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.
There are several things that are taken off the table that impact couples:
The odds of making it into your 90's decreases significantly for 1 person compared to planning retirement finances for a couple.
You don't have to plan so much for long term care and Medicaid. If you're single and run out of money, Medicaid picks up the tab. If you're married, you can get close to wiped out if your spouse lands in long term care.
Just be darned sure even if single that no one else is on the hook for LTC costs. Make sure there are no other deep pockets besides Medicaid.
Same here reneeh. I get so tired of all the advice and tips and tricks that only work for a married couple.
But then I think of how I only have to worry about myself, take care of myself, and all the money is mine, mine, mine and I feel better
I understand and agree that most of the information being asked for and given is for a couple versus single (widow/widower). As a widower, it is all about me...me...me...LOL
That said, the basics of what would be needed and starting to work toward that goal should be basically the same be you a single or married.
Retirement is billed as a happy, nonchalant time of leisure and pursuit of enlightenment. In most cases, that cartoon presupposes a happily married couple. Any deviation from that norm, however common, sullies the fantasy.
Yet another twist is unmarried couples who live together. Social Security, most pensions and the like, assume marriage, if the surviving partner is going to collect benefits. Power of attorney, and "payable on death" beneficiary designations, can readily attend to what happens with investments; not so, with pensions! This is especially a concern for unmarried partners where one of the partners is much older (or sicker) than the other.
And yet another twist is the single retiree who has no children, siblings or (surviving) parents. I don't mean those who are estranged, or otherwise distanced from their kin... but those, who literally have zero kin.
I'm single - always have been. I was never interested in sleeping in a bedroom painted candy pink, I was never interested in paying alimony, and kids are OK I guess, but they pick their noses too much. So I planned my retirement accordingly - 35 years ago. And, yes, all this financial guidance is focused on married and widowed people. I just ignore it.
I'd like more advice not just for singles but also partnered/unmarried retirees. Strategies for how to take advantage of whatever is possible to take advantage of as well as pitfalls to avoid.
The thing I've been trying to find out is: how much is needed for one in retirement? Of course, every situation is different, but the general notion I've found is that a million+ is necessary for retirement. Well, is that for one or two? It seems to always be for couples, but I have to ass-ume, because the article/etc isn't clear.
I mean, would this number they throw out be halved (or not)? Or some other fraction based upon some figure about 2 living as cheaply as one? Then there's the more modest sum that I've seen spoken of: $500k. Again, that seems to be for couples. So if single, then is it $250k?
I just want some round figure that is clearly for singles, the way that the round figure is thrown out for couples. I'm not talking about percentage of income; that's out there. I'd like to know their best guess for the "final" sum.
The thing I've been trying to find out is: how much is needed for one in retirement? Of course, every situation is different, but the general notion I've found is that a million+ is necessary for retirement. Well, is that for one or two?
It's impossible to boil the matter down to a dollar-figure, even approximately. It varies greatly, depending on myriad factors.
But it does seem to me that a reasonably well-established person, in midlife or beyond, is going to have a house (probably paid off), cars and so forth, and that with fastidious stewardship, these things can endure, without too much uncertainty (though there is always SOME uncertainty!). This means that the "capital costs" of living are going to be the same, for a couple as for a single person. Two presumably eat twice as much as one, but two don't consume twice as much propane to heat the house in the winter, or twice as much gasoline to drive for a dinner-treat at a restaurant - and that's just the petroleum products. Going further, two can motivate each other to perform preventative maintenance, whereas as single person might ignore the matter, resulting in a large future repair-expense. Two can better handle lawn-care, or a search for grocery-coupons, or shoveling snow on the driveway (instead of paying a laborer to do it). OK, now I'm starting to sound like Ecclesiastes! The point is that economy of scale, for two adults, is a remarkable thing - except, maybe, for 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.
and I feel better
