Small social security for those of us who were SAHMs...........

[CathyA]

I worked occasionally while in college, then worked 60 hours/week for awhile in my 20's. Then I worked until I was 37, when I had my first child. I didn't go back to work after they moved out, (when I was almost 60.....mostly because of my health problems.) We were lucky enough to live a decent life on just DH's salary. (but we were also paying for my mother's condo/utilities.

So......my social security will be pretty small. When I was raising the kids, my feet hit the floor running at 5:30a.m. and didn't stop until 11 p.m. It was the hardest job I ever had, and I feel like they are great people because of the work I put into it.

I know a lot of women have to hold down a full-time job in today's expensive world, even though they would love to be stay-at-home moms. But it seems like SAHMs should get something out of raising great children. But this would be difficult, because there might be people who have tons of kids, but have nothing done very little to raise them well and aren't putting good citizens into the world.

I'm just a little bummed because I don't have much of anything monetarily to contribute in our retirement. I wonder how some other societies deal with this? Is it always essentially the same as how the U.S. does it?

[Ultralight]

Very interesting topic...

Most women think they have raised great kids. Heck, my own mom thinks she did! ;)

But I would not say our society owes her anything for raising me -- now, my sis, maybe! haha

[ApatheticNoMore]

Well the system is unfair in lots of ways, for instance if you never marry you will likely receive much less than if you have a spouses benefits as well as whatever you contributed, and even some survivor benefits when the spouse dies I believe. So the spouses benefits really strongly biases the system against those who never marry. Single woman are actually a demographic category that is quite likely to end up in poverty (woman usually earning less than men (year after year) contributes to that, of course). So SAHM may actually make off much better than women who never marry.

Retirement benefits in many countries in general do seem higher than in the U.S.. Social security isn't much of an income (mind you better to take it than work till 90 or some silliness, but still).

[Ultralight]

Now I realize that I am treading on very thin ice here but I am not so sure being a mom is a job. Now, it is obviously work. But a job?

Imagine I decide to build my own house. I quit my day job to focus on building my house. It makes the neighborhood look better (in my eyes). And I work really hard building it all day every day. Does society owe me for something for building it? Should I get social security credits for the time I spent building my house?

With that said... I do not think anyone should live in poverty especially not during old age. So there needs to be a proper social safety net for everyone.

[kib]

SS in its current form is not about improving the world, thanking people for their efforts to build a better society, or even keeping the aged safe and out of poverty. It's about paying people back for their forced ponzi scheme investment. All hell will break loose if people who put in aren't compensated, and mismanagement of funds means the only way to pay them what's been promised is to keep the system going. I wonder how much it would cost to simply pay people back what they put in plus 10%, grandfather in those who are already collecting or close to it, and shut it down to further "investors".

ETA: I agree that we have a responsibility to give reasonable quality of life to our old and infirm. But SS isn't cutting it.

[Teacher Terry]

I was a SAHM for many years but I consider that to be the choice I made & I knew that financially I would suffer for it. I could have chosen differently. I will have to ask my DIL how it is done in Europe. Her Mom worked very little but I believe still gets a government check.

[jp1]

SS in its current form is not about improving the world, thanking people for their efforts to build a better society, or even keeping the aged safe and out of poverty. It's about paying people back for their forced ponzi scheme investment. All hell will break loose if people who put in aren't compensated, and mismanagement of funds means the only way to pay them what's been promised is to keep the system going. I wonder how much it would cost to simply pay people back what they put in plus 10%, grandfather in those who are already collecting or close to it, and shut it down to further "investors".

ETA: I agree that we have a responsibility to give reasonable quality of life to our old and infirm. But SS isn't cutting it.

But without social security, what about anyone who was planning to retire in 2009 or 2010. Or right after the 2001 downturn, or the next downturn. There'd be a whole lot of old people eating cat food if we'd all been responsible for managing our retirement funding entirely on our own. I agree that social security is imperfect, but it's not horrible. And the pay as you go nature of it where current workers payments into it pay out to current retirees is an intentional feature, not a bug. The republicans would've probably killed it by now otherwise.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I don't see a better alternative than government funding for retirement in the modern world. People should manage their own investments, but even if everyone carefully and frugally saved for retirement (and never mind some people really don't make enough), even if everyone avoided 401ks with too high fees (hard to do when the government OVERWHELMINGLY tax advantages them! the tax advantages are huge), the social choice has been made (but not by the voters) that interest rates on safe investments should be lower than inflation. And non-safe investments (like the stock market mostly) are far more a Ponzi scheme than social security will EVER be. The government pretty much can fund social security if it wants to, but the stock market really is pretty manipulated and the government is floating it anyway with QE! It is way better for the government to have a real retirement plan than be backstopping everyone's 401k! I'm sympathetic to arguments that all markets are rigged.

Without anything else people will resort to age old ways of providing for their retirement, mostly having a gaggle of kids that are expected to support the 'rents in their old age. Even if some old people are in great shape and should work, there's insufficient jobs even for the young people that employers usually prefer to hire over the oldsters.

[kib]

I'm a socialist at heart. I don't think SS pays enough. Which is part of the reason I'm always advocating for some overhaul of 'the big picture". Society obviously (or apparently) can't afford to shovel more money into SS. Which, to me, means we need a different way of looking at how we live, and perhaps the government needs to step and help those who can't afford to live safely, in a way that fits the resources we do have available. Some senior centers seem to have it right, but for the most part they charge exorbitant fees.

[jp1]

Society could afford to shovel more money into social security, but we choose not to. Mainly because politicians have convinced enough voters that if we put more money into social security then the terrorists will win. Or something. So we continue to throw a trillion dollars per year down the toilet of the military industrial complex. Perhaps a campaign around the theme of "shooting ourselves in the foot" would be a suitable metaphor to help people see all the things that we don't have enough money for because we're so obsessed with the concept that scary brown people all want to come attack us.

[Chicken lady]

I was a SAHM. You get terrific kids. If you have terrific kids you probably don't have to worry about eating cat food in your old age. I have already chosen the one I'm going to live with - the boy. He wants my farm. His sisters are all for it. They say they will send him checks to keep me so I don't come to their houses.

[nswef]

You made me laugh Chicken Lady. No kids here, so we're on our own. I worry about it sometimes, but then decide I just can't.

[freshstart]

Well the system is unfair in lots of ways, for instance if you never marry you will likely receive much less than if you have a spouses benefits as well as whatever you contributed, and even some survivor benefits when the spouse dies I believe. So the spouses benefits really strongly biases the system against those who never marry. Single woman are actually a demographic category that is quite likely to end up in poverty (woman usually earning less than men (year after year) contributes to that, of course). So SAHM may actually make off much better than women who never marry.


I tend to agree with this because of the spousal benefits and even if you divorce, if it's after 10 yrs, you can still get those spousal benefits. Single people get none of that and I agree women earn less, so single women on SS have no back up (as in a spouse, a dead spouse or a divorced spouse or a disabled spouse). They didn't have kids to raise but that doesn't mean they didn't work as much. I know single women, working out of the home moms and SAHMs is a huge hot button topic. I am (well, now I am disabled), I was a part time nurse for a short time and right back to full time after a divorce. I agree SAHMs work their butts off but so do working moms because they come to the same amount of work that was there when they left. Both work- hard and constant kid care overtime, before collapsing in bed. But that doesn't mean a single woman, no kids who works has it easier. Yet SS wise, is it the single woman who fares the worst in general, including divorced singles who did not reach the magic 10 yr mark? Hmmm, I have to look that up.

[iris lily]

I worked occasionally while in college, then worked 60 hours/week for awhile in my 20's. Then I worked until I was 37, when I had my first child. I didn't go back to work after they moved out, (when I was almost 60.....mostly because of my health problems.) We were lucky enough to live a decent life on just DH's salary. (but we were also paying for my mother's condo/utilities.

So......my social security will be pretty small. When I was raising the kids, my feet hit the floor running at 5:30a.m. and didn't stop until 11 p.m. It was the hardest job I ever had, and I feel like they are great people because of the work I put into it.

I know a lot of women have to hold down a full-time job in today's expensive world, even though they would love to be stay-at-home moms. But it seems like SAHMs should get something out of raising great children. But this would be difficult, because there might be people who have tons of kids, but have nothing done very little to raise them well and aren't putting good citizens into the world.

