Are you on track to retire comfortably?

[Indydriver]

I’m not sure you give them enough credit. The elites (who have benefited magnificently in this environment) aren’t dumb. They are busy stashing their assets in low risk/no risk principle protecting vehicles. They know what’s coming. This is why traditional “trickle down” (Reaganomics) policies are not creating economic growth. The huge sums of cash pumping into the 1% are not going anywhere.

The next shoe to drop for the common working man in this country will be the targeting of the only big cash cow left, your 401K. The Republicans in the House are currently examining how much they think they can get away with in the new tax “reform” scheme they are working on. This first attack may be modest or may fail but the door will be open and subsequent attacks will be stronger. Count on it.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Indydriver

The next shoe to drop for the common working man in this country will be the targeting of the only big cash cow left, your 401K. The Republicans in the House are currently examining how much they think they can get away with in the new tax “reform” scheme they are working on. This first attack may be modest or may fail but the door will be open and subsequent attacks will be stronger. Count on it.


Again, watch the great Oz experiment...$1M is deemed an "excessive" amount to have saved, in an environment where 12% of your wage is "banked" automatically for your entire working career without your control.

They are already talking about it becoming a national infrastructure fund.

(I predicted it 15 years ago unfortunately)

 

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: StevieC
The elites profits depend on consumerism. If people don't have cash to spend there are no profits and they can't keep up their lavish lifestyles aside from whatever savings they have.

It's really that simple.


How do you define "elite"? Having money does not make one elite, especially if they earned every penny through hard work and risk taking - in fact it is the American way. As for lavish, it's their money and they may spend it however they wish.

Anti-wealth attitudes are divisive and often based on jealousy - we are all just people making our own way. Those who work hard and plan well do better than others.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: StevieC
The elites profits depend on consumerism. If people don't have cash to spend there are no profits and they can't keep up their lavish lifestyles aside from whatever savings they have.

It's really that simple.


How do you define "elite"? Having money does not make one elite, especially if they earned every penny through hard work and risk taking - in fact it is the American way. As for lavish, it's their money and they may spend it however they wish.

Anti-wealth attitudes are divisive and often based on jealousy - we are all just people making our own way. Those who work hard and plan well do better than others.


Exactly. This is why I laugh when people are questioned as to why they bought that big SUV, Pickup, gas guzzling land yacht, Rolex watch, etc. If you have the money, it's yours to spend however you see fit. That's what makes this country great.

 

[StevieC]

I'm not anti-wealth. They can have all they want after the folks below them that are responsible for driving most of the economy are fed enough to drive the economy and right now the economy is severely anemic and it's going to get a whole lot worse because of their excessive greed and this is why they are only shooting themselves in the foot long term.

 

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: StevieC
I'm not anti-wealth. They can have all they want after the folks below them that are responsible for driving most of the economy are fed enough to drive the economy...


The "folks below them" would not have jobs if not for the wealthy taking chances, starting businesses and building factories - if there is no reward for such risk and investment, why should they bother? Capitalism is driven by the opportunity to have a good life. Wealthy people used to be admired and respected for their success and the jobs they created, now people are jealous, focused on what they don't have, even though Americans are the wealthiest people on earth.

Most corporation profits are driven back into the business to expand operations and grow, and that is what drives the economy. Even if all of the super wealthy gave up their mansions and yachts it would not help the plight of low income people. Salaries are a function of supply and demand. Why should a company pay a ditch digger $25/hour when qualified applicants will line up around the block to accept $15/hour. Labor is usually the most expensive cost after raw materials, and such foolishness will quickly drive a company out of business, and many jobs with it.

The best way to build the economy is to allow companies to flourish, expand, and create opportunities for "the folks below them", not tax and regulate them into noncompetitive positions against China, Mexico, and other countries with government subsidized businesses. Sure we would all like to see lower income people live a better life, but not at the expense of the free enterprise system that built this great country. There needs to be a better more practical plan than blaming the rich because they succeeded. There is plenty of money available for those that invest in education, plan carefully, have a positive attitude, and are willing to take risk. Those just along for the ride will always be behind, but still far ahead of the real poor in most of the world.

