Question about net worth, please advise.

[Eugene]

[quote=AN]
Why is it bizarre? It’s from two different points and they’re not related/responded to each other. [/quote]

It represents the lack of perspective. Just like people show the lack of perspective when they show concern over federal debt and demand spending cuts now lest we become Italy/Greece. When the real danger is for us to become Japan. But I digress.

Most Americans won’t retire in a condo in Del Mar or in a 4000 sq ft house, or go dumpster diving. The question as originally posed was “how much is okay for retirement?”. The answer to that question is zero. There is a senior apartment complex not far from where I live. I’m fairly sure that, if I were 65 right now, I’d be able to afford to live there on my SS benefits with no savings whatsoever. And I wouldn’t even have to move to a lower cost-of-living state. I don’t think that SS or Medicare will get rolled back substantially by 2040, because the majority of Americans don’t have enough savings to last more than a year or two without SS and Medicare. And seniors vote. They will saddle their grandchildren with whatever taxes necessary to ensure retirement that does not involve dumpster-diving or eating cat food.

Then at some point “how much is okay for retirement” somehow got twisted into “how much is okay for retirement in Del Mar”, which is the spectral opposite of the original question.

And the bizarre part, I guess, is that people continue the discussion without blinking an eye.

[Coronita]

[quote]
With inflation and all the uncertainty of today’s economy, can the Piggs educate me about how much net worth one person should have at a certain age to consider ‘on-par’ or okay for retirement?
[/quote]

Does it really matter?

I think we can definitely say now that by the time you retire, you’re going to be paying much higher taxes when you take out your mandatory 401k/retirement plan distributions than you are paying now during your income years and who knows if the government is going to keep it’s promise by not taxing the roth 401k’s…Not to mention, the dollar is going to be clearly trashed by the time you are ready to retire….

In other words, as a responsible “saver”, you’re going to be paying for the entitlement benefits of everyone else who’s been reckless and hasn’t saved….That essentially your diligence in being financially responsible will benefit not you, but everyone else around you who hasn’t been been responsible. Just to name a few:

*When you’re ready to send your kids to college, you/your kid ain’t going to qualify for financial aid because you will be perceived as being “wealthy” (especially when they start counting how much equity you have in your house and start expecting you to take out a mortgage to finance your kid’s education), but your higher income tax bills year over year will gracious go towards others that can’t afford to pay for the increased tuition hikes….Like Joe six-pack that maxxed out his/her credit card on bling and who now have no savings, but who’s kids now qualify for financial aid…. And people who aren’t even here legally, never paid income taxes, that somehow still get to get in-state tuition reductions at the U.C. schools….

*Your healthcare bills are going to skyrocket because you’re going to find that this healthcare reform really wasn’t a reform. It was a sneaky way for insurance companies to extract more dollars from middle class americans such as yourself who could afford to pay for others who don’t have health insurance…and for employers that once provided better healthcare to pass more cost on to you, the employee, while simultaneously providing you with less healthcare benefits.

*You’re going to be paying up the noses in income taxes when you take out your 401k distributions, because obviously when the 401k/IRA benefits administrators told you to max out your contributions, what they didn’t tell you is that if you really did this, and you really are a good saver, then by the time you retire, there will be a period of which you will be required to take mandatory distributions each year, and pay income taxes that year, which most likely is going to be more than what you pay right now….And don’t forget that if you saved too well, and the amount that is determined to be “mandatory” ends up exceeding certain limits, you’ll end up paying a penalty for that on top the high income taxes you already are paying…

*With a much larger baby boomer population retiring than generation x, savers are going to be pretty much screwed because you’re tax dollars will be feeding at least 2 baby boomers who more than likely hasn’t saved…Meanwhile, you’re really screwed because you only produced 1 millenium baby/generation y baby, and while we probably will see more immigration into the U.S., they probably won’t be mostly legal, and hence we won’t be collecting taxes from folks.

*Meanwhile, the general public (especially here in CA) will continue to demand free social services that they have been accustomed to…So I’m sure the government will come up with even more ways to extract as much as they can from savers. Simultaneously, our government will continue to spent on maintaining the prestige of having the largest military in the world and proping up the image of being the world police…That’s right, you’re tax dollars will continue to feed this bloated world police, while simultaneously just about every public service you really need is cut that you end up having to pay for in some other format to subsidize whatever deficiencies.

*Meanwhile corporations, will still have the lowest tax rates, the exrepatriation tax laws still wouldn’t have changed, and the ubber-wealthy will still enjoy the benefits of the various tax-loopholes that exist (in new form).

So….time in and time out again, it’s been proven savers are the losers. Don’t count on “retiring” if you remain in this taxpaying, upper-middle class groupworking class.
….Have you folks not learned anything over the past few years during this economic meltdown?????
Savers get screwed.

I’m not holding my breath on the advantages of “tax deferred” savings plan….The once financial advise that “your tax bill is going to be lower when you retire” is a cock-amina shit that won’t be true. The goal still should be pay as little taxes as possible when you retire, but the rules have changed….And I don’t think conventional thinking, run of the mill “put your money into a 401k/IRA” is going to be the ticket to minimize your taxes during your retirement.