I'm just a little bummed because I don't have much of anything monetarily to contribute in our retirement. I wonder how some other societies deal with this? Is it always essentially the same as how the U.S. does it?

You know you have several options using your husband's SS, right?

[lessisbest]

It's interesting how each situation is different. We just had a pow-wow at the SS Office in preparation for hubby when he turns 65 next summer and working out when to retire (or semi-retire).

I worked "jobs" briefly before I was married and only a small amount after marriage, so I was basically a SAHM. BUT, I successfully ran a number of home-based businesses under my husband's SS#, and that was a good income strategy and a great tax deduction for us. I never worked out in the big world enough to earn work credits for SS benefits, but this worked as a benefit to me because I will now receive 50% of what my husband will receive, which is a much larger amount than if I would have worked enough to get the work credits.

I also did one more smart thing.... As soon as unemployed homemakers were allowed to open IRA retirement accounts, I did just that and max it out each year. I've also been a great home economist - we are debt free (including our home) and we actually have $$$ in the bank, as well as investments that will yield more income than what a small SS check would have been. AND, that money will go to our heirs, unlike Social Security.

[Ultralight]

As someone who is always skeptical of our government and its ability to do right by us, the citizens, I would like to suggest an idea for single women on social security: Team up with each other!

I was part of a group here in C-bus exploring a variety of co-housing options. Some people wanted to form communes, others wanted to form "intentional communities," others just wanted room mates.

But what I saw that was quite remarkable was that women, either having just retired or who were on the verge of retirement, decided to become housemates to conserve their cash. They were either lifelong singles ("old maids?") or they had divorced ages ago. Some had grown kids and some were child free.

Out of all the people in this group these women were the only ones to find the co-housing situation they were looking for! So this can work.

I also agree with Chicken Lady's point. When someone chooses to be a SAHM (or D!) then they kind of put faith in their spouse and their kids to be their providers in old age. Now, a woman's husband can seem all fine and dandy and then when the kids go off to college he runs off with some 26 year old blonde and then half the wife's plan for retirement falls apart. The opposite can happen, in middle age the wife may decide to become a "Cougar" and ditch her worn out, haggard, hard-working husband for some hard-body young men she meets at the local bar. Though she can probably still get spousal support from her ex in either situation. The women I know who got divorced made out like bandits. One gets $30k a year until 67. Another gets $50k a year until 65, for examples. With that kind of money coming in for literally decades you'd figure they could open up a nice IRA and fund it well!

But the kids thing is a different story. If you were a really good, caring parent. Then your kids will help take care of you.

I have strict limits on how much I would help my parents in old age. But they both have fairly decent retirements, so I don't worry about it.

[Aqua Blue]

An even worse situation is when your ex spouse opted out of SS and you took low paying dead end jobs so he could advance in his career. Ask me how I know! The SAHM in my circle of friends all had husbands who were high earners(otherwise they probably couldn't have afforded to be SAHM) and so !/2 of their husbands SS is way more than my SS.

[Williamsmith]

I won't get social security and because the wife didn't work during the child raising years due to my frequent absence from the home, she won't get much either. I will never receive a cost of living adjustment. The pension I had five years ago will be the very same I get if I live to be 90. The only supplemental income will be as a result of work...usually at or just above minimum wage.

those were my choices. I am proud of what I chose to do. I have no regrets. My children support me. I support them. We support each other. One succeeds we all do. One suffers we all chip in. That's social security to me.

[Ultralight]

Okay, so really tough question here.

Do you think it is a parent's right to ask their kids to support them?

[flowerseverywhere]

I think SS is an incredibly generous system, trying to help those who are disabled, stay at home parents, divorced, widowed. The average benefit is $1300 per month. The minimum benefit, even if you put the minimum in for the minimum time is $804. It is a supplemental program.

[Ultralight]

I think SS is an incredibly generous system, trying to help those who are disabled, stay at home parents, divorced, widowed. The average benefit is $1300 per month. The minimum benefit, even if you put the minimum in for the minimum time is $804. It is a supplemental program.

The minimum benefit is $804 a month? Is that for real? Can you explain... ?

[pinkytoe]

Do you think it is a parent's right to ask their kids to support them?
This is such a hard question. Right now, we are dealing with DH's elderly parents and I am not real happy with their lack of planning. They are in very poor health and even though they have the money, they refuse to consider moving from their home into assisted living. This is making their children responsible for figuring out how to keep them fed and safe. Personally, if its possible, I would prefer not to make my children responsible for me financially or otherwise. That being said, it really depends on individual situations - but never out of guilt or a sense of "I raised you, now you take care of me."

[jp1]

http://www.amazon.com/Get-Whats-Yours-Secrets-Security/dp/1476772290/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1442500351&sr=1-1&keywords=get+what%27s+yours

Everyone should probably read this book. It's perhaps a bit in the weeds at times but they provide a detailed explanation of how your benefit is calculated, and explain all the various permutations of who can claim spousal benefits and survivor benefits. When you should file. How to decide whether to defer, etc.

[Ultralight]

This is such a hard question. Right now, we are dealing with DH's elderly parents and I am not real happy with their lack of planning. They are in very poor health and even though they have the money, they refuse to consider moving from their home into assisted living. This is making their children responsible for figuring out how to keep them fed and safe. Personally, if its possible, I would prefer not to make my children responsible for me financially or otherwise. That being said, it really depends on individual situations - but never out of guilt or a sense of "I raised you, now you take care of me."

When I was a kid and a teenager and I got in disagreements or arguments with my mom she would say things like: "Do what I tell you! You owe me big time! I gave you life!"

That always struck me as totally misguided...

[ApatheticNoMore]

Do you think it is a parent's right to ask their kids to support them?

no, no and Heck no. Usually it is the case that they chose to have kids, kids did not choose to be born. So the kids supporting their parents is incredibly thorny (and let's be honest some kids had not just run of the mill bad parents, but horribly abusive parents that noone could blame them if they don't keep contact with). And having such kids support their parents is supposed to be some kind of alternative to social security?

Now the question might be would I personally support my surviving parent, and the answer is I might want to, but I probably could do little if I wanted to because I'm just not that super financially successful despite (or maybe because!) of having taken whatever jobs I could for what I do have (and anyway they waste it all on an irresponsible sibling of mine - they are heading more and more into bankruptcy all the time because of this irresponsible siblings spending, and there is little I can do). Yes, they should have saved the money for their old age, but if they were gong to spend it they would have got far greater return on investment on putting that money into me! So I could see some kids chip into for food or electricity if the parents were eating cat food or the lights were shut off, but most people being able to support much more than? Too hard to keep oneself solvent.


When I was a kid and a teenager and I got in disagreements or arguments with my mom she would say things like: "Do what I tell you! You owe me big time! I gave you life!"

then it probably comes out years later, you were an "oopsie!", condoms break sometimes see ....

[Ultralight]

no, no and Heck no. Usually it is the case that they chose to have kids, kids did not choose to be born. So the kids supporting their parents is incredibly thorny (and let's be honest some kids had not just run of the mill bad parents, but horribly abusive parents that noone could blame them if they don't keep contact with). And having such kids support their parents is supposed to be some kind of alternative to social security?

Now the question might be would I personally support my surviving parent, and the answer is I might want to, but I probably could do little if I wanted to because I'm just not that super financially successful despite having fought all my life for what I do have (and anyway they waste it all on an irresponsible sibling of mine - they are heading more and more into bankruptcy all the time because of this irresponsible siblings spending, and there is little I can do). Yes, they should have saved the money for their old age, but if they were gong to spend it they would have got far greater return on investment on putting that money into me!



then it probably comes out years later, you were an "oopsie!", condoms break sometimes see ....


HAhaha! No, my parents were very deliberate about having both me and my sister.

When my mom would try to guilt me into doing things by saying she "gave" me life, I would do like you said above. I'd assert that I did not ask to be born. She would really tick her off. haha

[iris lilies]

The minimum benefit is $804 a month? Is that for real? Can you explain... ?
Please explain your incredulity.what are your assumptions?

[Ultralight]

Please explain your incredulity.what are your assumptions?

