republicans. And when I see how that vote went, I shook my head in amazement at how they were voting against their own best interests.

                Now I can see where a lot of those, even here on the vine, may have another source of income for retirement, but I doubt if they are in the majority. They too, obviously, number among the middleclass who the President is trying to give relief to.

                And this cry to stop the redtape spending will be at the mercy of the ones who will have to rely upon SS and Medicare, and the new health care bill. I know the need for the control, but I have always been aware of who will be subject to the belt-tightening proposals.

                Part of the payroll tax cut will decrease the monies set aside for Social Security and Medicare care. It is simple math that if you cut one, the others will be decreased as a result.

                Now I shall await the coming news about public education and the other 'entltlements' the Republicans want to cut to answer for the black hole in the budget created by that tax cut for wealthiest in the nation who did not truly need it. They included the middle class tax cut to get this for those who they truly represent and, believe me, it is surely not the middleclass.

                Oh, I keep forgetting, before I am chastized by the righwing posters on the vine. The wealthy are the job creators so they needed that tax break to open the job market.

                Well I intend to stand firm against this hope of what the wealthy will do, and I am a very optimist person. I will reserve further comment on the matter until after the new Congress takes it power in hand and begin to tell what they didn't tell during that last election. Their supporters need to listen, this time.

                • 4 votes
                Reply#8 - Mon Dec 27, 2010 8:38 PM EST
                Honor and Harmony

                I can't wait to see the looks on the tea baggers faces when the repubs start to scream about cutting SS, medicare and medicaid.

                The tea baggers are already having buyers remosre after all the lobbyists the tea bagger pols are hiring and the chairmanships they are not even being entertained with.

                • 3 votes
                #8.1 - Mon Dec 27, 2010 8:42 PM EST
                cried

                wjm, I agree about the 2% cut in SS taxes (premium cut). This should never have even been proposed! A program which so many seniors depend upon for a large percentage of their income (equivalent to between 57% and 35% of pre-retirement income[1]), that the pols know for a fact will soon be paying out more than it takes in. It will just shorten the length of time that it can afford to run in the red. Unfortunately I don't feel we can blame any one party for this measure.

                [1] http://crr.bc.edu/images/stories/Just%20the%20Facts/jtf_19.pdf

                  #8.2 - Tue Dec 28, 2010 1:19 AM EST
                  Davy-755715

                  cried - When it comes right down to it, nobody getting a check from the government would ever care where the cash came from, or justify any reduction whatsoever. And everybody whose taxes are reduced would think that's just grand, no matter how much more has to be borrowed, or how much more interest has to be added on. All that crap is fine for later, but for now it's More! MORE!! MORE!!!

                    #8.3 - Tue Dec 28, 2010 9:52 AM EST
                    Reply
                    Honor and Harmony

                    This country's sorry shape is DUE to the boomers. When wallstreet the movie came out and the line "greed is good" was coined the director(as seen in interviews) was using that line as a warning. The boomer generation took it as something good and to be proud of. I grew up in the 80's and remember seeing this praised in pop culture and ads everywhere. Well now here we are. Is greed still good?

                    If america was a car the boomer generation drove the tires bald, never changed the oil and phucked up the transmission and are now handing the keys over to gen x and gen y while the boomers are demanding a ride to the store everyday.

                    Amazing. Here a hint start taking social security out of all income not just the first 100 grand.

                    • 5 votes
                    Reply#9 - Mon Dec 27, 2010 8:40 PM EST
                    mfk

                    i live nice. you see i worked at a job you all hate one place for a living for 32 years. at 50 i retired and live well. it is just some times ya have to wait to get what ya want if ya keep voting for the ones that want to take pensions away as ya did for the last 12 years ya won't survive.

