What are peoples views on AARP?

[frayne]

Been a member for as long as I can remember. Nothing wrong with having a lobbying group represent your demographic. And I realize views are going to be different now and then. Also a life long member of the VFW and for the same reasons. I use to be a member of the USGA but have let my membership drop due to the bastardization of the five minute lost ball rule being downgraded to only three minutes !

 

[dixonge]

We signed up, for reasons that I don't remember, and have found it to be almost completely useless. While I appreciate *some* of their lobbying efforts, the good is offset by the annoyance of having to deal with constant physical mail that costs me a few $ a month to auto-forward to our mail service in Mexico. I have no way to utilize their car and health insurance offers, and no interest in their life insurance. Their magazine and newsletters are full of 'filler' articles that I generally don't read, any more than I read People Magazine or newspapers.

Can't wait for our membership to expire.

 

[Venturer]

I am a member because I signed up for some of the discounts. Last year when my auto insurance went up considerabley I decided to check with them for both auto and homeowners. I ended up going with the Hartford with the AARP discount for auto but they couldn't/wouldn't insure my home because the roof hasn't been replaced since it was built in 2009. Other than that we use the Dennys discount when we travel because they have a good breakfast.

 

[pb4uski]

We joined when we were 50 and lasted about 5 years. I enjoyed the magazine. I was very put off by some of their political stands. It seems that they opposed anything that adversely impacts seniors even if it makes sense.

For example, the other day I was reading about a GOP proposal to eliminate taxation of SS...

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude social security benefits from gross income, and for other purposes.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/4453?s=1&r=21

I would not be surprised if AARP supports this since it will benefit seniors. I think it is a stupid idea and that social security should be taxed the same way that contributory defined benefit plan benefts, non-deductible traditional IRAs, life annuity benefits and such are taxed... no tax on the portion that represents a return of your non-deductible contributions but tax the portion of benefits that have never been taxed. The current provisions for taxing social security do that in a crude but effective way with a tilt to benefit lower income retirees and I'm fine with that, but it is an example of where I think AARP doesn't exercise good judgement and as a result I'm not interested in supporting them.

 

[braumeister]

According to their financial statements, membership dues account for less than 20% of AARP's income, so whether a person joins or not is fairly insignificant.

My understanding is that the biggest contributor to the rest of their budget is UHC, which seems to be why they have gradually been getting a reputation as mainly an insurance lobbyist. Nothing wrong with that, of course.

 

[audreyh1]

According to their financial statements, membership dues account for less than 20% of AARP's income, so whether a person joins or not is fairly insignificant.

My understanding is that the biggest contributor to the rest of their budget is UHC, which seems to be why they have gradually been getting a reputation as mainly an insurance lobbyist. Nothing wrong with that, of course.

Thanks. I was thinking our 5 year family membership was so cheap I couldn’t see how it made much difference.

 

[COcheesehead]

I used to pay for it. I never understood people being against for them political reasons. Everything I saw was pretty moderate and for us. So that’s been a head scratcher.
My eye doctor reduced our eye exams to $50 with a membership and took 30% off of frames. So the $12-$15 a year we paid was worth it. We also got a discount on our cell bill and they had pages of grocery coupons that we would use from time to time.
I stopped our subscription when our bronze HC plan included a free membership.

 

[ER Eddie]

I signed up for a 3-year membership for $55. Their monthly bulletin and magazine make for decent bathroom reading. Most of the articles are junk (to me), but occasionally I'll learn something. They have lousy nutritional advice, but you see that sort of thing everywhere. I've never used any of their discounts but may one day. I'm not fussed by the politics (not even aware what they are, I pretty much ignore that aspect.)

 

[pb4uski]

Part of the reason that we dropped AARP is that their discounts significantly overlap with AAA discouts and we already have AAA and valued that over AARP.

That and the incessant mailings were a nuisance.

 

[Another Reader]

I have the AARP/UHC medigap policy which is paid out of the annual health care allotment from my retirement plan, so I had to join. I throw all the ridiculous life insurance ads and other junk mail from them in the recycle bin without opening it. I look at the cover of the magazine and skim an article occasionally before adding it to the recycle bin. I look at AARP like AAA, a minor nuisance to get a valuable benefit.

 

[VanWinkle]

I have the AARP/UHC medigap policy which is paid out of the annual health care allotment from my retirement plan, so I had to join. I throw all the ridiculous life insurance ads and other junk mail from them in the recycle bin without opening it. I look at the cover of the magazine and skim an article occasionally before adding it to the recycle bin. I look at AARP like AAA, a minor nuisance to get a valuable benefit.

I have an AARP UHC plan also. I dropped AARP after the first year and have had no problem or changes in my health plan.

VW

 

[VanWinkle]

The focus of this thread is AARP. For better or worse, AARP is both of interest to retirees and is largely a lobbyist and insurance broker.

You hit that nail on the head USGrant1962!!!

VW

 

[dmpi]

If AARP is political do they lean left or right? I guess I never paid much attention to them.

 

[sengsational]

Like many, we joined for the Medigap. I ignore the rest. If they take my $0.50/mo and use it for "lobbying" a cause I might not support, I'm not loosing any sleep over that. My uninformed opinion of their politics suggest they are more of a genie than a gollum (high rung vs emotional thinking), but probably there are examples of both. This is not a topic to flesh out on this site. Some members, we get it, you don't like that they take a particular stand on some issues affecting seniors.