So I’m thinking…You have $600k in assets…How about contributing the bare minimum to your 401k (enough to get any company match)…Then take $300k (maybe consider a cash-out refinance on your primary as much as you can) and try to buy a rental paid off as much as you can. You’ll maximize your mortgage interest deduction for you primary on your taxes (assuming that Big 6 negotiations don’t end up screwing around with that) and reduce your tax bill. Meanwhile, your renter will pay for those other homes so 30 years they’ll still be producing income when you aren’t. Then when you are ready to retire, you can sell your primary and get the tax break (asssuming you’ve seen some appreciation and assuming that tax excemption on cap gains for a primary still exist) and move into one of your rentals, or roll your rentals into bigger rentals without incurring big tax bills that you would incur if you moved a comparable amount from your 401k during those years. And if things blow up and for some reason, you lose all your investment on the house, it’s really not a big deal…Because you’ll end up just being one of the other folks who still be able to collect on the entitlement programs that our governments will continue to promise, that will still continue to be paid by others savers that are like what you were before….

[Coronita]

[quote]
With inflation and all the uncertainty of today’s economy, can the Piggs educate me about how much net worth one person should have at a certain age to consider ‘on-par’ or okay for retirement?
[/quote]

Does it really matter?

I think we can definitely say now that by the time you retire, you’re going to be paying much higher taxes when you take out your mandatory 401k/retirement plan distributions than you are paying now during your income years and who knows if the government is going to keep it’s promise by not taxing the roth 401k’s…Not to mention, the dollar is going to be clearly trashed by the time you are ready to retire….

In other words, as a responsible “saver”, you’re going to be paying for the entitlement benefits of everyone else who’s been reckless and hasn’t saved….That essentially your diligence in being financially responsible will benefit not you, but everyone else around you who hasn’t been been responsible. Just to name a few:

*When you’re ready to send your kids to college, you/your kid ain’t going to qualify for financial aid because you will be perceived as being “wealthy” (especially when they start counting how much equity you have in your house and start expecting you to take out a mortgage to finance your kid’s education), but your higher income tax bills year over year will gracious go towards others that can’t afford to pay for the increased tuition hikes….Like Joe six-pack that maxxed out his/her credit card on bling and who now have no savings, but who’s kids now qualify for financial aid…. And people who aren’t even here legally, never paid income taxes, that somehow still get to get in-state tuition reductions at the U.C. schools….

*Your healthcare bills are going to skyrocket because you’re going to find that this healthcare reform really wasn’t a reform. It was a sneaky way for insurance companies to extract more dollars from middle class americans such as yourself who could afford to pay for others who don’t have health insurance…and for employers that once provided better healthcare to pass more cost on to you, the employee, while simultaneously providing you with less healthcare benefits.

*You’re going to be paying up the noses in income taxes when you take out your 401k distributions, because obviously when the 401k/IRA benefits administrators told you to max out your contributions, what they didn’t tell you is that if you really did this, and you really are a good saver, then by the time you retire, there will be a period of which you will be required to take mandatory distributions each year, and pay income taxes that year, which most likely is going to be more than what you pay right now….And don’t forget that if you saved too well, and the amount that is determined to be “mandatory” ends up exceeding certain limits, you’ll end up paying a penalty for that on top the high income taxes you already are paying…

*With a much larger baby boomer population retiring than generation x, savers are going to be pretty much screwed because you’re tax dollars will be feeding at least 2 baby boomers who more than likely hasn’t saved…Meanwhile, you’re really screwed because you only produced 1 millenium baby/generation y baby, and while we probably will see more immigration into the U.S., they probably won’t be mostly legal, and hence we won’t be collecting taxes from folks.

*Meanwhile, the general public (especially here in CA) will continue to demand free social services that they have been accustomed to…So I’m sure the government will come up with even more ways to extract as much as they can from savers. Simultaneously, our government will continue to spent on maintaining the prestige of having the largest military in the world and proping up the image of being the world police…That’s right, you’re tax dollars will continue to feed this bloated world police, while simultaneously just about every public service you really need is cut that you end up having to pay for in some other format to subsidize whatever deficiencies.

*Meanwhile corporations, will still have the lowest tax rates, the exrepatriation tax laws still wouldn’t have changed, and the ubber-wealthy will still enjoy the benefits of the various tax-loopholes that exist (in new form).

So….time in and time out again, it’s been proven savers are the losers. Don’t count on “retiring” if you remain in this taxpaying, upper-middle class groupworking class.
….Have you folks not learned anything over the past few years during this economic meltdown?????
Savers get screwed.

I’m not holding my breath on the advantages of “tax deferred” savings plan….The once financial advise that “your tax bill is going to be lower when you retire” is a cock-amina shit that won’t be true. The goal still should be pay as little taxes as possible when you retire, but the rules have changed….And I don’t think conventional thinking, run of the mill “put your money into a 401k/IRA” is going to be the ticket to minimize your taxes during your retirement.

So I’m thinking…You have $600k in assets…How about contributing the bare minimum to your 401k (enough to get any company match)…Then take $300k (maybe consider a cash-out refinance on your primary as much as you can) and try to buy a rental paid off as much as you can. You’ll maximize your mortgage interest deduction for you primary on your taxes (assuming that Big 6 negotiations don’t end up screwing around with that) and reduce your tax bill. Meanwhile, your renter will pay for those other homes so 30 years they’ll still be producing income when you aren’t. Then when you are ready to retire, you can sell your primary and get the tax break (asssuming you’ve seen some appreciation and assuming that tax excemption on cap gains for a primary still exist) and move into one of your rentals, or roll your rentals into bigger rentals without incurring big tax bills that you would incur if you moved a comparable amount from your 401k during those years. And if things blow up and for some reason, you lose all your investment on the house, it’s really not a big deal…Because you’ll end up just being one of the other folks who still be able to collect on the entitlement programs that our governments will continue to promise, that will still continue to be paid by others savers that are like what you were before….

