[ice9]

[quote=Rustico]
I saw your thread about retiring in Temecula from a few years ago, so the bug has not gone away. People do it. You must have done some “soul searching” to even put it on the table.
[/quote]

Yeah, I was thinking about it three years ago… and then the stock market crashed and I felt it was prudent to put it on hold for a few years at least.

Now I’m thinking about it again. 🙂

[ice9]

[quote=Rustico]
I saw your thread about retiring in Temecula from a few years ago, so the bug has not gone away. People do it. You must have done some “soul searching” to even put it on the table.
[/quote]

Yeah, I was thinking about it three years ago… and then the stock market crashed and I felt it was prudent to put it on hold for a few years at least.

Now I’m thinking about it again. 🙂

[ice9]

[quote=Rustico]
I saw your thread about retiring in Temecula from a few years ago, so the bug has not gone away. People do it. You must have done some “soul searching” to even put it on the table.
[/quote]

Yeah, I was thinking about it three years ago… and then the stock market crashed and I felt it was prudent to put it on hold for a few years at least.

Now I’m thinking about it again. 🙂

[ice9]

[quote=Rustico]
I saw your thread about retiring in Temecula from a few years ago, so the bug has not gone away. People do it. You must have done some “soul searching” to even put it on the table.
[/quote]

Yeah, I was thinking about it three years ago… and then the stock market crashed and I felt it was prudent to put it on hold for a few years at least.

Now I’m thinking about it again. 🙂

[ice9]

[quote=Rustico]
I saw your thread about retiring in Temecula from a few years ago, so the bug has not gone away. People do it. You must have done some “soul searching” to even put it on the table.
[/quote]

Yeah, I was thinking about it three years ago… and then the stock market crashed and I felt it was prudent to put it on hold for a few years at least.

Now I’m thinking about it again. 🙂

[ice9]

[quote=flu]
Pardon if I don’t understand your numbers, and frankly you don’t need to share. But I don’t understand how you could be in the lowest two income brackets and considering to retire in california at 39 with a family. Also , I don’t follow you you say you have $100k in equity and you plan on downsizing to a house in CA. So either your numbers are off, or your net worth is more than you are indicating (which again is none of anyone’s business here)…
[/quote]

The lowest two federal tax brackets for married (filing jointly) are for income under $67,900. I think the standard deduction for married filing jointing is around 10K. I wouldn’t expect my income to be higher than ~80K if I were retired or semi-retired.

Regarding the house, my point is that I could sell my home today and have 100K from the sale. I could then buy a house in CA with 20% down using less than 100K (if the house is less than 500K of course). The cheaper the house, the more left over.

[ice9]

[quote=flu]
Pardon if I don’t understand your numbers, and frankly you don’t need to share. But I don’t understand how you could be in the lowest two income brackets and considering to retire in california at 39 with a family. Also , I don’t follow you you say you have $100k in equity and you plan on downsizing to a house in CA. So either your numbers are off, or your net worth is more than you are indicating (which again is none of anyone’s business here)…
[/quote]

The lowest two federal tax brackets for married (filing jointly) are for income under $67,900. I think the standard deduction for married filing jointing is around 10K. I wouldn’t expect my income to be higher than ~80K if I were retired or semi-retired.

Regarding the house, my point is that I could sell my home today and have 100K from the sale. I could then buy a house in CA with 20% down using less than 100K (if the house is less than 500K of course). The cheaper the house, the more left over.

[ice9]

[quote=flu]
Pardon if I don’t understand your numbers, and frankly you don’t need to share. But I don’t understand how you could be in the lowest two income brackets and considering to retire in california at 39 with a family. Also , I don’t follow you you say you have $100k in equity and you plan on downsizing to a house in CA. So either your numbers are off, or your net worth is more than you are indicating (which again is none of anyone’s business here)…
[/quote]

The lowest two federal tax brackets for married (filing jointly) are for income under $67,900. I think the standard deduction for married filing jointing is around 10K. I wouldn’t expect my income to be higher than ~80K if I were retired or semi-retired.

Regarding the house, my point is that I could sell my home today and have 100K from the sale. I could then buy a house in CA with 20% down using less than 100K (if the house is less than 500K of course). The cheaper the house, the more left over.