Well, I am still very new to financial literacy. I was hoping you'd bestow some knowledge on me about this. Up until 2 years ago I was completely and totally financially illiterate (the only thing I knew was credit cards were bad for someone like me). So that should give you an idea of my ignorance. I am well over $150k in debt for student loans.

I am just now starting to look into understanding things like SS, 401k, IRA, etc. $804 sounds like a lot of money for the government to just give you. I have exactly 40 SS credits from my previous jobs. My current job does not contribute to SS.

[Teacher Terry]

I do not think kids should have to support their parents. It is the parents responsibility to take care of themselves & live on what they have. If kids want to help that is great. After my grandfather died his pension died with him & my grandma had little to live on. She went into a low income senior apartment but after her bills, meds little was left so the 3 siblings all kicked in to give her $ every month. They wanted to help & she never asked & actually hated that they needed to help. I will never ask my kids for $ or to live with them. They have their own lives to live.

[kib]

Do they still send out annual SS statements for non-retired people? "If you kept working a this rate for x more years, you'd be entitled to a benefit of $?" I haven't gotten one in a long time, maybe they only send one if you've contributed during that tax year? Or not at all any more? I'd like to know what "my number" is currently. How would I find out?

[flowerseverywhere]

The minimum benefit is $804 a month? Is that for real? Can you explain... ?


http://www.ssa.gov/retirementpolicy/program/special-minimum.html

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/tableForm.html

is that not how you would interpret this?

[flowerseverywhere]

Do they still send out annual SS statements for non-retired people? "If you kept working a this rate for x more years, you'd be entitled to a benefit of $?" I haven't gotten one in a long time, maybe they only send one if you've contributed during that tax year? Or not at all any more? I'd like to know what "my number" is currently. How would I find out?
Instructions are on the SS site.

[flowerseverywhere]

Well, I am still very new to financial literacy. I was hoping you'd bestow some knowledge on me about this. Up until 2 years ago I was completely and totally financially illiterate (the only thing I knew was credit cards were bad for someone like me). So that should give you an idea of my ignorance. I am well over $150k in debt for student loans.

I am just now starting to look into understanding things like SS, 401k, IRA, etc. $804 sounds like a lot of money for the government to just give you. I have exactly 40 SS credits from my previous jobs. My current job does not contribute to SS.

No better time to start to educate yourself than now. Go to the SS government site and full explanations are there for all benefits. Of course, they keep saying things will change so take the info with a big grain of salt.

Go to Ed Slotts website. He is an IRA expert.

Check out Clark Howard's website.

Read ad the articles on the vanguard and fidelity websites.

Go go to your library and get finance books for dummies out Look around the personal finance section of your library and read all the books you can.

if your library has money magazine get that out and read it every month.

As as the months go by, even if you read a few articles a week you will gain more and more understanding of how things work. Then work on rectifying your past money mistakes and prevent yourself from making new ones. Dig yourself out one shovelful at a time. People here have gotten rid of enormous amounts of debt by sheer perseverance, hard work and sacrifice.

[Zoe Girl]

i get those, i was married for 14 years, i don't know if there is any benefit to 15 vs 10 but my ex got things settled with me 2 months before 15 years (fine with me). i get a few retirement benefits but my statement only includes my earnings.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Do they still send out annual SS statements for non-retired people? "If you kept working a this rate for x more years, you'd be entitled to a benefit of $?" I haven't gotten one in a long time, maybe they only send one if you've contributed during that tax year? Or not at all any more? I'd like to know what "my number" is currently. How would I find out?

they send them out, but only really infrequently now (used to be every year).

And my company misreported my income last year so now it's like if you make and continue to make some really high salary you have never made you will receive x a month. Well thank you, but what will I receive with my real salary? I am trying to straighten it out with them, the unfortunate part is that while the Social Security Administration are pretty easy to deal with, this screw up has also probably gotten reported to the IRS which is not.

[Teacher Terry]

ZG: when you are old enough to collect you can have your benefits figured out both ways-your own SS or your part of your exhusband's & take which is higher. A friend of mine did that. It does not matter whether you were married 10 or 15 years. It also does not hurt what your ex gets either. They still get the same amount whether you collect on their's or not. I think SS should be raised & that they should quit raising the full retirement age. We should spend less on the military and more on SS.

[Ultralight]

No better time to start to educate yourself than now. Go to the SS government site and full explanations are there for all benefits. Of course, they keep saying things will change so take the info with a big grain of salt.

Go to Ed Slotts website. He is an IRA expert.

Check out Clark Howard's website.

Read ad the articles on the vanguard and fidelity websites.

Go go to your library and get finance books for dummies out Look around the personal finance section of your library and read all the books you can.

if your library has money magazine get that out and read it every month.

As as the months go by, even if you read a few articles a week you will gain more and more understanding of how things work. Then work on rectifying your past money mistakes and prevent yourself from making new ones. Dig yourself out one shovelful at a time. People here have gotten rid of enormous amounts of debt by sheer perseverance, hard work and sacrifice.

I am working on all these things! I do have a very small Roth IRA, a 401k type thing at my job, and another 401k (very tiny) from a previous employer. I am rolling the tiny one into my current one via my current employer.

I read lots of books on frugality -- like Jeff Yeager's books. I wanted to figure out ways to curb my spending and pay my bills (and keep them low!) first, then figure out the complex world of retirement vehicles and such later. I am not mathy (liberal arts guy here!). So learning the ponzi schemes is hard for me!

[iris lilies]

...
I am just now starting to look into understanding things like SS, 401k, IRA, etc. $804 sounds like a lot of money for the government to just give you. I have exactly 40 SS credits from my previous jobs. My current job does not contribute to SS.
a-ha! I couldn't tell if you thought this isn't much money or it is craploads of money.

SS is a nice benefit, but those who think they should be able to live on it are naive. Isn't your 40 credits the magic number? At least it is now, but it could change. I got this information from:

http://www.ssa.gov/planners/credits.html#&a0=1

[kib]

they send them out, but only really infrequently now (used to be every year).

And my company misreported my income last year so now it's like if you make and continue to make some really high salary you have never made you will receive x a month. Well thank you, but what will I receive with my real salary? I am trying to straighten it out with them, the unfortunate part is that while the Social Security Administration are pretty easy to deal with, this screw up has also probably gotten reported to the IRS which is not.
Ugh yeah. I occasionally think that I ought to go back and clean up every small scale mistake I ever made with the IRS, but it turns my hair gray to imagine how much effort and chaos that might create. I do mean small scale, like "wait a minute, I forgot to take a deduction for this in 2008, but in 2012 I think I missed a month's rental income". Can't imagine how much worse it would be if it was a large error.

I often wonder about SS, when I worked I made a very good salary but I haven't earned money like that for 15 years, so, precisely, what if I receive my real salary, which is currently $0? I'll go check out the website and see what I can find out. Thanks Flowerseverywhere!

[iris lilies]

Ugh yeah. I occasionally think that I ought to go back and clean up every small scale mistake I ever made with the IRS, but it turns my hair gray to imagine how much effort and chaos that might create. I do mean small scale, like "wait a minute, I forgot to take a deduction for this in 2008, but in 2012 I think I missed a month's rental income". Can't imagine how much worse it would be if it was a large error.

I often wonder about SS, when I worked I made a very good salary but I haven't earned money like that for 15 years, so, precisely, what if I receive my real salary, which is currently $0? I'll go check out the website and see what I can find out. Thanks Flowerseverywhere!

They figure your SS haul based on your highest earning years, that is of course the years you paid into SS.

I didn't start paying attention to this stuff until around the year 2011 when I hated my job and was looking at how to get out. Besides age 55 was always kinda the bakc-of-my-mind goal to retire. Then my job got better and fun for a couple of years so I backed off leaving.

DH is the guy who has to figure out his SS scheme. My salary has always been quite a bit higher than his, so he is planning to use my SS in some fashion, especially when I am dead. Not kidding here, that's his plan. But if both of us were to draw SS next year (and I am planning to go on that gubmnt teat) it is odd that his isn't significantly lower than mine, I think it's around 15% lower.

[Teacher Terry]

SS was meant to be 1 leg of a 3 legged stool. The other 2 were your pension & your savings. Now very few people get pensions.

