# Majority of American Seniors Would Live in Poverty if Not For Social Security



## SeaBreeze

Most seniors in the US would be in poverty if not for social security...http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Featu...uld-be-in-Poverty-Without-Social-Security.htm



> Oct. 17, 2014 – The last time we got a report on poverty in the U.S., which was just weeks ago, senior citizens seemed to be doing pretty well. Although the “official poverty” report said 4.2 million seniors lived in poverty, the rate was flat with 2013.
> 
> Now, the Census Bureau has reported a different look, called the “supplemental poverty rate” and a few million more seniors have dropped below the poverty rate.
> 
> In the supplemental poverty rate report there are 6.5 million people age 65 and older living in poverty. That’s 2.3 million more than in the official rate released in September. The rates were 14.6% in the supplemental rating and just 9.5% in the official poverty report.


----------



## rkunsaw

Even the highest rate of 14.6% and 6.5 million is far from a majority.  Social security is part of ones retirement plan. Without social security most people would adjust their plans accordingly.


----------



## ronaldj

rkunsaw said:


> . Without social security most people would adjust their plans accordingly.


I think this is true... we learn to live with what we have, true not every one will be able to do so, but not I think will get by the best they can, I know people with lots of money who seam to struggle and I know people who make what is very little and live just fine......we have always lived within our means and made do and saved for rainy days .....now in retirement (part time work) we are better off dollar wise then when we were working.....well wife is still working at what she did our whole life she is a stay at home mother with me being the only child.... the other five have grown up and have children of their own....


----------



## oldman

We have a few in our church that would fit into this category, but they are so kind and gentle in nature that they have been the recipients of a lot of love from quite a few others in the congregation. I go to a church in the rural area where there are a lot of farms. Those that own the farms give to these people in the congregation a lot of vegetables and fruits, both fresh and canned for the winter. When they do their butchering, they will also see to it that they get some pork and beef. So, all of this really helps them out, I am sure. 

The one farmer in our congregation has a hog farm. He butchers a hog and sells all of the meat to the members of the congregation and then donates the money to the church. Before he did this, his Father did it, so it has been going on for many years. I love his scrapple and sausage, so I generally buy 3 pounds of scrapple and maybe 5-10 pounds of sausage, if it's available.


----------



## TabbyAnn

I think Social Security is a great savings plan for workers because it is still there for people in their old age when other investments may have failed, or family emergencies may have drained other resources.


----------



## Ken N Tx




----------



## QuickSilver

Yes....  Those old folks need to get off their lazy arses...and figure out how to make ends meet like the rest of us!!


----------



## QuickSilver

http://www.nber.org/bah/summer04/w10466.html



> Elderly poverty in the U.S. decreased dramatically during the twentieth century. Between 1960 and 1995, the official poverty rate of those aged 65 and above fell from 35 percent to 10 percent, and research has documented similarly steep declines dating back to at least 1939. While poverty was once far more prevalent among the elderly than among other age groups, today's elderly have a poverty rate similar to that of working-age adults and much lower than that of children.


----------



## Don M.

If current reports are any indication, poverty among Seniors is going to rise substantially in the future.  With the stagnation of the Middle Class over the past couple of decades, many of those nearing retirement have little or nothing set aside for their retirements.  Company Defined Pension plans are almost unheard of anymore, and only a small number have been able to save enough to build up a decent IRA.  Many were pinning their hopes on continuing rising house prices, and lost their Butts in the 2007/2008 collapse of the housing market.  It all adds up to a pretty bleak picture for a lot of people in their 50's and 60's who will find some serious Sticker Shock when they try to retire.


----------



## ClassicRockr

There are those that *don't *get a pension/retirement and have to rely only on SS. Many people don't stay on a job long enough to get a Retirement Package/Pension and, from what I've been told, some company's don't even offer retirement stuff. Neither wife or I get a Pension/Retirement. A person can be working for a company and really like there job, but that person can get laid-off, terminated or the company shuts down. After I left two different companies, I found out that within 6 months after I left, both of them ended up shutting down. 

So, there are those Seniors that have to rely solely on SS because that's the only income they have.


----------



## QuickSilver

ClassicRockr said:


> There are those that *don't *get a pension/retirement and have to rely only on SS. Many people don't stay on a job long enough to get a Retirement Package/Pension and, from what I've been told, some company's don't even offer retirement stuff. Neither wife or I get a Pension/Retirement. A person can be working for a company and really like there job, but that person can get laid-off, terminated or the company shuts down. After I left two different companies, I found out that within 6 months after I left, both of them ended up shutting down.
> 
> So, there are those Seniors that have to rely solely on SS because that's the only income they have.



