58 and no savings and no pension

[Anonymous]

OP, glad to hear things have gotten a little better. Please start looking at what you can do to save money for your retirement. My brother, in his late 50s, just broke his back and can't work. He had no savings and retirement and was probably planning to work until he dropped. It took him months to get on disability and he had to declare bankruptcy. That took care of his credit card debt but my sister and I have been subsidizing him and probably will be doing it for a long time to come. This is reducing my emergency savings so if I suddenly got laid off I not have much of a cushion and it's soon going to hit dd's college fund.

So you may be planning on working till you drop but what if something happens so that you can't work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yeah and let's not let any foreigners retire here since they're stealing money from their home country!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, glad to hear things have gotten a little better. Please start looking at what you can do to save money for your retirement. My brother, in his late 50s, just broke his back and can't work. He had no savings and retirement and was probably planning to work until he dropped. It took him months to get on disability and he had to declare bankruptcy. That took care of his credit card debt but my sister and I have been subsidizing him and probably will be doing it for a long time to come. This is reducing my emergency savings so if I suddenly got laid off I not have much of a cushion and it's soon going to hit dd's college fund.

So you may be planning on working till you drop but what if something happens so that you can't work?

smart man use mind not back

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, glad to hear things have gotten a little better. Please start looking at what you can do to save money for your retirement. My brother, in his late 50s, just broke his back and can't work. He had no savings and retirement and was probably planning to work until he dropped. It took him months to get on disability and he had to declare bankruptcy. That took care of his credit card debt but my sister and I have been subsidizing him and probably will be doing it for a long time to come. This is reducing my emergency savings so if I suddenly got laid off I not have much of a cushion and it's soon going to hit dd's college fund.

So you may be planning on working till you drop but what if something happens so that you can't work?

If OP says she's in the medical field. A part-time job (16-24 hrs) at most hospitals or Kaiser would allow purchasing of short/long term insurance without filling out damning forms and life insurance. These benefits might take some of the paycheck but at her age, it would cost a fortune without being part of a large company program. OP could continue her work while she socks away a ducat or two.

[Anonymous]

At some stage you will be unable to work, at which point your standard of living will collapse. If I were you I would do everything you can to reduce your living expenses now to pay down your debt and smooth the inevitable transition.

[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.

I agree but I truly hope your mom didn't wipe your ass for 18 years.

[Anonymous]

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.

Thank you for posting this because I was confused by the numerous people on this site saying "WE HAVE TWO PENSIONS." I just read someone saying on the money forum, "WE HAVE FOUR PENSIONS." When I told DH this, who worked for the Feds for nearly a decade, two decades ago, he said no way, that even then the govt didn't have a real pension program. Since he's turning 50, maybe these people are all 55+. He has his TSP, but I'd wondered what pension means these days.

[Anonymous]

OP, can you declare bankruptcy? You mentioned credit card debt. Can you reduce other expenses, like car, internet, cable, cell phone? Do you own your own home. Just as an FYI you can move in retirement to a lower cost of living state, like Florida, where you can buy a nice condo for $30,000-40,000. But you need to save some cash first.

[Anonymous]

My mother has not worked in over 25 years and it's very likely that I will have to care for her in the near future. My Dad is battling terminal cancer and will probably not live through the rest of this year. Unfortunately his life insurance policy is small (less than $50k) and they have no assets to sell. They are both in their mid-50's.

I foresee my mother moving in with me when my Dad passes, but she is in denial and thinks she'll be fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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".

Thank You

[Anonymous]

Thank you for posting this because I was confused by the numerous people on this site saying "WE HAVE TWO PENSIONS." I just read someone saying on the money forum, "WE HAVE FOUR PENSIONS." When I told DH this, who worked for the Feds for nearly a decade, two decades ago, he said no way, that even then the govt didn't have a real pension program. Since he's turning 50, maybe these people are all 55+. He has his TSP, but I'd wondered what pension means these days.

The old pension system was changed in 1987, I think. And I keep seeing the blockhead statement that the current, 1% per year pension reduces Social Security income by an equal amount. That is BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My mother has not worked in over 25 years and it's very likely that I will have to care for her in the near future. My Dad is battling terminal cancer and will probably not live through the rest of this year. Unfortunately his life insurance policy is small (less than $50k) and they have no assets to sell. They are both in their mid-50's.

I foresee my mother moving in with me when my Dad passes, but she is in denial and thinks she'll be fine.

My parents are also in a situation where they will likely need my support. One thing to consider is gov't assistance, food stamps, etc. Whatever assistance they can get will help you save for your own retirement so your children aren't in a similar situation. I'm sorry to hear about this though.

[Anonymous]

Yet another reminder of the dangers of being a housewife. I don't know how women can sleep at night knowing they are entirely dependent on someone else.

[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.

Actually, as of Jan. 1, Congressional retirement is calculated on the same formula as all Federal employees. Congress passed a law. So what are you going to be bitter about now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yet another reminder of the dangers of being a housewife. I don't know how women can sleep at night knowing they are entirely dependent on someone else.

I can't speak for other housewives but my DH and I have built a substantial portfolio of assets and investments over our 25 years together, have plenty of disability, life and long-term care insurance, and live in a community property state. I sleep very well at night.