When do you think you will retire?

[chelhxi]

Down to part time at 45, retired at 50. Yay for Canadian healthcare not being tied to working status.

 

[IronWing]

Does anyone honestly believe the President is truly in charge of anything? Congress is the one that holds all the power. The President just makes suggestions and does a bunch of "Awww, c'mon guys! Lets do this! Please?"

By the time any idea any president has gets through legislation, it is so watered down and has so many riders on it that it's useless. Then we all sit around and complain the president sucks. That has to be the worst, most thankless job in the world.

We should change things around so the President is actually in charge. Make the democrats and republicans approach HIM with bills, then he decides which ones pass and which ones fail. That way if things screw up or go right, it actually is the result of the President.

[/soapbox]

That is also part of the process. The President has veto power. The Congress can override a veto but rarely does. The balance of power in the Constitution is fine as is. The real issue is that Congress doesn't do its job. Congress critters have become positively craven in their desire to avoid responsibility.

 

[HeXen]

i don't plan to ever retire. i like keeping busy. the last thing in life i want to do is sit around at home, watch my garden grow or hang out every morning at some cafe and talk about the weather..lol, eff that. i'd be bored to tears.

 

[allisolm]

It always amazes me that Government Employees get to retire at 20 years.

At 40, they are retired/get pension etc.

... See the Police Person?

He's retired... gets his end salary, forever.

-John

Lest anyone get the wrong idea, the vast majority of government employees do not and can not retire at 20 years and, at that time, draw their end salary forever. The vast majority don't get their end salary as retirement - ever. The vast majority can stop working after 20 years (some much less) but don't get to draw any retirement pay until age 55 or later (ages vary by governmental agency.)

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

When im dead.

 

[olds]

Lest anyone get the wrong idea, the vast majority of government employees do not and can not retire at 20 years and, at that time, draw their end salary forever. The vast majority don't get their end salary as retirement - ever. The vast majority can stop working after 20 years (some much less) but don't get to draw any retirement pay until age 55 or later (ages vary by governmental agency.)

Ya, I could have retired after 5 years but would have had to wait till I was 55 to collect. Would have netted me about $20 a month.
My retirement is a simple 2% @ 55. Overtime does not count in my retirement.
After my next promotion, I will lose money to start out, again. I lost money at my last promotion to start out.
How many private employees can say that?

 

[GasX]

My retirement is a simple 2% @ 55.

2% of what?

 

[olds]

2% of what?

Base salary.
If my salary is $5000 and I work 20 years:
2%X20 years = 40% of $5000 or $2000 a month. Before taxes.

 

[Squisher]

2008

 

[DCal430]

I plan to retire at 55, at 55 will get 64% of my base salary at the time of my retirement. If I retire at 60 though, I will get 85% of my base salary. But from what I have seen most people retire at 55.

 

[child of wonder]

Our plan is for me to "retire" at age 60 but work as an independent contractor for about 4 years until my wife turns 59.5 at which point we will both fully retire.

 

[DCal430]

What is also popular is for people to retire at 55, and then return to work as something called a "Retired Annuitant".

 

[olds]

What is also popular is for people to retire at 55, and then return to work as something called a "Retired Annuitant".

Good luck with that. The stupid people don't understand that it actually saves money and Jerry Brown axed the annuitants.

 

[Doppel]

Absolutely NO IDEA. The "historical return" is barely worth sh*t now, especially since over the past 10 years if not 20 it's been terrible. I'm basically just putting enough into my 401k that by the time I "try and retire" I won't curse myself for being a lazy bastage, but I'm not really putting much stock into online calculators, which cannot predict how things will go over the next 30 years. For all I know somebody will find a way to cure all joint problems in 20 years and I'll be digging ditches at the age of 90 for exercise and a few extra bucks.

Call it bitter, it is, but the current retirees and those about to retire have in large part fvcked the wealth out of the future for a lot of us. Most of us won't be retired at 65 unless our health is so poor we have to be.

 

[Fritzo]

That is also part of the process. The President has veto power. The Congress can override a veto but rarely does. The balance of power in the Constitution is fine as is. The real issue is that Congress doesn't do its job. Congress critters have become positively craven in their desire to avoid responsibility.

It never gets to the point where he can veto anything. Congress sits around and argues for years, and nothing ever gets put on his desk.

 

[Fritzo]

I plan to retire at 55, at 55 will get 64% of my base salary at the time of my retirement. If I retire at 60 though, I will get 85% of my base salary. But from what I have seen most people retire at 55.

Dude, go with 60. That's quite a jump and things are only going to get more expensive.

 

[HendrixFan]

I'm with Doppel. I had a nice plan but starting retirement accounts in the early 00s means my rate of return has been virtually flat over the last 10+ years, certainly if you account for inflation. What should have been prime growth years with aggressive investments have been useless. The only thing I have going for me with my 401k or ROTH is that the 401k is matched.