[ice9]

[quote=flu]
Pardon if I don’t understand your numbers, and frankly you don’t need to share. But I don’t understand how you could be in the lowest two income brackets and considering to retire in california at 39 with a family. Also , I don’t follow you you say you have $100k in equity and you plan on downsizing to a house in CA. So either your numbers are off, or your net worth is more than you are indicating (which again is none of anyone’s business here)…
[/quote]

The lowest two federal tax brackets for married (filing jointly) are for income under $67,900. I think the standard deduction for married filing jointing is around 10K. I wouldn’t expect my income to be higher than ~80K if I were retired or semi-retired.

Regarding the house, my point is that I could sell my home today and have 100K from the sale. I could then buy a house in CA with 20% down using less than 100K (if the house is less than 500K of course). The cheaper the house, the more left over.

[ice9]

[quote=flu]
Pardon if I don’t understand your numbers, and frankly you don’t need to share. But I don’t understand how you could be in the lowest two income brackets and considering to retire in california at 39 with a family. Also , I don’t follow you you say you have $100k in equity and you plan on downsizing to a house in CA. So either your numbers are off, or your net worth is more than you are indicating (which again is none of anyone’s business here)…
[/quote]

The lowest two federal tax brackets for married (filing jointly) are for income under $67,900. I think the standard deduction for married filing jointing is around 10K. I wouldn’t expect my income to be higher than ~80K if I were retired or semi-retired.

Regarding the house, my point is that I could sell my home today and have 100K from the sale. I could then buy a house in CA with 20% down using less than 100K (if the house is less than 500K of course). The cheaper the house, the more left over.

[ice9]

[quote=bearishgurl]
If you are counting on low property taxes in CA to help provide you a reasonable cost of living in retirement in 2030 and beyond, I feel you may end up having to rethink this current “perk.” The present state of CA’s current finances are VERY precarious at present, verging on bankruptcy. I have no doubt our Legislature will eventually seek and find every way to keep the state’s dwindling coffers funded.[/quote]

Thanks for your point of view on this. I’ve read thoughts on both sides of this, but I agree with you that something will have to give to solve the financial problems in the state. Maybe it will be prop 13.

[ice9]

[quote=bearishgurl]
If you are counting on low property taxes in CA to help provide you a reasonable cost of living in retirement in 2030 and beyond, I feel you may end up having to rethink this current “perk.” The present state of CA’s current finances are VERY precarious at present, verging on bankruptcy. I have no doubt our Legislature will eventually seek and find every way to keep the state’s dwindling coffers funded.[/quote]

Thanks for your point of view on this. I’ve read thoughts on both sides of this, but I agree with you that something will have to give to solve the financial problems in the state. Maybe it will be prop 13.

[ice9]

[quote=bearishgurl]
If you are counting on low property taxes in CA to help provide you a reasonable cost of living in retirement in 2030 and beyond, I feel you may end up having to rethink this current “perk.” The present state of CA’s current finances are VERY precarious at present, verging on bankruptcy. I have no doubt our Legislature will eventually seek and find every way to keep the state’s dwindling coffers funded.[/quote]

Thanks for your point of view on this. I’ve read thoughts on both sides of this, but I agree with you that something will have to give to solve the financial problems in the state. Maybe it will be prop 13.

[ice9]

[quote=bearishgurl]
If you are counting on low property taxes in CA to help provide you a reasonable cost of living in retirement in 2030 and beyond, I feel you may end up having to rethink this current “perk.” The present state of CA’s current finances are VERY precarious at present, verging on bankruptcy. I have no doubt our Legislature will eventually seek and find every way to keep the state’s dwindling coffers funded.[/quote]

Thanks for your point of view on this. I’ve read thoughts on both sides of this, but I agree with you that something will have to give to solve the financial problems in the state. Maybe it will be prop 13.

[ice9]

[quote=bearishgurl]
If you are counting on low property taxes in CA to help provide you a reasonable cost of living in retirement in 2030 and beyond, I feel you may end up having to rethink this current “perk.” The present state of CA’s current finances are VERY precarious at present, verging on bankruptcy. I have no doubt our Legislature will eventually seek and find every way to keep the state’s dwindling coffers funded.[/quote]

Thanks for your point of view on this. I’ve read thoughts on both sides of this, but I agree with you that something will have to give to solve the financial problems in the state. Maybe it will be prop 13.

[Author]

Posts