Printable View
Benny is hitting some good points. FKNA take care of your teeth. Agree on real estate prices more importantly the property tax. I am 20 minutes from the hill reasonable real estate prices embarrassingly low taxes. Also who wants to be around the crowds. Retirement should be relaxing.
As I get older, I appreciate warm weather a little bit more each year, so yeah, living in a mountain town full time when you're old, I don't know about that. Maybe rent a place for 3 months and be happy with 60 days skiing.Quote:
Originally Posted by The AD
Haven't read every post but I think it's very dependant on where you plan to retire. XXX-er can do it on 900k, cause he lives in a remote
beautiful little village in NW BC. If you're pulling the pin in Tahoe you'll need more than that. I think my number is 1.2MM - 1.4MM.
As ice pointed out, those who live in Canada have a different calculus, because of the whole health care thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by garyfromterrace
Benny cleared that up earlier. Screw healthcare just die.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
My dad was never a ripper. But he ended his skiing career with the likes of Friedl Phieffer and Pete Siebert, out at Buttermilk.
Age is the great equalizer.
They would ski a couple of runs, then share a bottle of wine.
Good point. So ideally save enough to be able to live in two places.Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2ski
I don't think a youth-centric culture is going to bother me. I'm perfectly content to do my own thing and I don't require a whole lot of culture whether it be youth or old fart centric.
Hopefully I won't have to worry too much about healthcare costs. Right now my company has retiree medical that is the same as employee medical. Will that still be the case in a decade or two? I sure hope so. I've even got a fucking defined pension. Honestly I don't think my number needs to be huge.
In ten years, my early retirement health insurance from an employer went from 600 dollars to over 5000. Still good for someone my age, but, thats all relative in the US of A these days. You can expect that pace to continue, since the rich just shoved it up your backside a little further.
I retired at 50, 18 years ago, live in a ski town, ski 100 days a year, mountain bike and climb.
But I really work at it, lift, stretch. I'm sure I'm just delaying the inevitable.
Someone I know died of a heart attack right after skiing that day. Great way to go.
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using TGR Forums mobile app
But yeah, you need 3-5mm minimum.
Even better, retire to France, you need half that.
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using TGR Forums mobile app
The last page or two touches on a few things for me, basically reminding me how fortunate I've been. My number was 32...years of fire service. Retired at 53, defined benefits pension including health care contributions, took up paid patrolling and trail crew which keeps me in shape and on top of my ski game, live in a paid-for mountain town home near a few ski hills - but not a ski town.
It's not all cold beer and tall cotton, but I wish you all the luck I've had as you approach your number. Thanks for the reminder that I haven't got much to complain about...except maybe the weather and other people.
Who is "you?" A couple in their 60s with no debt, a home in good shape, vehicles, on Medicare, reasonably low RE taxes, living in a place with reasonable cost of living, $5,000/mo. ($60K/year) SS income and a $1 million savings cushion is 95%-tile. Nearly all couples in that position do just fine. 9/10 Americans retiring in the next 10 years will never get close to having $1 million in savings.Quote:
Originally Posted by rod9301
One problem with the "what's the number" game is that the answer is dependent many factors, e.g., age of retirement, SS benefit level, age of taking SS, home ownership, kids/no kids, frugality. Contrast above example of couple in their 60s taking $5,000/mo. in SS and covered by Medicare vs. 35 y.o. couple with kids who want to retire at age 40. $3-5 million may well be required for the latter couple (or maybe not enough) who need $$ to raise kids, cover HC insurance premiums for 25 years, put kids through college, etc., etc. But there's no way the former couple on $5K/mo. SS and Medicare need $3 million to live a good life.
It's interesting looking back at my reply to this thread in 2011. I had just barely started dating my wife and wasn't all that grown up yet. Anyway, my target has definitely moved in that time. In 2011 I sincerely thought that I would retire at 49 (eligible for FF pension) and live out of a van 6-8 months a year and in my small, paid for home the rest. Now, being married, and through the miracle of getting older and softer, I think I want a little more from life/retirement. I'd like to live outside of the country for several months every year, not high roller style, just living simply in a cheap apartment and traveling around somewhere new. I guess my point is, it's a moving target, I don't really know what I'll want in ten more years. All I really know for sure is that I want to retire as soon as is realistically possible.
