Go to main Forum page » participate in the discussion on HumbleDollar
AUTHOR: R Quinn on 9/12/2025
There is a world of reality beyond the the HumbleDollar community.
The Census Bureau reports that poverty among adults at least 65 years old rose in 2024 from the prior year. The poverty rate rose from 14.2% to 15%, the highest level among all age groups.
The 2026 COLA is projected between 2.7 and 2.9% (even though there is no inflation🙄) while the Medicare Part B premium is projected to increase $21.50 plus higher Part D premiums and higher supplemental coverage premiums. Lower income seniors may find themselves going backwards.
The reality is that if you are low income all your life, you are not likely to be better off in retirement. There are just some people, perhaps those up to the 20th percentile of income, who can’t save for retirement. The current poverty level for a family of two is $21,150 ($1762.50 mo). Two years ago 20% of American households earned less than $33,000.
Even though some seniors may be eligible for subsidies such as SNAP, that may not help the the near poor. In NJ the net income limit is $1,704 per month for two people plus there are liquid asset limits as well. Gross income can be higher as the cost of housing can be deducted to reach net income.
There are several programs to help low income with Medicare premiums and deductibles, but they vary by state.
Some seniors are dual eligible, that is, they have both Medicaid and Medicare. In NJ the income limit for a single person is $1,305 per month. This program is for those who need help with daily living activities but do not require a nursing home level of care. There is also a liquid asset limit of $4,000.
Two things that I find unfair. First, there are so many differences in how low income people are helped based only on where they live. Second, the complexity and differences in qualifying for different programs providing assistance to essentially the same population – in this case seniors 65 and up.
Being poor is no fun, being poor, even low income in retirement is less funner😢 There is a lesson for those with resources to save for retirement- get to it now and never stop.
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
sorry, the BLS data in senior poverty is somewhere on the continuum of Lie, Damned Lie or Statistic.
it ignores all assets and income from various sources.
the actual number is closer to 3.5%
LikeLike
Which assets and what income? Are you talking about a house and government subsidies?
If so, that really doesn’t change their actual status does it?
LikeLike
The measure is unique and excludes all wealth and doesn’t count all income, let alone transfers and subsidies.
LikeLike
Based on the latest data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the poverty rate for seniors (age 65 and older) is different depending on the measure used.
Official Poverty Measure (OPM): In 2024, the official poverty rate for seniors was 9.9%, a slight increase from 9.7% in 2023. This measure primarily considers pre-tax cash income.
Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM): The SPM provides a more comprehensive picture of financial hardship. In 2024, the SPM rate for seniors was 15%. This is a significant increase from 14% in the previous two years. The SPM rate for seniors is also notably higher than the national average poverty rate.
Key Differences and What They Mean
The significant gap between the two measures is crucial for understanding senior poverty:
The Official Poverty Measure has been criticized for not accounting for non-cash benefits (like food stamps) and, more importantly for seniors, out-of-pocket medical expenses.
The Supplemental Poverty Measure addresses these issues. By subtracting necessary expenses such as high out-of-pocket medical costs, the SPM reveals a more accurate and higher rate of poverty among older adults.
LikeLike
The supplemental poverty measurement is a relative measurement, and comparable to the one the OECD uses. By their reckoning, we aren’t transfering enough income or wealth to older Americans.
However, every one of us, you and I included, know that, for those of us who have children and grandchildren, we are already burdening them with tens of trillions of dollars of debt … debt that will negatively impact America’s economic growth for decades if not millenium to come.
If you don’t believe me that retiree poverty is less than 5%, if you want to believe the statistical misrepresentation, just poll 1,000 retirees and you will find, as the EBRI survey does each year, that most retirees are living a comfortable life.
“… The level of (retirement) confidence expressed by those already in retirement is higher than for those (who have) yet to retire. Seventy-eight percent of retirees report feeling either very or somewhat confident about having enough money to live comfortably throughout their retirement
years, which is up from 74 percent in 2024. Nearly one-third of retirees feel very confident (32 percent) in 2025. … (but the 22% who aren’t confident, it isn’t from a lack of money, it is the potential for health care costs and long term care expenses) … Just over one in three workers (38 percent) are not too or not at all confident they will have enough money for medical expenses in retirement.”
So, as we continue to spend $1 – $2 trillion more each year than we take in, mostly to defer the cost of health care under Medicare and Medicaid, where politicians expand those benefits or limit provider reimbutsements, if we continue down the road we are on, that level of comfortable life in retirement folks enjoy today will be a distant memory for Gen Y, and the generations that follow.
