- This topic has 265 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 10 months ago by
sdrealtor.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 3, 2011 at 7:54 PM #648770January 4, 2011 at 5:32 AM #647687
temeculaguy
ParticipantThe problem with retiring at a very young age and setting yourself on a path of having a fixed income is that you are very prone to getting screwed by inflation. Most people who are retired for more than 20 years get impacted, those who are retired longer have more risk. Retiring in your low 30’s is nearly impossible without some good inflation hedges like having more than one paid off rental properties.
Those numbers flu mentioned above will not look like that in 30 years and a few hundred grand isn’t going to keep pace if you are living off the capital gains or interest, every day you will get further behind. So being able to just barely make it today doesn’t translate into comfort 50 years from now.
When I mentioned 75-100k, I did mean before taxes. I’ve designed my retirement to exceed 10k a month before taxes in today’s dollars. I’m not there yet investment wise but I will be there in ten years and those additional ten years of investing and working also serve as ten less years of being exposed to inflation. I know that if live 40+ years into retirement it’s not going to go as planned and I certainly wouldn’t retire before I got my kids through college because their too many variables when you have dependants. Things might go very wrong or very right. A dependant could become very ill or very injured. A dependant could also do very well and get into medical school. Fixing one’s income while there are other’s to care for and so many variables is a recepie for disaster.
Fixing one’s income when you have 20-30 years left on the planet and nobody to take care of or pay for can and does work all the time.
January 4, 2011 at 5:32 AM #647758ParticipantThe problem with retiring at a very young age and setting yourself on a path of having a fixed income is that you are very prone to getting screwed by inflation. Most people who are retired for more than 20 years get impacted, those who are retired longer have more risk. Retiring in your low 30’s is nearly impossible without some good inflation hedges like having more than one paid off rental properties.
Those numbers flu mentioned above will not look like that in 30 years and a few hundred grand isn’t going to keep pace if you are living off the capital gains or interest, every day you will get further behind. So being able to just barely make it today doesn’t translate into comfort 50 years from now.
When I mentioned 75-100k, I did mean before taxes. I’ve designed my retirement to exceed 10k a month before taxes in today’s dollars. I’m not there yet investment wise but I will be there in ten years and those additional ten years of investing and working also serve as ten less years of being exposed to inflation. I know that if live 40+ years into retirement it’s not going to go as planned and I certainly wouldn’t retire before I got my kids through college because their too many variables when you have dependants. Things might go very wrong or very right. A dependant could become very ill or very injured. A dependant could also do very well and get into medical school. Fixing one’s income while there are other’s to care for and so many variables is a recepie for disaster.
Fixing one’s income when you have 20-30 years left on the planet and nobody to take care of or pay for can and does work all the time.
January 4, 2011 at 5:32 AM #648344ParticipantThe problem with retiring at a very young age and setting yourself on a path of having a fixed income is that you are very prone to getting screwed by inflation. Most people who are retired for more than 20 years get impacted, those who are retired longer have more risk. Retiring in your low 30’s is nearly impossible without some good inflation hedges like having more than one paid off rental properties.
Those numbers flu mentioned above will not look like that in 30 years and a few hundred grand isn’t going to keep pace if you are living off the capital gains or interest, every day you will get further behind. So being able to just barely make it today doesn’t translate into comfort 50 years from now.
When I mentioned 75-100k, I did mean before taxes. I’ve designed my retirement to exceed 10k a month before taxes in today’s dollars. I’m not there yet investment wise but I will be there in ten years and those additional ten years of investing and working also serve as ten less years of being exposed to inflation. I know that if live 40+ years into retirement it’s not going to go as planned and I certainly wouldn’t retire before I got my kids through college because their too many variables when you have dependants. Things might go very wrong or very right. A dependant could become very ill or very injured. A dependant could also do very well and get into medical school. Fixing one’s income while there are other’s to care for and so many variables is a recepie for disaster.
Fixing one’s income when you have 20-30 years left on the planet and nobody to take care of or pay for can and does work all the time.
