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.
percent of working income can be almost meaningless .especially because if you are dependent on markets and rates for your income now you may need flexibility in your discretionary vs non discretionary spending .
allocations may have to be very different if most or all of your budget is a need and not a want . if an extended down turn hits you may have no where to cut back if it is all a need . so you may actually need more in savings if you can't count all that heavy on markets doing the heavy lifting .
someone who is using a 50/50 mix needs a lot less savings than someone trying to generate the same income with 20 or 10% equities .
% of working income is a rough place to start when you are still decades out from retirement - which is when you're doing your saving. Of course you have to estimate how much you think your salary will grow, too. As you get closer you can likely estimate expenses more accurately - you know if your house will be paid off...you hopefully know the kinds of retirement activities you'll need to fund - travel? golf? birdwatching? All of the above?
I don't think the singles on here expect AN answer. They just want to know that the starting point often given will apply to them the same as it appears to be geared toward couples. Otherwise, an explanation on how and why that may need to be adjusted would help a LOT.
Seems there's an attitude that couples don't get iron-clad advice "either" so singles shouldn't expect more. No - I just expect to know if there are other things I need to consider - doesn't seem like that big a deal but I guess it does make the article more complicated and not quite so pat.
decades out you have no idea of what expenses will be , nor market returns .so basically it is just pedal to the metal and grow as much as you can .
most retirees take what they save and when retirement comes they back in to a lifestyle that fits . it is the only thing you can do since you have so many variables . married or single it is the same path during the accumulation stage . eventually we are all single at some point regardless how we start.
trying to predict with averages is futile . i can tell you when i looked at my balance in 2000 and projected out , it was never in the plan that if i fell a sleep for 15 years i would be on an inflation adjusted basis pretty much where i started .
just keep growing and saving the best you can . that is the whole plan .it isn't until the last down of the game where you fine tune things for your unique situation and start to plan to back in to things . .
Last edited by mathjak107; 08-07-2017 at 02:26 AM..
there really are very few differences between married or single since both may have heirs or charities they want to leave assets to and we all end up single at one point or another . .
with the social security spousal perks now history for most who are still in the planning stage that is out .
whether to delay or not is more a question of do you want to be more market dependent or longevity dependent for your income . that can be the same whether married or single .
tax planning can be an individual issue and can be better or worse for either or . medicaid planning can be the same too if you have heirs you want to leave money to .
the biggest difference i see is really the fact that while one of you in a couple may have investing as a hobby and be quite aggressive the other may not be ,so you need to find someplace in the middle .
married folks may tend to utilize more insurance products in their plan but that is not to say singles with heirs won't do the same .
over all i don't see much in differences to bother . it really is a personal issue as far as what you want more than single or not .
i see more of a difference in women planning vs men for the most part .
Last edited by mathjak107; 08-07-2017 at 07:09 AM..
% of working income is a rough place to start when you are still decades out from retirement - which is when you're doing your saving. ...
I don't think the singles on here expect AN answer. They just want to know that the starting point often given will apply to them the same as it appears to be geared toward couples. ...
When first embarking on adulthood, presumably we're all single. Even if not, well, the overarching goal for nearly everyone, is to save as much as possible, making if necessary some rather stark and extreme sacrifices. So the advice is to just be a savings-fanatic, regardless of one's family situation or romantic prospects.
Now advance by a decade. The 22-year-old fresh in his/her first professional job, is now 32. Some have married by then. Some have not. Some have children. Some do not. This is when our various paths diverge, and consequently our financial needs. But here's the rub. For the married-with-children set, there are pressing and essential financial concerns. Daycare, 529 savings-plan, maybe a larger house with spare bedrooms for the kids. Sports, braces, summer camp. Etc. But for singles without children, the situation is opaque and ambiguous. Should I spend a year backpacking around Europe? Devote my spare time to a side-business? Redouble my efforts for promotion at work? Save even more aggressively? Aim for early retirement?
Advance by yet another decade. Still single (or divorced)? Assuming that there are no children, the ambiguities proliferate yet further. Wild and crazy, or staid and conservative? Keep saving more money? At some point, the ratio of one's portfolio to annual becomes so over overwhelming, that one comes to feel that additional savings become meaningless. And yet, there's the lifelong impetus to save. What to do?
This is why I keep carping that the matter devolves to psychology. A more luxurious lifestyle, and working longer... or more austere, and retiring now? At what point is luxury self-defeating, or even corrupting? But isn't miserliness also reprehensible?
These are problems that I personally feel. I'd be the last to dismiss or diminish them. But again and again: there are foremost problems of psychology, of introspection, of self-definition. They're not problems of how to put food on the table. This is why advice is so difficult and so elusive.
Please help us then....
What do you feel you didn't get from the financial planner? You met with him/her over the course of a year.
How did you not get a plan? Or at least some projections?
First I guess I should ask what did you say you wanted him/her to provide? What did you tell him you wanted to get out of you two working together?
Do you want advice on how to get to your goals? Or projections for how much you'll need in retirement? That last one depends on you. If that's what you want, if you give them your likely lifestyle choices someone can do that for you -- at a cost of course. Or you can do it yourself.
So again, what kind of advice or numbers to you feel you haven't found yet?
I think the advice or numbers not found are not out there to be found. The world, big govt, humanity, whatever is highly biased toward coupling and having children.
So much of law, financial, taxation, social; is biased toward this. Why, when there are very few single income families does SS still pay widowed/widower spouses when they work? Why is there so much tax law for couples? Singles pay more taxes. Insurance, you name it, is biased toward couples and families, with singles paying just a little bit more if you crunch all the numbers. For those of us not just widowed (I don't consider them singles really) with small or no family, we have no safety net. Why so much consideration for families and who will take care of them when they have family to rely on? Isn't that supposed to be one of the advantages of family and children?
What we need is more/reformed law that levels the playing field for singles.
singles may not pay more tax , there can be a penalty for being a couple . if anything that is the part that needs to be made a level playing field .
take a couple where one party is in the 15% bracket and the other the 25% . if a couple , that income in the 15% tax bracket now gets added on to the household income and is now taxed at 25% too . before you had one at 15% and one at 25% as singles.
singles can collect ex spousal benefits as well as survivor benefits .
there really is not much to know about ss benefits today as most perks for couples are gone .
deciding to file early or late is the same whether married or single . the only difference is marriage has the benefit of survivor benefits and spousal adders if one has a higher benefit .
but certainly nothing someone needs to write specific articles for a single for anymore than any other perk that does not apply to each of us .
it sounds like retirement planning may be very different but it really is not . in either case it is about who you are investing for , your income or your heirs .
if anything i can see specific articles for retirement planning for men vs women .
Last edited by mathjak107; 08-08-2017 at 09:01 AM..
there really are very few differences between married or single since both may have heirs or charities they want to leave assets to and we all end up single at one point or another . .
with the social security spousal perks now history for most who are still in the planning stage that is out .
whether to delay or not is more a question of do you want to be more market dependent or longevity dependent for your income . that can be the same whether married or single .
tax planning can be an individual issue and can be better or worse for either or . medicaid planning can be the same too if you have heirs you want to leave money to .
the biggest difference i see is really the fact that while one of you in a couple may have investing as a hobby and be quite aggressive the other may not be ,so you need to find someplace in the middle .
married folks may tend to utilize more insurance products in their plan but that is not to say singles with heirs won't do the same .
over all i don't see much in differences to bother . it really is a personal issue as far as what you want more than single or not .
i see more of a difference in women planning vs men for the most part .
The difference is that a single woman is most concerned about having enough resources to take care of herself during what may be a long life alone. She can only count on herself and what she has must be enough to last
Maybe no spouse children or extended family to check in on her. Friends and neighbors maybe but relatives less likely although they might visit she can only count on herself. She is concerned having the means to pay people to care for her, her healthcare needs, and her home. Drive her to medical procedures stuff she can no longer do herself
She is not as interested in leaving much other than personal itmes to heirs and charities as she is in long term care insurance or finding a good AL or SNF ahead of time so she can trigger transition when she must
Basically from reading your postings you seem to see it as an act of love and responsibility to see to future planning for your spouse. A single alone woman might see the act of love and responsibility to plan so that she is giving her children personal and financial freedom of her not being dependent upon them and taking care of herself even if that means exhausting all assets to do so leaving behind the gift that she wasn't a burden
Hence. The OP starting this thread. End point goals and who does the planning are different
singles may not pay more tax , there can be a penalty for being a couple . if anything that is the part that needs to be made a level playing field .
take a couple where one party is in the 15% bracket and the other the 25% . if a couple , that income in the 15% tax bracket now gets added on to the household income and is now taxed at 25% too . before you had one at 15% and one at 25% as singles.
singles can collect ex spousal benefits as well as survivor benefits .
there really is not much to know about ss benefits today as most perks for couples are gone .
deciding to file early or late is the same whether married or single . the only difference is marriage has the benefit of survivor benefits and spousal adders if one has a higher benefit .
but certainly nothing someone needs to write specific articles for a single for anymore than any other perk that does not apply to each of us .
it sounds like retirement planning may be very different but it really is not . in either case it is about who you are investing for , your income or your heirs .
if anything i can see specific articles for retirement planning for men vs women .
People who are or have been coupled, have kids, have a safety net don't get it. Being alone changes everything.
As to tax law is complicated and whenever I bring this up some coupled person comes along and gives some example. But it just doesn't hold true across the board. Not every married couple gets pushed into a higher tax bracket. Not every couple gets the penalty. There is the bonus. If you have kids you can write things off. Married people can file as a single person but rarely do, why? Because its not beneficial.
Gee, do i have the option of filing as a married person?
Have no idea why being a not working spouse and getting ss is not a perk. Or a widower getting the higher amount of your spouse's ss vs just your own is not a perk. Or having all your kids get ss if widowed before they are 18 is not a perk.
Collecting ex spousal benefits is one reason I think widowed or divorced are not in the same category as never married no kids single.
again , not all married people or couples have children and a safety net . filing single for married people is generally worse. etc etc . it is more a case by case situation than married or single . it is just a case of seeing what applies to you and what doesn't .
there is little that will pertain strictly to special planning on behalf of a married person that would not apply to a single person at times or the reverse .
there are a few things but not enough that it causes you to have a totally different plan . individually there are things you personally may want to do but that is an individual situation choice , others in your position may see things differently and take another path regardless if single or a couple . ..
planning is not segregated in to special handling of married vs single . it is really based on cherry picking what apply's to you regardless of relationship status and not utilizing what doesn't .
you are trying to take situations that are individual situation dependent and making them in to couple or single issues with dividing walls .
like i said , i believe there is more of A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PLANNING FOR MEN VS WOMEN than there is married, couple vs single .
women generally want a less aggressive path and want more security in their income since it usually has to last a longer span .
that can mean more insurance related products in the planning than men typically want or use .
in the end once i consider my wife i still have to start to plan more for what she will ultimately be comfortable with as a woman one day than me .
our planning revolves around the fact that as a woman she wants a different path than i do as a man . in fact sometimes it can be the reverse but the less aggressive one is more typically the woman ..
she was widowed once already so she is a lot more sensitive to what meets her needs at the end of the day .
you won't see much on single vs couple because the situations are pretty much interchangeable at times and we all go from single to couple or the reverse .
it is just utilizing what apply's in each personal situation because there really are no general rules or a script that exists just because one is single vs a couple .. .
Last edited by mathjak107; 08-09-2017 at 06:43 AM..
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.