[Coronita]

[quote]
With inflation and all the uncertainty of today’s economy, can the Piggs educate me about how much net worth one person should have at a certain age to consider ‘on-par’ or okay for retirement?
[/quote]

Does it really matter?

I think we can definitely say now that by the time you retire, you’re going to be paying much higher taxes when you take out your mandatory 401k/retirement plan distributions than you are paying now during your income years and who knows if the government is going to keep it’s promise by not taxing the roth 401k’s…Not to mention, the dollar is going to be clearly trashed by the time you are ready to retire….

In other words, as a responsible “saver”, you’re going to be paying for the entitlement benefits of everyone else who’s been reckless and hasn’t saved….That essentially your diligence in being financially responsible will benefit not you, but everyone else around you who hasn’t been been responsible. Just to name a few:

*When you’re ready to send your kids to college, you/your kid ain’t going to qualify for financial aid because you will be perceived as being “wealthy” (especially when they start counting how much equity you have in your house and start expecting you to take out a mortgage to finance your kid’s education), but your higher income tax bills year over year will gracious go towards others that can’t afford to pay for the increased tuition hikes….Like Joe six-pack that maxxed out his/her credit card on bling and who now have no savings, but who’s kids now qualify for financial aid…. And people who aren’t even here legally, never paid income taxes, that somehow still get to get in-state tuition reductions at the U.C. schools….

*Your healthcare bills are going to skyrocket because you’re going to find that this healthcare reform really wasn’t a reform. It was a sneaky way for insurance companies to extract more dollars from middle class americans such as yourself who could afford to pay for others who don’t have health insurance…and for employers that once provided better healthcare to pass more cost on to you, the employee, while simultaneously providing you with less healthcare benefits.

*You’re going to be paying up the noses in income taxes when you take out your 401k distributions, because obviously when the 401k/IRA benefits administrators told you to max out your contributions, what they didn’t tell you is that if you really did this, and you really are a good saver, then by the time you retire, there will be a period of which you will be required to take mandatory distributions each year, and pay income taxes that year, which most likely is going to be more than what you pay right now….And don’t forget that if you saved too well, and the amount that is determined to be “mandatory” ends up exceeding certain limits, you’ll end up paying a penalty for that on top the high income taxes you already are paying…

*With a much larger baby boomer population retiring than generation x, savers are going to be pretty much screwed because you’re tax dollars will be feeding at least 2 baby boomers who more than likely hasn’t saved…Meanwhile, you’re really screwed because you only produced 1 millenium baby/generation y baby, and while we probably will see more immigration into the U.S., they probably won’t be mostly legal, and hence we won’t be collecting taxes from folks.

*Meanwhile, the general public (especially here in CA) will continue to demand free social services that they have been accustomed to…So I’m sure the government will come up with even more ways to extract as much as they can from savers. Simultaneously, our government will continue to spent on maintaining the prestige of having the largest military in the world and proping up the image of being the world police…That’s right, you’re tax dollars will continue to feed this bloated world police, while simultaneously just about every public service you really need is cut that you end up having to pay for in some other format to subsidize whatever deficiencies.

*Meanwhile corporations, will still have the lowest tax rates, the exrepatriation tax laws still wouldn’t have changed, and the ubber-wealthy will still enjoy the benefits of the various tax-loopholes that exist (in new form).

So….time in and time out again, it’s been proven savers are the losers. Don’t count on “retiring” if you remain in this taxpaying, upper-middle class groupworking class.
….Have you folks not learned anything over the past few years during this economic meltdown?????
Savers get screwed.

I’m not holding my breath on the advantages of “tax deferred” savings plan….The once financial advise that “your tax bill is going to be lower when you retire” is a cock-amina shit that won’t be true. The goal still should be pay as little taxes as possible when you retire, but the rules have changed….And I don’t think conventional thinking, run of the mill “put your money into a 401k/IRA” is going to be the ticket to minimize your taxes during your retirement.

So I’m thinking…You have $600k in assets…How about contributing the bare minimum to your 401k (enough to get any company match)…Then take $300k (maybe consider a cash-out refinance on your primary as much as you can) and try to buy a rental paid off as much as you can. You’ll maximize your mortgage interest deduction for you primary on your taxes (assuming that Big 6 negotiations don’t end up screwing around with that) and reduce your tax bill. Meanwhile, your renter will pay for those other homes so 30 years they’ll still be producing income when you aren’t. Then when you are ready to retire, you can sell your primary and get the tax break (asssuming you’ve seen some appreciation and assuming that tax excemption on cap gains for a primary still exist) and move into one of your rentals, or roll your rentals into bigger rentals without incurring big tax bills that you would incur if you moved a comparable amount from your 401k during those years. And if things blow up and for some reason, you lose all your investment on the house, it’s really not a big deal…Because you’ll end up just being one of the other folks who still be able to collect on the entitlement programs that our governments will continue to promise, that will still continue to be paid by others savers that are like what you were before….

