What age will you retire?

Brothers of Briar

Help Support Brothers of Briar:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Argyraspide":htzvmr5h said:
I took early social security retirement this year at age 63.  I was laid off a good paying job as a security manager one year ago; and despite hundreds of applications and a dozen or so interviews my only success has been to verify that folks in my age bracket will find it hard, if not impossible, to find any kind of job more meaningful than, say, Walmart greeter.  

Fortunately, I did also earn a military pension from over two decades of service in the Army.  Between those two checks and my wife's earnings as a barber at the PX at Fort Carson, we are doing OK.  If it wasn't for the military pension, life would definitely be financially difficult, to say the least...except for haircuts and beard trims, which are free!

We're saving our IRA and 401-K monies for when my wife retires, so we can go on cruises and otherwise enjoy ourselves in our "golden" years.  
My uncle found out the same thing when he was in his mid 50's. He was able to find a job but it was straight commission sales. And while he was making a living doing it he decided he didn't need the stress. He sold his house and bought a small one with 3 rental properties on Bayou Teche. He then begin to guide individuals and group for hunting and fishing along the gulf coast. Which is not a bad gig if you can swing it:D  He says he wish his company had been bought out long ago.

 
This is a long article. I'm only quoting the beginning of it. You can read the rest via the link at the bottom.

You should if your own pension (if you're lucky enough to have one) is of any interest.

:face:

Rolling Stone":vf0qujxl said:
In the final months of 2011, almost two years before the city of Detroit would shock America by declaring bankruptcy in the face of what it claimed were insurmountable pension costs, the state of Rhode Island took bold action to avert what it called its own looming pension crisis. Led by its newly elected treasurer, Gina Raimondo – an ostentatiously ambitious 42-year-old Rhodes scholar and former venture capitalist – the state declared war on public pensions, ramming through an ingenious new law slashing benefits of state employees with a speed and ferocity seldom before seen by any local government.

Called the Rhode Island Retirement Security Act of 2011, her plan would later be hailed as the most comprehensive pension reform ever implemented. The rap was so convincing at first that the overwhelmed local burghers of her little petri-dish state didn't even know how to react. "She's Yale, Harvard, Oxford – she worked on Wall Street," says Paul Doughty, the current president of the Providence firefighters union. "Nobody wanted to be the first to raise his hand and admit he didn't know what the **** she was talking about."

Soon she was being talked about as a probable candidate for Rhode Island's 2014 gubernatorial race. By 2013, Raimondo had raised more than $2 million, a staggering sum for a still-undeclared candidate in a thimble-size state. Donors from Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs, Bain Capital and JPMorgan Chase showered her with money, with more than $247,000 coming from New York contributors alone. A shadowy organization called EngageRI, a public-advocacy group of the 501(c)4 type whose donors were shielded from public scrutiny by the infamous Citizens United decision, spent $740,000 promoting Raimondo's ideas. Within Rhode Island, there began to be whispers that Raimondo had her sights on the presidency. Even former Obama right hand and Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel pointed to Rhode Island as an example to be followed in curing pension woes.

What few people knew at the time was that Raimondo's "tool kit" wasn't just meant for local consumption. The dynamic young Rhodes scholar was allowing her state to be used as a test case for the rest of the country, at the behest of powerful out-of-state financiers with dreams of pushing pension reform down the throats of taxpayers and public workers from coast to coast. One of her key supporters was billionaire former Enron executive John Arnold – a dickishly ubiquitous young right-wing kingmaker with clear designs on becoming the next generation's Koch brothers, and who for years had been funding a nationwide campaign to slash benefits for public workers.

Nor did anyone know that part of Raimondo's strategy for saving money involved handing more than $1 billion – 14 percent of the state fund – to hedge funds, including a trio of well-known New York-based funds: Dan Loeb's Third Point Capital was given $66 million, Ken Garschina's Mason Capital got $64 million and $70 million went to Paul Singer's Elliott Management. The funds now stood collectively to be paid tens of millions in fees every single year by the already overburdened taxpayers of her ostensibly flat-broke state. Felicitously, Loeb, Garschina and Singer serve on the board of the Manhattan Institute, a prominent conservative think tank with a history of supporting benefit-slashing reforms. The institute named Raimondo its 2011 "Urban Innovator" of the year.

The state's workers, in other words, were being forced to subsidize their own political disenfranchisement, coughing up at least $200 million to members of a group that had supported anti-labor laws. Later, when Edward Siedle, a former SEC lawyer, asked Raimondo in a column for Forbes.com how much the state was paying in fees to these hedge funds, she first claimed she didn't know. Raimondo later told the Providence Journal she was contractually obliged to defer to hedge funds on the release of "proprietary" information, which immediately prompted a letter in protest from a series of freaked-out interest groups. Under pressure, the state later released some fee information, but the information was originally kept hidden, even from the workers themselves. "When I asked, I was basically hammered," says Marcia Reback, a former sixth-grade schoolteacher and retired Providence Teachers Union president who serves as the lone union rep on Rhode Island's nine-member State Investment Commission. "I couldn't get any information about the actual costs."

