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.
as i mentioned many times just rent , health insurance and our long term care premiums with nothing else are close to 40k in AFTER TAX dollars in retirement .
i am not old enough for medicare yet . . that just about takes 1 million bucks in savings to cover
as i mentioned many times just rent , health insurance and our long term care premiums with nothing else are close to 40k in AFTER TAX dollars in retirement .
i am not old enough for medicare yet . . that just about takes 1 million bucks in savings to cover
the 40k figure is pretty consistent with our costs also.
now, imagine if as you retire, the healthcare system would change to be a universal healthcare. talk about striking gold at the right time!
(or perhaps moving to a country with universal healthcare if you're a citizen of that country too? Canada?
Not true. There are plenty of us who have done solid planning but continue to worry if it is enough. This article is much less intimidating than the many that claim you need a million dollars or you are screwed.
Obviously there are a lot of variables but I don't think these articles are a complete waste. They are simply a guide, not the end all and be all.
If this article or other stating you must have a million dollars keeps you up at night you have not done solid planning. If your plan was solid and you conclude you don't need a million there is no reason to be bothered by this. Well unless your plan uses agressive assumption or you are not on track with your plan.
I did some scribble notes on the points a few days ago.
Starting in 1990 at age 35 and a $40,000 income... the 2X implies $80,000 in "savings" and progressing
over the next thirty years and allowing for an avg $5000 increase in income at all 8 levels...
this fellow ends in 2020 at age 65 with a $70,000 income... and the 8X implies $560,000 in "savings"
Savings of course includes IRA's and 401K's and other similar investments...
But over that same period he should also have been able to buy a home and to have paid off the mortgage
and of course kept up with whatever repairs and updating the property required leaving him another solid
asset of a fully paid for home in good shape to serve him for the duration or to be sold.
If that house was worth $100,000 in 1990 (2.5X his gross wages) it is worth a LOT more today.
Very likely very close to the national median home price ... call it $240,000 in "equity"
In many markets that property would be worth considerably more... but not likely much less.
Combined that gives our example fellow with a nothing exceptional job ($40K -70K over 30 years) $ 800,000.
(eg: Federal G12 Step 5 the whole time)
Setting the negative possibles aside (health tragedy etc)... it's also reasonable to expect that he'll have some
additional assets either from his own part time effort over the decades or perhaps some inheritance or perhaps
he's is one of those very high cost real estate locations ... which reasonably allows for a $1,000,000 net worth at 65
Last edited by MrRational; 02-28-2017 at 07:23 AM..
the 40k figure is pretty consistent with our costs also.
now, imagine if as you retire, the healthcare system would change to be a universal healthcare. talk about striking gold at the right time!
(or perhaps moving to a country with universal healthcare if you're a citizen of that country too? Canada?
medicare for both of us will knock it down a few thousand but nothing earth shattering if you want full comprehensive coverage in a f-plan supplement .
two-fplan supplements run 6400.00 a year . plus another almost 4k for medicare , plus another 700 or so for a drug plan for two. all in after tax dollars.
Last edited by mathjak107; 02-28-2017 at 07:11 AM..
I did some scribble notes on the points a few days ago.
Starting in 1990 at age 35 and a $40,000 income... the 2X implies $80,000 in "savings" and progressing
over the next thirty years and an avg $5000 increase in income at all 8 levels... this fellow
Ends in 2020 at age 65 and a $70,000 income... and the 8X implies $560,000 in "savings"
Savings of course includes IRA's and 401K's and other similar investments...
But over that same period he should also have been able to buy a home and to have paid off the mortgage
and of course kept up with whatever repairs and updating the property required leaving him another solid
asset of a fully paid for home in good shape to serve him for the duration or to be sold.
If that house was worth $100,000 in 1990 (2.5X his gross wages) it is worth a LOT more today.
Very likely very close to the national median home price ... call it $240,000 in "equity" In many markets that property would be worth considerably more.
all i know is the 35k home in suffolk county we had in the 1970's with a paid off mortgage costs 12k a year in taxes . the fact a 30k mortgage was paid off means little in affordability . that paid off mortgage represents a piece of your utility bills today .
the only example that matters is the one that effects you or others like you . the rest is hearsay .no one is average . median says nothing about exact location nor lifestyle desired , it is what is forced upon you like it or not .
these how much is enough in retirement discussions are nonsense . how long is a rope ?
why not ask how much is enough when working ? the answer is the same . we all earn different incomes , in different area's with different ideas about what we want our lives to be like .
the fact we need at least 1 million to cover just the 3 items listed is as relevant to the discussion as some one who lives only on social security in cheapsville usa .
they fact they do does not change our needs . no one can tell anyone else what is enough.
Last edited by mathjak107; 02-28-2017 at 07:40 AM..
If this article or other stating you must have a million dollars keeps you up at night you have not done solid planning. If your plan was solid and you conclude you don't need a million there is no reason to be bothered by this. Well unless your plan uses agressive assumption or you are not on track with your plan.
Not so. We just saw a post that gave pretty good evidence for the need for a million dollars. Again he is in NYC, we will be in a low COL area. But with healthcare the great unknown I think it's reasonable to be concerned when you will not have a million dollars at retirement.
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.
