To those who want individual retirement accounts could you explain to me this...

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: techs
Tens of millions of families are livinging poverty or up to their neck in debt without the ability to care for their immediate families.
My sister plans on living in her manhattan apartment without major purchases.

Poverty?! Are you kidding me!? America has no idea what "poverty" is. They couldnt even begin to imagine "poverty", its just a catchy word thrown around to try and get an emotional response of compassion to justify taking my money to give it to someone who has a bit less.

And as for stuck up to their neck in debt, hey, you lie in the bed you make. Hope that big house, fancy car and nice TV with 300 channels of crap is worth it to you.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,137
225
106
I plan on living in hawaii. Got my land paid for in full, I'm selling out my house and another investment. Should get about 160 or so K from that. Should be a good start...

Want to grow most of my own vegi's... Get about 25K in Solor Panels, Batteries... With a good honda generator for backup. I'm also going to build on 12 Acres far far back from the street. I am going to build 'unpermitted' the reason why... Why should build any other way so you can have the state come out and pump up the taxes on your property...

If you can live on your own land with out being bit by huge utility property tax costs. Then you should have a pretty good retirement. I've never really been one to sink a lot of money in 401K, retirement plans. My major invetments have been in houses and land.

I'll be laying in bed watching all this go down in paradice on dish network so...keep me entertained ok?

:) ;) :p
 

HombrePequeno

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2001
4,657
0
0
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: techs
What is really interesting is my sister started serious planning for retirement in 1990 when she started looking at what her retirement money will get her. Despite the ups and downs of the market she is almost exactly where the 1990 plan had her as of 2 months ago. Of course she did this by managing 50 percent of her money herself as she is an MBA from Columbia University and lucked out getting out of the market before the Bush market.
Anyways what is interesting is despite making a lot of money on her job and contributing to her own retirement for years she plans on living off Social Security if she lives past 83 since thats when her money will run out.
Even more interesting is that in 1998 she had enough to live till she was 91. That is how variable your reitrement is when projecting that far ahead and she is now 56.
It seems that no matter how you try saving for your own retirement it is either a gamble you will die early versus living without a substantial portion of your income now(if you make a middle class living). And tens of millions of Americans just can't save enough and still live now if they plan to make it mid to late 80's.
The result is that no one can answer the question of how to save for their own retirement based on an indeterminate age you will live to. Therefore every one of the plans to provide exclusively for ones own retirement has the result of tens of millions of seniors with no money during their retirement. And of course we won't let seniors die in the streets. So we will have to pay for retirement from federal revenues which will end up bankrupting the US.

2 questions.

10 What standard of living is your sister planning for?

2) Why is it our responsibility to provide for elderly? Shouldnt that be the families? Why is it kids these days have a "fvck'm" attitude TO THEIR OWN PARENTS!! Back in the "good ole days" family took care of family. In todays market having a nice house and fancy car is placed above taking care of your own damned parents.
Disgusting. :disgust:

She is planning on having 50 percent of her current salary in retirement years dollars. She makes a lot so 50 percent is enough for retirement.
And the reason SS started was because even in the 1930's when family bonds were far stronger the reality is enough children can't or wont take care of their parents.
It is one thing to talk about kids taking care of their families but the fact is tens of millions today couldn't evenif they wanted to.

And as to the previous post by HombrePequeno above,you think that 2 million (taking your number) will be enough money to live on from retirement til death? Just ask yourself this. In 1961 (45 years ago) you could by a new car for what? say 2,000 dollars? Now its 24,000 which is 14 times more. Try dividing your 2 million by 14. Comes to 143,000 dollars. Not much to live on for say 20 years. Of course by then you would need to add another 20 years. How much was a car 65 years ago? A few hundred?
Many people look at the money they will have in 45 years and it seems enormous. Until the 45 years go by and you see how little it is then.

I personally don't think that is enough to retire off of. But that's me. Two thousand a year is 10% of 20k a year. That might be what a person making $20k/year would be forced to put away (excluding a 2% safety net for those that didn't make enough). That is assuming the $20,000 a year is constant. Generally, however, people's wages increase. On average, through a person's lifetime, they would be putting in more than $2,000 a year. So right there you have even more than $2 million by the time you retire. Even then it's going to be tons more than SS will give you.

