Dedicated to Deposits: Deals, Data, and Discussion
Featured Savings Rates
Featured Accounts
Back to Investments

Seventy - The Right Age To Retire???

Thursday, November 21, 2013 - 4:31 PM
From MarketWatch.com:

Is 70 the 'right' retirement age? - Encore - MarketWatch

"The answer seems to be twofold. For many people, 70 is a perfectly appropriate age for retirement. Their Social Security benefit will be 76% higher than if they retired at 62 – one of the best-kept secrets in America! And retiring at 70 provides time for 401(k) balances to grow and dramatically reduces the number of years requiring support. At the same time, the strong and increasing relationship between earnings and life expectancy means that any system must be flexible enough to accommodate those for whom 70 is an impossible age."

I don't know what is the bottom-line conclusion of this article is (vague at best); but some comments below her article said it rightly.  The longer the age expectancy only means more years to enjoy retirement; not to retire later.  And most people (including myself) get sick (btoh physically and mentally) with their work at 65, if not earlier.  And my comments:

People can lose their job any time; it is not controllable by us.

The real and truthful conclusion out of these statistics should be: Work hard, Enjoy life, Save by prudent and frugal living --- at any age.  The rest: Let it be...  The future is not for us to see...
8
51hh51hh1,461 posts since
Jan 16, 2010
Rep Points: 6,351
1. Thursday, November 21, 2013 - 5:22 PM
That article is from the real Twilight Zone.  If the elderly get to work until 70 years old, there will be even less jobs for the younger people.  I'll tell you one reason it will never happen and it's a financial reality.  If an employee stays with a company for many years and are good workers their salaries go up.  By the time they are in their 60's much less 70's they are finally making the really good salaries they dreamed of making and their companies had nightmares of their making.  It is not financially feasible for companies to keep all of these higher salaried employees until they are in their 70's and their pensions (if they are still giving them) will be even more.  As for their waiting until 70 to get their social security that is a joke.  Boy!  Wouldn't the government get to save tons of money when so many of these same people become deceased and they don't have to pay them but a couple of years of social security.  It will never happen no matter how many umbrellas these workers hold on to. 

Frankly as much as I hated to see my own DP get tanked so early, if I was the CEO of a company and our bottom line was important to me especially if the company wasn't doing as great as I needed it to do, I would have to get rid of the higher paid employees and rehire cheaper young people.  Even if it meant retraining them the cost would be less than keeping the higher paid employees.  I, of course, would start the younger people at a good salary to make sure I got only the best for the job.
3
paoli2paoli21,142 posts since
Aug 10, 2011
Rep Points: 5,094
2. Thursday, November 21, 2013 - 7:34 PM
135 of the 200 CEO's in the Business Roundtable have signed and sent to the congressional commitee working on the budget, a signed commitment for their support that 70 should be the new retirement age. Below is taken from an article ---

The other group  is the Business Roundtable, a 40-year-old club for about 200 of America’s most powerful CEOs. The Roundtable doesn’t sugarcoat. They want everybody to work until age 70 before they can get Social Security.

These are people who are sitting on massive nest eggs of their own. According to a new report by the Institute for Policy Studies, and the Center for Effective Government, Business Roundtable CEOs have retirement accounts worth $14.5 million on average. That’s enough to generate a monthly retirement check of $86,043 starting at age 65. By contrast, the average monthly Social Security check is only $1,237.
5
AllyAlly778 posts since
Jan 16, 2010
Rep Points: 2,266
3. Thursday, November 21, 2013 - 8:12 PM
How does $14.5M generate $86,043 monthly check?  if we do the common 4% withdrawal, the annual check will be $580K or $48,333 monthly.  Sorry, maybe I am rusty on my Math or missing something:-)
3
51hh51hh1,461 posts since
Jan 16, 2010
Rep Points: 6,351
4. Thursday, November 21, 2013 - 8:19 PM
This was copied and pasted from an article I read this morning. I assume retiring later as most professionals do you would collect fewer years and be able to take a larger % out. This is a link to, I think,  the same article. 


http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/platinum_plated_pensions 
1
AllyAlly778 posts since
Jan 16, 2010
Rep Points: 2,266
5. Thursday, November 21, 2013 - 9:12 PM
Thanks, the number came from the annual withdrawal combined with social security; have no idea how those rich folks social security check looks like (in $$), anyone?

