Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bankruptcies Soar For Seniors

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bankruptcies Soar For Seniors

    Study: Bankruptcies soar for senior citizens
    By MATT SEDENSKY, Associated Press Writer
    8 HOURS AGO

    ST. AUGUSTINE, Fla. - First came the health problems. Then, unable to work, Ada Noda watched the bills pile up. And then, suffocating in debt, the 80-year-old did something she never thought she'd be forced to do.

    She declared bankruptcy.

    While the bankruptcy filing rate for those under 55 has fallen, it has soared for older Americans, according to a new analysis from the Consumer Bankruptcy Project, which examined a sampling of noncommercial bankruptcies filed between 1991 and 2007.

    The older the age group, the worse it got _ people 65 and up became more than twice as likely to file during that period, and the filing rate for those 75 and older more than quadrupled.

    "Older Americans are hit by a one-two punch of jobs and medical problems and the two are often intertwined," said Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard Law School professor who was one of the authors of the study. "They discover that they must work to keep some form of economic balance and when they can't, they're lost."

    That's precisely what happened to Noda. She worked all her life, on a hospital's housekeeping staff, and later selling boat tickets to tourists. She cut corners when she needed to but always paid the bills she neatly logged in a ledger.

    "I was born during the Depression," she said. "I paid the bills whether I ate or didn't, whether I went to the doctor or not."

    It all worked fine for Noda, a widow for 23 years, until she was forced to undergo double-bypass surgery and deal with respiratory problems. She started using two credit cards more frequently for food and bills. Before long, she was $8,000 in debt and behind on car payments.

    "I'd go to bed and all I had on my mind was bankruptcy," she said. "I had nothing left."

    Noda's car was repossessed, but her trailer home wasn't in jeopardy because her daughter owns it. While she's covered by Medicare and receives $968 in Social Security each month, she relied on her job for other expenses. She had no choice but to get help from Jacksonville Legal Aid and declare bankruptcy.

    Most bankruptcies are still filed by people far younger than Noda, but the percentage the younger filers make up has fallen over the 16-year period, according to the Consumer Bankruptcy Project analysis, which will be published in the Harvard Law and Policy Review in January.

    In 1991, the 55-plus age group accounted for about 8 percent of bankruptcy filers, according to the study, which looked at more than 6,000 cases filed in 1991, 2001 or 2007. By last year, filers 55 and over accounted for 22 percent.

    Each age group under 55 saw double-digit percentage drops in their bankruptcy filing rates over the survey period, older Americans saw remarkable increases. The filing rate per thousand people ages 55-64 was up 40 percent; among 65- to 74-year-olds it increased 125 percent; and among the 75-to-84-year-old set, it was up 433 percent.

    A number of factors are contributing to the increase. Higher prices for ordinary consumer goods have hit seniors on fixed budgets. For older Americans living below the poverty level, or not far above, a safety net likely doesn't exist for economic setbacks such as medical problems. And some fall prey to scams that cripple their finances.

    Warren noted increasing numbers of Americans are entering their retirement years with significant debt and are still paying off mortgages. She said it was wrong to assume that lives of luxury are bankrupting seniors; rather, they're incurring debts to meet needs such as medical treatment.

    "There's no evidence that the problem is consumerism," the professor said.

    Nor is there a significant aging trend to blame. While the country is set to experience a notable age shift in the coming years, no major one took place between 1991, when the average age was 33, and 2007, when it was 36.

    Frank and Hazel Peters lived frugally their entire 53-year marriage. They always rented a home but decided after the husband's retirement from a factory job that they would cash in his 401(k) and buy a manufactured home down a gravel road in tiny Hastings, a town of cornfields and potato farms.

    But they fell victim to fraud when they tried to fix a plumbing problem that had black, sulphur-smelling water coming through the pipes of their new home without enough funds to fall back on. They declared bankruptcy.

    "We knew we had no other option," 73-year-old Hazel Peters said. "We'd probably be out on the street."

    Bankruptcy, tough no matter a person's age, is especially hard when you don't have many years left to recover. Warren said some seniors fear telling their families because they're afraid they'll be put in a nursing home if they're seen as unable to take care of their affairs.

