How can people afford expensive cruises?

[ducklite]

Well, put me in the Eeyore Club, too. We've passed the $2 million mark and I still worry that I won't have enough money when I'm 95 and I'm still working full time. I worry about the people who retire with $50K and SS and they are legion.

 

I'm glad someone else understands my concerns. As more and more of the boomers age with minimal retirement savings, we will see an epidemic of homeless seniors in the country n I hope they have friends or relatives they can rely on, because our government will not be able to support them--the economics are simple, there is just not enough money to do so,unless we want to be in the same situation as Greece in 30 years.

 

 

Autocorrect responsible for most typos...

[ducklite]

dl,

 

I can assure you that people pay Federal and State taxes on Social Security benefits. In addition, very few people in the US think we should allows SS to diminish. Social Security will be around for many years to come, in some form or another. I pay taxes on my retirement + social security + my part time job.

 

Enjoy!

Kel:)

 

True, those who meet certain income thresholds do,pay taxes on some of their SS benefit, but the majority of retirees do not. We are likely to be in the "pay" group. It's one of the reasons we plan on holding off on collecting until we are 70--provided our health holds of course. Yet another reason the government treats responsible people unfairly In retirement. Those who saved and/or take a tripod approach (like you) will be penalized while those who didn't plan well will not. It's very frustrating.

 

Regardless of what the citizens want, the economics of it will dictate what happens with SS, and the bottom line is that there is no way the system is sustainable in it's current form, particularly as the last of the Boomers begin to collect. There will have to be changes made, and they will (and should) be painful to many. The only other option will be a huge increase in SS withholding, and I suspect that will be a far less attractive option to the majority of voters. I just hope I can get back at least what I'll end up paying in, never mind the compound interest I would have collected by investing on my own. It's not looking all that promising.

 

 

Autocorrect responsible for most typos...

[ducklite]

I am seeing firsthand what life is like at 94.5, and it ain't pretty. This is a man who was EXTREMELY healthy his entire life, and still has his original teeth! I've watched one "fail to thrive", and now watching one with Parkinson's and another recuperating from lung cancer at 90.

 

When life is no fun I don't want to be here. Enjoy life and your 2M!!!

 

On the other hand, my 91 year old uncle-in-law plays golf every day and just went sky diving for the first time. There is no guarantee, but we are living longer as healthy and vibrant individuals.

 

 

Autocorrect responsible for most typos...

[Gloria Mundi]

On the other hand, my 91 year old uncle-in-law plays golf every day and just went sky diving for the first time. There is no guarantee, but we are living longer as healthy and vibrant individuals.

 

Whatever the government doles out to 91-year olds who don't have the means to support themselves, it will not include golf or skydiving. Even now, Medicare does not cover eyeglasses, hearing aids or dental care. Provided I don't get run over while bicycling someday, I want to age as comfortably as possible, paying for help when and where I need it.

 

One story relevant to travel: a friend in her 50s, who's a lawyer and the General Counsel of a local bank, and who regularly takes scuba trips to the Caribbean with her husband, told me once that they'd just deeded their house over to their adult kids. It was the beginning of a very long-term plan to impoverish themselves on paper so they'd have Medicaid for nursing home care.

 

I wanted to smack her upside the head.

[momofmeg]

It's really not that bad. We booked a cruise a few years ago that went from Hawaii to Sydney, then stayed on the ship for a circumnavigation of Australia. Now that was indeed a trip of a lifetime, but it just gave us a taste for longer and more interesting cruises.

 

We flew to Hawaii from the mainland, stayed there a few days pre-cruise, and then flew JetStar business class back to Hawaii from Perth. Virgin Australia has reasonable business / first class to Hawaii, too.

 

This year we drove to Los Angeles and got on the Star Princess. We went 28 days to the South Pacific. Princess does a lot of long cruises from Florida or CA through the Panama Canal, South America, Mexico, all over the Pacific, to Australia. They are good about customizing cruise itineraries so you take partial transits.

 

You don't have to fly long distances to get a great long cruise, if that's what you want.

