What If You Run Out of Money?

[Cut-Throat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Car-Guy Me too and that "thinking" caused me to work a couple more years than I really needed to work. I have since re-calibrated my spend rate and I am now blowing that dough since I now realize I'll never even see 90. Maybe 85 and that's pushing it.

Please tell us, How do you know that you'll never see age 90?

[daylatedollarshort]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cut-Throat Yup, Me too! .... But what is still amazing to me, is that when you are talking about Social Security, the "Take it at age 62 Crowd" usually cannot see past age 83 (The Break-even Point).

That is a pretty broad generalization. Some people may take SS at 62 and have enough to live to age 200, making when to take SS fairly irrelevant.

[Teacher Terry]

I intend to take mine at full retirement age which is 66.

[marko]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cut-Throat Yup, Me too! .... But what is still amazing to me, is that when you are talking about Social Security, the "Take it at age 62 Crowd" usually cannot see past age 83 (The Break-even Point).

We're getting off topic, but the breakeven age has absolutely nothing to do with my taking SS at 62 and I think we have the 1432 threads on the subject to prove it

[Car-Guy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cut-Throat Please tell us, How do you know that you'll never see age 90?

I have had (and watched) several of my relatives make it into their 90's and one was even over 100. I'm far too much of a sissy to live like that!

[RetireAge50]

My plan is to have enough money to pay someone to wipe my butt if need to. Otherwise I guess if I run out of money I will wipe my own butt.

[Car-Guy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RetireAge50 My plan is to have enough money to pay someone to wipe my butt if need to. Otherwise I guess if I run out of money I will wipe my own butt.

TMI

[joeea]

Timely:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/14/sam-...overblown.html

[RetireAge50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Car-Guy TMI

I agree. However this is the lowest common denominator. Also unfortunately I know this from experience (from my dad). Bottom line if you run out of money it totally sucks.

[Live And Learn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Live And Learn There is no way I would have ever retired if FireCalc had my funds depleted by 87 ! I wanted 100% to age 100.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Car-Guy Me too and that "thinking" caused me to work a couple more years than I really needed to work. I have since re-calibrated my spend rate and I am now blowing that dough since I now realize I'll never even see 90. Maybe 85 and that's pushing it.

I don't know if I worked a few extra years yet, but I am hoping I did so that I can give myself some excellent unscheduled, unbudgeted, surprise gifts ! THAT will make working those extra 2 or 3 years worthwhile

[Bpollen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoReadyToRetire I hope this is the right place to post this question. I'm wondering--what would happen to someone who literally ran out of money before they died? I mean, if someone is in their 80s and penniless, would society really let them just die in their home? Does it depend on where you live and what kinds of social services are available there? Does anybody actually know anybody who ran out of money after they retired because they didn't save enough? This isn't meant as a stupid question, or a heartless one--just an honest one.

People die all the time, alone and not found for days (or longer). How many are destitute seniors, I don't know.

Churches or local organizations assist destitute seniors. Meals on Wheels, although that's been cut to the bone. Most people have kids who help or take a parent in, probably.

If someone, no matter his age, loses all income, that's a person who might become homeless, I guess.

Most people get Social Security, though, so they have SOME income. If that's the case, I think there are low-rent projects, govt sponsored, that would help someone with a low income rent a small place. Medicaid or Medicare would help with health care.

This was actually the reason the govt started Social Security in the first place. Before Soc Security, the majority of seniors lived in poverty. After Social Security was started, only about 25% live in poverty, I read. I think that's the percentage I read.

This is my greatest fear: running out of money because of some huge expense I didn't count on. I've done all I can to prevent that. If I lose everything, I have a plan.

[Car-Guy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Live And Learn I don't know if I worked a few extra years yet, but I am hoping I did so that I can give myself some excellent unscheduled, unbudgeted, surprise gifts ! THAT will make working those extra 2 or 3 years worthwhile

And that's exactly what has happen (or is happening) to me now. I think the problem for many of us, "in such a position", can be recognizing soon enough in retirement that you have more than enough of a cushion and can begin to "blow that dough". That's almost harder to do than deciding to retire but you "Live And Learn".