Oh for sure, company pensions are a thing of the past.  401Ks and 403Bs have replaced them.. MAYBE a company will offer some matching funds, but only up to a small amount.. like up to 4 or 5%..  NO.. they figured out long ago to let people's retirement savings be at the mercy of the Markets.. and to absolve themselves of any risk.  

As for housing..  the biggest asset of many people is their home..  many had hoped to sell the house and downsize in order to live off some of the built up equity.. That all went south with he housing bubble burst.. leaving many seniors without much of a cushion..  NOW there are "reverse mortgages"   IMO just another scheme to relieve the middle class of it's assets and move more money to the top.  People will not be able to leave much money to their children... the bank will take the house.


----------



## Don M.

ClassicRockr said:


> There are those that *don't *get a pension/retirement and have to rely only on SS. Many people don't stay on a job long enough to get a Retirement Package/Pension and, from what I've been told, some company's don't even offer retirement stuff. Neither wife or I get a Pension/Retirement. A person can be working for a company and really like there job, but that person can get laid-off, terminated or the company shuts down. After I left two different companies, I found out that within 6 months after I left, both of them ended up shutting down.
> 
> So, there are those Seniors that have to rely solely on SS because that's the only income they have.



That's right...the days of a company looking out for its employees are long gone.  Today, if a person waits until they are 50 years old before they realize that they, too, will grow old, and need to retire, they are Skrewed!  The time to begin planning for retirement is when a person is still young enough, and disciplined enough, to begin saving for their own retirement.  With the stagnation of the Middle Class, and the increasing disparity of wealth in this nation, that is becoming harder and harder to do.  Time will tell what the Senior population looks like in another couple of decades....but the prognosis is Not Good.


----------



## QuickSilver

Don M. said:


> That's right...the days of a company looking out for its employees are long gone.  Today, if a person waits until they are 50 years old before they realize that they, too, will grow old, and need to retire, they are Skrewed!  The time to begin planning for retirement is when a person is still young enough, and disciplined enough, to begin saving for their own retirement.  With the stagnation of the Middle Class, and the increasing disparity of wealth in this nation, that is becoming harder and harder to do.  Time will tell what the Senior population looks like in another couple of decades....but the prognosis is Not Good.



And yet most times it's not possible to begin before..  not when you are raising a family, and perhaps contributing to your children's education.   It isn't until your 50's that you may get some relief from the responsibility of children.  I don't think it has a thing to do with not being disciplined.. it's more to do with money needed elsewhere..


----------



## rkunsaw

Although traditional company pensions are all but gone, most companies today offer 401k plans. I think those will turn out to be better than the old pensions if people will take advantage of them.


----------



## Don M.

rkunsaw said:


> Although traditional company pensions are all but gone, most companies today offer 401k plans. I think those will turn out to be better than the old pensions if people will take advantage of them.



You Betcha....I just wish these plans had been around the day I started working.  I only had about 15 years to contribute to mine, but had it been available for my entire working career, I would be a millionaire.  The smartest thing a working person can do today, is to maximize their 401K ASAP.  The 401K plan is probably the ONLY thing our government has done in the past 50 years that is of any real value to the average person.


----------



## LogicsHere

Or the nursing home.


----------



## QuickSilver

Don M. said:


> You Betcha....I just wish these plans had been around the day I started working.  I only had about 15 years to contribute to mine, but had it been available for my entire working career, I would be a millionaire.  The smartest thing a working person can do today, is to maximize their 401K ASAP.  The 401K plan is probably the ONLY thing our government has done in the past 50 years that is of any real value to the average person.



Until the market tanks and most of your retirement savings goes away....  401Ks were a GIFT to corporations.. NOT to the worker.   We take ALL the risk now... they have none..  Some might contribute a pittance in matching funds... but never very much.   Give me the old Pension plans any day.


----------



## oldman

I got in our company's 401(k) the year they began, 1978. Although I could not max out in the beginning, I did manage to save a nice junk of change each payday. I had 31 years in the plan, even through layoffs, when I could not contribute, I still had my IRA going at the bank and contributed to it. 

In my opinion, under the right conditions, a reverse mortgage can be a good thing. However, I am not in favor of everyone pulling out their equity to take a vacation or buy a new car. I know of people that were of retirement age (over 62) that had lost their job and could not get another job in 2009 and were forced into retirement after their unemployment ran out. One fellow in particular was 64 years old when he lost his job in 2009 and could not find another job, so he took his unemployment for about 2 years (with the extensions) and then started taking his SS. He could not afford his house payments and rather than sell it and downsize, he took out a reverse mortgage, but no additional equity from the house. He did this for a couple of years and then paid off the loan with money he had in his 401(k). He had only a small mortgage left, I think it was around $30,000, so it all worked out for him.

