58 and no savings and no pension

[Anonymous]

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.

+1. Now, I need to contact benefits. I sure hope the poster before yours is wrong about the offsetting of SS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
quote]

Yeah but they will be getting more out then they paid. duh.

Ah. So people who worked their whole lives in Manhattan should not be allowed to move to East Jesus, Nebraska, because they would be getting more value for their SS? Makes perfect sense. Let's eradicate the snowbirds!

If the government is subsidizing people with tax dollars they shouldn't allowed to flee the country and spend it somewhere else.

They're not subsidizing you crazy crazy cow. YOU PAY IN to SS.

I'm not the crazy cow.... but in practical terms, SS seems pretty unsustainable in its current form. I would imagine that, in some way, the government will have to subsidize future payments or drastically alter its amount/structure. That said, I still dont see why someone should have to stay in the US to get it. Reductio ad absurdum - all foreigners who come to the US should be entitled to it, because, hey, they live in the US.

Everyone who pays into SS do not benefit. My mother began working and paid into SS starting at the age of 17. She died at the age of 58. She never received any SS benefit. My grandfather lived to see three years of SS. Yes, my GM began receiving GD SS, but the money she put into her own SS was wiped out. A surviving spouse receive the greater of the two. Yes, some people will get more out of SS than the put in, but there's a large number of people who will never see a dime.

In addition, SS is sustainable. If Congress would leave their grubby, fat, decaying, greasy hands off of SS and stop raiding it for other purposes, SS will survive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop paying for tuition if you still are, you can't afford it. Not even a little bit! Open an IRA and start maxxing. If you have a mortgage, focus on paying it off as soon as possible.

You're fortunate enough that you will likely receive 100% of SS benefits. You are not alone, many Americans are in the same boat. No need to beat yourself, it won't do you any good today.

What is your debt?

OP here. I'm about $80,000 in debt which includes some IRS debt. One child paying private secondary tuition with 3 years left. I don't thing I can change schools as my teen would be crushed. I'd like to try and put $100 a week away in savings right off the top. I am paid weekly but my salary varies week to week so it's hard to nail now a concrete budget. No way can the mortgage be paid off but would like to sell iin 4 years.

You see what time I posted. Too many sleepless nights.

Rather a crushed teen than a PISSED OFF ADULT who now has to spend his adult years financing your golden years...
I am there right now with a parent who was fiscally irresponsible and never saved - and RIDICULOUS DEBT...not your exact situation.
You don't want to have a stroke or other medical issue and cannot take care of yourself...but you chose to use money for tuition instead of savings.
Stem the tide now...make a plan...start saving even if only a bit...pay down debt...even if it means your child will have to change schools...he/she will understand later in life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's not enough information here on OP's finances and situation to provide any useful practical advice. And I understand the reluctance to yank a teen out of school. The rest of his/her life will be decided in large part over choices made in these next three years.

OP here. Thank you for intuitive remarks. And what a difference 12 hours makes! DC's school gently berated me for not stepping up sooner when things got tough. Pride can be so useless. The school will add financial aid and, fortunately, I asked before acceptance letters went out. Also, I received a call to do a long-term medical project which I can review at home. Thought I was going to break down and cry. Thank you for not calling me crazy and saying I would be baggage to my child some day. I think I can see a tiny light at the end of the tunnel!

PP here - Fantastic!!! You do have your work cut out for you, but the light in the tunnel is your earnings potential. Tuition aid and some real belt tightening and you will have wine with your cat food after all!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's not enough information here on OP's finances and situation to provide any useful practical advice. And I understand the reluctance to yank a teen out of school. The rest of his/her life will be decided in large part over choices made in these next three years.

OP here. Thank you for intuitive remarks. And what a difference 12 hours makes! DC's school gently berated me for not stepping up sooner when things got tough. Pride can be so useless. The school will add financial aid and, fortunately, I asked before acceptance letters went out. Also, I received a call to do a long-term medical project which I can review at home. Thought I was going to break down and cry. Thank you for not calling me crazy and saying I would be baggage to my child some day. I think I can see a tiny light at the end of the tunnel!

PP here - Fantastic!!! You do have your work cut out for you, but the light in the tunnel is your earnings potential. Tuition aid and some real belt tightening and you will have wine with your cat food after all!

How odd in your previous post you denigrated the OP but now you come back with kudos. Seems as if you change your tune the way the wind blows. Glad I'm not your parent as any day now it sounds like they would be kicked to the curb.

[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.

+1. Now, I need to contact benefits. I sure hope the poster before yours is wrong about the offsetting of SS

No, I (PP quoted above) posted a retraction (see page 4). I was confused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There are people who move out of the country and retire. Belize and Mexico have large ex pat retire coms. They can live nicely on ss.