                      #9.1 - Mon Dec 27, 2010 9:00 PM EST
                      Reply
                      Free Mason-1490678Deleted
                      Smokie-788412

                      I didn't see any mention about the money that the Baby Boomers spent on their children. These are the same group and/or generation that are trying to cut our services and retirement benefits. Now we in our positions that our parents where in and we are now taking care of them. I wounder what the newest generation will have in store of us. Probably institutions. Think about it. The younger generation educated and enjoyed the life better than ours, with our dollars will be calling the shots. What will they do with us? The only thing we do have is our votes that out number what they have.

                      Helluva thing to think about fighting the Government and our children to live in some kind of peace.

                      • 5 votes
                      Reply#11 - Mon Dec 27, 2010 8:47 PM EST
                      Bubba-939441

                      I've been paying into SS for 45 yrs. Now they say I need to lower my standard of living? It don't get much lower than this trailer park.

                      • 3 votes
                      Reply#12 - Mon Dec 27, 2010 8:58 PM EST
                      mfk

                      ??

                        #12.1 - Mon Dec 27, 2010 9:02 PM EST
                        American Latina

                        oh wow bubba and you are a republican? the same party that wants to cut social programs and that just gave tax extenstions to the super rich? I think its time for you to stick up for yourself and join the democratic party in our attempt to restore middle class america. :)

                        • 3 votes
                        #12.2 - Mon Dec 27, 2010 9:26 PM EST
                        cried

                        American Latina: both parties gave the tax extentions to the super rich. The Reps cause they wanted to and the Dems cause they're eunichs. Also its both parties that 'want to cut social programs'.

                          #12.3 - Tue Dec 28, 2010 1:24 AM EST
                          Bubba-939441

                          "oh wow bubba and you are a republican?"

                          I'm not Republican, but I did vote for the Republican liberal candidate in the last presidential election. The Republican party is not fiscally conservative enough, but at this point there are no choices for good fiscally prudent candidates. They all spend money like water. Unfortunately the masses do not want to cut their spending. I think they already spent the SS money I have contributed over the last 45yrs. I guess I could downsize to a tent after I turn 65. But, I'm healthy and the best alternative is keep on workin. Perhaps I'll be able to hold on to this trailer a little while longer.

                            #12.4 - Tue Dec 28, 2010 10:01 AM EST
                            Reply
                            granny22

                            HONOR AND HARMONY ---this baby boomer was raised in a home with no cental heat---never owned a car until i was married-----never in my life purchased a new car-never lived on credit-never borrowed money from parents--never had advantage of college education----raised and educated 2 children as a single parent---never accepted welfare---bought 6 cars and kept them maintained over 10 years for my children--paid rent for apartments for them--paid all dental bills til they were out of college and provided for every emergency they had---- honor and harmony you are ignorant of the facts--among my generation i know of no hedge fund babies / dot com overnite millionaires - only hard working people who indulged in few luxuries --- we wanted to give our children a better life and we did at great expense and sacrifice to ourselves----i did not save because i couldn't----the majority of us have nothing to apologize to you for---i am still self supporting at 67 and if my health continues i will never retire . i think you've got alot of living to do before you judge the boomers.

                            • 5 votes
                            Reply#13 - Mon Dec 27, 2010 9:23 PM EST
                            Clint-746036

                            Granny, I'm 63, still working and will for some time. I'm in better shape financially than a lot of people who have posted here but I can relate to your sentiments about those who are judging boomers. I received my first paycheck when I was 8 years old. When I joined the military I left the $1.25 an hour job I worked full time through high school for $90.00 a month. Most of the kids complaining about boomers didn't have to work until they finished college because of the support and taxes paid by our generation.

                            Thank you for saying it so well.

                            • 4 votes
                            #13.1 - Mon Dec 27, 2010 10:42 PM EST
                            Reply
                            fronco

                            They got to stop taking funds from SS to feed other programs, and these republicans are doing there best to destroy it just to feed these scum and filthy rich, when are the American people going to realize that these republicans are out to destroy the middle class. and by the way, where are the jobs they promised they were going to help create, the LIARS.

