Yea, I was having the same thought the moment I saw the headline. The writer of that headline (not necessarily the writer of the story) had to know that would be the reaction. Definitely trolling.

Humans are masters of relativity. However much you have, you match your expenditures and stress about "running out."

But don't worry. In states like California, and Governor Jerry Brown's pension reform bill, future retirees will be able to rely on 401K performances, instead of state pensions, to help ease the anxiety.

Then when the market crashes, don't worry, the government will think of something.

Being a retiree, Sanescience, I feel no stress about my assets running out. You are correct, however, about watching one's expenditures, because that's how a lot of affluent folks got that way in the first place....it's called planning for the future, and it's way too rare in our society.

I agree... Who the Hell comes up with these "reports?" Did they think the 99% would be all concerned about what the 1% are worried about? If they are having such a hard time, maybe they'd like to trade places!

Boy, am I ever glad I have nothing! I'll probably die nice and young, so I won't have to worry about that pesky retirement.

I know, right? Decisions, decisions.

Same here, must be tough. /sigh Anyways everyone better just plan on saving more than ever and working past 65. Like it or not I think that is one problem we have now, everyone thinks 65 is still that age to plan retirement and collect SS. Might retire sooner and live off other monies but SS needs to wait. Well maybe when SS was created or back when 65 was considered old or approaching the end of life but with people living well beyond 65, like on 20+yrs beyond it I think its time to reconsider what retirement age really is. Not only that but it has been shown that staying involved and active in a workplace can be a good thing for you, at least part time is good plus makes some income still. By no means should we do away with programs like SS but I think we need to start re-evaluating what retirement age and adjust it as needed. Say for instance those born after x date your RA is 70. Those born after x date yours is 72. And so on till you get within I say 10-12yrs of average life expectancy. Might not be most liked solution but I'd say that it is practical for what we are facing right now and those who think it needs to go away all together or those that think status quo is fine.

To accommodate for a longer life, 39 percent said they would work at least part-time during retirement, while a quarter of the respondents said they would retire closer to 85 than 65

Those not surveyed (i.e. the middle class and the poor) will work at least part time after they retire at 85 because they HAVE to.

Why would this just be a problem for the affluent? Isn't everyone wondering how to pay for their retirement?

AG99, no, too many people spend their money on what they want right now without regard to what they NEED tomorrow, or next week, or next month or next year. I see too many comments on here that make this a poor, middle-class, wealthy debate when it isn't. It's about money management.

I know people who never made anywhere NEAR what my parents made who do things my parents could never even dream of doing in retirement. My parents were poor planners.

Too many people that are commenting on here think that their lack of planning is OK and that somehow the only reason they have no money is because people who do plan and save are mean and greedy.

Here is the reality; instead of spending $5,000 to fix-up that '76 Mustang, the people being vilified are the ones who stuck that into an IRA and drove a 10 year old Toyota until it simply couldn't roll anymore. They're the ones with the relatively small TV (only 1), the minimalist home, and your ho-hum wardrobe with a couple of nice suits. They're the boring people who don't get caught up in fads that cost them money.

They're also likely people who had parents that saved for their college rather than leaving them with huge debt that swallows their income for 10-20 years after college.

The truth is, they're worrying is not really worrying. It's their way of planning. The people who don't worry, don't have any intent to plan for retirement. Yet they'll complain when someone else doesn't take care of it for them. Because why should they have to think about tomorrow? Everyone else should do that for them!

I am 73 and healthy. Funny thing is that the older I get, the less I seem to need. I have a small retirement and social security and find that my net worth is increasing.

I reckon that I have lived long enough anyway.

This is NOT a "99% vs 1%". Even people who have had very modest jobs (say starting at $4/hr back in the 1970's and rising to median income today) - remember 50% of the people make oat or over median income - should have at least $250K in investments (assuming that ar at/near 60 now). Of course, there wil be those who had a severe personal hardship at some point, but that should be the exception rather than the rule.

the headline is completely misleading- this article wasn't even talking about affluent people. but apparently most of my fellow commentors failed to notice that during their careful reading of the article-

Merrill, which polled 1,000 Americans who had investable assets of $250,000 or more, found that just over half said they would rather retire later than make tradeoffs on their current way of life.

having that little in investable assets when approaching retirement is so far from 'affluent' that it's not even funny! a person, or even worse- a couple, who have so little put away can look forward to a pretty piss-poor retirement. and they'd better hope that their children will take them in after that first big medical crisis- because they won't have diddly except their sad little social security check and maybe a pension if they're lucky.

The affluent certainly need to be concerned about whether their nest eggs can last as long as they do. After all, they don't have the benefit of endless government entitlements coming in like many in this country enjoy. They do, however, have the pleasure of paying for those entitlements.