[Coronita]

[quote]
With inflation and all the uncertainty of today’s economy, can the Piggs educate me about how much net worth one person should have at a certain age to consider ‘on-par’ or okay for retirement?
[/quote]

Does it really matter?

I think we can definitely say now that by the time you retire, you’re going to be paying much higher taxes when you take out your mandatory 401k/retirement plan distributions than you are paying now during your income years and who knows if the government is going to keep it’s promise by not taxing the roth 401k’s…Not to mention, the dollar is going to be clearly trashed by the time you are ready to retire….

In other words, as a responsible “saver”, you’re going to be paying for the entitlement benefits of everyone else who’s been reckless and hasn’t saved….That essentially your diligence in being financially responsible will benefit not you, but everyone else around you who hasn’t been been responsible. Just to name a few:

*When you’re ready to send your kids to college, you/your kid ain’t going to qualify for financial aid because you will be perceived as being “wealthy” (especially when they start counting how much equity you have in your house and start expecting you to take out a mortgage to finance your kid’s education), but your higher income tax bills year over year will gracious go towards others that can’t afford to pay for the increased tuition hikes….Like Joe six-pack that maxxed out his/her credit card on bling and who now have no savings, but who’s kids now qualify for financial aid…. And people who aren’t even here legally, never paid income taxes, that somehow still get to get in-state tuition reductions at the U.C. schools….

*Your healthcare bills are going to skyrocket because you’re going to find that this healthcare reform really wasn’t a reform. It was a sneaky way for insurance companies to extract more dollars from middle class americans such as yourself who could afford to pay for others who don’t have health insurance…and for employers that once provided better healthcare to pass more cost on to you, the employee, while simultaneously providing you with less healthcare benefits.

*You’re going to be paying up the noses in income taxes when you take out your 401k distributions, because obviously when the 401k/IRA benefits administrators told you to max out your contributions, what they didn’t tell you is that if you really did this, and you really are a good saver, then by the time you retire, there will be a period of which you will be required to take mandatory distributions each year, and pay income taxes that year, which most likely is going to be more than what you pay right now….And don’t forget that if you saved too well, and the amount that is determined to be “mandatory” ends up exceeding certain limits, you’ll end up paying a penalty for that on top the high income taxes you already are paying…

*With a much larger baby boomer population retiring than generation x, savers are going to be pretty much screwed because you’re tax dollars will be feeding at least 2 baby boomers who more than likely hasn’t saved…Meanwhile, you’re really screwed because you only produced 1 millenium baby/generation y baby, and while we probably will see more immigration into the U.S., they probably won’t be mostly legal, and hence we won’t be collecting taxes from folks.

*Meanwhile, the general public (especially here in CA) will continue to demand free social services that they have been accustomed to…So I’m sure the government will come up with even more ways to extract as much as they can from savers. Simultaneously, our government will continue to spent on maintaining the prestige of having the largest military in the world and proping up the image of being the world police…That’s right, you’re tax dollars will continue to feed this bloated world police, while simultaneously just about every public service you really need is cut that you end up having to pay for in some other format to subsidize whatever deficiencies.

*Meanwhile corporations, will still have the lowest tax rates, the exrepatriation tax laws still wouldn’t have changed, and the ubber-wealthy will still enjoy the benefits of the various tax-loopholes that exist (in new form).

So….time in and time out again, it’s been proven savers are the losers. Don’t count on “retiring” if you remain in this taxpaying, upper-middle class groupworking class.
….Have you folks not learned anything over the past few years during this economic meltdown?????
Savers get screwed.

I’m not holding my breath on the advantages of “tax deferred” savings plan….The once financial advise that “your tax bill is going to be lower when you retire” is a cock-amina shit that won’t be true. The goal still should be pay as little taxes as possible when you retire, but the rules have changed….And I don’t think conventional thinking, run of the mill “put your money into a 401k/IRA” is going to be the ticket to minimize your taxes during your retirement.

So I’m thinking…You have $600k in assets…How about contributing the bare minimum to your 401k (enough to get any company match)…Then take $300k (maybe consider a cash-out refinance on your primary as much as you can) and try to buy a rental paid off as much as you can. You’ll maximize your mortgage interest deduction for you primary on your taxes (assuming that Big 6 negotiations don’t end up screwing around with that) and reduce your tax bill. Meanwhile, your renter will pay for those other homes so 30 years they’ll still be producing income when you aren’t. Then when you are ready to retire, you can sell your primary and get the tax break (asssuming you’ve seen some appreciation and assuming that tax excemption on cap gains for a primary still exist) and move into one of your rentals, or roll your rentals into bigger rentals without incurring big tax bills that you would incur if you moved a comparable amount from your 401k during those years. And if things blow up and for some reason, you lose all your investment on the house, it’s really not a big deal…Because you’ll end up just being one of the other folks who still be able to collect on the entitlement programs that our governments will continue to promise, that will still continue to be paid by others savers that are like what you were before….

[Coronita]

[quote]
With inflation and all the uncertainty of today’s economy, can the Piggs educate me about how much net worth one person should have at a certain age to consider ‘on-par’ or okay for retirement?
[/quote]

Does it really matter?

I think we can definitely say now that by the time you retire, you’re going to be paying much higher taxes when you take out your mandatory 401k/retirement plan distributions than you are paying now during your income years and who knows if the government is going to keep it’s promise by not taxing the roth 401k’s…Not to mention, the dollar is going to be clearly trashed by the time you are ready to retire….

