Too Poor to Retire and Too Young to Die

[Denise in Florida]

I'm so sorry FaithManor, but I've heard similar stories from friends. One had a mom who was living with her, and constantly talking about all sorts fears that seemed so irrational to her, although she seemed mentally fine otherwise. My friend finally figured out that it was almost completely related to her mom listening to Fox News for a good part of every day. Once they were able to put an end to that, things got much better.

 

My wonderful father (86 years old) watches way too much Fox News.  Trying to talk about the future, even benign chatter about my daughters' potential career paths can be a mine field.  

 

I am angry and fed up with Fox's fear mongering. 

[Rosie_0801]

Things to do when you are dead:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Stiff-Curious-Lives-Human-Cadavers/dp/0393324826

 

But don't blog about it or scrap book it because you'll freak out your descendants.

 

(That book is on my wish list :lol: )

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I think Baby Boomers have only begun to retire and even if that is the generation that depletes Social Security, it will not be due to high payouts, but a large number of people getting measly payouts and lack of a middle class paying in.

 

The Boomers however are not sandwiched quite as much, because their parents died younger, and Boomers actually have a retirement expectation whereas I can assure you I don't know anyone under 45 who believes they will retire. The expectation is that you work until you die, men and women, at least among people I know.

 

So I think that is where the feeling is coming from that Boomers don't get it though it is clearly not just one generation. It is really that people are even thinking of retiring.

 

Though frankly, in my experience, only the men retire.

 

The women had babies and have to work longer.

 

DH and I are both 44 and do plan to retire some day.  I would say most people I know under 45 do think they will retire, although I suspect some are in for  a shock later on.

 

[Ravin]

I went to law school in my mid-30's on the assumption that as an attorney, I can keep working at least part time unless/until I go senile or develop complex health issues that prevent so much as sitting at a desk for a couple of hours a day. I'm good with that. I would also be good with living in an RV at 79, though I'd certainly prefer to be able to keep it in good working order.

[FaithManor]

As far as I'm concerned, when I go, I don't even need the $600 version.  Take my body and bury it down where we bury the ponies who die on our farm - no "wrapping" needed.  I'd also be ok letting the wild critters have a feast somewhere.  Once I'm done with my body, I honestly don't need it any more, so please don't spend a ton of money on it!  Keep the pictures from when I was living instead.  Use the money saved to keep those alive still living (NOT meaning simply breathing/heartbeat, but living).

 

I saw my grandmother die a horrid death over about 3 years from the time she fell and broke her hip.  She was too old (91) to operate on, so they moved her into a nursing home.  She asked to die shortly afterward, but no such luck.  She asked to go home, but couldn't - family wouldn't allow it.  (I had no vote, but if I did, I'd have still been on the losing side.)  They kept her body alive for close to 3 years (including some hospital stays) even long after her hearing and mind had totally gone.  She was always miserable and always asking why they wouldn't just let her go (die) or go home.

 

No thank you.  I'll have failed if I end up in that position.  I wouldn't put anyone through it.  Money has nothing to do with it.

Dh, MIL, and I are donating our bodies to U of Michigan. We figure why not train new doctors and nurses, maybe someone will learn something that will save someone else's life!

 

Saves burial costs, and U of MI does an annual chapel service with lit candles and just lovely sentiments thanking the families of those that have loved ones who donated for their generosity. It's very nice. For me, that's a much more fitting end for my corpse than anything I can think of but when I mention it to my mother, she freaks out and accuses me of being barbaric. Meanwhile, my almost 19 year old and a U of MI student is looking at doing the exact same thing.

[FaithManor]

My wonderful father (86 years old) watches way too much Fox News.  Trying to talk about the future, even benign chatter about my daughters' potential career paths can be a mine field.  

 

I am angry and fed up with Fox's fear mongering. 

This! Oh my goodness my dad is just WOW, and I'd like to put my foot through his TV so he can't watch the news on ANY channel.

[creekland]

We had this discussion actually (when all your family works in the military, the medical system, the prison system, or the schools, there is pretty much no romanticism left) and it turns out that there are some rules about where you can leave a body! Also, we had a fascinating speculative discussion about the effect of drugs in the bloodstream on the wildlife. I think you are in a different state than us but it is interesting to look into where to put the body.

 

Most of us were like you--we just wanted to go back into nature, let the animals enjoy us for awhile instead of us eating them! But then there are issues if the body gets on to someone else's private property, and you can't just dump a body on public property, not to mention the public health implications of what happens when everybody does it.

 

Not to rain on your parade there, LOL. I have thoughts about where they're going to drag my body but they are only marginally legal...

 

No worries!  I can't say it's legal to bury bodies on our property (it is legal to bury our ponies here), but having read more of the thread I like the idea of donating my body to a medical school too.  Assuming I die sometime after middle son graduates from med school, to me, that seems like the ideal "end" destination - his med school.  If before, then my survivors will need to pick one if they want to keep my wishes.  Obviously, I won't be there to ensure it happens, but I'll be sharing my thoughts with my family to try my best.