    Many who file also express a sense of relief.

    Wilona Harris, 71, filed bankruptcy two years ago because of medical bills she and her husband accrued.

    "This phone rang all the time. It made you not even want to pick up. Sometimes you think, 'Let me go jump off a bridge somewhere,'" Harris said at her Jacksonville home. "You have to cry and try and figure out what in the world could I do."

    At least now, Harris says, she can fall asleep without crying.

  • #2
    The nation's foreclosure crisis threatened a high-profile victim this week: TV legend Ed McMahon, best known as Johnny Carson's sidekick on "The Tonight Show."

    Comment


    • #3
      The title of the piece is: "Study: Bankruptcies soar for senior citizens."

      Yet, halfway through the article, this appears: "Nor is there a significant aging trend to blame. While the country is set to experience a notable age shift in the coming years, no major one took place between 1991, when the average age was 33, and 2007, when it was 36."

      If age isn't to blame, why imply it is by talking about "senior citizens?"

      Maybe the title of the piece should have been: "Study: Bancruptcies soar for hardworking but stupid people whose entire retirement plan consists of investing their meager life savings in a single-wide trailer in rural Florida."
      One time Lombardi was disgusted with the team in practice and told them they were going to have to start with the basics. He held up a ball and said: "This is a football." McGee immediately called out, "Stop, coach, you're going too fast," and that gave everyone a laugh.
      John Maxymuk, Packers By The Numbers

      Comment


      • #4
        It is a sad situation...but in many cases, their plight is a result of poor planning on their part. These people lived during a time where their nation experienced the greatest wealth accumulation in the history of mankind.

        I can understand that many were "unsure" of the stock market and were hesitant to invest in ways that would have secured their future. I also realize that there are some with unique situations where they really had no control over the circumstances that led them to where they currently are.

        However, I can't completely absolve many seniors of their plight. Most of them did not do enough to prepare for their retirement...they had plenty of opportunity and availability to do so.
        My signature has NUDITY in it...whatcha gonna do?

        Comment


        • #5
          Interesting article. It will get a whole lot worse with Obama in office. Obama wants a 28% (McCain 0%) tax on home sale profit, which will help wipe out equity earnings for seniors. He wants 39.6% dividend tax (McCain 15%0, which will help wipe out gains in money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, etc. Obama wants a 49% inheritance tax (McCain 0% up to 5mil) on everything a person wants to pass on to their family after they pass on. So if you own a home and want to give it to a child, they will have to sell it (and pay 28% on the profit) just to pay the 49% tax on the inheritance. Welcome to retirement, Obama style. You better hope you get a publisher's clearing house giveaway from Ed McMahon....
          "Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by mraynrand
            Interesting article. It will get a whole lot worse with Obama in office. Obama wants a 28% (McCain 0%) tax on home sale profit, which will help wipe out equity earnings for seniors. He wants 39.6% dividend tax (McCain 15%0, which will help wipe out gains in money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, etc. Obama wants a 49% inheritance tax (McCain 0% up to 5mil) on everything a person wants to pass on to their family after they pass on. So if you own a home and want to give it to a child, they will have to sell it (and pay 28% on the profit) just to pay the 49% tax on the inheritance. Welcome to retirement, Obama style. You better hope you get a publisher's clearing house giveaway from Ed McMahon....
            You do get the stepped up cost basis as far as capital gains taxes when someone dies......I hope Obama doesn't wnat to take that away too.

            Everything coming out of an IRA is taxed at Ordinary Income rates, so either way you look at it, they are going up.

            EDIT: I see you are talking about Inheritence taxes......that's true. It especially hurts family farmers. With acerage the way it is now, when they die, they have to sell half the land just to pay the taxes.

            I read McCain was at $10MM, and Obama was at $3.5MM.
            After lunch the players lounged about the hotel patio watching the surf fling white plumes high against the darkening sky. Clouds were piling up in the west… Vince Lombardi frowned.

