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.
Do you think it's okay that 100% of my 401k is vested in a single target date fund? I used to have a Roth IRA but closed it because I thought it was a bad idea. By having all of my retirement money in tax deferred accounts (i.e. 401k), it creates a significantly larger foundation of which growth can occur over the long term. It also allows for more short term cash now, while I'm in my younger years. I mean, life can't be ALL about waiting until retirement. Here is a summary of my year to date 401k performance and contributions, etc. Is it doing okay? God, I hope I'm not screwed.
It's lagging the market by a substantial amount. I would presume it has a heavy bond exposure, which is necessary if you have a very low risk tolerance, but I would personally opt for more equity exposure. On second thought, the Vanguard target fund for your age group has the exact same return as your fund, so it is not horrible.
It's lagging the market by a substantial amount. I would presume it has a heavy bond exposure, which is necessary if you have a very low risk tolerance, but I would personally opt for more equity exposure. On second thought, the Vanguard target fund for your age group has the exact same return as your fund, so it is not horrible.
SS will always be solvent. Anyone who tells you otherwise don't know that people will always age and that older folks are a huge voting demographic. If you don't know ask ask Paul Ryan.
With that said - still save toward retirement. No one of retirement age has ever said that they wish they saved less and spent more in their youth. It's a relatively small price in very temporary life satisfaction to pay for a bit more security later on.
A close friend of mine was supported Royally by his Rich Father.
Best thing that ever happened to him was his father lost the Family fortune and he had to go make it on his own.
Don't count on family money for retirement. It might not be there.
Your siblings and their attorneys may keep it tied up for years.
Right now I am 30 years of age and have $12k saved up in a 401k account. I currently have 14% of my gross income contributing to it out of every paycheck (including company match). So I have $879 per month being contributed to the 401k. One year ago it was only about $1,500 saved up in the account.
Now, according to the SSA website, my monthly benefit of Social Security will be $2,179, which is about $26K per year. Now, I plan to have no mortgage payment by then. And I won't have any commuting expenses either, because I wouldn't be working. And I would cut back on general spending as well. So I ran through the calculations and determined that I could live just fine off of $26K during retirement. I would plan to retire at the age of 67 and die at the age of 82.
So why the hell am I wasting $628 per month of my own payroll into a 401k account, when I could be accumulating that cash NOW like crazy and work toward the goal of owning a home outright sooner, and accumulating cash sooner? Especially when Social Security benefits would keep me afloat just fine in retirement. I mean, I don't care to live a luxurious lifestyle in retirement. I just want to live modestly. Also, I could tap into the home equity.
Furthermore, my parents are multi-millionaires and I have four younger siblings. Obviously, I would never count on an inheritance, but even so, it gives me a little more comfort, even if I only get 20% of the pie.
I understand that by 2033, the Social Security benefit will be only 77% of the full benefit, if no changes are made to the law. However, I am optimistic that over the next 19 years, the program will be fixed.
I mean, millions of retirees today are living solely off of Social Security, so why can't I, when I retire too? The math works out just fine in my budget. What's the risk?
Parents... you never know what could happen. My personal experience with people is that you think they are worth millions and then learn, after one of their deaths, that it is all a shell game.
Unlike many others, I think if that is what you want to do... live off SS, then go for it. Not all of us can live well and we need some people working in Walmart to help check our receipts to ensure we are not stealing the water on the bottom basket.
Shoot, take that money and put it in lottery tickets... you should hit in 19 years... and hit big!
It's lagging the market by a substantial amount. I would presume it has a heavy bond exposure, which is necessary if you have a very low risk tolerance, but I would personally opt for more equity exposure. On second thought, the Vanguard target fund for your age group has the exact same return as your fund, so it is not horrible.
Due to dca a ytd personal rate of return may be vastly different than that ytd of an index or even ytd of the index
Right now I am 30 years of age and have $12k saved up in a 401k account. I currently have 14% of my gross income contributing to it out of every paycheck (including company match). So I have $879 per month being contributed to the 401k. One year ago it was only about $1,500 saved up in the account.
Now, according to the SSA website, my monthly benefit of Social Security will be $2,179, which is about $26K per year. Now, I plan to have no mortgage payment by then. And I won't have any commuting expenses either, because I wouldn't be working. And I would cut back on general spending as well. So I ran through the calculations and determined that I could live just fine off of $26K during retirement. I would plan to retire at the age of 67 and die at the age of 82.
So why the hell am I wasting $628 per month of my own payroll into a 401k account, when I could be accumulating that cash NOW like crazy and work toward the goal of owning a home outright sooner, and accumulating cash sooner? Especially when Social Security benefits would keep me afloat just fine in retirement. I mean, I don't care to live a luxurious lifestyle in retirement. I just want to live modestly. Also, I could tap into the home equity.
Furthermore, my parents are multi-millionaires and I have four younger siblings. Obviously, I would never count on an inheritance, but even so, it gives me a little more comfort, even if I only get 20% of the pie.
I understand that by 2033, the Social Security benefit will be only 77% of the full benefit, if no changes are made to the law. However, I am optimistic that over the next 19 years, the program will be fixed.
I mean, millions of retirees today are living solely off of Social Security, so why can't I, when I retire too? The math works out just fine in my budget. What's the risk?
Right now, I spend about $39K per year in living expenses. That's because my rent accounts for $21,000 of that, because I live in miserably expensive Norwalk, CT. But I have no debt whatsoever, own my car outright and no cable TV service.
Does anyone know if Social Security payments have Social Security or Medicare taxes withheld from them?
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.
