I would hope that all teachers would be brought up to the 62K level or districts are going to have a lot of unhappy teachers in the fall.
Retirement Targets
- Thread starter yowza
- Start date
If they retire and come back as beginning teachers but at 62, would the district save money?
I find it plausible that a couple can retire with $100,000 or $200,000 in savings (including IRAs, 401ks). But to me, the big unknown is if someday you need long-term care, or you both do. That insurance is costly. So without it, how long will your savings last? A year? 18 months?I hate everything about this article, but its interesting nonetheless.
Do we really need $1M in retirement savings? Not even close, one top economist says
A prominent economist argues that you can retire on savings much less than $1 million.www.yahoo.com
One of my grandmothers lived for years and years in a Perry nursing home. She was destitute so I guess Medicaid handled her costs. But from what I saw, that's not what any of us would choose.
I doubt it, districts that are doing this are doing a solid for their employees allowing them to draw IPERS and continue working. Most are not looking at saving money for the district. I suppose most are worried that they cannot find a replacement and therefore keep the teacher from retiring.
The ones that I knew that went back to work, stayed at their same spot on the salary scale that they were at when they left.
Basically he is saying SSI is enough to retire on and get by. That's probably true if you have your house paid off, don't have major medical expenses, don't want to live large, and still be frugal. You're not travelling the globe on $46k annual. But then, that's the original point of SSI - keep the elderly poor from being totally poverty stricken. $46k annual should keep a roof over your head and food on the table, but it may not be what you hoped for in retirement.
I mean, my folks are getting by on Dad's IPERs and SSI, and that's probably around that same 50k annual range. They have a little bit of other savings as well, maybe $200k(?) for emergencies. But their house is paid off, they don't live large by any means (Village Inn is their "nice restaurant"). And $50k goes a lot further in Iowa than it does on the coasts. If they were making $1k monthly mortgage or rent payment, it would be a heck of a lot tighter.
The biggest assumption (other than health care) is that SSI continues to exist (and/or exist at the levels it pays now). I am not counting on it, and I am only 10 years away from eligibility.
It blows my mind you could retire at age 65 and have less then $100,000 saved. If you invested $50 a month for 45 years and got 5% interest you will have $100k.
Youngsters …. nothing beats TIME!!!
Youngsters …. nothing beats TIME!!!
People are straight up bad with money. Had a friend tell me they didn't save for retirement because they didn't think they'd live that long.
They're still alive.
Throw in the "401k is a scam" crowd and it's a mess. I'm not a big nanny state guy, but automatic 401k participation could be the only thing between a nice retirement and cat food.
Agree with everything except the last part, SS is going nowhere, and both sides know that. Too many people have paid into the system to long for either side to tell the public its going away or will be cut down for future generations. This problem will have to reach the critical point before they do anything, but in the end they will raise cap, should eliminate it, but it will be raised, the left will allow the retirement age to be increased.
I was bad for years and have been using the "catch up" amounts to get me to a decent place.
Agree. However, there will need to be a generation of leaders that actually act like adults, and stop looking so selfishly at the situation. In all honesty the baby boomers have been a very poor generation of governmental leaders in regards to benefits now vs. debt on our children and grandchildren. (IMO).
Don't forget that if that $46k is combined social security from 2 people that a good chunk goes away should one of them die. It might suddenly fall to $30k and is that then enough to live on?
Wall Street gets your money and then they steal it with price drops, fees, etc. It's all a casino. Etc.
The rich elites "in the know" invest in hedge funds and private equity, and you can't access it because you are a peasant.
Until you join the Stonecutters, you're on the outside.
Yeah, both sides will demonize the other and will fight to the end. But in the end, the only solutions are raise the cap, raise the full-benefit age, and means testing.
Likely it will be a bit of all 3. Works for me. People are living longer, can't overpromise benefits. And why does Bill Gates or Oprah need SSI? It all is pretty logical and straightforward, but then you can't attack your opponent (and get those sweet sweet campaign contributions) by solving the problem, for heavens sake.
And they stole pension access and replaced it with the crooked 401k.
So obviously don't put money in the 401k. Only suckers do that. Real smart money goes into real estate or whatever the person is selling.
The one I know that is doing that needs the savings. They have a huge hole from administration that is top heavy and is losing students quite a bit.
Last edited:
Their solution will be time. Once the boomers start dieing off, Xers had a higher birth rate and replaced themselves better than the boomers. This will get the retired people to people working ratio in a better place. So once again, the forgotten Xers will take the beating but fix the problem.
Genuinely curious, how? I'm over the $200k mark at 32 and I feel like I'm behind. Certain professions with pensions maybe I could see it, but anyone who has to live off 401k's, Roth's and other savings plus SS, that number seems extremely low.
Sometimes it doesn't matter how much money you got. You can pay and it's basically same level of service and location. I've known some who definitely had means to pay and they were in homes with those who could not. They didn't get any real perks.
I think the thing is everyone wants to live to be 90 and die in their sleep in their own bed in their house.
I don't think they should raise the age. Many occupations that take their toll physically and you don't realize when you are young how much wear is being put on your joints, back, neck, etc. When you are 20s and 30s you are immortal.
