[kkingston57]

Originally Posted by Guzzel

Did anyone read the Letter to the Editor piece in the Village Nws titled, "You must have more than Social Security income to afford The Villages’ lifestyle".

The author states, "You cannot afford The Villages without having Social Security, investments and pensions or a combination."

Obviously everyone's financial situation is different and SS payments can vary greatly, but wanted to get other perspectives.

Guzzel

Too many variables but we can live in TV on SS only We do not have a mortgage and get about 60K in SS. Our fixed costs(no food) are around 2k a month

[kkingston57]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

Is there some place in the USA, where one could live on Social Security, alone?

Yes in TV. Most retirees have no mortgage and if 2 people get the average SS amount that would be around 4K a month. Our fixed expenses are 2K a month

[brianherlihy]

no stay a way

[Caymus]

Originally Posted by kkingston57

Yes in TV. Most retirees have no mortgage and if 2 people get the average SS amount that would be around 4K a month. Our fixed expenses are 2K a month

and when one spouse passes?

[biker1]

There can be a large variation in SS benefits. Assuming you worked 30 years, the minimum is about $1000 per month. The maximum is about $5000 per month. Medicare Part B will, of course, be taken out each month and there might be Federal taxes. Regardless, the range of SS benefits can be from about $1000 per month for a single person to about $10,000 per month for a couple.

Originally Posted by kkingston57

Yes in TV. Most retirees have no mortgage and if 2 people get the average SS amount that would be around 4K a month. Our fixed expenses are 2K a month

[asianthree]

Originally Posted by Caymus

and when one spouse passes?

My parents always counted their income and debts separately, during their entire life. That way one dies in an auto accident on the way home at 30, the other could continue. We follow the same as does our children and grands. Today is a guarantee tomorrow is a maybe.

But some in their 70-80s may think there will always be two. Then the children come into play, unless they are Dinks, two of our three are.

[RL Lemke]

The question as to whether one could afford The Villages on social security is pretty easy math. In order to be accurate, one must look at the Districtgov.org site for bond assessment, for homes you are interested in. Thus, the math may be easy but completing an accurate spreadsheet takes effort.

Here is my budget list for the Monthly Nut, with all annual costs figured monthly.



Other variables, like Income Tax, meals, incidentals, vehicle replacement, home repairs (EG: roof every 15 years), travel, etc… will need to be provided for. I carefully considered YouTube The Villages Newcomers and Rusty Nelson and their budget presentations for 2023 and 2024, then secured hard numbers for the home we are purchasing from service providers and assessor.

For assessment based property taxes this provides a budget number, based on home location.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by badkarma318

Yes, I know numerous people who do. A few have big bank accounts and choose to live that way for whatever reason (not everyone needs a second home on a lake to brag about endlessly, nor take multiple expensive vacations every year).

A few live in the northern areas, bought their home outright many years ago, and have low property taxes/monthly fees.

None of them are eating dog food out of a can, and all of them are enjoying a good quality of life.

Thing is, you're assuming that everyone here is getting that "average". Average is average, because some get more, some get less. It's even possible that NO ONE is getting average (since averages are the sum of all numbers in a given set, divided by how many numbers exist in that given set).

As for me, there's no way I'd be able to live on just my own social security check alone. My check is under $1000. I spent most of my life working part time. I worked part time consistently, but it didn't amount to much when it came to social security payroll deductions and earnings.

I have no pension because - part time doesn't typically offer 401ks and the job that did, the store completely closed down before I could even earn $1000 from it. I rolled it over into an IRA that I'd had kicking around, and even that isn't worth much.

[shut the front door]

Originally Posted by badkarma318

Yes, I know numerous people who do. A few have big bank accounts and choose to live that way for whatever reason (not everyone needs a second home on a lake to brag about endlessly, nor take multiple expensive vacations every year).

A few live in the northern areas, bought their home outright many years ago, and have low property taxes/monthly fees.

None of them are eating dog food out of a can, and all of them are enjoying a good quality of life.

Many on this board do!