This is the third act in an improbable triple-******* of ordinary people that Wall Street is seeking to pull off as a shocker epilogue to the crisis era. Five years ago this fall, an epidemic of fraud and thievery in the financial-services industry triggered the collapse of our economy. The resultant loss of tax revenue plunged states everywhere into spiraling fiscal crises, and local governments suffered huge losses in their retirement portfolios – remember, these public pension funds were some of the most frequently targeted suckers upon whom Wall Street dumped its fraud-riddled mortgage-backed securities in the pre-crash years.

Today, the same Wall Street crowd that caused the crash is not merely rolling in money again but aggressively counterattacking on the public-relations front. The battle increasingly centers around public funds like state and municipal pensions. This war isn't just about money. Crucially, in ways invisible to most Americans, it's also about blame. In state after state, politicians are following the Rhode Island playbook, using scare tactics and lavishly funded PR campaigns to cast teachers, firefighters and cops – not bankers – as the budget-devouring boogeymen responsible for the mounting fiscal problems of America's states and cities.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/looting-the-pension-funds-20130926#ixzz2gCCNQkvV
 
When corporate 'heads' retire, they get cash and stock options. Stock options because they only pay 15% in taxes. The workers get promised a pension. Then the promise turns into "Sorry, the money disappeared some how (decreased revenue, stock market crash, investments that didn't turn out as promised, over optimistic monetary projections, etc.) and we aren't going to be able to pay you. It's not our fault that you didn't properly plan on your retirement and save more money while you worked for us. Have a nice day!" Then now that they don't have to pay for their retirement promises, they can use that 'disappeared' savings to balance their budget and go Vote for ME! I balanced the budget/saved the state/city from financial ruin!"
 
My wife works for a world renowned children's hospital that has always treated their employees exceedingly well. When she first signed on she was enrolled in a 403b (401k for non-profits) that provides a 2% employer match, and a "Pension Plan". The Pension Plan is actually a fund that the hospital contributes a certain amount to (a percentage of her salary that increase the longer she stays with the hospital). At retirement the Pension account is converted to an Annuity and paid out accordingly. The Pension account has a minimum guaranteed rate of return and requires no contribution from the employee at all. While not quite as good as the pensions of old, its a pretty good plan for this day and age.

She just received an offer to change her retirement plan structure. In exchange for giving up the pension plan (right now they're funding her pension account at 5% of her earnings, at a guaranteed rate of return of 8%) they offered to match another 1% of her 403b contributions! They pushed it as being geared toward helping younger employees be better prepared for retirement. My wife is 32, been with the hospital for 7+ years, so we assumed she'd fit that bill...apparently not.

I was really shocked. I understand that in this day and age companies need to be mindful of its abilities to payout on the promised retirement benefits, whatever they might be, but to offer such a crappy comp package in such a way that the employees think they are getting actually getting a better deal is way too shady for my tastes. I spent half a day reading and rereading the information they sent her trying to see what benefit there might be to the new program, and the bottom line is there is none. It only marginally benefits someone who is hired under the new plan and intends to leave within the the first few years.

New employees have to take the new package, but thankfully my wife was able to stay under the old plan.
 
Meanwhile, on a distant planet with "alien" values . . .

BERNE — Switzerland will hold a vote on whether to introduce a basic income for all adults, in a further sign of growing public activism over pay inequality since the financial crisis.

A grassroots committee is calling for all adults in Switzerland to receive an unconditional income of 2,500 Swiss francs — about $2,800 — per month from the state, with the aim of providing a financial safety net for the population. Organizers submitted more than the 100,000 signatures needed to call a referendum on Friday and tipped a truckload of 8 million five-cent coins outside the parliament building in Bern, one for each person living in Switzerland.

Under Swiss law, citizens can organize popular initiatives that allow the channeling of public anger into direct political action. The country usually holds several referenda a year.

In March, Swiss voters backed some of the world's strictest controls on executive pay, forcing public companies to give shareholders a binding vote on compensation. A separate proposal to limit monthly executive pay to no more than what the company's lowest-paid staff earn in a year, the so-called 1:12 initiative, faces a popular vote on Nov. 24.
http://news.msn.com/world/swiss-to-vote-on-dollar2800-monthly-income-for-all-adults

:face:
 
Yak":k5h3j5c1 said:
Meanwhile, on a distant planet with "alien" values . . .

