How many of you can RE now, but are saving to raise your std of living?

[sgeeeee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogersteciak I will never fully retire because I will always be doing something to keep me busy.

* Hi Roger. Nothing wrong with deciding to keep working, but the implication of this sentence is that if you are not working to produce income, you aren't busy. That's a pretty narrow view of life and personal values.

Quote:

Since I'm an entrepreneur, money is the way I use to keep score, so much of what I will be doing for the rest of my life will generate income of one kind or another.

Nothing wrong with that if it works for you, but don't expect applause for stating that you value income generation above anything else people might find to do with their time.

[rogersteciak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgeeeee * Hi Roger.* Nothing wrong with deciding to keep working, but the implication of this sentence is that if you are not working to produce income, you aren't busy.* That's a pretty narrow view of life and personal values.* Nothing wrong with that if it works for you, but don't expect applause for stating that you value income generation above anything else people might find to do with their time.* *

Those are good points.* Realize that it's my value system and what I want to do.* Other people may have different uses for their 168 hours of time every week and that is their business.* I'm not expecting applause from anyone because I don't care what others think about what I do with my time.* I can only live the life that's right for me.* Bill Gates and Warren Buffet could have retired a long time ago, yet they have continued to work even though they don't have to work anymore.* I'm the same way and I like having the choice to work or not work now.* I choose to continue to work and use the income I generate as a means of keeping score on myself.

[sgeeeee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogersteciak . . . I choose to continue to work and use the income I generate as a means of keeping score on myself.

Hope you win, I guess.

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogersteciak I choose to continue to work and use the income I generate as a means of keeping score on myself.

Welcome to the board, Roger, and nothing personal, but if that's the case then how does spending time on an ER discussion board benefit someone who doesn't plan to ER?

[modlair]

I'm somewhat of a newbie to this board, like Roger.

I'll speak up in his defense. I think there is a powerful demographic train coming that we're all aware of but we all have not embraced all of the consequences.

I'd venture to guess 80% of the people on this board are either on pensions or expect to be.

Well, Roger won't be, apparently. This is hugely important and I suspect the pension oriented folks cannot wrap their mindsets around this reality. He is taking care of himself and is wise in doing so.

There is another reality that will be hard to accept. I'd guess, controversially, that about 1/2 of the 80% who are pension folks are going to see those pensions disappear before they die -- either before they ever collect a penny or even after they start. Society is moving rapidly away from defined benefits and this will just as rapidly extend to government pensions. They are going to be slashed becuase there are not going to be enough workers to pay for them.

Worse, those few workers who will exist will be minorities. Their political caucuses will be outraged at paying into pension systems that fund almost exclusively white retirees.
They will have a very good point. Minorities don't live as long.

It looks inevitable to me. When it happens, a lot of old folks are going back to work. Roger is NOT taking an extreme position.

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodmail He is taking care of himself and is wise in doing so.

I'd save more money or cut back my living expenses.* I wouldn't default to the "Work for pay until I die" option.

[audreyh1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodmail I'd venture to guess 80% of the people on this board are either on pensions or expect to be.*

I kinda doubt that. Seems like many of the folks here have managed to accumulate assets sufficient for ER. But I don't have a poll to reference to prove otherwise.

Audrey

[2B]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodmail I'd venture to guess 80% of the people on this board are either on pensions or expect to be.* There is another reality that will be hard to accept.* I'd guess, controversially, that about 1/2 of the 80% who are pension folks are going to see those pensions disappear before they die -- either before they ever collect a penny or even after they start.* Society is moving rapidly away from defined benefits and this will just as rapidly extend to government pensions.* They are going to be slashed becuase there are not going to be enough workers to pay for them. Worse, those few workers who will exist will be minorities.* Their political caucuses will be outraged at paying into pension systems that fund almost exclusively white retirees.* They will have a very good point.* Minorities don't live as long.

Welcome to the board although I have to question why you are here too.

I suspect most of the people active on this board do not have a large part of their retirement funding based on a pension. *Except for the few govenment types who get COLAed every year, those of us that do receive one now know that our penion will disappear to inflation.

I wish I realized what a scam defined benefit pensions were sooner. *I would have started taking care of my own retirement sooner.

As far as who pays the taxes after I reduce mine, I expect the race of the taxed won't influence the IRS. *My experience they treat everyone like a criminal or a turnip destined to give blood.

I don't think "race baiting" belongs on this board. *Go hate somewhere else.

[modlair]

>>Worse, those few workers who will exist will be minorities. Their political caucuses will be outraged at paying into pension systems that fund almost exclusively white retirees.
They will have a very good point. Minorities don't live as long.
>>

>>I don't think "race baiting" belongs on this board. Go hate somewhere else.
>>

Oh heavens, that's not fair. This is a mathematical reality and there need be no agenda.

It is what it is and the results can be assessed on the basis of probability. Were I in a minority political caucus I would not want money extracted from my constituents paychecks to fund, exclusively and disproportionately, a different constituency from which my own contituents would likely always be excluded.

[astromeria]

We had a poll not too long ago on the percentage here collecting or expecting a pension of substance. IIRC, it was less than 80%--maybe 60%?