If you look at the 20 worst years of the stock market (including the Great Depression) you still get at least a 3% return per year. I plan on getting a negative return for SS (maybe positive if the SS taxes are raised to 18%, a 50% increase). SS is not a good system. I don't understand how anyone could see negative returns as a decent system. If you privitized SS, you would get way better returns and also give more money for businesses to work with. That will give them money to hire more people which will further increase people's retirement.

SS sucks. It's essentially a broken system. Even if you don't consider it a broken system, you can make a far better one if it is privitized.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

SS sucks. It's essentially a broken system. Even if you don't consider it a broken system, you can make a far better one if it is privitized.

I'm tellin you, its about the government trying to convince people that we "need" them. The government is trying to convince the American people that we are incapable of looking out for ourselves, and this is just one more way to keep us subjects in check.
 

LumbergTech

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2005
3,622
1
0
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

SS sucks. It's essentially a broken system. Even if you don't consider it a broken system, you can make a far better one if it is privitized.

I'm tellin you, its about the government trying to convince people that we "need" them. The government is trying to convince the American people that we are incapable of looking out for ourselves, and this is just one more way to keep us subjects in check.


someone made a pretty good point up earlier though, what if one goes into debt, can they just drain your entire life savings away and leave you with no retirement?
 

Leper Messiah

Banned
Dec 13, 2004
7,973
8
0
I want my SS money back. I've but 4 or 5K in there since I was 16, and I know I won't be getting a dime of it back. Its basically me giving money to other ppl. If I could invest all the money into 401(k) that I put into SS, I'd think I'd be okay. The stock market has been beating the SS return for ever.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: LumbergTech
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

SS sucks. It's essentially a broken system. Even if you don't consider it a broken system, you can make a far better one if it is privitized.

I'm tellin you, its about the government trying to convince people that we "need" them. The government is trying to convince the American people that we are incapable of looking out for ourselves, and this is just one more way to keep us subjects in check.


someone made a pretty good point up earlier though, what if one goes into debt, can they just drain your entire life savings away and leave you with no retirement?

No, which is one reason we have bankruptcy laws.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
I have never heard it answered satisfactorily so here's your chance.
Even if it were possible to come up with the correct amount you will need per year of retirement (and that is really difficult because even a minute difference in a single assumption like inflation) how would you answer these questions:
How many years will you be retired?
Do you plan on the average lifespan? Or do you need enough just in case you live longer than 99 percent of people, say 95 years old? The difference is like another 15 years.
How can you plan for this? At retirement do you take out only enough per month based on living til 80 or 95? It's a HUGE difference. Living to 95 would mean you would be retired for twice as long.
If people had individual retirement accounts wouldn't almost everyone need to save for an age of 95 or else there would be tens of millions of retired people who had no income?
If you need to save enought to last til 95 wouldn't you need to put away a very large amount of money every year while your were working? Isn't it true that even the lower middle class would have to put so much money in they would essentially be living way below poverty and the current middle class would have to living in poverty?
And wouldn't everyone have to take out longterm disability insurance since SS wouldn't cover it?


You have to remember that your contributions are matched by your employer. So while you are putting in 6.25% so is your employer for total of 12.5% of your salary.

For me at least I would like to have individual accounts with a general fund for people who fall through the cracks. Let 4% of your income go into a personal account and 8% go into a general fund for people who live to be 95 years old.
There also needs to be a raise in the retirement age. As our nation continues to progress our lifetime expectancy's will increase. Having a retirement age of 65 30 years ago makes sense. Having a retirement age of 35, 30 years from now is silly if our life expectancys keep growing.

The thing you have to remember is the system is broken as is, we all know this. Now it is only a matter of what are we going to do about it before it really brings this country to its knees?

A general fund that congress can rape wont work with the demographic shift this country is going to see in the next 30 years.



