Excellent!! (Well, not about the 8 years, but being informed is critically important. Good for you for going.)

I had one of the best jobs in the universe - I loved what I did. There was little stress and I felt good at the end of the work day.

One of the reasons that I elected to retire last year at age 66 was that I found this awesome 28 day cruise to Hawaii and French Polynesia. As much as I loved my job, there was no way I was going to return to work after that (I literally cannot imagine the number emails, phone messages and pieces of paper that would have accumulated while gone for 4 weeks).

I too had a difficult time contacting social security on-line or via phone. Eventually, I got through and made an appointment for an in-person counseling. She was caring and sensitive to what my situation was. I elected to take the money and run (maybe walk rapidly). I don't regret it. The missus retired when I did and she saw how easy it was to do the social security thing so she elected to do the same (although she cannot walk rapidly, more like a stroll).

Jim

Learn what you can to make decisions. I wouldn't retire based on a cruise.

"Knowledge is ...

... power".

o j

KG 'joyfulguy' is right 'Knowledge is Power' my DH & I went to seminars about 3 years before his and it help us plan it out almost perfect;) 8 years maybe seem long but it can give you a chance to save more if you want and plan and dream;) Plus I bet you got a free lunch??

I work for the school system and will have a state pension and a very small county pension as well as SS. DH attended my retirement seminar at work last year. They provided a binder full of all the necessary information which was very helpful. I will be 62 next month and plan to retire by May/June next year at the latest..possibly this fall.

Just in the last year a coworker died unexpectedly at 64, a friend died of colon cancer at 58, another coworker's husband was just diagnosed with pancreatic cancer at 45, and an acquaintance also passed away of colon cancer at 57. I say retire as soon as you can...life is too short...especially if you're not thrilled with your job. For most of us, you'll work forever if you wait until you think you have have "enough." Retire when you want and make do with what you have. How often do you hear people say " I wish I hadn't retired and was still working."

Lol, no Yogalady, not even coffee...it's the VA.

Joaniepoanie, you're right, we've had a few nurses die right after retiring. I see a lot of our patients die young too, you just never know. Always makes me wish I had started saving earlier. Can't go back now, though.

I might be saying it too often, but I press the issue of putting aside some money for all three sons. The IRA and Roth and all that stuff did not come in time for me to set aside a significant amount of money. Fortunately, where the missus worked there was an outstanding program. We lived a bit more frugal for a few years and put lots and lots into both a Roth and IRA. With their profit sharing and such we thought we were OK, we went to a financial adviser and she concurred.

We feel confident about our future as it has to do with money.

Jim

Jim, the IRA rules came into being 40 years ago. Despite that, the limits then and now are so low that only very modest amounts can be accumulated. Certainly not enough to be a primary retirement source.

Even before then, there was nothing stopping you from building up a savings fund for retirement. If you weren't self-employed, there were just no tax benefits from doing so. But putting away after-tax dollars then is mostly the same thing as is a Roth IRA today.

If you worked under & qualify for both Social Security & a government pension, your SS monthly benefit is probably going to be reduced. Very unlikely you would draw the full amount of both. It is called the Windfall Elimination Provision (see SS.gov for further explanation).

Actually I have heard others say that, Joaniepoanie,,,"I wish I had not retired & were still working." Some are old nurses too...I can think of 3 that are still giving too much financial support to their adult children to their own financial detriment.

Some people never developed interests outside of their careers & have no clue how to enjoy life beyond working. When to retire is a personal decision. Some people "take the money & run" (as soon as possible), but then learn later that they really don't have enough saved or coming in each month. It is not always true that you spend less as you get older,,,yes less on travel & material things, but then you are more apt to have failing health & need more assistance & care which can cost lots.

Trying to save & contributing as much as possible to retirement accounts as well as the often over looked... LBYM: "live below you means" are very important to a financially secure retirement.

I don't know if I'll ever fully retire. I can't imagine sitting here in my house alone doing nothing. I would go crazy. I don't think I can work as a nurse, at least not doing what I do now in ten years, but would like to have a little job, part time even.