[Ravin]

DH wants to be buried in a National Cemetery, which is an option available as a veteran. I want to be buried at sea, which as a Navy veteran I can have done by the U.S. Navy. My mom wants to be cremated and might have specified something about how/where here ashes are to be scattered; in what she's shared with me she's far more concerned about what will happen to my brother and sister (who are young kids still) if something happens to her. She has planned/thought ahead as much as she could; a divorce in her 60's certainly wasn't in her retirement plans, nor was being a single parent, but that's where she's at. But, her house is paid for, she doesn't have a lot of debt (she MIGHT have a car payment?), she has a fixed income but it's enough for her to take care of the kids and herself and do some fun things as long as she minds her budget.

 

She has fought cancer harder because of those kids than I think she would have had she had an empty nest when it came around the second time (breast cancer, metastasized to her brain). She's in remission, but has talked before about favoring palliative care rather than aggressive treatment if the prognosis isn't good on a relapse. I don't think she would want to put the little kids through a long, drawn out ordeal if she knows she's dying--she'll go for a peaceful end and maximum quality of life instead.

 

She's always been good at budgeting and planning.

 

My dad...not so much and I have NO IDEA what his finances look like, but I strongly doubt he will ever look to us kids to look after him; his wife is in much better health than he is, for one thing--and she'll look to her own kids if she can't take care of herself eventually (they married as empty nesters). He does rail on about my sisters' poor financial position...but wouldn't ever lift a finger to help them out of it, he expected us to all make it "on our own" just like he did. Very working-class attitude. He's far more likely to go quickly than slowly (he's had a couple of heart attacks and his heart is at like 33% function; thanks to Agent Orange and, possibly, smoking his whole adult life.)

[Guest]

Fantasy is not your friend. Good way to put it. We have an appointment with the local funeral home just to talk about costs. My parents refuse to even talk about it. They have no money for a funeral or burial, so again it will fall on us. Therefore, I do not feel guilty about doing some advance planning and having a budget/maximum in place so mom cannot try to manipulate for something more elaborate than we can reasonably afford.

 

We have had a few funerals at our parish, and basically, Orthodox Christian burials are "green"--which turns out to be fairly inexpensive.  

 

As the "green funeral" has taken hold, more options that we have been wanting all along have been made available.  Wicker baskets.  Plain pine with rope handles.  Inexpensive markers, including trees and so on.

 

The trick is to find the funeral director (unless you want to handle everything yourself, which is PERFECTLY LEGAL) who offers truly personal and customer-driven options.  When  my dad died last year, I had to find a funeral director.  We were so happy with what we found--it was a family-run business and they let us buy just what we wanted.  The whole funeral was under $2000, and that included the rental of their chapel (which is not going to win any prizes for interior decorating, but it was a place to gather and mourn my dad).  The other places I called were MUCH higher and one was $5000 just to use the chapel.  

 

One thing I observed was that the expensive places "nickel and dimed" it...  You can have the chapel for $5000 but if you want us to turn on the lights, that will be an extra 10%.  I'm exaggerating, but only a little.  It was so weird.  

 

Anyway, it can be done relatively inexpensively.  My parents had to deal with this with  my dad's mom...she died with $35 left to her name. Time to pass the hat...so all the siblings had to chip in about $1000 for her burial and to get her storage unit (full of carp) hauled away.  I am so thankful they are not leaving me in this position.  At so many levels...they made good decisions and they put them in WRITING so when we had to make end-of-life decisions for my dad, even though it was hard, HE HAD MY BACK.  I knew i was doing what he wanted, even though it felt strange to not "go for the cure."  Etc.

 

Now it is my turn to get this done.  

[Guest]

No, it isn't. Mainly when I'm thinking about this stuff I think "What decisions do doctors make for *themselves?*"

 

I think that was a lot of what prompted the book, Being Mortal.  His point is that you have to ask the questions YOU would want to be asked.  And you have to ASK because people surprise you with their answers.  

 

On a similar note, I also think it is interesting that most funeral directors choose burial, not cremation, for themselves.  

[HRAAB]

My dad was buried in a wicker coffin, unembalmed.  He lies under a meadow, helping to grow a new little wood.

 

I've asked to be cremated, but I could go for this.  What a beautiful spot.

[Denise in Florida]

Yeah, I don't really get this.  Neither my in-laws or my mom and step-dad would ever consider this, I don't think.  Maybe my MIL if she thought we really needed help.  They are all very responsible and have planned to care for their needs in their home or assisted living - which is fine if that is what they would like.

 

But - I really would not mind them living with us, and we'd get a house that would work for that if necessary.  I wouldn't even mind my crazy dad.  I totally understand some people have parents who are not nice, but I just don't get the assumption that it is bad to live with kids, to me it seems far better than many other alternatives.