 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Originally posted by: CSMRI don't know much about the proposed legislation but you can certainly get round this ver easily.

For example invest money in a pension company who will pay you a certain amount each year - perhaps even inflation adjusted - until you die. The company then takes the risk of your living a long time. It is insurance againt living a long time effectively. There are such options for private pensions in the UK and probably everywhere. In fact it is completely normal. They can be and often are more complex than this.

So overplanning is not necessary. Which is good to know if you are poor.

Your proposed solution (an annuity) sounds a lot like SS, just without the associated disability and survivor benefits...

And while it is true that you can add those benefits to an annuity (and probably should if you are counting on it for when you are no longer working for whatever reason), what do you think the effect will be on your return?

What survivor benefits?


 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Cant?? Or wont?? Big difference there.
I see alot of people with satellite dish's on their houses, nice cars in the driveway, big TV's, stacks of movies and games, steaks on the grill.....
Its about financially repsonsible. Maybe, instead of buying that fancy new 3 series BMW they should buy a used Honda and put the rest in the bank. But thats no fun now is it.......


Cant?? Wont?? I am of the opinion that it does not matter.
SS does enough that anyone can/should count on it for a comfortable retirement. If people do not have even that, I believe that we will all be paying anyway. Just maybe not in something as easy to deal with as money.


SS on avg provides slightly above pverty wages. Nobody will be living a "comfortable" lifestyle on 11,400 a year.


 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: MonkeyK


I applaud your financial acumen and hope that others may be inspired by it. However, I would rather not count on most doing as well as you.

I applaud his financial achievement also, but as you point out (as does the article I posted in the first 20 posts), most people just can't/won't do it.

With a negative savings rate in the US, I doubt that will change much in the short term either.

I've only been in 401k for 11 years now. I only wish that I could have been in it for 20 as those years between 85 and 95 were booming for market investors. I'm not doing badly, but I could have had so much more if I could have been investing during that timeframe.
What is really interesting is my sister started serious planning for retirement in 1990 when she started looking at what her retirement money will get her. Despite the ups and downs of the market she is almost exactly where the 1990 plan had her as of 2 months ago. Of course she did this by managing 50 percent of her money herself as she is an MBA from Columbia University and lucked out getting out of the market before the Bush market.
Anyways what is interesting is despite making a lot of money on her job and contributing to her own retirement for years she plans on living off Social Security if she lives past 83 since thats when her money will run out.
Even more interesting is that in 1998 she had enough to live till she was 91. That is how variable your reitrement is when projecting that far ahead and she is now 56.
It seems that no matter how you try saving for your own retirement it is either a gamble you will die early versus living without a substantial portion of your income now(if you make a middle class living). And tens of millions of Americans just can't save enough and still live now if they plan to make it mid to late 80's.
The result is that no one can answer the question of how to save for their own retirement based on an indeterminate age you will live to. Therefore every one of the plans to provide exclusively for ones own retirement has the result of tens of millions of seniors with no money during their retirement. And of course we won't let seniors die in the streets. So we will have to pay for retirement from federal revenues which will end up bankrupting the US.


I find that interesting because I have been saving for a retirement since I was 14 and working at burger kind for 7 bucks an hour. In the ~15 years since I have plenty of money and it has only been the last 4 years that I have had what you can consider a real job that pays a nice wage. If your sister with an MBA has managed to screw up a retirement plan during the roaring 1990s, I question either the intelligence of your sister or the University who apparently just hands out MBA's to paying customers.


 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: techs
Tens of millions of families are livinging poverty or up to their neck in debt without the ability to care for their immediate families.
My sister plans on living in her manhattan apartment without major purchases.

Poverty?! Are you kidding me!? America has no idea what "poverty" is. They couldnt even begin to imagine "poverty", its just a catchy word thrown around to try and get an emotional response of compassion to justify taking my money to give it to someone who has a bit less.

And as for stuck up to their neck in debt, hey, you lie in the bed you make. Hope that big house, fancy car and nice TV with 300 channels of crap is worth it to you.

