61–70 of 218 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pay off a modest $100k house in a low cost of living area and you should be able to survive on Social Security alone. Save more if you can though.
Social Security, in my retirement? That's a laugh.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While it is fashionable to doubt that Social Security will be around for the Gen X or Millenial retirements, the reality is that it's simply a matter of political will. If people like Social Security (and they generally do), then all they have to do is vote for politicians who will protect it, and harass politicians when it looks like they won't. Of course it's fine to plan for a retirement without Social Security...…
I agree. I think Social Security, like Medicare, is a "third rail" sort of thing. I expect politicians will have to cut back military spending before they can go after Social Security
Those seeking a much more sophisticated retirement calculator, where you can set nearly every parameter, such as rate of return, amount saved, and nearly everything else, should checkout firecalc. You can select different withdrawl rate strategies, different investment strategies, deferred compensation strategies, different investment mixes, and many, many other things. The interface isn't as pretty, but it is unbeli…
I opened, there is too much info for my small brain to grasp and closed it. :-(
Or you can just max our your 401k, IRA, HSA, save enough of what's left over to make sure you can have a comfortable retirement at 60ish. The math for everybody else actually isn't as tricky as it seems for mid-to-high income folks. It's generally more about reigning in spending than fancy spreadsheets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pay off a modest $100k house in a low cost of living area and you should be able to survive on Social Security alone. Save more if you can though.
Social security is a supplement, it’s not meant for you to live off, nor should you expect it to always be around.
Be careful with this: The projections are gross (ie not inflation-adjusted) and the advice buried in the explanatory text below does not sufficiently discuss this issue. It says you can do a "simple" calculation by applying one year's worth of inflation versus a compounded rate of return. Assuming historical inflation rates, the value of the savings it projects will be significantly eroded compared to what it shows.…
Yeah, it's also using a 9% rate of return for the "conservative" scenario and 12% for aggressive. Due to the exponential nature of compound interest, just a single point of overoptimism in your real growth number leads to a massive overestimation of your results. 1.07 ^ 30 = 7.6, 1.09 ^ 30 = 13.3, and 1.12 ^ 30 = 30.0 It's baseline assumptions are way off.
If 9% is good enough for most federal, state, and local pension estimates, it's good enough for us, too. /s
Be careful with this: The projections are gross (ie not inflation-adjusted) and the advice buried in the explanatory text below does not sufficiently discuss this issue. It says you can do a "simple" calculation by applying one year's worth of inflation versus a compounded rate of return. Assuming historical inflation rates, the value of the savings it projects will be significantly eroded compared to what it shows.…
It would be much better to make estimates in inflation-adjusted (today's) dollars: at least then one can relate the results to costs you see today. And even in pre-inflation dollars, average 9% return is anything but conservative.
On smaller points: adding "0" as an invest monthly option would be a good idea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are you even talking about? When you retire you stop accumulating savings and start spending it. At first it continues to grow but if you plan correctly you will have made good use of it by end of life. Then it will be depleted.
By the time you retire you have more capital accruing interest, and generally more to invest in the attendant better investment opportunities available. That's what they meant.
These things are always a bit depressing and make me want to invest in a bottle of bourbon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, it's also using a 9% rate of return for the "conservative" scenario and 12% for aggressive. Due to the exponential nature of compound interest, just a single point of overoptimism in your real growth number leads to a massive overestimation of your results. 1.07 ^ 30 = 7.6, 1.09 ^ 30 = 13.3, and 1.12 ^ 30 = 30.0 It's baseline assumptions are way off.
>it's also using a 9% rate of return for the "conservative" scenario... If 9% is good enough for most federal, state, and local pension estimates, it's good enough for us, too. /s
Be careful with this: The projections are gross (ie not inflation-adjusted) and the advice buried in the explanatory text below does not sufficiently discuss this issue. It says you can do a "simple" calculation by applying one year's worth of inflation versus a compounded rate of return. Assuming historical inflation rates, the value of the savings it projects will be significantly eroded compared to what it shows.…
Yeah, it's also using a 9% rate of return for the "conservative" scenario and 12% for aggressive. Due to the exponential nature of compound interest, just a single point of overoptimism in your real growth number leads to a massive overestimation of your results. 1.07 ^ 30 = 7.6, 1.09 ^ 30 = 13.3, and 1.12 ^ 30 = 30.0 It's baseline assumptions are way off.