Retirement Is Dead

Post by fultonn » Thu, Sep 03, 2026, 2:44 PM UTC

throw0101d wrote: post #40

what wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I only watched part of 1, but the answer was “no, you can’t retire on 250k”.

Yes, you can. Or rather some people can. People have to be realistic about what they can save and the lifestyle they need (versus want). Depending on the commitments you had during your working life, you may need as little as 40% of your working income in retirement to have the same lifestyle (as opposed to the 70% number that is bandied about so much).

> Yes, you can.

USA-specific: At ~$38K/year (including SS) you probably need to own a home without substantial deferred maintenance to make it work. So you can retire on $250K but only if you're over 62 and only if you have substantial wealth outside of those liquid assets (so probably a net worth at least 2x your liquid). If you have a spouse also on SS it much easier.

Post by laurencerowe » Thu, Sep 03, 2026, 5:31 PM UTC

throw0101d wrote: post #39

laurencerowe wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Broad based benefits tend to receive more public support. Just tax those with high incomes to get it back. Otherwise the bumpy effective marginal tax thresholds (which increase and the decrease again as income increases) end up incentivising gaming the system by shifting when income is realised. Presumably the optimal strategy if you have retirement income within the range where you face a 15% clawback might be to wi…

> Just tax those with high incomes to get it back. This appears to not raise as much money as many people think. Interesting conversation with UK tax lawyer Dan Neidle on the topic: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgQONOM15HI * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Neidle (Of course there could be reasons besides strictly revenue to do it, but folks should be realistic about the pros and cons.)

You absolutely need broadly based taxation for social democracy. But specifically for clawing back benefits from higher earners you can absolutely tax those same higher earners instead.

Dan has actually criticised a similar situation in the UK where child benefit is clawed back from higher earners.

> If I was a Tory Chancellor, I wouldn’t abolish inheritance tax. I’d fix the ridiculous marginal rates that mean there are hundreds of thousands of 30-somethings paying more than 70% tax on every additional £ they earn.

https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2023/09/24/70percent/

It’s reasonable to question the balance between how much taxation should be born by higher income pensioners (who likely own their home outright) vs working age people at the same level of income (who additionally pay social security tax). Maybe it would make more sense to roll social security into the tax system and raise pension payments so lower income pensioners don’t lose out.

Re: Retirement Is Dead

Re: Retirement Is Dead