The economy is showing no signs of getting better, in fact the opposite seems true. They have tried to prop up weak industry and through QE have inflated things to keep from going deflationary. With the student loan collapse on the horizon we are absolutely going to hit another recession. Best case scenario is they actually let us bleed out next time and we are out of the rough part in another ten years.

So that would be the entirety of my 20s and 30s in which my retirement accounts grow at virtually nil, even my savings accounts are earning less than 1%. By the time I'm 40 we may see sustained double digit growth in investments again but shouldn't I be starting to go conservative at that time?

So yeah, who knows?

 

[Fritzo]

I'm with Doppel. I had a nice plan but starting retirement accounts in the early 00s means my rate of return has been virtually flat over the last 10+ years, certainly if you account for inflation. What should have been prime growth years with aggressive investments have been useless. The only thing I have going for me with my 401k or ROTH is that the 401k is matched.

The economy is showing no signs of getting better, in fact the opposite seems true. They have tried to prop up weak industry and through QE have inflated things to keep from going deflationary. With the student loan collapse on the horizon we are absolutely going to hit another recession. Best case scenario is they actually let us bleed out next time and we are out of the rough part in another ten years.

So that would be the entirety of my 20s and 30s in which my retirement accounts grow at virtually nil, even my savings accounts are earning less than 1%. By the time I'm 40 we may see sustained double digit growth in investments again but shouldn't I be starting to go conservative at that time?

So yeah, who knows?

What worries me is the fact that the economy hasn't gotten any better since the crash means there is still a major factor holding us back. That factor is going to have to implode and shed itself before we start healing...and that means an even bigger crash is on the way.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Right after we false flag nuke the Olympics to begin WW3.







😛

 

[CRXican]

never

 

[Exterous]

Absolutely NO IDEA. The "historical return" is barely worth sh*t now, especially since over the past 10 years if not 20 it's been terrible.

I'm with Doppel. I had a nice plan but starting retirement accounts in the early 00s means my rate of return has been virtually flat over the last 10+ years, certainly if you account for inflation. What should have been prime growth years with aggressive investments have been useless. The only thing I have going for me with my 401k or ROTH is that the 401k is matched.

I am curious what you invested in? I started in 2002 and my 10 year return has been just above 6%. Hell - Vanguards VTSMX index fund has returned exactly 6% over the last 10 years which is about 2x the inflation during the same time period (8.4% since inception in '94)

Mutual funds I am guessing?

 

[Engineer]

I am curious what you invested in? I started in 2002 and my 10 year return has been just above 6%. Hell - Vanguards VTSMX index fund has returned exactly 6% over the last 10 years which is about 2x the inflation during the same time period (8.4% since inception in '94)

Mutual funds I am guessing?

So the money that you put in there 10 years ago has averaged 6%. What about the money that you put in 5 years ago? 0.55% per year.

My Roth IRA, which is a blend of bond and stock funds, both domestic and international, was started in 1999 and invested through 2008. It is still worth less than what I have in it. My 401k plan is still where it was in mid 2007, and that's after putting money in it since then. Look at the history of the fund you listed (from 1996) and you'll see it is a sawtooth pattern. Are you certain that it will continue up this time, especially with the world economy tanking?

The old idea that if you have 5 years or more, you'll be able to weather the downturns seems to be turned upon it's head this time. We might just be going through another 20-30 year period (see DOW after WW2) where we are just flat if not down.

Try to sell privatization of SS using those numbers.

 

[chalmers]

I don't know or care.

 

[utahraptor]

I have been putting 13% into my 401k since around the time I turned 25 years old. I fully suspect I will never get to see a dime back, but I can't stop putting it in.

 

[Doppel]

What worries me is the fact that the economy hasn't gotten any better since the crash means there is still a major factor holding us back. That factor is going to have to implode and shed itself before we start healing...and that means an even bigger crash is on the way.

Not only has it not gotten better but it's worse. "Growth" has been very mild and grossly outpaced by debt; it's only ever-increasing deficit spending that keeps us from going negative anyway. This is the case for much of the world.

I am curious what you invested in? I started in 2002 and my 10 year return has been just above 6%. Hell - Vanguards VTSMX index fund has returned exactly 6% over the last 10 years which is about 2x the inflation during the same time period (8.4% since inception in '94)

Mutual funds I am guessing?

Personally it's been mainly index funds, maybe some mutual depending on what my company offered at the time. Things look better now than they did two years ago, with DOW currently around 13k, but after adjusting for inflation the total return has been quite bad. My 401k is only larger because of constant contributions; its actual return has been poor.

We might just be going through another 20-30 year period (see DOW after WW2) where we are just flat if not down.

Very possible. Japan is still way below where they were at their peak--20 years ago. Even if the US has not bubbled as severely as Japan it's surely precedented to have long periods of nothing.