A couple of weeks ago (or maybe three…I don’t know…Short-term memory is the second thing to go…), I went on about money.
I went on about money because (a) this is America, and (b) we’re working on a “Boomer Primer,” which simply means a list of things to think about regarding the whole “aging thing” if you’re in your early-to-mid 60’s, or rapidly closing in on same, and not immortal.
If you are immortal, your financial concerns far outstrip the purview of this little column, and I urge you to consult a more…galactic, if not spiritual, resource, but for the rest of us who are a little closer to the ground, this will have to do.
The points that I attempted to make, back when I remembered what those points were, had to do with planning for and balancing “income” vs. “debt” IF retirement was a piece of our “aging thing,” remembering that most of us will live noticeably longer than our parents and grandparents; now, if your employment and/or income-generating prospects (and endurance!) are excellent and lucrative, your views on the subject(s) might be somewhat different, but here’s a “think about it” question that comes up for almost everybody: Leaving it to the kids.
Acknowledging different strokes, feel free to delete “kids” (I know, I thought of that, too) and substitute “grandchildren,” “dog,” “favorite charity,” “national debt,” etc, but for most of us, most of the time, it’s about leaving it to the kids, and there are myriad views on the topic.
For some, leaving a tangible inheritance of money/assets/house/Beatles’ “White Album,” etc is extremely important – It’s an inheritance, Yes, but it’s also a legacy – A way of declaring, “I was here.” A way of saying, “I lived, I struggled, I worked and I did the best I could with what I had, and this is what I leave behind.” A way of saying, “I love you.”
And, certainly, given the economy and the employment-related realities and prospects of many an offspring, “legacy” and “necessity” may blur. The other end of this particular spectrum, of course, is financial exploitation, ala’ Mickey Rooney, but for now, we’ll assume honorable intentions on the parts of all parties. The “kicker” here is that, for many of us, if we’re going to leave an inheritance, we’re going to have to plan, save and, in all likelihood, DO WITHOUT.
“Without” what? Well, it could be without that next cruise or it could be without that next prescription – I’ve seen both. It could be stubbornly staying in a too-big, too-expensive, too-much-work house - And paying a significant physical price for doing it! – Because I’m going to By-God-leave-the-house-to-the-kids!
That can be lovely and loving and generous – It can also be a shoot-yourself-in-the-foot kind of strategy because we don’t do what we need to do to take care of ourselves, so the “kids” end up having to take care of us and everything goes down the drain and everybody ends up being WORSE off than they were before!
Think “moderation.”
For others, the view can be expressed as “…leaving you an ‘inheritance’ suggests bad planning on my part!” – In other words, I’m going to do what I want, when I want, the way I want! I earned it, and I’m going to do what I need to do. I came in with nothing (and you can do the same) and I’m going out with nothing (and you can do the same).
I know that sounds a little hostile, but I’m going to the extreme to make the point; actually, it rarely is “hostile,” it’s just a different view of life and the world, and is often seen as a way of empowering kids who are genuinely loved to make it on their own, learn the good lessons and earn the sense of confidence and achievement that comes with doing that. Amen.
The shoot-yourself-in-the-foot piece can be that we’re so busy spending it – Using it up cuz I ain’t gonna leave it! – That we don’t have “it” when we need “it” – Oops.
Think “moderation.” Again.
Just one more, for now: “I don’t want the kids to have to wait ‘til I’m dead to share the bounty (or “they need it now,” or whatever), so I’m going to start giving it to them a bit at a time while I’m still alive to enjoy watching them enjoy it!” Is there a shoot-yourself-in-the-foot piece to this?
Maybe. Medicare does not now, nor has it ever, paid for “long-term care” – Medicaid does. Medicaid eligibility is based, in part, on your income and assets, so what’s the “worst case?” Well, Dad descends into Alzheimer’s (or something that looks like it) and things get to the point where he requires 24-7, institutional care, and all his money gets spent paying for same. Kids help Dad apply for Medicaid. It’s then discovered that Dad gave away money to the kids, and a complicated mathematical formula is employed to calculate the number of months/YEARS that Dad is INeligible for Medicaid, so guess who pays for the care?
Is it “legal” to give money to your kids? Of course, it’s only a “problem” if/when Medicaid is expected to help pay for care.
So, what’s the best way to go in all this? I don’t know. I know what my biases and beliefs are, but that has nothing to do with what you might conclude, and that’s the conclusion of every piece of this “Boomer Primer:” Put it on your list if “things to think about,” then actually THINK ABOUT IT!
Hey: If aging were easy, everybody would do it.
No comments:
Post a Comment