In March, Swiss voters backed some of the world's strictest controls on executive pay, forcing public companies to give shareholders a binding vote on compensation. A separate proposal to limit monthly executive pay to no more than what the company's lowest-paid staff earn in a year, the so-called 1:12 initiative, faces a popular vote on Nov. 24.
http://news.msn.com/world/swiss-to-vote-on-dollar2800-monthly-income-for-all-adults

:face:
My initial reaction was, 'I wonder how much Wal-Mart and McDonald's would pay their employees under that rule?' Then I realized companies like those would simply not have many full-time employees. . . .
 
At the current rate of this country, my financial situation ect........ I will retire when I expire!
 
If you strongly believe you have the funds in place to retire now, do so. If you have income such that you can pay for your car and medical costs and otherwise live a frugal lifestyle, bail. I have enough interests to last me many lifetimes. I am really happy that I no longer support someone else's dream in a full-time job that demands all my time.
 
Brewdude":pae46dy3 said:
I personally have no immediate plans to retire. Frankly I see myself going on in my current capacity as far as my health holds out, since I love what I do and would want to continue doing it as long as I can.

Equally, sooner or later there may be a point where I need to consider the "retirement" thing. Hopefully later, but one never knows, do they? My general heath is just fine, and I'm doing much the same kind of physical work I did when I first got into commercial brewing some 25 yrs ago.


Cheers,

RR
Just to reiterate what I said in the OP.

Still, it's been interesting to read the posts here. There is wisdom in many councils.


Cheers,

RR
 
When to retire is a very personal decision. Retirement in the traditional context seems foreign to me. I don't think I could just stop working and be happy. Staying interested and being involved is key to keeping one's mind clear.

Certainly having adequate funding or pension is key. Traditional defined benefit pension plans aren't always what they're cracked up to be - especially if you are younger. I would much rather have a defined contribution plan where I can have some control over how my money is invested. Higher risk but certainly likely to have a higher return. Planning is key and you need to make sure to take care of yourself. Early and often.

I am a firm believer in the sustainability of the American financial system. Why? Because those same scammers on Wall Street that people rail on are smart enough to know how to still make money and work around future legislation.

I love what I do. Now that I have my own practice (I'm a CPA) I can serve my customers exactly as I feel they should be served. The autonomy this provides allows me to really enjoy what I do instead of being scared. That being said, our profession is full of old dudes that refuse to quit even when their skills are declining. I will try to be mindful to quit when I'm on top before I start to go nuts or become crotchety.
 
For many years I viewed my impending retirement as the promised land. Now that I am retired I find that I really don't enjoy it. I miss my old job terribly. Everybody is different and your experience of retirement may be the polar opposite of mine, I just didn't realise how much of my identity was interwoven and bound with my career. I never thought I would miss work so much.....

Fraternally

Jers
 
When I retired from the military I knew it was going to be quite the shock to the system.
So I got a mindless low responsibility job. Going from being 'important' to 'just another peon" helped a lot.
Retiring from the second job was like being let out of solitary confinement and seeing daylight again!
 
Jers":9at12mdj said:
Now that I am retired I find that I really don't enjoy it. I miss my old job terribly... I just didn't realise how much of my identity was interwoven and bound with my career.
I see this a lot, and I think you articulated it well.
 
Jers I understand all too well what you're talking about! I was forced to retire 18 years ago! I hated it at first and everyone that had anything to do with it. I willingly devoted my life to my job and often put in 100 hours a week. It is quite a shock to wake up and realize you don't have that any more. Having many interests and enjoying reading and learning saved me. I no longer miss the pressure but I do still miss the feeling I got when I was able to help some family find closure. ( I worked in a forensics lab identifying human skeletal remains). I hope you reach a point where you finally get to enjoy your time brother!

Jim
 
Thanks guys. This is what makes BOB much more than a tobacco review site.

Fraternally

Jers
 
Even if money was no object I don't think I will ever retire. So to answer . . . when I'm dead.
 
huffelpuff":k55jhq87 said:
Jers I understand all too well what you're talking about! I was forced to retire 18 years ago! I hated it at first and everyone that had anything to do with it. I willingly devoted my life to my job and often put in 100 hours a week. It is quite a shock to wake up and realize you don't have that any more. Having many interests and enjoying reading and learning saved me. I no longer miss the pressure but I do still miss the feeling I got when I was able to help some family find closure. ( I worked in a forensics lab identifying human skeletal remains). I hope you reach a point where you finally get to enjoy your time brother!

Jim
huff/Jim

So if I have this right, you were forced to retire 18 yrs ago. The date stamp on your profile says you're 43.

So you have been retired since age 25?????????

:scratch: 



Cheers,

RR
 

Latest posts

Top