            Comment


            • #7
              Several things strike me about this article:

              1. Americans can no longer rely on a company-based pension to provide their financial needs in retirement. Only a small percentage of companies provide pensions anyone. Most that do have a retirement plan are 401ks where the primary responsibility is placed on the employee rather than the employer.

              2. All Americans, particularly the ones in their 20's, 30's, and 40's, need to become more educated in long-term investing and start contributing for their retirement be it in the form of 401ks, Roth Ira's, etc.

              3. All Americans need to increase their savings, be it short-term or long-term. a recent study showed Americans had an average savings rate of -.5%! Yes, that is a negative savings rate. The average savings rate for Asians is a +10%.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by The Leaper
                It is a sad situation...but in many cases, their plight is a result of poor planning on their part. These people lived during a time where their nation experienced the greatest wealth accumulation in the history of mankind.

                I can understand that many were "unsure" of the stock market and were hesitant to invest in ways that would have secured their future. I also realize that there are some with unique situations where they really had no control over the circumstances that led them to where they currently are.

                However, I can't completely absolve many seniors of their plight. Most of them did not do enough to prepare for their retirement...they had plenty of opportunity and availability to do so.

                This is a very good post. I agree, and would add that many of these folks were led down this path by the belief that their government and company would take care of them in their old age with Social Security and defined benefit pension plans. They didn't think they'd have to take care of themselves.

                Were in an age of transition - back to the concept that you need to take care of yourself and not count on your government and/or employer to do it for you. Many in this age group are caught in the transition, and this is understandable. However, now people know. There shouldn't be any excuses for the next generation.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by mraynrand
                  Interesting article. It will get a whole lot worse with Obama in office. Obama wants a 28% (McCain 0%) tax on home sale profit, which will help wipe out equity earnings for seniors. He wants 39.6% dividend tax (McCain 15%0, which will help wipe out gains in money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, etc. Obama wants a 49% inheritance tax (McCain 0% up to 5mil) on everything a person wants to pass on to their family after they pass on. So if you own a home and want to give it to a child, they will have to sell it (and pay 28% on the profit) just to pay the 49% tax on the inheritance. Welcome to retirement, Obama style. You better hope you get a publisher's clearing house giveaway from Ed McMahon....


                  This is depressing as hell. Thank god I'm socking money away in a Roth. Please don't tell me Obama wants to take that away from me too.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by oregonpackfan
                    Several things strike me about this article:

                    1. Americans can no longer rely on a company-based pension to provide their financial needs in retirement. Only a small percentage of companies provide pensions anyone. Most that do have a retirement plan are 401ks where the primary responsibility is placed on the employee rather than the employer.

                    2. All Americans, particularly the ones in their 20's, 30's, and 40's, need to become more educated in long-term investing and start contributing for their retirement be it in the form of 401ks, Roth Ira's, etc.

                    3. All Americans need to increase their savings, be it short-term or long-term. a recent study showed Americans had an average savings rate of -.5%! Yes, that is a negative savings rate. The average savings rate for Asians is a +10%.

                    I like your post OPF, but I'd tweak the order just a little bit. I think you've got 2 and 3 flipped around. There isn't much point for people becoming educated on investing unless they're first become savers. Zippy the chimp can buy mutual funds - it ain't that tough. And your investment return in early years of wealth building is no where near as impactful as your savings rate. In later years, once your nest egg is more substantial, then investment return becomes more important.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by HowardRoark
                      Everything coming out of an IRA is taxed at Ordinary Income rates, so either way you look at it, they are going up.


                      Not from a Roth IRA.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Scott Campbell
                        Originally posted by HowardRoark
                        Everything coming out of an IRA is taxed at Ordinary Income rates, so either way you look at it, they are going up.


                        Not from a Roth IRA.
                        Yet. You think a pot of money as large as Roth IRA's are becoming won't be of interest to politicians....

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Scott Campbell
                          Originally posted by mraynrand
                          Interesting article. It will get a whole lot worse with Obama in office. Obama wants a 28% (McCain 0%) tax on home sale profit, which will help wipe out equity earnings for seniors. He wants 39.6% dividend tax (McCain 15%0, which will help wipe out gains in money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, etc. Obama wants a 49% inheritance tax (McCain 0% up to 5mil) on everything a person wants to pass on to their family after they pass on. So if you own a home and want to give it to a child, they will have to sell it (and pay 28% on the profit) just to pay the 49% tax on the inheritance. Welcome to retirement, Obama style. You better hope you get a publisher's clearing house giveaway from Ed McMahon....


