I think the original intent was redistributive. We did not want to live in a world in which old people were destitute. I assumed that the system was redistributive. Interestingly enough, academic studies are a little less clear on whether the SS system as implemented is actually redistributive:
I also think the annual cost of retirement living may really be dependent upon where you live in the state. For Massachusetts, the difference between living in Greenfield or Athol (on the one hand) and Cambridge or Lexington or Marthaâs Vineyard (on the other) would be huge. The same would be true in California (San Francisco versus Tulare).
Real estate prices have jumped up and increased the basic cost of living, but probably so have the younger generations expectations. As my favorite financial writer, Andrew Tobias wrote, âA luxury, once sampled, becomes a necessity.â
He also said, âA penny saved is two pennies earned.â
I pay quite reasonable rent for a lovely two-bedroom apartment. My neighborhood is near the Verrazano Bridge and although I donât have harbor views, the entrance is 1000 ft from a park that overlooks the harbor.
That sounds like such a good deal, it has to be rent controlled. But I donât think many people are able to get lovely, reasonably priced apartments in NYC anymore. If they become available, Iâm sure my son would jump on it. Heâs paying too much for too small of an apartment in Brooklyn.
My apartment is rent-stabilized. Many elderly people (like me, lol) so this and other buildings in the neighborhood could be considered Naturally Occurring Retirement Communities. (I donât consider myself to be retired; I hope to return to work as soon as my long-covid health allows.) If your son may be interested in living in the Fort Hamilton portion of Bay Ridge, message me and I will give you info on the realtor I used. There are also very reasonably priced coop apartments throughout Bay Ridge. He can check out Streeteasy for zip codes 11209 and 11220 (which includes Sunset Park).
One, knowing DH, would never thought he would be a 24/7 caretaker for his mom after her caretaker had a stroke and died, and before they could ease her into skilled care. A few years earlier, he and his brothers helped shower their dad when mom was unable to continue to do so, and just before dad went into skilled care. DH had retired a month before his dad died, and while assisting the family, saw the gap with his mom. His brother, who lived locally to the parents, was the one who had done a lot of the various tasks keeping them independent for a long time (he is a pharmacist who takes a firm hand with his dad, who wasnât very medically compliant). DH retired Nov 2020, his dad died Dec 2020, mom went into skilled care the end of Feb, and she died 2 weeks later (a day before her 92nd birthday Mar 2021) - her meds for hypertensive heart disease stopped working for her. She had one good week in skilled care before the decline.
It may take a family member to coordinate care, not necessarily be the one giving the care. But DD1 is BSN, and she has done tasks for her grandma one summer when the swelling and sores on her legs was out of hand. DD1 treated her, then when they went into the out-patient wound care, recommended what would work better on grandmaâs legs. After a week while we were visiting, grandmaâs legs were so much better.
âNote that the auxiliary benefit system creates incentives for even highly educated women â potentially with high labour market productivity â to stay at home.â
I am this person. Not that potential SS benefits were a factor in choosing to stay at home with our ds. They werenât. I doubt I could have earned as much as dh did, but idk. However, I wanted to be a stay-at-home mom. Child-rearing as a full-time job is already pretty undervalued, imo. Would be even more so if those auxiliary benefits were removed.
I have a married, childless acquaintance who worked until she was 71 years old. She thinks, âauxiliary benefits,â (the term used in the article) are absolutely criminal. Sheâd say I donât deserve any of dhâs benefits at all.
My silâs husband was 18.5 years older than she. Heâd been married to his first wife for over 20 years. Had a child with my sil when he was 50 or 51 years old. At one point, he, his ex-wife, and my niece (when she was a minor in high school) were all collecting SS benefits. I canât remember the provision for why my niece received them, but it had to do with his advanced age relative to her being a minor. He was a skilled laborer. Certainly never paid in the max amount. Now my sil collects something as his widow, I believe (the first wife is deceased). Now that bil is deceased my sil receives a benefit through him as his widow.
That aforementioned childless acquaintance actually used the word, âfraud,â when bil, his ex-wife, and my niece were all receiving benefits. Um, no. You can dislike the system/rules, but they arenât criminal just because you donât like how the government has set things up.
Thanks for that information! I think he recently renewed his lease, but Iâll ask him and if heâs interested, Iâll PM you about it. I appreciate the info. Finding a reasonable apartment in the NYC area seems really challenging.
@shawbridge, I signed my first lease in 3/20âI moved to be closer to my job. Of course the community-based mental health clinic where I was working had already shut down when I moved in on 3/31 due to the pandemic. Landlords are free to pick their tenants and a young person who applied for an apartment like mine could contact city/state offices if they thought they were denied an apartment due to their age. On the other hand, a working 20-something may have a much better financial picture to present to the landlord. And it would be a reasonable bet for the landlord that a young, prosperous tenant may move on after they married and started a family. (There is no shortage of houses for sale in my zip code, but they are relatively expensiveâexcellent schools, low real estate taxes, free parking included.)
We have most of our assets set up with joint owner OR with spouse as beneficiary (alternate kids, split 50/50). That seems straightforward. Also considering some situations with inherited assets to list sibs âŠ. but that seems like it could get complicated in future if a sib(s) pre-decease. In that case, would the eligible amount get split among the living listed sibs? Or are the dead sibâs spouse/kids included? (Yea, this seems more like a situation for a trust, but Iâm not sure the amount justifies the trouble.).
I believe that if one of the primary beneficiaries dies, the rest goes to the other primary beneficiaries, usually. But your situation is definitely is more complicated than just leaving it all to your spouse, then kids. Iâd say to talk to an estate attorney, then again, that could be expensive for just that one issue.
But definitely, beneficiaries preempt the will, so itâs not like you can write it in the will and sort it all out that way.
My mother has me and my sister as her primary beneficiaries, but if something happens, God forbid, to my dear sister, I would definitely give her share to her husband and kids.
I believe âper stirpesâ- yes that is spelled right- is where if the person dies their kids are next (not husband, wife)? I remember checking that off in our accounts. Youâd have to check about that not absolutely positive.
If nothing is spelled out, it will default to what is set by the state laws, but you likely can specify contingent beneficiaries. It will be an estate attorney question.