In other words, as a responsible “saver”, you’re going to be paying for the entitlement benefits of everyone else who’s been reckless and hasn’t saved….That essentially your diligence in being financially responsible will benefit not you, but everyone else around you who hasn’t been been responsible. Just to name a few:

*When you’re ready to send your kids to college, you/your kid ain’t going to qualify for financial aid because you will be perceived as being “wealthy” (especially when they start counting how much equity you have in your house and start expecting you to take out a mortgage to finance your kid’s education), but your higher income tax bills year over year will gracious go towards others that can’t afford to pay for the increased tuition hikes….Like Joe six-pack that maxxed out his/her credit card on bling and who now have no savings, but who’s kids now qualify for financial aid…. And people who aren’t even here legally, never paid income taxes, that somehow still get to get in-state tuition reductions at the U.C. schools….

*Your healthcare bills are going to skyrocket because you’re going to find that this healthcare reform really wasn’t a reform. It was a sneaky way for insurance companies to extract more dollars from middle class americans such as yourself who could afford to pay for others who don’t have health insurance…and for employers that once provided better healthcare to pass more cost on to you, the employee, while simultaneously providing you with less healthcare benefits.

*You’re going to be paying up the noses in income taxes when you take out your 401k distributions, because obviously when the 401k/IRA benefits administrators told you to max out your contributions, what they didn’t tell you is that if you really did this, and you really are a good saver, then by the time you retire, there will be a period of which you will be required to take mandatory distributions each year, and pay income taxes that year, which most likely is going to be more than what you pay right now….And don’t forget that if you saved too well, and the amount that is determined to be “mandatory” ends up exceeding certain limits, you’ll end up paying a penalty for that on top the high income taxes you already are paying…

*With a much larger baby boomer population retiring than generation x, savers are going to be pretty much screwed because you’re tax dollars will be feeding at least 2 baby boomers who more than likely hasn’t saved…Meanwhile, you’re really screwed because you only produced 1 millenium baby/generation y baby, and while we probably will see more immigration into the U.S., they probably won’t be mostly legal, and hence we won’t be collecting taxes from folks.

*Meanwhile, the general public (especially here in CA) will continue to demand free social services that they have been accustomed to…So I’m sure the government will come up with even more ways to extract as much as they can from savers. Simultaneously, our government will continue to spent on maintaining the prestige of having the largest military in the world and proping up the image of being the world police…That’s right, you’re tax dollars will continue to feed this bloated world police, while simultaneously just about every public service you really need is cut that you end up having to pay for in some other format to subsidize whatever deficiencies.

*Meanwhile corporations, will still have the lowest tax rates, the exrepatriation tax laws still wouldn’t have changed, and the ubber-wealthy will still enjoy the benefits of the various tax-loopholes that exist (in new form).

So….time in and time out again, it’s been proven savers are the losers. Don’t count on “retiring” if you remain in this taxpaying, upper-middle class groupworking class.
….Have you folks not learned anything over the past few years during this economic meltdown?????
Savers get screwed.

I’m not holding my breath on the advantages of “tax deferred” savings plan….The once financial advise that “your tax bill is going to be lower when you retire” is a cock-amina shit that won’t be true. The goal still should be pay as little taxes as possible when you retire, but the rules have changed….And I don’t think conventional thinking, run of the mill “put your money into a 401k/IRA” is going to be the ticket to minimize your taxes during your retirement.

So I’m thinking…You have $600k in assets…How about contributing the bare minimum to your 401k (enough to get any company match)…Then take $300k (maybe consider a cash-out refinance on your primary as much as you can) and try to buy a rental paid off as much as you can. You’ll maximize your mortgage interest deduction for you primary on your taxes (assuming that Big 6 negotiations don’t end up screwing around with that) and reduce your tax bill. Meanwhile, your renter will pay for those other homes so 30 years they’ll still be producing income when you aren’t. Then when you are ready to retire, you can sell your primary and get the tax break (asssuming you’ve seen some appreciation and assuming that tax excemption on cap gains for a primary still exist) and move into one of your rentals, or roll your rentals into bigger rentals without incurring big tax bills that you would incur if you moved a comparable amount from your 401k during those years. And if things blow up and for some reason, you lose all your investment on the house, it’s really not a big deal…Because you’ll end up just being one of the other folks who still be able to collect on the entitlement programs that our governments will continue to promise, that will still continue to be paid by others savers that are like what you were before….

[an]

[quote=Eugene][quote=AN]
Why is it bizarre? It’s from two different points and they’re not related/responded to each other. [/quote]

It represents the lack of perspective. Just like people show the lack of perspective when they show concern over federal debt and demand spending cuts now lest we become Italy/Greece. When the real danger is for us to become Japan. But I digress.

Most Americans won’t retire in a condo in Del Mar or in a 4000 sq ft house, or go dumpster diving. The question as originally posed was “how much is okay for retirement?”. The answer to that question is zero. There is a senior apartment complex not far from where I live. I’m fairly sure that, if I were 65 right now, I’d be able to afford to live there on my SS benefits with no savings whatsoever. And I wouldn’t even have to move to a lower cost-of-living state. I don’t think that SS or Medicare will get rolled back substantially by 2040, because the majority of Americans don’t have enough savings to last more than a year or two without SS and Medicare. And seniors vote. They will saddle their grandchildren with whatever taxes necessary to ensure retirement that does not involve dumpster-diving or eating cat food.