Another wasn't as frugal. He still had a mortgage left on his home owing around maybe $40-50 K (I can't remember exact numbers) and an $800.00 a month payment. He took out a RM, plus some $60,000.00 or more of the equity of his house and now is stuck with the RM because he spent the equity money on new trucks for him and his wife and a hunting trip to Alaska. He has started to draw from his 401(k) to supplement his SS because as he puts it, "I don't want to lower my standard of living and if the kids don't get any money from us, meaning him and his wife, then so be it. I earned it and I'm going to spend it." Some people may think that's good or acceptable behavior, but I believe that unless we have issues with our children, it is better to leave them something to help them to build their nest egg on. My parents did for my wife and I, so naturally, we feel obliged to 'try' to do the same for our kids. 

I know that this is an argumentative opinion, but it is just our decision to do what we want to do for our children. Everyone decides for their selves what is best for their situation.


----------



## QuickSilver

Yes...  I agree.. some people are plain idiots when it comes to financial decisions.  You are never going to do away with all the "grasshoppers" in society.  Not everyone is the little worker Ant.  


Aesop
The Ant and the Grasshopper
In a field one summer's day a Grasshopper was hopping about,  chirping and singing to its heart's content.  An Ant passed by,  bearing along with great toil an ear of corn he was taking to the  nest. 
            "Why not come and chat with me," said the Grasshopper,  "instead of toiling and moiling in that way?" 
            "I am helping to lay up food for the winter," said the Ant,  "and recommend you to do the same." 
            "Why bother about winter?" said the Grasshopper; "We have got  plenty of food at present."  But the Ant went on its way and  continued its toil. 

            When the winter came the Grasshopper had no  food and found itself dying of hunger - while it saw the ants  distributing every day corn and grain from the stores they had  collected in the summer. Then the Grasshopper knew: It is best to prepare for days of need.		  top


----------



## Don M.

QuickSilver said:


> Until the market tanks and most of your retirement savings goes away....  401Ks were a GIFT to corporations.. NOT to the worker.   We take ALL the risk now... they have none..  Some might contribute a pittance in matching funds... but never very much.   Give me the old Pension plans any day.



A 401K is the BEST thing a person can do for themselves in preparation for retirement.  How it builds is determined by the investment options a person chooses, and how closely and carefully they monitor it.  Like anything else, a person gets rewarded by how much time and effort they expend.  While there are inherent risks in the markets, if a person takes the time to learn the basics, and monitors their funds closely, they can usually come out ahead.  Like it or not, as time passes, more and more people are going to be responsible for their own financial well being, as companies get out of the pension business.  Even the days of Social Security are numbered unless Congress does some major revamping of funding that program in the near future.  If left alone, SS will be little more than a welfare program for the very poor in another 2 or 3 decades...some in Washington are already talking about "Means Testing" for SS recipients who have other sources of income.


----------



## QuickSilver

Don M. said:


> A 401K is the BEST thing a person can do for themselves in preparation for retirement.  How it builds is determined by the investment options a person chooses, and how closely and carefully they monitor it.  Like anything else, a person gets rewarded by how much time and effort they expend.  While there are inherent risks in the markets, if a person takes the time to learn the basics, and monitors their funds closely, they can usually come out ahead.  Like it or not, as time passes, more and more people are going to be responsible for their own financial well being, as companies get out of the pension business.  Even the days of Social Security are numbered unless Congress does some major revamping of funding that program in the near future.  If left alone, SS will be little more than a welfare program for the very poor in another 2 or 3 decades...some in Washington are already talking about "Means Testing" for SS recipients who have other sources of income.



I respectfully disagree.  A 401K shifts all the risk away from the Company and squarely on the shoulders of the retiree.   Pensions were the opposite..  Companies were obligated to pay regardless..  So If I had a choice in a nice fat pension or a 401K plan..  I'd prefer the pension.  Unfortunately we don't have a choice.


----------



## AZ Jim

oldman said:


> We have a few in our church that would fit into this category, but they are so kind and gentle in nature that they have been the recipients of a lot of love from quite a few others in the congregation. I go to a church in the rural area where there are a lot of farms. Those that own the farms give to these people in the congregation a lot of vegetables and fruits, both fresh and canned for the winter. When they do their butchering, they will also see to it that they get some pork and beef. So, all of this really helps them out, I am sure.
> 
> The one farmer in our congregation has a hog farm. He butchers a hog and sells all of the meat to the members of the congregation and then donates the money to the church. Before he did this, his Father did it, so it has been going on for many years. I love his scrapple and sausage, so I generally buy 3 pounds of scrapple and maybe 5-10 pounds of sausage, if it's available.



