What's the number?

[4matic]

My wife too. Her exact words were "no way am I living in this brown dirt pile of nothingness that is full of meth heads".
Me, "but it is cheap and close to Tahoe"
Her,

I spend more time in Reno these days. Riff raff can be totally avoided and the neighborhoods west of 395 off 431 are pretty nice. Mt Rose estates, Galena forest, Montreux. Well stocked groceries and a Whole Foods near by.

[Kevo]

Cool to see you Firecalc getting posted. www.reddit.com/r/financialindependence and the Bogleheads forums are also great resources.

A 4% safe withdrawal rate seems to be a pretty good bet for never running out of money. For a given lump sum of money that is invested, you can withdrawal 4% per year and not run out of money in your lifetime. Look up the Trinity study for more info.

So, if Iceman spends $120k per year, he needs to have $3MM invested to support that lifestyle. If Benny wants to retire a skitown to the tune of $60k per year in total expenses, he needs to have $1.5MM invested.

[GeezerSteve]

So, if Iceman spends $120k per year, he needs to have $3MM invested to support that lifestyle. If Benny wants to retire a skitown to the tune of $60k per year in total expenses, he needs to have $1.5MM invested.

This assumes zero SS

[GeezerSteve]

Whole Foods

There's an obvious tension between Whole Foods and cutting overhead in retirement

[4matic]

There's an obvious tension between Whole Foods and cutting overhead in retirement

Good prices on cheese and decent beef. Food is not a place I want to cut costs. I rarely eat out. There is an excellent Raley's not 20 minutes from Mt Rose. Do I love Reno? No.. But, it is tax efficient, inexpensive, and has access to winter and mountain sports without having to shovel too much. Lake in summer. Hard to beat really.

[wyeaster]

plus only 3% black folks!

[dan_pdx]

This assumes zero SS

Not sure how close folks here are to retirement, but I'm assuming it won't be around for me. If it is, it will be a nice bonus, but I'm not counting on it.

[4matic]

Brothers don't like cold.

[GeezerSteve]

Good prices on cheese and decent beef. Food is not a place I want to cut costs.

Having high quality food does not necessarily require more money. We grow our own produce in summer. We catch most of the fish we eat. In many places in the U.S. one can buy the highest quality fresh eggs and meat from local farmers. IME, Costco has high quality cheese for roughly 1/2 WF price (somewhat limited selection, of course) and butcher-quality meats (although that might vary from store to store).

Not sure how close folks here are to retirement, but I'm assuming it won't be around for me.

How old are you? I cannot imagine any political conditions under which SS would go away. GWB mentioned converting SS to self-directed in passing and his popularity rating dipped 15 points overnight. SS is the true third rail of politics, and that aint gonna change as more of the electorate nears SS age.

[Benny Profane]

Brothers don't like cold.

Can't swim, either.

[4matic]

Having high quality food does not necessarily require more money. We grow our own produce in summer. We catch most of the fish we eat. In many places in the U.S. one can buy the highest quality fresh eggs and meat from local farmers. IME, Costco has high quality cheese for roughly 1/2 WF price (somewhat limited selection, of course) and butcher-quality meats (although that might vary from store to store).

You're a rugged dude OS.

Costco's best cheese is middle of the road nothingness. Costco Prime Beef is same price as WF and WF is better, plus, I don't have to buy 10 pounds. I don't buy choice beef unless it is stew meat. I don't fish. I don't eat fish. I don't garden. Draeger's is better than both around here.

[Kevo]

Cool to see you Firecalc getting posted. www.reddit.com/r/financialindependence and the Bogleheads forums are also great resources.

A 4% safe withdrawal rate seems to be a pretty good bet for never running out of money. For a given lump sum of money that is invested, you can withdrawal 4% per year and not run out of money in your lifetime. Look up the Trinity study for more info.

So, if Iceman spends $120k per year, he needs to have $3MM invested to support that lifestyle. If Benny wants to retire a skitown to the tune of $60k per year in total expenses, he needs to have $1.5MM invested.

Indeed. I want to retire before I can draw on SS.

This assumes zero SS

Sent from my Pixel using TGR Forums mobile app

[GeezerSteve]

Costco Prime Beef is same price as WF and WF is better, plus, I don't have to buy 10 pounds.

Not in our area. IMO choice cuts are just as good as prime for roasts and braises, which is how I usually prepare beef. For steaks, I like Costco choice NY strip better than WF prime NY strip, although we seldom eat steak these days. I'm also fortunate to enjoy a good $7 bottle of red wine with my meal.

I don't fish. * * * I don't garden.

Then keep workin' and savin' bro.

[GeezerSteve]

I want to retire before I can draw on SS.

Me too. Well, actually, I already have. I'm semi-retired, work 1/4 time. See my prior note re drawing down principal if that's what it takes to delay taking SS until 70.

