Quantcast

Comments about ‘The early death of early retirement’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Dec. 19 2013 8:30 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Ironwood
Calgary, 00

I hope to avoid becoming a DIT (Die In the Traces), but my brother -due to the machinations of a BAD Tax preparer is one (he's bust at 58, so no retirement, absolutely none).

As a boomer the government swept away the workers before us so we'd have jobs, now we're keeping them from the millennials (Born 1980 - 2000) and the youth because our retirement plan is bust, and we didn't have enough kids so that the government has to sweep us out of the labour market for an oversize rising generation.

We've seen the world go from Capitalist (Open or State) to Nerdalist (where the supply of nerds limits the economy, not the supply of money). We're having too much fun.

Yours

Ed Wilson

A Guy With A Brain
Enid, OK

On track to retire now by 60 or 61 years old, paying off the house being the main driving factor. Paying extra every month plus a one-time lump sum every year to pay a 30 yr loan off in 18.

Before the market fell apart in 2007-2008 I had a plan in place/progressing where my wife and I would have a million by the time I was 60. Plan was to move it from a 10% growth vehicle to a more conservative investment vehicle of about 5% and combine that with a military retirement and those 2 combined meant the million would be self-sustaining.

That capability is all gone now due to the likes of New York (D) Rep. Barney "there's no danger of giving mortgages to those who don't have to show they qualify for a mortgage nor do they have any hope of repaying a mortgage" Frank and the "takers" in our country, who as proven by the November 2008 Presidential election, now outnumber the "makers".

Like I said, still on track to retire at 60-61, but the difference is there's no longer a self-sustaining nest egg.

high school fan
Huntington, UT

How dare they put welfare and social security in the same context. I have paid thousands into social security for over forty years, it has no relationship to welfare. And just because the older people work longer does not mean that they didn't sign up for social security benefits.
People are working longer for two reasons, they have aged well and their retirement plans/financial strength went bust over the past five years.

Utah Teacher
Orem, UT

Luckily I got into education before Sen. Liljenquist destroyed the retirement plan for teachers. I will be able to retire after 30 years of teaching 12 year olds. I plan to serve a mission or two with my wife and then enjoy the grand kids. I feel sad for the recently hired teachers who will never know such retirement. We are going to have 80 year old teachers 30 years from now because they can't afford to save on the low salary they make. We got by on the salary knowing that retirement was being put away as part of my state contract but not any more. Now they have low wages AND no retirement plan.

Sad.

Dr. Thom
Long Beach, CA

My retirement plan is death.

patriot
Cedar Hills, UT

65 is the old retirement age. 67 is the new retirement age. In reality, 67 just means you retire from your career job then start at Home Depot or eqiv at $9-$10 an hour for another 5 years. The only goal that should be set is when you pay your home off and that has to be around 67. More and more people are finding that harder and harder to do. I have no desire to live in a glorified apartment when I am 67 with no yard and people so close I can hear them snoring at night. This year we sold our 4000 sq ft home with 1/2 acre yard and downsized building a smaller home on a smaller lot in a city farther south in the valley. All in all we cut our loan by 80k and reduced our loan by 15 years. Commute dist to work is farther and it is more a rural feel but doing nothing was not an option. We will miss the convenience of our old home location which was prime but it seems to me we are headed into another recession soon ...did we ever leave the last one????

DVD
Taylorsville, 00

high school fan:

"How dare they put welfare and social security in the same context. I have paid thousands into social security for over forty years, it has no relationship to welfare. And just because the older people work longer does not mean that they didn't sign up for social security benefits.
People are working longer for two reasons, they have aged well and their retirement plans/financial strength went bust over the past five years."

The media seems to perpetuate this confusion. It's about as bad as saying that your savings account represents welfare.

It would also help if we weren't dealing with countries (examples of South Asian tech and African mining) that use slavery to produce modern goods. They have a retirement plan consisting of the death of the slave, and by our society condoning it by doing unrestricted business with them, we force our people into the same problems. That corporate head of clothing that can work his people for 2 dollars a day till they die in Dhaka? He's indirectly doing that to Americans as well. At least until fair wage laws are passed and enforced.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments