U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
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 05-06-2015, 10:25 PM
13,879 posts, read 7,391,112 times
Reputation: 25356


Originally Posted by Cameron60 View Post
Numbers are not bad. Social Security offers a good check.
If someone had a professional career and got the maximum benefit of $2663 and their spouse gets 75% of the average $1332 or $999 that's a joint income of $3662 a month. Using the 4% rule that's the equivalent of having a nest egg of $1.1 million.
Or you can be single, defer Social Security until age 70 when the benefit with 35 years of maxed out contributions is $41.6K/year tax-free, don't touch any of the tax deferred portfolio, and live off after-tax savings and investments before age 70. That's how my spreadsheet models it. At age 70, the Social Security check covers my cash flow. Mandatory 401-K/IRA distributions are mad money. Roth distributions for extraordinary expenses like buying a car or a major household repair to avoid paying tax on the Social Security part.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Old 05-07-2015, 02:29 AM
71,509 posts, read 71,674,131 times
Reputation: 49088
Originally Posted by nicet4 View Post
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.

the problem with that chart you post is it is not very accurate . the 62 reflects all those collecting as well prior to retirement.

this is the age breakout

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-07-2015, 07:21 AM
Location: Baltimore, MD
3,745 posts, read 4,215,210 times
Reputation: 6866
Originally Posted by LookingatFL View Post
So, please look at the slide show and let me know what you think of these numbers. Thank you.

The Average American's Retirement Number
This is wrong on so many levels. The "number" is based on the average expenditures of households that include at least one person aged 65 or over. The households could include one, two or even five or more elders. Not only does the author fail to take into account the extreme income disparity in the United States, he also assumes that a household containing a single elder would spend the same amount of dollars as a household containing two or more. I don't think it takes a statistician to figure out that the latter is simply not true. The amount of dollars going out is definitely constrained by the amount coming in and a household consisting of more than one elder is more likely to have more money to spend. Ergo, the "number" cited by the author is ridiculous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-07-2015, 09:12 AM
Location: NC Piedmont
3,911 posts, read 2,876,920 times
Reputation: 6291
I plug numbers into simple worksheets like this:


and I come up with a cost that isn't far off from the low end in the article this thread references if I plug in numbers that are based on economical choices. One major caveat is I am likely to make a reasonably large down payment or possibly buy outright, but in a community where I would still be paying monthly fees. Also, I am basing it on staying reasonably healthy.
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.

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

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