Then at some point “how much is okay for retirement” somehow got twisted into “how much is okay for retirement in Del Mar”, which is the spectral opposite of the original question.

And the bizarre part, I guess, is that people continue the discussion without blinking an eye.[/quote]
For those who can and do accumulate $600k in net worth by their mid 30s, most probably don’t want to live in a senior apartment complex in Escondido. IIRC, masayako, the OP, plan is to retire in a small house or condo in Del Mar. He’s also the one with $600k net worth and he’s in his mid 30s. He wants to know if that’s enough to get him to where he wants to be. So, maybe you should read OP whole situation before calling it bizarre when the discussion is about retiring in Del Mar.

[an]

[quote=Eugene][quote=AN]
Why is it bizarre? It’s from two different points and they’re not related/responded to each other. [/quote]

It represents the lack of perspective. Just like people show the lack of perspective when they show concern over federal debt and demand spending cuts now lest we become Italy/Greece. When the real danger is for us to become Japan. But I digress.

Most Americans won’t retire in a condo in Del Mar or in a 4000 sq ft house, or go dumpster diving. The question as originally posed was “how much is okay for retirement?”. The answer to that question is zero. There is a senior apartment complex not far from where I live. I’m fairly sure that, if I were 65 right now, I’d be able to afford to live there on my SS benefits with no savings whatsoever. And I wouldn’t even have to move to a lower cost-of-living state. I don’t think that SS or Medicare will get rolled back substantially by 2040, because the majority of Americans don’t have enough savings to last more than a year or two without SS and Medicare. And seniors vote. They will saddle their grandchildren with whatever taxes necessary to ensure retirement that does not involve dumpster-diving or eating cat food.

Then at some point “how much is okay for retirement” somehow got twisted into “how much is okay for retirement in Del Mar”, which is the spectral opposite of the original question.

And the bizarre part, I guess, is that people continue the discussion without blinking an eye.[/quote]
For those who can and do accumulate $600k in net worth by their mid 30s, most probably don’t want to live in a senior apartment complex in Escondido. IIRC, masayako, the OP, plan is to retire in a small house or condo in Del Mar. He’s also the one with $600k net worth and he’s in his mid 30s. He wants to know if that’s enough to get him to where he wants to be. So, maybe you should read OP whole situation before calling it bizarre when the discussion is about retiring in Del Mar.

[an]

[quote=Eugene][quote=AN]
Why is it bizarre? It’s from two different points and they’re not related/responded to each other. [/quote]

It represents the lack of perspective. Just like people show the lack of perspective when they show concern over federal debt and demand spending cuts now lest we become Italy/Greece. When the real danger is for us to become Japan. But I digress.

Most Americans won’t retire in a condo in Del Mar or in a 4000 sq ft house, or go dumpster diving. The question as originally posed was “how much is okay for retirement?”. The answer to that question is zero. There is a senior apartment complex not far from where I live. I’m fairly sure that, if I were 65 right now, I’d be able to afford to live there on my SS benefits with no savings whatsoever. And I wouldn’t even have to move to a lower cost-of-living state. I don’t think that SS or Medicare will get rolled back substantially by 2040, because the majority of Americans don’t have enough savings to last more than a year or two without SS and Medicare. And seniors vote. They will saddle their grandchildren with whatever taxes necessary to ensure retirement that does not involve dumpster-diving or eating cat food.

Then at some point “how much is okay for retirement” somehow got twisted into “how much is okay for retirement in Del Mar”, which is the spectral opposite of the original question.

And the bizarre part, I guess, is that people continue the discussion without blinking an eye.[/quote]
For those who can and do accumulate $600k in net worth by their mid 30s, most probably don’t want to live in a senior apartment complex in Escondido. IIRC, masayako, the OP, plan is to retire in a small house or condo in Del Mar. He’s also the one with $600k net worth and he’s in his mid 30s. He wants to know if that’s enough to get him to where he wants to be. So, maybe you should read OP whole situation before calling it bizarre when the discussion is about retiring in Del Mar.

[an]

[quote=Eugene][quote=AN]
Why is it bizarre? It’s from two different points and they’re not related/responded to each other. [/quote]

It represents the lack of perspective. Just like people show the lack of perspective when they show concern over federal debt and demand spending cuts now lest we become Italy/Greece. When the real danger is for us to become Japan. But I digress.

Most Americans won’t retire in a condo in Del Mar or in a 4000 sq ft house, or go dumpster diving. The question as originally posed was “how much is okay for retirement?”. The answer to that question is zero. There is a senior apartment complex not far from where I live. I’m fairly sure that, if I were 65 right now, I’d be able to afford to live there on my SS benefits with no savings whatsoever. And I wouldn’t even have to move to a lower cost-of-living state. I don’t think that SS or Medicare will get rolled back substantially by 2040, because the majority of Americans don’t have enough savings to last more than a year or two without SS and Medicare. And seniors vote. They will saddle their grandchildren with whatever taxes necessary to ensure retirement that does not involve dumpster-diving or eating cat food.

Then at some point “how much is okay for retirement” somehow got twisted into “how much is okay for retirement in Del Mar”, which is the spectral opposite of the original question.