 

My granddad is quite elderly now though still pretty active, and he lives in a very nice assisted living facility which takes care of most of his regular help - a nurse to help with bathing, his meals, and such.  My mom and aunt, and to a lesser extent my two uncles, still have to help him out with things a fair bit (banking for example, going to doctors appointments), as well as visiting.  THe fact that they are not very close to his building means it is much less convenient to do all of these things.

 

I really think this idea that people should all be separated - the young in schools, the elderly in residences - does not make much sense as an ideal.

 

 

I agree.  The bolded bit (bolding mine) in particular. Everything is so separated now. Not just people by age groups but the separation of food production from the eater, entertainment (even simple playing music) from the hearer, etc. 

[Anne in CA]

Thanks Twigs.

 

I used an online planning tool for one discount funeral home in the area, and the one my mom is seriously going to want us to use - very beautiful, Cadillac.

 

The Cadillac home is not happening. Nor is the $3500.00 casket she'll want because it is woodland themed and "daddy would have loved it."

 

The $800.00 pine box with an okay cream interior will do, or the $600.00 steel grey one with the white interior.

Be prepared for the guilt trip they are going to lay on your mom. Telling her this is her last act of love....

[Tree Frog]

I'm not sure I understand what is being said here. My brother was on hospice in a facility and everything was paid for.  Are you talking about the status of the facility, assisted living vs nursing home?

 

We were told that if my MIL lived in a nursing home or a house, she would receive end of life care. But because she lives in an assisted living facility (that medicare has nothing to do with), she will not received that care. Instead she will pay for it.

[Tree Frog]

This has nothing to do with where she lives. Medicare doesn't pay for 24 hour home nursing care for anyone. This is also not part of outpatient hospice care. To get Medicare to pay for that level of care, one needs to be in a nursing home or a residential hospice. This is not new, it's been like that for years. 

 

Maybe it's not new to everyone else, but most of the people who don't work in that field that we've talked to have been as surprised as we were. We're not talking indefinite 24 hour nursing care; we're referring to the last 24-48 hours of her life, when she might be on IV painkillers or incontinent and need to be changed.

[Azalea]

i agree.  But yet, social security has no problem telling me that we will not get the full amount of money we put in.  that there will not be enough social security to go around. that we must have other options cause the money wont be there.   i remind my mil every time she gets up in arms over any changes to her benefits that not making changes means more money that is forcibly taken from her son and family and less money that will come back to us ever.  there is going to be a generation that will suffer.  I'm afraid it is going to be us. Unable to collect what we put in, unable to save for retirement or have it lost to the economy crashes, all we can do is say go ahead and screw us since we are already screwed.  Maybe our kids will get a break if we go ahead and take the bullet.  The babyboomers certainly aren't going to. And given their numbers, they continue to vote in ways that protects them and continues to make it harder for us.   i have no expectations that my old age will be anything other than a daily grind.  no fancy rv, no touring, no cruises a few times a year, no travelling all around.   just the same trying to make ends meet as the early years, the middle years, the now years.......it is hopeless to think about.

 

 Why do you think Social Security is telling you that you will not get the amount of money you put in?  

 

Currently the SS cut off is $118,500, with 6.2% paid by employee and another 6.2% paid by the employer. So the maximum you can pay in per year is $7347 by employee and $7347 by employer for a total of $14,694.  Regular folks can expect to receive $15,000 to $30,000 per year from SSI when they retire.

 

So if you make $100,000 per year for 40 years, you will pay in $248,000 and your employer pays in another $248,000. You retire and with that high of a salary get $30,000 per year from SSI (estimated), you live another 25 years and receive $750,000 in total SSI payments, which is more than you and your employer put in. For your payments in you've gotten a lot more than a reasonable retirement, you also get disability insurance for you and your loved ones if it is needed, and you get to live in a country where our elderly aren't dying in the streets of starvation. 

 

If SSI needs more funding it isn't that hard. Raise or eliminate the cut off, increase the percentage paid, or increase the age of retirement. Or maybe a little tax on stock and bond transactions. 

[TechWife]

Maybe it's not new to everyone else, but most of the people who don't work in that field that we've talked to have been as surprised as we were. We're not talking indefinite 24 hour nursing care; we're referring to the last 24-48 hours of her life, when she might be on IV painkillers or incontinent and need to be changed.

 

Many people are surprised at what Medicare will and will not pay for. It might help to think about it like this: Medicare is much like any other health insurance. If a traditional health insurance policy won't pay for it, chances are Medicare won't either. That might keep you from being caught unaware. 

 

Here is a concise summary of what Medicare pays for as far as home health is concerned: https://www.medicare.gov/Pubs/pdf/10969.pdf

 

Here is a concise summary of how Medicare pays for hospice and what is included, I think it leaves a lot of detail out, though: 

https://www.medicare.gov/Pubs/pdf/02154.pdf

 

Here is a concise summary of Medicare coverage of skilled nursing facilities: 

https://www.medicare.gov/Pubs/pdf/10153.pdf

 

 

IV's and incontinence are things that a family can handle with a little bit of training. I know it doesn't make sense to someone who hasn't had any medical training, but that is the thought process that Medicare has - a skilled nurse is not needed to carry out those tasks, so they will not pay for one.  Adults who are incontinent need the same type of care as a baby does - a nurse is not required for that.  Changing the medication bag is very easy - the tubing just has male/female connections like your computer cords do (they do look different, but it's the same concept).  Home health or hospice nurses take care of the actual IV insertion, if needed, and they also program the medication pump as the family is locked out of that function. Often, the pain medication that is used isn't administered through an IV, though. Patches are quite common now. 

 

When families can't manage medication and incontinence issues, it is more cost effective for Medicare to pay for a nursing facility than it is for them to pay for continuous home nursing, so that is what they do. If the patient is at home, they must first be admitted to the hospital for a minimum of three days, meet specific criteria as far as medical necessity is concerned and then transfer to a skilled nursing facility, and then Medicare only pays for no more than 100 days. After that, patients usually qualify for Medicaid which takes over the payments for nursing home care (custodial care), which may or may not be available in the same facility.  In my opinion, this isn't ideal, but it is what it is. A lot of people could stay in the comfort of their own homes if the family had a bit of support. 

 

That said, I know of many situations where hospice nurses stayed with families for several hours at a time during that last day or two.  They simply cannot promise to do so due to the demands of their jobs - they may be needed several places at once and they have to make hard choices. 

 

Just so you're aware, though, many people require assistance with incontinence care and medication long before the last couple of days of their lives. Neither of these needs are limited to the last few days of life. 

Edited February 4, 2016 by TechWife

[TechWife]

 

 

If SSI needs more funding it isn't that hard. Raise or eliminate the cut off

 

This alone would solve the problem of funding! 

[SeaConquest]

I believe that Medicaid covers assisted living in a great many states now. Isn't the trend toward expansion?

[TechWife]

I believe that Medicaid covers assisted living in a great many states now. Isn't the trend toward expansion?

I've never heard of Medicaid covering assisted living. It isn't medically necessary, so I'm not sure why they would. It would be fantastic if they would cover memory care, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

 

Medicaid expansion means more people qualify for Medicaid, not that Medicaid is paying for more services. Only states who accepted the federal funding that came about through the ACA are expanding. Other states are cutting Medicaid budgets.

 

 

Edited February 4, 2016 by TechWife

[Guest]

This is so depressing!

[madteaparty]

As far as I'm concerned, when I go, I don't even need the $600 version. Take my body and bury it down where we bury the ponies who die on our farm - no "wrapping" needed. I'd also be ok letting the wild critters have a feast somewhere. Once I'm done with my body, I honestly don't need it any more, so please don't spend a ton of money on it! Keep the pictures from when I was living instead. Use the money saved to keep those alive still living (NOT meaning simply breathing/heartbeat, but living).

 

I saw my grandmother die a horrid death over about 3 years from the time she fell and broke her hip. She was too old (91) to operate on, so they moved her into a nursing home. She asked to die shortly afterward, but no such luck. She asked to go home, but couldn't - family wouldn't allow it. (I had no vote, but if I did, I'd have still been on the losing side.) They kept her body alive for close to 3 years (including some hospital stays) even long after her hearing and mind had totally gone. She was always miserable and always asking why they wouldn't just let her go (die) or go home.

 

No thank you. I'll have failed if I end up in that position. I wouldn't put anyone through it. Money has nothing to do with it.

Short of a shallow hole in my woods, which is my preferred option, I think there's eco burials available in my state now, and in the process it can help protect some land (with the thinking that even the most cynic won't want to lay a pipeline across someone's bones. i doubt that, but worth trying. ;)

[plansrme]

 Why do you think Social Security is telling you that you will not get the amount of money you put in?  

 

Currently the SS cut off is $118,500, with 6.2% paid by employee and another 6.2% paid by the employer. So the maximum you can pay in per year is $7347 by employee and $7347 by employer for a total of $14,694.  Regular folks can expect to receive $15,000 to $30,000 per year from SSI when they retire.

 

So if you make $100,000 per year for 40 years, you will pay in $248,000 and your employer pays in another $248,000. You retire and with that high of a salary get $30,000 per year from SSI (estimated), you live another 25 years and receive $750,000 in total SSI payments, which is more than you and your employer put in. For your payments in you've gotten a lot more than a reasonable retirement, you also get disability insurance for you and your loved ones if it is needed, and you get to live in a country where our elderly aren't dying in the streets of starvation. 