In our case, I have no pension coming, which didn't stop me from ER. My husband is supposed to collect $237/month at age 65, no COLA before or after, no survivorship, from BigCorp. If he stays in his college instructor job long enough (and assuming they don't change the rules), he'll collect another pension from our state, also very small. I don't count on either of them and typically ignore them in my planning (but an extra $500/month would be a very nice bonus).

[2B]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodmail Oh heavens, that's not fair.* This is a mathematical reality and there need be no agenda.* It is what it is and the results can be assessed on the basis of probability.* Were I in a minority political caucus I would not want money extracted from my constituents paychecks to fund, exclusively and disproportionately, a different constituency from which my own contituents would likely always be excluded.

If that was not your intent, I apologize.

Right now minorities are paying a disproportionate share of social security based on their benefits. Minorities are disproportionately in lower paying jobs and are gouged for over 15% for SS and medicare. The life expectancies of all people in lower paying careers/occupations are generally lower. Therefore, they contribute a larger portion of their earnings and receive a smaller portion of the benefits.

It always makes me wonder why most self-appointed minority leaders are rabid Demos. Meaningful SS reform would benefit minorities more.

[modlair]

Quote:

If that was not your intent, I apologize.

No problem. The point was not so much why and how, but what results from it. Pensions are even more likely to be slashed as a result of this minority contribution reality. There is no way that government pensions (and Soc. Sec.) will survive merely by having worker contributions increased. The political toes stepped on by trying to fund payouts with worker contributions will preclude that.

I suspect that the number of people drawing SS, greatly exceeding other government pensions, will guarantee that it is the last "pension" to be slashed, but it will likely come under attack after all the others are gutted.

As for other comments that only 60% of the board draws a pension, or expects to (and I suppose I exclude SS from that) is interesting. A survey was quoted. It would be good to know the numbers.

[sgeeeee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodmail . . . There is no way that government pensions (and Soc. Sec.) will survive merely by having worker contributions increased.* . . .

Actually, this is quite possible. It probably won't be the way SS is fixed. It is more likely that it will be a combination of whittling down benefits and increasing contributions. But if you visit the SS web site and read their FAQs about the program, you can see that SS is not in such dire straights as some have tried to lead us to believe.

Now Medicare . . . that's a whole 'nother story.

[rogersteciak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodmail I'd venture to guess 80% of the people on this board are either on pensions or expect to be.* Well, Roger won't be, apparently.

I have no pension.* Instead, my retirement is going to be funded by my own self-directed IRA (which includs rolled-over 401Ks) and my financial net assets in the taxable domain.* I prefer it this way because I have more control over my own financial destiny.

[rogersteciak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nords How does spending time on an ER discussion board benefit someone who doesn't plan to ER?

When you can't afford to retire, you have to continue working because you have no choice.* When you can afford to retire but decide to keep working anyway, it means you have the choice between working and not working.* I may very well decide to stop working someday, but it will be because I choose to do so.

I should point out that "work" to me is broader in scope than as most people define it.* To me, "work" includes wealth building, which is building up one's sources of passive and portfolio incomes.* In other words, "work" to me means being the boss with the money that can make me more money through my efforts to grow my wealth (i.e., financial net assets).* I may also receive earned income on a W-2 or 1099 form of paycheck in the process, but the overriding effort is to become wealthier by owning businesses and making investments.

The reason early retirement comes into the picture is the time element.* My time is my own now.* I decide what I want to do and when I want to do it.* I am my own boss.* I decide whether to work or not.* I decide whether to give myself the day (or month or year or whatever) off.* Having the financial resources to be able to retire early means having the ability to decide how one spends one's time -- relaxing, working for oneself, or working for someone else.* There is no such thing as "non-free time" when you are able to retire early because all time is free.* That is the connection between ER and continuing to work because you decide that is how you want to spend your time.

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2B . and receive a smaller portion of the benefits.

Actually, low wage earners have a higher percentage of their salary replaced by SS than high wage earners.* SS is progressive on payouts.* But, you're right, it is a flat tax for collections.

[2B]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet Actually, low wage earners have a higher percentage of their salary replaced by SS than high wage earners.* SS is progressive on payouts.* But, you're right, it is a flat tax for collections.

I agree on the payout but they won't get benefits as long. Low wage earners have a statistically lower life expectancy.

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2B I agree on the payout but they won't get benefits as long.* Low wage earners have a statistically lower life expectancy.

Darn!* * I had several chances in life to work two jobs and earn more money.* If I would have known I could have also lived longer by doing so, I would have.* I figured burning the candle at both ends like that would have led to a lower life expectancy.

[modlair]

Quote:

Darn! Angry I had several chances in life to work two jobs and earn more money. If I would have known I could have also lived longer by doing so, I would have. I figured burning the candle at both ends like that would have led to a lower life expectancy.

But if you live longer, your SWR has to be lower. Look at the bright side.

It's very confusing.

[Robert the Red]

Quote:

Right now minorities are paying a disproportionate share of social security based on their benefits.* Minorities are disproportionately in lower paying jobs and are gouged for over 15% for SS and medicare.* The life expectancies of all people in lower paying careers/occupations are generally lower.* Therefore, they contribute a larger portion of their earnings and receive a smaller portion of the benefits.

This is not accurate.* More minorities receive survivor and disability benefits, and the net effect of this (and other factors) is that minorities as a whole get a somewhat higher payback rate from the SS system than do whites, even though they do not (on average) collect their old age SS annuities for as long as whites do.