[kib]

I just ran the estimator. They did ask for my SS# and the number was bigger than $840 so I guess they're considering my personal scenario. On the other hand, changing my estimated per year earnings between now and retirement age from $0 to $25000 didn't move the numbers one bit.

... Funny, it doesn't look like a whole lot, but OTOH, I still know how to live on the amount they predict. Of course I don't know how realistic that would be 15 years from now, but I find the number, small as it is, reassuring. ... assuming the number has some basis in reality. Sigh.

Question I'm sure has been asked a thousand times: are you going to take the minimum when you hit 62, or wait it out?

[Ultralight]

I looked at my earnings record. Wow... so all over the place since my first job in 1997! haha

As recently as 2007 and 2009 I made zero dollars -- no income for those years.

[Tammy]

I would never ask my kids to support me. I would offer things like renting a room from them at half the cost of normal rent. Then we both benefit.

[iris lilies]

I looked at my earnings record. Wow... so all over the place since my first job in 1997! haha

As recently as 2007 and 2009 I made zero dollars -- no income for those years.

So you must have been racking up that $150,000. I have to ask, why are you doing nothing with your MLS degree? I would think that many of those jobs quality for student debt forgiveness in public service.

[Ultralight]

I would never ask my kids to support me. I would offer things like renting a room from them at half the cost of normal rent. Then we both benefit.

Do you expect it to come to this?

[Ultralight]

So you must have been racking up that $150,000. I have to ask, why are you doing nothing with your MLS degree? I would think that many of those jobs quality for student debt forgiveness in public service.

I am a researcher for a public university. So I am using my MLIS. And I am one year into the ten needed for public service loan forgiveness.

I was racking up debt back then, for some of those years. But I was also just living on a shoestring budget. I have never had many wants or a big lust for expensive things.

[iris lilies]

...Question I'm sure has been asked a thousand times: are you going to take the minimum when you hit 62, or wait it out?

I am taking SS at age 62, that's next year. DH will likely wait longer. He will likely live longer.

I don't worry about squeezing every penny out of SS because we purposely saved lots of money to spend it now. HAHA, that is, I am trying very hard not to "worry" because when we look at our net worth statement, as we do only 1X annually, it will be down not even counting market activity. Yeah, it's not a big deal, yeah, my stash is disappearing, who me worry? :) While those 4% draw down projections are nice, I don't have an idea if that's reasonable for us or not, and it is not (I keep telling myself) my life's goal to preserve the capital.

[Tammy]

I don't. That's my worst case scenario.

I have a 4 legged stool:

SS
Az state retirement system
IRAs
1/4 of an Ohio farm

If two legs collapse I will still be ok

My goal is to have inheritance to give my 3 kids - rather than having them pay for me

[Ultralight]

I don't. That's my worst case scenario.

I have a 4 legged stool:

SS
Az state retirement system
IRAs
1/4 of an Ohio farm

If two legs collapse I will still be ok

My goal is to have inheritance to give my 3 kids - rather than having them pay for me

You are on point!!

[kib]

Good point, Iris Lily. I'm always trying to squeeze the last penny out of everything, and sometimes I step back and realize it's making me insane. Very interesting info about the spousal benefit. Think I'll have to start cracking the whip and getting DH's salary up! ;)

And I know what you mean about the net worth business. After so many years, it's so ingrained that the reflection of doing the right thing is seeing that number go up every year. Even if the numbers look really good, if they don't look better, it's scary. I remind myself of the same thing, my goal is to come in at zero, there is no one counting on me for inheritance. ... and yet I still feel a bit nervous and depressed when the number goes down.

[Float On]

Do they still send out annual SS statements for non-retired people? "If you kept working a this rate for x more years, you'd be entitled to a benefit of $?" I haven't gotten one in a long time, maybe they only send one if you've contributed during that tax year? Or not at all any more? I'd like to know what "my number" is currently. How would I find out?

I was just thinking that same thing while reading this thread. Haven't seen one of those letters in more than 7 years so I went to the site to pull one up. I always enjoyed seeing what I earned for each year. Nice to have my whole earning history in one spot. Loved those 0 (zero) years of raising babies. Other notables: My first real full-time/benefits job was also the first year I was married. I can also see where I changed jobs to only working part-time to prep for having babies (didn't know it would take me years to get pregnant though). My best year 2006: everything was just peachy in the economy and we were doing great....and then DH had medical problems, we scaled back so couldn't pay ourselves as much, big drop between in the 08/09 years and I can see exactly when the economy tanked for us. Nice to see it building back up since then.

[Float On]

No better time to start to educate yourself than now. Go to the SS government site and full explanations are there for all benefits. Of course, they keep saying things will change so take the info with a big grain of salt.

Go to Ed Slotts website. He is an IRA expert.

Check out Clark Howard's website.

Read ad the articles on the vanguard and fidelity websites.

Go go to your library and get finance books for dummies out Look around the personal finance section of your library and read all the books you can.

if your library has money magazine get that out and read it every month.

As as the months go by, even if you read a few articles a week you will gain more and more understanding of how things work. Then work on rectifying your past money mistakes and prevent yourself from making new ones. Dig yourself out one shovelful at a time. People here have gotten rid of enormous amounts of debt by sheer perseverance, hard work and sacrifice.

Great tips, thanks!

[flowerseverywhere]

One more thing. Say you have a married couple. One worked lower paying jobs, took time off to have kids and their benefit is $900 per month. The spouse worked all the time, made more money and their benefit is $1800 per month. Wow, great you think. Over $30,000 per year is pretty darn good. If one spouse dies, the other only gets one amount, whichever is larger. So include that scenario in your long term planning.

Now Someone posted about a three legged stool for retirement. Savings, 401's and IRA's and pensions. Few have pensions as we know but in my mind there is a fourth leg. That is the skills you have to live at a lower level of spending or to generate income once you retire. I live in Florida and everywhere you go people are working part time jobs. In the grocery store and all kinds of places. There is a limit to how much you can make if you collect social security without them taking some of it back until a certain age. So if you can make say $150-200 per week, that could make the difference between being destitute and OK. Lots of things to consider. Educate yourself. No one is a better steward of your money or a better protector of your future than yourself. Plan for the worst and hope for the best.

[pinkytoe]

Our four-legged stool as a married couple:
SS at 62 (Apparently I stayed out of the full time workforce too long as my benefit is only around 1K)
Savings/IRA/401Ks
My pension (which passes to dh if I go first)
Part-time work to fall under earnings limit( at least for 3-4 years after "retirement"

[flowerseverywhere]

Just one more thing. We live in a society where we are subject to constant brainwashing by advertisements and the media. Somehow we are made to think we need to eat out, drive a shiny car, save a few million for retirement and take exotic vacations. The investment companies are constantly bombarding us with the message of how we need to save millions for retirement. We get the message over and over about old people eating cat food. Is that accurate?

Do you live in a paid for house? Can you live with one older car in retirement? Do you need new clothes and gadgets every few months. Is your idea of a fun time eating expensive restaurant food and drink? Each of these factors influence how much you need. You can take control of your life and start saving and decrease what you owe now. Don't give up. But above all, do not make assumptions of what you need and what you will get in retirement. The SS website has pages of explanations. Request a statement. Use their calculators to figure it out. If you are in a pension plan, find out exactly what you will get. Add up your debt and make a plan to pay it off. Decrease your debt to total debt free living. Credit cards are your enemy unless you pay them off each month. Don't eat out or buy a new car. Live simply and you will be more secure for it.

[kib]

To the OP: Cathy, FlowersEverywhere raises a good point: your spousal benefit is your own payout OR half what your husband will receive, whichever is more. Which is, yeah, half, but that's still 1/3 of the total SS income the two of you will get. So in a way, you are being compensated for being a SAHM, albeit at half his salary.

[freshstart]

As someone who is always skeptical of our government and its ability to do right by us, the citizens, I would like to suggest an idea for single women on social security: Team up with each other!