It's not like I'm going to have to really worry about retirement, as it probably isn't going to happen, at any age, with the way bozobamanomics is going, and all the added cost this fool is causing to be tacked on to everything, I'm going to have to work well after 65 just to pay bills with the garbage jobs that are left after his wiping out jobs, outside of government, useless jobs, that HE can control. People better wake up and toss his tail in November, if they want to see any of us middle class folks retire at all.

Allie22 @1.13: I noticed that too. I also noticed blame being placed on increasing health care costs. Those costs are a fraudulent rip off and if anyone paid attention to them, instead of just complaining, they could be cut in half. I was in the ER, after a dizzy spell, and was awaiting the results of a CAT scan when at 3:30 in the afternoon dinner, which I was not asked about and did not request (I had lunch at 1:00) was delivered to me. The scan was negative, I was released at 4:15 and the dinner, that I did not want or need, was billed to Medicare. BTW: If you tell the Hospital that you are on a daily medication routine (like Syntroid for your thyroid or Prozac for depression) they will not allow you to bring you own and take it yourself -- they have to (?) give it to you. Don't tell the Hospital and sneak the pills in to take yourself. Once a nurse gives you a one pill nursing services go from"nursing" to "skilled nursing" and the charge for "nursing" shy rockets. I could write a book, but I think I made my point. BTW: If you rationally think you are being over treated or staying too long (therapy is great for this: stay in the Hospital for a day to get 1/2 hour of therapy is common, but a joke, go home and take a cab if someone else won't take you) and you can walk out, no problem, I've done it twice. Don't think a doctor can keep your there against your will -- use your head -- the hospital and the doc. want to get all the money they can get out of you and will keep you there as long as possible -- you are money in the bank. When an attending walks in and asks how you are and is everything going well he will charge as much as $80.00 although he has done nothing whatsoever for your care. Beyond that most discharge instructions that you get, although the hospital specialists say you are now OK, tell you to see this Dr. for a follow up, whether you need one or not -- wonder why. Question: Why all the "referrals" and visits from Drs. you've never seen before? Sorry, I got wound up and started writing that book but I could go on and on. I know that I sound like a troll but this "issue" really pisses me off !!!

BTW, that is providing the person can live on $25K or less per year without the medical potential. If they live to be 100, $1M gives them just $30K per year retiring at the current retirement age of 67.

The sad part is the increasing difficulty of retaining the value of your savings. Where do you put your money where it won't be at risk of significant loss of either market changes or inflation?

Sanescience: TIPS.

anti-trust, if I have a million dollars and only have $25k to spend each year, then I need to get a better investment broker as that would only be 2.5% interest on that money.

By the way, you can find savings accounts that provide that APY, but they require large balances. If you had $1 million, I'd say you can meet those requirements.

If you think that retirement means you're never going to make money again, then you really have to rethink retirement. It really means you step out of the race to make more and more and start enjoying the extra time.

What I was trying to point out is that EVERYONE had better be setting up some kind of "safe" retirement account (if there is such a thing anymore) that will have a minimum of $1M investment at whatever retirement age they choose in order to survive to 100. If that retirement fund doesn't allow for at least the $25-$30K annual payout (from interest alone that is payable monthly) and allow for quick withdrawals in case of major medical emergencies or long-term care, then that person will be in trouble..and that is what would be required for EACH INDIVIDUAL, not for a couple.

That is the "stress" that some of these affluent people are starting to feel. Have they really set aside enough money to cover any un-forseen expenses or long-term care should they somehow live to be 95-100 or older? And that is what the article was trying to discuss.

cygnus,"toasting rat on stick" is wonderfully visual. LOL. Its truly great.

Oh how sad! The poor little rich kids have been given more time to contemplate their richness.LOL. And before you trolls start...i'm not on the government doll,never have been, never will be and i don't really have much to complain about in that department,but Good God is no one ever satisfied? They have money and now more time to enjoy the money and this is what they come up with? Whats the point of either one if you are going to live to a hundred worrying yourself into a lifetime prescription of valiums? Would they prefer never having had any money over the possibilty of not having as much at a hundred? Hell they can fix that if it will make them happier..its as simple as writing a check. Problem solved!

Great posting. But the lobbyists will never let it happen. They scare us with claims of federal 'death panels.' I wish people understood that true death panels are already happening everyday in America. The big difference is that they are being held in private corporate insurance offices in the guise of people being denied care. And there is no mandate that their behavior be made public and held up for scrutiny. Medicare is an especially efficient insurance program - just make it available for all ages, and we are set. No American will ever be free from the fear of bankruptcy without UHC.

Talk to the average person on the street and see if you trust them with every aspect of your life and future! the average IQ is 100, most that run our world are 125 or more. no offense

On the other hand, I've spoken to politicians who have told me that I use "big words".

Totalynic, while I think you have made some good points, I would like to point out that a republic is a form of ddemocracy. I have heard many talking head radio hosts repeatedly state that we are a republic, not a democracy (not sure if this where you picked this up from or not).

Stating that we are a republic and not a democracy is completely false; the US government is a democrtic republic (by the way, I have a B.A. in History and Political Science...I know what I am talking about).

