- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 4, 2013 at 5:13 am #795356
hammerheadParticipantI’m with elikapeka: I too am self employed and the taxes just kill me, period. Over 50% of what make is paid in taxes.
I just watched Martin Surplock’s CNN special about growing old. OMG even if you did do the “right” thing by saving your pennies. You are screwed. Medicade/Medicare whatever, hell it may not be around like social security, only pays so much.
$8,000-10,000 per month for assisted living. It was mind blowing.
I have personally have no debt other than a house and vehicle payment. So I am not some one who throwing money around either, other than at the government.
Trying to save, is a catch 22, have savings in case something goes “bad”(like house flooding) or put the money into retirement?
August 4, 2013 at 5:14 am #795357
miwsParticipantAugust 4, 2013 at 5:14 am #795358
WFMemberJOB – BS, many people who could and should save buy new cars every 3 years!
August 4, 2013 at 5:19 am #795359
miwsParticipantAugust 4, 2013 at 5:21 am #795360
miwsParticipantBS, many people who could and should save buy new cars every 3 years!
AND!!! OMG!!!!!11111 They have cell phones too!!!!!
Mike
August 4, 2013 at 5:31 am #795361
WFMembermiws so a person who is making $100k/year, who chooses to buy a new car every 3 years, eat at fancy restaurants who could easily save money but does not retires at 65. He gets his SS check and is making ends meet but then he starts to need assisted living but had failed to save and now has no money to pay for the added care. Why should taxpayers pay his bill? This is not a hotel maid working hard at a low wage job; this is a person who made decent money but chose not to save! There are many of these folks that fit this profile.
August 4, 2013 at 5:39 am #795362
SonomaParticipantWhile I don’t have much sympathy for people who throw their money around with no thought to retirement needs, consider this:
1. People who do put aside a decent amount want to invest it wisely. So…401k? Maybe, but a gamble. Lots of people lost a boatload of money. Same with stock market, even mutual funds. OK, how about a nice, safe, conservative CD? Hmmm…what kind of interest are our friendly banks paying? Oooh, 0.08 for a three-year CD? Wow, what a deal! And yet the banks and hedgies keep making money hand over fist.
2. As other posters have noted, retirement is damned expensive. My mom put away money all her life even though she had blue-collar jobs that didn’t pay much. She was very frugal, kept the same car till it fell apart, seldom splurged on anything, etc. She developed dementia, and care at a decent facility ran about $6,000/month, excluding medical bills. So, despite more than $100,000 in lifetime savings, the money went fast.
The most sensible solution, it seems, is to put some money aside, but also don’t deprive yourself of life’s pleasures. Choose things that you truly enjoy and cost little or nothing. We live in a beautiful city with so much to do and see. And, if you can, choose another activity that makes you really happy, even if you have to spend a little more – travel, dining out, theater are examples.
Balance is the key, though unexpected illnesses and other mega-expenses can sure as hell make that a challenge!
August 4, 2013 at 6:20 am #795363
hammerheadParticipantGrowing old is a difficult and delicate balance.
I don’t have kids, I have actually had people ask me: “who is going to take care of you when you get old?” I reply, um that is not why one should have kids.
Will I be able to “take” care of myself? Wont know that till that time comes.
I am about to have this very serious conversation with my father, and it will not be easy but decisions need to be made.
August 4, 2013 at 4:20 pm #795364
WFMembersonoma – well stated.
if your mom could save $100,000 with a modest income blue collar job a person with a decent paying middle management job aught to be able to save significantly more.
unfortunately many of these middle income folks are not saving as they should be. and in the advent they develop dementia or other high cost care needs and run out of money is it fair to others who did save and future generations to bail these folks who clearly could have saved but didn’t out?
August 4, 2013 at 4:48 pm #795365
JoBParticipantWF..
blaming the individuals for the failure of an economy that gutted their 401ks, their real estate investments, their pensions and put necessities out of economic reach is mean.
yup.. mean.
your taxes aren’t due to the victims of this economy.. they are due to the victors.. who have plenty of money to spend but choose to keep their cash while you spend yours to cover for their profiteering.
isn’t that sweeeeeet of them ;->
it’s a beautiful day..
go outside. meet some of your neighbors..
you might even find you like them enough to want to keep them around.