Not all seniors live in rural areas or attend church.  If it were not for social security most seniors would be candidates for  poverty if not total poverty damn close to it.  It is not just a gift, we paid into our entire working lives.  Many do not have either the education or wherewithal to have "other" plans.  There has been a concerted effort to eliminate it for over 40 years.  Our politicos have succeeded in removing it as a "trust fun" to the general fund.  So now, we buy bombers and bullets with the money we invest in our own future.
I don't mean to come off as hostile but I will come down on the side of struggling elders every time.


----------



## Patriot47

It seems this new generation will be in much worse shape, "saving up" doesn't seem to be a cool thing nowadays. I am thankful I was taught about saving from an early age, however at the same time I do have friends who had some very unfortunate incidents that ruined their savings so in these cases SS becomes essential even for these people who thought they had prepped.


----------



## QuickSilver

Patriot47 said:


> It seems this new generation will be in much worse shape, "saving up" doesn't seem to be a cool thing nowadays. I am thankful I was taught about saving from an early age, however at the same time I do have friends who had some very unfortunate incidents that ruined their savings so in these cases SS becomes essential even for these people who thought they had prepped.




OR could it be that with wage increases virtually flat for the last 30 years... there really isn't anything much to save after all the essentials are paid for?


----------



## rkunsaw

I agree it is hard to save when you are barely scraping by, but all else being equal, those who make the sacrifice and put some (even a small amount) in savings every payday are always better off than those who don't save.


----------



## LogicsHere

Without SS, my mother would only have $294 a month.


----------



## rkunsaw

LogicsHere said:


> Without SS, my mother would only have $294 a month.



Before there was SS people still made plans for their retirement. SS is nothing more than a forced retirement plan to provide at least a minimal amount of retirement income.


----------



## LogicsHere

They may have, but there weren't many options other than living paycheck to paycheck when you're handicapped and have barely a 6th grade education as the result of her being in and out of hospitals with a dislocated leg (grew inside of her until a surgeon saw her at the age of 17 and operated at no cost to my grandmother).


----------



## rkunsaw

This may give incentive for some people to start saving.

http://m.arkansasnews.com/news/arkansas/obama-signs-savings-promotion-bill-law


----------



## AZ Jim

rkunsaw said:


> Even the highest rate of 14.6% and 6.5 million is far from a majority.  Social security is part of ones retirement plan. Without social security most people would adjust their plans accordingly.



This statement would indicate most ss recipients COULD "adjust" their "plans" at all.  I know many who could only "adjust" their plan by discontinuing to live in shelter and eat meals.  You obviously haven't experienced the high medical bills many of us have. Years ago everyone didn't have the funds to attend college so they took jobs at much lower pay than the lucky few who had degrees.  Put it all together and it spells disaster to elderly who are not the _haves_ but rather the _have-nots.    

_


----------



## rkunsaw

AZ Jim said:


> This statement would indicate most ss recipients COULD "adjust" their "plans" at all.  I know many who could only "adjust" their plan by discontinuing to live in shelter and eat meals.  You obviously haven't experienced the high medical bills many of us have. Years ago everyone didn't have the funds to attend college so they took jobs at much lower pay than the lucky few who had degrees.  Put it all together and it spells disaster to elderly who are not the _haves_ but rather the _have-nots.
> 
> _



But they pay the tax on social security out of every paycheck. If there was no social security they could put that same amount in savings and still have the same amount to live on. 

There are other programs to help people who have disabilities or lose their jobs.


----------



## AZ Jim

rkunsaw said:


> But they pay the tax on social security out of every paycheck. If there was no social security they could put that same amount in savings and still have the same amount to live on.
> 
> There are other programs to help people who have disabilities or lose their jobs.



Not true at all.  You pay much less per month when you  work than you collect when you retire.  The unemployed do not get enough to live even modesty on.  Disability covers only the disabled and if they paid into SS they have to live without disability income when eligible for SS. You are not in touch with the reality of the situation.  Also the reason for forcing savings in the program is because we won't save voluntarily we are often overtaken by unexpected events and we  pay them instead, etc.  If SS did not exist, welfare rolls would swell and YOU and I would pay THAT bill.


----------



## rkunsaw

I disagree Jim. there have been retired people since long before there was such a thing as social security. Some people saved for retirement, some didn't. No matter what their income while working, those that saved for retirement were better off than those that didn't. 

If you worked and paid into social and become disabled you can draw your full social security amount without having to reach any certain age.


----------



## AZ Jim

rkunsaw said:


> I disagree Jim. there have been retired people since long before there was such a thing as social security. Some people saved for retirement, some didn't. No matter what their income while working, those that saved for retirement were better off than those that didn't.
> 
> If you worked and paid into social and become disabled you can draw your full social security amount without having to reach any certain age.



Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I respect that idea.  Here is an explanation of the disability question.    http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/social-security-disability-benefits-29686.html    I won't further debate the issue. Have a great day.