The more important question is why do they ever need social security to complement their filthy-rich monthly retirement check??
4
51hh51hh1,461 posts since
Jan 16, 2010
Rep Points: 6,351
6. Thursday, November 21, 2013 - 9:35 PM
The only way I can answer that question is to say for some having enough is never enough. 
3
AllyAlly778 posts since
Jan 16, 2010
Rep Points: 2,266
7. Thursday, November 21, 2013 - 10:15 PM
#2 I read that article you posted and I can't find anything about:

135 of the 200 CEO's in the Business Roundtable have signed and sent to the congressional commitee working on the budget, a signed commitment for their support that 70 should be the new retirement age. Below is taken from an article ---"

Where did you find that statement?

They are just concerned with making people wait until 70 years old before getting social security.  What gaul they have.  They have deficits in their own programs and they are sitting on tons of personal wealth and social security yet they want to keep others from getting social security until 70.  What if someone really needs their social security?  I can almost guarantee you they have no concern for keeping their workers until 70 years old.  I have no idea where you could have gotten that info.  These are the type of CEOs that probably are only looking out for their own financial interests.   I would like to write my own letter to my senators about 70 not being the new age for social security.  I think it is very selfish of these men to want to deny SS to others until 70 when they are milking all they can get for themselves from social security and have tons of personal wealth.  

  I think if they have sent a statement to congress about 70 being the new retirement age, congress should find a way to force ALL businesses to keep workers employed until 70 if the worker chooses to be.  So please let me know where you found that statement so I can get my letters out.  I did not see it in the article.  Thanks!
3
paoli2paoli21,142 posts since
Aug 10, 2011
Rep Points: 5,094
8. Friday, November 22, 2013 - 5:34 AM
To #7

I read it on a blog in the morning yesterday. I copied and pasted the 2 paragraphs to a friend. When I read this on Ken's blog and went back to the sent folder and copied and pasted those two paragraphs here. I had deleted the deletes  from the original article and googled the link above. I am not sure what blog I originally read in the morning. It was from a google alert.  If I find it today I will PM you. 
1
AllyAlly778 posts since
Jan 16, 2010
Rep Points: 2,266
9. Friday, November 22, 2013 - 8:02 AM
I would have preferred to wait until age 66 to start taking my earned Social Security benefit (not an entitlement). One Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve Chairman, put a monkey wrench in those plans with his QE and ZIRP.

I needed to draw on Social Security at age 62 to off-set the lost income resulting from the historically low deposit account interest rates. Basic expenses and unexpected home and auto repairs have to be covered. With intermittent health issues working part-time was not an option. Of course following Bernanke's, and now probably Yellen's, advice I should have put all my funds into the stock market and waited for another 2000, 2003 or 2008 to occur and lose half of everything.

Each person has different reasons for entering retirement at the age they do. I don't need a group of CEOs, in the top 1%, to lecture me to wait until I'm 70. In respect, I find it quite hypocritical on their part, since their corporations probably discriminate in their hiring policies against those over the age of 50.
7
ShorebreakShorebreak2,371 posts since
Apr 6, 2010
Rep Points: 12,658
10. Friday, November 22, 2013 - 8:16 AM
SB,

Well-said.

"Each person has different reasons for entering retirement at the age they do." 

It is not a matter of choice for most people; they had to do it, either due to job situations, health status, financial needs, or a combination of several factors. 
5
51hh51hh1,461 posts since
Jan 16, 2010
Rep Points: 6,351
11. Friday, November 22, 2013 - 3:57 PM
"David Cote, the CEO of Honeywell, has more than $134 million in his personal retirement fund. If I were sitting on a nest egg that big, I might feel a bit sheepish about telling ordinary grandmas and grandpas to take a cut in their Social Security payments."

CEOs Against Grandmas
5
ShorebreakShorebreak2,371 posts since
Apr 6, 2010
Rep Points: 12,658
12. Friday, November 22, 2013 - 5:04 PM
"David Cote, the CEO of Honeywell, has more than $134 million in his personal retirement fund. If I were sitting on a nest egg that big, I might feel a bit sheepish about telling ordinary grandmas and grandpas to take a cut in their Social Security payments."

CEOs Against Grandmas

We'll build him a fancy pyramid full of milk and honey with his leftover after he dies.  :D

4
51hh51hh1,461 posts since
Jan 16, 2010
Rep Points: 6,351
Reply