58 and no savings and no pension

[Anonymous]

I'm not the crazy cow....

Of course not. You're a 23 year-old Republican House staffer, applying frat house humor to public policy. And you do know that pensions for House staff and members are far richer than for agency employees, right? You mother fuckers vote yourselves any damn thing that works for your and piss on the rest of the country. The sun will rise again and the American people will send all of you back where you belong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your 30 year old child will be more crushed when you announce that you have to live with him/her for the next 30 years. Kids are resilient. Put that money into your retirement/debt paydown.

Don't assume.

My mother is 58 as well and she has nothing AND no job prospects because she was a SAHM and got royally screwed in her divorce. My husband and I purchased our home with an in-law suite just for future use by my mom since she does not have a plan.

Family is very high on my list of priorities and I do not see my mom as a burden. She wiped my ass for 18 years and sacrificed everything for her children. The least I can do is make sure she is taken care of. The OP is in a much better situation than my mom, since she can produce income..however in a way she is worse off than my mom because she had kids later in life. By the time my mom might need to live with me, I'll be in my 50s with kids done with college and she will be in her 70s.

Not all of us view our parents as burdensome-my mom is more important to met than having enough disposable income to buy beach house. There are others out there like me who would walk across hot coals for their parents and not think a thing of it. My husband is of the same mindset, but luckily his parents are retired military and the public gets to foot their bills.

But you have the financial means to do so. That alone makes you quite different than most. And you know it now, and have until your 50 to figure it out and save for it. The OP is potentially in a situation where his son might be say, 25 when it happens. That's an astronomically different proposition, both financially for the 25 year old, and emotionally as well. You've lived "your life" and put your kids through school; the 25 year old is trying to establish himself or herself and make a career or meet their spouse etc, how do you do that with a 70+ year old living in your living room?

Don't get me wrong... Kids should support their parents if they need to, but the relative burden of these two scenarios is miles apart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not the crazy cow....

Of course not. You're a 23 year-old Republican House staffer, applying frat house humor to public policy. And you do know that pensions for House staff and members are far richer than for agency employees, right? You mother fuckers vote yourselves any damn thing that works for your and piss on the rest of the country. The sun will rise again and the American people will send all of you back where you belong.

I'm the one you quoted and I honestly don't have a clue wtf you are talking about. What frat house humor? Isn't it basically true that SS is underfunded? And wouldn't the argument that people can't move out of the US extend as I outlined? Also, not that it matters but I'm neither republican, nor do I work in government. So no, I had no idea staffers got more than agency employees. Still no clue what your point was exactly though. That people in power give themselves the best deal? Yea, I guess that's probably generally true and probably unfair.

[Anonymous]

Not all of us view our parents as burdensome-my mom is more important to met than having enough disposable income to buy beach house. There are others out there like me who would walk across hot coals for their parents and not think a thing of it.

Yep, me too. Mom gets 20% of my take-home pay, no bitching about it. She's frugal, has a comfortable (price frozen) place to live and no debt. I can live with it, easy.

[Anonymous]

Oh I just realized you misread my post (im the "not crazy cow but... " poster). I think you and I are both calling the same person an imbecile. People should be allowed to retire wherever the duck they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not the crazy cow....

Of course not. You're a 23 year-old Republican House staffer, applying frat house humor to public policy. And you do know that pensions for House staff and members are far richer than for agency employees, right? You mother fuckers vote yourselves any damn thing that works for your and piss on the rest of the country. The sun will rise again and the American people will send all of you back where you belong.

I'm the one you quoted and I honestly don't have a clue wtf you are talking about. What frat house humor? Isn't it basically true that SS is underfunded? And wouldn't the argument that people can't move out of the US extend as I outlined? Also, not that it matters but I'm neither republican, nor do I work in government. So no, I had no idea staffers got more than agency employees. Still no clue what your point was exactly though. That people in power give themselves the best deal? Yea, I guess that's probably generally true and probably unfair.

OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. And I just posted after you about my mom getting 20%. Frat house humor as public policy is just that. Fat ass upper middle class kids wondering why the rest of the world doesn't act like or get what they do. And no, Social Security is not underfunded. It is solvent and will remain so for years to come. The problem is that it was designed, 75 years ago, as a "pay-as-you-go" program. Demographics tell us the worker pool may eventually shrink to the point where there is not enough SS tax revenue to pay obligations. There is currently NO BORROWING to cover the monthly checks our parents and grandparents PAYED INTO AND EARNED (fat ass).

And OK, you didn't know it, but the mother fuckers in Congress have provided for their own futures. Every one of them, Republicans and Democrats. There is no discussion about their "entitlement" being reduced, that I know of. That should be first. Did you know the Republicans repealed the "Ramspeck Act," after their 1994 victory? That allowed staffers to jump federal hiring lists to get agency jobs ahead of qualified candidates. The right thing to do, sure, but it was done out of mean-spiritidness in the wake of an election and not principle.