 

We like this. Our Australia cruise was 33 nights, and Princess was 28. The best way to find them is to sign up for emails from all your favorite cruise lines (if you haven't already).

 

The 24 hours flight is what stops me. Even an 8 hour flight takes 3 days for me to recover.

 

I am not interested in a long cruise anyway, although I do love cruises. However, I am usually ready to get off after 8 days or so, even on Celebrity, the cruise line I like best. As I said, I would prefer to take a land trip to Europe and stay several months, and perhaps do a couple of short cruises while there.

Edited November 17, 2013 by momofmeg

[momofmeg]

We also saved while we were working, paid off our house early, and pay cash for what we buy.

 

That is us. Although, hubby does love electronic gadgets, but he waits, as he knows having the latest and greatest costs, he waits a couple of years until the cost goes WAAAAY down before buying them.

[momofmeg]

Whatever the government doles out to 91-year olds who don't have the means to support themselves, it will not include golf or skydiving. Even now, Medicare does not cover eyeglasses, hearing aids or dental care. Provided I don't get run over while bicycling someday, I want to age as comfortably as possible, paying for help when and where I need it.

 

One story relevant to travel: a friend in her 50s, who's a lawyer and the General Counsel of a local bank, and who regularly takes scuba trips to the Caribbean with her husband, told me once that they'd just deeded their house over to their adult kids. It was the beginning of a very long-term plan to impoverish themselves on paper so they'd have Medicaid for nursing home care.

 

I wanted to smack her upside the head.

 

I do not agree with that either. People do that so they can leave their children money. I say children can work for their own. The only exception I can see is if you have an adult child who has downs syndrome or another serious issue which prevents them from being able to support themselves.

 

There are government programs for the indigent mentally handicapped so perhaps that would not be necessary for DS. Maybe tha tis a bad example, besides they rarely out live their parents.

 

But not so much for someone that is severely bi-polor. Those are the ones that end up homeless. In such a case as that I could see doing what your lawyer friend did.

[Gloria Mundi]

I'm surprised no one else is considering, or at least discussing, Continuing Care Retirement Communities. My father is living in a CCRC and I'm completely sold on the idea. Is anyone else planning this for their final years? We are.

 

Absolutely. There's one near us and I read an article about some ladies in their 90s working on a prairie grass restoration project, including installing birdhouses built in the woodworking shop by other residents. That's the kind of life I want in my 90s. You have to choose CCRCs carefully; most of them take a good chunk of money up front in return for a promise to take care of you the rest of your life and you could have a couple of decades left. Some have run into financial trouble. My grandfather lived in one till his death at 95 and it worked very well for him.

[CaroleSS]

 

One story relevant to travel: a friend in her 50s, who's a lawyer and the General Counsel of a local bank, and who regularly takes scuba trips to the Caribbean with her husband, told me once that they'd just deeded their house over to their adult kids. It was the beginning of a very long-term plan to impoverish themselves on paper so they'd have Medicaid for nursing home care.

 

I wanted to smack her upside the head.

 

Something to think about concerning this.....we have good friends who are doing the same thing, but with regard to their family farm. As it stands now, if they were to die, they would have to pay enough in estate taxes to the government, that the kids would have to sell a good part of the farm to pay the taxes.

 

Our friends are simply trying to protect a farm that has been in their family for generations. Gift taxes allow them to cede portions of the farm to the kids every year. It has nothing to do with creating "trust children" or giving something to the kids so they don't have to work - as maintaining a farm is very hard work.

 

Also, if your friend thinks that Medicaid will pay for a nice nursing home, she is quite mistaken!

[Gloria Mundi]

Something to think about concerning this.....we have good friends who are doing the same thing, but with regard to their family farm. As it stands now, if they were to die, they would have to pay enough in estate taxes to the government, that the kids would have to sell a good part of the farm to pay the taxes.

 

In that case, sounds like a good strategy; I'm sure the kids are already working the farm anyway so they've got an interest in it.

 

Also, if your friend thinks that Medicaid will pay for a nice nursing home, she is quite mistaken!

