My 60 year old dad is "going to retire on social security"
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Walmart? |
Anonymous
| Well if he retires at 62 he wont get a full ss check, also if he wants to movie in with you tell him to help out, cleaning, cooking and more, you have your own responsibilitis also, gardening and more so then he will think twice!! |
Anonymous
| He sounds crazy OP. All he is to you is a unfortunate sperm donor for your mom. He sounds like a total loser. So, no way. |
Anonymous
|
OP, if you are amenable to him living close to you (but not in your house), I would recommend that you look into the possibility of moving your grandmother's double-wide trailer up here and find a trailer park near you where you could move his existing house. Then he would be closer to you, but not living in your house. He would still be independent, so he would be responsible for paying for the trailer park fees (which would be lower than apartment rental fees). He should still be able to afford the trailer park fees with some money leftover from his SS payment. It may be the best compromise available. He gets to be closer to his grandchild(ren), and you won't be running to Kentucky for every emergency of his that comes up. The benefit is that as you look into the options, if you don't want him too close, you can look for a trailer park farther away (Frederick? maybe) and look for a less expensive trailer park that is a bit out of the way in order to "save him money" on the rental fees.
|
Anonymous
Another possibility for the 64-year old, ex-lawyer mother. Look into non-profits. They often have legal positions that they need to fill, but they can't afford good legal help. She may still be able to work part-time for a non-profit as a lawyer and make much better money than McDonald's or Walmart, and still use her legal expertise. I know two acquaintances who did this after retirement, they worked with non-profits. Win-win for all around as they were much less expensive than younger lawyers, they were still barred and they could work part-time as needed to augment their retirement income. The only caveat about my two acquaintances is that both of them had some relationship with the non-profits that they worked for prior to retirement (one had done some pro-bono work for the one non-profit during the work career and the other had been a long-time volunteer with the organization before retirement). But it can't hurt to look into it as an option if she needs or wants some work or extra income. Especially in the DC area there are hundreds of non-profits, many of whom can use, but can't afford legal help. |
Anonymous
|
OP, I agree with not letting him move in.
One thing you and your brother should consider and discuss among yourselves (then with your dad) is whether he has a will and other estate-related documents drawn up already (e.g., health care power of attorney, financial power of attorney). Even if he isn't living with either of you, if and when the time comes for him to move into assisted living or a nursing home, you and your brother will be glad your dad has those documents in place so you (and/or your brother) can attend to his needs. The POAs don't mean you're on the hook for his finances, but will give you the ability to make decisions for your father if/when he can't make them for himself. Voice of experience here. 
|
Anonymous
You do know that social security could be stopped by Congress at any time at its choosing? There is no fund of money out there allocated for your dad. Congress has been borrowing against it forever. The idea that you actually have this allowance is false. Remember in House of Cards, the Democrats took the social security away from the seniors and redistributed to the younger workers. Republicans have been predicting that there will be NO social security in a few years. We are not counting on it. And the amount your dad will be receiving = should he receive it - will be shockingly small. |
Anonymous
No, no, no, stop listening to Fox. Also, House of Cards is not real life. Social Security can pay full benefits until 2033 - nearly 20 more years--which should take OP's dad into his late 70s. After that, Social Security has enough funds to pay about 3/4 of benefits from payroll tax revenues alone. And that's if Congress does absolutely nothing. Ideally, Congress will get its act together and pass some balanced package of modest benefit cuts and tax increases to ensure that the system is funded after 2033. Here's the threshold question: do you really believe those craven cowards in Congress are going to trash Social Security and pay pennies on the dollar to current retirees in their districts or states? Because Congress would have to take affirmative action to do this. For example, Congress could pass an Act to cut benefits below the 3/4 payments after 2033, but further reductions in benefit levels aren't going to happen without Congress actually voting to do this. Alternatively, Congress could repudiate the IOUs that Social Security holds, and thereby make it impossible for Social Security to pay that 75% of benefits. But do you think Congress, being the political cowards they are, would actually dare do such a thing? |
Anonymous
|
I think you should be less concerned about Social Security going away completely and more concerned about a slow whittling away of the benefit amount. |