                            • 4 votes
                            Reply#14 - Mon Dec 27, 2010 10:02 PM EST
                            Clint-746036

                            The taking from SS has been going on regardless of the party in power. If we keep sending people to Congress to bring home the bacon we will keep getting the same snake oil sales experts running for office. We have to rethink and retool. Our representatives need to be wise people from our midst who will make good laws...not good deals.

                            • 3 votes
                            #14.1 - Mon Dec 27, 2010 10:53 PM EST
                            Bubba-939441

                            "where are the jobs they promised they were going to help create, the LIARS."

                            Good question. Didn't Obama, in his election campaign, promise 1.5 million new green jobs?

                              #14.2 - Tue Dec 28, 2010 1:56 PM EST
                              Fed up with Republicans

                              The Republicans gave the rich another two year extension of their Tax Cuts, and now they are simply crossing their fingers while wishing and hoping that this time the rich people will invest in America and actually create some jobs.

                              • 1 vote
                              #14.3 - Tue Dec 28, 2010 6:03 PM EST
                              cried

                              Well thank goodness no Democrats voted for the extension....

                                #14.4 - Wed Dec 29, 2010 12:20 AM EST
                                Reply
                                writer21177

                                Don't think for a moment the market collapse was a coincidence it was all about taking the boomers retirement money and putting it in the hands of the Corporate titans.

                                • 2 votes
                                Reply#15 - Mon Dec 27, 2010 10:52 PM EST
                                Fed up with Republicans

                                The market collapse was just the financial whiz kids paying back their parents and grandparents for trusting them with their life savings.

                                Derivatives was a hair brained economic scheme that was never going to work and any fool should have seen the collapse of the housing market as its logical conclusion.

                                • 1 vote
                                #15.1 - Tue Dec 28, 2010 12:06 AM EST
                                cried

                                Actually most people who left their money where it was, instead of taking it out at the bottom, have gotten it all back....and that's without rebalancing.

                                • 1 vote
                                #15.2 - Tue Dec 28, 2010 1:28 AM EST
                                V. Bevis

                                True, Cried! But those who panicked when their savings suddenly went down @ 30-60% & pulled it all out, got a "shellacking." Ours is back up to where it was.

                                  #15.3 - Tue Dec 28, 2010 11:12 AM EST
                                  Reply
                                  cried

                                  There are really too many people who don't plan for retirement until it is too late, whether through ignorance of the facts (about 40% of early retirees are forced to retire due to poor health or downsizing[1]) or believing that they cannot afford to save.

                                  One fact is clear, you cannot afford not to save. Sure we'd all like to pay for our child's education (another thing that should be saved for in advance) but we also need to be realistic. An $80-120k degree in advanced basket weaving will not pay enough to be cost effective. Also it might be good to point out that about 55% fail to graduate from college [2]. Another reason you cannot afford not to save is longevity risk[3].

                                  Things aren't all bad, once you've stopped working you wouldn't be paying into SS, that's 6.2% not being taken away from you... though this coming year those eunichs made a temporary change so that it's only 4.2% (causing more strain on the SS 'trust fund').

                                  [1]http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/13/retirement/do_over.moneymag/index.htm

                                  [2]http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/06/03/55-percent-of-college-students-graduate/UPI-15671244064567/

                                  [3]http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/09/magazines/fortune/how_long_will_you_live_Colvin.fortune/index.htm

                                  • 1 vote
                                  Reply#16 - Tue Dec 28, 2010 1:51 AM EST
                                  SoFunMe

                                  I read most of the comments on this page and am astounded by most of them. Many of the posters on here proclaim an overwhelming sense of entitlement, espousing that their futures should be secured and guaranteed by the federal government and taxpayers. Many of them point to a 'lower cost of living’ and social pensions paid by governments in Germany and EU. First off, Germany (and all of EU) are now cutting back on entitlement programs and raising the retirement age, and admitting that these programs are unsustainable. Almost all of the EU is bankrupt: riots in London because Parliament is raising the cost of tuition for colleges and decreasing its government subsidies; riots in France because the government is raising the retirement age to 62 and cutting entitlement programs; riots in Greece because the government is gutting the federal healthcare system and retracting entitlement programs that citizens have come to rely on as a 'right' of citizenship. The entitlement free-ride is coming to an end everywhere! If the world economy should collapse, the collapse will initiate in EU. Germany is leading the way toward conservative economic policy and has scolded Barrack Obama for his spending (which is depressing lesser economies around the world).