But the kids thing is a different story. If you were a really good, caring parent. Then your kids will help take care of you.


single women who worked from 22-65, who likely have houses with equity, do not all want to gain a roommate in retirement because they get less from SS. And they should get enough so they do not have to do this to survive. We don't ask this of other types of groups of retired folks. I do not want a new roommate now or when I retire for the sole reason of SS and finances. Of course, women should have other retirement savings, but if it is true that this is the group with the lowest SS benefit, that sucks. A women is penalized for not marrying or not marrying for 10 yrs and can thus use ex's SS, for not being a SAHM and able to collect on spousal SS, she has worked 43 yrs and she gets screwed. That sucks, it really sucks.

I respect SAHMs, believe they should be getting SS based on husband's, but why are they still called SAHMs once the kids hit 18? You have your kid at 25, stay home for 18 yrs, well, you are only 43 when child is launched. That's young enough to use your degree or get a degree and work. If you choose to be a homemaker from the end of child rearing until hitting 65, over 22 yrs with no out of the home income, why should you get more than a single women working full time for 43 years? 22 years of homemaking, while not easy, it is easier than child rearing or working full time. Single women could never choose to not work for22 years of homemaking.

If you raised your children well they will care for you in old age? I can't tell if you are being tongue in cheek here. More than 20 yrs as a nurse practicing in the home, I can anecdotally speak to this. It happens but it is the Holy Grail to have kids who are able and willing to take on parental needs. Kids are scattered all over the country, they can get unpaid FMLA for 3 mos but have to return at the end to keep their jobs. Ideally, there are siblings who can rotate doing this. Or the kids take the parents in or move in with them. And if they can do none of this, they chip in to hire others to help. That scenario happens but it is not the norm. The real story is they can't or are unwilling to come home, don't have the money to help hire, or they live around the corner but will do nothing. Siblings with long histories of a feud, that only escalates when they need to step up to help parents, which is distressing to the parents. Terminal illness more often brings kids home. But most of the elderly are just struggling with things they cannot do effectively anymore; drive, shovel, clean house, shop and cook, etc. That can last a good ten years, it's an extraordinary family that can manage this.

[iris lilies]

I am a researcher for a public university. So I am using my MLIS.


Ah, excellent! None of my business but I like to know.

[Tradd]

I doubt I will have a house, period. My area (suburban Chicago) is too expensive for me to buy on my own. I'm 46 and working on paying down debt ($8K on credit card and then a car loan). I just bumped my 401K contribution to 8% because I'm seeing my retirement staring me in the face and I better start saving more. I've no desire to have a roommate! I love living on my own! My two retirement accounts ($43K IRA which was a 401K rollover from a previous employer and $10K 401K at current employer) are in Vanguard Target Retirement funds. I plan to retire at 70 or over. I have an office job, and as long as I keep updating my skills, I should be able to work as long as I like, especially if the job is something I could do from home.

[iris lilies]

I am reading this and thinking about all of the women who are choosing not to get married to the man in their household.


All of the rights bestowed on those who are married seem not to be important to this group. I can hardly wait for the whining that comes in decades down the road when they are not eligible for SS. Maybe I'm missing something here, but the financial perks that gay folks wanted seem unimportant to some heterosexuals. I wonder why that is? Beyond stupidity, I mean.

[frugal-one]

Reading this and people talking about working into their 70's.... yikes!! Many have health issues or.... as you age you do get more tired and it takes longer to get things done. Unrealistic in many cases???

[Tradd]

Reading this and people talking about working into their 70's.... yikes!! Many have health issues or.... as you age you do get more tired and it takes longer to get things done. Unrealistic in many cases???

I happen to enjoy working. I get bored when I'm home too long. My current job is pretty stressful, but I can move into other aspects of it that aren't quite so high stress. Even if I had health issues that limited mobility, etc., it's very possible to do this from home. It's highly computerized.

[jp1]

ZG: when you are old enough to collect you can have your benefits figured out both ways-your own SS or your part of your exhusband's & take which is higher. A friend of mine did that. It does not matter whether you were married 10 or 15 years. It also does not hurt what your ex gets either. They still get the same amount whether you collect on their's or not. I think SS should be raised & that they should quit raising the full retirement age. We should spend less on the military and more on SS.

ZG, the other thing you can do is collect based on your ex huband's as soon as eligible and then postpone collecting yours as long as possible. Your retirement benefit goes up significantly between early retirement at age 62 and full retirement at 67, and then continues to go up 8%/year for the next 3 years until age 70. If you can manage financially from just collecting as your ex's spouse for a bunch of years you'll be much better off for the rest of your life.

[jp1]

a-ha! I couldn't tell if you thought this isn't much money or it is craploads of money.

SS is a nice benefit, but those who think they should be able to live on it are naive. Isn't your 40 credits the magic number? At least it is now, but it could change. I got this information from:

http://www.ssa.gov/planners/credits.html#&a0=1

40 credits is the magic # to receive benefits. The actual benefit amount is based off of your average monthly wage of your highest 35 years of earnings, inflation adjusted to the time that you retire.

[iris lilies]

I happen to enjoy working. I get bored when I'm home too long. My current job is pretty stressful, but I can move into other aspects of it that aren't quite so high stress. Even if I had health issues that limited mobility, etc., it's very possible to do this from home. It's highly computerized.
Last night we had a small dinner party of seniors.We here are all seniors.:~)

Marilyn, Al, and David are working part time. They are ages 76, 79, and 75.

Janet is 66 and works full time.

All of them work primarily for money, although Mariyln said she would still be working full time because she enjoys it (she retired from full time work at 75) but basically, she wanted to give younger people an shot at her job. But they still call her to come in some days because people aren't trampling over themselves to take her job. A social worker in a hospital.

i don't really have a point, but it's relevant to this discussion. Janet is single and spend money like crazy, so her income stream is very wry important. David is single now, his gay partner died 6 years ago. He said that had they been legally married he would not have to work. But then, he chooses to live in a big Victorian house and he knows,that's a. IG expense.

[jp1]

I've no desire to have a roommate!

I don't either. I remember how unhappy you were the last time you had one...

[freshstart]

I don't either. I remember how unhappy you were the last time you had one...

I don't even want one in the nursing home. I would look at how small those rooms are for 2 people, each with a bed, a chair and a dresser. And you are stuck with each other, once she dies, then you get a new one and it costs 120k or some ridiculous amount. Yeah, no thanks. Leave me alone in small space somewhere without another 85 yr old staring at me all day, give me my dog, technology, visits from the Book Mobile I don't think we have, I'll get groceries delivered and die in peace.

it was funny going into nursing homes and the roommate would leave the room, my patient did not cry about dying or being in pain, being scared, none of that. It was full-on bitchfest about how she hated her roommate, hated feeling like she had to be polite and talk all day, hated the soap operas turned up so she could hear them. heard this more than once, "snores! All night. Half the day. I cannot take it, I'm putting a pillow over her face!" or "I'm holding her nose shut til she dies," and I had to explain that won't kill her, you have to cover her mouth, too. Got in the car and realized I may be an accessory to a murder! a justified murder, but still murder

[freshstart]

I am reading this and thinking about all of the women who are choosing not to get married to the man in their household.

.

you hear couples saying things like why do we need to be married but then go on to buy a house, have a kid, the woman stays home. She wouldn't be able to use his healthcare unless they at least registered at domestic partners. I can see why a couple who are not doing these things decide it's not for them. But if you end up together for many years, isn't that a lot of money left on the table? the tax breaks, lower insurance if they choose their partner's plan, etc.

[jp1]

I don't even want one in the nursing home. I would look at how small those rooms are for 2 people, each with a bed, a chair and a dresser. And you are stuck with each other, once she dies, then you get a new one and it costs 120k or some ridiculous amount. Yeah, no thanks. Leave me alone in small space somewhere without another 85 yr old staring at me all day, give me my dog, technology, visits from the Book Mobile I don't think we have, I'll get groceries delivered and die in peace.

it was funny going into nursing homes and the roommate would leave the room, my patient did not cry about dying or being in pain, being scared, none of that. It was full-on bitchfest about how she hated her roommate, hated feeling like she had to be polite and talk all day, hated the soap operas turned up so she could hear them. heard this more than once, "snores! All night. Half the day. I cannot take it, I'm putting a pillow over her face!" or "I'm holding her nose shut til she dies," and I had to explain that won't kill her, you have to cover her mouth, too. Got in the car and realized I may be an accessory to a murder! a justified murder, but still murder

It's funny, when my dad was in hospice care and we had to move him into a nursing him this was exactly what happened. Except there was no polite. He and his roommate both clearly hated each other and didn't hide it. My sister and I decided to spend the money to get him a private room for the last month of his life. He was still not happy (he was dying and really uncomfortable, so no surprise there) but at least he didn't have the stress of a hated roommate. And I don't blame him. After a lifetime of self sufficiency what an undignified way to spend the last month of one's life. Living in a tiny room with a stranger? No thanks.

