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 05-05-2015, 02:32 PM
 
Location: Tennessee
23,663 posts, read 17,640,506 times
Reputation: 27762

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d View Post
I think you've hit on the the second problem with this "article": regional differences. There's all kinds of threads in this forum on low COL areas and high COL states, but even within some of the high COL states, seniors can very well live fairly inexpensively in some areas but not in others. For example, retiring in NYC is going to be much more expensive than retiring in Buffalo. I'm thinking East Tennessee is probably cheaper than retiring in Nashville.
Once you account for housing/property taxes, most big city expenses don't scale as much as the income gains, and wealth accumulation, that come from the opportunities available in big cities.

Take groceries for example. They are going to be more expensive in somewhere like NYC vs. east TN, but are they two or three times more expensive? Your salary would probably go up at least double for most occupations, should that occupation even have a presence in the small town.

Also, a lot of people discount the effect a paid off house in NJ/NYC/MA etc will have in retirement. Those people can go to most areas of the country, live mortgage free, upgrade homes, and still potentially pocket well into the six figures after all costs are accounted for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-05-2015, 06:33 PM
 
Location: NC Piedmont
3,911 posts, read 2,886,041 times
Reputation: 6291
I really appreciate the link to the article. I have been on the hunt for more reasonable data like that. A lot of articles make it seem like I will need a lot more than that. Too many base it on my current income and while I understand that often translates to lifestyle and spending, in my case it does not. I am paying a couple of high tuition bills right now that will go away before retirement. I am feeding young adults who better be working by then.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2015, 07:08 PM
 
Location: Florida
5,281 posts, read 3,037,333 times
Reputation: 9625
Inflation is very certain, it will devalue your income. That is why politicians get a COLA in their pensions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2015, 09:44 AM
 
8,870 posts, read 5,154,226 times
Reputation: 10160
If you only look at spending, you're ignoring needs/wants which go unmet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2015, 10:53 AM
 
Location: NC Piedmont
3,911 posts, read 2,886,041 times
Reputation: 6291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100 View Post
If you only look at spending, you're ignoring needs/wants which go unmet.
I am confused what you mean by this. If it is wants and needs that cost money, that is spending.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2015, 12:21 PM
 
8,870 posts, read 5,154,226 times
Reputation: 10160
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarvedTones View Post
I am confused what you mean by this. If it is wants and needs that cost money, that is spending.
Yes, but it does not include needs/wants which are foregone for lack of funds.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2015, 01:18 PM
 
Location: Florida -
8,768 posts, read 10,867,395 times
Reputation: 16651
It seems to me like the 10-slides really didn't say anything meaningful (?) -- Ok, the 'average' spending for a 65-year old household is $42K and $35K for a 75-year old household.

But, what does that really mean? (Does the average include ALL of the wealth and the poverty level households? How is 'spending' measured --- and is spending being equated with income or ??).

'Mean average' might be more meaningful, but, greater clarity regarding the polling parameters or data sources is still needed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2015, 02:35 PM
 
Location: Central NY
4,690 posts, read 3,261,742 times
Reputation: 12031
I would say the figures for the most part are OK.

My downfall, which makes my income very limited, is huge bills I am trying to pay down. And in that effort (can only pay the minimum payment), I have to use credit for some things.

It's a crazy world, isn't it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2015, 07:54 PM
 
Location: NC Piedmont
3,911 posts, read 2,886,041 times
Reputation: 6291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100 View Post
Yes, but it does not include needs/wants which are foregone for lack of funds.
Doh! You're right. I didn't think about that. It is pretty much impossible to get good hard numbers. I guess it is just proving that it can be done for X amount. What, if anything, people are giving up to do that will vary.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2015, 08:56 PM
 
Location: Grove City, Ohio
10,142 posts, read 12,407,945 times
Reputation: 13992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emigrations View Post
Probably more reasonable than similar articles I've seen.

The "spent $42k" number may be the national average, but I think it's going to be overstated for folks in a lot of the country.

Before retirement, most folks' biggest expense is housing. By the time you retire between the normal retirement ages of 55-65, you probably have the house paid off or nearly so. If one stays in reasonably decent health throughout their early retirement, you should have a fairly substantial reduction in housing and transportation expenses, without incurring hefty medical bills.

Also, if you're spending $42k, you've had to clear $42k if you didn't go into debt. A lot of people (even couples) in poor areas don't make that.
One of the reasons social security is as low as it is is the incredible number of people who elect to take benefits before their full retirement age.



If the average couple is spending $42k then more people than we have been let to think have some measure of retirement savings.

Spent $42 k is equivalent to $802 weekly.

Remember social security is most often exempt from all federal income and employment taxes along with state taxes in states such as California.

A married California couple where one person works a weekly gross pay of $1,000, this is equivalent to $25/hour, yields a net pay of $808 for the week. If the house is paid for and the couple doesn't have any consumer debt they should be able to live very comfortably on $808 weekly. Not extravagant but comfortable.

$800/week looks even better when you consider the recipient doesn't have the expense of working such as second car, gasoline and all the expenses that go along with that. Eat healthy at home instead of spending $7 for junk food.

In my opinion $800/week is better than $900/week once the cost of a second vehicle is considered.

To enhance my retirement savings I'm trying to work beyond my full retirement age of 66 and it is working because I am closing in on 67. Now I am counting time in quarters because with every passing quarter I calculate my benefit increases by $50/month for as long as either of us lives. Six months is $100 while one year is $200 and so on.

If I make it another three years my wife and I will receive the equivalent of $52k in ss benefits alone and that is what I want.
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