 

If SSI needs more funding it isn't that hard. Raise or eliminate the cut off, increase the percentage paid, or increase the age of retirement. Or maybe a little tax on stock and bond transactions. 

 

I am somewhat distressed by the lack of understanding reflected in this statement.  This is not how investments over time work.  The proper comparison is, more or less, "How much of an annuity could I buy at retirement if, instead of contributing to to Social Security over my working life, I invested my employee and employer share of the taxes?"  Here's a thorough article on the subject.   From the introduction:

 

If workers who retired in 2011 had been allowed to invest the employee half of the Social Security payroll tax over their working lifetime, they would retire with more income than if they relied on Social Security. Indeed, even in the worst-case scenario—a low-wage worker who invested entirely in bonds—the benefits from private investment would equal those from traditional Social Security.

 

The contributions you put in at the beginning of your working life are worth far, far more at the end of your working life than their nominal value.  This is a good summary of how powerful those early contributions can be.  An excerpt:  

"The chart detailed how a 15-year-old teenager can save just $2,000 a year for 7 years. Then, never saving another penny again, the money can grow to be $1,000,000 at 65."

 

I recognize that Social Security provides some benefits that private investment does not, but the vast majority of us are relying on it to fund our retirements.  It's naive to say that we come out ahead in that department because the unadjusted dollar amount of contributions is less than the unadjusted dollar amount of your expected payout.

[TammyS]

Clark Howard often discusses how to reduce funeral costs. http://www.clarkhoward.com/plan-for-your-funeral-in-advance-to-save-big-bucks

 

Remember not to pre-pay anything...

 

Yes.  Also, if you are stout of heart and body, you can do a lot yourself.  You need to check the laws in your state, but things like transporting the body yourself, preparing the body yourself (bathe and dress, skip embalming), building or pre-purchasing a casket (this one is a huge saver), and some other things can cut your costs way down. Not every option is available to all people, but if you research ahead of time (go ahead, just assume you're going to die eventually) you can find places to save money.

[creekland]

I recognize that Social Security provides some benefits that private investment does not, 

 

I'm all for privatizing SS if it can be done in a way that workers MUST invest the money and leave it in something that is guaranteed to not lose at least the invested amount.

 

So many don't save at all, that I worry if they are merely told to do something - even ACA style - that many won't, and that will lead to a greater problem down the road.

 

SS isn't much to retire on, but at least it's something.

[DawnM]

I have told my DH that living out of an RV sounds like a death sentence.....I will NOT travel the country in an RV, essentially taking my housework with me on the road.....nope!  I am fine with being a snowbird and owning a condo one place and a small house in another, but no road trips for months on end.

 

Dh has no plans to retire.  He is in his late 40s and there are 80 year olds in his office who work part time just to work because they like it.  I could see him doing that.

 

I plan to go back to work next Fall and work for possibly 20 years.  If I work 20 years I get the best retirement benefits with this local district.  If I had a choice, I would go back to the district I worked for for 17 years as I would only need about 13 more to get the best benefits.  But moving back to SoCal isn't an option right now.

[Sarah CB]

There's a lovely green cemetery in Victoria, BC for those who want to minimize their impact on the environment and be one with the cycle of nature.

 

http://www.robp.ca/our-memorial-services/burial/green-burial 

[Night Elf]

I am somewhat distressed by the lack of understanding reflected in this statement.  This is not how investments over time work.  The proper comparison is, more or less, "How much of an annuity could I buy at retirement if, instead of contributing to to Social Security over my working life, I invested my employee and employer share of the taxes?"  Here's a thorough article on the subject.   From the introduction:

 

If workers who retired in 2011 had been allowed to invest the employee half of the Social Security payroll tax over their working lifetime, they would retire with more income than if they relied on Social Security. Indeed, even in the worst-case scenario—a low-wage worker who invested entirely in bonds—the benefits from private investment would equal those from traditional Social Security.

 

The contributions you put in at the beginning of your working life are worth far, far more at the end of your working life than their nominal value.  This is a good summary of how powerful those early contributions can be.  An excerpt:  

"The chart detailed how a 15-year-old teenager can save just $2,000 a year for 7 years. Then, never saving another penny again, the money can grow to be $1,000,000 at 65."

 

I recognize that Social Security provides some benefits that private investment does not, but the vast majority of us are relying on it to fund our retirements.  It's naive to say that we come out ahead in that department because the unadjusted dollar amount of contributions is less than the unadjusted dollar amount of your expected payout.

 

But how does this work? Dd23 wants to start saving for retirement. What can she put money into that will earn 7% or more? Does anything pay that high anymore? We don't know where to start.

[Sarah CB]

But how does this work? Dd23 wants to start saving for retirement. What can she put money into that will earn 7% or more? Does anything pay that high anymore? We don't know where to start.

 

How about investing in a stock with dividends? 

