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)
 
Old 08-04-2017, 04:47 PM
 
1,061 posts, read 516,164 times
Reputation: 1814

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by elnrgby View Post
Interestingly, my annual budget is exactly the same as that of the OP, and I am one year older than her (ie, I'm 57 right now). I have been semi-retired since age 49-50, and not sure when I'll fully retire, but per my calculations (which take into account the average annual inflation over the past 60 years, and the fact that Soc Security will probably be paying me 75% of the estimated benefit, with average annual increase of 1.5 to 2%), I would have to have at least $2.5 million to retire now and continue living on the same budget as now. As someone already mentioned on this thread, Massachusetts has a really good state health insurance system, so as a resident of MA I expect to be paying for my health insurance (until the age 65, when Medicare kicks in) a somewhat lower premium than the OP would be paying for her employer-sponsored retirement health plan. I am very conservative with investing (because I don't think I am knowledgeable enough about it), so the major part of my retirement income (ie, about 40%) will be coming from annuities. The other 40% will be from the sale of properties that I own, plus Soc Security after age 70. I keep only about 10% of my assets in the market (ie, in mutual funds); and 8% in cash accounts. The 2.5M figure does not really include too much extra $ for very expensive emergencies, and assumes that I would have to live in low-income senior housing and on Medicaid if I live longer than the age of 105. So, I think the figure that answers the OP's question is the minimum of $2.5 million (more than 2.5M if you want to have a fund for expensive emergencies, or want to live on the same inflation-adjusted budget past the age of 100; probably less than 2.5M if you are very good with playing the market and are comfortable with investing in high-yield stocks).
I wonder how many people past the age of 90 still live outside nursing homes? Are people here budgeting for nursing home costs? I am single and childless. As such, I decided long ago to forego LTCi. If I get thrown into a nursing home, even if I've brilliantly managed my money and have spent my last liquid dime, my home can be sold to pay for the nursing home costs. I live in a high COL area, so that's about one million. Should I worry about only having that to give to the nursing home before Medicaid kicks in? Are others worried about fully funding nursing home costs?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-04-2017, 05:22 PM
 
Location: North Las Vegas
241 posts, read 168,408 times
Reputation: 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63 View Post
FIVE million? Do I hear TEN, just in case? Seriously, I guess no one is really ever set to retire...how do people do it?
lmao,according to some in here I literally have to die on the job.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2017, 05:28 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia/South Jersey area
2,875 posts, read 1,404,432 times
Reputation: 10088
Cabound1, I decided to skip the lti. Too expensive, too much uncertainty with the policies. I do have a life insurance policy that allows me to use the value of the policy for that purpose.
I reevaluate every year on that issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2017, 05:40 PM
 
71,563 posts, read 71,730,589 times
Reputation: 49168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cabound1 View Post
I wonder how many people past the age of 90 still live outside nursing homes? Are people here budgeting for nursing home costs? I am single and childless. As such, I decided long ago to forego LTCi. If I get thrown into a nursing home, even if I've brilliantly managed my money and have spent my last liquid dime, my home can be sold to pay for the nursing home costs. I live in a high COL area, so that's about one million. Should I worry about only having that to give to the nursing home before Medicaid kicks in? Are others worried about fully funding nursing home costs?
we have a partnership plan with our state for ltc
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2017, 05:48 PM
 
1,061 posts, read 516,164 times
Reputation: 1814
Quote:
Originally Posted by eliza61nyc View Post
Cabound1, I decided to skip the lti. Too expensive, too much uncertainty with the policies. I do have a life insurance policy that allows me to use the value of the policy for that purpose.
I reevaluate every year on that issue.
Financial advisors and insurance agents play to people's fears. Fearful people also tend to avoid risk. Put the two together and you get people who think they need $5 million because they could live to 105.

I just shake my head when I see people miserable in their 50's and 60's because they're worried about funding ages 90 -105. There's probably about a 10% chance of living to 90 and being ambulatory.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2017, 05:50 PM
 
Location: Coastal Georgia
37,112 posts, read 45,631,484 times
Reputation: 61727
All I can say is, we were lucky in some ways, and unlucky in others. Like most people.

We had a lucrative business, a few inheritances, and some real estate gains over the years, but we also came up in the days when we thought real estate values would only go up, and everyone's job would be secure, and one's business would only grow stronger. Wrong, wrong and wrong. We spent as if the gravy train would not end.

Despite the fact that we got caught in all the downturns, thankfully we have settled into a comfortable, though spartan, lifestyle. We both are from people who lived carefully, so we are equipped to live with as much, or as little as we have.

My point is, there are folks who live on only SS, and there are folks who despair because of the cost of maintaining their 2nd home in Florida. One way or another, it works out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2017, 05:56 PM
 
Location: Paranoid State
13,047 posts, read 10,439,740 times
Reputation: 15683
Quote:
Originally Posted by scgali View Post
I think a lot depends on passive income as well. I'm 34 and not planning for social security to be available at retirement age. If it is then great but I'm certainly not counting on it.
That's a good planning assumption. That was my assumption when I was 21. I'm now 60, and I'm still not planning on SS being there for me, as I suspect it will become even more progressively means tested than it already is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scgali View Post
My job doesn't offer a pension or anything either as most don't anymore.
Mine didn't either.


Quote:
Originally Posted by scgali View Post
And health care is a complete mess as well so who knows what will happen with it in 30 years.
You're guess is as good as mine. Note that Obamacare & Trumpcare are not about health care. They are about health care insurance. Forget about who pays for a moment and ask "who is going to actually deliver health care over the next 30 years." The answer is not obvious.


Quote:
Originally Posted by scgali View Post
And as a former hospice nurse ...
It takes a very special person to be a nurse, let alone a hospice nurse. Thank you for doing that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2017, 08:09 PM
 
1,707 posts, read 612,502 times
Reputation: 1783
In response to Mathjak107: I used the average inflation over 60 years precisely because it includes the 1970s years of massive inflation, so if anything, the average that includes those 10 or so years is most likely to overestimate the future inflation in my remaining lifetime. The inflation In the US since the mid-1990s has been very low, the situation similar to other developed countries with aging population (most extremely Japan). It is known how and why the inflation of the 1970s happened, so it is unlikely that anybody will repeat the Nixon-era approach to economy again. While inflation may (and probably will) go up a bit from the present minimal levels, a 1970s-sized inflation does not seem likely (where do you see it coming from? how?), so my estimate of inflation (with prices doubling every 20 years) is much more likely to be a super safe overestimate than the way around (I am a very cautious person, proven by the fact that I see ANY investment in stocks as playing the market. I based my retirement on annuities from large insurance companies that have their holdings in vastly diversified massive institutional portfolios, a billion times bigger that what I could possibly ever imagine having as an individual investor. True, New York Life or Pacific Life do not play the market, they own large chunks of of it - compared to what they can do with the market, all I could ever do amounts to just playing. That is why I left it to them to manage my retirement income via annuities. And because I don't care to waste my valuable remaining life on thinking about managing money).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2017, 08:33 PM
 
1,707 posts, read 612,502 times
Reputation: 1783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cabound1 View Post
I wonder how many people past the age of 90 still live outside nursing homes? Are people here budgeting for nursing home costs? I am single and childless. As such, I decided long ago to forego LTCi. If I get thrown into a nursing home, even if I've brilliantly managed my money and have spent my last liquid dime, my home can be sold to pay for the nursing home costs. I live in a high COL area, so that's about one million. Should I worry about only having that to give to the nursing home before Medicaid kicks in? Are others worried about fully funding nursing home costs?
Actually, a lot of people who manage to reach that age tend to be reasonably healthy and independent (the unhealthy ones do not reach the 90s). There are various lower levels of assisted living other than nursing homes, that are substantially cheaper than nursing homes. As far as I know, the statistical majority of the very elderly do NOT live in nursing homes. Medicaid covers some of the assisted services for people who own less than $2,000 in assets ( however, the assets that are excluded from consideration are your primary home, your household belongings, your car, and your monthly income up to a certain amount - so basically, you can still continue owning everything you need for modest normal life, and still qualify for Medicaid).

I am also solo, no kids, no heirs. Obviously, in this situation there is no point whatsoever to have a LTCI. I plan to spend all my $ on things I enjoy, while I can enjoy them (mostly travel), rather than funding a nursing home. Unless I have a stroke or some other major neurologic disability that would prevent me from moving altogether, I don't see why I should ever go to a nursing home (one can waste away from cancer, or drop dead from a massive heart attack, pretty much anywhere, and I would rather do that on a beach in Hawaii than in a nursing home). If I get demented (something that never happened to anyone on either side of my family, including the ancestors that lived well into their 90s, but there is always the first), that will be someone else's problem (probably Medicaid's) because I won't be aware that there is a problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2017, 08:48 PM
 
1,707 posts, read 612,502 times
Reputation: 1783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cabound1 View Post
Financial advisors and insurance agents play to people's fears. Fearful people also tend to avoid risk. Put the two together and you get people who think they need $5 million because they could live to 105.

I just shake my head when I see people miserable in their 50's and 60's because they're worried about funding ages 90 -105. There's probably about a 10% chance of living to 90 and being ambulatory.
In my case, I have life annuities, and the ones that start at the ages of 80 and 85 (which I purchased at the age of about 52-53) were so tremendously cheap that I hardly noticed paying the premioum, let alone that paying it would make me in any way miserable in my 50s and 60s (my remaining life after age 80 has been fully funded with about 8% of my present assets. I intend to spend my remaining 92% assets in my 50s, 60s and 70s - how does that make me miserable? The difference between 92% and 100% is not that great. If you fund your extreme age 30-35 years in advance with deferred life annuities, it does not cost that much to do it).

My grandfather who died at 99 used to still walk 5-6 miles per day until 6 weeks before he died (of sudden stroke). He was deaf but otherwise perfectly healthy, and certainly very ambulatory, for 9 years after turning 90.
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
Similar Threads
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