Now who's ignoring the facts? Poverty is real and it is right here in River City.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
FYI

Bankruptcy laws were recently changed to make them "fairer" to the credit companies and banks that paid their government lackies to change those bankruptcy laws in the first place. Now your assets can be assigned to force you to pay your debts no matter what the reason for your financial dilemma.

Many people here have expressed the opinion that this is a good thing. But what about people who work and fall on hard times due to illness, injury, or unemployment? What happens to them? Did they fail to "plan" for their medical emergency or unemployment? Should they have "chosen" to stay healthy and employed?

Some people here also post nonsense about Americans not knowing what poverty is as though we have nothing to complain about because there are nations that are far worse off than us. I wasn't aware that the disastrous economic state of undeveloped nations was the standard America uses to guage its own economic status.

People here have also made statements about "the rich" giving their money to "lazy Americans". In this sick twist on class warfare it seems the view is that working Americans are a drain on an economy that is designed to benefit the very few. I suppose that as consumers whose purchases drive America's economy we're just a necessary evil.

Just for the record, yes, they can take everything now and let me clue you in on another well kept secret -- when you get old, as everyone who doesn't die young is bound to do, and you can no longer care for yourself and your children who you spent a small fortune raising don't want to be bothered caring for you the state is going to place you in a nursing home and take every dime you have. If you live long enough and your money runs out the state is going to declare you insolvent and take over your life and your care. You will be forced into a nursing home as your own home is sold, your savings taken, and your assets liquidated to pay for your care. When your money runs out you'll become a ward of the state. If you don't sign your assets over to your children or an executor within six years of the time you need nursing home care the state will go after whoever has those assets and force them to pay them back to the state.

I know this becuase I'm trying to help an elderly neighbor stay out of a nursing home. She never signed her home or her assets over to her kids and that's probably a good thing because her kids would have just taken it all her and abandoed her anyway.


I know because that's what her children have done. They all but abandoned her after grabbing whatever they could from her savings over the years for things like downpayments for houses, home improvements on their existing homes, new cars, vacations, you name it. Whenever they needed money the just dropped by the bank of mommy. The old woman "helped" her kids because that's what she always did. She was always there for them. I suppose she even thought they'd reciprocate and be there for her when she needed them. Ha ha ha. What a fool, right? Serves her right, right?

In America today if you lose your health, your job, or just get old you lose everything. Just ask my elderly neighbor who is trying to stave off the government's "help".

Many people around here have some very naive ideas about life. They think that if hey plan well and make the right choices they're going to avoid the nasty little displeasures that life has been serving up since time began.

Plans don't always work out and people you thought you could count, even family, turn out to be unreliable. Unless you're one of those independently wealthy that the rest of us lazy Americans are robbing you're going to face some very hard and unyielding truths as life goes on, and no amount of "planning" is going to change that.

Let me give you all a piece of advice. The best thing you can hope for in your old age is to die in your own home. Not in a strange bed in some nursing home as a ward of the state. I have my home and I have my savings. If and when I reach the point where I need full time care I'll be staying right here and paying for it myself rather than letting the state get involved. But if you live long enough at some point no matter how much you save or how well you plan your money will run out. That's when you'll find out how far off your ideas about "planning" and "choices" are.

You're only deluding yourselves if you think you are the masters of your fate. Fate is laughing its a$$ off at your plans and choices. But you don't have to take my word for it. If you live long enough you'll find out first hand.

Here's another case in point. A lifetime of work, then illness, unemployment, and everything lost. I guess she should have "planned better" or made better "choices".

:roll:

What a great society you people are building for yourselves. We might just as well all crawl back into caves.

When poverty is a second pink slip away

Just a pale pink slip of paper. A form printed in the millions, bearing the barely legible scrawl of a busy mail carrier, who probably had to fill it out while balancing a bundle of mail.

Yet so coldly frightening.

"I know what it is," says Virginia Javras. She puts it down on her kitchen table and won't look at it. "I can't bring myself to bring it back to the post office."

To the window where certified letters with bad news are handed out.

"I mean it's stupid. I know. I can't go on forever avoiding this. Someone will show up at the door with a summons or something and it will happen."