All that said, my comment was specifically regarding Tradd and her last roomie experience that didn't work out well.

[ApatheticNoMore]

It is a bit distressing that decades of feminism since before I was even born and it often seems the best financial option for a woman is still to get hitched (EVEN IF she herself barely works. That the two full time DINK situation brings in a lot of money hardly needs explaining).

To the "will you take early withdrawal at 62 question?". I don't know, but my thoughts were 1) corporate America doesn't hire that many 62 year olds (it does hire some, so one could of course be one of the lucky ones ... or not). So it might not be a choice even given good health, although just working a part time low paid job might be an option 2) I'm not sure I'd be psychologically capable of not doing so, like I've hated work so many years that I'll be to the point that even avoiding poverty isn't worth another day of hatred by then probably: "Just give me my darn Social Security!"

[freshstart]

He was still not happy (he was dying and really uncomfortable, so no surprise there) but at least he didn't have the stress of a hated roommate. And I don't blame him. After a lifetime of self sufficiency what an undignified way to spend the last month of one's life. Living in a tiny room with a stranger? No thanks.

All that said, my comment was specifically regarding Tradd and her last roomie experience that didn't work out well.

I'm sorry about your dad, even if he didn't say it, changing him to his own room was a very kind act. Kept his privacy and dignity intact

[freshstart]

There are many depths you can sink to if it means getting your own room. A patient with dementia I had, staunch Catholic, volunteered her whole life, dressed nicely, the daughter wanted to make sure I believed this, I was like sure, fine, people change with dementia. Well, she sure did! She sat in the lobby and went to meals and activities, all the while calling the patients names they had probably never even heard before. At least every 20th word was obscene, coming out of this 4ft nothin' little, sweet old lady. She would greet me every time with"it's the perfect day for a murder. Yup, I can feel it, perfect day for a murder." And it was this simple line repeated all day long into patients' faces, and all night long to her roommate du jour, that she scored the best private room, because she scared the shit out of everyone. She was clever, that one. That will be my plan to get my own room!

[sweetana3]

My husband's grandmother was just plain nasty and would hit other residents with her metal cane. She got a room in the daylight basement but it was still the basement to the residents.

[iris lilies]

you hear couples saying things like why do we need to be married but then go on to buy a house, have a kid, the woman stays home. She wouldn't be able to use his healthcare unless they at least registered at domestic partners. I can see why a couple who are not doing these things decide it's not for them. But if you end up together for many years, isn't that a lot of money left on the table? the tax breaks, lower insurance if they choose their partner's plan, etc.

Unmarried parent-partners is a growing trend, and yes, I think they are leaving money on the table to impoverish themselves. For two adults without children, each working a careers, perhaps the financial perks of marriage are not worth giving up other freedoms. But for stay at home moms, it seems stupid to not get married.

National Review just had an article about "single moms" that discussed their financial data points. The moms who had been married at one time came out way ahead of the never married moms. Now, part of that could be cultural where never-married moms also do not have much education or interest/skills/success at working in a job. I've read elsewhere that marriage is becoming more of a social class marker. Those of higher education/salary get married and others may not. And marriage feeds the financial stability package.

[iris lilies]

It is a bit distressing that decades of feminism since before I was even born and it often seems the best financial option for a woman is still to get hitched (EVEN IF she herself barely works. That the two full time DINK situation brings in a lot of money hardly needs explaining).



According to the Millionaire Next Door, it's best for a man, too. A stable team pulling in the same direction will amass more wealth than in other relationship models.

[iris lilies]

I just ran the estimator. They did ask for my SS# and the number was bigger than $840 so I guess they're considering my personal scenario. On the other hand, changing my estimated per year earnings between now and retirement age from $0 to $25000 didn't move the numbers one bit.

... Funny, it doesn't look like a whole lot, but OTOH, I still know how to live on the amount they predict. Of course I don't know how realistic that would be 15 years from now, but I find the number, small as it is, reassuring. ... assuming the number has some basis in reality. Sigh.

Question I'm sure has been asked a thousand times: are you going to take the minimum when you hit 62, or wait it out?

Sorry, I was wrong in an earlier post. Or I think I was wrong. Don't take my word for anything!

According to my reading of the SSA site, they average your salary over all working years rather than taking the high earning years to determine the amount you get from SS.

[pinkytoe]

I am eligible to retire and receive a pension in December but am now starting to think I am way too young to be doing this - 61. Maybe I should work full-time a little longer since my salary goes straight into savings??? It's funny but so many people don't really grasp the financial implications of growing old until it is staring them in the face. I hear 40 and 50 year olds talk about how they plan to work full-time until they're 70 but the reality is that probably won't happen for most people. Bodies and employment situations change with every passing year. As things stand now with SS, I'm glad DD finally got hitched...but then again it may not be around when she needs it.

[JaneV2.0]

I took SS at 62, due to my execrable financial skills and lack of planning. With a small pension, it provides a reasonable living. The third leg of my stool is the equity in my house, which is not inconsiderable at the moment. I can comfortably downsize if and when I sell. I was fortunate to work in a non-traditional field whereby I was paid just like all the guys, so I didn't have to marry or (shudder) take on a roommate. I've never much liked work, so I retired at 47, blew through my savings, worked part time for a few years, and basically limped along until SS came along.

My idea of hell is an old-folks home, so i fervently hope I die before one becomes necessary.

[rodeosweetheart]

I took SS at 62, due to my execrable financial skills and lack of planning. With a small pension, it provides a reasonable living. The third leg of my stool is the equity in my house, which is not inconsiderable at the moment. I can comfortably downsize if and when I sell. I was fortunate to work in a non-traditional field whereby I was paid just like all the guys, so I didn't have to marry or (shudder) take on a roommate. I've never much liked work, so I retired at 47, blew through my savings, worked part time for a few years, and basically limped along until SS came along.

My idea of hell is an old-folks home, so i fervently hope I die before one becomes necessary.

Much as I detest the "like button"--I was in a seminar with a guy who claimed to have invented the "like button" with a team at Facebook, and believe it or not, he was still working the same crummy job as I am and not a kazilionaire, I really like your post Jane. Gosh, retired at 47--you are my hero.

[JaneV2.0]

Much as I detest the "like button"--I was in a seminar with a guy who claimed to have invented the "like button" with a team at Facebook, and believe it or not, he was still working the same crummy job as I am and not a kazilionaire, I really like your post Jane. Gosh, retired at 47--you are my hero.

Oh, I'm anything but heroic in my eyes. I'm at the contemplative stage now, and I can see the many ways I could have done much better. So much promise, so little delivery. But thank you.

[jp1]

My idea of hell is an old-folks home, so i fervently hope I die before one becomes necessary.

You could opt for this guy's plan and stop most medical care at age 75. I'm not sure I'd have the guts to follow through, but I have to admit, avoiding the long downward slog of really old age does kind of sound enticing.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/10/why-i-hope-to-die-at-75/379329/

[Teacher Terry]

That was an interesting read. When my Mom got her 3rd bout of cancer at 87 she should have refused treatment. She spent the last 2 1/2 years of her life very sick. I don't plan to collect my SS until I am 70. HOpefully, I will be able to continue to teach my online college class until then. I don't regret retiring from f.t. work at 58. At 61 now you never know how much time you have left. We have a paid for house & could always downsize to a condo or take a reverse mortgage if necessary. I don't care about leaving $ for my kids. Through the years we have helped them all as needed so I am good with that. I also will never be a burden to them, live with them etc. They have their own lives to enjoy.

