Young and SS

[armor99]

Absolutely. So many have no concept of personal responsibility. "Stuff happens." "I'm entitled because someone else has it too."

It reminds me of one SIL who insists on having her three or four vacations to the beach every year, frequent restaurant meals and shopping, new car every 2-4 years, etc. She traded in a 3 year old almost paid for car because it needed two brake rotors at $250 each and that was too much to pay. What are these people thinking?

She's the one who has to stay in a hotel at Myrtle Beach SC with an ocean view while 20 minutes away another SIL has a nice 3-bedroom double wide vacation home, offered for free, but two blocks from the beach. I guess she can't stand the thought of being in a "trailer park". She's a waitress in a Mom & Pop restaurant - not like she's making rolls of money!

I just don't get it, and it drives DW nuts that her brother married this idiot.

Amen brother!!! I just want someone to explain to me one day, why people would choose to put $2000 rims on a $400 car? Just the clearest and most visible expression of poor thinking that I see on a regular basis. Maybe they all just think they will be dead long before any of their past foolishness catches up to them....

 

[SLC Tortfeasor]

Amen brother!!! I just want someone to explain to me one day, why people would choose to put $2000 rims on a $400 car? Just the clearest and most visible expression of poor thinking that I see on a regular basis. Maybe they all just think they will be dead long before any of their past foolishness catches up to them....

Yes, this has always baffled me too!

I just sold my Nissan 350Z to a 21 year old young man who works in the warehouse for a local furniture store. I sat next to him at his credit union while he completed his paperwork to get a loan to buy the car. He took out a 5 year loan for 100% of the cost of the car, and also borrowed more money to pay the sales tax, so altogether he borrowed about $19,000. I don't know what his interest rate is but I'm sure it's not great. His insurance on the car will be about $110 or $120 per month, if I recall correctly. As we were leaving the credit union, he told me the first thing he wants to do is get some new rims. There's nothing wrong with the old ones--they're flashy and expensive 18" chrome wheels. But he wants some nicer ones. I smiled and told him I thought it would be cool.

Of course, I can't look down on him too much because the car depreciated $9,000 during the 3 years I owned it. It certainly wasn't a smart financial move for me to buy it 3 years ago, but at least I got the sports car thing out of my system.

 

[kombat]

Just because had made money doesn't mean he's giving it to me, why should he?

Because he's your father. Paying for your education is one of the responsibilities that comes with the choice to have children.

 

[Hamlet]

I think that is a pretty debatable statement.

There are certainly plenty of people who feel that paying for college is the responsibility of the person who is actually going to college, not their parents. I got a little help from my parents, but I paid for the bulk of my college myself. I don't feel like they stiffed me.

At any rate, there is no legal obligation for the parents to pay, so means testing the financial aid does punish a fair number of students who have rich parents that aren't helping to pay for college.

Because he's your father. Paying for your education is one of the responsibilities that comes with the choice to have children.

 

[pksublime]

I think that is a pretty debatable statement.

There are certainly plenty of people who feel that paying for college is the responsibility of the person who is actually going to college, not their parents. I got a little help from my parents, but I paid for the bulk of my college myself. I don't feel like they stiffed me.

At any rate, there is no legal obligation for the parents to pay, so means testing the financial aid does punish a fair number of students who have rich parents that aren't helping to pay for college.

Well said.
I look at it another way; if you are of the opinion that parents should pay for college, then what about the children that decide to go be skibums and end up becoming extreme professional athletes? Are you going to finance their "education" on the slopes?
When you look back at their life it will become obvious that the time on the slopes was what lead up to their success, and therefore was a needed expense to futher their careers. Is that not how many classify college?

 

[rs0460a]

Because he's your father. Paying for your education is one of the responsibilities that comes with the choice to have children.

Yeah - right ...

- Ron

 

[rs0460a]

So at 24, assume nothing, check again in a few years.... and then a few years after that.

I know that this isn't part of the "prime discussion", but I thought I'd add my $.02 on the subject of "plans".

At age 18, I finished a 1-year tech school (no college in my future - just a "poor white boy"). My last "scheduled event".

Age 19 - Received my draft notice (Nope, didn't plan for it, but knew it would probably happen. I was "smart"; decided to enlist in the Air Force. "Those guys" were not going to Nam ...

Age 20 - Received my orders for Nam (boy, was I smart ) .

Age 21 - Returned to "the world"; married (to my HS sweetheart - best "investment" I ever made ).

Age 23 - Left the AF; got my first "real job". Along with a pension (at the time, needed to be there 10 years to get anything, per federal rules).

Age 31 - Left my job for a "better opportunity". First "real job" pension benefits - none (remember, at the time, needed 10 years). New company had retirement program. Wow -now I could retire at 65!

Age 34 - IRA offered (via Vanguard) for the first time; invested my first $2k (the max at the time).

Age 35 - My wife started contributing to IRA (still no Roth's at that time)

Age 45 - 401K (what's that ) offered for the first time (of course, I participated).

Age 48? - SS changed my retirement date for full benefits from 65 to 66.

Age 50 - Still with same company. However, pension program terminated . Converted to cash balance (you're on your own, baby!)