----------



## Capt Lightning

The situation in the UK is in some ways similar, and subject to a lot of debate.  I assume that your Social Security is similar to our State retirement pension which is calculated on the number of years contribution a person has made. It is paid at 65 years, though this is rising.  The full amount is just less than £6k pa ($10k) for a single person.  The majority of people have some sort of company pension and/or savings  for retirement, but some have litle or nothing and rely on the state pension (plus other benefits).

The argument comes about when some people claim that the government is heartless and unsympathetic to the low paid who are unable to save for their later years.  This is countered by those who have saved, but now get a lousy return on their savings and are denied any other benefits because they have savings.  The attitude seems to be that if you have money, you should shut up, look after yourself and let the government 'screw' you.  Being successful in Britain is almost looked on as a crime.


----------



## Geezerette

I first started paying into SS as a 16 yr old camp counselor & between then & now & still am in my seasonal tax prep job. So in that 60 yrs there were only about 7 that I didn't contribute due to full time child rearing. I was in 2 pension plans, first for 17 years at a catholic Hosp that closed due to giving away too much free care, next at a university hospital for 7 years  where they downsized my masters level job to an associates degree after I created all the procedures. Luckily both got rolled over to an IRA, which I also felt was a good program & put into that when I didn't have pension.  XH frittered away all of his $ & some of mine before I wised up. What angers & sickens me is some private & public employers wanting to cut benefits to those retirees already receiving them! Serious breech of contract IMO. Seems like I always had to rely on myself & still do.


----------



## Butterfly

Around here, unless you work for the government or some big corporation, there's no such thing as a pension plan anymore.


----------



## rkunsaw

The traditional company pension is all but gone but most companies offer 401k plans now which is better for both the company and the employee.


----------



## Don M.

rkunsaw said:


> The traditional company pension is all but gone but most companies offer 401k plans now which is better for both the company and the employee.



The 401K program is one of the very few things the government has done in recent decades that is of benefit to the working people.  I just wish this plan had been around for all my working years.  I will be surprised if any companies are still offering defined pension plans in another few years....probably the only ones who will still have formal pension plans will be union members and public employees.


----------



## QuickSilver

Don M. said:


> The 401K program is one of the very few things the government has done in recent decades that is of benefit to the working people.  I just wish this plan had been around for all my working years.  I will be surprised if any companies are still offering defined pension plans in another few years....probably the only ones who will still have formal pension plans will be union members and public employees.



I'm not sure why you think that the 401K plans are so wonderful..  They certainly are not better than the traditional pensions most companies used to offer.  All 401Ks have done is to shift the risk of market fluctuation away from the Corporation to the individual retiree..   Companies were happy to be able to stop funding pensions and contribute a pittance to someone's 401K.   Most times companies only match funds on a very small percentage of the employee's contribution..  They have NO risk, and your entire retirement savings is at the mercy of the Market.   Pension amounts were guaranteed and the company assumed the risk.


----------



## Don M.

The 401K offers an individual the "opportunity" to save for their retirement, and can be a very valuable means of providing extra income....but, ONLY if a person is wise enough to take advantage of such plans.  I have an excellent pension, the wife and I both get SS, AND I have monthly payments coming in from my IRA, which are larger than either the pension or SS.  I have been drawing out of the IRA for over 12 years, and with this latest stock market uptick, I have more money in my IRA than when I started pulling out of that fund.  Over the years, I have self managed the IRA such that my annual return is in the 8% range, with only minor losses during downturns.  On balance, a good IRA, with the funds properly allocated, can make a huge difference between just getting by in retirement, or living quite decently.  

IMO, anyone who is working, and NOT taking advantage of a 401k is leaving a LOT of money on the table.  A person doesn't need to put a whole lot aside each month....the secret is investing properly, monitoring it closely, and NOT touching it until retired.  Compounding will take care of the rest.


----------



## Lon

I have been drawing Social Security for 18 years and the amount covers more than 100% of my fixed monthly costs. How about you? If you are now drawing SS, what percentage of your fixed monthly costs does it take care of?


----------



## Don M.

SS quite easily covers our monthly groceries, and utilities, and routine expenses, etc.  The IRA covers our extra activities....meals out, vacations, casino hopping, and general fun stuff.  The pension stays in the bank, and if we need to buy a new car, or a major appliance shoots craps, or heaven forbid, we have some major medical expense, we will use that money.


----------



## rkunsaw

Our only income is company pensions and social security. It's not a lot but our house, car, and truck, are all paid for. Our expenses are low and most months we can put $1,000 in our investments. We realize that while we have plenty now our investments and equity may not last too long if either of us should need to be in a nursing home, so we save as much as we can, but still don't deprive ourselves of a quality life.


----------



## QuickSilver

I'm one of those workers and savers... Always have lived well beneath my means and socked money away for a rainy day. I am well set for retirement.. BUT even still, SS does figure into my budget and my retirement plan.   If there no longer were SS, I would not starve or be out on the street, but my "Golden years" would become a struggle and a constant worry.   WHY... after all those years of being frugal and saving and planning should I have to be penalized for my good fortune?  I have paid into SS every week for 40 years.  AND I should collect it.   

That said, I am not breaking my arm patting myself on the back.  I am where I am not only because of my hard work, but also the luck of the draw.  I have been lucky enough to have excellent health.. which enabled me to work..  My kids were healthy... and I was fortunate enough to have the means and ability to obtain a degree in Nursing.  Sure I worked for it, but I am not egotistical enough to believe that my good fortune did not enable me to quit my job to get my degree.  I also had an affordable community college near by.  Not everyone has the ability or means, OR health, to sock away the money for a rainy day.


----------



## Don M.

Life, for most people is an endless application of "Murphy's Law"...which says "If Something Can Go Wrong, It Probably Will".  Knowing that, we have always tried to plan for the worst, and be grateful if it doesn't happen.  With increasing Longevity, Long Term Care is a real concern for most Seniors.  Towards that end, we took out a Long Term Care policy about 20 years ago.  The cost of In Home care, or a reputable Senior care facility can be quite large, so hopefully, if/when our time comes, we won't have to go broke paying for it.  More and more people are having to rely on things like Reverse Mortgages, and draining their life's savings in their final years...or moving in with their kids.  The "Golden Years" for so many, are starting to resemble Tarnished Brass.


----------



## joan321

God bless those wonderful people helping the poor in a very real way.  We are supposed to love and help one another.  This world will never survive unless we do.  I am one of those people way below the poverty level and I am 81.  I thank God for the wonderful church food banks and all those with loving, caring hearts who go out of their way to help and feed the homeless and those in need.  Dear people, look around at the old folk.  They are too proud to tell you they have no food.  Help wherever you can and God will bless you and bring good fortune your way because Jesus says "whatsoever you do for the least of these, you do it unto me".  Continue the good work it is so worth it.....Blessings to all




god bles


----------



## Warrigal

Compulsory superannuation contributions by all employers and optional additional contributions by employees, with a taxation incentive for investing, is what is ensuring that Australian seniors can afford to retire in future decades. That, plus a means tested aged pension system to make sure no-one falls below the poverty line.


----------



## QuickSilver

I can attest to the fact that it's NOT as easy to get AND keep government assistance as some think it is.   When my son became homeless and jobless in 2014.. he did apply and get food stamps ($250 a month)  and Medicaid.  I may add he had 10 years in the US Military and received housing through the VA in a homeless veterans shelter.  They also helped him get a job and stay sober.   The very month after he became employed, with an income over $1200 a month, he was removed from the rolls..  He also was given 2 months to find his own apartment..   The State and Feds keep track of income and assets..   SO I really find stories of people with money, or undocumented people collecting government assistance for years and years very hard to swallow.


----------



## Ina

I just looked up what is considered the poverty level, and it is $11,770 or under for one person.  You add $4,160 for each additional person in the household.  

Just how do 'they' think that small amount is suppose to cover even the basics.  Rent and utilities are generally more than that.


----------



## Don M.

Ina said:


> I just looked up what is considered the poverty level, and it is $11,770 or under for one person.  You add $4,160 for each additional person in the household.
> 
> Just how do 'they' think that small amount is suppose to cover even the basics.  Rent and utilities are generally more than that.



You have to remember that these numbers are created by politicians and bureaucrats in Washington who have yearly incomes well into 6 digits.  The closest any of them come to having to make a "financial" decision is whether to have a $25 T-Bone, or a $30 Filet Mignon tonight at their 5 star restaurant.  The Washington hierarchy lives in a different world than the bulk of the people.


----------



## Butterfly

QuickSilver said:


> I can attest to the fact that it's NOT as easy to get AND keep government assistance as some think it is.   When my son became homeless and jobless in 2014.. he did apply and get food stamps ($250 a month)  and Medicaid.  I may add he had 10 years in the US Military and received housing through the VA in a homeless veterans shelter.  They also helped him get a job and stay sober.   The very month after he became employed, with an income over $1200 a month, he was removed from the rolls..  He also was given 2 months to find his own apartment..   The State and Feds keep track of income and assets..   SO I really find stories of people with money, or undocumented people collecting government assistance for years and years very hard to swallow.



That's because those stories are urban myths -- it ain't easy to get those benefits, and they're not enough to live on.


