Retirement in America is a disaster for many.

[Harpy Eagle]

It is always easy to tell who did not bother to read what I posted.

But that aside, things doing in Panama are fine. Sure, the U.S. is the best place to work, but Panama seems like a nice place to live. In this wonderful info age it's not to hard to work in the U.S. (online) and live in Panama. My experience is that living here requires either a high frustration tolerance level, or a powerful sense of humor --preferably both. Fortunately I'm married to someone who can manage local business transactions while I do the U.S. stuff.

I could work 100% on-line, but much harder for a bedside nurse to do so!

 

[sparky]

So far i got the tired part of retirement.......~S~

 

[frigidweirdo]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/retirement-in-america-is-a-disaster-for-many-is-there-hope-130053770.html

Retirement in America is a disaster for many like Withers. And no one — politicians, financial planners, pick your own expert — seems to know what exactly to do about it.

I have been covering all this for years as a journalist, book author, and public speaker. Trust me, the state of retirement in America has never been this bad since the federal law that molded the majority of today’s retirement landscape, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, was signed into law 50 years ago.

The article is a tad long but well worth the read.

The heart of the problem comes down to not saving enough prior to retiring and the cost of healthcare as you age along with the cost of assisted-care facilities and nursing homes.

Lots of suggestions for how to fix it, most rely on the Govt, which does not seem to be the way to go

The problem is the rich are screwing everyone and they own the government, and the people are too stupid to do anything about it.

And they get told immigration is bad, when immigration, or working until people are 85, are the only two real solutions out there, other than having a stagnant economy (think Japan).

 

[DGS49]

It's worth mentioning that prior to the implementation of Social Security, most retired people who could not afford to live independently lived with their adult children. Note the large houses that were prevalent in the past, with 5 or 6 bedrooms (and only one bathroom!). These were not only made for lots of kids but also for these grandparents and the occasional chronic drunken uncle or spinster aunt.

Social Security made many of these geezers more or less independent, but it also told adults that they didn't have to put up with their parents anymore. As a result many Boomer (and later) kids did not have the valuable experience of growing up with Grandma in the house.

For that reason, SS was a mixed success.

 

[expat_panama]

It's worth mentioning that prior to the implementation of Social Security, most retired people who could not afford to live independently lived with their adult children. Note the large houses that were prevalent in the past, with 5 or 6 bedrooms (and only one bathroom!). These were not only made for lots of kids but also for these grandparents and the occasional chronic drunken uncle or spinster aunt.

Social Security made many of these geezers more or less independent, but it also told adults that they didn't have to put up with their parents anymore. As a result many Boomer (and later) kids did not have the valuable experience of growing up with Grandma in the house.

For that reason, SS was a mixed success.

imho Social Security was little more than a tax'n'spend scheme. It was set up back when there were sooo many more pay-into folks than the take-outof people. It was a poor tax (tax on the poor) because it levied the same % for all --not your "progressive income tax.

Now, thanks to people living longer, the Social Security fund is running dry --no longer bringing in taxes so the politicians are all clamoring for "save social security" which translates to "let's raise taxes on everyone". They can't do that either 'cause taxes are already so high that raising rates reduces revenue.

Eventually they'll talk some dumb republican (there are plenty around) into ending Social Security then the Democrats will blame everything from war to climate on that.

 

[initforme]

imho Social Security was little more than a tax'n'spend scheme. It was set up back when there were sooo many more pay-into folks than the take-outof people. It was a poor tax (tax on the poor) because it levied the same % for all --not your "progressive income tax.

Now, thanks to people living longer, the Social Security fund is running dry --no longer bringing in taxes so the politicians are all clamoring for "save social security" which translates to "let's raise taxes on everyone". They can't do that either 'cause taxes are already so high that raising rates reduces revenue.

Eventually they'll talk some dumb republican (there are plenty around) into ending Social Security then the Democrats will blame everything from war to climate on that.

The one program that helps tens of millions needs to be cut? We need to make cuts into the depth of commerce and such and put the $ in there.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

imho Social Security was little more than a tax'n'spend scheme. It was set up back when there were sooo many more pay-into folks than the take-outof people. It was a poor tax (tax on the poor) because it levied the same % for all --not your "progressive income tax.

Now, thanks to people living longer, the Social Security fund is running dry --no longer bringing in taxes so the politicians are all clamoring for "save social security" which translates to "let's raise taxes on everyone". They can't do that either 'cause taxes are already so high that raising rates reduces revenue.

Eventually they'll talk some dumb republican (there are plenty around) into ending Social Security then the Democrats will blame everything from war to climate on that.

SS taxes can be raised, taxes in the US are not that high.

 

[expat_panama]

The one program that helps tens of millions needs to be cut? We need to make cuts into the depth of commerce and such and put the $ in there.

My experience is that any talk along the line of "shoulda/coulda/woulda" goes nowhere. We can say SS is wonderful but the fact is that it's running out of money and worse yet it's not putting any money INto the treasury.

Winston Churchill once pointed out that socialism was wonderful but after a point you run out of other people's money. A quick internet search on "social security running out of money" gives lots of articles on the final year being 2033, others 2034. and as always some say never. It all depends on how they juggle it, how they raise funds, etc.

 

[expat_panama]

SS taxes can be raised, taxes in the US are not that high.

It's a matter of choices. We can raise taxes to 200% of earnings if we want but everyone would stop earning. Similar drops are consequences of lesser hikes.

Where we are on that continuum is a matter of debate because there's much evidence both ways. My take on the preponderance of evidence has Americans paying too much in taxes.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It's a matter of choices. We can raise taxes to 200% of earnings if we want but everyone would stop earning. Similar drops are consequences of lesser hikes.

