Retiring at 100

[Briscoeteque]

I was browsing around on NPR.org, and I found this story, which is of the really neat human intrest stuff that I love about NPR. I wish this fella could go on a lecture circuit or something, it sounds like he's got a lot of good advice to give. From the picture, looks like a smart dresser too!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5313522

 

[mysterygal]

an amazing man...and talk about a great work ethic!

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Good on him ... But i'm still aiming to retire at 45

bk

 

[matei]

Ahh, its always one who ruins it for the rest of us... Now we'll all be expected to work to 100!!!

No, just joking around. That is an amazing story - good on him for hanging on for so long!

 

[Lincsong]

The chain store 99Cents Only has offered him a job as their spokesman.:eusa_clap

 

[G. Fink-Nottle]

Some joker at Stanford thinks that the retirement age will reach 85 by the year 2050.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4726300.stm

 

[Burma Shave]

Who cares what the "retirement age" is?

How about this? -- Retire when you can afford to do so. Until then, continue working. The scam that is Social Security will evaporate soon, one way or another, so most of us are going to have to pay our own way eventually anyway. Once that's out of the way, the "retirement age" will be a moot point.

 

[Katt in Hat]

Really? Never any facts to support your talking points.

Burma Shave: "The scam that is Social Security will evaporate soon,..." [huh]

Chicken Little: "The sky is falling, the sky is falling..."

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Well, if this guy has no wife, then Social Security has done very well by him. It's not likely he'll receive the full benefits for long.

 

[Burma Shave]

Katt:

"Never any facts to support your talking points."

I think "never" is a big word. But in this case, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that you can only pay out several times as much as you bring in for a limited period of time. SS is bankrupt. For that matter, our entire government is bankrupt -- what else can you call it when you are trillions of dollars in debt.

However, I apologize for bringing this up in this thread. I congratulate the man in question for working for so long. I've always figured, if you like what you're doing well enough, keep at it. Why retire from something you enjoy?

 

[Katt in Hat]

No need to apologize. Absolutely not required...

All I seek are factual substantiations of your many assertions on these threads which mostly are unsupported other than by your belief in their truth and worth.

 

[Burma Shave]

What?

I'm not sure what you mean by my "many assertions."

On this issue specifically, though, the Social Security Administration itself has said that in 2013 (seven years from now) it will have to begin redeeming the bonds in the SS trust fund, to meet its benefit obligations. That fund has been depleted, as the money has been loaned to other federal programs. In order to raise the money to pay those benefits, either taxes will have to be increased or other spending will have to be drastically cut to free up enough money. Domestic spending (not even counting the cost of the ongoing war) has increased dramatically under Bush and can't reasonably be expected to decrease, so we have to assume taxes will go up further to pay for the SS shortfall. And every year after 2013, more spending will have to be cut (or taxes further increased) to pay for the ever-increasing number of people who will be drawing SS. Life expectancy is not going to go down. (Do I need proof of that assertion?)

Also according to the SSA, over the next 30-35 years, taxes to pay Social Security benefits will have to be increased by 50 percent or benefits will have to be reduced by 25 percent. By the year 2030, almost a quarter (22 percent) of the U.S. population will be over the age of 65 -- and eligible for SS. Do you think that voting bloc will allow politicians to reduce their benefits? Not a chance. That means the tax will go up. Again, according to the Social Security Board of Trustees, unless benefits are cut, Social Security taxes (FICA) in 2032 will be at 18 percent.

Now, does this sound to you like a well-run, solvent, healthy retirement system, or does it sound more like something drastic is going to have to happen? Personally, I'm not comfortable with the idea of paying 18 percent of my money each year to support one government program -- on top of income taxes and sales tax and taxes for other people's health insurance and multitudinous other taxes and fees.

I hope references to the Social Security Administration's own studies will serve as adequate support for my otherwise unsubstantiated comments. If there are other things I've said that also need substantiation -- such as my recent comment that I own a light violet-colored shirt -- please let me know via PM.

 

[Lincsong]

Burma's got it right. Social Security is a big Ponzi scheme. But, the thing that will will break the state and local governments is their pensions. I don't know how it is in other states but in California there is the 3% formula. Take the average of your last three years wages, multiply by 3% then multiply that by the number of years you've worked. Example $60,000X3% =1800, 1800x30 equals $54,000 per year retirement with Cost of Living increases for the rest of their lives. Average state worker retires at 55. We're looking at 30 years of retirement at $54,000 per year. And some want it lowered to 25 years. fftopic:

 

[Nathan Flowers]

Wow, 3%!

In SC, we just get 1.82%, but our state retirement system is probably (hopefully!) going to be very secure for the future.

 

[jamespowers]

Again, according to the Social Security Board of Trustees, unless benefits are cut, Social Security taxes (FICA) in 2032 will be at 18 percent.

Ah but actually you are being generous. You forgot about the employer portion that goes along with yours. You each pay half so that is actually 36% total FICA that you are really paying. Your employer is costing that out as total salary/wages to you so it is actually cutting into your salary/wages surreptitiously. Yes, that is 36% from a scheme that FDR said would never go about 1%. He was lying then because his 1% was actually 2% total. Gee in 2013 he will only be wrong by a factor of 18 times!
Neither my father nor my mother ever got a single cent from Social security because they failed to work the mandatory minimum to receive benefits. Neither of them ever received Medicare for the same reasons. Between them they worked 18 years in private industry paying thousands of dollars into a system they never received a cent from.
Ponzi Scheme? Yeah---ya think?

Regards to all,

J

 

[Lincsong]

Wow, 3%!

In SC, we just get 1.82%, but our state retirement system is probably (hopefully!) going to be very secure for the future.

I don't know who is running your system but, it probably will be a lot more secure than California's. Over here, they took a large chunk of money out of tangible assets; buildings, shopping malls, hotels etc. and put it into the stock market in an attempt to force companies to implement certain policies. When the market went south so did the value of the pension fund. Now, they're demanding that participants cough up cold cash to make up for the loss in value. By the way, what is the earliest retirement age for state workers in South Carolina?

Let's see, the gentleman who retired worked for 72 years. I don't know what his last years salary was, but he was a mechanic. A friend of mine is a mechanic of a transit agency in Cal. and he makes about $64,000 per year. So 3% of 64K is $1920, multiplied by 72 years equals $138,240 per year. Wow! I hope he lives another 10 plus years to enjoy that!