What will happen is that the mortgage company will begin foreclosure and Javras, 53 and single, will slide even farther into the foreign and hostile territory she has trouble accepting as her own, a place she never believed she would need to visit.

Poverty.

"These things happen to other people," says Javras. "Not to me. Not to people in my family."

The border between poverty and comfort, between independence and reliance on well-meaning but rule-bound strangers in cubicles, is thin. As thin as a notice of certified mail from the mortgage company that, she concedes, has been patient. It has tried to work with her. Tolerated her late payments.

"I know they have to be paid but I just don't have the money right now."

And she doesn't know when she will get the more than $1,000 for the current payment, and arrears of $6,000, plus late fees, she owes on the little house in Lake Hiawatha she has owned, or thought she owned, for six years.

What pushed Javras across the line from the middle class into implacable debt was unexpected unemployment and the cost of health care. She had a job making about $50,000 a year as an office manager for a small engineering firm. A job with benefits.

The benefits, especially medical insurance, were important because Javras suffers from cardiac problems. She's had four heart attacks and bypass surgery. She also has hypertension and diabetes.

"I figured it would only be a matter of time before I'd get another job, but I was desperate about those benefits. I needed them."

So she worked out an arrangement with her employer. She would contribute to a medical benefits plan -- about $400 a month -- and would continue to get her costs covered. Every month, she'd send a check and get her meds and her visits paid.

Then, she remembers, a night in December, 2003, when the white-coated young pharmacist behind the high counter punched the keys of a computer, looked puzzled, then came back to say to Javras: "The carrier is declining payment."

A mistake, Javras thought. But it was more than that. Her employer had subscribed only to a year-long plan and it had expired.

"I panicked. I needed those prescriptions."

Javras got them, eventually, by signing up for Medicaid. She also received $210 a month in emergency assistance -- what's left of welfare -- because her unemployment benefits also had expired before she was able to get another job.

But she already had incurred more than $2,000 in medical bills, beyond prescriptions. Javras sued her employer and, before the case went to court, she settled.

"The judge spoke to me on the phone. She said it was the best deal I could get. If it went to trial, she said maybe I wouldn't get anything. This settlement would at least get me back on my feet."

The settlement -- $12,000.

More than $2,000 would go to the medical bills, $4,000 would go to her lawyer, $5,500 would go to Medicaid for reimbursement.

Nothing would go to her.

"There was nothing left," says Javras, who still hasn't found a job.

In a way, less than nothing. The county social services office sent her a standard form letter to remind her that, if she receives any more money in a court settlement or an inheritance or even at a casino gambling table, she will owes $7,000 for the emergency assistance.

"I thought public assistance was something you got when you needed it to tide you over," she says. "But once you get into the system, you can't get out, can you?"

Sometimes, no. Sometimes, for many people, it is a way to live.

For those who grew up in poverty, who now live regularly in it, all this will come as little surprise. For others, like Javras, who often think just those other people are poor, it can be as strange and fearful as an unexpected notice of a certified letter.
 

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Cant?? Or wont?? Big difference there.
I see alot of people with satellite dish's on their houses, nice cars in the driveway, big TV's, stacks of movies and games, steaks on the grill.....
Its about financially repsonsible. Maybe, instead of buying that fancy new 3 series BMW they should buy a used Honda and put the rest in the bank. But thats no fun now is it.......


Cant?? Wont?? I am of the opinion that it does not matter.
SS does enough that anyone can/should count on it for a comfortable retirement. If people do not have even that, I believe that we will all be paying anyway. Just maybe not in something as easy to deal with as money.


SS on avg provides slightly above pverty wages. Nobody will be living a "comfortable" lifestyle on 11,400 a year.

Sorry, what I wrote was a typo. I meant to day that "SS does not provide enough that anyone can/should count on it for a comfortable retirement" My point is that if one does not have that much (to sustain onself in poverty), we all will pay for it somehow.
 

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Originally posted by: CSMRI don't know much about the proposed legislation but you can certainly get round this ver easily.