                                  Now, many of you sing about your fiscal values and common sense saving over the years and that you now are financially able to retire after years of hard work and sacrifice. This is all well and good and I applaud you. But you are about 7% of all prospective retirees in this country. Most are people - husbands and wives, singles, etc - that have worked very hard all their lives for low wages ($8 - $15 per hour) and have subsisted from one paycheck to another. Many of these have contributed to 401k programs over the years, and many who have, at some time or other, has had to raid their 401k to pay debts to avoid bankruptcy. Private pensions have diminished to the point that private companies no longer offer them and cannot afford them. Also, I have known several elderly that managed to save for retirement over many years and one catastrophic illness wiped them out in a few months - my parents for instance, who had enough to retire sensibly, but then my mother was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. All gone!

                                  The answers are tough - neither Republicans nor Democrats are willing to face them beyond talk. Political correctness is doing more to kill this country than almost any other factor. Of all countries on earth, the US is the ONLY one that entitles citizenship for foreign-national children born within our borders. We, as a nation, spend more of our energy on racial division and class warfare than on resolving problems. And you Democrats - why can't you see that the very policies you so strongly adhere to as helping the poor and middle class, actually serves to hurt them more than help. Our political leaders go to Washington as common people and in a few short years become millionaires! They want to ensure healthcare for all through legislation and nationalized industry, but they shield themselves from having to participate in the very system they create! Divorce ruins more families financially than 'failure to save'.

                                  So what do we do with the 'average' boomer who worked hard for subsistence wages but was unable to save much for retirement - the ones whose parents could never provide college and probably failed to pass on fiscally responsible values? How many 55 year olds are still out there working for $12 an hour or even less? This, with the devaluation of the dollar and near collapse of 401k's since 2008, leaves many Americans on the brink.

                                  Now, instead of bragging about your own financial success or griping about your more restrictive pension plans, try discussing possible answers regarding the majority of our aging population - the ones who do not own homes or pension plans, and most likely have lost most of their 401k's during the great recession. This is where it gets ugly. Those who have worked very hard for low wages and now have little to show for it.

                                  • 1 vote
                                  Reply#17 - Tue Dec 28, 2010 2:28 AM EST
                                  American Idle

                                  You just made a great argument for why people need unions.

                                  Look, it's not like there isn't wealth in this country. There is. Corporations are now sitting on huge cash reserves. They are keeping their money and getting more profit by squeezing more work out of fewer workers.

                                  It's not enough to have a million bucks a year; that's chump change. We've got billionaires now. The wealthy are getting away with murder. Literally. Hunger, poverty, domestic violence, disease, foreclosures, suicides... it's all there, and the wealthy are walking away with it all.

                                  Trickle down my ass. These people are criminals. These people are traitors. We are all being manipulated by the greediest bastards on the face of the planet, who've got us squabbling among ourselves for crumbs while they laugh at us all the way to the bank.

                                  Want to know how bad it is, just read the headlines. I posted just some of them from this past year on another discussion. It will make your stomach turn.

                                  I'll link it, but I am not asking that anyone vote it up or comment. Just read the headlines and see what I mean...

                                  The Misery Index in Headlines & Cartoons: Life is good at the top; for the rest of us, not so much

                                  • 1 vote
                                  #17.1 - Tue Dec 28, 2010 3:06 AM EST
                                  cried

                                  Um sofunme: you are sadly mistaken about some things for instance since 401(k)s are untouchable in bankrupsy, then using one to prevent it is a truely stupid idea.

