Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sorry, only millionaires can retire
yahoo ^ | 11-10-04 | Paul B. Farrell

Posted on 11/10/2004 6:17:26 PM PST by LouAvul

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-107 next last
To: LouAvul

I'll work at some job or other until I die. My father worked until the very month of his death when he was too sick. The saddest thing to me is hearing that my rather elderly aunt and uncle are refinancing their home to try to pay down credit cards. I've become convinced that the only way to save enough to retire well is to live totally debt-free. I tossed all my credit cards and don't miss them.


41 posted on 11/10/2004 7:13:00 PM PST by SoDak (Home of Senator John Thune)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice

I agree .


42 posted on 11/10/2004 7:15:47 PM PST by KingNo155
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

See post 35, thx.


43 posted on 11/10/2004 7:16:41 PM PST by xrp (Executing assigned posting duties flawlessly -- ZERO mistakes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Henchman
Megabump!
Couldn't agree more!
44 posted on 11/10/2004 7:18:06 PM PST by wagglebee (Memo to sKerry: the only think Bush F'ed up was your career)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: cherry
well, how then?

I invested for more than 30 years and rode the 90s boom in tech stocks and switched to safer and more conservative stocks when I retired in Dec. 1999.

I got out just in time but it was no stroke of genius on my part. Just luck that I retired and backed off the tech boom just before the NASDQ went down hill.

I started working in the cotton fields when I was 10 years old and knew even then that I am basically a lazy person. So I worked and saved and invested so I could pursue my real passion someday.....Being lazy.

45 posted on 11/10/2004 7:25:41 PM PST by Graybeard58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Reeses
I started smoking when I was 8, so I wouldn't have to worry about it! :-)

Too Funny!!!

46 posted on 11/10/2004 7:25:43 PM PST by kaboom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2
I think the minimum wage should be $25 an hour, and all medical benefits should be paid by all employers... <snippety-snip>

You may want to check your keyboard - I suspect it could file a paternity suit against the DNC fax line. ;-)

47 posted on 11/10/2004 7:28:55 PM PST by Denver Ditdat (Ronald Reagan belongs to the ages now, but we preferred it when he belonged to us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah

Dear Poohbah,

Once you retire, and need to draw a regular income from your investments, if you keep everything in equities, a short-term decline in the market of, say, 30%, can really put you upside-down.

If you had $500K, and were down to $350K, either you'd need to increase your draw percentage to about 11.5% to keep taking your $40K, or you'd need to dial back to about $28K per year until you recovered. 11.5% is a bit more than the actual average long-term return on equities.

Now, imagine this:

Start Year 1: $500K. Total return: 10%, $50K. Income taken: 8%, $40K. End Year 1: $510K. Great!

Start Year 2: $510K. Total return: -20%, -$102K. Income taken, 8% of start, $40K. End Year 2: $368K. Not so great.

Start Year 3: $368K. Total return: -10%, -$37K. Income taken, 8% of $368K, $30K. End Year 3: $301K. Yikes!

Start Year 4: $301K. Total return: 40%, 120K. Income taken, 8% of $301K, $24K. End Year 4: $397K. Not as bad.

Start Year 5: $397K. Total return: 20%, 80K. Income taken, 8% of $397K, $32K. End of Year 5: $455K.

The average annual return, here, is 10%. But because we're taking such a high percentage of the AVERAGE return, we get really killed in the bad years, and don't quite make it back up in the recovery years. If we'd gotten a straight 10% per year, we'd have about $550K after five years, and incomes starting at $40K and finishing at about $43K.

But because of volatility, and because we were taking too high a percentage of the original amount, we wind up with less money than when we started, and suffer a lot of income volatility.

Bear markets happen. Declines of 30% in the market aren't terribly unusual. It often takes a couple or more years to get it all back.

That's why folks change their investment mix when they start drawing an income.

Finally, I didn't suggest that folks "go to a bond fund."

If you have $500K or $1 million, and you have A fund, one single fund or equity, of any sort, you aren't properly invested. But if you're about to retire, shifting a significant portion of your assets to bonds, preferred stock, etc., is appropriate.

sitetest


48 posted on 11/10/2004 7:32:02 PM PST by sitetest (Why does everyone get so uptight over toasted heretics?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan
  Incredible! That means a lot of people don't have any net worth at all exclusive of equity.

It's worse than that. A LOT of people have a NEGATIVE net worth!

49 posted on 11/10/2004 7:36:06 PM PST by Mike-o-Matic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LouAvul

I have no sympathy. We live with substantial sacrifices today, in order to save for retirement. Our lifestyle is not as good as many who have incomes 1/5th of ours. I plan to do everything I can to put an end to Social Security and if that sounds harsh, well too bad. I know that we are capable of doing what it takes to plan for retirement and those who don't get it need to pay for their mistakes.