For example invest money in a pension company who will pay you a certain amount each year - perhaps even inflation adjusted - until you die. The company then takes the risk of your living a long time. It is insurance againt living a long time effectively. There are such options for private pensions in the UK and probably everywhere. In fact it is completely normal. They can be and often are more complex than this.

So overplanning is not necessary. Which is good to know if you are poor.

Your proposed solution (an annuity) sounds a lot like SS, just without the associated disability and survivor benefits...

And while it is true that you can add those benefits to an annuity (and probably should if you are counting on it for when you are no longer working for whatever reason), what do you think the effect will be on your return?

What survivor benefits?

SS survivor benefits
Please read that aquaint yourself with that site. Part of the frustration of discussing SS with people is that they just don't know what it is.
I'm not saying that things should not change, just that the system addresses needs that a personal savings account does not.
 

alent1234

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2002
3,915
0
0
Originally posted by: techs
I have never heard it answered satisfactorily so here's your chance.
Even if it were possible to come up with the correct amount you will need per year of retirement (and that is really difficult because even a minute difference in a single assumption like inflation) how would you answer these questions:
How many years will you be retired?
Do you plan on the average lifespan? Or do you need enough just in case you live longer than 99 percent of people, say 95 years old? The difference is like another 15 years.
How can you plan for this? At retirement do you take out only enough per month based on living til 80 or 95? It's a HUGE difference. Living to 95 would mean you would be retired for twice as long.
If people had individual retirement accounts wouldn't almost everyone need to save for an age of 95 or else there would be tens of millions of retired people who had no income?
If you need to save enought to last til 95 wouldn't you need to put away a very large amount of money every year while your were working? Isn't it true that even the lower middle class would have to put so much money in they would essentially be living way below poverty and the current middle class would have to living in poverty?
And wouldn't everyone have to take out longterm disability insurance since SS wouldn't cover it?



my wife and I make around $120,000 per year, put away 15% of income and at 11% which is the average stock growth for the last 30 years we should have around $10,000,000 by the time we are 65.

If we put all that money in bonds at retirement at 4% interest is $400,000 per year in income. That's a nice income stream 35 years from now.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I'm too old for an IRA to do me much good, but the key is to invest every year for as long as you can. I've sen some charts and if you are young enough to invest the max amount every year for at least 30 years then just DO IT!! You can'tr lose if you can afford to set the money away.

It's a shame youth is wasted on the young. Try telling a 25 year old to put away 3-4 grand on a 35,000 dollar salary. Most will laugh in your face.
Which is why older and more experienced heads were forced to provide Social Security.


Well, don't generalize... my wife is 23 and has been putting away 5k a year out of her similar salary... I put away 40% of my income towards my keiogh(sp?).
 

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
Originally posted by: alent1234
Originally posted by: techs
I have never heard it answered satisfactorily so here's your chance.
Even if it were possible to come up with the correct amount you will need per year of retirement (and that is really difficult because even a minute difference in a single assumption like inflation) how would you answer these questions:
How many years will you be retired?
Do you plan on the average lifespan? Or do you need enough just in case you live longer than 99 percent of people, say 95 years old? The difference is like another 15 years.
How can you plan for this? At retirement do you take out only enough per month based on living til 80 or 95? It's a HUGE difference. Living to 95 would mean you would be retired for twice as long.
If people had individual retirement accounts wouldn't almost everyone need to save for an age of 95 or else there would be tens of millions of retired people who had no income?
If you need to save enought to last til 95 wouldn't you need to put away a very large amount of money every year while your were working? Isn't it true that even the lower middle class would have to put so much money in they would essentially be living way below poverty and the current middle class would have to living in poverty?
And wouldn't everyone have to take out longterm disability insurance since SS wouldn't cover it?



my wife and I make around $120,000 per year, put away 15% of income and at 11% which is the average stock growth for the last 30 years we should have around $10,000,000 by the time we are 65.

If we put all that money in bonds at retirement at 4% interest is $400,000 per year in income. That's a nice income stream 35 years from now.