 

http://www.nasdaq.com/dividend-stocks/?page=6 

[Guest]

I'm all for privatizing SS if it can be done in a way that workers MUST invest the money and leave it in something that is guaranteed to not lose at least the invested amount.

 

So many don't save at all, that I worry if they are merely told to do something - even ACA style - that many won't, and that will lead to a greater problem down the road.

 

SS isn't much to retire on, but at least it's something.

That is so bizarre to my way of thinking. Wth is wrong with people that they have to be forced by law to save money?!?

[Bluegoat]

This is factually incorrect. http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Household-Income-Distribution.php

 

http://qz.com/74271/income-tax-rates-since-1913/

 

So much for trickle-down theory, eh?

[Bluegoat]

This is a direct result of subsidizing certain farm crops, such as corn and soybeans. Americans have some of the lowest relative food costs in the world.

 

Yup, and it's also a pretty bad thing for agriculture and the land in real terms.

 

But allowing costs to increase is in the short term likely to be dire for the people on the bottom of the economic ladder.  Which gets used as an excuse to do nothing about it.

 

ETA - but I think my point was - why does government want food, in particular, to be cheap?  As opposed to say housing or cell phones.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Bluegoat

[fairfarmhand]

Yes.  Also, if you are stout of heart and body, you can do a lot yourself.  You need to check the laws in your state, but things like transporting the body yourself, preparing the body yourself (bathe and dress, skip embalming), building or pre-purchasing a casket (this one is a huge saver), and some other things can cut your costs way down. Not every option is available to all people, but if you research ahead of time (go ahead, just assume you're going to die eventually) you can find places to save money.

 

OK, I know you guys are being serious here,  but I have to insert this story on these lines.

 

My dad is a rather morbid person. And when my mom was so sick (she got booted out of hospice because it took too long for her to pass. They said, apparently you're in better shape than everyone thought!) for so long, he'd sit around and think depressing things about death and dying. He prepaid his burial, picked everything out, and talked a lot about dying and planning for it. I get it. That was greatly on his mind in those days, but that's kind of been his personality his whole life anyway.

 

Anyhow, during this time period, he found out that Costco sells caskets at a significant discount. He said "Well, the thing is having it handy when you need it. If I had the storage space, I'd go ahead and buy them for your mom and me. I wonder where I could store it?"

 

I was picturing my dad replacing his sofa with a casket. Or just stashing them in his garage.

The whole thing was just SO my dad. Shopping for a bargain. Buying caskets from Costco (a place that he loves anyway) Storing them someplace just in case....

 

Thankfully, he's now remarried to a very optimistic lady who helps his outlook tremendously. And no, she wouldn't go for a stash of caskets in her garage.

[Ravin]

I am somewhat distressed by the lack of understanding reflected in this statement.  This is not how investments over time work.  The proper comparison is, more or less, "How much of an annuity could I buy at retirement if, instead of contributing to to Social Security over my working life, I invested my employee and employer share of the taxes?"  Here's a thorough article on the subject.   From the introduction:

 

If workers who retired in 2011 had been allowed to invest the employee half of the Social Security payroll tax over their working lifetime, they would retire with more income than if they relied on Social Security. Indeed, even in the worst-case scenario—a low-wage worker who invested entirely in bonds—the benefits from private investment would equal those from traditional Social Security.

 

The contributions you put in at the beginning of your working life are worth far, far more at the end of your working life than their nominal value.  This is a good summary of how powerful those early contributions can be.  An excerpt:  

"The chart detailed how a 15-year-old teenager can save just $2,000 a year for 7 years. Then, never saving another penny again, the money can grow to be $1,000,000 at 65."

 

I recognize that Social Security provides some benefits that private investment does not, but the vast majority of us are relying on it to fund our retirements.  It's naive to say that we come out ahead in that department because the unadjusted dollar amount of contributions is less than the unadjusted dollar amount of your expected payout.

 

No private investment is guaranteed secure against the ups and downs of the markets. I knew people when I worked at Wal-mart who were working at Wal-mart when they had thought they'd be fishing because the amount of money in their 401K's was significantly reduced during the recession. Private savings and investments are good, but there should still be a safety net underneath that to keep elders and the disabled from starving in the streets.

Social security is a tax and entitlement program, not an investment program, and it's not meant to substitute for saving for retirement, especially for the middle class.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Ravin

[Ravin]

Yup, and it's also a pretty bad thing for agriculture and the land in real terms.

 

But allowing costs to increase is in the short term likely to be dire for the people on the bottom of the economic ladder.  Which gets used as an excuse to do nothing about it.

 

ETA - but I think my point was - why does government want food, in particular, to be cheap?  As opposed to say housing or cell phones.

 

Originally, it was because farmers were an economic cornerstone and mostly family-owned businesses. Now, Big Agro is a powerful lobby.