                                  As to illness wiping out the savings, I am sorry that this does happen. Medical expenses during retirement typically range from $160k-$250k so it is not unusual for it to occur (yes these numbers take into account catastrophic illness too). Not only that, but long term care facilities can be even more costly.

                                  What is really needed is for the people to be more educated financially. Unfortunately the majority of the people out there have never had anyone teach them about finances, and when they discover that they need this knowledge, it is too late.

                                  American Idle: yes I already voted up your lil misery index :D

                                    #17.2 - Tue Dec 28, 2010 4:03 AM EST
                                    SoFunMe

                                    Cried - I was not suggesting that 401(k)s can be taken in bankruptcy, rather, I was asserting that people raid their 401(k)s in desperate times to sustain their lifestyle. For instance, someone with a mortgage loses their job. They pull money out of retirement to pay their mortgage and other expenses. This happens all the time; desperate times call for desperate measures. How about all those people who invested in real estate or homes to supplement retirement and now owe more on their property than it is worth? My 401(k) was halved (about 45%) in 2008 and now has rebounded about 30%. Not a full recovery but still some. My uncle in Texas has friends who lost 80% of their retirement related to the BP oil spill. Many more wiped out by Bernie Madoff and the collapse of Enron.

                                    Still, the burning question: what do we do about those who come down to the retirement wire with little to nothing outside of Social Security? We either take care of them or let them live on the streets and forage for food and shelter. What also do we do about their medical needs?

                                    • 2 votes
                                    #17.3 - Tue Dec 28, 2010 5:15 AM EST
                                    cried

                                    Ahh sorry about that SoFunMe. Truely sad for those with little to nothing, I'm just hoping that I don't become one of them. I have no idea what they can do... I do know that for most low income earners at least they are scheduled to be able to replace about 57% of their pre-retirement income through SS. This is one of the reasons I am so irritated with the recent tax change reducing what is being taken out of our paychecks for SS by 2% (going to 4.2% from 6.2%) as this is a huge amount not going in.

                                    • 1 vote
                                    #17.4 - Tue Dec 28, 2010 6:19 AM EST
                                    Smokie-788412

                                    SoFunMe======Very well said. Thank you.

                                    Happy New Year!!

                                      #17.5 - Tue Dec 28, 2010 10:00 AM EST
                                      Reply
                                      Jen-346200

                                      We played by all the rules- saved (mutual funds tanked and savings are earning zilch to be effective to meet rising food, gas, medical, insurance costs), did not live above our means, and paid all our taxes. Now, having reached retirement age, my husband and I have been ousted from our jobs, and we have plummeted so fast from middle-class to a surprising new low. I NEVER would have dreamed that I would have to avoid turning my furnace on and have to worry about the weekly grocery trip. It scares me beyond belief to calculate how our expenses are going to go between now and Social Security age. Our savings are steadily evaporating. Our medical insurance and copays alone are terrifying. I don't think any of our neighbors realize how badly off we are, and I am curious as to how many of them are in a similar situation. The years we have left in our lives seem grim. Anyone?

                                        Reply#18 - Tue Dec 28, 2010 10:40 AM EST
                                        YoJD

                                        Recession, falling dollar, crashing real estate, high unemployment, loss of high paying manufacturing jobs--all bad news. And many boomers have health problems, as well.

                                        But what about the boomer who works, and saves for a lifetime--only to have a non-working bipolar spouse file for divorce--and take 1/2 of everything you've worked for--while living off your support--until further notice? What a country!

                                          Reply#19 - Tue Dec 28, 2010 3:26 PM EST
                                          Smokie-788412

                                          Man that's bad luck! She got the gold and you got that shaft. Happens all the time. I would love to see that reverse some kind of way.

