Posted on 12/31/2017 7:23:49 AM PST by SeekAndFind
I retired at 65 and started SS. My spouse started SS at 62. With money and good health retirement makes every day a Saturday. Enjoy every day. Each day is a blessing. You never know.
You'd probably never forgive yourself!
Regards,
btt n save
-—You never know.-—
I’m on the downside of 75 and still serve clients two or three days a week.
For me, Clint Eastwood is a great model. At 86 he made a new movie from his office of many many years on the studio lot. To keep on keeping on enables one to keep on keeping on.
Think 90
In fact, you personally were #1 in the whole nation (not just in your company, mind you, but rather in the whole United States) for nine of the last ten quarters - though only in your specific field, I expect (used car sales? Fuller brushes? Of course, you needn't answer if you find it embarassing.)
It's only 8:45 p.m. here in Germany, so I still have three and a quarter hours before my New Year's resolution "kicks in" (it's to "eat fewer pistachios," by the way).
I don't mind your calling me an "annoyingly combative cretin" - people unaccustomed to formulating their thoughts in written form often get annoyed when asked to explain what they really meant, and frequently then resort to invective - in spite of the fact that I at no time was impolite to them.
Ok, I’ll rephrase this a bit. Im not sure where your animus lies, this person is not a illegal or welfare parasite, he’s one of millions our govt depends on are you upset he is proud and probably in the 1%? That’s how sales guys are! his Depending on the company or the exact job terms of the role, a senior sales person is not only worth his weight in gold to his company and its clients not just in unquantifiable goodwill but in measurable results for the employer(revenues) and client (cost savings, throughput. Such a person can draw salary and commission and bonus and stock options >= the level a dr or lawyer can without having the responsibilities or demands of those jobs. And they like I can feel good we’re not living off of the taxpayers dime and be unaccountable job wise although it’s absolutely no shame to be fortunate enough to be working even in an overcompensated union position with non-merit based pay and benefits that have been collectively bargained.
That's a mouthful, Phil DiBasquette! But you are imputing to me motives and emotions which are entirely foreign to me. There is absolutely no animus on my side towards Mr. Fields (despite his resorting to insults.) I merely asked Mr. Fields to express himself more clearly.
Regards,
My wife and live in rural Florida and own her family's private cemetery. I mow the 1/2 acre and trim around the headstones every week when the grass grows.
I'll be buried there when I pass.
I tell my wife with my tongue planted firmly in my cheek, "Honey, if I die, make sure to tell me ahead of time so I can mow and trim-up the cemetery so it'll look nice for my funeral."
Looking forward to another successful year of Trump reshaping the political landscape in DC.
Happy New Year to you.
The interesting stat that she told me was Boeing only paid out the average of 18 months after an employee retired at 65.
She showed me the chart. Boeing paid out retirement on the average of only 18 months when an employee retired at 65. Their stats, not mine.
Good on you, where's_the_Outrage?. I am in similar circumstances (re. young dependents).
Regards,
To you, too, HotHunt! Best wishes from Germany.
Regards,
Anyone who has even a little education in finance knows about the “time value of money”. A simple concept that a dollar today is worth more than a dollar a year from today. For secure transactions it usually shows up as an interest rate.
The break-even tables are calculated ignoring the time value of money, almost as if the government skipped class that day. But, if I am even one day late paying them a tax, that department knows all about the time value of money and I am charged interest for making a late payment.
If one accounts for any realistic interest rate, the break even dates get later and later...
everyone re-read this one real closely like.
I can only refer you to the hyperlink, which I cited above and am including again here, refuting that claim:
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18952037
I admit that the article's logical argumentation could be tighter - it cites a compound claim, then asserts that it is incorrect as a whole - but individual parts of it might still be true.
Regards,
I may have been myself unclear. What I meant was:
Suggesting something a category like "the really great guys who make lots of money for the company and always keep the customers happy" cannot be taken seriously.
After all, there's always room for improvement in formulating one's thoughts.
So you see, I have nothing against high-performers - it's simply that a characterization like "high-performers" is unsuited to statistical analysis (at least by governmental officials and in a national scope).
Regards,
General rule of thumb is you have to make it past 80 to make it worth your while to wait past your full retirement date for SS. Look at your parents and grandparents, your lifestyle, and your known issues to make a best guess at your odds.
“Anyone who takes it is accepting welfare. Anyone who depends on it is welfare dependent.”
Bullshit.
What about it? Clarify two things please: 1. What is the “it” that was “paid into”? Are you inferring that one’s labor justifies taking from another? That’s sounds a lot like Marx’ labor theory of value. But then that would pretty much explain Social Security.
Thank you for posting this. I am getting close to retirement age. I appreciated reading this article, and reading other freeper’s opinions.
What is it think you paid into? Your money was taken from you and given to others. Now money is being taken from others and being given to you. Or are you touting the I was told and sold and robbed and they spent it there is plenty of it if it isn’t wasted so I now have a right to it? Guess what Dreamers were promised, students loans are being promised forgiveness, many other workers have had promises made all by the same polticians and governemt hacks that you will probably tell me is why you believe there is a system that you paid into. Are we going to keep those “promises” as well?
No one earns SS in any sense of the word when used to discuss private pensions. If working is how you earn it then Karl Marx is your man.
Social Security itself is a program for which there is no delegated power.
This is why those who argued to the Court that it should be okay painted the Law, the Constitution, that forbade it as a tradition, and not Law.
If the Law is a mere tradition then other traditions can be substituted in its place.
If it is a Law the Court’s hands would be tied.
To demonstrate the abeyance of the FDR era Court I need only turn to Marshall in Marbury.
In Marbury he references the Original Right of those who made the Constitution a Law when they Ratified it. He wrote that this exercise established permanent principals associated with it.
He also discussed why review may be proper, noting that because of the oath of office, which demands fidelity to the Law (which is only what was agreed to by those with the lawful power to ratify it), the Court is obligated by that oath to stand by the Constitution rather than acts of government.
(Fun fact: having justified review only because of the oath, and having said that it would be, in light of making them take that oath, worse than a solemn mockery to then require the Court to close its eyes to the Constitution and only see statute he does in fact admit that officials in other departments — Congress and POTUS — take the oath too. So let me ask you: wouldn’t it be worse than a solemn mockery to require others to close their eyes to the Constitution and only see the opinions of the Court?)
Here’s the rub: an obligation that arises only because of an oath requiring fidelity is NOT a power to justify infidelity, of making **** up as they go along as the modern Court has done.
The Court plays absolutely no role in amending the Constitution and the permanent principals established by exercise of the original right are the Law, not just the mere appearance of words on paper as is the current “official” view.
The Law is not a tradition.
It has not been amended to make Social Security lawful.
I was diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer in 2014 when I was 61. My CPA son and I concluded I would have to live until 79 to break even if I started taking SS at 66.
At the time I was diagnosed, my statistical life expectancy was 3-7 years, so taking SS at 62 was a no-brained.
Fortunately, I am responding extremely well to the treatment I am getting at www.mdanderson.org and I plan on being around for the cure and well into my 70s.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.