U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-21-2014, 08:14 PM
Q44
 
Location: Hudson Valley, NY
895 posts, read 766,093 times
Reputation: 1761

Advertisements

More and more I'm convinced nobody actually uses those articles to make comparisons and decisions. Instead, and I include myself, seek out articles and experts that already share a similar strategy and philosophy just so we can justify our choices. Data and advice contrary to our strategy is dismissed and even ridiculed. I like equities with dividends, I like Jeremy Siegel's advice. I think 62 for SS is too young for me but I don't want to draw from my account so I won't be waiting until FRA either. Somewhere in the middle works for me so I'm on the look out for an article that lauds the split the difference in SS strategy so I can convince myself I was right all along.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-21-2014, 09:23 PM
 
Location: Subconscious Syncope, USA (Northeastern US)
2,367 posts, read 1,636,674 times
Reputation: 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by caco54 View Post
I am not a believer in conspiracies. I think Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy, case closed. However every time there is an article on retirement savings or SS like:

"You must have 8 times your pay in retirement savings"

" Only take 4% per year in withdrawals"

"Delay SS until 70.5"

The board lights up with "financial institutions want you to have more money so they make more money" and the "government hopes you die before 70.5".

Is this just good advice or do you believe there is an alterative motive to all these articles?
This may be a good guideline, but unfortunately, I dont think most Americans meet it.

According to my Tax Deferred Annuities calculator, if I retire at 57 and plan to live to age 80, I can expect an income of about $2200 a month or more. Between my Annuity and Pension only. If I have to still work, I hope to reduce both the hours and level of complexity envolved, as I will only be looking to make ends meet. "Would you like fries with that burger, sonny?"

I have about 1x my annual salary saved atm, lol. I have no intention of delaying SS any longer than I have too. Im not sure I will live to even reach 70, nevermind be of sound enough mind to still be gainfully employed. I dont have too many reasons to believe its not possible to live that long, but being a firm believer in Murphy's Law Id rather err on the side of NOT living that long.

I have been working legally and usually full time since I was 14 years old, and would like to get some joy out of what life I have remaining. Dont want to die on the job. Would rather die on the beach with a half gone drink by my side.

In hindsight, the only change I would make would be starting to save for retirement sooner. Right now, Im looking at living modestly but comfortably. If I had started saving earlier, I could have been looking at living a little larger at a time where comfort and convenience counts the most in our lives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2014, 09:44 PM
 
Location: Whereever we have our RV parked
8,787 posts, read 7,710,113 times
Reputation: 15085
I'm the opposite of the OP. I think JFK was definitely murdered by govt. insider conspiracy. I've done enough reading, that I've got plenty of doubts about the "official version" Anyhow, I don't trust anyone's advice as coming from an unbiased point of view. Lots of folks out there, trying to jerk the common man around, trying to get some of his money or cheat him in some way. Last few years, we've seen plenty about putting off retirement. Why? Cause the govts. broke and they have to borrow money to pay SS. They would love to see a whole bunch of people put off retirement and then die before or soon after retirement. Its fine to listen to opinions, but take them all with a grain of salt. In the end, its wisest, IMHO, to figure it out for yourself and come to your own conclusions. Make some estimates and guesses, do some calculations, and then go with it. Figure in how long you think you might live and then add a few years.

However, don't get all worried and hung up about it. There is no way any of us can know our circumstances 10 or 20 years in the future. Just make your plans and pray.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2014, 02:29 AM
 
71,628 posts, read 71,777,271 times
Reputation: 49225
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConeyGirl52 View Post
This may be a good guideline, but unfortunately, I dont think most Americans meet it.

According to my Tax Deferred Annuities calculator, if I retire at 57 and plan to live to age 80, I can expect an income of about $2200 a month or more. Between my Annuity and Pension only. If I have to still work, I hope to reduce both the hours and level of complexity envolved, as I will only be looking to make ends meet. "Would you like fries with that burger, sonny?"

I have about 1x my annual salary saved atm, lol. I have no intention of delaying SS any longer than I have too. Im not sure I will live to even reach 70, nevermind be of sound enough mind to still be gainfully employed. I dont have too many reasons to believe its not possible to live that long, but being a firm believer in Murphy's Law Id rather err on the side of NOT living that long.

I have been working legally and usually full time since I was 14 years old, and would like to get some joy out of what life I have remaining. Dont want to die on the job. Would rather die on the beach with a half gone drink by my side.