Congratulations on your current success, you are doing far better (in both income and savings) than the vast majority of Americans.
It may sound like a downer but don't forget:
1)Figure inflation into your investment outcomes, if you think too rosy, you may be disappointed.
2)Realize that if you have children, both income and savings may change
3)Consider some very good disability insurance. If you die, life goes on and I assume your wife has good earning power, but if you become disabled (statistically more likely), your earning power will be eroded as well as costs increasing.
 

alent1234

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2002
3,915
0
0
inflation peaked around 1981 at 6% and has been pretty low since. Even with kids we will save 15% per paycheck. A few times I stopped my 401k contributions for a month or so and the increase in my paycheck was very small. Since it's pre-tax most people don't realize how little maxing out your 401k affects your paycheck.

some people also don't realize the magic of compounding. They think 10% is not that much but when you look at the value growth of a 401k than the last 5-10 years it's almost a straight line up and the first 20 years is a gentle slope.

Vanguard's SP500 fund shows an annual return of 12% per year including dividends and capital gain distributions since 1976. That's a pretty good track record.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
The funniest part of this whole scam to me is this; All of the people looking toward retirement today -- the baby boomers -- lived by the set of rules outlined for them by society and government. Now that their retirement is imminent those rules -- Social Security, pension plans, etc. -- have been changed.

What makes people who are planning for their retirement today think that in thirty or forty years the rules they've been playing by aren't going to be changed again?

The only people who are guaranteed a decent retirement are those who either don't play by the rules, those who aren't affected by the rules, or those who are making the rules.

The rest of us are left to the whims of fate or the ruling class.

Just ask those folks at Enron whose pensions went out the window and whose 401K plans were rendered worthless by the stock market collapse of the early Bush years. You can plan all you like. If you hit retirement when the market takes a dive your retirement will take a dive along with it.

 

alent1234

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2002
3,915
0
0
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: techs
I have never heard it answered satisfactorily so here's your chance.
Even if it were possible to come up with the correct amount you will need per year of retirement (and that is really difficult because even a minute difference in a single assumption like inflation) how would you answer these questions:
How many years will you be retired?

No one can answer that, its a silly question. You might as well ask "When will you die" because its the same thing.


Do you plan on the average lifespan? Or do you need enough just in case you live longer than 99 percent of people, say 95 years old? The difference is like another 15 years.

You overplan. Be it in how much you want to have or how long you will live. Either way, you want a buffer "just in case"
So you plan a buffer to live to say 87? Then what if you live to 95?


How can you plan for this? At retirement do you take out only enough per month based on living til 80 or 95? It's a HUGE difference. Living to 95 would mean you would be retired for twice as long.

"Take out"? If you invest well and wisely, you shouldnt have to touch much of your base investments. Granted, it will vary by year and vary by lifestyle, but if your wise you dont need to touch your base investments. Essentially, live off the returns. For example, if you have $500,000 at retirement (Not an unreasonable goal for those sufficiently motivated) at a 10% return your getting 50k a year. In retirement you should easily be able to live on 50k a year *if* you planned wisely coming up to that point (retirement).
Wow. You don't know too much about this. No one can afford to put away enough to live on the interest and not use the principal. In 30 years your 50,000 would be worth what, say, 10,000 in todays dollars? Plus your 10 percent return on investment doesn't talk at all about years you earn little or no money on your investment. In fact if invest conservatively this year you would have gotten like 3.5 percent.
And all the while you keep talking about earning 10 percent interest. Laughable.
Anyway talking about todays dollars is not valid. You need to figure out based on a number of factors like inflation, return on investment, how much you put in each year. Its an amazingly complicated process. You would also have to future cast a large number of variables.
I have seen no one who can reasonably say how much to put away if your 25 now.
And I have never heard anyone talk about living on their interest alone. No one.


If people had individual retirement accounts wouldn't almost everyone need to save for an age of 95 or else there would be tens of millions of retired people who had no income?

No, see above. If you plan wisely you dont need to touch much of your base investments. Yes, you get a trickle from it and use larger portions when needed, but none the less.....
See above for the answer.