I agree BeeOhio, I've realized that I've spent the last 18 years or more with 99% of my focus on my kids. I did go out with friends occasionally but with long periods in between...months and years even. So, I'm trying to be more sociable now that Lauren is not here.

I'm also going to look into a part time nursing job with a different company to not only occupy some of my off time but to help pay off my house. Even if social security is reduced I think I will be ok as long as my house payment is gone.

DH and I were fortunate to have enough to be ABLE to live 'below our means'. (Not everyone has that option.) We did that for 35 years.

After DH retired and our DS was married and settled, we decided it was time to live AT our means, and we have. We sold our 'starter' home and built something we like better in a quieter location. We indulge ourselves a bit more.

There are so many warnings about *saving* that it can become an end in itself. You shouldn't habituallysock away money at the expense of living your life -- AT your means. The choices aren't only "ant" or "grasshopper".

Snidely I'm a little confused by your statement that putting away after tax dollars then is mostly the same as is a Roth IRA today.

I retired in 1996, so wasn't eligible for a Roth, so my "retirement funds" (beyond SS & ordinary savings) presently come from a traditional IRA.

All of the traditional IRA is currently 100% in one Fidelity Fund & has been for many years.

At any rate I checked what I would have paid for one share of this fund back in 1998 when the Roth IRA was first offered. The adjusted cost (including dividends, capital gains that mutual funds do) then would have been $8./share. The share as of today is currently $49.96.

As I understand a Roth, if I sold today I would make a little over a $40./share profit but would have to pay income taxes on that profit outside a Roth. Inside a Roth, I would be free & clear on that profit. Also, if this fund made yearly distributions, wouldn't I likely have to add this on to my tax bill yearly, whereas in a Roth, this wouldn't be the case?

So I'm questioning your "mostly the same thing" statement.

The advantage of putting savings into a traditional IRA, or a qualified retirement plan, or a 401 (k), or a 403 (b) (for employees of governments and other exempt employers), etc, is that the principal dollars going in result are tax deductible. Put another way, a place to put money to produce untaxed earnings (same thing). So it costs $70 to put in $100 if you're in a 30 % bracket. The extra 30 percentage points provide a compounded return, so the difference between a pretax and an after-tax contribution grows every year. For a Roth IRA or any regular savings, it costs $100 to put in $100.

Once in a plan, annual earnings aren't taxed annually. In a Roth IRA, if you meet the distribution rules, they aren't taxed on withdrawal. For the others, they are. Keep in mind that the present value benefit of a deduction for putting in pre-tax dollars is huge, the present value of the tax cost on the back end is small.

If in 1985 you said you wanted to save as much as possible and pay no tax on annual earnings, I would have suggested you buy municipal bonds. Interest bearing obligations, typically at a competitive rate, when held to maturity and then reinvested, produce no tax liability ever. Same as a Roth IRA today, but perhaps with less flexibility in investment choices. Muni bonds have provided good returns over time. Besides, retirement funds are the wrong place to do speculative investing.

Im not interested in investment advice. I've done quite well myself without buying a single "bond". You posted a lot of stuff, but still haven't answered my question. BTW, money's still money; I've never understood "retirement funds" holding a special place in the galaxy.

Just read a couple of posts here where the KTers adult kids spend spend spend & don't put anything away for retirement. I think that kind of "life philosophy" is not too atypical. If you are fortunate enough to have the basics covered plus extra, the LBYM philosophy is to sock some of the extra away for retirement, as opposed to buying lots of toys, new cars, McMansions, etc. Trouble is that a lot of folks really don't have a good handle on what their real means is. I think there are a lot more grasshoppers than ants. Plenty of reports that lots of boomers have saved little toward a retirement that may well span 30 years or more.

Kath, having the home mortgage paid off by the time you retire is an excellent goal. Good on you for working on your social network too.

This post was edited by BeeOHIO on Fri, Sep 12, 14 at 22:16

kfca,

I answered your question about retirement savings and Roth IRAs. If you don't understand the answer, there's not much more for me to say.