In hindsight, the only change I would make would be starting to save for retirement sooner. Right now, Im looking at living modestly but comfortably. If I had started saving earlier, I could have been looking at living a little larger at a time where comfort and convenience counts the most in our lives.
i think only planning to 80 is quite dangerous. for one thing if you make it to 65 you stand a 50% chance of making it to 83 and by planning to such a young age it leaves little slack in the plan for the unexpected expenses and awe craps in life. unless you know which part of the 50% yoyu will be in prudence says plan you will be in the group that live to at least 90. if for no other reason then it leaves slack in the plan for the awe craps.

the way life expectancy works out the older you get the greater the odds you will live beyone the median age.

many of those "rules" are not rules but guidelines that are conservative in nature. they plan for the worst outcomes so anything better then worst case is an upside surprise as well as build in quite a bit of slack in the plan for the unexpected.

historically one could have withdrawn not 4% but over 6% a year inflation adjusted if you are willing to risk the fact that two of the worst retirement time frames since 1926 would have failed at 4%..

everything in retirement and dealing with the unknown is a trade off in the amount of dry powder and room for things to go wrong that you want to build in to your plan.

retirment planning is measured in the amount of success rate you want in your plan as well as the consistancy of that income failing and having to be reduced.

the battle between how much can i spend vs how much will be left for heirs go in opposite directions.

some don't care about leaving a thing , others want a balance of spending and still leaving a legacy, while others still want to live as frugaly as they can and watch the savings grow.

only you can decide which path is right for you but the fact is it will take different savings amounts, different allocations and different withdrawal amounts depending on the road you chose to take.

folks do not realize that the 3 paths are very different from each other and you can't have maximum withdrawals while thinking you will save for heirs .

you need to compromise and that is where guidelines like 4% withdrawals from diversified portfolios come in.

they are a balance between spending and saving. take less and you can save more for heirs, pull more and you certainly can spend more but you will have less for heirs.

92% of the time though 4% has provided a consistant inflation adjusted income flow while ending with more than you started with. but you will need a lot more in savings to take that path .

Last edited by mathjak107; 04-22-2014 at 02:49 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2014, 07:14 AM
 
741 posts, read 641,725 times
Reputation: 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
So in terms of financial planning as it relates to expected longevity, I agree that it's a very individual matter, but I still think it's legitimate to cite expected longevity data.
I agree. It's a starting point for discussion ... not an estimate which should be an assumed fact. The individual factors will be the deduction from the years we're expected to live this life. I'm single, never had children ... and I'm not interested in building wealth to pass long as inheritance. My focus in financial and health planning is a bit more selfish than many others here have the opportunity to be. It's all about me!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2014, 07:45 PM
 
2,038 posts, read 1,949,102 times
Reputation: 3449
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
In some sense I think the government would want the biggest generation to put off taking SS seeing how the government spent that money.

Me..I think I'm going to take SS early and hold off on my 401K until 70.
I've always marched to a different drum anyway so why stop now
I know mathjak thinks the opposite (take from savings and replenish savings with guaranteed higher SS at 70) but I think I like the idea of taking SS early and growing the 401K ...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2014, 07:55 PM
 
2,038 posts, read 1,949,102 times
Reputation: 3449
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeTheEconomist View Post
If you start collecting sooner, you will preserve some of your outside savings, but keep in mind that outside savings make trigger Social Security's means-test on people with 'substantial outside savings'.
I know if you take early SS before FRA and work then the SS is reduced but I was not aware that SS has means-testing on savings?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2014, 08:04 PM
 
29,782 posts, read 34,876,173 times
Reputation: 11705
Quote:
Originally Posted by fumbling View Post
I know if you take early SS before FRA and work then the SS is reduced but I was not aware that SS has means-testing on savings?
I think he means future SS reform possibilities. It is food for thought if applicable
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2014, 02:48 AM
 
71,628 posts, read 71,777,271 times
Reputation: 49225
Quote:
Originally Posted by fumbling View Post
I know mathjak thinks the opposite (take from savings and replenish savings with guaranteed higher SS at 70) but I think I like the idea of taking SS early and growing the 401K ...
while i like that method the best i will most likely take mine at FRA. origonally we had a higer "pensionized income as i called it from some commercial lease rights we owned. but we sold those last month and that cut a big portion of our cash flow off since we sold it and i will need to draw a lot more from savings so the better balance for us looks like 66 as opposed to 70.

it is all going to be a choice based on your own situation . but the important question to ask yourself is not what if i die ? but what if i live?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2014, 06:04 AM
 
29,782 posts, read 34,876,173 times
Reputation: 11705
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
while i like that method the best i will most likely take mine at FRA. origonally we had a higer "pensionized income as i called it from some commercial lease rights we owned. but we sold those last month and that cut a big portion of our cash flow off since we sold it and i will need to draw a lot more from savings so the better balance for us looks like 66 as opposed to 70.

it is all going to be a choice based on your own situation . but the important question to ask yourself is not what if i die ? but what if i live?
I have a good friend who adopted his brothers philosophy:
Are you living for living or living for dying. They profess living and spent to enjoy while alive and able to enjoy retirement . They are now in their late sixties and broke. They took SS early so they could get it and enjoy it and not miss it when dead.

Last edited by TuborgP; 04-23-2014 at 06:19 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top