Quote:
Originally Posted by pjohns
It truly does seem odd to me that so many people appear to assume that retirement automatically means less income. (The widow living on nothing but a Social Security check--and with "more month than money," as the old saying goes--is the prototype for this.)
I retired over 15 years ago; and I am currently far better off, financially, than I ever was previously.
Of course, my particular case should not be viewed as emblematic of everyone else.
But neither should that widow, living on "nothing but a Social Security check," be seen as typical of all.
Comments?
|
The term, I believe, is 'replaceable income'.
When one is no longer actively receiving income from employment, and is relying on what has been saved plus investments (if they have them) and social security, they don't have a method of replacing what is spent, or if it happens, emergency medical costs, loss of a spouse (if there is one) or other various unexpected expenses. If they take into consideration their personal health situation and current expenses, average number of years in future retirement, and divide that into what they actually have in the way of funds or assets they could liquidate, they may adjust their style of living accordingly.
As to the 'Widow living on a Social Security check', you have to remember, back in the day women were not the primary earner in the house, and many were financially ignorant. The average Joe didn't have major investments, much life insurance or money squirreled away. The loss of a spouse quite often meant loss of a house, and other assets to pay off debts.
Things have change, some. People in general have become more financially savvy, with some exceptions. However, those who rely just on Social Security as their retirement means, will always be with us.