Dept. of Ups and Downs
Saturday, 16 May 2015 05:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kaffy_rSaturday Evening, and I Wish I Were Older
Well, we can scratch that plan of retiring when I'm 62 off the agenda. First, someone reminded me that although I can retire when I'm 62, I won't be eligible for Medicare until I'm 65.
And then I found out that I actually don't get 100% of my Social Security pension until I'm 66 years and two months old, not 65, as I'd assumed. That was an unpleasant surprise that came to me rather late, since the changes went into effect after a 1983 change in the law, and yes, I managed to miss it over the 32 intervening years, as I suspect a lot of people did (but seriously, kaffyr ... seriously? You, a reporter, managed to miss this rather huge change that was undoubtedly talked about at length publicly?) So if I actually quit when I was 62, I'd only get 74 percent or so of my pension. Augh. Not doable, not in the least.
This threatened to screw over my day - and, given that my shrink declined today to prescribe me the kind of anti-anxiety help that my two other doctors thought I should have on hand for emergencies, instead upping my regular dose of gabapentin instead - screwing over my day was not something I wanted to deal with.
And then I decided not to let it get me down. If I can manage to last even four more years, I'll get over 90 percent of my pension, and it will give me four more years to put into my 401K as well. And that's all to the good.
To be truthful, I think part of my desire to quit when I'm 62 is my belief that my current employer is going to try to break the union in 2017; I'm not sure it won't be successful, and the thought of working in a non-union environment, or losing any of the benefits that I worked very hard over the last few decades to gain, was filling me with a lot of not-so-nebulous dread.
Still - four years and change? I can do it ... maybe not standing on my head, but I can do it.
Well, we can scratch that plan of retiring when I'm 62 off the agenda. First, someone reminded me that although I can retire when I'm 62, I won't be eligible for Medicare until I'm 65.
And then I found out that I actually don't get 100% of my Social Security pension until I'm 66 years and two months old, not 65, as I'd assumed. That was an unpleasant surprise that came to me rather late, since the changes went into effect after a 1983 change in the law, and yes, I managed to miss it over the 32 intervening years, as I suspect a lot of people did (but seriously, kaffyr ... seriously? You, a reporter, managed to miss this rather huge change that was undoubtedly talked about at length publicly?) So if I actually quit when I was 62, I'd only get 74 percent or so of my pension. Augh. Not doable, not in the least.
This threatened to screw over my day - and, given that my shrink declined today to prescribe me the kind of anti-anxiety help that my two other doctors thought I should have on hand for emergencies, instead upping my regular dose of gabapentin instead - screwing over my day was not something I wanted to deal with.
And then I decided not to let it get me down. If I can manage to last even four more years, I'll get over 90 percent of my pension, and it will give me four more years to put into my 401K as well. And that's all to the good.
To be truthful, I think part of my desire to quit when I'm 62 is my belief that my current employer is going to try to break the union in 2017; I'm not sure it won't be successful, and the thought of working in a non-union environment, or losing any of the benefits that I worked very hard over the last few decades to gain, was filling me with a lot of not-so-nebulous dread.
Still - four years and change? I can do it ... maybe not standing on my head, but I can do it.
no subject
Date: Sunday, 17 May 2015 02:56 pm (UTC)(For your purely intellectual edification and strictly to provide you with yet another fact you don't really need, a 401k is the term used to refer to an American banking method of saving for retirement. While one is working, one can put the money into the account and not be taxed on it. Once you begin using the account, at retirement, it becomes taxable. Back in the 1980s, many American companies switched from providing pensions to opening 401k bank accounts for their employees, and having employees choose whether or not to put money away in them. In some companies, the 401k participation was mandatory. I have my own thoughts about companies that chose to do that, but I'll spare you them.)
no subject
Date: Monday, 18 May 2015 01:51 am (UTC)Ah, so 401K is like what they call superannuation down here in Shiteville. For some value of 'like', anyway. Oddly enough, a few hours before I saw your post above, I had asked a friend to explain 'super' to me; it seems that there's a definite resemblance to the deducted pension contributions back home (the ones that eventually become the 'old age pension' that OAP stands for - or at least became, since I've no idea what fresh evils the Ire/UK overlords might have wrought on the pension systems since I left), except that the public are strongly encouraged to look after their own super funds - where 'encouraged' means 'nannystate brainwashing by lazy uncaring governments who want each retiree-in-potentia to shoulder the entire burden of pension management'). Of course it's all mysterious and creepy to me, since I believe in the work -> eat, don't work -> starve tooth-claw-red-nature thingummy, where 'work' means 'render service of sufficient value to get another person or other persons to look after your needs and luxuries' (and yes, such service can consist of being excellent enough company that said person or persons would be willing to carry the cost of your support) 0_0