If you need to save enought to last til 95 wouldn't you need to put away a very large amount of money every year while your were working? Isn't it true that even the lower middle class would have to put so much money in they would essentially be living way below poverty and the current middle class would have to living in poverty?
And wouldn't everyone have to take out longterm disability insurance since SS wouldn't cover it?

Thats because people dont think of what their money is doing after they retire. Most people seem to think that when they retire then get all that money they saved in cash and shove it under the bed.
Not so. You can continue to invest that money as you see fit. Most will invest conservatively (Rightly so), but the point is if you retire with say $350,000 you dont just end up with $350,000 in cash, you end up with $350,000 in investments which is continuing to make money. Do people account for the return on their investments after they retire? No. Some of the more savvy people will actually have their retirement savings continue to increase even after they have quit working.
Actually you would need to withdraw your principal since it would be impossible to put away enough to live on your interest. Even if you did you would get increasingly less each year in interest adjusted for inflation. By that I mean, using your 10 percent figure, that ten years later the interest on 350,000 would have been eroded by inflation at 3 percent a year to half what it was when you started.


Lastly let me add this. In 1935 people would have been talking about having maybe 25,000 in their retirement account when they retired and would have said how can you not live on 2,500 a year? By throwing out a number that looks huge today it hides the real value of what you will have to live on.
And we still have my original question. Wouldn't you need to save enough money to live til your are 95? And if people didn't do that would't we have tens of millions of the oldest seniors with no income?



10% annual return for the stock market is taking into account the blood bath of the last few years where the SP500 30% off it's high and 80% for the NASDAQ. Even now the NASDAQ is 6 times what it was 20 years ago. That's nice gains when you take into account dividends and capital gains distributions that are reinvested.

People also make the mistake of thinking that all gains end when you retire. The money is still invested and you can earn good returns on it as you live in luxury. By that time you have a ton of equity in RE and if buy vehicles that keep their value like toyotas or Hondas you have nice equity built up in your auto where you can trade it in for a luxury car and put a nice down payment on it. I actually did some make belive math once where I "bought" a civic at 20, traded up to slightly better cars every 4 years or so and by the mid 40's I have 1/2 the down payment for a Lexus RX300. And my car payment stayed the same for the entire time. And the boomers buying the mcmansions are putting a lot of money down due to their built up equity.
 

alent1234

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2002
3,915
0
0
Originally posted by: BBond
The funniest part of this whole scam to me is this; All of the people looking toward retirement today -- the baby boomers -- lived by the set of rules outlined for them by society and government. Now that their retirement is imminent those rules -- Social Security, pension plans, etc. -- have been changed.

What makes people who are planning for their retirement today think that in thirty or forty years the rules they've been playing by aren't going to be changed again?

The only people who are guaranteed a decent retirement are those who either don't play by the rules, those who aren't affected by the rules, or those who are making the rules.

The rest of us are left to the whims of fate or the ruling class.

Just ask those folks at Enron whose pensions went out the window and whose 401K plans were rendered worthless by the stock market collapse of the early Bush years. You can plan all you like. If you hit retirement when the market takes a dive your retirement will take a dive along with it.



there will always be morons who put their entire 401k into their company stock. for the rest of us we can earn 10% annually and be diversified. Some people are too greedy.

401k's have been around since 1974, and all the people that took advantage of them since their inception are swimming in money. Those in unions who relied on "safe" company pensions are on a fixed income.
 

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
Originally posted by: alent1234By that time you have a ton of equity in RE and if buy vehicles that keep their value like toyotas or Hondas you have nice equity built up in your auto where you can trade it in for a luxury car and put a nice down payment on it. I actually did some make belive math once where I "bought" a civic at 20, traded up to slightly better cars every 4 years or so and by the mid 40's I have 1/2 the down payment for a Lexus RX300. And my car payment stayed the same for the entire time.


OK joker, I don't know if you are confused easily, or going for a very dry sarcasm. Unless you are investing in clasic cars, you do not build up equity in your car. There is value remaining in your car, but it's nothing you didn't spend.