[JaneV2.0]

You could opt for this guy's plan and stop most medical care at age 75. I'm not sure I'd have the guts to follow through, but I have to admit, avoiding the long downward slog of really old age does kind of sound enticing.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/10/why-i-hope-to-die-at-75/379329/

Although I haven't yet read the article (and I hope to live as long as I comfortably can, with a functional brain), I subscribe to Dr. Nortin Hadler's advice in The Last Well Person. He doesn't believe in overtreating everyone and everything, or most medicines. In practice, I haven't had seen a doctor in over twenty years. If I become mortally ill, I hope I have the grace to get my affairs in order, lie down, and die.

[freshstart]

I took SS at 62, due to my execrable financial skills and lack of planning. With a small pension, it provides a reasonable living. The third leg of my stool is the equity in my house, which is not inconsiderable at the moment. I can comfortably downsize if and when I sell. I was fortunate to work in a non-traditional field whereby I was paid just like all the guys, so I didn't have to marry or (shudder) take on a roommate. I've never much liked work, so I retired at 47, blew through my savings, worked part time for a few years, and basically limped along until SS came along.


retiring at 47 from a job you didn't like, single, made it to SS and own a home, I'd say your financial skills were not "execrable", rather I find them impressive.

[freshstart]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/10/why-i-hope-to-die-at-75/379329/

deleted, long diatribe that he is a judgmental asshole who doesn't support Death with Dignity for reasons that are not even true, but he gets to opt out of everything at 75 and hopes to die. then he was still pissing me off and I wrote another one, lol. This guy is pushing my buttons HARD.

"a colleague assessed physical functioning in adults, analyzing whether people could walk a quarter of a mile; climb 10 stairs; stand or sit for two hours; and stand up, bend, or kneel without using special equipment." I can't do any of this and I am 45. Then he discusses memory, processing speed, etc as people age. And those are problems quickly increasing in me. Then the part about bowing out when frail so children don't remember their parents as only infirm and frail, that's BS. Grieving and bereavement after a death, of course the children will thinking more heavily about the end times and the actual death. But that's not how they remember their parents forever.

So I hate him because I feel like I'm one of the frail, dumb people who is a burden to both my children and my parents. I'm 45 and if I stay like this for 30 yrs, I already have nothing left to add, am just burdensome and I will leave my children with only memories of me frail and infirm. Done with contributing through work, not up anymore to mentoring, something I was good at and have lost creative skills. I feel like I should gracefully hop onto an ice floe and give my family back their lives. That's not what he is saying, but that's what I'm hearing.

also, what moron who is younger than 57, refuses to hear what their PSA is? I get the 75 thing but not knowing your PSA level at a young age is stupid. Prostate cancer caught early is often very treatable because it is so slow growing. So why would he not want to hear the results of a screening exam when he is decades away from 75? Maybe he's banking on getting it, 1 in 8 men do, but only 1 in 38 dies from it. So if this was one of his ways of opting out and dealing with disease when it arises, hoping to hasten his death, no such luck there, pal. But it does end up in the bones and that freaking hurts. I would've listened to my PSA. Same thing with not taking antibiotics for pneumonia. We get advanced dementia patients all the time, we talk to the families about increased risk for aspiration pneumonia, would they want treatment, they say no. And even if the person is bed bound, is basically a stick figure in the fetal position, coughs and chokes when swallowing, I've had this go on for a good two years before that aspiration pneumonia train comes in. He's not demented, maybe he could pull a Jim Henson, but that's pretty rare.

I'm done, do whatever he wants, hopefully he decides his passive death with dignity is no more valid than a man who chooses actively when he has a horrendous terminal diagnosis. Because he is judging that man while essentially doing the exact same thing by opting out of tests/treatments, the only difference is passivity.

[JaneV2.0]

Oh lord--I'm glad I didn't get around to it. I'd fail all his physical tests for sure. And of course, no one over fifty has anything to add anymore. I pity his parents.

[pinkytoe]

His seems like another belief that the current quest for efficiency trumps all.

[JaneV2.0]

retiring at 47 from a job you didn't like, single, made it to SS and own a home, I'd say your financial skills were not "execrable", rather I find them impressive.

Luck, mostly. I wasn't burdened by debt out of college, non-traditional jobs started opening up at just the right time, real estate prices here have been solid...But I made many, many missteps.

[flowerseverywhere]

Cathy A, you haven't made any comments. What do you think ?

[Songbird]

"a colleague assessed physical functioning in adults, analyzing whether people could walk a quarter of a mile; climb 10 stairs; stand or sit for two hours; and stand up, bend, or kneel without using special equipment." I can't do any of this and I am 45. Then he discusses memory, processing speed, etc as people age. And those are problems quickly increasing in me. Then the part about bowing out when frail so children don't remember their parents as only infirm and frail, that's BS. Grieving and bereavement after a death, of course the children will thinking more heavily about the end times and the actual death. But that's not how they remember their parents forever.

freshstart, this article made me feel both angry and sad. I'm 58 and recovering from a stroke I suffered after major surgery a few months ago. I can't do any of the things that the author thinks is essential for living a good life. But goodness, I still think my life is worth living!

[ctg492]

I was a sahm pretty much, worked as needed. I was too stupid at the time to look far past that moment in time, oh to do it all over again. I however never felt I should be paid for this by SS. We however have a great Financial Planner and Broker, she said to me years ago, You need your own Financial Plan set up, because you just never know. I am thankful now for that advice. I also set up my own IRA. Ok like my son says, Where do you get your money for that Mom;)

[freshstart]

freshstart, this article made me feel both angry and sad. I'm 58 and recovering from a stroke I suffered after major surgery a few months ago. I can't do any of the things that the author thinks is essential for living a good life. But goodness, I still think my life is worth living!

Songbird, I am sorry that happened to you. I wonder if the article affected us because we are framing what he is saying from the perspective of someone already ill and thus some of his points feel (justly) painful? I hope he becomes one of the many things I forget and the article fades away!

[freshstart]

I also set up my own IRA. Ok like my son says, Where do you get your money for that Mom;)

"from money I earned for being the mom and wiping your butt all those years!"

[frugalone]

I just found out last week that a spouse can take half of the other's benefit upon reaching retirement age. My spouse did a lot of extremely low-paying, under-the-table work in his earlier years. He ran a business as well and did not pay into SS during those years. So he really qualifies for nothing on his own. It was a relief to hear about spouse's benefits.

[pcooley]

As a stay-at-home-dad, I'm pretty much in the same boat. I started working part time 4 years ago when the kids were getting a little older. My supervisor is moving toward retirement, so I'm picking up more hours, but I still only make a hairs breadth more than I did when I was a college student, and there were 12 years where my sole income was from beekeeping and being a computer assistant to a local writer. But I'm not too worried about it. Our retirement fund isn't big, but at least it is there, and I plan to stay married and to work more as more work becomes available. I enjoy the job I have, and more hours are on the visible horizon, though I still like being home early enough to get dinner on the table when everyone gets home and to have the flexibility to take care of the kids when they are sick, etc.

[lessisbest]

I just found out last week that a spouse can take half of the other's benefit upon reaching retirement age. My spouse did a lot of extremely low-paying, under-the-table work in his earlier years. He ran a business as well and did not pay into SS during those years. So he really qualifies for nothing on his own. It was a relief to hear about spouse's benefits.

I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but you can only get 1/2 the other's benefit IF you don't qualify for SS - as in don't have enough work credits. Be sure to check (www.socialsecurity.gov/estimator (http://www.socialsecurity.gov/estimator)). I had a friend who assumed she didn't qualify (she neglected to read those annual SS statements), but she did have an earnings record and qualified under her work history. Another thing this friend did....or neglected to do. She didn't sign up for Medicare three months before age 65 and received a late enrollment penalty (she was well into her 70's). She assumed because her husband still worked and they had health care from his employer they didn't need to sign up for Medicare (and we all know how "assume" can make an ass out of u and me).

I would also like to share something we've been doing since we turned 60 (now 64 and almost 63 and NOT drawing SS). We've based our monthly budget on the amount of SS hubby (the higher wage earner) will receive. This was a good test. It shows us we will want to downsize to a home that has less expensive annual property taxes.

[jp1]

Actually you can collect spousal benefits by deferring your own benefit. And if you have reached full retirement age at the time you start collecting spousal benefits your own benefit will continue to grow. Then, at a later date you can start collecting your benefit at the higher rate.