I believe totalnic was advocating a pure, direct democrocy. not enough wpould pay attention to the details for that to succeed.

With our squeky wheel form of Government , we get the worst of both plans!

UHC without reform of education system that create medical workers, and the FDA, and elimination or limitation of the AMA. will only bankrupt America. Mandate we pay these exhobidant prices for 100% of people? currently we service less than half of America , health wise, and we spend 20% of all the money made in America on health care. We cannot as a nation ,afford to pay 40% of all the US income on only health care.

My last one was '93 (what would be considered a "real" vacation.) I did take off for 3.5 days three years ago to travel to Panama to check out the possibility of moving there under their pensionado residency program. A senior can live there for less than 1/3 of the cost of living anywhere in the US, and medical costs are much less also for the same quality of care.

live long enough to be a problem to your children , thats my motto
:) JK!

I disagree it will be a matter of health telling us to retire. If you look at working people today it is the employers forcing them out of the job market with no chance of getting hired at advanced age. It would be nice to think you get to retire on your terms when you want to but that is only for the affluent.

Typically a simple diet ' like the less affluent can afford, gives the longest ,quality lifespan. The rich die too! Provided we are not hit with catastrphic illness, those with a simple diet and lifestyle have the longest lives. Do not eat boxed and processed foods , get plenty of sleep and exercise , and do not worry about what cannot be changed. 94 years is easily had , now lets figure out how we all can get our daily bread then as before. and in terms of "medication" less is more, Doctors will kill you!

Not always true dude....I eat quite well, only real foods, lots of fruit and veggies, hardly any meat and no boxed foods. I exercise regularly and quite aerobically but because of family genes, I have already had three heart attacks...If it wouldn't have been FOR the doctors, and some meds, I would be dead now....Still, I will be lucky to make it to 80. I am the oldest living male ion my family right now, at 63...A stroke is in my future....No diet is going to change that, only medical stuff and doctors....

Thus the "typically" . For you Ed , the cards dealt are sucky. My mom passed at 44 and my dad made it to 94 before a tumor got him. Quite a difference. We don't know ,but we can hope and plan for the best.

Hold that thought, Raggedy Man; I had the same plan, but the Japanese firm that bought my employer had other ideas. Between Wall Street and my wife's disabling illness, SS is all I got, and in case you hadn't noticed, this is no country for old men. Nobody's hiring silver foxes these days. They want young pups with big college loans so they can nail their feet to the floor and work them to death while paying them peanuts. Hope you make it to the century mark, but watch your top-knot, it's a vicious world and you never know when the turn of an un-friendly card will ruin your game.

Road Warrior: That's good because now they can give your part of social security to some immigrant who never put a dime into it. Anybody else want to give up Their Social Security?

cygnus,

Your problem was going the conventional route of hoping to stay with a company for forty years. That scenario hasn't existed for a long gone. I have been contracting with different companies for the last 32 years. I am living the life of a semi-retiree. I get to travel. I have a place I call home in the mountains. And the pay is generally 40% more than if I were a direct-hired employee. Get to write off expenses. As long as you can be productive and make a contribution to a company, they will hire you no matter the age. I work with a 74-year old who has a home in Florida and does the same thing I do in Tennessee.

Nice work if you can get it - I hope it works out for you. Stay healthy, amigo.

Got cut off.

"As long as you can be productive and make a contribution to a company, they will hire you no matter the age."

Not if you have a permanently disabled wife with numerous expensive (the operative word) issues. I also had a mild heart attack, which kept me out of work for three weeks. I have decades of experience, and can work younger men under the table. Some day you may remember this dialogue; for your sake I hope it's with a smile.

cygnus,

Try it if you are interested. Put your resume on CareerBuilders.com. If a company sees a fit for your talents, they will contact you for a telephone interview. You tell them how much money you want. Many in the contract business live out of RV's.

Sorry about your wife. The guy I share office with wears a pace maker. He is in his late 60's from Utah.

Thanks, I may give that a try. I've sent out over 300 resumes. Had six replies and two interviews. I've been working locally because my mobility is severely limited by my wife's condition. I have a dozen great references.

A word of advice. Don't assume your good health will last forever. Make sure you have long-term disability, and a decent hospital indemnity plan. My wife signed us up for AFLAC when she was still employed, and it has really paid off. She did not expect to go down, and I was in perfect? health when a genetic flaw in a cardiac artery betrayed me. You can't take these things for granted, no matter how good you (or your spouse) feel.

Like the Pink Floyd song "Time" 'ten years will get behind you...' Take it to heart - the years have a way of slipping by, and having money in the bank and a good job doesn't always cover the bases. Good luck, and thanks for the tip.

Best laid plans dude......LOL

cygnus,

I'm glad you reminded me. I had disability insurance for about ten years which would pay 80% of my salary if I am no longer able to work. I don't remember why I dropped it. Better check into it again. Thanks.