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.
That will give you a good guideline as to where you stand...
Does anyone else remember those halcyon days when interest rates for savings had a number other than zero to the left of the decimal? I used those calculators and spreadsheets when I was in my 40s and 50s, then some really smart guys in DC decided we should all have ZIRP...
And means tested as well? Medicaid is "single payer" but in most states anyone with significant assets must turn them over to the state to receive the benefits.
That will give you a good guideline as to where you stand...
Like some others have alluded to it's really about expenses and it sounds like you're not a big spender , but you really need to quantify that.....a rough rule of thumb is to have 25x your annual expenses.....also, given you could be looking at at a 30+ year retirement you don't want to make the mistake of being too conservative with your money.....you most likely will need growth ands the best vehicle for that is stocks....
Personally, I find this totally useless. We all get Social Security. We all have the ability to slash our burn rate to align with our cash flow. As was pointed out already in this thread, a huge fraction of people retire with nothing but Medicare and Social Security. Their wealth is mostly home equity. They don't have $2 million in investable assets to generate $80K of income, or whatever random number you pick.
The first thing you need to do is hit the Social Security web portal and see what it projects for your Social Security income. They give you age 62, full retirement age, and age 70. If you don't have much wealth beyond home equity, you then need to take a hard look at how to structure your life so you can live on that kind of cash flow. Depending on your zip code in Connecticut, that might not be possible with your home ownership costs so part of your planning needs to be selling your house and moving to a place you can afford.
It's usually much easier to live in a high cost of living region. Your pay is higher so your Social Security check is bigger. You accrue more home equity so you can sell, buy in a lower cost area, and free up some of that home equity to live on.
Personally, I find this totally useless. We all get Social Security. We all have the ability to slash our burn rate to align with our cash flow. As was pointed out already in this thread, a huge fraction of people retire with nothing but Medicare and Social Security. Their wealth is mostly home equity. They don't have $2 million in investable assets to generate $80K of income, or whatever random number you pick.
The first thing you need to do is hit the Social Security web portal and see what it projects for your Social Security income. They give you age 62, full retirement age, and age 70. If you don't have much wealth beyond home equity, you then need to take a hard look at how to structure your life so you can live on that kind of cash flow. Depending on your zip code in Connecticut, that might not be possible with your home ownership costs so part of your planning needs to be selling your house and moving to a place you can afford.
It's usually much easier to live in a high cost of living region. Your pay is higher so your Social Security check is bigger. You accrue more home equity so you can sell, buy in a lower cost area, and free up some of that home equity to live on.
What specifically do you find "totally useless"? the calculator? let me know so I can dress your statement...thanks...
Do you think it'll be cheaper for individuals than the current system? How?
I hope so. We pay far more for health care here than they do just about anywhere else and yet outcomes and life expectancy isn't as good. The how would be to get some fingers out of the pie and to share the costs with a wider pool.
The problem with retiring at 62 and working part time is you are very limited as to what you can earn. Well under $20K without suffering a SS benefit penalty. That won't even cover your health ins cost. Better to put up with working until at least Medicare age or better yet, full retirement age when you can work without a SS penalty. Remember that for every year you wait, your SS benefit will increase by 8%.
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.
I used those calculators and spreadsheets when I was in my 40s and 50s, then some really smart guys in DC decided we should all have ZIRP...
