Is it true, only 8% Retire at age 65?

[TomH]

I took a real estate class in December and one of the first slides brought up was a statistics showing the number of people at 65.

When I looked at it, I estimate only 8% can really retire.

The others are still working, passed away, rely on the government or family/friends.

I added an attachment and hope it shows up.

Do you agree?

 

[mathjak107]

not that i think the small sampling of the cenus's financial survey is really that accurate but it shows those 65 or older did quite okay despite the media's constant news flash's about how little everyone has.

keep in mind these numbers are 5 years later after an amazing market bounce back and in many areas of the country real estate is doing better.

 

[JoeWras]

I took a real estate class in December and one of the first slides brought up was a statistics showing the number of people at 65.

When I looked at it, I estimate only 8% can really retire.

The others are still working, passed away, rely on the government or family/friends.

I added an attachment and hope it shows up.

Do you agree?

My mind shuts down when I see a bad grammatical error. I lose all confidence in the point in question. So, I don't agree based on that. I also don't agree based on my Midwest middle class family experience of my parent's generation.

----

dependant is rarely used in US English. In British English, it is the noun, i.e. the person that depends on someone.

 

[donheff]

That last statistic is key. 57% Dependant on family (spouses), friends, and Government (Social Security). Basically the chart says 8% could retire on their own and the rest need assets/income from spouses and/or SSA. Big deal.

 

[rbmrtn]

I tend not to believe it based on my anecdotal experience. My mother is 92 and has no "investment portfolio" just SS, medicare and a small pension. My parents were depression era people and thought CDs were risky. Shes done fine with no debt, no mortgage and still manages to save some ( don't know why). Basic no frills living, they were always LBYMs.

 

[JoeWras]

I tend not to believe it based on my anecdotal experience. My mother is 92 and has no "investment portfolio" just SS, medicare and a small pension. My parents were depression era people and thought CDs were risky. Shes done fine with no debt, no mortgage and still manages to save some ( don't know why). Basic no frills living, they were always LBYMs.

Right. And the misleading stats that the seminar person was hawking would include your mom in the 57% as a "dependant." Since she relies on SS, even partially, she is really not retired.

Sigh. I get so tired of the way statistics are used by people with agendas.

 

[btdt22]

My bet is they also included all the state and federal retiree's under the 57%

 

[Major Tom]

I took a real estate class in December and one of the first slides brought up was a statistics showing the number of people at 65.

When I looked at it, I estimate only 8% can really retire.

You mean that you added 2 and 6, and got 8? (Sorry - couldn't resist).

The others are still working, passed away, rely on the government or family/friends.

I added an attachment and hope it shows up.

Do you agree?

View attachment 21256

Without any kind of quoted source, this doesn't mean a whole lot and, as others have said, what does the "dependent on government" part mean? I'm guessing it includes those claiming SS, but does it also include people who have substantial personal savings and investments, who are also claiming SS - like many of the people in this forum? It doesn't say, so how can we know?

Was this piece of unsupported "data" used to attempt to scare you into a career in real estate? About the 57% who are "dependant on family, friends or the government" - do you think we should inform them that they are not really retired? Will that figure include me in about 10 or 15 years when, after a 10-15 year period living entirely from my own savings and investments, I will begin claiming SS as well?

My apologies if this post seems a bit acidic, but I have a 9am appointment with my accountant. I'm currently nursing a cuppa joe, and questioning my seemingly endless desire to always book the first appointment of the day in order to "get things over with" .

 

[Independent]

I took a real estate class in December and one of the first slides brought up was a statistics showing the number of people at 65.

When I looked at it, I estimate only 8% can really retire.

The others are still working, passed away, rely on the government or family/friends.

I added an attachment and hope it shows up.

Do you agree?

View attachment 21256

No.

For starters, the slide ignores pensions. Lots of people who are 65+ today have pensions.

And, I think that people "can really retire" even if Social Security provides a substantial portion of their retirement incomes. The slide suggests they don't count because they "rely on gov't".

And, I don't see why the 6% * who die before 65 are relevant to the discussion. Unless we're saying that if they were thrifty and saved for retirement then they "lost".

What was the point of the slide in a "real estate class"? Was someone telling you that you need a job that you could do part time after age 65? Or, were they somehow claiming that buying real estate will make you "independent" while buying stocks won't?


* FWIW, according to the 2010 US Life Tables, 15% of newborns die before age 65, 13% of people age 35 die before 65, and 6% of people age 59 die before 65.

 

[Bestwifeever]

I took a real estate class in December and one of the first slides brought up was a statistics showing the number of people at 65.

When I looked at it, I estimate only 8% can really retire.

The others are still working, passed away, rely on the government or family/friends.

I added an attachment and hope it shows up.

Do you agree?

View attachment 21256

That is sort of funny, that you think at age 65 only 8 percent of people can really retire but the graph shows that only 27 percent are still working.

Probably the "rely on family, friends, government" chunk are mostly collecting social security and using Medicare--I imagine the 8 percent who can really retire will be doing the same when they age into it.

I did get a little chuckle out of dead people not being in the group who can really retire. Because they did.

I came in second in my third grade spelling bee because I put an a in independent.

What was the real estate class's topic?

 

[imoldernu]

Re: relying on the goverment.

The government? Hmm... Social Security the government? What if Social Security was considered an investment? Where would that leave the "who pays" question.

So, if you didn't pay into social security? Did you have a choice? Well, maybe.
Interesting stuff about who doesn't have to pay to support your Social Security.

Can I opt out of paying Social Security and invest on my own? - USATODAY.com

The first way to get out of paying into Social Security is by being a member of the clergy, according to Joe Elsasser, a financial planner who specializes in Social Security and other related financial topics. Elsasser strongly advises against this for reasons to be discussed later in this column. However, clergy can opt out of Social Security by filing IRS Form 4361, which is the Application for Exemption From Self-Employment Tax for Use by Minister, Members of Religious Orders and Christian Science Practitioners.
There's another very limited way to avoid paying into Social Security, says Craig Copeland, senior researcher for the Employee Benefit Research Institute. Some federal workers covered under the old retirement plan — many of whom are approaching retirement age now — could avoid paying in, he says. New and newer federal employees, though, must pay into Social Security, Copeland says.
There are some state workers in Alaska, Colorado, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada and Ohio who can opt out of Social Security Copeland says. These state have statewide coverage systems that are not part of Social Security, he says.

There are additional exemptions for other state workers. For instance, teachers in Connecticut, Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri, Texas and California do not participate in Social Security. Some teachers in Rhode Island, Georgia, Oklahoma and Minnesota also do not participate, Copeland says.

 

[flyingaway]

If you can "rely on family, friends, and governments" in the form of social security, pensions, and medicare, then you are happily retired.

 

[ERD50]

My mind shuts down when I see a bad grammatical error. I lose all confidence in the point in question. So, I don't agree based on that. I also don't agree based on my Midwest middle class family experience of my parent's generation.

----

dependant is rarely used in US English. In British English, it is the noun, i.e. the person that depends on someone.

Agreed, it should have been "dependent on" or "dependants of"...

but where are you getting to only 8% retired? I'm sure many people are retired and depend on their SS to pay at least part of their bills. Taking it to an extreme (I wanted to avoid a further/furthur error after the 'dependant' thing ), we are ALL 'dependent' on government since we all use government utilities and infrastructure, etc.

Meaningless.

edit, sorry, didn't see all the cross posts between starting and 'submit' - also agree the "6% have died" cannot be said w/o specifying an age of the target audience, and as pointed out, they don't need to 'retire'.

-ERD50

 

[Mulligan]

Right. And the misleading stats that the seminar person was hawking would include your mom in the 57% as a "dependant." Since she relies on SS, even partially, she is really not retired.



Sigh. I get so tired of the way statistics are used by people with agendas.

Yes it is all about how it's worded isn't it. I would imagine most SS recipients wouldn't view it as "being dependent on the government". I would be willing to take a wild leap of faith and suggest they would refer to it as "collecting what they deserve from paying into the system all these years."


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Chuckanut]

I have seen similar pitches from somebody selling annuities.

 

[Amethyst]

Looks familiar!