January 4, 2011 at 5:32 AM #648481ParticipantThe problem with retiring at a very young age and setting yourself on a path of having a fixed income is that you are very prone to getting screwed by inflation. Most people who are retired for more than 20 years get impacted, those who are retired longer have more risk. Retiring in your low 30’s is nearly impossible without some good inflation hedges like having more than one paid off rental properties.
Those numbers flu mentioned above will not look like that in 30 years and a few hundred grand isn’t going to keep pace if you are living off the capital gains or interest, every day you will get further behind. So being able to just barely make it today doesn’t translate into comfort 50 years from now.
When I mentioned 75-100k, I did mean before taxes. I’ve designed my retirement to exceed 10k a month before taxes in today’s dollars. I’m not there yet investment wise but I will be there in ten years and those additional ten years of investing and working also serve as ten less years of being exposed to inflation. I know that if live 40+ years into retirement it’s not going to go as planned and I certainly wouldn’t retire before I got my kids through college because their too many variables when you have dependants. Things might go very wrong or very right. A dependant could become very ill or very injured. A dependant could also do very well and get into medical school. Fixing one’s income while there are other’s to care for and so many variables is a recepie for disaster.
Fixing one’s income when you have 20-30 years left on the planet and nobody to take care of or pay for can and does work all the time.
January 4, 2011 at 5:32 AM #648805ParticipantThe problem with retiring at a very young age and setting yourself on a path of having a fixed income is that you are very prone to getting screwed by inflation. Most people who are retired for more than 20 years get impacted, those who are retired longer have more risk. Retiring in your low 30’s is nearly impossible without some good inflation hedges like having more than one paid off rental properties.
Those numbers flu mentioned above will not look like that in 30 years and a few hundred grand isn’t going to keep pace if you are living off the capital gains or interest, every day you will get further behind. So being able to just barely make it today doesn’t translate into comfort 50 years from now.
When I mentioned 75-100k, I did mean before taxes. I’ve designed my retirement to exceed 10k a month before taxes in today’s dollars. I’m not there yet investment wise but I will be there in ten years and those additional ten years of investing and working also serve as ten less years of being exposed to inflation. I know that if live 40+ years into retirement it’s not going to go as planned and I certainly wouldn’t retire before I got my kids through college because their too many variables when you have dependants. Things might go very wrong or very right. A dependant could become very ill or very injured. A dependant could also do very well and get into medical school. Fixing one’s income while there are other’s to care for and so many variables is a recepie for disaster.
Fixing one’s income when you have 20-30 years left on the planet and nobody to take care of or pay for can and does work all the time.
January 4, 2011 at 7:04 AM #647702Anonymous
Guest[quote=CA renter]Not necessarily. While San Diego has its own pension fund, many (most?) other cities are with CalPERS.[/quote]
Every big city and county has their own fund:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CalPERS#Retirement_benefits_under_defined_benefit_plans
“Besides CalPERS, California has a number of other public retirement systems, including:
* At least 22 counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno, Imperial, Kern, Los Angeles, Marin, Mendocino, Merced, Orange, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco [also a city], San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Tulare, and Ventura)[85][86]
* At least 6 cities (Concord, Fresno, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco [also a county], and San Jose)[86]”[quote]At this point in time, none of the cities I’m aware of are “bankrupt” because of losses in the CalPERS fund.
[/quote]Very few cities are actually bankrupt, so I’m not sure why you used that word. But it is well known that most of the state finances are about to fall off a cliff. And pensions are a big part of the problem.
It doesn’t take any financial genius to understand how pensions have devastated the state’s finances: Negotiate billions of dollars in future compensation, hide the actual numbers from voters, and make populist rants about “wall street” being the real demon when the problem is exposed.
I’m not one to typically make doom and gloom predictions, but it is a very safe guess to say that we will see tax increases to cover pension fund shortfalls. This could very well include taxing of 401Ks and other private retirement savings.
In other words, the government will take from one person’s retirement fund in order to supplement government worker’s (already comfortable) retirement lifestyles. Joe the retired construction worker will have to cut back on groceries so that Bob the retired fireman can go on his winter cruise.
The problem is huge in CA – something the OP may want to consider before retiring here (unless he has a government pension.)
But I’d like to hear a simple explanation as to how “wall street” has bankrupted the state of CA.