 

[BJD78]

I am more leaning to taking it at 62 as well, a quick look at the family tree revealed that no males on either my mom or dad's side lived beyond 80 and the average age of death was around 74 to 78. My Dad took his at 70 and was gone at age 73 he probably drew 30 checks at best, my Mom decided to take her SS at age 62 and she managed to make it to age 81 before passing. She ended up in a nursing home at age 77 so the final 3 years of her SS went to pay for Nursing home care basically. I am more than likely just going to jump on that ship at age 62, the extra money at age 70 would be nice , but at age 70 what would I spend it on??

 

[Huie83]

Originally Posted By: Indydriver
Originally Posted By: Kurtatron
I’m 28 and wish I was born earlier in time like you guys. I am saddled with student debt, housing prices are ridiculous, and pensions/SS is a pipe dream for me. The standard of living in America has been going down for decades. Stagnant wages, rising cost of cars, houses, even food continues to rise. Remember .50 cent gallon milk? It’s getting harder and harder to scrape by.

I do what I can to save, but it is extremely discouraging. I go well and beyond what most Millennials do to save money. I bicycle 50 miles a week to work, to keep my 19 year old car running longer. I eat beans and rice maybe 5 times a week for lunch for the last 7 years. I buy stuff from thrift stores, do my own work on cars, and I am still net negative personal net worth. I should have known not to go to a 15k a year school. Student debt sucks. I have paid over 10k so far, and it just seems to go on forever. I feel like a burnout sometimes, like all I want to do is stay home in bed. It’s a fight though, and I can’t give up. I don’t want to retire, I just don’t want to be enslaved under debt.


Student debt will have a dramatic impact on the US economy. My son is another example. He chose to go to an expense private college. I paid for all but the Stafford loan which amounts to about $15k over four years. He made it into law school but had to pay 100% as I had two other kids behind him to help with undergrad. So he took the max available to cover room and board, living expenses as well as school costs. He graduated during the recession and had to take a job at about half his expectations. He has worked hard and now has a six figure income. Unfortunately, along the way, he kept deferring payments. Now at age 33, he owes $275K. This means either a future bankruptcy or 20 years of sacrifice. In the meantime, he won’t be buying a house and all that goes with that. He won’t be buying any new cars etc, etc. With boomers retiring and millennials in debt, consumption in this country is about to go off a cliff. This will have dire consequences for many industries and the overall economy. Tough times ahead folks.


I'm pretty much in the same boat as your son. I had a previous marriage that took me ~5 years to recover financially from but besides that, I've been pretty good. I'm 34 and am part of the generation that "had to" get a 4 year degree to get anywhere in the corporate world. While this is mostly true (my current employer required a bachelors degree), the cost to obtain the degree was pretty crazy. I don't come from a family with excess money so I was on my own to put myself through college. I joined the military and used the GI bill for a majority of it but still ended up with over $20K in debt. My wife wasn't so lucky, she financed it all and owes ~$50K.

We bring in ~$120-130K a year now and although we don't necessarily struggle, we don't have much excess income either. Everything now is SO [censored] expensive that it's hard to get ahead. Between Student loans, daycare, the mortgage, healthcare bills from kids, house expenses, food and trying to put some money away for retirement and savings, we're strapped every month.

It's actually pretty depressing that we bring in over $100K a year yet have to live frugally to make ends meet and try to plan for the future. We don't go out to eat, the kids only get a few presents at Christmas, we have one car loan for $10K on a used minivan, etc etc. I honestly don't feel like we'll ever get to live like I feel like we should be living after putting in a lot of work to get where we're at. It's hard to think that we'll be trying to put away every penny we can to try and have a decent retirement... if we make it there at all. It's hard to enjoy life when you have to choose between rewarding yourself for working hard or saving for retirement. I'm seriously considering just enjoying the next 30 years, saying eff it to retirement and end things on my own terms when I've checked off my "bucket list". That seems like a much more enjoyable life than working my arse off until I'm old and trying to enjoy things then. I definitely don't want to end up puttering around in a nursing home.

To state i'm frustrated with the way society and or the government operates now is a understatement.

 

[Schmoe]

WELL SAID

 

[Schmoe]

....I'm on the take the money at 62 and run as well. It's like Let's Make A Deal....you chose a door with a certain gift, or take the risk and chose another door? Screw that. When we get to that age, take the duck. There is no one on this earth, that can tell you exactly when you're going to croak....

 

[emmett442]

It's amazing how some situations can be so similar, yet results so different.

Both my wife and I (30 and 31 years old) came from lower income backgrounds.