 

And it would probably be a lot less expensive to increase nutrition assistance while cutting corporate farming subsidies (which could probably be done without cutting subsidies for family farms)--or by shifting the subsidies to incentivize better treatment of the land and less reliance on fossil fertilizers, etc. 

[ktgrok]

 

 

Anyhow, during this time period, he found out that Costco sells caskets at a significant discount. He said "Well, the thing is having it handy when you need it. If I had the storage space, I'd go ahead and buy them for your mom and me. I wonder where I could store it?"

 

 

 

don't tell your dad, but you can buy ones that are designed to be used as a bookshelf until you actually die. http://www.naturescasket.com/Casket.html

[Bluegoat]

Originally, it was because farmers were an economic cornerstone and mostly family-owned businesses. Now, Big Agro is a powerful lobby.

 

And it would probably be a lot less expensive to increase nutrition assistance while cutting corporate farming subsidies (which could probably be done without cutting subsidies for family farms)--or by shifting the subsidies to incentivize better treatment of the land and less reliance on fossil fertilizers, etc. 

 

Perhaps, although TBH I think it would make more sense to make sure people who have jobs get enough to cover food, and accept that food should represent a larger portion of people's budgets than it atually does. 

 

I don't quite understand the idea of a job that doesn't pay the cost of keeping the worker going.  No one would think it makes sense to have a machine to do a job that costs more than the value it produces.

[Katy]

But how does this work? Dd23 wants to start saving for retirement. What can she put money into that will earn 7% or more? Does anything pay that high anymore? We don't know where to start.

 

Her best bet at a young age is a low-fee index fund, a portion of every paycheck. 

• A smaller amount at every paycheck is better than purchasing once per year because of something called dollar cost averaging - basically by investing a set amount, you buy more when costs are low, and less when costs are high.
• An index fund doesn't need a manager, so they typically follow the market directly, and over the long term always outperform more expensive managed funds.

 

Some articles on cheap index funds (sorry, I can't seem to fix the formatting issues):

• Investing pros John Bogle, Warren Buffett, and Charlie Munger all agree on the best way for the average person to invest

• Warren Buffett to heirs: Put my estate in index funds
• Investors Should Choose Index Funds With the Lowest Fees

• These 5 Vanguard Index Funds Are All You Need

 

• Great Index Funds for a Dirt-Cheap Portfolio
• Vanguard 500 Index Fund: Low-Cost, but Are There Better Alternatives?

[TechWife]

 

I was picturing my dad replacing his sofa with a casket. Or just stashing them in his garage.

The whole thing was just SO my dad. Shopping for a bargain. Buying caskets from Costco (a place that he loves anyway) Storing them someplace just in case....

 

 

You actually don't have to order in advance. They have a really short delivery window and can be delivered straight to the funeral home. So yeah, no caskets as furniture, thankfully! 

[TammyS]

 

 

Thankfully, he's now remarried to a very optimistic lady who helps his outlook tremendously. And no, she wouldn't go for a stash of caskets in her garage.

 

I would totally go for a stash of caskets in my garage (if I had a garage, which I don't, so they'd have to go in the shed).

 

I've been thinking about getting one of these (it's supposed to remind you of your eventual end, to keep your priorities straight):

 

http://www.vtcoffins.com/bookcase-photo.shtml

[SeaConquest]

I've never heard of Medicaid covering assisted living. It isn't medically necessary, so I'm not sure why they would. It would be fantastic if they would cover memory care, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

 

Medicaid expansion means more people qualify for Medicaid, not that Medicaid is paying for more services. Only states who accepted the federal funding that came about through the ACA are expanding. Other states are cutting Medicaid budgets.

I don't think you are correct:

 

https://www.payingforseniorcare.com/medicaid-waivers/assisted-living.html

[creekland]

That is so bizarre to my way of thinking. Wth is wrong with people that they have to be forced by law to save money?!?

 

It depends.  Sometimes it's merely that the cookie, shoes, car, or vacation they are looking at is too tempting and retirement is a long way off, so they'll save for it tomorrow.

 

Other times that plate of food, blanket, rent, or meds are so expensive they can't justify putting money into savings.

 

It's really no different than ACA is now.  Folks not having some sort of coverage either say they feel healthy and will join later when health issues might be a concern or they prefer putting food on the table and paying bills.

[katilac]

don't tell your dad, but you can buy ones that are designed to be used as a bookshelf until you actually die. http://www.naturescasket.com/Casket.html

 

That. is. awesome! 

[Night Elf]

 

Her best bet at a young age is a low-fee index fund, a portion of every paycheck.

 

 

 

How about investing in a stock with dividends?

 

Okay, thanks. I'll have DH look into these options to see if he can advise dd.

[TechWife]

I don't think you are correct:

 

https://www.payingforseniorcare.com/medicaid-waivers/assisted-living.html

 

Thanks for that info, but this doesn't mean Medicaid pays for assisted living. It means Medicaid will pay for  some services to some people who are in assisted living in some states. It's a drop of water in the ocean as far as the expense of assisted living is concerned. 

