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 11-02-2018, 07:55 AM
 
7,953 posts, read 5,058,504 times
Reputation: 13624

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Themanwithnoname View Post
Thoreau was a fraud too.

He basically lived in a guys shed for free for 2 years, (far from. "Out in the wilderness") went over to other people's house to eat their food for free, and had his mother do his laundry!
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvande55 View Post
Then you must be glad he did time in jail (one day) for not paying taxes, and having his protest thwarted by friends paying it behind his back.
Thoreau was somewhat of a fraud, as belonging to the longstanding tradition of members of the gentry pretending to be hardscrabble revolutionaries and humble men of the people. His great feats of protest were indeed accomplished on the cheap. But unlike most such aspirants, who went on to write treatises on social reform etc., at least he tried. And to his credit, he did live modestly, avoiding expenses such as a lavish house, or even a family of his own. He was not in the same category as say Friedrich Engels, who inveighed against the rapacity of the English bourgeoise, while earning a handsome income from gis father's cotton mills.

And this brings us to a crucial point, often raised in criticism of MMM and the FIRE movement in general... namely, this approach is tractable for those who already wield considerable resources. It is much easier to semi-retire early, living on $10K/year, if your house is already paid off, if you have no student debt, etc. One has to make frugal and judicious choices very early in life -say, one's teens - and stick to them. It is much harder to suddenly wake up at say age 30, "deciding" to then retire in 10 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-02-2018, 08:16 AM
 
213 posts, read 76,794 times
Reputation: 980
I don't pay much attention to Suze. She says the obvious, and gets paid a lot to do so. MMM is much more results oriented and more toward a life of no work. Suze seems to be more of the save and invest so you can keep up a big lifestyle. Either that or dig your way out of debt. MMM seems to be a different type of advisor. I think it kind of makes you choose, what kind of lifestyle do you want? Working 8-9 hours a day, or more, for somebody else seems silly as you get older. Time is better spent doing things you want without dealing with some boss or obnoxious co-workers. MMM is more of a website to free yourself of that grind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2018, 09:26 AM
 
Location: Loudon, TN
5,807 posts, read 4,854,199 times
Reputation: 19522
Quote:
Originally Posted by rummage View Post
Every wise financial professional I've spoken with advises not to take SS until age 70. You can, of course, stop working before then and live off other assets, but it really is foolish not to wait until age 70 to take SS. The math supports that this is the best guaranteed return on investment. The only logical exception is if someone is forced into retiring sooner because of poor health.
True, if your goal is to have the highest monthly cash payments. If you wish to take it earlier, and put off tapping your investments, or live on a bit less, than it really doesn't matter because, if you live long enough you will break even anyway. If you put off taking SS and die young, than you've also left money on the table. It works both ways. If SS is your major source of income, than perhaps receiving the highest monthly payment for you, or your surviving spouse, might be your greatest concern. Yes, SS's 8% is a pretty good rate of return, but not everyone's goal is to make the most money they can in their life. Still, living on your other assets early can cost you in the long run too, because that prevents those assets from continuing to compound just when they are reaching the best part of the exponential curve. Also having to tap them early may mean that you have to sell in a down market. It's a gamble.

I gave up A LOT of money by retiring early and not receiving anywhere near the max I could have from my pension plan if I worked longer. "Every wise financial professional" would have advised me against that, but my goal is not to have the highest monthly income, but to live my life as I see fit on a daily basis NOW, not when I'm 65 or 70. I decided how much is "enough" for me to live on in what i consider comfort, and arranged my life and structured my income through various income streams (eventually including SS) to allow myself to retire, as I did, at 51. I struck a balance between my standard of living, and the value I place on owning my time. If I'd waited until 55, or 60, or 65, my pension would have been MUCH greater. Or I might have died without collecting it, as I saw several friends do. And if I wait until 70 to get SS, it will be much greater, but that's not my goal. I can live a middle class lifestyle, with appropriate cost of living increases, and phased streams of income without waiting that long. I won't be taking SS at 62, but I sure won't wait until 70 either. My choice, not advocating it, just saying that waiting until 70 is not universally appropriate.

Last edited by TheShadow; 11-02-2018 at 09:49 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2018, 10:00 AM
 
Location: RVA
2,172 posts, read 1,271,519 times
Reputation: 4492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightengale212 View Post
I did not click open the link you provided, but using my most recent Social Security statement and a my calculator granted my benefits are a bit higher than yours still my math tells me something different than what your math or that link is telling you.