That said, we grew up living frugally, and neither knew any other way. We graduated high school, she went and got a 4 year degree, I a 2 year. All education was paid for in cash - working while in school.

Lived together in a cheap apartment for a few years while we settled into professional jobs, banking plenty in the meantime. Both of us have pensions, and both of us are contributing to additional, private retirement funds.

Purchased 2 vehicles, one 2 years old in 2013, one brand new in 2009, cash.

After 10 years together, got married in 2014, wedding paid for in cash.

Also in 2014, purchased our $223k house in a suburban neighborhood. 20% down, 15 year fixed rate, excellent interest rate since we were financially stable and had excellent credit. Within the following two and a half years, we made $45k worth of extra payments, boosted our bi-weekly payment by $275, and we are now on track to pay it off completely in fall of 2020.

Now we are raising 2 kids with a decent home, decent vehicles, no debt outside of the inexpensive (low interest) mortgage. Riding out the rest of the mortgage - it will be paid off before the first one enters school. No worries about funding education: pretty soon we will be living on mere taxes and utility bills.

Sure, we aren't living-it-up, able to do whatever we want, whenever we want. But we live comfortably. We are happy. We don't feel like we're missing out on life because we're focused on our finances.

I think we put ourselves exactly where we are. I could have done a whole lot worse, and I also could have done a whole lot better (I did a bunch of screwing off after HS, for quite a few years). We don't make a ton of money ($115k combined), but I'm confident that we've set ourselves up well and that things are going to be incredibly easy for us later in life - independent of whatever happens down the road as far as politics or corporate America go. Retirement will likely be very doable and enjoyable, as will higher educations, family vacations, etc.

Someone once told me "It's not about how much you have, it's about what you do with what you have.". I believe that.

A common denominator in a lot of the posted situations is that people had to play catch-up after some early mistakes. it's hard to really get ahead when you have to play catch-up first. You need time on your side. A lot of people discount the early mistakes because they have a lot of time to recover - but that lost time is the same reason they are the costliest mistakes!

 

[Indydriver]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: StevieC
I'm not anti-wealth. They can have all they want after the folks below them that are responsible for driving most of the economy are fed enough to drive the economy...


The "folks below them" would not have jobs if not for the wealthy taking chances, starting businesses and building factories - if there is no reward for such risk and investment, why should they bother? Capitalism is driven by the opportunity to have a good life. Wealthy people used to be admired and respected for their success and the jobs they created, now people are jealous, focused on what they don't have, even though Americans are the wealthiest people on earth.

Most corporation profits are driven back into the business to expand operations and grow, and that is what drives the economy. Even if all of the super wealthy gave up their mansions and yachts it would not help the plight of low income people. Salaries are a function of supply and demand. Why should a company pay a ditch digger $25/hour when qualified applicants will line up around the block to accept $15/hour. Labor is usually the most expensive cost after raw materials, and such foolishness will quickly drive a company out of business, and many jobs with it.

The best way to build the economy is to allow companies to flourish, expand, and create opportunities for "the folks below them", not tax and regulate them into noncompetitive positions against China, Mexico, and other countries with government subsidized businesses. Sure we would all like to see lower income people live a better life, but not at the expense of the free enterprise system that built this great country. There needs to be a better more practical plan than blaming the rich because they succeeded. There is plenty of money available for those that invest in education, plan carefully, have a positive attitude, and are willing to take risk. Those just along for the ride will always be behind, but still far ahead of the real poor in most of the world.

You have a rather quaint viewpoint that corporate life is some kind of idealistic meritocracy. Most American CEOs are NOT entrepreneurs. They are ruthless spreadsheet managers, looking to polish their own stars by beating the latest budget projection. People are just another cost column that must be constantly contained, reduced and eliminated wherever possible.

 

[Huie83]

Originally Posted By: emmett442


A common denominator in a lot of the posted situations is that people had to play catch-up after some early mistakes. it's hard to really get ahead when you have to play catch-up first. You need time on your side. A lot of people discount the early mistakes because they have a lot of time to recover - but that lost time is the same reason they are the costliest mistakes!




This is a great point, and in my case I believe a large majority of why I feel so far behind and so many can't dig themselves out. In my case it was my first wife leaving out of the blue and wrecking me financially. I was in your shoes when I was 25 with my first wife. together we brought home around $100K and lived much like you do now. After she left and we had to take care of splitting everything financially ( and really I took on a lot more than her, most stuff was in my name), It took me 10 years to get back to square one. When you think about it, i'm more than 10 years behind now as I had to drain my 401K etc to keep my head above water while I realigned my life, finished school and got a good job etc. When you factor in all the money I wasted digging out of that mess, I basically had to start over as if I was 20 again,not good...

That's just one point too, 10 years later and I'm doing better but it's a uphill battle with school loans and all the other expenses I touched on in my last post. I think if you have a nice little nest egg and can pay cash for stuff, you never get behind, you're proof of that. It also seems like you don't get blindsided by much either and have a very simple life. For example, last year my furnace went out and one of my kids had to be taken to the hospital twice by ambulance, that was a good $12K in costs that I wasn't expecting and pushed us even further behind.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted By: Indydriver
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: StevieC
I'm not anti-wealth. They can have all they want after the folks below them that are responsible for driving most of the economy are fed enough to drive the economy...


The "folks below them" would not have jobs if not for the wealthy taking chances, starting businesses and building factories - if there is no reward for such risk and investment, why should they bother? Capitalism is driven by the opportunity to have a good life. Wealthy people used to be admired and respected for their success and the jobs they created, now people are jealous, focused on what they don't have, even though Americans are the wealthiest people on earth.

Most corporation profits are driven back into the business to expand operations and grow, and that is what drives the economy. Even if all of the super wealthy gave up their mansions and yachts it would not help the plight of low income people. Salaries are a function of supply and demand. Why should a company pay a ditch digger $25/hour when qualified applicants will line up around the block to accept $15/hour. Labor is usually the most expensive cost after raw materials, and such foolishness will quickly drive a company out of business, and many jobs with it.

The best way to build the economy is to allow companies to flourish, expand, and create opportunities for "the folks below them", not tax and regulate them into noncompetitive positions against China, Mexico, and other countries with government subsidized businesses. Sure we would all like to see lower income people live a better life, but not at the expense of the free enterprise system that built this great country. There needs to be a better more practical plan than blaming the rich because they succeeded. There is plenty of money available for those that invest in education, plan carefully, have a positive attitude, and are willing to take risk. Those just along for the ride will always be behind, but still far ahead of the real poor in most of the world.

You have a rather quaint viewpoint that corporate life is some kind of idealistic meritocracy. Most American CEOs are NOT entrepreneurs. They are ruthless spreadsheet managers, looking to polish their own stars by beating the latest budget projection. People are just another cost column that must be constantly contained, reduced and eliminated wherever possible.


+1 Indy and I would add... How well has their way of doing things worked out for the economy?

 

[CKN]

Originally Posted By: BJD78
I am more leaning to taking it at 62 as well, a quick look at the family tree revealed that no males on either my mom or dad's side lived beyond 80 and the average age of death was around 74 to 78. My Dad took his at 70 and was gone at age 73 he probably drew 30 checks at best, my Mom decided to take her SS at age 62 and she managed to make it to age 81 before passing. She ended up in a nursing home at age 77 so the final 3 years of her SS went to pay for Nursing home care basically. I am more than likely just going to jump on that ship at age 62, the extra money at age 70 would be nice , but at age 70 what would I spend it on??



Exactly. Many can't/shouldn't travel at 70 either. Take it at 62 and use it for recreation or whatever else you need it for.

 

[Wolf359]

Originally Posted By: CKN
Originally Posted By: BJD78
I am more leaning to taking it at 62 as well, a quick look at the family tree revealed that no males on either my mom or dad's side lived beyond 80 and the average age of death was around 74 to 78. My Dad took his at 70 and was gone at age 73 he probably drew 30 checks at best, my Mom decided to take her SS at age 62 and she managed to make it to age 81 before passing. She ended up in a nursing home at age 77 so the final 3 years of her SS went to pay for Nursing home care basically. I am more than likely just going to jump on that ship at age 62, the extra money at age 70 would be nice , but at age 70 what would I spend it on??



Exactly. Many can't/shouldn't travel at 70 either. Take it at 62 and use it for recreation or whatever else you need it for.


If you don't expect to live long, then taking it early makes sense. But if you're average, on average it's better to take it later than sooner. It's not really meant for traveling, it's basically a safety net for old age. Basically the benefit cuts and increases for taking it later are supposed to be neutral, but people are actually living longer than the tables they've been using so the standard advice is to take it later unless there's other circumstances where you need it earlier.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/11/retirement/when-to-take-social-security/index.html

 

[02SE]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: StevieC
I'm not anti-wealth. They can have all they want after the folks below them that are responsible for driving most of the economy are fed enough to drive the economy...