And the bizarre part, I guess, is that people continue the discussion without blinking an eye.[/quote]
For those who can and do accumulate $600k in net worth by their mid 30s, most probably don’t want to live in a senior apartment complex in Escondido. IIRC, masayako, the OP, plan is to retire in a small house or condo in Del Mar. He’s also the one with $600k net worth and he’s in his mid 30s. He wants to know if that’s enough to get him to where he wants to be. So, maybe you should read OP whole situation before calling it bizarre when the discussion is about retiring in Del Mar.

[an]

[quote=Eugene][quote=AN]
Why is it bizarre? It’s from two different points and they’re not related/responded to each other. [/quote]

It represents the lack of perspective. Just like people show the lack of perspective when they show concern over federal debt and demand spending cuts now lest we become Italy/Greece. When the real danger is for us to become Japan. But I digress.

Most Americans won’t retire in a condo in Del Mar or in a 4000 sq ft house, or go dumpster diving. The question as originally posed was “how much is okay for retirement?”. The answer to that question is zero. There is a senior apartment complex not far from where I live. I’m fairly sure that, if I were 65 right now, I’d be able to afford to live there on my SS benefits with no savings whatsoever. And I wouldn’t even have to move to a lower cost-of-living state. I don’t think that SS or Medicare will get rolled back substantially by 2040, because the majority of Americans don’t have enough savings to last more than a year or two without SS and Medicare. And seniors vote. They will saddle their grandchildren with whatever taxes necessary to ensure retirement that does not involve dumpster-diving or eating cat food.

Then at some point “how much is okay for retirement” somehow got twisted into “how much is okay for retirement in Del Mar”, which is the spectral opposite of the original question.

And the bizarre part, I guess, is that people continue the discussion without blinking an eye.[/quote]
For those who can and do accumulate $600k in net worth by their mid 30s, most probably don’t want to live in a senior apartment complex in Escondido. IIRC, masayako, the OP, plan is to retire in a small house or condo in Del Mar. He’s also the one with $600k net worth and he’s in his mid 30s. He wants to know if that’s enough to get him to where he wants to be. So, maybe you should read OP whole situation before calling it bizarre when the discussion is about retiring in Del Mar.

[earlyretirement]

I think there are some excellent posts on this thread. Retirement is something that I’ve thought about quite a bit from a younger age ever since I graduated college.

Some people above posted about being almost obsessive about it. I’m not sure I’d say obsessed but it’s always been a goal of mine to be able to retire if I wanted by the time I hit 40.

Like some mentioned above, it all depends on the quality of life you will have in retirement. I know some friends that retired that don’t do anything. They don’t go out to eat to fancy restaurants, they don’t travel on vacations, and they live really low cost living lifestyles. Then we have other friends that travel all around the world very often, dine out quite a bit, etc.

So it all depends on the lifestyle you plan to live. Judging by what many of the mainstream newspapers and magazines write, not many people think about their retirement picture and the end game which surprises me. I always get scared thinking about being older and not having enough to live on or get by.

I always say I will take early retirement but not sure I could do it. I do enjoy working and can’t see myself stop working at this stage in my life. My wife thinks I’ll never be able to stop working as she thinks I’d get bored of not working on “deals”.

I agree with the others that say to discount and not factor in the equity you have in your house. I have my house paid off but I’m still not factoring that in my retirement picture as I’ll always have to have a place to stay after I stop working. Even though we will most likely sell our 5 bedroom house and move into something smaller when the kids get out of the house, we will still buy something else.

I would however count in the retirement picture any additional properties you might own and can liquidate being careful to accurately budget what it’s actually worth and also the time frame it might take to sell it. I have some friends that are dreaming when they value in their heads what they can get for their properties.

I’m in my late 30’s and I don’t factor in Social Security at all, even though I’ve contributed a TON. Frankly I don’t think there will be anything left when I hit eligibility (or they end up extending where you can’t take it until you are 75 or 80!) and factoring in the worst case scenario.

Unfortunately these days, $1 million isn’t much money or at least not what it used to be. But I think the important thing is to really be honest with yourself and think about what kind of lifestyle you will live in retirement.

I agree with the advice to work as long as you can to avoid starting to tap into your nest egg. I’m not sure about 70 but definitely if you enjoy what you do (and even if you don’t) it’s good to keep working and adding to the nest egg.

[earlyretirement]

I think there are some excellent posts on this thread. Retirement is something that I’ve thought about quite a bit from a younger age ever since I graduated college.

Some people above posted about being almost obsessive about it. I’m not sure I’d say obsessed but it’s always been a goal of mine to be able to retire if I wanted by the time I hit 40.

Like some mentioned above, it all depends on the quality of life you will have in retirement. I know some friends that retired that don’t do anything. They don’t go out to eat to fancy restaurants, they don’t travel on vacations, and they live really low cost living lifestyles. Then we have other friends that travel all around the world very often, dine out quite a bit, etc.

So it all depends on the lifestyle you plan to live. Judging by what many of the mainstream newspapers and magazines write, not many people think about their retirement picture and the end game which surprises me. I always get scared thinking about being older and not having enough to live on or get by.

I always say I will take early retirement but not sure I could do it. I do enjoy working and can’t see myself stop working at this stage in my life. My wife thinks I’ll never be able to stop working as she thinks I’d get bored of not working on “deals”.