50 posted on 11/10/2004 7:40:30 PM PST by GOP_1900AD (Stomping on "PC," destroying the Left, and smoking out faux "conservatives" - Right makes right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LouAvul
America must cut Social Security benefits and raise taxes by 40 percent to 50 percent. The choices are that limited.

There is a simple, rational, and fair solution, and that is to raise the retirement age further.

There is nothing sacred or magical about the age of 65. Retirement at age 65 comes to us courtesy of Otto von Bismarck, who introduced pensions for government workers in the 1800's. His actuaries calculated that the average German civil servant died at age 65, so presto! Pass that milestone, and you get a pension.

The retirement age should rise and fall with changes in life expectancy. Your grandfather (on average) got five or ten years of Social Security; why should you pay in a comparable amount over your career, and yet get the support of the State for fifteen or twenty years after you retire?

-ccm

51 posted on 11/10/2004 7:41:28 PM PST by ccmay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xrp

I am in my early forties and have been planning for retirement since I was 23 years old. No quarter for the grasshoppers - we ants have no sympathy.


52 posted on 11/10/2004 7:41:55 PM PST by GOP_1900AD (Stomping on "PC," destroying the Left, and smoking out faux "conservatives" - Right makes right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Tom Paine
If you are in reasonably good health and you own your own home, you can live comfortably on $1200 per month. Note however that the taxes in your house may go up enough in 10 to 20 years that you can no longer afford to live in it.

Yes, older people might have to sell the house and move somewhere where taxes are lower. That's why St. Louis for instance is seeing a population increase again, after so many years of decline. The oldsters are selling the McMansion with its $5000/year tax bill for a smaller bungalow or condo in the city with a $1000 a year tax bill (or less.) Their houses have appreciated enormously and so they're essentially financing their retirement off the sale of their homes.

If the real estate market busts, however, watch out. Those who've already sold will be in good shape; those looking to cash out in 10-15 years or so will be in deep trouble.

53 posted on 11/10/2004 7:45:26 PM PST by valkyrieanne (card-carrying South Park Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ptlurking

Better yet, max it out annually. If you can't afford to max it out, your living expenses are too high.


54 posted on 11/10/2004 7:46:23 PM PST by valkyrieanne (card-carrying South Park Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Chuckster

RE: the government confiscating $45,000 a year from me is going to help me save for my retirement.

But don't you see, it's not so YOU can fund your retirement, it's so the guy who took out a 2nd on his house at age 50 to service his 50,000 credit card debt which he incurred from marble countertops, a new boat, annual trips overseas and spoiling his kids can fund HIS retirement! Haha, suckers! /sarcasm


55 posted on 11/10/2004 7:48:30 PM PST by GOP_1900AD (Stomping on "PC," destroying the Left, and smoking out faux "conservatives" - Right makes right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: valkyrieanne
  The oldsters are selling the McMansion with its $5000/year tax bill for a smaller bungalow or condo in the city with a $1000 a year tax bill (or less.)

Here in the Milwaukee area, a nice 4-bedroom ranch can have $5k taxes... nevermind a McMansion. It sucks!

Hell, I live out in the country, 30 miles from MKE, in a small, 2-bedroom older ranch on a 1/4-acre lot, and my taxes are ~$1900. NOTHING aorund here has $1,000 taxes. I dream of what you're describing!

56 posted on 11/10/2004 7:50:48 PM PST by Mike-o-Matic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: LouAvul
"Seriously: Professional financial planners tell us we need a million bucks to retire today, multimillions in the near future"

Where do you get your figures? $350,000; should take care of you.

57 posted on 11/10/2004 7:52:28 PM PST by hoot2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: k2blader
But I imagine many older folks eager to retire are looking at their bank accounts and getting nervous. They haven't saved enough but don't want to keep working. For them, socialism is the answer.

In my view, Soylent Green is the solution for old people who've frittered their life away and haven't saved enough for retirement.

58 posted on 11/10/2004 7:56:01 PM PST by Modernman (Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. - P.J.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Tom Paine

In Florida we have something called 'Save Our Homes' that limits the increase in assessed housing values by I think 3% to keep those of us who stop moving from getting taxed out of our homes.


59 posted on 11/10/2004 7:58:51 PM PST by jjw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: xrp
"It isn't my fault I am sacking away tons of cash (at the age of 31, only) and others, younger and older than me, have not, are not and will not save for retirement."


60 posted on 11/10/2004 8:02:56 PM PST by hoot2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-107 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson