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.
The problem is that the people writing these articles, assume an upper middle class lifestyle as a baseline for human existence. If you notice anytime they delve into individual cases of retirement gone awry, it's always some professional or management type living in the NYC or D.C. 'burbs. They never interview a janitor in middle America, putting down his broom, filing for SS, and living happily ever after.
Very well said. The "rule" that's often quoted of one needing to have saved up 80%(or whatever the magic figure that gets kicked around today) of one's income to be ok in retirement to me is nonsense. They are forgetting that aggressive savers/investors often live on half of their salary or less comfortably in their working years so right off the bat, 80% makes no sense to many. Or just the fact that as many people get older, they want/need less "stuff". Watching my parents age, often far less need for "stuff".
buying and doing less stuff , higher and higher medical costs even for medicare plans is where it is at today.
many who have insurance at work and have company subsidized insurance will be quite blind sided when they see what medicare and medigap can run. never in my wildest guess would i think i had to figure 10-12k a year for both of us on medicare. that is in after tax dollars too not pretax like work once you go on medicare.
that is one big wild card you better budget for .
how you intend to generate that income you need is another big factor. you may need 2x as much using tips , cash and bonds as you will using a 50/50 mix.
in fact what a 50/50 mix was able to generate may be lower as well . we never had low interest rates and high stock valuations together before and indications are we can be in for quite a few years of under performance further increasing the base amount you need.
deciding how much income you need is one thing but the mechanics of getting that income are something else and just because that is the amount of savings you have and the income you need does not mean you will get it with a high degree of success from that income base..
Last edited by mathjak107; 04-26-2015 at 01:04 PM..
buying and doing less stuff , higher and higher medical costs even for plans is where it is at today.
many who have insurance at work and have company subsidized insurance will be quite blind sided when they see what medicare and medigap can run. never in my wildest guess would i think i had to figure 10-12k a year for both of us on medicare. that is in after tax dollars too not pretax like work once you go on medicare.
that is one big wild card you better budget for .
This is why I shake my head in wonderment when so many are negative about the recommendations of X percent of your working income as a annual retirement budget amount. Take your 12K for both of you and multiply it times 30 years for the two of you and you are at 360K. What does Medicare cost per year now and once reformed? Yes you can have employee provided secondary/supplemental/medicap insurance but that is going by the wayside faster than pensions. Also when the affordable care act Cadillac insurance punishment kicks in a whole lot of folks are going to be saying WTF when they get their letter notifying them of employer benefit changes. Fidelity and others have been giving retirement insurance cost expectations for years. And retirees even with employer benefits would be wise to plan accordingly. https://www.fidelity.com/viewpoints/...dical-expenses
Quote:
If you’re not factoring health care costs into your retirement savings strategy, you could be setting yourself up for a nasty financial shock. According to the latest retiree health care cost estimate from Fidelity Benefits Consulting, a 65-year-old couple retiring this year will need an average of $220,0001 (in today’s dollars) to cover medical expenses throughout retirement.
The good news: That figure has held steady since last year, down from a peak of $250,000 in 2010. The more sobering reality: For many Americans, health care is likely to be one of their largest expenses in retirement. What’s more, that $220,000 in estimated costs does not include any costs associated with nursing-home care, and applies only to retirees with traditional Medicare insurance coverage.
People need to evaluate their retirement medical cost not just on a yearly basis but on a life time of thirty plus years basis. http://www.cnbc.com/id/102170937
Quote:
The Affordable Care Act included the Cadillac Tax as a means to control the spiraling cost of health care, by putting pressure on employers to offer less-generous health insurance plans than they have been. The theory is that if people see more of the direct costs of their health care, they will be more conservative in using their insurance.
The tax will start in 2018 and impose a 40 percent levy on the cost of individual health plans above $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for family coverage, with both employer and worker contributions included. Every dollar above those thresholds is taxed at that 40 percent rate, the tax is not deductible by the employer and the thresholds are indexed to inflation.
This is why I shake my head in wonderment when so many are negative about the recommendations of X percent of your working income as a annual retirement budget amount. Take your 12K for both of you and multiply it times 30 years for the two of you and you are at 360K. What does Medicare cost per year now and once reformed? Yes you can have employee provided secondary/supplemental/medicap insurance but that is going by the wayside faster than pensions. Also when the affordable care act Cadillac insurance punishment kicks in a whole lot of folks are going to be saying WTF when they get their letter notifying them of employer benefit changes. Fidelity and others have been giving retirement insurance cost expectations for years. And retirees even with employer benefits would be wise to plan accordingly. https://www.fidelity.com/viewpoints/...dical-expenses
People need to evaluate their retirement medical cost not just on a yearly basis but on a life time of thirty plus years basis.
Perhaps the "smart" one's are purposely saving very little/nothing, not planning on covering the costs that you state, because they feel they will be "taken care of" by programs like medicaid.
I'm not saying it's right as I certainly don't come from that kind of thinking, but one can't help think this way given it appears more than a few in our society feel it's ok not to take responsibility on their own financially as if worst comes to worst, the gov or "someone" has their back.
as you and i know most folks have no clue what is involved in either what it takes to generate an income on your own in a world of varying inflation and sequence of returns as well as what medicare actually costs if you don't want exposure to catastrophic amounts .
Perhaps the "smart" one's are purposely saving very little/nothing, not planning on covering the costs that you state, because they feel they will be "taken care of" by programs like medicaid.
I'm not saying it's right as I certainly don't come from that kind of thinking, but one can't help think this way given it appears more than a few in our society feel it's ok not to take responsibility on their own financially as if worst comes to worst, the gov or "someone" has their back.
in that respect maybe they are the smart ones.
figure out how much savings you need to generate 12k in after tax dollars just for healthcare with a better than 90% success rate..
figure out how much savings you need to generate 12k in after tax dollars just for healthcare with a better than 90% success rate..
Indeed.
I think the other solution in place of shelling out that 12k for some is taking "med trips" to places like Thailand, India, etc. where procedures are far cheaper, even taking into account lodging and airfare, than the US and supposedly provide a decent level of care. Or having dentist work in places like Algodones over the Mex border which is just a few hours from where I live in the Phoenix suburbs. Lots of seniors get dental work down their for a fraction of the cost in the US. I've never experienced having work their but I've met several people who have and been very happy with the level/quality of work. Or of course some become expats and live cheap overseas with access to cheap decent medical care.
There are always options and one just has to weight out the +/- of it all.
Perhaps the "smart" one's are purposely saving very little/nothing, not planning on covering the costs that you state, because they feel they will be "taken care of" by programs like medicaid.
I'm not saying it's right as I certainly don't come from that kind of thinking, but one can't help think this way given it appears more than a few in our society feel it's ok not to take responsibility on their own financially as if worst comes to worst, the gov or "someone" has their back.
If they believe that they clearly are not reading the news or following the political path of cutting Medicaid and the fact it is a major stress on many state budgets. Not sure how many want to be 85 and competing with a 4 year old for Medicaid dollars. Covered California Faces $78M Deficit in FY 2015-2016 Budget - California Healthline
Quote:
Covered California will face a $78 million deficit in fiscal year 2015-2016 when the federal government stops providing funding for the exchange through the Affordable Care Act, according to budget estimates, U-T San Diego reports.
Details of Deficit
Beginning Jan. 1, 2015, the Affordable Care Act no longer will provide federal grants to fund state health exchanges. In addition, California law prohibits using the state's general fund to pay for the exchange.
Exchange budget statements do not include a definitive plan for how Covered California will continue funding its operations, according to U-T San Diego.
as you and i know most folks have no clue what is involved in either what it takes to generate an income on your own in a world of varying inflation and sequence of returns as well as what medicare actually costs if you don't want exposure to catastrophic amounts .
Sorry, but you and I read the Fidelity recommendations differently. You read it as portfolio dedicated to generating the money. I read it as a portfolio of at least that amount already there at retirement and available for use as needed without any other demands on. Two different roads to the same destination but I know you are already at that point and have it available now.
while advantage plans can be way cheaper they can be basically pay as you go and just because you have dodged big out of pockets so far does not mean you will tomorrow.
my co-worker bragged about how little his advantage plan runs him. that was until it wasn't so cheap when his wife got breast cancer and needed chemo.
the plan had an out of pocket of 4500 per treatment . he already spent 10 years worth of f-plan premiums .
or wait until you get sick away from home and the closest network hospital is 50 miles away.
there are no free lunches with healthcare.
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.