[Bpollen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoReadyToRetire OK, so the gist so far is that yes, there are programs out there that would hopefully keep such a person alive (though maybe with not much of a "life"). So if we wouldn't die if we ran out of money when we were, say, 87 (which is what FireCalc is currently showing for me, for example), why do we worry so much about those last few years? Is it worth taking a couple more years off THIS end of my life (by continuing to work, I mean) to make sure I have money at THAT end? (<--I know that's COMPLETELY subjective. But doesn't anyone else think about that?)

I've not heard of FireCalc before, so I just looked at it and ran it. The info on the first page says it assumes you won't be getting Social Security or a pension, though. So if your FireCalc said your money would take you to 87, it would actually be longer, if you will be getting Social Security.

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bpollen I've not heard of FireCalc before, so I just looked at it and ran it. The info on the first page says it assumes you won't be getting Social Security or a pension, though. So if your FireCalc said your money would take you to 87, it would actually be longer, if you will be getting Social Security.

The short answer is yes, if the future is no worse than the past couple of hundred years.

Be sure you click through and complete the inputs on all the tabs:

[Doribe]

Sadly, I know someone that didn't work enough to get Social Security. The person is in their sixties and broke. He is living in a shelter and getting social services. None of us want to end up there. I don't think anyone here will end up there. If it happens there are social services for living life a a fairly low level.

[pb4uski]

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Cosmic Avenger .....missing details like exclusions or caps on healthcare insurance can cost into the six or even seven figures....

Got some examples there? I don't see that as a realistic concern unless one is totally clueless.

[W2R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bpollen I've not heard of FireCalc before, so I just looked at it and ran it. The info on the first page says it assumes you won't be getting Social Security or a pension, though. So if your FireCalc said your money would take you to 87, it would actually be longer, if you will be getting Social Security.

If you click on the "Other Income/Spending" tab, there is a page for entering Social Security and/or pension. Firecalc will then include these income sources in its calculations.

[muchohucho]

My grandmother died without any money at age 94. Her last few years were in a wonderful home in Washington State all paid for by Medicaid/SS. So I guess she didn't totally run out of money; all those years she worked as a nurse and paid into the system paid off. Worse than running out of money is running out of kith and kin.

[Katsmeow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan I'm far from an expert on SS but I thought the surviving spouse began receiving the SS of the deceased spouse. On the strength of that assumption I am planning to wait until 70 before claiming SS as a bit of extra insurance for my wife.

If my husband died (or I died), the survivor's SS income would go down by 48%. DH and I have similar SS, mine is slightly higher. So if he dies I lose his and I die, he gets mine and loses his.

Of course, I have considered this and calculated whether the survivor could make it if that occurs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cut-Throat Yup, Me too! .... But what is still amazing to me, is that when you are talking about Social Security, the "Take it at age 62 Crowd" usually cannot see past age 83 (The Break-even Point).

Bit over-generalization. I took SS at a little under age 63 and the break even point was not a factor in my decision.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doribe Sadly, I know someone that didn't work enough to get Social Security. The person is in their sixties and broke. He is living in a shelter and getting social services. None of us want to end up there. I don't think anyone here will end up there. If it happens there are social services for living life a a fairly low level.

Some people who don't receive SS if disabled can get SSI. It isn't a lot but is something.

[The Cosmic Avenger]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb4uski Got some examples there? I don't see that as a realistic concern unless one is totally clueless.

Sure, why do the research yourself when you can just question my assertion? Here you go. Oh, and don't forget, some people work hard for low pay until 65 and are lucky to retire with low to mid six digits.

Sky-High Deductibles Broke the U.S. Health Insurance System

Insured, but Bankrupted Anyway (short, but contains a couple of good sources)

Even With Insurance, Americans Can't Afford Their Medical Bills