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.
but you can spend a fortune on just shelter and transportation as well as there is no bottom . there is always cheaper locations and ways of covering food, shelter, medical, clothing, transportation , which makes that all wants for the most part not needs . we want the level we choose to live at as our minimum standard we set.
depending on ones standards you can spend a small fortune on that "walking around money" as well.
our discretionary budget is as large as our bills we consider to be fixed and non discretionary ... so while you may be satisfied with a few bucks in walking around money others may have set standards for their lives that require a lot more then some walking around money.
whether you rent or own is not the key , it is if you rent do you have other assets growing and creating income ?
we rent in retirement because cash flow is greater renting because the money we would spend on buying a similar co-op would lose more in income generation then the savings is ...
we could save 6k a year buying a co-op vs renting ...but we would take a minimum hit on the money now tied up in the co-op of at least 15K not counting appreciation . .... that is worse cash flow ....
renting with nooooooo assets invested elsewhere is bad .... renting with assets invested and generating more money then you could save buying , can be good .
Your goal is to be rich, and the richer the better. I can't criticize that. If you wanted to take the homeowner path, you should have done it 35 years ago, not last week. It's hard for me to imagine a situation Where a retired person would clean out their savings to buy a house, particularly if your rent is only $500/month more than property taxes.
I have to admit that if the US consumer economy depended on my spending habits, the whole system would collapse. My wife and I are getting ready to go to town. I'm sitting here in the office. I look out one window and see deer browsing in my yard and a red headed woodpecker banging on a tree. I look out the other window and see a pair of mountain quail with a half grown clutch. I set that entertainment in motion 33 years ago, and it's paid for. Free.
Cash flow is not even a relevant question, because I don't need money. Well, maybe. Property taxes, insurance and utilities costs me a whopping $350/month. That's like someone who drives a car discussing how much an oil change costs. Thanks to pre-retirement paranoia, I have both tax sheltered and paid-for investments. The feds are making me take RMDs, but I haven't touched other savings. Maybe when I get old and need to hire hot and cold running nurses to take care of me in my dotage, the savings will come in handy.
Yeah, that’s my savings for, to hire hot looking nurses to come help my husband, a good way to nurse him back to health for sure. I then would be hastagging, #bestwifeever.
Yeah, that’s my savings for, to hire hot looking nurses to come help my husband, a good way to nurse him back to health for sure. I then would be hastagging, #bestwifeever.
Can you talk to my wife and make sure she does the same. That is my goal but that assumes I get to pick
Yeah, that’s my savings for, to hire hot looking nurses to come help my husband, a good way to nurse him back to health for sure. I then would be hastagging, #bestwifeever.
LOL. Thanks for the morning coffee-snort, bestwifeever!
I agree with you, Larry Caldwell, as having low COL adds so much to retirement fun. Good for your low COL.
Our monthly fixed is: $160 HOA, $100 electric, and $80 health plan. Property tax is $45 annual.
So even on a small retirement fund, it's almost all discretionary. Except for travel, our fun is 95% free.
But we all have different ways of achieving our retirement goals.
LOL. Thanks for the morning coffee-snort, bestwifeever!
I agree with you, Larry Caldwell, as having low COL adds so much to retirement fun. Good for your low COL.
Our monthly fixed is: $160 HOA, $100 electric, and $80 health plan. Property tax is $45 annual.
So even on a small retirement fund, it's almost all discretionary. Except for travel, our fun is 95% free.
But we all have different ways of achieving our retirement goals.
As was discussed years ago, as our retirement income grows so does our spending. Or as our retirement income declines so does our spending. As is often said we do what we need to make it work and hopefully find happiness in what works.
You make a good point, but for retired public sector employees I personally know, it is more like $200K $400K per year in risk-free pension income, earned in jobs in high COL areas, who retired to no-state-income-tax Nevada. And they also have substantial financial assets.
It is almost always both pension & savings rather than just pension alone.
Say what??? $200K+ in pension income is some pretty rarified stuff! You must know some very unusual people. In the CalPERS link previously posted ( https://www.calpers.ca.gov/docs/form...retirement.pdf ) you can see that only 3.6 % of CA public sector retirees make over $108K per year. 63% make less than $36k per year, and CA is considered a pretty high COL state.
People have very inflated ideas about public sector pensions that are just not supported by the facts.
say what??? $200k+ in pension income is some pretty rarified stuff! You must know some very unusual people. In the calpers link previously posted ( https://www.calpers.ca.gov/docs/form...retirement.pdf ) you can see that only 3.6 % of ca public sector retirees make over $108k per year. 63% make less than $36k per year, and ca is considered a pretty high col state.
People have very inflated ideas about public sector pensions that are just not supported by the facts.
Say what??? $200K+ in pension income is some pretty rarified stuff! You must know some very unusual people. In the CalPERS link previously posted ( https://www.calpers.ca.gov/docs/form...retirement.pdf ) you can see that only 3.6 % of CA public sector retirees make over $108K per year. 63% make less than $36k per year, and CA is considered a pretty high COL state.
People have very inflated ideas about public sector pensions that are just not supported by the facts.
At this point previously our departed friend Escort Rider would chime in that he was a fully retired LA area teacher with a 64k pension and no SS eligibility. This was after 30 or more years of service.
At this point previously our departed friend Escort Rider would chime in that he was a fully retired LA area teacher with a 64k pension and no SS eligibility. This was after 30 or more years of service.
May he rest. Sure miss his posts. We tended to agree on almost everything.
May he rest. Sure miss his posts. We tended to agree on almost everything.
I know
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.
