Rant warning

[mothercoder]

I apologize in advance for this bit of venting but this really chapped my hide.  My employer sponsored a webinar regarding social security and I was looking forward to hopefully getting some worthwhile information.  I shouldn’t have been so optimistic.  And I wouldn’t have been upset if it was just a matter of the webinar being surface in nature because how much can they realistically cover. 
 
So that’s not what upset me.  What upset me was the very heavy emphasis (dare I say propaganda) that social security won’t be enough to support you, that it’s a safety net and then they laid on shame for anyone considering early retirement (age 62).  The only situation in which they suggested that this was acceptable was if you were (1) ill/incapacitated (2) had family obligations or (3) had already socked away a wad of cash. 
 
There was even a graphic using water glasses representing the amount of social security at 62, 66 and 70, with the glass at 62 being “half full.” 
 
And then, in what I am sure they deemed to be a good argument to hold off on retiring, they popped up statistics showing that 50% of women live to 88 and 25% live to 92.  To me that says if I only have a 50% chance of living until I’m 88, that’s all the more reason to retire early!  We’ve all heard the stories of people retiring at 66 and dying at 67.  Well here’s proof that only half of us will survive 20 years beyond retirement.  And how much of those 20 years will be active, healthy years? 
 
So yeah…it just really chapped my a$$ to see the whole “work as long as you possibly can” indoctrination being played out.  I’m just waiting for a feedback form to appear in my Inbox so I can share a few thoughts with these venerable people. 
 
Now, for those of you who absolutely LOVE what you do and can’t imagine doing anything else, more power to you.  You’re in the minority and I wish I were one of you, but I’m not.  Recent polls show that 70% of Americans are disengaged from their jobs.  Only 13% of people worldwide like going to their jobs.  Crazy.

 

[ccbreder]

I don't think it was ""work as long as you possibly can" indoctrination". The reality is SS is a safety net. We need a lot more. I also urge any one that CAN work until their full retirement age, mine was 66. I have a pension because I panic-ed at age 50 and had to develop a retire income plan from basic nothing. My SS is <1800 per month. At 62 it would have been <1300 per month. Do you think 500 per month doesn't come in handy? The only advice I have for younger folk, is put as much into a pre tax account or roth account as you can. Don't try to gamble with the "advisors". Just get a indexed fund linked to the SP500. You will be a very rich person in 20 years.

 

[mothercoder]

I don't think it was ""work as long as you possibly can" indoctrination". The reality is SS is a safety net. We need a lot more. I also urge any one that CAN work until their full retirement age, mine was 66. I have a pension because I panic-ed at age 50 and had to develop a retire income plan from basic nothing. My SS is <1800 per month. At 62 it would have been <1300 per month. Do you think 500 per month doesn't come in handy? The only advice I have for younger folk, is put as much into a pre tax account or roth account as you can. Don't try to gamble with the "advisors". Just get a indexed fund linked to the SP500. You will be a very rich person in 20 years.

Sure.  If you're young enough to start saving and put yourself in a position where you can sock away enough to retire early and you love what you're doing, that's the best scenario.  But not all of us are in a position to do that. 

In my case, I was a single parent of 2 and sole provider for the majority of their lives.  That doesn't lend very well to saving for retirement when you consider basic living expenses and college.  So here I am at almost 62 and my situation won't change much between now and 66 or 70...except for spending more years doing work that brings me no satisfaction or joy.  Does an extra $500 come in handy?  Sure.  Is it enough to entice me to stay doing what I'm doing for another 8 years and hope and pray that I don't get sick and can't enjoy some of what I worked so hard for?  No.  Definitely not.  I subscribe to Bob's philosophy on this wholeheartedly.  Even though my nomad existence won't be frilly, it will be more than enough for me.  I plan on supplementing my SS but even if I can't, it will be enough.  And what I get in return will be far greater than what that extra $500 could have gotten me when my vitality is so low that I can't enjoy the travel.

 

[Almost There]

You've got to remember that all those statistics are built on the premise that when you retire you will need XX% of your pre-retirement income. It's all based on a S&B situation with mortgages, car payments and 2.4 weeks of luxury vacation a year. The percentage of pre-retirement income is something in the 80 percentile I believe.

The math of it has never really been satisfactory to me...when I retired I didn't need to buy clothes all the time to wear to work but they still insist on a fairly high clothing figure. There's a whole lot of flaws in the math, mostly because of suppositions!

You know what you need to live on for the lifestyle you want to enjoy. Is it going to be enough - that will depend entirely on you. Do you have a forward plan on what to do when it is no longer possible to enjoy life as a nomad?

 

[wagoneer]

I left work at 65, part time off the books these last 2 years, just filling in. no regrets. 85%

 

[sushidog]

Your logic and perceptiveness is impeccable, Mothercoder.

My DW and I are 60 yrs young and we're planning on a full-time mobile retirement in 2 years - that is if we make it. You never know. We can easily live off our SS and my DWs small pension at 62, so delaying it any more would be an unjustified risk. Of course if we lived in a S&B house we would be on a tight budget as I spent my meager life's savings paying for life saving medical treatment for my ex-DW. What can you say? I couldn't just let her die. Though in retrospect... Anyway, my new DW and I are planning on buying a used MH to retire in. But if necessary, say I get sick or injured and am unable to afford one, (worst case scenario) we will live on the road in our little Aliner camper. Nevertheless, we won't let anything stop us from living our dream life on the road - short of one of us going to that great campground in the sky prematurely.

Life is so uncertain. I was talking to a friend Sunday who said his dad died at 62 and didn't get to retire.

My DW's dad worked hard in a manufacturing plant all his life, doing without to provide for his large family. My DW said he was looking forward to "taking it easy and seeing the country" when he retired. He died at 57 from complications from a "routine" surgery. My mother died from cancer at 55. My brother has passed on too.

I work very long hours, 6 days a week for less salary than most would be willing to accept, so I'll have no love lost for my stressful job when the time comes. If I could afford to retire earlier, I would do so in a heartbeat, cause we never know how much longer it will be before we succumb to the inevitable.

Chip

 

[BadSaver]

If Social Security income meets your expenses at 62 then nothing is holding you back.

On the other hand, waiting may make mathmatical sense. Consider someone who can collect $1,300 a month at 62 or $2,000 a month at 67. At age 80, most peoples break even point the 62 recipient would draw $280,800 and the 67er 312,000. Given your female, living longer than a male, you may be getting a deal.

You can still retire at 62 and fund yourself at $1,300 a month for 5 years. This would cost you about $15,600 a year.

On the other hand, you can use savings to suppliment your social security income along the way if necessary.

Happy retirement!

 

[mothercoder]

If Social Security income meets your expenses at 62 then nothing is holding you back.

On the other hand, waiting may make mathmatical sense. Consider someone who can collect $1,300 a month at 62 or $2,000 a month at 67. At age 80, most peoples break even point the 62 recipient would draw $280,800 and the 67er 312,000. Given your female, living longer than a male, you may be getting a deal.

You can still retire at 62 and fund yourself at $1,300 a month for 5 years. This would cost you about $15,600 a year.

On the other hand, you can use savings to suppliment your social security income along the way if necessary.

Happy retirement!

The difference between what I would draw at 62 vs 66 is not that wide. If it were, that would be worth considering.

 

[BadSaver]

My plan is to retire at 62 and draw social security at 67. I think I need about $35k to cover my income short fall over the 5 year period. On the other side of enjoying retirement there may be the need for a nursing home or something. I don't want to run out of cash and I can't imagine how the journey will end. So, I think of the $35k as insurance against the unknown.

Sorry this is two posts. Cooking dinner, Fajitas, and had to break away for a moment.