August 4, 2013 at 5:53 pm #795366
miwsParticipantAugust 4, 2013 at 6:06 pm #795367
TanDLParticipantOK… so it’s not fair that some folks have inadequate savings to cover their old age with all the possible problems that could pop up and those who do have enough end up paying taxes to cover those without. My question to you WF is, what’s the answer? What would you do with those elderly folks who didn’t save enough for their old age and now need shelter, food and medicine?
August 4, 2013 at 6:27 pm #795368
WFMemberthose that could have saved, such as my example in post #31, would be told tough luck.
heck if a blue collar worker can save $100,000 (see post #32) a middle income white collar worker aught to be able to save $250,000 that with SS can pay for 5 years of adult home care at $6K/month. Thus after 5 years of private pay then government assistance can step in.
August 4, 2013 at 6:48 pm #795369
WFMemberand some simple math TanDL. contributing 5% of $100K/year salary yields $200K after 40 years. presuming that a person uses a fidelity target date type investment the value of the $200K saved would most likely exceed $300K or more. thus there is no excuse not to have at least enough to cover 5 years of long term care. even a person making $50K/year setting aside 10% can achieve a decent retirement savings!
thus please explain to me why taxpayers would have to pay the bill? if a person chooses not to save and in the end need savings and do not have it they made the choice and should not be bailed out by taxpayers (and future generations)
August 4, 2013 at 7:10 pm #795370
TanDLParticipantSo… “tough luck” means some have to die in the street during a cold snowy winter? Starve in alleyways? Beg on the street corners? Let the churches who teach compassion feed and house them? Please define what “tough luck” means to you. Thanks…
August 4, 2013 at 7:27 pm #795371
WFMembertough luck means you made a choice not to save; thus do not look to the government to bail you out. go to friends, children relatives not the taxpayer.
remember tandl this is a person that had made good money ($100K/year) during their working years! it is not fair to future generation (taxpayers) to bail them out. even a person making $50K/year can save a decent nest egg! heck see post #32 a blue collar worker saved $100K enough for a couple of years of long term care!
thus tandl what is it i am missing. someone who could and should have saved didn’t and the taxpayer is supposed to bail this person out? this is unfair to those that save and taxpayers.
btw not bailing this person out would create an incentive for people (in particular middle income and up) to save; if they see that if they fail to do so they will not be bailed out.
August 4, 2013 at 10:32 pm #795372
TanDLParticipantThose friends, relatives, children etc. are also taxpayers, so actually you would be dumping the problem on one sector of taxpayers (the compassionate) and not another (the “don’t care, not my problem” group). And if someone could not find a compassionate person to take them in, what then? Some elderly don’t have relatives.
And by the way, the death penalty has not stopped murder, so what makes you think people will suddenly gain enough incentive to save if the government stops helping in the elder years?
August 4, 2013 at 11:49 pm #795373
dobroParticipantif you need any fodder for answers to foolish questions, read the same discussion here with a few tangents.
https://westseattleblog.com/forum/topic/seattle-times-social-security-fixes
August 4, 2013 at 11:50 pm #795374
JanSParticipantI have never made over 25K a year in my whole life. Yes, I was once married, but the divorce left me almost penniless. And while I was married, I was, a lot of the time, a stay at home mom – a mutual decision of my marriage. when I became seriously ill 3 months after my divorce, and asked for temporary help from the state until I could work again, I was told a flat out “no”, not until I had spent every cent of the small saving I had because of a divorce settlement. And I had a 15 yo child living with me. So, I should be out on the street now because of “circumstances” created in part by the gov’t.? If I had received temporary help, and had been allowed to invest that small divorce settlement, I would have a nest egg now. Is this poor planning on my part? Nope, I don’t think so.
WF, not everyone makes 50K/100K a year..sometimes life just doesn’t work the way you (specifically)think it should work. Wouldn’t it be nice if we all lived in the world of “should”…but in reality, it simply doesn’t work that way. Reality is sometimes harsh. I have no respect for someone who would rather just let people, when they age, die without, simply because you have no compassion for anyone but yourself.. Yes, it’s a “me, me, me” world, and you’re part of it.I certainly hope, WF, that something catastrophic doesn’t happen to you, and someone turns and looks at you, and says”too bad, you should have prepared better”.
August 5, 2013 at 5:49 am #795375
RagsParticipantWF is right. Our country is on the precipice of economic disaster due to the federal deficit, and we cannot continue to provide unlimited safety nets to people who don’t take the personal responsibility to save and plan for their own futures. Yes, many of us lost money in the dot com bust and the 2007/8 real estate debacle leading to the recession, but if you hung in there, you’ve now recouped your losses so get over it. Being a stay at home mom vs. pursuing a career is an on-going topic so I suggest you read “Lean In.”