 

 

"Some states pay only for personal care services received in assisted living, others include nursing services.  No state is permitted to pay for room and board costs in assisted living, but states have other means of controlling these costs such as by capping the amounts the residences can charge, offering Medicaid eligible individuals supplemental assistance to cover room and board and paying for meal preparation and serving but not actual food costs."

[Azalea]

I am somewhat distressed by the lack of understanding reflected in this statement.  This is not how investments over time work.  The proper comparison is, more or less, "How much of an annuity could I buy at retirement if, instead of contributing to to Social Security over my working life, I invested my employee and employer share of the taxes?"  Here's a thorough article on the subject.   From the introduction:

 

If workers who retired in 2011 had been allowed to invest the employee half of the Social Security payroll tax over their working lifetime, they would retire with more income than if they relied on Social Security. Indeed, even in the worst-case scenario—a low-wage worker who invested entirely in bonds—the benefits from private investment would equal those from traditional Social Security.

 

The contributions you put in at the beginning of your working life are worth far, far more at the end of your working life than their nominal value.  This is a good summary of how powerful those early contributions can be.  An excerpt:  

"The chart detailed how a 15-year-old teenager can save just $2,000 a year for 7 years. Then, never saving another penny again, the money can grow to be $1,000,000 at 65."

 

I recognize that Social Security provides some benefits that private investment does not, but the vast majority of us are relying on it to fund our retirements.  It's naive to say that we come out ahead in that department because the unadjusted dollar amount of contributions is less than the unadjusted dollar amount of your expected payout.

 

Sorry to distress you. The biggest benefit I may ever receive from Social Security (and Medicare and Medicaid) is that I am not having to pay to support my parents, MIL, and disabled sister-in-law. My family would be expected to provide for all those people and it simply wouldn't be possible. Frankly, some of these people would probably be dead if their medical expenses weren't paid for by Medicare and there weren't laws requiring care to be provided. Because the government provides for all these people, I am able to save money for my own retirement and for the education of my children. 

 

Medicare and Social Security: What You Paid Compared with What You Get

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/feb/01/medicare-and-social-security-what-you-paid-what-yo/

[BarbecueMom]

That is so bizarre to my way of thinking. Wth is wrong with people that they have to be forced by law to save money?!?

Real conversations with a close relative:

 

Her: "I wish that I could get rid of my car payment. Do you think I should refi to get smaller payments."

Me: "You'd be better off not buying house plants and flower pots every weekend and put that toward the car."

Her: "But it looks so much better in here with plants."

 

Also,

Her: "I'm so upset about my taxes. I owe $82 in federal and only get $72 back from the state."

Me: "Well that's good, that's only $12 and the government wasn't holding your money all year."

Her: "But I used to get thousands when my kids were little as a single parent. Why can't I get that again? Should I have more taken out of my paycheck? It's not fair, even though my kids are adult I'm still a parent!"

 

I'm not sure she even understands how SS is funded. And she works in accounting. Does payroll for a living.

 

I'm not sure it's a bizarre way of thinking as much as an inability to think, period. But I don't think being a dull crayon in the box means one should eat dog food in old age.

[fairfarmhand]

don't tell your dad, but you can buy ones that are designed to be used as a bookshelf until you actually die. http://www.naturescasket.com/Casket.html

 

But...What do you do with the books when you....need the casket?

 

That is the bigger problem!

[Danestress]

 

 

Anyhow, during this time period, he found out that Costco sells caskets at a significant discount. He said "Well, the thing is having it handy when you need it. If I had the storage space, I'd go ahead and buy them for your mom and me. I wonder where I could store it?"

 

.

Making a mental note here. A casket would make a great wedding gift! It could serve as a "hope chest" and then do double duty towards the end of life!

 

And really, if we all had a reminder of our own mortality taking up space in our homes, maybe it would give us some perspective on our current problems.

[Tanaqui]

That is so bizarre to my way of thinking. Wth is wrong with people that they have to be forced by law to save money?!?

Well, people on the whole are bad at considering the future. Immediate wants and needs are always more prominent in their thoughts. The cookie today is more important than the money tomorrow. They know they ought to brush their teeth, but they're tired and so they skip it and go to bed.

 

I mean, heck, we had to introduce laws to get people to wear seatbelts and to not drink and drive!

 

If you're not like that - and the only person who will know if you're lying is you - then you're in a bit of a rarified minority. This won't bring you happiness for many years, I'm afraid.

 

I believe the Netherlands has a mandatory pension law, where everybody must buy in. Edit: But I'm not sure where I read it, and now I can't find confirmation, so that's probably untrue.

 

But...What do you do with the books when you....need the casket?

 

Take them with you.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Tanaqui