 

[AngryVanMan]

Maybe they will phase SS out like they say they want to do with Medicare, and this will no longer be a problem for some of us!  Time will tell, until then I guess... don't count my chickens until they hatch???  {ugh}

:huh:

 

[rvpopeye]

If you do choose to take SS at 62 you can still earn $15,000 a year with no penalty and above that lose $1 for every $2 you earn.
AND any income will increase your benefit amount.

So , if you do some workamping with a site as part or all of your pay the SS will go even farther.

 

[mothercoder]

I have been learning code with a focus on WordPress so I hope to supplement my income remotely. My oldest son is a web developer, the youngest is a graphic designer and they are happy to feed me some work. If that doesn't pan out then I'd consider doing some camp hosting in the summers.

 

[frater secessus]

If y'all really wanna get crunk up, wait until you realize that SS has no contractual duty to [re]pay you anything and you have no money there. They pay because congress wills it.

The belief that the [re]payments are a right probably came from the SSA saying so:

[font=-apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto,]"The checks will come to you as a right. You will get them regardless of the amount of property or income you may have."[/font]

This was later taken out at the knees by:

SCOTUS Helvering v. Davis (1937):

"The proceeds of both employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way."

SCOTUS [size=medium]Flemming v. Nestor (1960, referenced on the SSA page above): [/size]

[size=medium]"To engraft upon Social Security system a concept of 'accrued property rights' would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands."[/size]

Sorry to be a bummer so early on a Wednesday.

 

[ccbreder]

Yes. SS is an insurance contract. There is no ownership of the funds you paid for the contract. But quotes out of context don't help.

 

[BadSaver]

I always thought it weird that Social Security has to have a Positive Balance (trust fund). Why can't Social Security run a deficit? The trust fund is just another deficit to the Treasury - there's an IO somewhere. If it can't run a deficit, it should be allowed to buy Treasuries (externally) like any independent entity would. It gets a rip off interest rate.

Social Insecurity: When they say Social Security will run out of money, Does this really mean anything? It's like you pay in all this money then you hope you get a dollar back for every dollar you put in - my calculations say I probably won't. For 50 years all you hear is that it's going broke.

FUZZY Math: I hate that they calculate based on 35 years of earnings when I'll have paid in 45 years. Ripoff is built all over it. Maybe it should have been privatized. Just to get a return on the investments.

 

[rvpopeye]

How about all the money from people that die early or even before collecting anything?

IIRC the fund got a big withdrawal with an IOU deposit years ago and I can't remember anything about it being being paid back ! Anybody else remember anything about that?

 

[ArtW]

There is no SS 'trust fund' and never has been, the money goes into the general fund and is raided by both parties at will to fund their pet projects

 

[bullfrog]

I was fortunately able to retire from a job I was burned out doing at 53 years old. I was able to sell enough stuff and had enough equity from the sale of my sticks and bricks to buy an old but good motor home and with my wife travel for a while. As a vet my health insurance was pretty well taken care of plus my pension continued to pay for most of it. My wife's health care we had to pay for but with our little nest egg savings and pension we got by for a while. After that we worked camped, them worked low wage easy to get jobs at Walmart and Lowes, then took a job in a National Park with Aramark which for while payed for my wife's health insurance. During this time I volunteered to do service projects with the National Park Service which payed for our site. This resulted in a seasonal job doing things I would have enjoyed doing anyway, in a place most rich people pay to come to. When I hit 62 years of age I took early SS because It covered my wife's health insurance payment and allowed us to travel more. She still had several years to go before she hit 65 and medicare. Was it better money wise to take early SS? Probably not if we live into our 80's, but we are much happier living the good life now while physically able, knowing we will have stories to tell when we are old and physically unable to do so.

 

[BadSaver]

The Trust Fund is some IOUs in a filing cabinet. Congress didn't want them to be just journal entries. I think Bush went looking for them at one point?

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-02-28-trust-fund_x.htm

 

[justbreathe]

popeye, yes, they have stolen from the SS accounts many times and No, they have never paid it back.