Post #393 by onepoorguy on the Retirement Investing board

Personal Finance Topics / Retirement Investing

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (9)

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

No. of Recommendations: 2

Probably not.

As I recall, SS was only meant to provide subsistence for non-working elderly. I believe the retirement age at that time was about the same as the life expectancy at that time. As life expectancy rose, "retirement age" didn't keep pace. So we have average life expectancy in the 70s today, but the retirement age is still in the 60s.

FWIW, I ran one scenario where SS was killed, and we wouldn't receive a penny. The calculators said we still would be fine, so we retired. I'm pretty sure SS isn't going anywhere, even if they ultimately have to reduce benefits in some way. Whatever form it takes, it will still serve as a backstop for us. A buffer. We wouldn't have retired if we needed it to make retirement work.

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

Print the post

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (9)

Prev | Next

Announcements

Retirement Investing FAQ

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

A community forum supporting civilized, and highly helpful, self-educating investors that come together for Shrewdness and merry spirits. These message boards closely follow the look and feel of the old message boards at boards.fool.com prior to the boards redirected to discussion.fool.com. Shrewd'm is not affiliated with the comprehensive and excellent investment website, The Motley Fool (TMF), in any way. The Shrewd commmunity here has owed, and continues to owe, gratitude to The Motley Fool for nurturing a culture of jovial irreverence towards Wall St, and that tradition will continue here.