That should be illegal or at least COLA for the area. What a horrible thing to do you asshole.

They disallowed this for Australian scum bags trying to live on welfare and SS in bali.

Why would that be you fuckhead? The person paid into ss all their lives.

Yeah but they will be getting more out then they paid. duh.

Ah. So people who worked their whole lives in Manhattan should not be allowed to move to East Jesus, Nebraska, because they would be getting more value for their SS? Makes perfect sense. Let's eradicate the snowbirds!

If the government is subsidizing people with tax dollars they shouldn't allowed to flee the country and spend it somewhere else.

Oh no, you again. Let me guess, all those poor planning elderly should have made better choices in life...right? Sounds familiar.

[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.

You are, simply, awesome.

[Anonymous]

How odd in your previous post you denigrated the OP but now you come back with kudos. Seems as if you change your tune the way the wind blows. Glad I'm not your parent as any day now it sounds like they would be kicked to the curb.

Denigrated the OP? How is understanding OP's reluctance to switch a child's school denigrating?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry, but it's a little crazy to me to be paying private school tuition if you are in debt with no savings. In 20 years your kid might be happier if you aren't financially dependent on them, even if it means they have to go to public school.

I agree. You need to put your kid in public school, stat and start investing that money in your own retirement. They will resent you if you bankrupt yourself now and come begging to be taken care of later. You will probably have to work another 10-12 years but if you start now you could save a decent amount. If there are other ways you can save on expenses in order to move that money into investments, do it. Sell your house, move into a less expensive place. Trim money from your grocery budget by eating less meat and shopping according to a meal plan. Stop by a daily latte. Whatever. You have time but you have to start acting now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are people who move out of the country and retire. Belize and Mexico have large ex pat retire coms. They can live nicely on ss.

That should be illegal or at least COLA for the area. What a horrible thing to do you asshole.

They disallowed this for Australian scum bags trying to live on welfare and SS in bali.

I don't really see how residency in the US should matter when you've earned the benefits by paying in. Flaming liberal here and I think this view is retarded.

[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.

You are, simply, awesome.

PP -- Family is on high on a the list of priorites of a lot of people.
But there is a difference between having an emotional connection and having the financial resources to take care of someone.
BIG DIFFERENCE!
You are fortunate that you have the ability to take care of your parent...not everyone is in that position.
So the smart thing for O.P. would be to start saving and planning now...because who knows...maybe his now teen -- will not be a position later in life to help his father out -- EVEN IF THAT IS WHAT HE WANTS TO DO.
Understand the difference/

[Anonymous]

OP, you also need to factor in potential age discrimination as you get older. You might not be able to sustain your income or the next 10-20 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are, simply, awesome.

PP -- Family is on high on a the list of priorites of a lot of people.
But there is a difference between having an emotional connection and having the financial resources to take care of someone.
BIG DIFFERENCE!
You are fortunate that you have the ability to take care of your parent...not everyone is in that position.
So the smart thing for O.P. would be to start saving and planning now...because who knows...maybe his now teen -- will not be a position later in life to help his father out -- EVEN IF THAT IS WHAT HE WANTS TO DO.
Understand the difference/

Why is it that it's only AMERICANS who are so self-absorbed and so in love with money that they would be a $ amount on what it would take to assist a parent(s). Almost every other country strongly considers elderly parents a continued extension of the family . I give less than a damn if I had little money, and my parents had none. Before I would see my parents starve or homeless, I would let them move in with me whether I had an apartment or a house or a shack.

Their sacrifice has been too great. It doesn't matter whether one has become a CEO or a bricklayer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are, simply, awesome.

PP -- Family is on high on a the list of priorites of a lot of people.
But there is a difference between having an emotional connection and having the financial resources to take care of someone.
BIG DIFFERENCE!
You are fortunate that you have the ability to take care of your parent...not everyone is in that position.
So the smart thing for O.P. would be to start saving and planning now...because who knows...maybe his now teen -- will not be a position later in life to help his father out -- EVEN IF THAT IS WHAT HE WANTS TO DO.
Understand the difference/

Why is it that it's only AMERICANS who are so self-absorbed and so in love with money that they would be a $ amount on what it would take to assist a parent(s). Almost every other country strongly considers elderly parents a continued extension of the family . I give less than a damn if I had little money, and my parents had none. Before I would see my parents starve or homeless, I would let them move in with me whether I had an apartment or a house or a shack.

Their sacrifice has been too great. It doesn't matter whether one has become a CEO or a bricklayer.

What does that have to do with what the previous poster said? What if you're living in an apartment and your parents need specialized and expensive medical help? What if they have dementia and can't safely stay with their children? Realizing that not everybody might have the financial resources to deal with these kinds of situations isn't "self-absorbed and so in love with money".