My age 62 benefit is $21,300/year x 23 years (age 85) = $489,900
My FRA age 66.6 benefit is $30,132 x 18.4 years (age 85) = $554,429
My age 70 benefit is $39,648 x 15 years (age 85) = $594,720
Yes, my numbers are even higher. Don’t know whose numbers she was using. Age 62, I would see $25k for 23 years or 575,000, and age 67, 18 years at $36k is 648,000. Not even close. Even age 80, age 67 comes out ahead. And remember that is all in todays dollars. In actual dollars, the difference is greater.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2018, 11:33 AM
 
11,942 posts, read 20,414,269 times
Reputation: 19341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perryinva View Post
Yes, my numbers are even higher. Don’t know whose numbers she was using. Age 62, I would see $25k for 23 years or 575,000, and age 67, 18 years at $36k is 648,000. Not even close. Even age 80, age 67 comes out ahead. And remember that is all in todays dollars. In actual dollars, the difference is greater.
Motley Fool and they were using average payouts. In fact, the amount from 67, to 70 was very slight, on this website.
__________________
Solly says ó Be nice!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2018, 06:28 AM
 
5,621 posts, read 8,562,063 times
Reputation: 7710
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant View Post
.

And this brings us to a crucial point, often raised in criticism of MMM and the FIRE movement in general... namely, this approach is tractable for those who already wield considerable resources. It is much easier to semi-retire early, living on $10K/year, if your house is already paid off, if you have no student debt, etc. One has to make frugal and judicious choices very early in life -say, one's teens - and stick to them. It is much harder to suddenly wake up at say age 30, "deciding" to then retire in 10 years.
How is a simple statement of fact a criticism?
(I started investing in an IRA at 15, and have only borrowed money for property.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2018, 07:37 AM
 
Location: RVA
2,172 posts, read 1,271,519 times
Reputation: 4492
People often criticize what they perceive as unusual or even difficult to achieve, whether it is a simple statement of fact or not. Some people criticize the “fact” that many choose to have a mortgage in retirement, even though the note could be easily paid off. I have been net positive for the last 12 years investing the money that could have paid off the mortgage, and as low as low rates are available, it makes perfect sense to me. (Currently though, they are a bit too high.). But it makes little sense to me to pay off a 3.5% mortgage when that money consistently earns more than that. But I cannot tell you how many times I hear “You know, you shouldn’t have a mortgage in retirement.”
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2018, 07:43 AM
 
Location: RVA
2,172 posts, read 1,271,519 times
Reputation: 4492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallysmom View Post
Motley Fool and they were using average payouts. In fact, the amount from 67, to 70 was very slight, on this website.
I donít know where they got their numbers. The ratio of age 67 to 62 on their table is only 1.2. On my actual numbers from SSA it is 1.44. Huge difference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2018, 07:44 AM
 
Location: Loudon, TN
5,807 posts, read 4,854,199 times
Reputation: 19522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perryinva View Post
People often criticize what they perceive as unusual or even difficult to achieve, whether it is a simple statement of fact or not. Some people criticize the “fact” that many choose to have a mortgage in retirement, even though the note could be easily paid off. I have been net positive for the last 12 years investing the money that could have paid off the mortgage, and as low as low rates are available, it makes perfect sense to me. (Currently though, they are a bit too high.). But it makes little sense to me to pay off a 3.5% mortgage when that money consistently earns more than that. But I cannot tell you how many times I hear “You know, you shouldn’t have a mortgage in retirement.”
That's why I say "one size fits all" advice is just not helpful to a fairly large group of people. Orman dispenses that sort of thing, and it's dispensed as though it's an indisputable fact, when it's not right for everyone, and that should be stated. I like the acronym YMMV, your mileage may vary. It covers the circumstances like ours, where our strategy works for us, but maybe not for someone living on only SS. Everyone's retirement picture has so many variables, ages, income sources, total income, knowledge of investing, comfort with the stock market, health conditions, insurance issues, etc. that OSFA advice is often worse than no advice at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2018, 08:02 AM
 
Location: Mount Airy, Maryland
10,484 posts, read 5,944,584 times
Reputation: 16194
The only thing I got from that article in the OP was we should cut down on spending for things we can do without. Man i don't know what i would have done without this advice.
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