 

Yeah, I'm guessing that Medicaid will continue to pay for nursing homes because as a country we're not into letting indigent old people die on the street, but as the government struggles to foot the bills they're going to be more and more like warehouses.

[pcur]

Both my "elders" live in a Brookdale CCRC, one in Independent, and the other in Memory Care.

 

We live in the Central Valley of CA where the costs are lower than No and So CA. Independent is $3,000+ a month in a one bedroom apartment, Assisted is up to $5,000 depending on the level of care required, Memory Care is $5,100 for a double room, and $5,900 for a single. Medications are a separate cost and not included.

 

The Skilled Nursing there is the best in the area, and that costs about $8,500 for a double room.

 

So, aging in place, which is what a CCRC is all about, costs between $30,000 and $100,000 a year here. Only the SNF accepts MediCal.

 

They have around 4-5% increases annually.

 

Dad will run out of his savings in a little over 2 years, and we will either have to move him to the other Memory Care place across town that is cheaper, or he will have to go to the on-premise SNF and apply for MediCal. But, he's on hospice so it's a gamble as to what will happen next. He may improve; he may pass.

 

The problem with getting to be over 90 is that the human body just starts to breakdown, and aging happens in plateaus. You can go for decades and then suddenly develop some serious problem. That's what happened to my Dad. Also, minor problems become much more serious as the body gets really old. I mean, how many things do we know about that last over 90 years?

 

So, more power to everyone who is golfing and gardening in their 90's. But, trust me, it's a limited amount of time at that age.

 

I love all the "octo's" and "nona's" (80 - 90, and 90 - 100) I see on cruises. I love that they are still enjoying their lives that much!!

 

As for hubby and I: the Magic Spreadsheet says we're good until 100, and yes, I have miniscule SS cost of living raises built in. I plan for the worst and hope for the best.

[kelmac]

True, those who meet certain income thresholds do,pay taxes on some of their SS benefit, but the majority of retirees do not. We are likely to be in the "pay" group. It's one of the reasons we plan on holding off on collecting until we are 70--provided our health holds of course. Yet another reason the government treats responsible people unfairly In retirement. Those who saved and/or take a tripod approach (like you) will be penalized while those who didn't plan well will not. It's very frustrating.

 

Regardless of what the citizens want, the economics of it will dictate what happens with SS, and the bottom line is that there is no way the system is sustainable in it's current form, particularly as the last of the Boomers begin to collect. There will have to be changes made, and they will (and should) be painful to many. The only other option will be a huge increase in SS withholding, and I suspect that will be a far less attractive option to the majority of voters. I just hope I can get back at least what I'll end up paying in, never mind the compound interest I would have collected by investing on my own. It's not looking all that promising.

 

 

Autocorrect responsible for most typos...

 

Everyone that makes more than $20,000 in retirement (including Social Security), pays taxes. So, I think most people who retire do have to pay Federal and State taxes (unless their state does not have income tax).

If we upped the SS withholding from the maximum $113,700 to $150,000 it would fix Social Security for many, many years to come. As it stands now, people only pay Social Security on income up to $113,700.

 

Enjoy!

Kel:)

[pcur]

Everyone that makes more than $20,000 in retirement (including Social Security), pays taxes. So, I think most people who retire do have to pay Federal and State taxes (unless their state does not have income tax).

If we upped the SS withholding from the maximum $113,700 to $150,000 it would fix Social Security for many, many years to come. As it stands now, people only pay Social Security on income up to $113,700.

 

Enjoy!

Kel:)

 

I have always thought my entire life that we should pay SS tax on all our income. it's a retirement fund that we pay into, and it's easier than diverting the same amount of money into a personal account mid-year. Most people (me included) would just be happy for a larger paycheck for the rest of the year instead of saving it for retirement.

[ducklite]

I have always thought my entire life that we should pay SS tax on all our income. it's a retirement fund that we pay into, and it's easier than diverting the same amount of money into a personal account mid-year. Most people (me included) would just be happy for a larger paycheck for the rest of the year instead of saving it for retirement.