                          This is depressing as hell. Thank god I'm socking money away in a Roth. Please don't tell me Obama wants to take that away from me too.
                          Relax, Scott. I got one thing wrong there. I think Obama only wants a 45% inheritance tax, not 49, as I first reported. But my understanding is that the limits on the Roth IRA are actually scheduled to change in the next year (to your benefit, right?). Don't be surprised if Obama would go after that as well.

                          Also, there is his 50 Billion stimulus package - 25 billion to help states pay off their debt, and another 25 Billion for 'infrastructure.' Given that 65% of state expeditures are on Medicare, Medicaid, and Education, and that much of the infrastructure he talks of is for schools, it essentially is another mechanism for entitlement payouts and a huge payout to the Teacher's unions and other unions. But to get the feds to pay off state debt - YIKES!
                          "Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Maxie the Taxi
                            The title of the piece is: "Study: Bankruptcies soar for senior citizens."

                            Yet, halfway through the article, this appears: "Nor is there a significant aging trend to blame. While the country is set to experience a notable age shift in the coming years, no major one took place between 1991, when the average age was 33, and 2007, when it was 36."

                            If age isn't to blame, why imply it is by talking about "senior citizens?"

                            Maybe the title of the piece should have been: "Study: Bancruptcies soar for hardworking but stupid people whose entire retirement plan consists of investing their meager life savings in a single-wide trailer in rural Florida."
                            Just recall that when these people were working, it was not so common to invest in stocks, and there weren't the investment options that there are today. Many people relied on company benefits and retirement plans that were pulled out from under them. Many also believed that they could count on Social Security to take care of them and they were, of course, wrong. The end result is that they've had to continue working long after the traditional retirement age and if the stock market takes a major dump when it's time for your retirement, you could experience some of the same issues if you're not diversified enough.
                            "Greatness is not an act... but a habit.Greatness is not an act... but a habit." -Greg Jennings

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by mraynrand
                              Originally posted by Scott Campbell
                              Originally posted by mraynrand
                              Interesting article. It will get a whole lot worse with Obama in office. Obama wants a 28% (McCain 0%) tax on home sale profit, which will help wipe out equity earnings for seniors. He wants 39.6% dividend tax (McCain 15%0, which will help wipe out gains in money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, etc. Obama wants a 49% inheritance tax (McCain 0% up to 5mil) on everything a person wants to pass on to their family after they pass on. So if you own a home and want to give it to a child, they will have to sell it (and pay 28% on the profit) just to pay the 49% tax on the inheritance. Welcome to retirement, Obama style. You better hope you get a publisher's clearing house giveaway from Ed McMahon....


                              This is depressing as hell. Thank god I'm socking money away in a Roth. Please don't tell me Obama wants to take that away from me too.
                              Relax, Scott. I got one thing wrong there. I think Obama only wants a 45% inheritance tax, not 49, as I first reported. But my understanding is that the limits on the Roth IRA are actually scheduled to change in the next year (to your benefit, right?). Don't be surprised if Obama would go after that as well.

                              Also, there is his 50 Billion stimulus package - 25 billion to help states pay off their debt, and another 25 Billion for 'infrastructure.' Given that 65% of state expeditures are on Medicare, Medicaid, and Education, and that much of the infrastructure he talks of is for schools, it essentially is another mechanism for entitlement payouts and a huge payout to the Teacher's unions and other unions. But to get the feds to pay off state debt - YIKES!
                              Actually, the infrastructure being discussed is a little bit for schools, but the payout for the states is mainly intended to repair crumbling roads and bridges--the need for which was highlighted in the I-35 bridge collapse and Congress is already acting on it according to the engineers' PAC.
                              "Greatness is not an act... but a habit.Greatness is not an act... but a habit." -Greg Jennings

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X