[Michael G.]

https://www.talkofthevillages.com/fo...1&d=1738608151

[Rainger99]

It would be very difficult to live solely on Social Security anywhere in the USA. Please note that SS was not designed to be the sole source of income for retired people. People have always talked about the "3 legged stool" of retirement.

The 3-Legged Stool Metaphor
1. Social Security
2. Pensions
3. Personal savings

This is from the SS website.

Social Security was never meant to be the only source of income for people when they retire. Social Security replaces a percentage of a worker’s pre-retirement income based on your lifetime earnings. If you start benefits in 2025 at your “full retirement age” (see our “Full retirement age” section), this percentage ranges from as much as 79% for very low earners, to about 43% for medium earners, to about 28% for maximum earners. I

Most financial advisers say you will need about 70% to 80% of pre-retirement income — including your Social Security benefits, investments, and personal savings — to live comfortably in retirement.

I have been surprised at how little social security pays and how expensive Medicare is. I thought that Medicare would free (people are always talking about free healthcare for all) since I paid into it for more than 50 years. I was wrong about that!!

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Rainger99

It would be very difficult to live solely on Social Security anywhere in the USA. Please note that SS was not designed to be the sole source of income for retired people. People have always talked about the "3 legged stool" of retirement.

The 3-Legged Stool Metaphor
1. Social Security
2. Pensions
3. Personal savings

This is from the SS website.

Social Security was never meant to be the only source of income for people when they retire. Social Security replaces a percentage of a worker’s pre-retirement income based on your lifetime earnings. If you start benefits in 2025 at your “full retirement age” (see our “Full retirement age” section), this percentage ranges from as much as 79% for very low earners, to about 43% for medium earners, to about 28% for maximum earners. I

Most financial advisers say you will need about 70% to 80% of pre-retirement income — including your Social Security benefits, investments, and personal savings — to live comfortably in retirement.

I have been surprised at how little social security pays and how expensive Medicare is. I thought that Medicare would free (people are always talking about free healthcare for all) since I paid into it for more than 50 years. I was wrong about that!!

I don't know where on the SSA website you read that, but here's what I saw - and a link to the page and location on that link:

Social Security History

The biggest problem with company-provided pensions was that the percentage of workers anticipating an employment-related pension from their company or their union was tiny. Indeed, in 1900 there were a total of five companies in the United States (including Dolge) offering their industrial workers company-sponsored pensions. As late as 1932, only about 15% of the laborforce had any kind of potential employment-related pension. And because the pensions were often granted or withheld at the option of the employer, most of these workers would never see a retirement pension. Indeed, only about 5% of the elderly were in fact receiving retirement pensions in 1932.

So the company pension was an option not available to most Americans during the time prior to the advent of Social Security.

The above is somewhat near the top of the page, under "The Company Pension."

Social Security History
The Social Security Act was signed into law by President Roosevelt on August 14, 1935. In addition to several provisions for general welfare, the new Act created a social insurance program designed to pay retired workers age 65 or older a continuing income after retirement.

The above is around the half-way mark on that page.

The tl;dr (too late, didn't read) version: Social Security WAS ABSOLUTELY designed as a pension/retirement for retired workers, many of whom had no pension plan at all from their jobs, and didn't earn enough to "save for retirement" during the Depression and shortly thereafter. That is exactly precisely WHY it was created.

[FloridaGuy66]

Too many variables. Almost anything is possible if you're very cheap/frugal.

I see a wide range of spending even by people that live in nearly identical homes in my neighborhood.

Some are driving 15+ year vehicles and appear to rarely leave the house except for groceries. Zero landcape upgrades to their home including not adding gutters.

Others I see with a different vehicle or golf cart every year almost and they're going out for a meal almost nightly. The same people have what seems like a revolving door of contractors starting on a new upgrade or landscape project on their house every few months. Some people here seem to just love spending money and hopefully it's because they can afford it.

[Bay Kid]

I still have to pay taxes on SS.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Bay Kid

I still have to pay taxes on SS.

You wouldn't if your only income was SS.