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.
Op can, and will do whatever they want! Surprised?
They just stated THEY want $70k / yr, not YOUR $40 k/ yr, right???
Night shift? Your choice too.... I did 38 yrs of it, and would never consider a day job.... i prefer having every DAY off
Of course you also retired early (right?). So know all the ends and outs.
ACA is not here today as it was rolled out, my estimated premiums are only up a mere 200% in the 3 yrs it has been available, and every year more providers have dropped than joined. Glad it has worked so well for you, but OP might find a different result.
ACA is not an affordable or available option for all, nor will it ever be.
The costs of many of the family plans on the ACA in CT without subsidizes run in the mid 20s. That is about 40% of household income. The plan costs are scheduled to increase between 15% and 25% depending on the insurers left next year. It is unsustainable. Like it or not expanded Medicare will soon be the only viable option. In my opinion, a single-payer system is what the market appears to be telling us they want since few employers will provide any fulltime positions in the retail and service sectors because of the healthcare benefits cost. Healthcare is holding back our economy in many ways. People are not retiring who could and in many cases should, people are not leaving jobs where they have stagnated and/or are not the best fit for the organization because they may not be able to find employement with necessary benefits to meet their own or their family's needs, and most importantly, small businesses are not hiring because the healthcare situation is so unpredictable that they cannot properly cost out its impact when an unknown expense can make the difference between a small profit and a loss.
Last edited by Lincolnian; 10-17-2016 at 05:33 PM..
Why would I bother refuting links that don't prove what you're claiming?
The first link is more fear mongering from a company that sells annuities, that is far from an unbiased source. They want you to invest your money in their annuities, not in a 401k, and it says right up top CALL US NOW! They've got links to quotes from an expert at safehaven.com who also want your retirement dollars sent their way. Their expert's quote includes this gem "Over the past 50 years, the US government has trained society to believe it’s the government’s roll to be the provider of last resort" we are supposed to bow to the expertise of someone who can't spell the word role?
The second link is an opinion piece in the WSJ about how to fix 401ks, they include:
- simplify fee disclosure
- require plans to offer low-cost index funds
- automatic enrollment feature
- have those providing guidance be fiduciaries
- start a national 401k plan for small employers to offset high admin costs to small biz
Those all sound like great ideas, but I'm not sure how you think it means anyone is GOING FOR your 401k so why would I refute it?
Third link is about a proposal from an economics professor that never went anywhere.
Fourth link is a 2012 opinion piece by some "contributor" who attended a symposium on the retirement challenges women face. He takes an out of context quote from some congresswoman and decides the government is GOING FOR people's 401k, yet he offers absolutely zero chain of logic of evidence to support this. Again, nothing to refute.
Fifth link is an opinion piece where she recommends hedging your bets by spreading savings across Roth, 401k, etc. to hedge against future changes to tax codes etc. again there is nothing available to refute since it offers no indication anyone is GOING FOR any 401k.
When you're reading to actually offer something demonstrating actions GOING FOR the 401ks I'll be happy to listen, until then blog posts from companies selling anuities and opinion pieces from years ago speculating on things that never happened aren't worthy of refuting.
LOL okay. Apparently Congress members' proposals aren't demonstrable.
You're simply denying content and using confirmation bias arguments.
You can ignore but not deny the GOVERNMENT PROPOSAL(s)
"...proposing limiting the deductibility of donations, and offering as an alternative a $600 tax credit and a new type of account with an annual return guaranteed by the government."
House Democrats contemplate abolishing 401(k) tax breaks
Quote:
Powerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation's $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive. House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-Calif., and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, are looking at redirecting those tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute.
I'll most likely need to go back an read what the context of these were but can anyone quantify with this is with links to content? This is trending a little outside of the what I was thinking but it's all good. Above in Red. As someone else stated earlier all you can do is try to focus on what you can currently control. Look out ahead is fantastic with where do you draw that line on that.
Dude if you're relying on a message board to give you links on those two items but don't even want to scroll up on your own thread, you are DEFINITELY not independent enough to consider retiring at 54.
It's all over the place for YEARS about Democrats eyeing 401Ks and currently Obamacare's collapse. Basically they want citizens to contribute to a new type of retirement savings that the GOVERNMENT controls while cutting down the benefits of existing and future traditional 401Ks.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court made a ruling that "employers must do what’s in the best interest of employees" as a FIDUCIARY responsibility, now. Hmmmm. I WONDER what the government will consider a "good" investment.
SNAP! Oh right! An investment handed over to THEM, of course.
Now I'm not some 401K worshipper, far from it. I think they're already scam-ish because of the funds in there and I believe stock to be a better growth mechanism. I learned my lesson when my solid growing Clipper Fund went south having TYCO (!), Fannie and Freddie in it. And then REAL ESTATE. Luckily I had contributions diversified. And I don't like the govt propping up Wall St; I'm too cynical for that economy.
Then you have your fund managers, churn, and insider nonsense.
The fund has returned 17.48 percent over the past year, 11.35 percent over the past three years, 15.34 percent over the past five years, and 5.25 percent over the past decade. But your average new hire in a corp sees the past year or five and dumps everything in there.
Just pointing out TRENDS. Which includes you going from a growth investor to a low risk investor if you retire early.
Just last week the Minnesota Governor who backed Obamacare admitted it's “No Longer Affordable”
Here's a google search since apparently providing links from VARIOUS sources while reporting factual content are still considered unreputable by some people.
Of course, there's a large contingent of people in America who really don't care about the negative effects of if-and-when the country is forced into Single Payer/Universal Healthcare and would cheer.
Last edited by runswithscissors; 10-21-2016 at 09:07 AM..
Dude if you're relying on a message board to give you links on those two items but don't even want to scroll up on your own thread, you are DEFINITELY not independent enough to consider retiring at 54.
Ha, I think I'll be just fine but thank you for the reply.
All I will say is be dang sure you are retiring at the right age.
We own a business and husband tried to retire at 53. We had a great office manager, Business was doing well, we were taking home over $650,000 per year. House paid for etc. Great amount of money in retirement accounts.
The issue was hubs was bored to tears. And not being a lady who lunches so was I. I need to work, my parents were hard working farmers years before I was born. It's in my blood.
Thank God we didn't take an offer on our business. 3 months later, he's back to work. And Happy.
I know several people who aren't happy they retired in their 50's and wish they had their old jobs back. One even asked me what I thought, sure enough she is bored.
If you have the ability to take a unpaid leave to test it out
Thanks for sharing. If I owned my own business I would probably not be considering early retirement I'm sure. Odds of me getting bored and heading back to corporate america (if it's even possible) are slim. I'm glad it worked out for you however. I guess you never know until you actually start living it.
I want to thank everyone for responding. I never thought I would see this much feedback. A few extra items I'll keep top of mind due to this awesome help!
- Social Security at at 70 not 62
- Social Security payout based on early retirement
- Part-Time work - Starbucks (kidding )
- Subsidizing health care
- Working a couple of extra yrs (hopefully not)
- Rule of 55 strategy with 401k vs without in an IRA
- New vehicle
- possibility for higher incidentals
- Long term heathcare and insurance
Might have missed some but I know I cant cover all bases but will do the best that we can. 2.3 yrs and counting ��.
Depending on the investment options in your 401k, you could consider rolling over your 401k to an IRA and taking withdrawals under rule 72t (using SEPPs - substantially equal periodic payments). The rule are very specific and failure to follow them will result in a tax hit. I used that when I retired at age 52, and took withdrawals from age 54-59 1/2 (when the 10% tax penalty goes away). I began s/s at age 62. While the monthly amount increase to age 70, the present value of the future stream of payments is generally greater at age 62-63 than later 9assuming a normal life span on standard actuarial tables).
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.
Luckily I had contributions diversified. And I don't like the govt propping up Wall St; I'm too cynical for that economy. 
)
