These "doors" have been in place for decades. They protect people from dying destitute. The US is a horrible country for helping the elderly compared with Europe.
Europeans have a much much higher tax rate as well, so they get more benefits. In the US we like to have control over our money and not be dependent on the government to provide cradle to grave care. The nanny state can be pretty shoddy, but it IS some form of care.
The problem is, people want to leave their money to their kids or whatever, but it should be there to pay for care when you are old. Shifting money and assets around so you will be eligible for welfare is pretty shady IMO. You let the tax payers pick up the bill for your nursing home, but you are fine leaving a house and money to your kids. What's the difference between that and someone lying about getting food stamps?
What an ass backwards way of thinking...you're damn right I'd rather leave my legacy to my family than give it away for shoddy caregiving, in your own words.
You don't know how expensive caregiving is, if you did you wouldn't making this statement. Minimum $7000 a month and you have no control over it or the care. Do the math and see how long $250,000 keeps you alive. Most people run out of money and end up subsidized anyhow.
Apparently you forgot that people who no longer work paid into retirement benefits as well their whole working life. You want to begrudge people for keeping their money instead of giving it away just so you can have your 40 percent tax break and leave a legacy for your family?
Sometimes just debt, which they intend to die with, hoping they are able to still have access to creditors until they die
Why is a reverse mortgage a big trap? You basically borrow against your home to live off of, and then the bank takes the home when you die? If you don't have kids, or they are well off, and you want to stay in your home, whats wrong with this?
Between me(40) and my wife(36) we still have 2 granfathers and 3 grandmas and all of them manage to spend less than their social security check. Both granddads used to have consulting jobs well into their 70s but not anymore. As one ages, lifestyle naturally becomes more humble and frugal. If you don't need to post more selfies with landmarks than you colleague, you might not really have that urge to travel anymore, etc.
Europeans have a much much higher tax rate as well, so they get more benefits. In the US we like to have control over our money and not be dependent on the government to provide cradle to grave care. The nanny state can be pretty shoddy, but it IS some form of care.
The problem is, people want to leave their money to their kids or whatever, but it should be there to pay for care when you are old. Shifting money and assets around so you will be eligible for welfare is pretty shady IMO. You let the tax payers pick up the bill for your nursing home, but you are fine leaving a house and money to your kids. What's the difference between that and someone lying about getting food stamps?
What an ass backwards way of thinking...you're damn right I'd rather leave my legacy to my family than give it away for shoddy caregiving, in your own words.
You don't know how expensive caregiving is, if you did you wouldn't making this statement. Minimum $7000 a month and you have no control over it or the care. Do the math and see how long $250,000 keeps you alive. Most people run out of money and end up subsidized anyhow.
Apparently you forgot that people who no longer work paid into retirement benefits as well their whole working life. You want to begrudge people for keeping their money instead of giving it away just so you can have your 40 percent tax break and leave a legacy for your family?
Yeah, people playing games with their money so they are eligible for welfare. Why not do it now? Work for cash, or set up a trust so that your personal income is low enough to get food stamps, Medicaid, WIC.. go lie to the SS office and maybe you can get SS disability too.
How about being a responsible person and buying long term care insurance? Not some loafing loser dependent on the government.
You probably vote R and hate all those illegals stealing benefits, yet here you are.
The reality is that many struggle to survive. They live on social security, they have some help from family, and they may resort to reverse mortgages or selling assets.
When my grandma was dying in her nursing home, they took a really big fee every month from her for like a year and took all of her assets. Maybe even after a year and a half in the nursing home had sucked all of her wealth up. Anyways after they took all of her money, I remember she was allowed to continue living there without paying any further. My family did not financially support her at all. No one did.
Similar story here for and Aunt and Uncle of mine.
The median net worth of a couple in their 60s in America is like 260k. That is not enough to live off of. What do the 50% of folks in this bucket do to survive? Is it just living off of social security checks?
They live within their means. SS, Medicaid, other government aid, living in areas that have a lower cost of living and splitting housing costs with other roommates, family members. You do what you need to survive. Nothing new
Sometimes just debt, which they intend to die with, hoping they are able to still have access to creditors until they die
A lot of the above and living very frugally. A family member of mine lives on social security and a small retirement package. She moved to a mill town where she could buy a house outright for 45k, gets clothes as Christmas presents, has an inexpensive car, travels rarely, and has no debt and no dependents. For most of American history, this is how most people got by (except for the car bit).
Having started coaching in 1972, I can give my personal experience about surviving in retirement: I didn't/can't/won't retire. ("RE-tire? Dang, I'm tired already, you mean I gotta get tired again?") Social Security is based on your earnings during your peak years, and most coaches don't earn much--so SS can almost (but not quite) cover my rent, and that's it. If I wanna eat, I gotta work.
Now in my early seventies, and expect to work until I'm physically unable. Another 20 years, anyway.
Sometimes just debt, which they intend to die with, hoping they are able to still have access to creditors until they die
Why is a reverse mortgage a big trap? You basically borrow against your home to live off of, and then the bank takes the home when you die? If you don't have kids, or they are well off, and you want to stay in your home, whats wrong with this?
You pay like $30k (?? it was 20k for my Dad when we looked at it @ 15 years ago) for the privilege of borrowing money from the provider when you go the reverse mortgage route and you get charged a higher interest rate than a regular mortgage.
It's part of the plan to get old, poor people to die quickly so the government no longer has to pay their benefits and get to pocket it. That's why they (Social Security) always advises to hold off taking your benefit until you're 70, knowing damn well most people die within 5 to 10 years after that age.
If you take it at 62, while the benefit is less per month the extra years you receive and thus accrue money will take 12+ years to reach the break even point of waiting until you're 70 for the maximum payout...if it even exists by then.
Important to have any long term debt cleared off and take SS early. You can still work part time (work from home is ideal) and not get penalized if you don't exceed your yearly benefit total and after 66 you could work all you wanted if so desired.
Actually a 70 year old today has a life expectancy of 14 additional years. If you took just social security recipients who wait until they are 70 to collect, it is longer than that as these tend to be healthier people. Your calculation about taking social security at age 62 in order to get more money makes sense if you invest the entire payment each month and don't spend any of it. Obviously, this is something few people do. If you plan to live a long time, and you are making a significant income in your 60's, it clearly pays to wait until you are 70 to collect.
It's part of the plan to get old, poor people to die quickly so the government no longer has to pay their benefits and get to pocket it. That's why they (Social Security) always advises to hold off taking your benefit until you're 70, knowing damn well most people die within 5 to 10 years after that age.
If you take it at 62, while the benefit is less per month the extra years you receive and thus accrue money will take 12+ years to reach the break even point of waiting until you're 70 for the maximum payout...if it even exists by then.
Important to have any long term debt cleared off and take SS early. You can still work part time (work from home is ideal) and not get penalized if you don't exceed your yearly benefit total and after 66 you could work all you wanted if so desired.
Actually a 70 year old today has a life expectancy of 14 additional years. If you took just social security recipients who wait until they are 70 to collect, it is longer than that as these tend to be healthier people. Your calculation about taking social security at age 62 in order to get more money makes sense if you invest the entire payment each month and don't spend any of it. Obviously, this is something few people do. If you plan to live a long time, and you are making a significant income in your 60's, it clearly pays to wait until you are 70 to collect.
This is our plan. Retiring right about when we can take SS, then re-investing that money. The plan, anyway.