Anyway, I just came here to ask if there are any realistic retirement calculators out there. It seems like no matter how much you tell them you'll have in income/savings, they spit out that you are grossly underprepared.
Being from Canada I had never even heard of the word "copay" before reading it on TGR eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
I see a lot guys in the ski hill bar who are too fat and don't take care of themselves but that's nobody here I assume ?
I was going for freedom 55 but I fucked up by retiring at 49 ... Missed it by 6 years
I figured out that I will take more in pension than I collected in wages if I can live to 90 with the superior hybrid azn genes
They say you need 70 % but I found 50% of what you used to make adequate in retirementQuote:
Originally Posted by zion zig zag
I didn't plan or calculate anything man, like I tell people " you seen the big Lebowski? I'm the dude "
The comments about needing a % of your income prior to retiring don't really work. If your putting 5k a month into retirement and $ into kids college funds etc, you will likely need way less than 70%. I'd like to be debt free at 50, pay for the girls schooling at retire from the 9-5 world. I doubt I'd retire fully but maybe work a few deals here and there to keep busy.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
So that's what you call me...Quote:
Originally Posted by XXX-er
You know... that or uh.... His Dudeness, Duder, or El Duderino if your not into the whole brevity thing.
I think the % of income calculators are there as a way to get people to start thinking and start planning. So many people have no idea what to expect. I think that's how we see giant numbers like "you need $5 million to retire" - the vast majority of people will never accumulate that. So people set unrealistic sky high goals and give up on actual planning, half jokingly saying they're going to work until they die.
IMHO the only accurate calculation is to do your own budget, figure out what you spend, and then figure out how you meet that spend requirement in retirement. The "4% rule" is a good rule of thumb for sorting out how much you need to have invested in order to meet your spend requirements. (and then you can debate that % up or down depending on how extra conservative or lenient you want to view it, or based on your particular investments)
I'm sticking with my projections from last year. Target is $1.5mm, no debt, paid off house, a couple of future income sources (sale and downsize of house being the big one), and social security. Apply 4% to $1.5mm and get $60k annual spend ($5/ month). Once SS kicks in (whether at 62 or 70, or in between), that covers a lot.
^ ^ ^ I agree with most of that. $1.5 million should be a good safe number with paid off home, SS benefits >$4K/month (couple) and smart spending. Experts say it's okay to spend principal to get to 70 before taking SS to hedge against you and/or your spouse growing older than your life expectancy at age 62 (SS snapshot for actuarial purposes).
But the important part of planning is not just achieving a number, but finding a low cost way to live after work ends. Do the calculations on some of those commercial plug in the numbers calculators, and it's soon evident that inflation is your biggest enemy. So, moving to a place where the 1% are, like ski towns, is not a wise idea. Keep it cheap.
Our plan is to delay SS until 70, assuming that the system is basically the same as it is today when we reach eligibility. Currently by delaying SS you get about 8% increase each year you wait after 67 (or you lose about 8% for each year you take it early, back to 62). It's a hedge too - if we need SS money at 62, then it's there to take.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldSteve
Benny - there are a ton of places to live that are near good skiing, without being in a "ski town" that is nothing more than an expensive tourist destination. I'm in Reno, which for all its drawbacks, has a lot of outdoor activities and Tahoe skiing. SLC has even better skiing, but carries other pros and cons. No reason to conclude that every ski area is Aspen and therefore unaffordable and full of obnoxiously rich trust funders.
I agree with you but suggest that low cost way to live doesn't have to mean poverty or avoiding the activities that are what I live to do. Just means giving it some thought and planning better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane
Reno made my girlfriend cry.
Infected piercing or misspelled tattoo?Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane
Reno: the classiest little big city.
Reno on the cheap with Benny.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane