62 year old with no savings?!

SixPapaCharlie said:
I work w/ a couple of people at my new gig that are going to be this 62 year old man.
well paid people in their late 30s-early 40s. When the pay schedule came out showing we would be paid in the rears and the first check would be 3-4 weeks in, 2 of these people were livid.

They were so mad they had to put bills on hold and one went to the recruiter's house to pick up her check the day before they would arrive to get it in the bank as quick as possible.

It is not my problem but I hadn't realized that even "well off" people are living paycheck to paycheck. There needs to be some emphasis on financial planning in schools. These two individuals are going to get to tome hard years later in life and not have a safety net.
Click to expand...

"we would be paid in the rears"

Unintentionally funny, or Texas slang?
 
CharlieTango said:
Gee, this thread describes me. I'm 62, no savings, no pension, lost my house to foreclosure, now living hand to mouth.

I'm a high school drop out but managed to make a few million dollars by contracting and with a web site.

My ex wife was a thief and the third district court of appeals (CA) ruled that I had to pay my ex and her new lawyer husband $4k/month in spousal support and it did not terminate upon her remarriage. The amount did not reduce with reductions in my income either, the court ruled that the recession was all in my head.

The housing bubble bursting meant my income went from high to nothing and in 7 years I have now recovered only 25% of my income. The guys that work for me are up to 50% of what they made 7 years ago.

People that I was in business with stole all they could. A brother in law used my services for 7 months. I re-wrote his web site called the National Equity Exchange that failed upon initial launch. I sued in superior court but the Las Angeles Judge ruled against me and that event cleaned out every last penny and left me in debt.

Now I'm old and broke and a renter trying to get out of debt before I retire on social security when I'm 70. Last year I bought a spray foam rig and my income is growing but it will take years to recover and my health doesn't permit me to work so hard anymore.

Stuff happens.

I'm all ears, what's the advice?
Click to expand...
Don't live in a Leftist haven like California.
 
paflyer said:
"we would be paid in the rears"

Unintentionally funny, or Texas slang?
Click to expand...

It is a phrase I hear all the time referring to delaying one's pay by an additional pay period. Means their is a delay up front but when you quit, you have one more check coming. I always thought it was a funny phrase as well.
 
^^ what he said, and start again. My dad is roughly your age and makes a killing contracting in the Midwest. Lots of small town jobs and rehabbing places. In markets where the max population is 4000. I should define "killing" as a good income for the Midwest, where you can live cheaply
 
Henning said:
If that graph is accurate, then why does does the historic record show otherwise? Look at reality and tax rates from WWII to present.
Click to expand...

The graph is obviously a cartoon to be laughed at which tells me that his position is to be laughed at.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
It is a phrase I hear all the time referring to delaying one's pay by an additional pay period. Means their is a delay up front but when you quit, you have one more check coming. I always thought it was a funny phrase as well.
Click to expand...
You might be speaking Texas for "payment in arrears"?
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
A quick look around the net suggests that fully 50% of >55yr olds have less than $100K saved. Not saying that because there are so many in his shoes makes it more acceptable; the contrary...it's a sad epidemic.
Click to expand...

This.

The percentage of folks living paycheck-to-paycheck is high, savings are low, and there are very few that can afford retirement. Yes, there is social security, but that's insufficient (and the funds may very well run out). And a huge portion of the population buys stuff on credit, they have no concept of saving.

Hard for parents to teach kids about financial responsibility when they themselves never learned. And we see even big institutions being bailed out, which helps avoid an economic crash but certainly doesn't teach responsibility. Kids who survived the Great Depression tend to be more responsible, but that generation is quickly leaving us.
 
Bill Jennings said:
My Dad would have some of his workers ask him about retirement, savings, etc. He was shocked at the number of successful mid 40's people that barely had $500 cash to their name. Yes, they lived in the $350k house and drove the leased BMW's, but it was all smoke and mirrors as they were hand to mouth. He told them about the total lifestyle change they would have to make if they wanted to catch up in the 20 years or so they had to work, but most wouldn't do it. They want to live large. Oh well.
Click to expand...

And that is part of the problem. Easy credit spurs spending, but also drives prices/values higher. Great for you if you're investor and not using (much) debt to hold assets before the rise. Lousy for you if you're trying to get out and save. In the end, credit that's too loose is a detriment to the economy as folks can't afford to purchase when their credit runs out. Makes them beholden to the lenders (and vice-versa as the lenders carry the risk).

Once the Fed starts to raise rates - and they will - we're in for a real reckoning. There is such a thing as "too much of a good thing".
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
Well holy crap. There's a lot of us saying it wrong.
Click to expand...

I used to say, "Self Depreciating" instead of "Self Deprecating".

Other fun ones...

For all intensive purposes (for all intents and purposes)
Nothing imparticular (nothing in particular)
 
jhausch said:
I used to say, "Self Depreciating" instead of "Self Deprecating".

Other fun ones...

For all intensive purposes (for all intents and purposes)
Nothing imparticular (nothing in particular)
Click to expand...

it's a mute point
 
tonycondon said:
the goal is to die pennyless. i'd say he is doing fine.
Click to expand...
nice....I kinda expected this comment. :lol:

plus, cat food is very healthy. He'll probably have a healthy life well into his 90's. :D

....I wonder if this fella owned a Duke? :rofl:
 
Last edited:
I have heard "Defication of character" before
 
I save, but there is no incentive to save in an inflation driven consumer-service economy. So, enough already with the expectation of financial exceptionalism from the average prole. The real sticking point here is that it is preposterous to expect a prole to save up the equivalent of a 50-75pct pension with inflation-adjusted frozen wages from 1980, out of your own pocket. The financially educated damn well know 401Ks were never conceived to be PRIMARY retirement vehicles, so the bait and switch is not even hidden from plain sight.

This is not a moral deficit by the unwashed masses that "just won't save enough for retirement", this is active warfare against the proletariat using religious demagoguery (aka expecting financial exceptionalism and austerity from the median) to cloak the highway robbery committed against their present compensation.

I don't care if you don't want a pension in your ledger. Cool with me. Just pay me that money upfront via a B-fund and let time take care of it. But don't tell me to take it from my inflation-adjusted paycut of a paycheck and then say the gallactically obvious outcome of severe 401K underfunding is all the prole's fault for being morally deficient and not saving enough or playing the casino stock market shell game properly. I'd just as likely torch the street than quietly die in a corner via "social security retirement".
 
Clark1961 said:
No, I wrote what I meant. It's not an "idealized" representation, it is a cartoon. Cartoons are to be laughed at and in this case it is a deliberate mis-representation of the tax revenue curve. Show facts or show nothing.
Click to expand...

I recall idealized graphs of guns vs butter when I took Econ 101 years ago. I thought graphs like that were designed to make a point, not to specifically reflect every nuance of reality.

If the image I posted is laughable due to being to cartoonish, a serious request:

Would you please post a more accurate one that would not be laughable to a "sophisticated" audience. I can then link to that one in future discussions.

Thanks.
 
FastEddieB said:
I recall idealized graphs of guns vs butter when I took Econ 101 years ago. I thought graphs like that were designed to make a point, not to specifically reflect every nuance of reality.
Click to expand...

The "point" they were designed to make was to teach a concept (at least in Econ 101). Are you presenting yourself as a professor of taxation? Again, laughable...

Serious request: do your own homework which is one of the things any professor should have learned.
 
No offense to anyone here, I'm just sharing my thought.

Having kids is philosophically a major unjustified act for me. But to the point of this thread, each kid, from the end of maternity leave of the mother, costs more than $2000 per month in large cities (day care alone is about $1800 per month in Toronto). Meaning, more than 24k per year per child. And we are still giving just a simple life to the kid. And around retirement, we are to our knees on the regular costs of living.

So, if we deal more rationally with the "want to have kids" attitude, and consider the needs of a totally independent human that we are about to force to born, we may be able to do the potential kid and ourselves a big favor.

I often ask myself, did I really want to be born so that now I have to obey every moron because I don't want to screw up my paycheck? Well, I wasn't born based on my own will. I'm here and have no choice. But why should I make another human that I know I cannot create a good life for and leave him with no choice? (and at the same time screw up my own life?!)

Sorry, my questions of rationales for living and forcing another human to live have many other aspects that I cannot discuss them here.
 
FastEddieB said:
I recall idealized graphs of guns vs butter when I took Econ 101 years ago. I thought graphs like that were designed to make a point, not to specifically reflect every nuance of reality.

If the image I posted is laughable due to being to cartoonish, a serious request:

Would you please post a more accurate one that would not be laughable to a "sophisticated" audience. I can then link to that one in future discussions.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
I thought your graph made a very good visual demonstration of how the optimum tax point is somewhere between the endpoints. Why would anyone think that placing it in the middle of a static picture would lead someone to believe that 50% is the magical number.
 
NavByte said:
No offense to anyone here, I'm just sharing my thought.

Having kids is philosophically a major unjustified act for me. But to the point of this thread, each kid, from the end of maternity leave of the mother, costs more than $2000 per month in large cities (day care alone is about $1800 per month in Toronto). Meaning, more than 24k per year per child. And we are still giving just a simple life to the kid. And around retirement, we are to our knees on the regular costs of living.

So, if we deal more rationally with the "want to have kids" attitude, and consider the needs of a totally independent human that we are about to force to born, we may be able to do the potential kid and ourselves a big favor.

I often ask myself, did I really want to be born so that now I have to obey every moron because I don't want to screw up my paycheck? Well, I wasn't born based on my own will. I'm here and have no choice. But why should I make another human that I know I cannot create a good life for and leave him with no choice? (and at the same time screw up my own life?!)

Sorry, my questions of rationales for living and forcing another human to live have many other aspects that I cannot discuss them here.
Click to expand...

I've never found having kids to be THAT expensive. But they're what makes life worth living. Houses, cars, other toys are nice but don't even come close to the joy I have with my two kids. And they're nowhere near driving anyone to the poor house. Unless you're the kind of person who wants to spend $50K on graduations, weddings, etc.
 
The video I linked to did a pretty good job of expanding on the "laughable" or "unsophisticated" chart.

Still unsure why this stirs such passion, to the point of getting insulting.

So it goes...
 
CharlieTango said:
Gee, this thread describes me. I'm 62, no savings, no pension, lost my house to foreclosure, now living hand to mouth.

I'm a high school drop out but managed to make a few million dollars by contracting and with a web site.

My ex wife was a thief and the third district court of appeals (CA) ruled that I had to pay my ex and her new lawyer husband $4k/month in spousal support and it did not terminate upon her remarriage. The amount did not reduce with reductions in my income either, the court ruled that the recession was all in my head.

The housing bubble bursting meant my income went from high to nothing and in 7 years I have now recovered only 25% of my income. The guys that work for me are up to 50% of what they made 7 years ago.

People that I was in business with stole all they could. A brother in law used my services for 7 months. I re-wrote his web site called the National Equity Exchange that failed upon initial launch. I sued in superior court but the Las Angeles Judge ruled against me and that event cleaned out every last penny and left me in debt.

Now I'm old and broke and a renter trying to get out of debt before I retire on social security when I'm 70. Last year I bought a spray foam rig and my income is growing but it will take years to recover and my health doesn't permit me to work so hard anymore.

Stuff happens.

I'm all ears, what's the advice?
Click to expand...

When a better social option presents itself, take it.
 
Gerhardt said:
I've never found having kids to be THAT expensive. But they're what makes life worth living. Houses, cars, other toys are nice but don't even come close to the joy I have with my two kids. And they're nowhere near driving anyone to the poor house. Unless you're the kind of person who wants to spend $50K on graduations, weddings, etc.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

Before I had kids, I spent that money on other things.
I would rather have $0 left over at the end of the month and have my kids than be rolling in it w/ no kids.

I don't think my kids are all that expensive (yet anyway)
 
NavByte said:
No offense to anyone here, I'm just sharing my thought.

Having kids is philosophically a major unjustified act for me. But to the point of this thread, each kid, from the end of maternity leave of the mother, costs more than $2000 per month in large cities (day care alone is about $1800 per month in Toronto). Meaning, more than 24k per year per child. And we are still giving just a simple life to the kid. And around retirement, we are to our knees on the regular costs of living.

So, if we deal more rationally with the "want to have kids" attitude, and consider the needs of a totally independent human that we are about to force to born, we may be able to do the potential kid and ourselves a big favor.

I often ask myself, did I really want to be born so that now I have to obey every moron because I don't want to screw up my paycheck? Well, I wasn't born based on my own will. I'm here and have no choice. But why should I make another human that I know I cannot create a good life for and leave him with no choice? (and at the same time screw up my own life?!)

Sorry, my questions of rationales for living and forcing another human to live have many other aspects that I cannot discuss them here.
Click to expand...

You are living a reality of your own making. You choose to work for jerks. If you don't like your situation, figure a way out of it, it requires effort, risk and yes, sometimes failure. Daycare is free if one spouse stays home or if both must work, work alternate shifts. Raising kids doesn't have to be expensive. You are free to choose how expensive it will be, choose wisely.
 
JOhnH said:
I thought your graph made a very good visual demonstration of how the optimum tax point is somewhere between the endpoints. Why would anyone think that placing it in the middle of a static picture would lead someone to believe that 50% is the magical number.
Click to expand...

Doing a Google Image search and you'll see many different shapes to the curve represented, with longer or shorter "tails" to the left or right. I don't see that as essential to illustrating the overall concept.
 
I wasn't gonna post in this thread, but it's interesting. I have a few points to make, prolly nothing of significance.

First thought; finding someone of advanced years without any income or savings seems to irk us. Pretty sure I know why. Principally because we know that in the US taxpayers will have to support them, and care for them until death. It's a significant expense(my wife is a home health care assistant, so I know). Secondarily it seems we get upset because a poor older person hasn't done any planning, and will become a burden to someone, somewhere. I also think there's a bit of hubris involved - such as 'I did it, why can't you do it?' judgment going on. I admit I fall for that one in some respects as well.

Second thought; I started renting to a couple who were in their 60s about 20 years ago, and they live in SoCal, pay rent, food, etc but have zero savings. Between their SS(they aren't married so they get double dip SS), and help from their church they were able to afford the rent on a nice, but not great home in SoCal. I've raised their rent a couple of times, very small raises and now I consider my renting to them below market to be some form of stipend to the elderly, although I don't consider myself any kind of humanitarian, I'm also not being a jackwad about it by charging all the market will bear. Right now, their rent is about $3-400 per month under market for the area and the sq-ft. sometimes I feel like an idiot for giving them a break because they didn't plan well, and other times I consider raising the rent to market level and let them move to Brawley or Riverside, and be done with it. They've now turned to their church for more assistance with the rent, so the inevitable may be on the horizon. Still, I'm a bit gobsmacked that these people who seem to be nominal intelligence and raised a family didn't do better financial planning as they aged.

third thought; About having kids and savings. The US culture(such as it is) is quite different in that respect to other countries. Specifically, take Mexican culture, and some from Europe, it was planned that 3 or 4 kids would provide a nice retirement for the elders of the family when they retired from active work, and became dependent. The idea was that the kids would chip in and take care of the elderly with room and board and some sharing of expense. In the US, this idea has gone bye-bye for generations. In the south, there is still some familial assistance being done, but in the NE I think it's pretty rare for the kids to help out with elderly expenses. I've arranged my life so that I won't be a financial burden to my kids, because my parents arranged their life so they would not(and did not) become a burden to me and my siblings. This actually seems kind of weird to me, but since my wife works in the field, and I see all the shenanigans that go on to paying for elder care, I can now understand it. If a child starts paying for living assistance(after the parent transfers all wealth to the kids anyway), then federal and state assistance dries up until the money is gone. It's a scam that actually seems to hurt the elderly who in many cases could get by quite nicely with some help from the kids. It's sort of a financial Catch-22 that keeps the next generation from interfering by helping out, and leaves the job to the states and feds. Pretty sad.

Conclusion; There are a lot of people out there in their 60s without any savings, or investment profile. A lot. They are all hanging their lives on SS income, and Medicare/MediCal and other state/fed resources. It's going to get worse in 7-10 years as people my age are starting to retire, and the strain on the fed/state programs is going to increase dramatically. What's worse is that these programs are usually among the most inefficient in getting living resources to the people who need them. The overhead spending for every dollar spent by the elderly for living expenses would shock even the most liberal minded person alive. My wife works for just above min wage, and she does it because she likes helping people, and is good with old folks. However, the costs passed on to the various govt and taxing agencies is outrageous.
 
NavByte said:
No offense to anyone here, I'm just sharing my thought.

Having kids is philosophically a major unjustified act for me. But to the point of this thread, each kid, from the end of maternity leave of the mother, costs more than $2000 per month in large cities (day care alone is about $1800 per month in Toronto). Meaning, more than 24k per year per child. And we are still giving just a simple life to the kid. And around retirement, we are to our knees on the regular costs of living.

So, if we deal more rationally with the "want to have kids" attitude, and consider the needs of a totally independent human that we are about to force to born, we may be able to do the potential kid and ourselves a big favor.

I often ask myself, did I really want to be born so that now I have to obey every moron because I don't want to screw up my paycheck? Well, I wasn't born based on my own will. I'm here and have no choice. But why should I make another human that I know I cannot create a good life for and leave him with no choice? (and at the same time screw up my own life?!)

Sorry, my questions of rationales for living and forcing another human to live have many other aspects that I cannot discuss them here.
Click to expand...

One of the BIGGEST, if not the BIGGEST lies modern Americans convince themselves of, is that they can't shouldn't, couldn't, raise their own kids.

Once you consider the cost and lack of real security that your kids are Ok and properly supervised, the idea that you should run out nad hand them over to profit making businesses, or worse, the government, is ludicrous.

Too many families dedicate one income totally to the cost of external child care, when they need to conisder either raising their own children, or not having them if they are going to refuse to take care of their own.
 
Supporting 2 kids is not that expensive. You may have to give up the BMW 850 or the steakhouse dinners every week but do you really need those things?
 
docmirror said:
My wife works for just above min wage, and she does it because she likes helping people, and is good with old folks. However, the costs passed on to the various govt and taxing agencies is outrageous.
Click to expand...
Yup....and a lil factoid. Your wife is entitled to half your SS when she becomes of age. In other words. If you get the full amount ~$2,300 she will get an additional half of that as a spousal benefit. $3,450/mo ain't a bad supplement to a retirement.

Mrs. C considered going back to work....until we added up all the costs and realized it wasn't worth it.:no:
 
Last edited:
Checkout_my_Six said:
Yup....and a lil factoid. Your wife is entitled to half your SS when she becomes of age. In other words. If you get the full amount ~$2,300 she will get an additional half of that as a spousal benefit. $3,450/mo ain't a bad supplement to a retirement.

Mrs. C considered going back to work....until we added up all the costs and realized it wasn't worth it.:no:
Click to expand...

Huh? You kind of lost me there. I wasn't talking at all about my SS income, I was talking about the costs presented to the feds/state agencies for assisted living, and the differential in what my wife earns from her actual job helping the elderly. Not sure where you're going on about MY SS income(which I'm not drawing on, and won't for 7-8 years).
 
docmirror said:
Huh? You kind of lost me there. I wasn't talking at all about my SS income, I was talking about the costs presented to the feds/state agencies for assisted living, and the differential in what my wife earns from her actual job helping the elderly. Not sure where you're going on about MY SS income(which I'm not drawing on, and won't for 7-8 years).
Click to expand...
ya....I was referring to her potential SS retirement income....not the expenses she's seeing related to her job. :yes:

My point?....stay at home moms will see a SS income potential proportionate to their spousal benefits.
 
I find it amazing people are surprised by this, it's the end game of a run for market profit consumer society. The object of the market is to severance every last person from every last penny they can, and they are very effective at it; it's why television exists. If you managed to invest in the markets and made a gain, you have these people's money.
 
Last edited:
These people being broke is what allows the wealthy to spend $100,000,000 on a yacht. FMD, just follow their money to where it goes. If they weren't broke, America as you know it would not exist.
 
Actually it's mostly a by product of people who don't take personal responsibility for their well being. No one forces you to spend all your money on non essentials, such as eating out, toys, expensive cars, cable tv, vacations, the list goes on and on.
 
PaulS said:
Actually it's mostly a by product of people who don't take personal responsibility for their well being. No one forces you to spend all your money on non essentials, such as eating out, toys, expensive cars, cable tv, vacations, the list goes on and on.
Click to expand...

But...but... The market says we shouldn't, that we should let others manage that for us. We should buy a new and better house bigger than we need, we should buy a new car to replace the perfectly functional one we have. If we have a spare dime, we should buy some trinket, if we love someone, we should spend a month or year's salary on a diamond that has an artificially inflated value because the market has created a situation where you now have to buy one so you can have happiness and your spouse will accept you. Brides used to come with a dowry, not a mortgage.

No, it is the market system you adore that is at the root because it is a Ponzi scheme. It always needs to be fed more or it will collapse, and we have not built a safety net.
 
Henning said:
But...but... The market says we shouldn't, that we should let others manage that for us. We should buy a new and better house bigger than we need, we should buy a new car to replace the perfectly functional one we have. If we have a spare dime, we should buy some trinket, if we love someone, we should spend a month or year's salary on a diamond that has an artificially inflated value because the market has created a situation where you now have to buy one so you can have happiness and your spouse will accept you. Brides used to come with a dowry, not a mortgage.

No, it is the market system you adore that is at the root because it is a Ponzi scheme. It always needs to be fed more or it will collapse, and we have not built a safety net.
Click to expand...

The market doesn't force any of that behavior, that is all free will choices made by people who fall for it. Nothing you do can help those people if they refuse to think and keep falling for it. Capitalism has created more wealth for more people than all the other "systems" combined. You are free to make what ever choice you wish to make, you are not free from the consequences of those choices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top