 

[pacergal]

We belong, purchase the 5 year membership. I read the magazine, has pretty good info most of the time.
Use discounts on:
home/car insurance
travel
dining out

I don't bother too much worrying about their politics.

 

[CaptTom]

If AARP is political do they lean left or right? I guess I never paid much attention to them.

Like anyone else trying to thread the needle of moderation these days, they are "the enemy" to both sides. How dare you say my party's plan hurts seniors!

To me they seem afraid to come out and say "party x has a plan which would hurt you." Doing so would alienate 40% of the population. So they hedge on everything, trying not to offend either side. How effective can you really be if you won't tell it like it is?

 

[pb4uski]

I think they fall in line behind anything that benefits seniors whether it makes sense for the country or not... so neither left or right.

To take an extreme example, if someone came out and proposed saving SS by jacking up the SS tax by the 33% of so that would be needed to fully fund benefits with no other changes to the program then they would likely fall in line behind it since it benefits seniors... while totally ignoring the adverse impacts that such a proposal might cause. That's my 2c anyway.

 

[GenXguy]

We joined when we were 50 and lasted about 5 years. I enjoyed the magazine. I was very put off by some of their political stands. It seems that they opposed anything that adversely impacts seniors even if it makes sense.

For example, the other day I was reading about a GOP proposal to eliminate taxation of SS... https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/4453?s=1&r=21

I would not be surprised if AARP supports this since it will benefit seniors.

I haven't read that AARP would support that, but I would hope they would at least support a change in the thresholds of combined income for taxation of SS benefits, which have not been increased with inflation since they were put into place in 1983 and is catching more and more seniors with higher overall taxes as their benefits increase with inflation yearly, putting more income above the static taxation thresholds at the 50% and 85% level. So, I hope they would at least support adjusting those to the amount of inflation since 1983 and index them to inflation going forward, otherwise, it's a defacto yearly increase. I just commented on that recently here with some references:

https://www.early-retirement.org/fo...-is-age-67-not-70-a-117137-8.html#post2901848

I am not a member or AARP, but they keep sending me mail trying to get me to sign up.

 

[PatrickA5]

Been a member since 50. I enjoy the magazines. We will both soon be signing up for the UHC/AARP medigap plan. Other than those two benefits, I neither like or dislike AARP and plan on continuing to be a member - since it's so cheap.

The "politics" don't bother me. I'm pretty good at ignoring positions that I don't agree with.

Also, I get almost zero mail from them. But, even if I do it's easy to dump in the recycle bin in my garage before I even make it into the house.

 

[pb4uski]

I haven't read that AARP would support that, but I would hope they would at least support a change in the thresholds of combined income for taxation of SS benefits, which have not been increased with inflation since they were put into place in 1983 and is catching more and more seniors with higher overall taxes as their benefits increase with inflation yearly, putting more income above the static taxation thresholds at the 50% and 85% level. So, I hope they would at least support adjusting those to the amount of inflation since 1983 and index them to inflation going forward, otherwise, it's a defacto yearly increase. I just commented on that recently here with some references:

https://www.early-retirement.org/fo...-is-age-67-not-70-a-117137-8.html#post2901848

I am not a member or AARP, but they keep sending me mail trying to get me to sign up.

I think what I would rather see is a taxation of SS more akin to contributory pensions or life payout annuities.

When the recipient starts SS they can calculate an exclusion ratio based on expected SS benefits (from start to age 82) compared to what was contributed towards those benefits.

So for example, let's say I start at my FRA of 66+2 months and that my PIA is $3,000 a month. My total benefits from FRA at age 66+2 months to age 82 would be $570,000 ($3,000*12 months * (82-66+2months). Further, let's say that my SS taxes on page 2 of my SS statement are $120,876 and that 30% of those taxes are for SSA survivor (life insurance) and disability benefits, so 70% are for retirement benefits. So I paid $84,613 ($120,876 * 70%) for my retirement benefits. So 14.8% ($84,613/$570,000) is a return of SS taxes that I paid towards retirement benefits and excluded from income and 85.2% is taxable.

It would be very easy to do something like this as the needed information is already reported on your SSA statement.

The SSA has the information to do this computation and inform wach recipient of their exclusion ratio.

 

[Chuckanut]

I joined to get a discount on trip medical evac rates. Other than that is useless unless your into reading about aging celebrities

 

[Major Tom]

I'm 59 but when I get close to Medicare age, I may join, to take advantage of their Medigap coverage, which I understand is worthwhile.

As for the magazines, they make me feel as if I'm in a dentist waiting room. I could do without all those ads depicting seniors playing tennis, leading active lives, and apparently enjoying vigorous sex lives, thanks to their medications.

 

[MichaelB]

I could do without all those ads depicting seniors playing tennis, leading active lives, and apparently enjoying vigorous sex lives, thanks to their medications.

We all could do without the ads, but could AARP? I suspect not.

 

[youbet]

This discussion comes up fairly often here, so you can search for other threads, but my impression is that opinions are divided about evenly. Some think it's great, others can't stand it.
.

Actually I think there is a contingent of us who feel somewhere in the middle. There are numerous AARP policies and agendas I disagree with but, on whole, I think seniors are better off with AARP existing than without.

 

[youbet]

I'm 59 but when I get close to Medicare age, I may join, to take advantage of their Medigap coverage, which I understand is worthwhile.

As for the magazines, they make me feel as if I'm in a dentist waiting room. I could do without all those ads depicting seniors playing tennis, leading active lives, and apparently enjoying vigorous sex lives, thanks to their medications.

So, would you prefer AARP to exist or not?