----------



## Butterfly

Don M. said:


> You have to remember that these numbers are created by politicians and bureaucrats in Washington who have yearly incomes well into 6 digits.  The closest any of them come to having to make a "financial" decision is whether to have a $25 T-Bone, or a $30 Filet Mignon tonight at their 5 star restaurant.  The Washington hierarchy lives in a different world than the bulk of the people.



And that's a big part of the problem!


----------



## Happyflowerlady

Warrigal said:


> Compulsory superannuation contributions by all employers and optional additional contributions by employees, with a taxation incentive for investing, is what is ensuring that Australian seniors can afford to retire in future decades. That, plus a means tested aged pension system to make sure no-one falls below the poverty line.



This is a great plan, and it would be very similar to what our SS deductions do. The problem is that some people fall through the holes with any plan the government makes. 
Just using myself as an example. 
I was a housewife and mother for most of my adult life, totally depending on my husband's SS benefit and his IBEW lineman's retirement benefit. We would never have been rich by any means; but we would have been able to live a comfortable life in retirement. 
It was nowhere in the plan that he would leave me , taking all of those benefits with him. 
Even though I did get a job and support myself after we were divorced; because I was unskilled, my jobs were mostly commission or minimum wage jobs; so by the time I reached the age to be able to get my SS pension, there was very little there. 
I am sure that there are many women of my generation who are in the same circumstances as I was. Many women back then never worked outside of the house for all of their lives, and if their husband had SS, then they lived on that. If the husband died, then there was widow's benefits. Just no plan for if they got divorced.


----------



## QuickSilver

My SIL collects 50% of her EX husbands SS benefits... they were divorced... but the marriage was over 20 years so maybe that's why..  Not sure... but I know for certain she still gets his... even now that he is deceased


----------



## Warrigal

In general women have poorer retirement prospects than men and this is now being recognised. 
When divorce occurs the accumulated superannuation funds are taken into account when agreeing on a settlement.

Also, recognising that women's earning power over the long term is less because of child bearing and part time work while raising the family, one partner is allowed to top up the super fund of the other with taxation benefits. There are also tax benefits for voluntary contributions to one's own fund.

For people with little or no super to live on there is always the commonwealth aged pension which is well targeted through means testing of income and assets. Pension payments taper off gradually and most current retirees qualify for at least a part pension but in the future more Australians will be able to live on their own savings.


----------



## Butterfly

QuickSilver said:


> My SIL collects 50% of her EX husbands SS benefits... they were divorced... but the marriage was over 20 years so maybe that's why..  Not sure... but I know for certain she still gets his... even now that he is deceased



My sister does, too.  Happyflowerlady, DO check with SS -- if your marriage was over 10 years (I think it is 10 years, might be 15), even if you are divorced you can get a percentage of his retirement.  It doesn't affect the benefits HE gets, either  So call 'em up and check.  You may very well be missing out on benefits.


----------



## joan321

I too was a housewife and mother taking care of my children for many years.  My husband and I moved to America thirty years ago.  Shortly after we got here we got divorced because the marriage became intolerable and harmful to all of us.  My husband continued to build up credits, but then, after accruing the minimum credits required, he left for England and remarried.  When he left, I had $5000. As we came to the country when I was 53 and unskilled, I took a low paying clerical job with the County and retired when I was 62.  My social security is very little and I had to substitute with home care jobs.  I realize I could claim half of my husband's social security, but was told it would be the same amount that I am already collecting because he was not in the country for very long. So I am in quite a dire situation.  I live alone and have no-one to help me financially or physically. I am almost 81 years of age and it is pretty scarey, but somehow I get by. The secret is not to project into the future and try not to think too much about the past, but just take a day at a time and trust and pray that some angel is watching out for me.  Blessings and good luck to you Happyflowerlady.  Maybe we can communicate again.


----------



## fureverywhere

You want to know poverty? What stores have the most potty paper to steal. Been there done that...ageing in America yaaaaay


----------



## Ina

WHen my husband died a year ago, I went to the SS office with his death cretificate to show that his check needed to be canceled.  As I had been on disability for two years, I wasn't expecting to get anything, but the SS agent in formed me that I was eligible for part of my husband's SS as long as we had been married at least 10 years.  I recieved the difference between my disability check and his SS check.  The amount was dependent on how much he had paid in.  For our 47 years I had always made sure we both always claimed Single and no dependents.  Before he died he recieved $2200 net monthly.  When I reach 66, I will loose my disability and Mike SS checks, because I paid in like I had Mike do, but I also added an extra $50 biweekly to my SS account payments, so at 66 I will recieve more than my husband did.


----------



## Pookie

That is awesome, Ina. We have both retirement/disability through the Army, and we are still able to work. We don't have SS yet, as we aren't anywhere close to retirement age. 

We can work all we want but to keep the disability, of course, we can't do scary jobs that put us on ladders, or anything more than walking across a floor.