The "folks below them" would not have jobs if not for the wealthy taking chances, starting businesses and building factories - if there is no reward for such risk and investment, why should they bother? Capitalism is driven by the opportunity to have a good life. Wealthy people used to be admired and respected for their success and the jobs they created, now people are jealous, focused on what they don't have, even though Americans are the wealthiest people on earth.

Most corporation profits are driven back into the business to expand operations and grow, and that is what drives the economy. Even if all of the super wealthy gave up their mansions and yachts it would not help the plight of low income people. Salaries are a function of supply and demand. Why should a company pay a ditch digger $25/hour when qualified applicants will line up around the block to accept $15/hour. Labor is usually the most expensive cost after raw materials, and such foolishness will quickly drive a company out of business, and many jobs with it.

The best way to build the economy is to allow companies to flourish, expand, and create opportunities for "the folks below them", not tax and regulate them into noncompetitive positions against China, Mexico, and other countries with government subsidized businesses. Sure we would all like to see lower income people live a better life, but not at the expense of the free enterprise system that built this great country. There needs to be a better more practical plan than blaming the rich because they succeeded. There is plenty of money available for those that invest in education, plan carefully, have a positive attitude, and are willing to take risk. Those just along for the ride will always be behind, but still far ahead of the real poor in most of the world.


+1

 

[02SE]

Originally Posted By: Indydriver
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: StevieC
I'm not anti-wealth. They can have all they want after the folks below them that are responsible for driving most of the economy are fed enough to drive the economy...


The "folks below them" would not have jobs if not for the wealthy taking chances, starting businesses and building factories - if there is no reward for such risk and investment, why should they bother? Capitalism is driven by the opportunity to have a good life. Wealthy people used to be admired and respected for their success and the jobs they created, now people are jealous, focused on what they don't have, even though Americans are the wealthiest people on earth.

Most corporation profits are driven back into the business to expand operations and grow, and that is what drives the economy. Even if all of the super wealthy gave up their mansions and yachts it would not help the plight of low income people. Salaries are a function of supply and demand. Why should a company pay a ditch digger $25/hour when qualified applicants will line up around the block to accept $15/hour. Labor is usually the most expensive cost after raw materials, and such foolishness will quickly drive a company out of business, and many jobs with it.

The best way to build the economy is to allow companies to flourish, expand, and create opportunities for "the folks below them", not tax and regulate them into noncompetitive positions against China, Mexico, and other countries with government subsidized businesses. Sure we would all like to see lower income people live a better life, but not at the expense of the free enterprise system that built this great country. There needs to be a better more practical plan than blaming the rich because they succeeded. There is plenty of money available for those that invest in education, plan carefully, have a positive attitude, and are willing to take risk. Those just along for the ride will always be behind, but still far ahead of the real poor in most of the world.

You have a rather quaint viewpoint that corporate life is some kind of idealistic meritocracy. Most American CEOs are NOT entrepreneurs. They are ruthless spreadsheet managers, looking to polish their own stars by beating the latest budget projection. People are just another cost column that must be constantly contained, reduced and eliminated wherever possible.


So take the risk and start your own business and run it as you see fit. Just remember there's no guarantee of success, and you'll never work harder.

Good luck.

 

[Indydriver]

They could care less about the economy. It has achieved their goal of surviving, even prospering while they have callously damaged or destroyed many families.

I was a senior sales manager for a non-union manufacturer-one layer between me and the C-suite. So, I was high enough I could “see behind the curtain” but also responsible for implementing all the personnel plans hatched by the CEO and HR which were designed to convince the “folks down below” what a great company they worked for, while reducing cost. While the worker bees were watching the right hand, the left hand was trimming merit increases, retirement contributions and healthcare benefits. Shifts were eliminated and plants closed even though we made it through the recession never losing money and knowing full well we would need capacity when business rebounded.

 

[Indydriver]

Originally Posted By: 02SE

So take the risk and start your own business and run it as you see fit. Just remember there's no guarantee of success, and you'll never work harder.

Good luck.


You are exactly right. This is the lesson to be learned from a lifetime of working for others and exactly how I’ve counseled my children: if you’re going to go into business, be sure it’s your name on the front door.