                                            #19.1 - Tue Dec 28, 2010 5:39 PM EST
                                            Fed up with Republicans

                                            You should have divorced her along time ago.

                                              #19.2 - Tue Dec 28, 2010 6:01 PM EST
                                              Reply
                                              ytutiuiuDeleted
                                              ytutiuiuDeleted
                                              WatchTheOtherHand

                                              I love how the article makes it sound like a HUGE mistake to start claiming SS as soon as you are eligible. $1200 dollars a month at age 62, and you can still continue to work at earn up to $14,000 dollars a year without any penalties. The COLA increase for SS is usually about 3-5% per year. So if you start at age 62 at $1200, you will be receiving around $1700 by the time you hit 70. Or you can start receiving SS at 70 and earn $2000. That's only a $300 dollar difference per month. Now here's the kicker. You have already received about $180,000 dollars in SS over the last 8 years. Since you were likely to also keep earning a modest income over that time period to support yourself, you could have banked most if not all of that $180,000. If you then draw from that savings that extra $300 per month it would take you 50 years to consume it all and you would be making the equivalent of someone who waited, if not even more because you could easily draw more than $300 per month from savings if you didn't think you would live to 120.

                                                Reply#22 - Wed Dec 29, 2010 8:44 AM EST
                                                Smokie-788412

                                                This is not a math problem. I will call for you when I need someone to add and subtract. This is life as we have been dealt it. Most of the people on this post forgot what things were like back when these Boomers started off on their own. Check back in time and you will find that inflation had us by the neck and the going interest of a home mortgage was about 12-14%, with 20% down payment. Compare that with what we have now and have been enjoying in the past decades. So before you get to carried away check the financial setting of that time period. This was about the same time you had to get in line for gas for your car.

                                                  #22.1 - Wed Dec 29, 2010 9:05 PM EST
                                                  Elbonian

                                                  Watch: you are confusing the issue with your math example. if you are going to include COLA in your math, you can't just COLA the retire-at-62 number, but you also need to COLA the retire-at-70 number. They will both change by the same percentage (by law).

                                                  However, you can't really count on receiving any COLA at all. One of the proposals for fixing SS is to eliminate or reduce COLA increases.

                                                  If you ignore COLA (which is reasonable per the above discussion), then you get $14,400 per year if you retire at 62 and $24,000 per year if you retire at 70 (I did this on a spreadsheet), meaning that the breakeven point is age 81, at which point you have received a total of $288,000 from Social Security regardless of whether you retired at 62 or 70. After that, you get more each year ($24,000 instead of $14,400) until you die.

                                                  In my particular situation, my best bet (and it is a gamble, of course) is to wait until at least age 70 (at which time I automatically begin to receive my maximum benefit, even if I'm still working), as I expect to live until well beyond age 81. YMMV, of course. If your personal situation is such that you expect to die well before age 81, then please do take whatever you can get from the system and be happy about it!

                                                  • 2 votes
                                                  #22.2 - Wed Dec 29, 2010 10:18 PM EST
                                                  Smokie-788412

                                                  Not me I buy a Lotto Ticket once a week. I plan on winning. The only problem with my idea, everybody else has the same plan.

                                                    #22.3 - Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:13 AM EST
                                                    WatchTheOtherHand

                                                    Um... Elbonian... The US life expectency is 77.9 years of age. By your very own math, the breakeven point you came up with is 81 years. I am also willing to bet that you didn't add in any additional sums for the investment of those SS funds. There are plenty of relatively risk-free investment vehicles to put that extra cash flow on. The 62 year old is still capable of earning a sum of money without penalty after they start receiving SS to cover day-to-day living expenses.

                                                    The point being that waiting until 70 is not the best thing to do for everyone under the current rules as the article describes.

                                                      #22.4 - Thu Dec 30, 2010 8:41 AM EST
                                                      Elbonian

                                                      Watch: Its wrong to consider SS an investment vehicle. It is instead more like life insurance. If you live longer, you get paid. If you don't, your survivors may get paid instead. I am totally against the Bush plan to privatize SS and treat it as an investment. That was never the intent!