As a result, hubby is a security guard at a plant, and I work at Walmart, and my job as customer service manager doesn't involve heavy lifting.

Disability/retirement in my case is nearly 26 years in active duty with a few years' active reserves (2) included. We're better off in this situation. If we were on SS, we couldn't work too many hours and our income would be a whole lot less.

We've also added ourselves to a waiting list in a wonderful patio home/assisted living apartment/nursing home gated community for Army officers. That list is about 7 years long. 

If we have to go early, that's okay. 

But I have a question for you all: What happens if you work all your life and pay into SS and when it comes to needing assistance at the end of life, what happens then?

I'm terribly concerned about this. I did the "Adopt A Grandma" at one of our local nursing homes. Her name is Wanda; she has plenty of family all around, but she's 88 and none of her family comes to see her. She has SS and did have some savings, but they declared her incompetent when she was in the hospital with a triple bypass.

They're spending her savings on everything from TVs to cars, to computers to a new roof....and she isn't incompetent. Apparently when she was under the influence of pain meds, she signed her finances over to her sister, thinking she was going to die, and stated she wasn't in sound mind nor sound body.

What can I do, or help her to do? Can we reverse this? What will it take? Do I need to call my lawyer? I'll do it in a freaking heartbeat...what I am seeing is a bunch of people taking advantage of a little old lady....and I am NOT happy nor am I comfortable with this.

I promised I would come to y'all with issues. I hope y'all will help me and point me in the right direction.

Many purrs,
Joyce (Pookie)


----------



## Ina

Pookie,  I don't know where you are located, but here in Texas, there is a group that you can report abuse of the elderly.  See if there is such a group in your area.  I know that down here you best be able to account for an elderly person's finances if you are that person's conservator.  Hope that helps. :wave:


----------



## Butterfly

Pookie --laws about this kind of stuff vary by state.  But here, and most places, there are free (or nearly so) Senior Citizens' Law Office places who give advice about stuff like this.  Also, as Ina said there is sure to be a state agency that is a watchdog for the abuse of elderly persons. 

I see you are in North Carolina -- I googled to find out about the state agency -- it is the NC Dept of Health and Human Services, and the senior division telephone number is 919-855-3400.  The contact name is Suzanne Merrill -- they are in Raleigh.  Tell them what's going on and they can either help you or tell you who else to contact.  

Here's one senior legal aid place I found.
[h=2]Senior Law Project (SLP)[/h] _Need help? Call the statewide North Carolina Senior Legal  Helpline, toll free, at (877) 579-7562._

Legal Aid of North Carolina's Senior Law Project specifically serves  clients that are 60 years of age or older. Special priority is given to seniors  with the greatest economic or social need. Clients who are age 60 or older are  exempt from income limitations and are eligible for our services.
 [h=4]What can we help you  with?[/h] 

http://www.seniorforums.../../../images/prototype/pointer.gif  Simple Will; Living  Will
http://www.seniorforums.../../../images/prototype/pointer.gif  Power of Attorney; Health Care  Power of Attorney
http://www.seniorforums.../../../images/prototype/pointer.gif  Public Benefits: 
     - Medicaid
    - Food Stamps
    - SSI/SSD
http://www.seniorforums.../../../images/prototype/pointer.gif  Abuse/Neglect
http://www.seniorforums.../../../images/prototype/pointer.gif   Unemployment Compensation
http://www.seniorforums.../../../images/prototype/pointer.gif  Housing Issues:
    -  Landlord/Tenant (Eviction Defenses)
    - Subsidized Housing Rights
    -  Tenant’s Repair Needs
    - Utilities
http://www.seniorforums.../../../images/prototype/pointer.gif  Consumer Issues 
     - Mortgage Foreclosure
http://www.seniorforums.../../../images/prototype/pointer.gif  Wrongful  Repossession


Hopefully they can help out or point you to someone who can.

I'm so glad you are helping out this lady.  This kind of stuff happens to way too many older persons, and is, in my opinion, reprehensible behavior by the family.


----------



## Guitarist

TabbyAnn said:


> I think Social Security is a great savings plan for workers because it is still there for people in their old age when other investments may have failed, or family emergencies may have drained other resources.



I think so too.


----------



## Don M.

Social Security, in its present form, is slated to remain stable for about 2 more decades....until somewhere around 2030-2035.  After that, given the number of people that will be drawing on this program, some major changes will be in order.  Raising the "Caps" now, would be the most sensible solution to keeping this valuable program functioning for future Seniors.  Baring any actions being taken in the near future, SS benefits will begin to decline for those with any other sources of income.  The good news is...Medicare will face severe financial troubles well before Social Security does....so how our government handles Medicare will be a pretty good indicator of what can be expected for SS in the future.


----------