I'm just tired of meanness and "fuck everyone else after I get mine." I'm too proud of where we are and won't let the bastards repeal the 20th Century, which is of course their goal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get a government job asap for the retirement. You can owe the IRS and work for the feds as long as you are in a payment plan. After 6 years, you are entitled to a retirement with the feds. If you worked till 70, you might get about 10% or so of your pay for the rest of your life, plus SSA. It's better than nothing.

It won't really help. Most Fed jobs now are no longer on CSRS or CSRS-offset, but are now FERS, which is essentially a glorified 401K program. Yes, there are some additional basic benefits to FERS, but not enough to help a late employee. The basic benefits are 1% per year of service of your average of the three highest salaries in your career. So, let's say this employee starts as a civil service at 59 and retires at 67. If he made $100K average, then his annual dispensation from FERS benefts will be $8K annually. And the FERS basic benefits are counted against SS, so that means that he'll get $8K but will get $8K less Social Security. If your FERS payment is higher than your SS payment, than you earn all of your SS payment and FERS will cover the balance of your retirement payout above SS. So the basic benefit will not increase his monthly income. The only difference will be where the money comes from. And then he'll have the TSP (which is the 401K part of the plan) on top of that. Not really different than if he starts a 401K or IRA now and makes pre-tax deposits to the account.

Seriously? I may need re-think why I am working for the federal government. I assumed FERS was in addition to SS. I can get a 401K (like TSP) anywhere.

I don't think PP was right (well, the calculation of benefit was, but the people who are subject to pension offsets for social security benefits are people/spouses who never paid into social security). By definition everyone in FERS is participating in social security and gets both a SS benefit and a FERS annuity.

I apologize. I was corrected by several people. I admit that I was confused. My spouse has CSRS-offset (grandfathered into CSRS) and I was confused. CSRS was the program that is not covered by SS. CSRS employees did not contribute to SS and did not collect benefits. CSRS-offset contributes some to SS and their CSRS pension is offset by SS benefits by the "offset calculation". My spouse has also voluntarily contributed to FERS and so I got the two programs confused. I apologize...my spouse is one of the odd hybrid employees that has this issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not the crazy cow....

Of course not. You're a 23 year-old Republican House staffer, applying frat house humor to public policy. And you do know that pensions for House staff and members are far richer than for agency employees, right? You mother fuckers vote yourselves any damn thing that works for your and piss on the rest of the country. The sun will rise again and the American people will send all of you back where you belong.

I'm the one you quoted and I honestly don't have a clue wtf you are talking about. What frat house humor? Isn't it basically true that SS is underfunded? And wouldn't the argument that people can't move out of the US extend as I outlined? Also, not that it matters but I'm neither republican, nor do I work in government. So no, I had no idea staffers got more than agency employees. Still no clue what your point was exactly though. That people in power give themselves the best deal? Yea, I guess that's probably generally true and probably unfair.

OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. And I just posted after you about my mom getting 20%. Frat house humor as public policy is just that. Fat ass upper middle class kids wondering why the rest of the world doesn't act like or get what they do. And no, Social Security is not underfunded. It is solvent and will remain so for years to come. The problem is that it was designed, 75 years ago, as a "pay-as-you-go" program. Demographics tell us the worker pool may eventually shrink to the point where there is not enough SS tax revenue to pay obligations. There is currently NO BORROWING to cover the monthly checks our parents and grandparents PAYED INTO AND EARNED (fat ass).

And OK, you didn't know it, but the mother fuckers in Congress have provided for their own futures. Every one of them, Republicans and Democrats. There is no discussion about their "entitlement" being reduced, that I know of. That should be first. Did you know the Republicans repealed the "Ramspeck Act," after their 1994 victory? That allowed staffers to jump federal hiring lists to get agency jobs ahead of qualified candidates. The right thing to do, sure, but it was done out of mean-spiritidness in the wake of an election and not principle.

I'm just tired of meanness and "fuck everyone else after I get mine." I'm too proud of where we are and won't let the bastards repeal the 20th Century, which is of course their goal.

You need to critically think before you believe what you read on the Internet. Ramspeck was actually repealed in 1997. It actually corrected the "fuck everyone else after I get mine" that you are complaining about. It isn't "mean" if it allows everyone a shot at a job rather than letting people cut the line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your 30 year old child will be more crushed when you announce that you have to live with him/her for the next 30 years. Kids are resilient. Put that money into your retirement/debt paydown.

Don't assume.

My mother is 58 as well and she has nothing AND no job prospects because she was a SAHM and got royally screwed in her divorce. My husband and I purchased our home with an in-law suite just for future use by my mom since she does not have a plan.