[flowerseverywhere]

I just hope everyone doesn't assume that everything they have read in this thread is 100% applicable to them. Like the IRS rules, the SS rules are very complicated. You owe it to yourself to request a statement, and read the rules at the government website. And remember, they are continually tweaking the system, raising Medicare premiums, closing loopholes, and raising how much money they tax per working year. Means testing is continually discussed. So hope for the best but prepare for the worst. Don't assume anything.

[CathyA]

Cathy A, you haven't made any comments. What do you think ?

Just saw your question, flowerseverywhere...........Actually, I just realized that what I would get is higher than I thought (something around $800.......and I thought it was around $400).......but, that being said.......It's not that I expect the government to support people who don't work, it just feels like the plan doesn't encourage people (men or women) to stay home and raise their own children. I see that as something that would hopefully contribute to a better/healthier society. But it's the way our entire culture is set up.........where money and buying possessions is so important that it no longer is viewed as good/vital, to raise your own kids, but more important to earn money so you can have more and more things.

I suppose in today's culture, it's like belonging to a club, and if you don't "pay your dues", then you don't deserve to benefit from it later on. We no longer seem to value some really important things that greatly contribute to the health of the country........like raising good, responsible children. I realize that many people might want to stay at home to raise their children, but in this economy, it can be almost impossible without both parents working. I find that really unfortunate for the entire culture.

I'm not very good at expressing my feelings about things. To me, the lower social security benefit just reflects the low value we place on raising good children.

[rodeosweetheart]

Just saw your question, flowerseverywhere...........Actually, I just realized that what I would get is higher than I thought (something around $800.......and I thought it was around $400).......but, that being said.......It's not that I expect the government to support people who don't work, it just feels like the plan doesn't encourage people (men or women) to stay home and raise their own children. I see that as something that would hopefully contribute to a better/healthier society. But it's the way our entire culture is set up.........where money and buying possessions is so important that it no longer is viewed as good/vital, to raise your own kids, but more important to earn money so you can have more and more things.

I suppose in today's culture, it's like belonging to a club, and if you don't "pay your dues", then you don't deserve to benefit from it later on. We no longer seem to value some really important things that greatly contribute to the health of the country........like raising good, responsible children. I realize that many people might want to stay at home to raise their children, but in this economy, it can be almost impossible without both parents working. I find that really unfortunate for the entire culture.

I'm not very good at expressing my feelings about things. To me, the lower social security benefit just reflects the low value we place on raising good children.

+1000

And I think you said it very, very well.

[flowerseverywhere]

Just saw your question, flowerseverywhere...........Actually, I just realized that what I would get is higher than I thought (something around $800.......and I thought it was around $400).......but, that being said.......It's not that I expect the government to support people who don't work, it just feels like the plan doesn't encourage people (men or women) to stay home and raise their own children. I see that as something that would hopefully contribute to a better/healthier society. But it's the way our entire culture is set up.........where money and buying possessions is so important that it no longer is viewed as good/vital, to raise your own kids, but more important to earn money so you can have more and more things.

I suppose in today's culture, it's like belonging to a club, and if you don't "pay your dues", then you don't deserve to benefit from it later on. We no longer seem to value some really important things that greatly contribute to the health of the country........like raising good, responsible children. I realize that many people might want to stay at home to raise their children, but in this economy, it can be almost impossible without both parents working. I find that really unfortunate for the entire culture.

I'm not very good at expressing my feelings about things. To me, the lower social security benefit just reflects the low value we place on raising good children.

i wasn't attacking you. Just wondered how you felt now that you read all the responses
I think western cultures place tremendous value on children. They are entitled to healthcare (even before obamacare) free busses and food if they need it to attend free school. i guess I'm a glass half full person. I am so thankful I live in this country.

What at about a childless person who stays at home? Or a single child parent. Should you get paid according to how many children you have? Or a non working adult who lives with their parents and parties every night? Should they get as much as a woman who has no kids who spends her life working full time doing something really useful to society because they need to support themselves as well? I think it is extremely complicated to figure out how to be fair.

I guess i just don't see how not to make more of a mess out of it than it is now.

[kib]

I'd repeat, I don't think this is about anyone's merit. People with standard jobs are not being 'rewarded' by SS because it's recognized that being an astrophysicist or a Walmart greeter is so beneficial to society, they're rewarded because they paid in actual cash. Much as you wouldn't expect to be paid by the stock market or the lottery association for being a good mom, I don't think you can expect to be paid by SS.

ETA: it's not that I think people who contribute to our society in non-monetary ways don't deserve reward for their good works. I believe they do . But that's not how this goes.

[CathyA]

I do not think kids should have to support their parents. It is the parents responsibility to take care of themselves & live on what they have. If kids want to help that is great. After my grandfather died his pension died with him & my grandma had little to live on. She went into a low income senior apartment but after her bills, meds little was left so the 3 siblings all kicked in to give her $ every month. They wanted to help & she never asked & actually hated that they needed to help. I will never ask my kids for $ or to live with them. They have their own lives to live.

We kept my mother off Medicaid for many years. We shouldn't have........since I didn't even like her. But.......being who she was........she kept taking it. :(
It was my own fault for allowing it.

[CathyA]

Kib......I think I get a statement every year that lists all the years and how many years I worked. Every statement tells you how much you would earn at different retirement ages. You could call Social Security and ask them.

[CathyA]

Flowerseverywhere...........I didn't think you were attacking me at all! :) I'd been sort of slow getting back to his thread.

[kib]

We kept my mother off Medicaid for many years. We shouldn't have........since I didn't even like her.
Lol!

I went to the site FlowersEverywhere suggested and got some very useful info, Cathy. Probably better than the statements. So all's well with that, I just wondered if I needed to worry about my benefit disappearing but it appears to be fine.

[freshstart]

Actually you can collect spousal benefits by deferring your own benefit. And if you have reached full retirement age at the time you start collecting spousal benefits your own benefit will continue to grow. Then, at a later date you can start collecting your benefit at the higher rate.

wait, what? so this means you can start out by collecting half of DG's or ex of 10 yrs or more benefit. But don't you have to be working for yours to grow, no, that's wrong because the longer you wait to take it, the more you get. But this sounds almost too good to be true! I thought once you picked his, you were stuck with it.

[freshstart]

Kib......I think I get a statement every year that lists all the years and how many years I worked. Every statement tells you how much you would earn at different retirement ages. You could call Social Security and ask them.

just a heads up, they stopped those a few years ago but all of your info can be found at their website. They NEED to send those because when people see how little the number is, I believe that will scare them into saving more.

[kib]

wait, what? so this means you can start out by collecting half of DG's or ex of 10 yrs or more benefit. But don't you have to be working for yours to grow, no, that's wrong because the longer you wait to take it, the more you get. But this sounds almost too good to be true! I thought once you picked his, you were stuck with it. I interpreted it the same way jp1 did, that you can switch. The longer you wait to take it the more you get is because you won't be drawing on it for as many years, not necessarily because you continue adding in.

[Alan]

just a heads up, they stopped those a few years ago but all of your info can be found at their website.
I still get one every year, or I should say I got one as recently as last year.

[ApatheticNoMore]

It's entirely random I guess, I get one maybe every 5 years, and I contribute every year. You'll get statements in the mail ... if they feel like it, and if not if they don't, pretty much I guess.

[CathyA]

I'm not real bright with these things, but when I looked at mine the other day, it appeared as though you get the full amount when you are 66. But each year that you wait to start taking it, you get $80/mo more. That's $960 more/year. Maybe that varies from person to person, depending on their original amount (at 66).

[frugal-one]

I'm not real bright with these things, but when I looked at mine the other day, it appeared as though you get the full amount when you are 66. But each year that you wait to start taking it, you get $80/mo more. That's $960 more/year. Maybe that varies from person to person, depending on their original amount (at 66).

The percentage is the same, I believe.... 8% for each year you hold off (age 66 to age 70). Dollar amounts vary on length of time worked and amount earned.

[Tammy]

We received a SS statement in the mail just last month

[freshstart]

what? I got a letter from them years ago, stating they would not be mailing these anymore, but the info is online. I have not received one since.