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.
personally i would take the lump sum every time and generate my own income stream off it .
40k pension or 1 million dollars in hand ….no question what i want.
Super. You're clear on that for those values.
Now, let's say you're on a Game Show and you win and you're given your choice of A or B below.
Let's set X=3.3k/month = $40K/year, and Y=$100,000. Would you choose A or B?
Quote:
A) A guaranteed income stream of $X per month which terminates when the later of you and your spouse die, with zero value the day thereafter, or
B) A lump sum of $Y today
The value of both pensions and social security depend on how long you live. A $2,000 a month pension and $2,000 a month social security could pay out $720,000 over 15 years of retirement. Those are modest amounts.
I agree with the person that said that the article is complete BS because it is only partial information.
Also, this is why I mention in the SS posts that people should be encouraged to work as long as they can and delay taking SS until at least FRA (if not until 70). If you have modest savings of $400k or less for a couple then most of that money needs to be reserved for paying medical expenses. Everybody retirement age is fully aware that shxt happens.
The guy making $80k on his rentals is likely pulling in at least another $36k from his SS. Maybe all that is going into savings. You know who the hxll knows what is actually happening financially speaking in any of these people's lives exactly. The person that said they might inherit money, but, isn't counting on it was likely counting on it and therefore didn't bother saving as much. The older couple up in Maine is probably the one story that is closest to the truth of what is reflected in the article.
This is a crxp article considering the source.
He retired at 60 and that was only a couple of years ago (I think it said).
So really retiring with investments around 2 to 3M isn't that impossible if one has a partner with a pension of similar value. You never made a lot of money but still managed to squirrel away 700K. If you found a partner at the government that would have been 1.6M in pension together. And that's retirement way before 55.
Yes, that's true. I just need to find that partner, LOL. That's been the hard part!
I think it is truthful - I'd just like to see it. For example, for him specifically, I wonder if he carries a Medicare Supplement policy or not. Or Medicare Advantage. What his medical deductibles are - he may be healthy and the answer is zero as he hasn't been to the Dr in years. I'm just curious. Or maybe nosey.
Yeah, I was wondering, too. He's only 60, so Medicare isn't in the picture yet.
Yeah, I was wondering, too. He's only 60, so Medicare isn't in the picture yet.
He's also single. The idea that two can live cheaper than one does not always translate due to the standards that can be dropped by a single person. Singles can go very low on the food chain -- LOL.. Not keeping up with the Joneses.. etc., etc.
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.
Not collecting SS yet
