4 ms·

What a horrific ageist and bigoted comment. This literally could mean the difference between living independently or not for a lot of people. Not to mention e

What a horrific ageist and bigoted comment. This literally could mean the difference between living independently or not for a lot of people. Not to mention everybody working today with a 401k as their retirement plan will lose value no matter their age, which means they have to work longer than planned. This is a real life impact to a lot of people.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> This literally could mean the difference between living independently or not for a lot of people. Given that quality of assistive care matters, it could literally mean the difference between living and not for people. Of course, on the other hand, so could runaway inflation for lots of people into the same age group (not every elderly person is self-sufficient on retirement income; many are supported by younger, working family members.)
- thehappypm 5y ago
  If your retirement portfolio crumbles with a stock market correction when you’re actively retired, you have made terrible investment choices.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    I have no idea why you thought that a subthread on estate tax and what it says about younger people's interest in older folks savings was the most germane place to post that, but I hope you feel better having gotten it off your chest.
pastor_bob 5y ago
If you're in all stocks (growth particularly) and retired, you're living pretty foolishly.
- nightski 5y ago
  Depends. If you plan to draw down your savings to 0 to survive retirement maybe. But if you have enough saved up for a safe withdrawal rate to survive retirement, why not keep it invested normally and have more for your inheritors?
thehappypm 5y ago
I don’t think I am obligated to care. Retirees who are fortunate enough to have substantial retirement assets should take precautions against risk. If they haven’t then that’s their problem. I’m retiring in 30 years, my retirement accounts are all stocks. If I was 65 I’d have my 401(k) heavily in bonds and fixed income. Anything else is just greed.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

dragonwriter 5y ago

> This literally could mean the difference between living independently or not for a lot of people. Given that quality of assistive care matters, it could literally mean the difference between living and not for people. Of course, on the other hand, so could runaway inflation for lots of people into the same age group (not every elderly person is self-sufficient on retirement income; many are supported by younger, working family members.)

thehappypm 5y ago
If your retirement portfolio crumbles with a stock market correction when you’re actively retired, you have made terrible investment choices.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  I have no idea why you thought that a subthread on estate tax and what it says about younger people's interest in older folks savings was the most germane place to post that, but I hope you feel better having gotten it off your chest.

pastor_bob 5y ago

If you're in all stocks (growth particularly) and retired, you're living pretty foolishly.

nightski 5y ago
Depends. If you plan to draw down your savings to 0 to survive retirement maybe. But if you have enough saved up for a safe withdrawal rate to survive retirement, why not keep it invested normally and have more for your inheritors?

thehappypm 5y ago

I don’t think I am obligated to care. Retirees who are fortunate enough to have substantial retirement assets should take precautions against risk. If they haven’t then that’s their problem. I’m retiring in 30 years, my retirement accounts are all stocks. If I was 65 I’d have my 401(k) heavily in bonds and fixed income. Anything else is just greed.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]