Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
can and did 5 years ago.
deadly serious.
many of those that did not are not still at the office they are at the cemetary.
its just like track u dont run up to the finish line u run thru it way thru it.
If anyone just sits with a calculator and ask themselves how much they need to retire on, it's scary. I would say one needs at $1-1.5 million in cash/assets to retire at age 60-65 and live another 20-25 years. $1 million dollars over 25 years is $40k a year so we are not even talking about living lavishly here. And I'm assuming we cannot rely on the government here. Whatever benefits we get will be insignificant.
Sure some people can save this money but how many really can, especially the way the markets and the world has turned. Some people even retire abroad in Panama and Thailand because they can't afford it. My question is that are you saving for retirement and how do you plan on funding it?
I'm at a disadvantage as I can't take anything seriously.
I too have done everything "right" financially, but I fear it will not be enough. Not with interest rates being held at near zero simply to minimize federal debt interest; a stifled economy where part-time work is not an option and starting a business is almost doomed to fail; a stock market dependent on the infusion of trillions in printed fiat dollars; and worst of all government at all levels spending like drunken sailors and racking up insane debt and pension obligations, while tirelessly seeking to raise taxes on ANYONE who has money to pay for it all.
So for those who are ready to retire, in addition to saving enough to pay for living expenses for another 30 or more years, has everyone set aside the $400,000 they and their spouse will need for health care, assuming they are both in good health (add 4% per year for health care inflation if not yet 65)? "Medicare covers only 59% of the cost of health care for seniors–and retirees can expect to pay an even larger share in the future. In fact, a couple age 65 might need $387,000 saved in order to be confident of covering their health care costs in retirement, not including outlays for long-term care." ttp://www.financial-planning.com/news/Health-Care-May-Cost-Nearly-400000-for-Retired-Couple-2681848-1.html
Factored in inflation, cost of living increases, dollar devaluation? At some point the endless printing of dollars by the Fed will hit the economy, especially since it will continue until something prevents it.
Factored in a buffer for reduced government benefits, increased federal taxes (especially interest and dividends) and higher property taxes? These are pretty much a given with current federal debt levels and the upcoming hit of government worker pensions at all levels of government: "According to a recent economic study, the cost to fully fund these promises would cost taxpayers $5 trillion over a 30-year period, or nearly $1,400 a year in higher state and local taxes and fees for every household in the country." $5 Trillion Price Tag for Public Pensions - The Best Life (usnews.com).
Factored in a buffer for emergencies like the car falling apart, or children that may come home with kids of their own after either divorce or simply not being able to make it on their own?
We are going to "retire" soon, early, because I'm sick of working away my life while paying huge amounts to a government that returns virtually nothing. But will I be flying around the world and enjoying retirement to the max like my parents' generation. No.
Retire? What is that exactly? I plan on working for another 40 years or so. Not that I will have to. We plan on paying off our home in 2024 and will then be debt free. My 403B is looking good so far and growing. Who knows what the future will bring. I plan on having $4 to $5 million in there by the time I hit age 67. Still, a million just is not rich if you ask me. At that rate if you can get 2% on your money I should have an income around $80,000 or more. Still think about it, that won't be much 20 years from now. My thoughts are if you are in good shape, why stop working. I would work till I am 100 if I could.
Two rental condos not payed for and one rental house with only about 40k left on the balance. A 401k that I contribute to each month. I may be in deep doodoo.
I think the key is getting your house, kids college and vehicles paid for. Once you have those covered you dont need much to live on each month unless you plan on taking lavish vacations to Europe.
And as far as "buying gold" is concerned. Nobody buys gold. They send money to a company and get pieces of paper back that shows them how much gold they own. If you ever request to actually have the gold or even just to be able to see it: like tour the facility that the alleged gold is at, you will be laughed at. You might as well save up rare baseball cards or comic books and trade them for other stuff of "value"..
Wow, I had no idea...so all those gold bars and coins dad used to keep in the attic were fake? And the silver ones? Fake too? He sold them all off a year or so ago when times were tight for them (they are real estate agents and builders) and the gold place that bought them certainly thought they were real. Nice to know that they were fake. They were awfully heavy for paper certificates though.
Your approach to Social Security - not counting on it - is a reasonable and prudent one. I don't see how anyone can quarrel with it.
Now having said that, I think you're wrong about not ever seeing a dime from it. True, kicking the can down the road does not inspire confidence in the rationality of our politcians. However, what would really be politically unpopular - to the point of massive outrage - would be to let the system fail completely. Politically, it would be impossible to have large numbers of seniors (many of whom are not as responsible as you and I about retirement planning) become totally destitute. Not only those seniors but also their children and grandchildren would be up in arms.
Now I admit that it's impossible to know for sure what is going to happen that far down the road. It will be 35 years before you turn 67, which is your currently defined "full retirement age" for Social Security, and that age could be raised between now and then as one of the fixes to maintain SS solvency. But I would still disagree with your "beyond repair" phrase. Even if fixes are delayed, the system is maintainable, perhaps with reduced benefits. I say that waiting too long can result in the system not being restorable to its present (2012) state, but "beyond repair" implies that it ceases to exist, and if I were going to be around that long, which I am not (being 68), I would bet that it will not collapse completely.
I agree with this. I'm 34. I'm not counting on anything from SS. However, I do expect I will receive something. I expect SS will be gradually phased out in some manner. If I get 50 cents of each dollar today's retirees get, that will at least be something. As others have said "beer and bait money" (although I neither drink nor fish, but it is the right idea). To drop it completely would be devestating, but if they announced today that every year, they would be paying out 1% less, that would give people of my generation and the following generation time to adjust without impacting my parent's generation very much. They could even lock your payout rate in at the time you retire, so as to impact each group even less. You don't continue to decrease once you retire, every year, new retirees just get a little bit less than people who retired the year before. It would be a long term fix instead of a patch. In fact, I would be much more comfortable knowing that (being about 35 years out) I would get 65% of today's benefits, guaranteed to be there, instead of having to figure I may not get any at all. I think most of my generation would agree with me on that.
I think it depends on what the person's goal is upon retirement. If it means remaining in the same large house where the children were raised and with the vacation home and the fancy cars and going out to eat often, etc. then probably very few can retire. On the otherhand, if a person is willing to downsize, then many of the same "extras" can be affordable assuming that continuing to live in the big metro area is not one of those necessities.
For us, we moved out of NYC, bought a small house in the country, and we are far from house poor. Our base will cost us less in a year than one month of property taxes in the NYC or other metro area. So we gave up convenience for peace of mind. And the travelling we got accustomed to is still within our budget.
So, I have to say that most people can afford to retire but the lifestyle they choose will determine whether it's wise.
I'm loving having my husband at home 24/7. I love how relaxed he is, how easily he laughs, etc. For us, early retirement (he's 57) is the best.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