That very slide was used during one of the "free-dinner seminars" on retirement which Mr. A. and I attended. I don't recall, but I'll bet it was one of the cheaper dinners

I put up my hand to remind the group that it is hard to think of many retirees who aren't "dependent on the Govt" in some way. Since at least half the people in the room were probably Federal employees, and the rest were certainly hoping (at least) to collect Social Security at some point, the slide was quickly hushed up and passed over The way the slide is worded, makes it sound like these "dependents" have somehow failed. That implies everyone who collects in the following categories, is a failure. The only "failure" was the presenter, who neglected the cardinal rule of public speaking: CYA, or Consider Your Audience.

• Social Security
• Government (civilian) pension (federal, state, local)
• Government (military) pension (federal)
• Thrift Savings Plan (federal 401K)

Amethyst

 

[Chuckanut]

That last statistic is key. 57% Dependant on family (spouses), friends, and Government (Social Security). Basically the chart says 8% could retire on their own and the rest need assets/income from spouses and/or SSA. Big deal.

+1

Time to re-read How to Lie with Statistics.

How to Lie with Statistics by Darrell Huff | 9780393310726 | Paperback | Barnes & Noble

 

[nash031]

The way the slide is worded, makes it sound like these "dependents" have somehow failed. That implies everyone who collects in the following categories, is a failure. The only "failure" was the presenter, who neglected the cardinal rule of public speaking: CYA, or Consider Your Audience.

• Social Security
• Government (civilian) pension (federal, state, local)
• Government (military) pension (federal)
• Thrift Savings Plan (federal 401K)

Amethyst

It's been a goal of mine for a long time to be "dependent" on the Federal Government in this way.

 

[MichaelB]

I ain't got nobody that I can depend on...
.
.

 

[rodi]

OP - how can you not have considered people retired on military pensions as part of the 57%? According to a previous post - you are in the military.

I'm active duty Army and plan to retire next year.

I find this interesting.
Good luck with your retirement. I assume you'll get either pension, SS, tricare, medicare or some other government program on or before age 65.

 

[TomH]

OP - how can you not have considered people retired on military pensions as part of the 57%? According to a previous post - you are in the military.

The military makes up less than 1% of the population and those who retire are a small fraction of that.

 

[TomH]

You mean that you added 2 and 6, and got 8? (Sorry - couldn't resist).


Without any kind of quoted source, this doesn't mean a whole lot and, as others have said, what does the "dependent on government" part mean? I'm guessing it includes those claiming SS, but does it also include people who have substantial personal savings and investments, who are also claiming SS - like many of the people in this forum? It doesn't say, so how can we know?

Was this piece of unsupported "data" used to attempt to scare you into a career in real estate? About the 57% who are "dependant on family, friends or the government" - do you think we should inform them that they are not really retired? Will that figure include me in about 10 or 15 years when, after a 10-15 year period living entirely from my own savings and investments, I will begin claiming SS as well?

My apologies if this post seems a bit acidic, but I have a 9am appointment with my accountant. I'm currently nursing a cuppa joe, and questioning my seemingly endless desire to always book the first appointment of the day in order to "get things over with" .

No worries.

I have been an investor for the last 10 years or so and always looking to learn more. That's why I attended the class.

 

[TomH]

No.


What was the point of the slide in a "real estate class"? Was someone telling you that you need a job that you could do part time after age 65? Or, were they somehow claiming that buying real estate will make you "independent" while buying stocks won't?

Most of the audience of about 30 people had never invested in real estate but about 5-8 had.

The first few hours the speaker just presented some ideas before getting into real estate.

 

[6miths]

It's possible that 8% retire at 65 but I bet probably less. 6% at 64, 5.5% at 63, 5.2% at 62, and so on. I think the current average age of retirement is 61 or 62. Pretty ridiculous in my mind to consider people to be dependent on the government if they are using a government pension programme to which they contributed to for years.

They're just trying to sell something. Most (all?) of these seminars are best used for entertainment value only.

 

[Lakewood90712]

I don't have anything to cite, but the " 6 % have died " by age 65 , I'm pretty sure that is way off, a swag would be like 20% so I would question the info they are presenting to you in this class.