January 4, 2011 at 7:04 AM #647773Guest[quote=CA renter]Not necessarily. While San Diego has its own pension fund, many (most?) other cities are with CalPERS.[/quote]
Every big city and county has their own fund:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CalPERS#Retirement_benefits_under_defined_benefit_plans
“Besides CalPERS, California has a number of other public retirement systems, including:
* At least 22 counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno, Imperial, Kern, Los Angeles, Marin, Mendocino, Merced, Orange, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco [also a city], San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Tulare, and Ventura)[85][86]
* At least 6 cities (Concord, Fresno, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco [also a county], and San Jose)[86]”[quote]At this point in time, none of the cities I’m aware of are “bankrupt” because of losses in the CalPERS fund.
[/quote]Very few cities are actually bankrupt, so I’m not sure why you used that word. But it is well known that most of the state finances are about to fall off a cliff. And pensions are a big part of the problem.
It doesn’t take any financial genius to understand how pensions have devastated the state’s finances: Negotiate billions of dollars in future compensation, hide the actual numbers from voters, and make populist rants about “wall street” being the real demon when the problem is exposed.
I’m not one to typically make doom and gloom predictions, but it is a very safe guess to say that we will see tax increases to cover pension fund shortfalls. This could very well include taxing of 401Ks and other private retirement savings.
In other words, the government will take from one person’s retirement fund in order to supplement government worker’s (already comfortable) retirement lifestyles. Joe the retired construction worker will have to cut back on groceries so that Bob the retired fireman can go on his winter cruise.
The problem is huge in CA – something the OP may want to consider before retiring here (unless he has a government pension.)
But I’d like to hear a simple explanation as to how “wall street” has bankrupted the state of CA.
January 4, 2011 at 7:04 AM #648359Guest[quote=CA renter]Not necessarily. While San Diego has its own pension fund, many (most?) other cities are with CalPERS.[/quote]
Every big city and county has their own fund:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CalPERS#Retirement_benefits_under_defined_benefit_plans
“Besides CalPERS, California has a number of other public retirement systems, including:
* At least 22 counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno, Imperial, Kern, Los Angeles, Marin, Mendocino, Merced, Orange, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco [also a city], San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Tulare, and Ventura)[85][86]
* At least 6 cities (Concord, Fresno, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco [also a county], and San Jose)[86]”[quote]At this point in time, none of the cities I’m aware of are “bankrupt” because of losses in the CalPERS fund.
[/quote]Very few cities are actually bankrupt, so I’m not sure why you used that word. But it is well known that most of the state finances are about to fall off a cliff. And pensions are a big part of the problem.
It doesn’t take any financial genius to understand how pensions have devastated the state’s finances: Negotiate billions of dollars in future compensation, hide the actual numbers from voters, and make populist rants about “wall street” being the real demon when the problem is exposed.
I’m not one to typically make doom and gloom predictions, but it is a very safe guess to say that we will see tax increases to cover pension fund shortfalls. This could very well include taxing of 401Ks and other private retirement savings.
In other words, the government will take from one person’s retirement fund in order to supplement government worker’s (already comfortable) retirement lifestyles. Joe the retired construction worker will have to cut back on groceries so that Bob the retired fireman can go on his winter cruise.
The problem is huge in CA – something the OP may want to consider before retiring here (unless he has a government pension.)
But I’d like to hear a simple explanation as to how “wall street” has bankrupted the state of CA.
January 4, 2011 at 7:04 AM #648496Guest[quote=CA renter]Not necessarily. While San Diego has its own pension fund, many (most?) other cities are with CalPERS.[/quote]
Every big city and county has their own fund:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CalPERS#Retirement_benefits_under_defined_benefit_plans
“Besides CalPERS, California has a number of other public retirement systems, including:
* At least 22 counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno, Imperial, Kern, Los Angeles, Marin, Mendocino, Merced, Orange, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco [also a city], San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Tulare, and Ventura)[85][86]
* At least 6 cities (Concord, Fresno, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco [also a county], and San Jose)[86]”[quote]At this point in time, none of the cities I’m aware of are “bankrupt” because of losses in the CalPERS fund.
