Boehner, "Raise SS age to 70"

[Here4Good]

But 10-15 times gross income? So let's say I work for 45 years....that's a third of my gross.

Taxes, average, will be 25% and I will make twice as much at the end of my earning lifetime as at the beginning - so that means to make up for that, in my 50's I should be saving something like 40% of my gross (60% of take home). That's realistic.

 

[scooterbug44]

No, it's not realistic - which is why you are not supposed to wait until your 50s to start saving for retirement. ;-)

You will spend 70-80% of your pre-retirement salary for each year of retirement. 25-35% of that should come from Social Security income. That still leaves YOUR PERSONAL SAVINGS/RETIREMENT PLAN responsible for an income each year roughly equal to 1/2 of your salary of when you were still working.

Which is why the earlier you start planning and saving, the better off you will be.

Where is Buzz, he can definitely explain it better.

 

[Here4Good]

I'm not talking about waiting until your 50's, I am saying that saving 33% of your gross income every year will NOT get you 10-15 years of your ending average of your last 10 years of earning, because your earnings are so much lower in your 20's and 30's. You would have to increase your savings rate in your 50's to 40-50% of your gross to get there.

I know, in that imaginary world where we all sat down in our 30's and figured out how much we would need to save each year, we imagined that what we saved in our 30's and 40's would actually GROW, not SHRINK, as it has for the last 15 years. We had scenarios where you had a return of 3-5% average each year. After the dot-com bomb and the real estate bomb (even though my funds weren't in tech or real estate), I've seen zero growth over the last 15 years.

I think it's wiser to do what our parents did, and to plan on seriously curtailing your expenses upon retirement - have your mortgage paid off, stop buying new cars, have budget travel plans.

 

[scooterbug44]

How did you have zero growth in the last 15 years?

The stock market seesawed, but it still has gone up in the last 15 years. Banks paid varying rates of interest during that time. Real estate appreciated greatly - even including the bust.

I think it's far better to do what my parents did - save all your working life and have as little debt as possible, not just try to spend less when you're done working and have the free time to enjoy yourself and decades of labor.

 

[beachFool]

You can't call bs unless you propose an alternate solution to the problem. As it stands no one will get benefits by the time I get retirement age because the system will be broke. That is reality.

Not exactly.

Poppy is spot-on. Working to age 70 is fine for me, I'm an information worker. But anyone working retail, construction, mining, or on an assembly line simply can not work full time that long. Add standing on your feet all day teaching school to the list.


While I do favor a very gradual increase to age 68 (by 2050), solvency could be assured for the next 75 years by coupling that with modifying how inflation is calculated and by adjusting the way benefits are calculated for those who earn in the highest 70 % bracket.

The beauty of this is that everyone chips in and payroll taxes don't go up.

My liberal friends point out that the system could be solvent if the earnings cap were raised. That's draconian to me but it would work.

You could mesh all of these together, I guess.

 

[30ashopper]

I call bs on that one. If you sit on your rear end behind a desk 70 might be an ok retirement age but for some this is a nightmare. Those in fields like construction who perform hard physical labor will have a difficult time making it to 70 without serious health risks. Think of a 70 yr. old man in the hot sun installing a new roof on your home. Once again the repubs are removed from the real world just like the jobs bill they refuse to pass because they feel everyone will take the jobs they claim don't exist because of this administration.

Life expectancy will continue to increase. When the average is 100 years, we will be retired and on benefits for the same number of years we work. Unless we want our kids rising up against us (might I remind you they are younger and stronger than we are), you best come up with a solution. ;-)

 

[30ashopper]

Not exactly.

Poppy is spot-on. Working to age 70 is fine for me, I'm an information worker. But anyone working retail, construction, mining, or on an assembly line simply can not work full time that long. Add standing on your feet all day teaching school to the list.

WalMart is always hiring greeters.

 

[poppy]

Life expectancy will continue to increase. When the average is 100 years, we will be retired and on benefits for the same number of years we work. Unless we want our kids rising up against us (might I remind you they are younger and stronger than we are), you best come up with a solution. ;-)

let's use occupation, if you will agree a coal miner has a shorter life expectancy than a desk worker then let that person retire earlier. There must be all kinds of stats in use at this moment on the life expectancy of different occupations.

 

[scooterbug44]

Did I miss that they passed a law saying you MUST work full time until the age when you can draw full Social Security benefits?

I don't know if I actually know anyone who has done that.

 

[30ashopper]

let's use occupation, if you will agree a coal miner has a shorter life expectancy than a desk worker then let that person retire earlier. There must be all kinds of stats in use at this moment on the life expectancy of different occupations.

All men are created equal and should be treated equally, remember? That won't cut it for me.