people who work for nyc or nys can retire in 25yrs.... can anyone out there explain to me what that means.?
353966
It probably means that if a person has worked for the city or state for 25 years they can draw a retirement.  You should check with whoever it was that was worked for to get particular details.
893353
When are left wing bleeding heart liberals going to realize that a minimum wage job is an entry level job, its not made for people wanting to make a retirement plan out of the stupid thing, its a START! What do you not get about that???? If you don't like the job you do, in your off time you look for other, higher paying jobs! Ignorant libturds trying to make sure some people retire from the Mcdonalds counter.......dumb a-s-s's
267235
they need to save 80% if they arent going to work after that and plan on living another 40 years afterward.\n\nIf they plan to work after that then they should just try and save up enough so that when they retire in 30 years they will have enough. This might be simple or diffucult depending on how much they make.
986054
The greatest Ponzi scheme ever invented will finally collapse b/c of the basic numbers.  There are going to be more baby boomers retiring than workers actually paying into the Social Security system.  Baby boomers will start retiring in the next 4 to 5 years.  And the number of retirees will geometrically progress each year after 2011.  Now for the system to be around in 40 years two things will have to happen.  There will have to be a greater tax burden placed on the generations following the baby boomers in order to support them.  And those who will have to bear that tax will have to encourage population growth for the generations who follow them so there are enough workers to pay into the system.  Personally, I believe it should be abolished.  It is illegal.  Yet, b/c the government runs it, it's okay.
884557
In a fore gone era, people could work at one company and retire with a comfortable retirement fund. Are the retirement plans of today as assured as those in the past? I will compare the old with the new and talk about how Cash Balance Plans improve retirement security for todays workers.
1012922
These people are so silly!  The best thing to do is open an investor account like at ScotTrade.  Put the money in a mutual fund that has a very low Expense Ratio (less than one...say 0.76%.  You can find this info at Morningstar.com...)  Buy into the mutual fund that you choose and even buy more shares with monthly payments into the account.\nYou would be shocked an amazed at what 25 dollars a week will do over thirty-five years.  In fact, if everything keeps going well with the mutual fund, you should be able to retire in 35 years, and that is not counting a 401 you have with a company or even your social security!\nGet to saving now!  Let your money work for you!
756349
If I could put a limit, after 2 years the check would be cut in half, 2 more years and you are ineligible for another 5-10 years.  I have know some people to be born with welfare dollars, live, raise kids, and die all on welfare, and their kids repeat the story.  there's no excuse!!!  I can understand helping the "down-on-their-luck" people, but not for 50 or 60 or more years...AND their children.
1057076
A LOT of things would determine this.\n\nSome people could live on $35,000 a year, some need $75,000 in today's dollars.  It also depends on what type of pension or social security you will be receiving.  Do you have any savings?  Also, at what age do you want to retire, expected life span?  \n\nI don't know anything about you by your question, but here are some numbers I ran yesterday for a 27y.o. wanting to retire at 40.  These were just quick estimates.\n\n\nIdeally, if you retire at 40 and live another 40 years, can obtain a 7% rate of return, and need $40,000 a year for the 40 years in retirement, you need to have a little more than $500,000 in savings by the time you are 40 years old.\n\nYou can reach this $500,000 if you save about $27,000 a year for the next 13 years, given a 7% rate of return. \n\nDepending on your salary, this may be obtainable but you have a lot of work to do since you have basically no savings. Also, I used 7% because thats the average rate of return in the stock market but depending on your investments, it may be more or less. I would take full advantage of your TSP (401k) because all that matching the gov't does will really pay off. Also, it may be tough, but buy very few "wants" and try to stick to spending money on "needs." People usually think it is impossible, but it really isn't. Also, I'm sure you'll want a home at some point and you have to take that into consideration as well. Good luck
183155
I am not sure exactly what your question is asking.  If you retire at 55, but need to access your IRA money right away, you should look into IRS rule 72t.  There are a few different methods of doing this and you need to sit down with a tax advisor to make sure that you do it right.  Click this link for an article that has more info\nhttp://ktla.trb.com/business/yourmoney/sns-yourmoney-0403moneytalk,0,7524444.story\n\nGood Luck!!!
47994
In NY, as in CA, it's @ 25%.  This of course varies on your specic status; married, head of household, etc., and, the number of exemptions you take.
362002
You need to choose a custodian for your IRA, and request the employer to have the lump sum transferred to that custodian.  This will take some planning, filling out forms, etc. Check with HR, and of course with other recent retirees.\n\nIf you plan to retire 2 years or so in the future, just file the info away for future reference.  But a layoff could hit sooner, so it's good to be prepared!