LikeLike
Consider:
Census Bureau Poverty Metrics Miss Key Welfare Benefits. On September 9th, the US Census Bureau released its 2024 report on poverty in America. The Official Poverty Measure (OPM) recorded a modest decline to 10.6 percent, while the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) remained unchanged at 12.9 percent. Yet, as AEI scholars Matt Weidinger and Scott Winship demonstrate, both measures suffer from serious methodological flaws that fail to capture critical components of anti-poverty policy since the 1960s. As Winship puts it, “the way OPM counts resources as income is terrible” because it only measures cash resources while excluding major welfare programs, such as the EITC. The SPM excludes noncash benefits programs like Medicaid, one of the largest antipoverty programs, from the poverty measure. As Weidinger concludes, “We have competing measures of poverty in this country that tell dramatically different stories… that has only widened over time.” A more holistic approach that provides a comprehensive measure of the effectiveness of government welfare programs in reducing poverty is needed.
Census Bureau Elderly Poverty Metrics Discount Private Retirement Income. AEI scholar Andrew Biggs identifies methodological weaknesses in the Census Bureau’s most recent 2024 poverty report on senior poverty rates. These measures dramatically overstate the true extent of senior poverty. “The Census Bureau’s OPM poverty numbers, along with another figure called the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), are just wrong,” Biggs writes. “I can’t say for sure that poverty didn’t tick up this year for seniors. It goes up and down every year. But I can say for sure that the elderly poverty rate isn’t 10%.” As Biggs explains, the Census Bureau excludes irregular withdrawals from retirement accounts like IRAs and 401(k)s, a significant oversight given their recent popularity over traditional pensions for retirees, and “so elderly poverty is exaggerated.” Using the Bureau’s more comprehensive National Experimental Well-Being Statistics (NEWS) data shows “the elderly poverty rate averaged only 5.9%… When retirement benefits are fully counted.” Such methodological inconsistencies may mislead policymakers and the public as they seek to address the needs of America’s aging population.
Census Bureau’s Poverty Metrics Paint an Inaccurate Picture. The Census Bureau’s recent report measured that poverty in America remained largely unchanged from 2023 to 2024. Cato scholars like Chris Edwards and John Early have demonstrated that official figures are misleading, and that the real poverty rate is far lower. “The Census Bureau’s official poverty rate is biased upwards and kind of meaningless,” writes Edwards. “In terms of material well-being, families near the bottom are much better off today than in past decades because of general economic growth and larger government hand-outs.” The Census “excludes numerous government benefits including Medicaid, food stamps, and earned income tax credits,” but, as John Early’s work points out, when these programs are included, improved estimates “show that only about 2 percent of today’s population lives in poverty, well below the 11 percent to 15 percent that has been reported during the past five decades.” While the Census Bureau’s headlines imply stagnation, more accurate measures show a long-term trend of rising economic and social well-being for low-income Americans.
LikeLike
So, if you rely on various government programs, you are doing ok because you are not statistically poor.
Define it anyway you like, they are poor even while getting benefits.
Which of those folks not actually in poverty would you like to trade places with?
LikeLike
I’ll have funded those government welfare programs for 60+ years prior to retirement – while never really benefitting from them. I don’t have a problem funding them so long as they are not abused.
Myself, I worked a couple of years part time after turning 16, with delivering papers and shoveling snow prior to age 16. After turning 16, I was consistently employed, flipping burgers, painting, plastering, followed by wearing the green for a couple of years (19 – 21). After that, most of my work has been at a desk for 60 – 70 hours a week, including well in excess of three decades with that workload.
During many of those same years (1974 – 1985, and 2010 – 2012), I had 11+ years of college and graduate school at night, including four years where my college attendance required a weekly commutes in excess of 500 miles. I obtained my last degree AFTER turning age 60.
So, seems pretty clear that I was never interested in the choices most Americans made.
Other than the blessing of a family with parents and aunts and uncles who looked after me and challenged me, along with siblings and cousins that were great models, my life was mostly of my own doing – including the mistakes (flunking out of college the first time I tried, divorce, etc.)
Most of the folks age 65+ living in poverty had all the same options and choices I did – they obviously didn’t want to trade places with me – for example, how many of them would be willing to trade places with me today, still working full time at age 73+?
LikeLike