LogFAQs > #930159932

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	AARP response to 'OK Boomer': 'OK millennials. We have all the money'
wolfy42 11/15/19 1:07:04 AM #51:	Blaqthourne posted... Revelation34 posted... Blaqthourne posted... Krow_Incarnate posted... "Fixed income" doesn't necessarily mean broke though. It literally just means it's not going up. I've had a dude with a networth of over $200k tell me he's on a "fixed income". A net worth of $200k+ (and since you said $200k, that implies it's not $300k, and most likely not $250k) is not that much in the US. If he owns a house, that likely means he has under $100k of liquid assets. Even if that $100k is getting a 10% return, it's only producing $10k income every year. I believe that's under the poverty level. So, while he's not broke right now, there's a pretty good chance he will be relatively soon if he doesn't get some new source of income. He could very well be living entirely off of social security. Lol. I don't get it. What's funny about that? A networth of 200k is enough to retire easily especially with about $1k a month from social security as well. Your not rich, but you also won't need to spend less then $2k a month even if you live into your 90s (and your starting at a min of 60...so 30 years). For 30 years though (just say you live that much longer after retirement), you really want at least 400k minimum to leave a fairly normal/comfortable life, near a large city etc (or not moving away from family friends etc). That is why Gen X is so screwed, a MUCH larger percentage of boomers have at least that much in assets right now at retirement age. As bad as it is for people in the 35-55 age range right now (gen X primarily), it's going to be much worse for those who are 18-35 when they finally retire since very few of them actually own property etc that they can sell for large amounts of money in order to retire. While the leading edge of Gen-xers (those who are about 5 years older then me etc), will be able to get social security in 5 years or so....and it will probably still be around by then, anyone my age or younger (still a large portion of my generation) are probably not going to see much if any return from social security, and it's highly doubtful that if we do, the amount will increase with the cost of living. Higher minimum wage may sound like a good thing, but it leaves though on a fixed income out in the cold, often literally, because in general a higher min wage increases the base cost of everything in the area, usually (hopefully) less then the increase in min wage boosts purchasing power, but it just plain out hurts anyone on social security or disability or other forms of fixed incomes. Before min wage went up in washington, even just in the last 5 years here, the cost of living/renting was almost half what it is now.....yet the amount retired people get a month has not gone up at all. I won't actually qualify for SS for another 10 years, unless I get qualified as disabled....and the amount I'll be eligable for (barely 1k), will be worth much less then it is now. I'm planning for that by trying to live on an $800 budget a month now...and hopefully I'll be able to keepthat up if I get SS later (if it's even still around). --- Zangulus "I try to avoid having any knowledge at all of his dick." Glowing Elephant "Stonehedge was a sex thing." <cite>wolfy42 posted [p:930159932] in AARP respo... [t:78159326]...</cite> <quote>Blaqthourne posted...</cite> <quote>Revelation34 posted...</cite> <quote>Blaqthourne posted...</cite> <quote>Krow_Incarnate posted...</cite> <quote>"Fixed income" doesn't necessarily mean broke though. It literally just means it's not going up. I've had a dude with a networth of over $200k tell me he's on a "fixed income".</quote> A net worth of $200k+ (and since you said $200k, that implies it's not $300k, and most likely not $250k) is not that much in the US. If he owns a house, that likely means he has under $100k of liquid assets. Even if that $100k is getting a 10% return, it's only producing $10k income every year. I believe that's under the poverty level. So, while he's not broke right now, there's a pretty good chance he will be relatively soon if he doesn't get some new source of income. He could very well be living entirely off of social security.</quote> Lol.</quote> I don't get it. What's funny about that?</quote> A networth of 200k is enough to retire easily especially with about $1k a month from social security as well. Your not rich, but you also won't need to spend less then $2k a month even if you live into your 90s (and your starting at a min of 60...so 30 years). For 30 years though (just say you live that much longer after retirement), you really want at least 400k minimum to leave a fairly normal/comfortable life, near a large city etc (or not moving away from family friends etc). That is why Gen X is so screwed, a MUCH larger percentage of boomers have at least that much in assets right now at retirement age. As bad as it is for people in the 35-55 age range right now (gen X primarily), it's going to be much worse for those who are 18-35 when they finally retire since very few of them actually own property etc that they can sell for large amounts of money in order to retire. While the leading edge of Gen-xers (those who are about 5 years older then me etc), will be able to get social security in 5 years or so....and it will probably still be around by then, anyone my age or younger (still a large portion of my generation) are probably not going to see much if any return from social security, and it's highly doubtful that if we do, the amount will increase with the cost of living. Higher minimum wage may sound like a good thing, but it leaves though on a fixed income out in the cold, often literally, because in general a higher min wage increases the base cost of everything in the area, usually (hopefully) less then the increase in min wage boosts purchasing power, but it just plain out hurts anyone on social security or disability or other forms of fixed incomes. Before min wage went up in washington, even just in the last 5 years here, the cost of living/renting was almost half what it is now.....yet the amount retired people get a month has not gone up at all. I won't actually qualify for SS for another 10 years, unless I get qualified as disabled....and the amount I'll be eligable for (barely 1k), will be worth much less then it is now. I'm planning for that by trying to live on an $800 budget a month now...and hopefully I'll be able to keepthat up if I get SS later (if it's even still around). --- Zangulus "I try to avoid having any knowledge at all of his dick." Glowing Elephant "Stonehedge was a sex thing."</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1