This is just sort of stupid. Nobody is going to earn less money just because they have to pay more taxes. I hear this stupidty all the time...."If I take this raise it will put me in a higher tax bracket"...and I am like "sure, you will make 100 dollars more and pay 10 bucks more in taxes...seems a win to me".

My take on the preponderance of evidence has Americans paying too much in taxes.

How does the tax burden in Panama compare to that in the US?

 

[braalian]

This is just sort of stupid. Nobody is going to earn less money just because they have to pay more taxes. I hear this stupidty all the time...."If I take this raise it will put me in a higher tax bracket"...and I am like "sure, you will make 100 dollars more and pay 10 bucks more in taxes...seems a win to me

I’ve never made a salary in my life, but for those of use making an hourly wage it is indeed a very real phenomenon to be bumped into a higher tax bracket with overtime to the point where it isn’t worth putting in even more grueling hours to only make slightly more than we would doing just our 40/week

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I’ve never made a salary in my life, but for those of use making an hourly wage it is indeed a very real phenomenon to be bumped into a higher tax bracket with overtime to the point where it isn’t worth putting in even more grueling hours to only make slightly more than we would doing just our 40/week

But it really is not since the higher taxes are only on the percent of their income that went over the next bracket.

Look at it this way. If your salary is 60k a year you are paying 12% on that 60 (or most of it, some is only at 10%)

If your work OT during the year and it bumps your earnings to 65K, you are only paying the higher rate of 22% on $1900.

In the end you pay $790 in taxes on that extra 5k you earned, meaning you get to keep $4210 of it.

Is that really not worth it?

I think far too many people do not really understand how our tax system works. Going to a higher bracket does not raise you taxes on all your income, just the bit that went over.

 

[odanny]

I’ve never made a salary in my life, but for those of use making an hourly wage it is indeed a very real phenomenon to be bumped into a higher tax bracket with overtime to the point where it isn’t worth putting in even more grueling hours to only make slightly more than we would doing just our 40/week

Over my working life, the last 15 years I declined all overtime. Making time and a half would have been nice but I made a decision I would only work OT if forced. Lucky for me my position was one where I was never forced, unlike most of the other areas, who would ususlly only force if they got very far behind for some reason. But OT was offered quite a bit.

Looking back it was definitely the right decision. Since I've retired I find myself in an entirely new tax bracket, that allows me to make as many withdrawals as I want from my portfolio and not even worry about the taxes. I'm taking out more than I ever made working and my tax returns are the biggest I've ever received. I was not expecting this.

 

[initforme]

Overtime pay should be double the hourly wage.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Over my working life, the last 15 years I declined all overtime. Making time and a half would have been nice but I made a decision I would only work OT if forced. Lucky for me my position was one where I was never forced, unlike most of the other areas, who would ususlly only force if they got very far behind for some reason. But OT was offered quite a bit.

Looking back it was definitely the right decision. Since I've retired I find myself in an entirely new tax bracket, that allows me to make as many withdrawals as I want from my portfolio and not even worry about the taxes. I'm taking out more than I ever made working and my tax returns are the biggest I've ever received. I was not expecting this.

I have not worked OT since I was 24.

20 years in the Marines did not offer such things.

In the 15 years since I have retired 11 of them have been salaried, so OT is not a thing.

My wife works a lot of OT at the hospital as they are perpetually short of nurses. We are pretty much in the middle of the 24% rate and she could not work enough OT hours to put us over to the 32%.

 

[Foxfyre]

A lot of people retire when they don't have the means to do so, this is where they fuck up.

Walmart hires a lot of us old fucks who don't have two nickels to rub together, but a lot of geezers are too proud to fetch carts in a parking lot.

I still remember the day my sister and her husband, both now RIP, decided to go to Walmart and apply to be greeters. They both had masters degree and were career educators--he was first a football coach and last superintendent of schools. But both enjoyed people and thought being a Wal-mart greeter would give them something fun to do for a few hours per day as well as supplement their retirement income. They retired from school teaching relatively young--in their 50's.

Alas Walmart looked at their credentials and wanted them in higher up positions--wanted my sister to do cashiering (which she refused) and wanted my brother-in-law to manage the sports department (which he hated because it required hauling very heavy exercise equipment and other things out to customer vehicles.

They pretty quickly moved on to other things. But they weren't too proud to work as greeters at Walmart.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I still remember the day my sister and her husband, both now RIP, decided to go to Walmart and apply to be greeters. They both had masters degree and were career educators--he was first a football coach and last superintendent of schools. But both enjoyed people and thought being a Wal-mart greeter would give them something fun to do for a few hours per day as well as supplement their retirement income. They retired from school teaching relatively young--in their 50's.

Alas Walmart looked at their credentials and wanted them in higher up positions--wanted my sister to do cashiering (which she refused) and wanted my brother-in-law to manage the sports department (which he hated because it required hauling very heavy exercise equipment and other things out to customer vehicles.

They pretty quickly moved on to other things. But they weren't too proud to work as greeters at Walmart.

My father-in-law before passed was a retired audiologist. He had all the money he would ever need but also got bored and got a job at Ace Hardware. He loved it. He spent his days talking to people, mixing paint and making keys. They kept trying to promote him and he was like "no, this is all I want to do".

 

[westwall]

This is just sort of stupid. Nobody is going to earn less money just because they have to pay more taxes. I hear this stupidty all the time...."If I take this raise it will put me in a higher tax bracket"...and I am like "sure, you will make 100 dollars more and pay 10 bucks more in taxes...seems a win to me".



How does the tax burden in Panama compare to that in the US?

Sure they will. They will either hide income by only dealing on the black market, or, if they have the means, will leave and go to a place with lower taxes.

 

[initforme]

The worst day of retirement is far far far better than the best day at work.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The worst day of retirement is far far far better than the best day at work.

I cannot wait too put that to the test.