"Retirement expense" over "SS income"

[Sam]

Thanks all for participating. So far we have 43 votes, excluding the 4 "No SS for me" votes.

101 - 300% = 24 votes, 56%
Over 301% = 19 votes, 44%
Looks like the median is 2.75 times SS incomes.

I am not surprised at all for getting zero vote for 100%, considering the forum we're in.

The most interesting data is the number of votes, only 47. This poll is for everyone, already retired, or planning to. The other poll, "Retirement Budget" is limited to retired people only, garnered 69 votes. What gives? Is it because some people don't know what the SS income is or will be?

 

[kcowan]

Thanks all for participating. So far we have 43 votes, excluding the 4 "No SS for me" votes.

101 - 300% = 24 votes, 56%
Over 301% = 19 votes, 44%
Looks like the median is 2.75 times SS incomes.

I am not surprised at all for getting zero vote for 100%, considering the forum we're in.

The most interesting data is the number of votes, only 47. This poll is for everyone, already retired, or planning to. The other poll, "Retirement Budget" is limited to retired people only, garnered 69 votes. What gives? Is it because some people don't know what the SS income is or will be?

I think it is because most retirees here are not counting on SS to be crucial. It is a nice contributor but minor in the scheme of things. That was my reaction even though I did vote (over 301%).

I suspect that your median would be higher if more of us voted.

 

[AltaRed]

The most interesting data is the number of votes, only 47. This poll is for everyone, already retired, or planning to. The other poll, "Retirement Budget" is limited to retired people only, garnered 69 votes. What gives? Is it because some people don't know what the SS income is or will be?

Perhaps people are sick of polls??

 

[honobob]

Perhaps people are sick of polls??

I wonder how many?

 

[astromeria]

I wonder how many?

 

[Sam]

Perhaps people are sick of polls??

Yep, very possible.

 

[Sam]

I think it is because most retirees here are not counting on SS to be crucial. It is a nice contributor but minor in the scheme of things.

More than 50% of the votes are in the 101-300% range. I would say that SS is crucial.

 

[Sam]

OMG! Someone just voted 100%. Who are you, and what are you doing in this forum?

 

[bosco]

OMG! Someone just voted 100%. Who are you, and what are you doing in this forum?

come on moderators....look 'em up and post their username so we can all make collective fun of them give them advice

 

[Nords]

come on moderators....look 'em up and post their username so we can all make collective fun of them give them advice

Sorry, as far as I can tell the board software doesn't track who answered what to the polls and they're the next-best thing to anonymous. You can make an educated guess if you're watching the poll and it updates between refreshes, but even that doesn't work if the person doesn't post in addition to taking the poll.

Sheesh, that should open Pandora's Box...

 

[OAG]

High social security benefits? Low retirement expenses? LBYM very well? Pension and/or Medical expenses covered beyond MEDICARE? I am not the one but, I would think it commendable if one lives the way one wants to and is able to do it within thier level of SS.

 

[Sam]

High social security benefits? Low retirement expenses?

Very true. The maximum SS benefit today is 24K/year/person. Or 48K per couple. Should be sufficient.

LBYM very well?

Possible, but unlikely. LBYM would have resulted in saving, so 100% would be wrong, unless they still want to save in retirement.

 

[astromeria]

OMG! Someone just voted 100%. Who are you, and what are you doing in this forum?

I can easily envision 2 people, each collecting $20k/year in SS, living on $40k--or collecting $20k and $10k in SS and living on that $30k. I bet there are lots of couples like this (mostly not on this forum, true).

 

[Sam]

I agree. There are plenty out there, and they appear to be doing just fine.

But that means no early retirement, unless you count 62 as early. Hence my OMG joke/comment relative to this ER forum.

 

[Sam]

I stumble onto this report

http://www.403bwise.com/pdf/retirementcrisis_tiaa.pdf

On page 7:

The importance of Social Security is further demonstrated in Chart 4. The chart shows that for roughly two-thirds of the elderly, Social Security accounts for 50 percent or more of their income. For approximately a third of the elderly, Social Security accounts for 90 percent or more of their income. Finally, for 20 percent of the elderly, Social Security accounts for 100 percent of their income.

Chart 4, on page 8, summarizes the results.

Not supprisingly, the result provided by members of this board is much brighter.

 

[Zathras]

Sam, I picked 'none' as I don't believe SS is sustainable for 30 years (that would put me just shy of 70).
In my opiniion, SS will either be privatized or the benifits will be watered down to very very little, or in the worst case, it will be liquidated.
So I don't plan on SS contributing anything. If I am wrong I will get a little bonus

 

[Sam]

I understand your concern. But I don't see it that way. I'm confident that SS will be there for me as promised. I think the worst case (in my lifetime) is that benefit would be marginally reduced (no more than 10%).

But it's ok, if you're wrong, you'd wrong on the good side.