Unfortunately, any kind of property division that requires my husband to do anything (e.g., contact the pension plan administrator) will run up against my husband’s intransigence and likely result in long delays.
I’d be sure to have my attorney aware of that and bring it to the court’s attention so incentives and penalties could be automatically factored in so he couldn’t sabotage. He is NOT the only person who would be slow to act.
@sax, I am so sorry for what you went through with your father. I can only imagine how hard that must have been for you. Eight years!!
H and I are soon to meet with a “wealth advisor” assigned to us from our retirement firm. So we will see if and when or ever. Haha
BTW, have not read thread in a while. So sorry if I am posting in midst of something else being discussed.
@morrismm, my neighbor is a wealth advisor, or is it wealth manager? He is always leasing showy cars. Good luck. Count your fingers after you shake hands.
@busdriver11 Actually, we were thrilled to have dad as long as we did. He was set in retirement with an army pension and healthcare so we never had to worry about him and my mom.
It never occurred to me that we might have to help them in retirement in spite of a couple of job losses. I am sure it has not entered my kids thoughts that they might have to help us. …which thank goodness they won’t.
DH and I are not on the same page, either. He is 54 now and has no plans to retire – ever. He’d like to keel over at the office and not have to worry about becoming decrepit. OTOH, I get no help here at home even though I now have gone back to work (PT at my synagogue). Am ready to push the button on getting a cleaning service, though that button is attached to a nuclear device.
As far as saving for retirement, we are in agreement and busily squirrelling away nuts for the future.
I would like to downsize to a single level house. There aren’t many in this area because land is so expensive. A townhouse is not what I want – I want the ability to age in place. There are some split ranches in the neighborhood that have a main living level and a walk-out basement, which would work for my sewing area. I can do stairs just fine at this point. However, those ranchers are on the main streets in our neighborhood or back to major roads, and we would still have to deal with a yard. A 3 BR condo (room for us, guestroom/office and sewing room) costs more than what we would get for our current house, and moving in towards Bethesda to reduce DH’s commute would increase the price exponentially.
I fear we are probably committed to staying in this area, both because DH plans to keep working and because my doctors are here. If I ever had to make these decisions solo, however, I would seriously consider other locations – but it would be hard to leave the infrastructure I have developed. The other major advantage to staying here is that my sons are familiar with this area and resources, which would be hugely helpful if I were to become incapacitated.
I can’t even get DH to decide on a bathroom repair/reno. I am tired of being in this rut!
IxayBob! Yeah, we are aware that they are going to try and sell us stuff. It makes me mad that we have go through this. I thought this would be simple. Although I am not a naive person, so I of course should have known.
I realize it depends on what age you retire, how much you think you need for how long, etc,etc. Also how much risk you are willing to take and if you want protection. All for a cost of course.
I have not seen any upbeat post about the market recovery.
I am hopeful.
Interesting article in the Wall Street Journal. It focus on the various tax and other disincentives for working longer after starting with most people’s need to work longer to ensure their financial security in retirement (http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-get-people-to-delay-retirement-1458525863). Since I’m not planning to retire, it is interesting to see the various disincentives built into tax and social security law for working longer.
…but how about those of us who enjoy the job and think of it their major entertainment? What if these people face a depression after they retire? No money talk is worth it…it is not just money. On the other hand, if we want to stick to the money talk, how is working longer does not make sense if you are getting about 50% of your income in retirement or maybe less (and no entertainment)? I am very confused. I did not read the articles…
…I was wrong, it is much less than half. So, according the Wall Street Journal, it makes sense to live on much lower income. Interesting…
:)) I know that correlation does not imply causation, but every now and then, . . .
I was saying that I was confused by the implied advice for having much lower income in retirement. Why do I need to read something that advice me to do so? That is very confusing to me…I am glad that I made somebody happy with my comments.
Fwiw, @shawbridge, as the husband of a woman who might need a crowbar to separate from her job, I found the article very interesting. My wife is only 58, but her dad is still working well into his 80s; I hope it’s not genetic :). That said, I hope that tax and SS changes will encourage employers to discriminate less on age than they currently do, by reducing their fear that hiring an older worker will unfairly restrict their options.
Thanks for posting the link.
No changes will compensate for the fact that older employees are simply sicker and need more spending of all resources on their health. My employer is self-insured and so is my H’s. They are paying the bills, while using insurance companies to process the medical claims. I believe that this explains the age discrimination more than other factors. Another fact is that not many are planning to work past 70, and since training is taking few years, hire older does not make sense. I would love to work past 70, but we have plans to move to the warmer place butI still will offer my services, since I can work from any place that has an internet connection. I have a feeling that my employer would not care about this arrangement though for the reasons above. My H. does not have any objections for me to continue working, he knows that he would probably have a bigger problem with me not being happy otherwise. I would never ever quit my job on my own if we did not move. I would wait until they kick me out.
If you do not remain a full time employee, or if your employer does not wish for ou to remain as a remote FTE, they might not be required to continue to offer healthcare. ANd if you relocte out of the country, it might not cover anyway. Nor would Medicare.
Thanks @IxnayBob, when I hit retirement age, my savings will be for the next generation, I hope. I will be done paying for school and probably will be for saving for my dotage. I would continue to work because I love what I do. I’m not in danger of getting kicked out because I co-founded the firm at which I work. I also get invited to teach at one of the best universities in the US every year and this summer and fall, I’m starting a new gig at oxbridge. I also get invited to attend get-togethers of supposedly interesting people (I have gotten a lot from these gatherings). I might continue to get these invitations, but part of the reason I’m invited is for what I am doing as well as for what I have done. Although I’m doing a bit too much traveling (Europe once a month with other trips to Chicago, Calgary, Asia and South America occasionally), I really enjoy it the travel too. (Not all is good: I am thinking of cancelling my upcoming trip to Istanbul). So like @MiamiDAP, it is among the most interesting I could be doing.
I do think that maintaining health is important and that I have to devote time to it that younger workers don’t. But, I don’t have to wake up at night for feedings or coughs and make trips to doctors when kids are sick or stay home from school with then. So there are tradeoffs for employers, @MiamiDAP. I also am a little unclear as to why you think that the article advises workers staying deferring their retirement date to cut their income in half.
I have devoted 2+ hours every day on my health as long as I remember, even when I was extremely busy with my kid at home. But there is no guarantee. At certain age the health is just gone. When I visit the doc. (not as often as I am urged by everybody, including my MD daughter), all my tests are good, but then you hear stuff: “Age related this and age related that, but there is no problem, no need to do anything or change anything”. That makes me think that at some point of time “the age related” stuff simply accumulates and reaches the point that something will need to be done about it, I mean by medical professional, not me. My H. has whole slew of health related problems despite of his devotion to exercise.
Well, in regard to the article, which I still did not read, as it is described here, it is stating the incentives for NOT working. If something is mentioning incentives for not working, that something implies that not working is better than working after certain age. In my specific case and the case of my H., our income will be cut by more than 50% when we retire (and I am planning to apply for SS at 70). So. basically, we are going to be poor beach bums at retirement. It is only semi-attractive to me. While the “beach bum” is somewhat attractive, being poor is not.
@shawbridge, FIL works at the Aspen Institute, so it’s for the most part interesting and gratifying work. DW works at a megabank, which is sometimes rewarding beyond the money, but not as often. Still, it provides something meaningful to DW.
I would not be surprised if eventually (< 5 years), DW might find a nonprofit interesting.