August 5, 2013 at 7:11 am #795376
JanSParticipantyou all out there do know that we have the lowest annual deficit since 2008…don’t you?
Rags…2 years before my divorce, I went back to school so I could work for myself as a massage therapist. I had a small practice 2.5 years later when I became ill, and almost died…twice, 3 months after my divorce. I couldn’t work for a year. Since 1997 I have been employed in my own massage business. Had an office at 42nd and Oregon for quite some time, and was also in an office at Active space. Cancer happened in 2005, and I have worked at home since then. But the massage business is a funny business. If I walked 2 blocks in any diretion from where I live, I would probably encounter at least 10 other massage therapists, if not more. Competition for those clients is stiff. I do mostly insurance work as a preferred provider with quite a few health insurances. Of course, since I got my kidney transplant in June, I haven’t been able to work. As I said..tough business…my boss doesn’t give medical leave, sick leave, paid vacation – lol. She can be quite the b*tch ! :D .
Those years being a stay at home mom when my daughter was small were the right thing for my daughter, but financially? It was not the best thing. It’s a hard decision to make. I didn’t see the point of having a child if I was going to just leave every day, and not be there for her in her early years. I sacrificed quite a bit because of it.
August 5, 2013 at 3:56 pm #795377
JustSarahParticipantOK, sorry to veer off topic, but this pisses me off: “I didn’t see the point of having a child if I was going to just leave every day, and not be there for her in her early years.” That is an incredibly insulting implication about working parents. My husband and I both work full-time outside the home, and thus we “leave [our son] every day” with loving, competent caregivers in a group of his own peers. Somehow, we manage to still “be there” for him. I’ve yet to forget to pick him up from daycare, and he’s yet to forget who I am. He still gives us big smiles, snuggles, and he still willingly nurses from me. It’s miraculous, isn’t it?
August 5, 2013 at 4:21 pm #795378
JustSarahParticipantAs for the topic at hand, my solution would be either compulsory savings programs through employers (WITH employer contributions!) or defined-benefit programs. Unfortunately, defined-benefit accounts are practically nonexistent these days, except from some public/government employers. Most companies/corporations/non-profits do offer retirement account options, usually as 401(k) or 403(b) accounts, but most do not require employee contributions, and even fewer kick in any money without the employee also contributing. Some do. Ideally, employers would be required to pay a certain percentage of an employee’s salary into a retirement account, and possibly to require employees to do the same.
What’s amazing about 401(k) contributions is, in most cases, a middle-class or higher employee won’t even really notice the lowered take-home pay that comes with having 401(k) contributions diverted off their paychecks, especially since those contributions reduce taxable income. Most importantly, that money–even if it’s a small amount–grows exponentially over the years.
I don’t agree with many of WF’s opinions, but am largely on the same page as him here. People who can afford to save should do so. To those who cannot afford to save, and there definitely are many in our country thanks to many factors, it’s not fair to have to share a limited pot of SS money with those who could have taken responsibility and socked away some money over the 40+ years of their working lives.
Here’s a compound interest calculator to illustrate how important saving is, especially early on: http://investor.gov/tools/calculators/compound-interest-calculator
August 5, 2013 at 4:30 pm #795379
JoBParticipantsarah..
defined benefit programs are what created our parent’s retirement… the model that many of us now expect to follow.
those have been repeatedly wiped out in reorganization bankruptcies..
lost in this exchange are the people who planned for their retirements by accepting lesser wages in lieu of defined benefit retirement programs and found themselves devastated when their already profitable companies dumped their pension obligations in reorganization bankruptcies.
was it their fault for not saving more?
i know career airline pilots.. once the gold standard for well planned retirements… who are struggling to meet their basic needs.
Their mandatory retirement age leaves one of those infamous donut holes between retirement and social security that they had planned to fill with the pensions they earned.
You can’t have it both ways.
if we value corporate profits above employer contracts then we leave those who depended upon those contracts for their retirement nowhere to turn but the public dole.
August 5, 2013 at 4:34 pm #795380
JanSParticipantSarah…I was talking about myself, and how I felt at the time. I wasn’t talking about anyone else, nor implicating those who choose to work are any less than good parents. It was how I felt at the time. I AM allowed to have feelings you might disagree with. I was not trying to insult anyone else. So sorry you took offense.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.