 

Most of us will not get back what we've put in, so I'm not at all in favor of this. If all income will be taxed, then we need to have no cap in SS payouts like we do now.

 

 

Autocorrect responsible for most typos...

[ducklite]

Everyone that makes more than $20,000 in retirement (including Social Security), pays taxes. So, I think most people who retire do have to pay Federal and State taxes (unless their state does not have income tax).

If we upped the SS withholding from the maximum $113,700 to $150,000 it would fix Social Security for many, many years to come. As it stands now, people only pay Social Security on income up to $113,700.

 

Enjoy!

Kel:)

 

If they are going to up the amount that can be taken out, they need to up the return with no cap.

 

 

Autocorrect responsible for most typos...

[ducklite]

Whatever the government doles out to 91-year olds who don't have the means to support themselves, it will not include golf or skydiving. Even now, Medicare does not cover eyeglasses, hearing aids or dental care. Provided I don't get run over while bicycling someday, I want to age as comfortably as possible, paying for help when and where I need it.

 

One story relevant to travel: a friend in her 50s, who's a lawyer and the General Counsel of a local bank, and who regularly takes scuba trips to the Caribbean with her husband, told me once that they'd just deeded their house over to their adult kids. It was the beginning of a very long-term plan to impoverish themselves on paper so they'd have Medicaid for nursing home care.

 

I wanted to smack her upside the head.

 

We have already begun taking the steps to move some of our assets into trust so that the government can't take them. We want our son to receive our estate, not the government to do with it as it wants.

 

Deeding our house to our son is not in the equation. We are getting ready to purchase a condo which we will rent to him, and in the event of our passing, title will transfer to him. We will likely put him on the deed to make that easier and without estate tax, but that is what an attorney will determine.

 

Our son has some disabilities. He will eventually live mostly independently, but will never be completely self-supporting. He does not qualify for SSDI as his disability isn't severe enough, yet he can't quite manage in this world lie most of us. He's one of the people who would slip through the cracks an most likely end up homeless if we don't plan carefully for him without sacrificing our ability to have a comfortable retirement and beyond.

 

We have continuing care insurance and plan in retaining that coverage I definitely so we don't need the government, but you can plan and plan and insure to the hilt and still have a catastrophic situation change your life. The more we can shelter assets, the more our son will,have a safety net for his future.

 

Autocorrect responsible for most typos...

Edited November 17, 2013 by ducklite

[pcur]

Most of us will not get back what we've put in, so I'm not at all in favor of this. If all income will be taxed, then we need to have no cap in SS payouts like we do now.

 

 

Autocorrect responsible for most typos...

 

I actually ran the numbers several years ago, and with my life expectancy (my mother lived to be 88, for instance, and my grandfather born in 1880 lived to 85) I will get lots more back than I put in.

 

You are correct about a living will/family trust. We got one of those several years back. I expect to pay my own way all the way through, but I want my son's to pay no taxes on what's left.

[ducklite]

I actually ran the numbers several years ago, and with my life expectancy (my mother lived to be 88, for instance, and my grandfather born in 1880 lived to 85) I will get lots more back than I put in.

 

You are correct about a living will/family trust. We got one of those several years back. I expect to pay my own way all the way through, but I want my son's to pay no taxes on what's left.

 

If SS stays the same as it is now. The likelihood of that happening is slim, because it is simply not sustainable. Either there will be a big tax increase (doubtful) or benefits will be reduced (probable) or cut entirely to those who were responsible enough to save for retirement and can't pass the means test (almost definitely). Those who paid in the most will most likely get back the least in the future.

 

 

Autocorrect responsible for most typos...

[Gloria Mundi]

I actually ran the numbers several years ago, and with my life expectancy (my mother lived to be 88, for instance, and my grandfather born in 1880 lived to 85) I will get lots more back than I put in.

 

It looks like less of a good deal if you factor in the dollar-for-dollar match your employers put in over the years. And don't forget the taxes you'll pay on it. My 75-year old husband never made more than $60K annually and has no other retirement income beyond SS and a minimum IRA distribution of $700 but last year 1/4 of every dollar he got from SS went back to the government in the form of taxes. That's our punishment for being legally married and that percentage will only increase as the government scrambles for money. My financial plan is built on the assumption that my SS will be taxed away- not that 100% of it will be taxable but that I will get nothing.

Edited November 17, 2013 by Gloria Mundi

[CaroleSS]

Hey, I plan to rob a bank with a gun and wait for the police to show up!!!

 

I'll get 3 hot meals a day, a roof over my head and free medical care for life!! What else could I ask for?!?!?!?!? :eek::D:eek::D

[ksimpso3]

Hey, I plan to rob a bank with a gun and wait for the police to show up!!!

 

I'll get 3 hot meals a day, a roof over my head and free medical care for life!! What else could I ask for?!?!?!?!? :eek::D:eek::D....

 

My B-I-L always jokes thats what his retirement plan is (I know it isn't funny but that's how he is )...but he said the key to the plan is robbing a federal bank so you go to a federal prison...he says they're basically like country clubs. Oh well...at least he has a plan ;)....just kidding.

 

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Forums mobile app

[momofmeg]

If SS stays the same as it is now. The likelihood of that happening is slim, because it is simply not sustainable. Either there will be a big tax increase (doubtful) or benefits will be reduced (probable) or cut entirely to those who were responsible enough to save for retirement and can't pass the means test (almost definitely). Those who paid in the most will most likely get back the least in the future.

 

 

Autocorrect responsible for most typos...

 

You know, you could drop dead from a stroke too. My father inlaw did at age 66 and he had just had his annual checkup and was given a clean bill of health. He also worked out and ate healthy and did not have the usual middle age/ old age belly. However my MIL who has never taken care of herself is approaching 80. Overall she is doing quite well too.

 

Bottom line we can't product the future and not matter how well we plan, who can say if it will help us? Nothing is a sure thing I however do not stress over what I have no control over. We plan for retirement and I take care of myself as best I can. The rest I leave up to my heavenly father. I am not going to worry about what I cannot change.

[CaroleSS]

You know, you could drop dead from a stroke too. My father inlaw did at age 66 and he had just had his annual checkup and was given a clean bill of health. He also worked out and ate healthy and did not have the usual middle age/ old age belly. However my MIL who has never taken care of herself is approaching 80. Overall she is doing quite well too.

 

Bottom line we can't product the future and not matter how well we plan, who can say if it will help us? Nothing is a sure thing I however do not stress over what I have no control over. We plan for retirement and I take care of myself as best I can. The rest I leave up to my heavenly father. I am not going to worry about what I cannot change.

 

In that case.....I'm having ice cream for breakfast tomorrow!!!! :p

[momofmeg]

In that case.....I'm having ice cream for breakfast tomorrow!!!! :p

 

Well not exactly, I do feel you should take care of yourself, but occasionally give yourself a treat. I also say you should plan for the future the best that you can.

 

I do understand what she is getting at. My mom was afraid she had not saved enough, she felt she had enough for the next 10 years and then she would be in trouble. Our daughter was a young teen at the time and I told her, not to worry as by then we would have her through college and we could help easily her with expenses if needed. It was not needed, she died after having open heart surgery a few years later at age 71. I and my siblings inherited $50,000 each.

 

Now my fatherinlaw left my MIL well cared for financially, we will help if we need to, but I think we will help more by physically caring for her, as we have agreed a nursing home would only be a last resort. That is still in the future though as she still lives on her own, we did help take care of her last year when she ended up in the hospital for a week, it took her a good 2 months to recover her strength so we took turns staying with her.

 

Anyway, that is why I say what I say.

[Sailor_Sally]

 

Bottom line we can't product the future and not matter how well we plan, who can say if it will help us?.

 

Absolutely ! I thought I knew what my future held until I was widowed suddenly at 51. Life throws you curve balls when you least expect it .

Edited November 18, 2013 by Sailor_Sally