Age 59 - Guess what? Got tired of the "company sh**" (nope, didn't want to go with the "different job, same sh** plan). Found out that my (and of course my DW's) contribution to our 401K's/IRA's meant that we need not put up with such "foolishness" (as verified via FIRECalc, RIP <Fidelity planner>, FE <Vanguard Planner>) along with "validating" that SS would not "impact" our retirement income (DW at age 62, me at age 70).

What's the point of my rant? Nothing really, other than state that whatever you plan for today, will be changed tomorrow (and you have no impact upon those changes ).

Plan away for the future, but remember to have a good life today, regardless of what the future will bring. Remember the old saying, "life is what happens when you are making plans for the future"...

- Ron

 

[pksublime]

That's really a good point, I can plan all I want but it might not end up making a whole hill of beans when I look back.

 

[Marquette]

Age 19 - Received my draft notice (Nope, didn't plan for it, but knew it would probably happen. I was "smart"; decided to enlist in the Air Force. "Those guys" were not going to Nam ...

Age 20 - Received my orders for Nam (boy, was I smart ) .

My dad knew he was going to get drafted so he enlisted AF. He figured he was going to Nam, but if he went it'd probably be by plan and if they needed to leave in a hurry it'd probably be by plane... so, might as well stick with the planes! He never did get sent over, retired 20 years later.

 

[rs0460a]

retired 20 years later.

Well good for him. I however was happy to leave ASAP.

When "counselled" about re-enlisting (even with a bonus that could be well used by my wife/child), I gave the answer:

"I'll flip a coin. If it stays in the air, I'll re-enlist "...

Needless to say, I would say that both me/your father made the correct choice....

Regards,

- Ron

 

[kombat]

Age 21 - married (to my HS sweetheart).

[...]

Found out that my contribution to our 401K's/IRA's meant that we need not put up with such "foolishness" (DW at age 62, me at age 70).

I don't mean to pry, but I couldn't help noticing these two points. Are that by chance the same "DW" in both cases? Surely you didn't marry a 13-year-old at age 21? Or is the pension income simply kicking in at different ages for you due to other circumstances?

 

[haha]

I don't mean to pry, but I couldn't help noticing these two points. Are that by chance the same "DW" in both cases? Surely you didn't marry a 13-year-old at age 21? Or is the pension income simply kicking in at different ages for you due to other circumstances?

Hey, if it was good enough for Jerry Lee ...

 

[rs0460a]

Thanks to both of you (you gave this "old man" a laugh ).

No, the answer is we both married (to each other ) at the ripe old age of 21 (which was the "legal age" back in those "ancient times").

My DW will be taking SS at age 62 (she is still working, and although FE, not "emotionally ready" to retire).

I'm planning on taking SS at age 70 (10 years from now). I expect to "tap in" to her SS at her age 66 (FRA) for 50% of her FRA benefit (I know it sounds strange, but here's the link to that separate discusion):

Two Ways To Optimize Social Security Benefits - Features

Look under the heading "Team Play". That will allow me to get additional income (not in our retirement plan) for the four years till I draw SS.

Additionally, that means (assuming I pass first - probably since I married a "young babe ") that she will get my full SS age 70 benefit, which will be almost 3x what her age 62 benefit will be.

- Ron

 

[packrat44]

I'll probably stuff $1000 dollar bills under the mattress of a new solid gold bed at a new large beach front home with a new yacht out front so I'm "poor" and can collect.

You best keep those $1,000 bills under your mattress and not try spending them. Otherwise the Feds will give you free room and board since the largest denomination bill in the US is now $100. On the other hand, that is a way to get the Government to take care of your future cost of living.

 

[rmark]

SS estimates it can pay 74% of benefits at mid cost projections. Using SS low cost projections, 100% of benefits can be paid, with past costs being closer to low than mid costs.

Personally, I assume SS is a fixed pension after medicare B, with rising medicare B costs 'absorbing' the inflation adjustment.

The Bruce Web has several essays on SS

 

[Gumby]

SS estimates it can pay 74% of benefits at mid cost projections. Using SS low cost projections, 100% of benefits can be paid, with past costs being closer to low than mid costs.

Personally, I assume SS is a fixed pension after medicare B, with rising medicare B costs 'absorbing' the inflation adjustment.

The Bruce Web has several essays on SS

But that doesn't mean that everyone will get 74% of what they were originally promised. Those who have no other assets may very well get 100%, while frugal people who have saved a decent nest egg on their own may get zero. I believe that means testing is inevitable and have made my retirement plans accordingly (i.e - I assume I will get zero from SS. Anything I get will be gravy)

 

[ziggy29]

But that doesn't mean that everyone will get 74% of what they were originally promised. Those who have no other assets may very well get 100%, while frugal people who have saved a decent nest egg on their own may get zero. I believe that means testing is inevitable and have made my retirement plans accordingly (i.e - I assume I will get zero from SS. Anything I get will be gravy)

I suspect you're right, but I think it's a mistake to discourage people from saving for their own retirement. People are bad enough about saving as it is without the government convincing them that NOT buying that big new car or NOT taking that big, expensive vacation will mean losing their Social Security.

Better to further increase the full-benefit retirement age, IMO, gradually increasing it to 70.