[/quote]Very few cities are actually bankrupt, so I’m not sure why you used that word. But it is well known that most of the state finances are about to fall off a cliff. And pensions are a big part of the problem.
It doesn’t take any financial genius to understand how pensions have devastated the state’s finances: Negotiate billions of dollars in future compensation, hide the actual numbers from voters, and make populist rants about “wall street” being the real demon when the problem is exposed.
I’m not one to typically make doom and gloom predictions, but it is a very safe guess to say that we will see tax increases to cover pension fund shortfalls. This could very well include taxing of 401Ks and other private retirement savings.
In other words, the government will take from one person’s retirement fund in order to supplement government worker’s (already comfortable) retirement lifestyles. Joe the retired construction worker will have to cut back on groceries so that Bob the retired fireman can go on his winter cruise.
The problem is huge in CA – something the OP may want to consider before retiring here (unless he has a government pension.)
But I’d like to hear a simple explanation as to how “wall street” has bankrupted the state of CA.
January 4, 2011 at 7:04 AM #648820Guest[quote=CA renter]Not necessarily. While San Diego has its own pension fund, many (most?) other cities are with CalPERS.[/quote]
Every big city and county has their own fund:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CalPERS#Retirement_benefits_under_defined_benefit_plans
“Besides CalPERS, California has a number of other public retirement systems, including:
* At least 22 counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno, Imperial, Kern, Los Angeles, Marin, Mendocino, Merced, Orange, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco [also a city], San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Tulare, and Ventura)[85][86]
* At least 6 cities (Concord, Fresno, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco [also a county], and San Jose)[86]”[quote]At this point in time, none of the cities I’m aware of are “bankrupt” because of losses in the CalPERS fund.
[/quote]Very few cities are actually bankrupt, so I’m not sure why you used that word. But it is well known that most of the state finances are about to fall off a cliff. And pensions are a big part of the problem.
It doesn’t take any financial genius to understand how pensions have devastated the state’s finances: Negotiate billions of dollars in future compensation, hide the actual numbers from voters, and make populist rants about “wall street” being the real demon when the problem is exposed.
I’m not one to typically make doom and gloom predictions, but it is a very safe guess to say that we will see tax increases to cover pension fund shortfalls. This could very well include taxing of 401Ks and other private retirement savings.
In other words, the government will take from one person’s retirement fund in order to supplement government worker’s (already comfortable) retirement lifestyles. Joe the retired construction worker will have to cut back on groceries so that Bob the retired fireman can go on his winter cruise.
The problem is huge in CA – something the OP may want to consider before retiring here (unless he has a government pension.)
But I’d like to hear a simple explanation as to how “wall street” has bankrupted the state of CA.
January 4, 2011 at 7:07 AM #647707NotCranky
ParticipantIt does seem to me like the OP’s portfolio could use some cash flow rentals, especially with the idea of being semi-retired. I’d go to Temecula and buy 3 houses let the little rental business be part-time employment and keep working as you figure out where to go from there. Or use some of the SAHD or SAHM time to take care of the rentals. Either way someone or both or you have to keep working.
January 4, 2011 at 7:07 AM #647778ParticipantIt does seem to me like the OP’s portfolio could use some cash flow rentals, especially with the idea of being semi-retired. I’d go to Temecula and buy 3 houses let the little rental business be part-time employment and keep working as you figure out where to go from there. Or use some of the SAHD or SAHM time to take care of the rentals. Either way someone or both or you have to keep working.
January 4, 2011 at 7:07 AM #648364ParticipantIt does seem to me like the OP’s portfolio could use some cash flow rentals, especially with the idea of being semi-retired. I’d go to Temecula and buy 3 houses let the little rental business be part-time employment and keep working as you figure out where to go from there. Or use some of the SAHD or SAHM time to take care of the rentals. Either way someone or both or you have to keep working.
January 4, 2011 at 7:07 AM #648501ParticipantIt does seem to me like the OP’s portfolio could use some cash flow rentals, especially with the idea of being semi-retired. I’d go to Temecula and buy 3 houses let the little rental business be part-time employment and keep working as you figure out where to go from there. Or use some of the SAHD or SAHM time to take care of the rentals. Either way someone or both or you have to keep working.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.