I didn't intend to give, nor do I give, tailored investment or tax advice for free or to someone I don't know. If you find someone who does, run.

I retired at 57 from a job I wasn't happy at. I got another job that I really loved and worked until I was 65. My other job paid my medical and dental for life which was why I retired at 57. I live fairly comfortably on my SS and pension. My dad died at 60, which was one reason I wanted to retire early. I have lots of hobbies and interests and love being retired. My home won't be paid for until I am 97.

Another thing to consider......I retired at 62...DH was 72. We did fine on our SS and then...he died! ...which meant my household income was cut in half! That was a shock!...and now I am trying to make it on only my SS and with the food and medication costs, it is a struggle sometimes. So lesson learned...do not count on your spouse's SS to live on.

"Banks are places that will loan you money...as long as you can prove you don't need any." (Was that Bob Hope?) It's not true any more.

Growing up, I thought you only paid interest to a bank for a mortgage on a property that you expected would increase in value (often your home) or on a loan to invest in a business with solid prospects. Being 'in debt' was something to avoid.

Today, it seems that a majority of Americans are living in debt for everything. People pay interest on loans for *depreciating* assets -- like cars and furniture. They pay interest on loans for the clothes they wear and the bread they eat by carrying balances on credit cards. I see ads offering ways to finance elaborate vacations.

Why are we surprised that few have savings? They don't own *anything*.

BeeOhio said, "If you worked under & qualify for both Social Security & a government pension, your SS monthly benefit is probably going to be reduced. Very unlikely you would draw the full amount of both. It is called the Windfall Elimination Provision (see SS.gov for further explanation)."

No need to unnecessarily frighten anyone. Here is a direct quote (cut and paste) from the Windfall Elimination Provision information on the Social Security Administration web site (which, by the way is www.ssa.gov):

"The Windfall Elimination Provision affects how the amount of your retirement or disability benefit is calculated if you receive a pension from work where Social Security taxes were not taken out of your pay."

Also from the same publication:

"The Windfall Elimination Provision primarily affects you if you earned a pension in any job where you did not pay Social Security taxes and you also worked in other jobs long enough to qualify for a Social Security retirement or disability benefit."

My first year with earnings (all $892) was 1968. I had five years with no payment into Social Security. My last year of earnings with payment into Social Security was 2013 (significantly more than $892!). I worked for the State of California from January 2, 1990, through December 30, 2013 (December 31, 2013, was my first day of retirement). The first 8 months of my state service was for the Legislature, and Social Security tax was not withheld. Nonetheless, I had enough quarters/years of paying into Social Security that even though I am collecting a monthly retirement benefit from the state as well as a monthly social security retirement benefit, my SS benefits are not affected. The SSA web site has a worksheet/calculator so you can figure out whether or not the Windfall Elimination Provision will affect your SS benefits. Just because you worked for the government doesn't automatically mean the WEP will affect you.

This post was edited by Lindsey_CA on Sun, Sep 14, 14 at 3:06

Good for you Lindsey to be able to collect both. So sorry if anyone was unnecessarily frightened by info...my intent was to alert those who might fall into WEP to research further.

You didn't frighten me. I thought it was reduced only if you chose to work after retirement and made more than a specified amount. That's what they told us at the seminar. Never mentioned our government retirement affecting ss. In FERS, which is the program I'm in we pay the SS taxes out of our paychecks. The old system didn't so they have no social security benefits at all. Their retirement checks will be quite a bit more than ours, though.

Yes, your Social Security benefit does get reduced if you work after starting to receive SS benefits, if you are less than the SS full retirement age and earn over the annual limit (which for 2014 is $15,480). It's reduced by $1 for every $2 you earn over the limit.

In the year you reach full retirement age, they deduct $1 for every $3 you earn over the limit, but it's a different (higher) limit, up until the month before the month in which you reach your full retirement age. Then you can earn as much as you want/can without affecting your SS benefit.