319310
I believe age discrimination is more prevalent in the US than other countries. Although we see the Japanese laying off workers over 55, it is common knowledge this is something that will happen and it is called early retirement. But besides that most Japanese and Europeans get to keep there jobs until this time or until they normally retire. Certainly there are many studies on the socialist societies that protect older workers. \n\nOne thing I have seen develop over the past decade in the US is that there is almost zero loyalty to the employee. Cost cutting and efficencies are priority number one, and older workers are preceived as less driven or capable. In addition, even if you're still young in your 40's, if you're laid off or leave the work force for any length of time it is very very difficult to re-enter at the same level of pay. I believe there are millions of under-employed 40-60 year-olds. \n\nSo in the US it's all about being competitive, it's not about being humanistic and taking care of older people. The US is built around competitive companies and young single people who can work 70 hours a week because they have nothing better to do, nor understand what is important in life. \n\nI think you'll see something happen in US society, maybe protests or even a revolt of the all the baby boomers that are entering retirement age over the next 15 years. Most have not saved enough for retirement and US social security system will not be able to support them. In addition, many in the following x-generation (my generation) will start to fall into the under-employed category that I spoke about. They will be a lot of smart and educated people, probably around 25 million people or so (between 40 - 70), that won't be compensated like they should be, and that will cause a rising rift in society.
669754
It's ususally just called "military retirement." \n\nYou can visit the US military's retirement web site for more information at http://www.dod.mil/militarypay/retirement/index.html\n\nAlso, you can refer to http://www.me.ngb.army.mil/Your%20Benefits/Handbook/Military%20Retirement.htm\n\nI think you have to serve a minimum of 15 years to qualify for military retirement benefits. This may differ by branch of service (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, Reserves, National Guard).
32548
For very specific answers you would need to specify your region and industry. But the simple fact of the matter is that senior citizens don't hold the long-term value to most companies as younger employees.\n\nIf I'm running or building a company, I want people who are interested in being a part of my company for a long time. I want people who want to make my company better because they might still be working for me in 30 years. I want someone with drive and ambition. I don't want someone who might retire in five years, and I don't want someone who is wishing that they had already retired.\n\nOne last thing. When we see a practice or a pattern that we don't like, it's easy to slap a label on it and start whining. But when lots of business owners are making the same decisions about running their various businesses, it's usually because they've stumbled upon some sort of logic. If you think it's wrong, stop lamenting, figure out the logic, and then try to change it.
222619
Thats probably cutting it close, however if you can pull it off, then you aren't too old.  Id say retirement age is definitely too old.
999539
The less monkeying around with it, the better off we'll all be.  Despite George Bush's outright lie, Social Security won't begin to dip into it's reserves for another fifteen years *at least*  and won't actually begin running out of money for nearly 27 years.  That's plenty of time to make some minor adjustments. One, those who have managed to provide themselves a healthy chunk of change upon which to retire should not be permitted to draw on the system.  At present, even if you've saved a million dollars for retirement, you can still draw Social Security benefits.\n\nSecondly, a very slight increase in contributions to the system is all that's needed to ensure it's viability for the next forty years.\n\nBeyond that, working  folks do need to plan, starting in high school, for their retirement.  Start putting money aside in a 401K or other plan and never, but NEVER, touch it until retirement.  Do not borrow against it, do not take some of it to put an addition on your house or upgrade your wheels or any of that crap.  And when it comes time to draw upon these savings, there should be a cutoff above which no Social Security benefits are due - what this is called is "means testing".  \n\nThere also needs to be a national system that guarantees a living income to those working folks who, through no fault of their own, become disabled and no longer capable of self-support.  Employers and employees alike can contribute to this system.  \n\nOne more thing: NO politican should EVER be allowed to draw upon social security - they're all rich enough to look after themselves, the scumsuckers!
37141
manojgahiwal is ignorant or a fraud if he thinks you can get 20% return per year "insured".  If you're lucky or skilled you can average 20% per year but it means taking a lot of risk of some sort.  Risk in junk bonds defaulting, or risk of huge losses in volatile stocks, or risk of distressed property not selling--whatever the investment vehicle 20% is a reasonable target only for the high-risk investor.  10% is the norm for stocks of large US companies.\n\nI'm sorry, I don't know the currency you're referring to--is it South African rand?  How much to save is a highly personal thing and depends a lot on your age and the economic situation in your country.  Anyone in the US counting on Social Security in 30 years is living in a dangerous hallucination.  Republican mismanagement guarantees that all that will be left of Social Security will be a subsistence program to keep poor people from falling into total destitution.  It will be like welfare is now--anyone not covered will be grateful they're well-off enough to not qualify.  In these circumstances someone starting out should save at least 10% and someone in middle age should be saving 30% or more if they don't have several hundred thousand dollars in assets.