I agree with the others that say to discount and not factor in the equity you have in your house. I have my house paid off but I’m still not factoring that in my retirement picture as I’ll always have to have a place to stay after I stop working. Even though we will most likely sell our 5 bedroom house and move into something smaller when the kids get out of the house, we will still buy something else.

I would however count in the retirement picture any additional properties you might own and can liquidate being careful to accurately budget what it’s actually worth and also the time frame it might take to sell it. I have some friends that are dreaming when they value in their heads what they can get for their properties.

I’m in my late 30’s and I don’t factor in Social Security at all, even though I’ve contributed a TON. Frankly I don’t think there will be anything left when I hit eligibility (or they end up extending where you can’t take it until you are 75 or 80!) and factoring in the worst case scenario.

Unfortunately these days, $1 million isn’t much money or at least not what it used to be. But I think the important thing is to really be honest with yourself and think about what kind of lifestyle you will live in retirement.

I agree with the advice to work as long as you can to avoid starting to tap into your nest egg. I’m not sure about 70 but definitely if you enjoy what you do (and even if you don’t) it’s good to keep working and adding to the nest egg.

[earlyretirement]

I think there are some excellent posts on this thread. Retirement is something that I’ve thought about quite a bit from a younger age ever since I graduated college.

Some people above posted about being almost obsessive about it. I’m not sure I’d say obsessed but it’s always been a goal of mine to be able to retire if I wanted by the time I hit 40.

Like some mentioned above, it all depends on the quality of life you will have in retirement. I know some friends that retired that don’t do anything. They don’t go out to eat to fancy restaurants, they don’t travel on vacations, and they live really low cost living lifestyles. Then we have other friends that travel all around the world very often, dine out quite a bit, etc.

So it all depends on the lifestyle you plan to live. Judging by what many of the mainstream newspapers and magazines write, not many people think about their retirement picture and the end game which surprises me. I always get scared thinking about being older and not having enough to live on or get by.

I always say I will take early retirement but not sure I could do it. I do enjoy working and can’t see myself stop working at this stage in my life. My wife thinks I’ll never be able to stop working as she thinks I’d get bored of not working on “deals”.

I agree with the others that say to discount and not factor in the equity you have in your house. I have my house paid off but I’m still not factoring that in my retirement picture as I’ll always have to have a place to stay after I stop working. Even though we will most likely sell our 5 bedroom house and move into something smaller when the kids get out of the house, we will still buy something else.

I would however count in the retirement picture any additional properties you might own and can liquidate being careful to accurately budget what it’s actually worth and also the time frame it might take to sell it. I have some friends that are dreaming when they value in their heads what they can get for their properties.

I’m in my late 30’s and I don’t factor in Social Security at all, even though I’ve contributed a TON. Frankly I don’t think there will be anything left when I hit eligibility (or they end up extending where you can’t take it until you are 75 or 80!) and factoring in the worst case scenario.

Unfortunately these days, $1 million isn’t much money or at least not what it used to be. But I think the important thing is to really be honest with yourself and think about what kind of lifestyle you will live in retirement.

I agree with the advice to work as long as you can to avoid starting to tap into your nest egg. I’m not sure about 70 but definitely if you enjoy what you do (and even if you don’t) it’s good to keep working and adding to the nest egg.

[earlyretirement]

I think there are some excellent posts on this thread. Retirement is something that I’ve thought about quite a bit from a younger age ever since I graduated college.

Some people above posted about being almost obsessive about it. I’m not sure I’d say obsessed but it’s always been a goal of mine to be able to retire if I wanted by the time I hit 40.

Like some mentioned above, it all depends on the quality of life you will have in retirement. I know some friends that retired that don’t do anything. They don’t go out to eat to fancy restaurants, they don’t travel on vacations, and they live really low cost living lifestyles. Then we have other friends that travel all around the world very often, dine out quite a bit, etc.

So it all depends on the lifestyle you plan to live. Judging by what many of the mainstream newspapers and magazines write, not many people think about their retirement picture and the end game which surprises me. I always get scared thinking about being older and not having enough to live on or get by.

I always say I will take early retirement but not sure I could do it. I do enjoy working and can’t see myself stop working at this stage in my life. My wife thinks I’ll never be able to stop working as she thinks I’d get bored of not working on “deals”.

I agree with the others that say to discount and not factor in the equity you have in your house. I have my house paid off but I’m still not factoring that in my retirement picture as I’ll always have to have a place to stay after I stop working. Even though we will most likely sell our 5 bedroom house and move into something smaller when the kids get out of the house, we will still buy something else.

I would however count in the retirement picture any additional properties you might own and can liquidate being careful to accurately budget what it’s actually worth and also the time frame it might take to sell it. I have some friends that are dreaming when they value in their heads what they can get for their properties.

I’m in my late 30’s and I don’t factor in Social Security at all, even though I’ve contributed a TON. Frankly I don’t think there will be anything left when I hit eligibility (or they end up extending where you can’t take it until you are 75 or 80!) and factoring in the worst case scenario.

Unfortunately these days, $1 million isn’t much money or at least not what it used to be. But I think the important thing is to really be honest with yourself and think about what kind of lifestyle you will live in retirement.

I agree with the advice to work as long as you can to avoid starting to tap into your nest egg. I’m not sure about 70 but definitely if you enjoy what you do (and even if you don’t) it’s good to keep working and adding to the nest egg.

[Author]

Posts