Family is very high on my list of priorities and I do not see my mom as a burden. She wiped my ass for 18 years and sacrificed everything for her children. The least I can do is make sure she is taken care of. The OP is in a much better situation than my mom, since she can produce income..however in a way she is worse off than my mom because she had kids later in life. By the time my mom might need to live with me, I'll be in my 50s with kids done with college and she will be in her 70s.

Not all of us view our parents as burdensome-my mom is more important to met than having enough disposable income to buy beach house. There are others out there like me who would walk across hot coals for their parents and not think a thing of it. My husband is of the same mindset, but luckily his parents are retired military and the public gets to foot their bills.

I agree! My mom is an awesome mom and the best grandparent in the world. Providing for her in retirement is the least I can do to say thanks for all she has done. a

[Anonymous]

I agree! My mom is an awesome mom and the best grandparent in the world. Providing for her in retirement is the least I can do to say thanks for all she has done. a

20% for mom here - you go! Can't wait to meet the Social Security-slashers on the side of the road when they need help. Sorry, you don't "deserve" it! Walk on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your 30 year old child will be more crushed when you announce that you have to live with him/her for the next 30 years. Kids are resilient. Put that money into your retirement/debt paydown.

Don't assume.

My mother is 58 as well and she has nothing AND no job prospects because she was a SAHM and got royally screwed in her divorce. My husband and I purchased our home with an in-law suite just for future use by my mom since she does not have a plan.

Family is very high on my list of priorities and I do not see my mom as a burden. She wiped my ass for 18 years and sacrificed everything for her children. The least I can do is make sure she is taken care of. The OP is in a much better situation than my mom, since she can produce income..however in a way she is worse off than my mom because she had kids later in life. By the time my mom might need to live with me, I'll be in my 50s with kids done with college and she will be in her 70s.

Not all of us view our parents as burdensome-my mom is more important to met than having enough disposable income to buy beach house. There are others out there like me who would walk across hot coals for their parents and not think a thing of it. My husband is of the same mindset, but luckily his parents are retired military and the public gets to foot their bills.

I agree! My mom is an awesome mom and the best grandparent in the world. Providing for her in retirement is the least I can do to say thanks for all she has done. a

I have a friend who is Korean and expected to provide for his mom. As the eldest son he IS the retirement plan. He is horrified by Americans treatment of their parents and how they are viewed as a burden. Ive tried to explain that we are not all the same, but he's convinced I'm an outlier.

I could not imagine my mom being the OP of this thread it would break my heart to see her so worried and beating heraelf up. If my mom had not made the sacrifices she did for me in life i probably would not be in such a position to help her.

[Anonymous]

I have a friend who is Korean and expected to provide for his mom. As the eldest son he IS the retirement plan. He is horrified by Americans treatment of their parents and how they are viewed as a burden. Ive tried to explain that we are not all the same, but he's convinced I'm an outlier.

I could not imagine my mom being the OP of this thread it would break my heart to see her so worried and beating heraelf up. If my mom had not made the sacrifices she did for me in life i probably would not be in such a position to help her.

Bless your heart! Let's remember SS was created during the Great Depression - a desperate time during which the elderly were the poorest segment of American society. We grew into the richest country in the history of the world afterwards, our parents and grandparents paying into SS all the while. It became part of the PLAN and cost a lot to fund it, from workers' paychecks - and nothing more. Let's hunt and fucking kill the Republicans who want it gone. They are the ones who should justifiably "horrify" your Korean friend. Most of us, a huge majority of Americans, support our Social Security system for our parents and grandparents. They paid for it, Damn it. Let their oppenents fry on the "third rail," I say.

[Anonymous]

And by "kill," I mean by the ballot box. No violence, please, we've had enough of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I have a friend who is Korean and expected to provide for his mom. As the eldest son he IS the retirement plan. He is horrified by Americans treatment of their parents and how they are viewed as a burden. Ive tried to explain that we are not all the same, but he's convinced I'm an outlier.

I could not imagine my mom being the OP of this thread it would break my heart to see her so worried and beating heraelf up. If my mom had not made the sacrifices she did for me in life i probably would not be in such a position to help her.

Bless your heart! Let's remember SS was created during the Great Depression - a desperate time during which the elderly were the poorest segment of American society. We grew into the richest country in the history of the world afterwards, our parents and grandparents paying into SS all the while. It became part of the PLAN and cost a lot to fund it, from workers' paychecks - and nothing more. Let's hunt and fucking kill the Republicans who want it gone. They are the ones who should justifiably "horrify" your Korean friend. Most of us, a huge majority of Americans, support our Social Security system for our parents and grandparents. They paid for it, Damn it. Let their oppenents fry on the "third rail," I say.

Shut the fuck up about social security, nobody wants to hear your lunatic rants. This is not about SS. Go to the political topic section.

[Anonymous]

It is her money/assets. She ca do asshe wishes. My parent did and it was not equally divided...it was my parents' decision, not mine.