                                                      Otherwise I can (mostly) agree with what you say. Everybody has their own personal situation and expectations, and I'm all for leaving options as open as possible for everybody.

                                                      • 1 vote
                                                      #22.5 - Thu Dec 30, 2010 9:17 AM EST
                                                      cried

                                                      Watch even though:

                                                      The US life expectency is 77.9 years of age. By your very own math, the breakeven point you came up with is 81 years. I am also willing to bet that you didn't add in any additional sums for the investment of those SS funds. There are plenty of relatively risk-free investment vehicles to put that extra cash flow on. The 62 year old is still capable of earning a sum of money without penalty after they start receiving SS to cover day-to-day living expenses.

                                                      What you don't consider is that if you've made it to 62 you have better than even odds to reach over 81.

                                                      • 1 vote
                                                      #22.6 - Sun Jan 2, 2011 12:29 AM EST
                                                      Reply
                                                      DataBird

                                                      I'm surprised that no mention was made in this article of government workers' pensions and other retirement benefits. Employees of cities, counties, states and federal government have amazingly generous retirement benefits. If close to 50% of all workers in the US are government employees, then this group surely factors into the big picture of baby boomers nearing retirement?

                                                      Unfortunately, the rest of us are footing the bill for their guaranteed golden years while we're left to survive on shrunken retirement accounts and Social Security.

                                                        Reply#23 - Fri Dec 31, 2010 3:16 PM EST
                                                        WatchTheOtherHand

                                                        Government workers only account for about 8% of all jobs. 20% government employees would be unsustainable, much less 50%. Their pensions are also always up for changes. Government is the one entity that doesn't seem to have to live with the contracts it negotiates. I wouldn't count on a government pension to be exactly what you may think it is when the time comes. Governments and politicians ALWAYS promise more than they can possibly deliver.

                                                          #23.1 - Fri Dec 31, 2010 7:15 PM EST
                                                          Elbonian

                                                          Watch: Your numbers are not accurate, so far as I can tell. The official numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (and I have them going all the way back to 1950) show that the total number of government-sector jobs has never once been that low (again, not since January 1, 1950, anyway). The last reported number was 17.1% government jobs out of all civilian non-farm jobs in the USA. To that you would have to add the military services, and when you do that it would get close to 20% total. The percentage in January 1981 (when Reagan took office) was 18% of civilian non-farm jobs. It was 16% in January, 1961, when JFK took office. In January, 1953, when Ike took office, the number was 13.5% government workers out of all civilian non-farm jobs.

                                                          Note: the above numbers include government workers at all levels, federal, state, and local. It also includes any quasi-governmental agencies with taxing power like flood control districts, etc.

                                                            #23.2 - Fri Dec 31, 2010 7:39 PM EST
                                                            cried

                                                            Thank you Elbonian. I haven't been here for a few days so you saved me the post lol. Another thing WOTH didn't figure in was that many of those jobs have earlier full retirement than in the private sector, thus making a disproportionate number of retirees per job whose pensions we (the private sector) must fund.

                                                              #23.3 - Sun Jan 2, 2011 12:35 AM EST
                                                              Reply
                                                              Leave a Comment:
                                                              You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                                              You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                                              (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                                              Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                                              As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                                              FUN STUFF:
                                                              • Leaderboard |
                                                              • E-Mail Alerts |
                                                              • Top of the Vine |
                                                              • Newsvine Live |
                                                              • Newsvine Archives |
                                                              • The Greenhouse
                                                              COMPANY STUFF:
                                                              • Code of Honor |
                                                              • Company Info |
                                                              • Contact Us |
                                                              • Jobs |
                                                              • User Agreement |
                                                              • Privacy Policy |
                                                              • About our ads
                                                              LEGAL STUFF:
                                                              • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                              • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                              • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com