[4matic]

Me too. Well, actually, I already have. I'm semi-retired, work 1/4 time. See my prior note re drawing down principal if that's what it takes to delay taking SS until 70.

Not always a wise strategy. Depends on spouse survivor. From the reading I've done, if you don't need the money. Take it! If you need the money, wait

[4matic]

Then keep workin' and savin' bro.

I'm done bro. No need.. I work as a $15 an hour coach for fun.

[Kevo]

Me too. Well, actually, I already have. I'm semi-retired, work 1/4 time. See my prior note re drawing down principal if that's what it takes to delay taking SS until 70.

Question for you- if one retires 15 or 20 years before min SS distribution age, wouldn't their benefits be seriously reduced? I get a SS statement every year or so that shows me getting the max payout at retirement, but my understanding has been that it assumes I continue to work and contribute to SS at the same amount I currently am (I hit the max SS contribution).

[4matic]

Correct. Assumption is continued work. I think there is a way to lower future income for calculation on the site.

[El Chupacabra]

SS website has a calculator where you can enter all your income from past years worked, and future years - where you can put in estimates or zeroes to see what happens if you were to retire and earn nothing.

Also, Google social security bend points to see how little effect additional years of work makes on increasing SS, once you hit the two bend points.

[GeezerSteve]

From the reading I've done, if you don't need the money. Take it! If you need the money, wait

All my reading is the opposite, based on my and my wife's current circumstances. The consensus among experts for our position: Take SS early only if you need it. If you don't need it, wait until 70 to take it as the best hedge against one or both of us living past current life expectancy. I didn't say "always." There are other factors in play, e.g., age and SS pay-in of spouse, health, life expectancy per family history.

The experts changed their view vs. 15 years ago when the conventional wisdom was to take SS at age 62 and put your savings into super safe debt @ 5-6% return. That return is not available today without taking on more risk than the old days.

The place to start is to understand how SS actuarial system works. Benefits are based on life expectancy snapshot at age 62. Assuming life expectancy snapshot of 79 per SS actuarial tables, if you die at age 79, you'll have collected the same amount of SS whether you starting taking SS at 62, at "full" (66 years, 4 months for me) or at 70. But if you live a day past 79, you'll collect more the later you started taking SS. If you or your spouse live to 90 or more, the enhanced payout is quite big (hundreds of thousands of dollars in our case). As you know, the surviving spouse gets the higher of her or the dead spouse's SS payment. It's roughly double the odds that one of the couple will live past his or her life expectancy vs. a single person. (That may seem obvious, but there's correlation between spouse dying and shortening of life expectancy of surviving spouse).

Doing what it takes to delay SS until 70 makes manifest sense in my position: My wife is 8 years younger than I, so she'll take SS at 62 while I take it at 70. (The combined payments should be enough to cover our costs of living, or even a bit more than that, and our retirement/savings fund will be there to dip into for rainy day events.) When I die, she takes my higher SS payment. She's still working and saving (we have zero debt) and we are in a pretty good position for me to tread water (and not dip into principal before 70) but per my research and running numbers. But if I need to dip into principal to delay taking SS until 70, it'll likely be the smart thing to do. Circumstances might change that current equation, of course.

[GeezerSteve]

Question for you- if one retires 15 or 20 years before min SS distribution age, wouldn't their benefits be seriously reduced?

Yes, very much so. If you plan to retire at 50, SS aint gonna be much because you won't pay into it for 15+ years. The reduction becomes less, and nearly insignificant, past age 62, assuming that you've paid in max or near max for alot of years.

[dan_pdx]

How old are you? I cannot imagine any political conditions under which SS would go away. GWB mentioned converting SS to self-directed in passing and his popularity rating dipped 15 points overnight. SS is the true third rail of politics, and that aint gonna change as more of the electorate nears SS age.

Well, now we're getting personal. I'm almost 30 years out from the SS retirement age. As I understand it, the system either needs higher taxes, reduced benefits, higher retirement age, or some combination of the three to stay solvent. I think the most likely outcome is option 4: our government can't get anything done and the system falls apart. If I'm wrong, I'll have some retirement income I didn't count on, which won't be the worst thing.

[wendigo]

heh - yeah, i'm planning on ss not providing any income as well. fortunately I don't pay into it anymore.

[4matic]

I like my chances.

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017...ou-should.aspx

The value of financial flexibility:

However, the ability to earn a return on investment carries other rewards as well. By keeping what amounts to a slush fund of invested Social Security payments, you can tap those accumulated assets for unexpected expenses if you so choose. By contrast, waiting for Social Security leaves you entitled only to the larger monthly payment -- removing the flexibility of spending larger portions of your total Social Security benefits in a single lump sum.

Most people don't have the financial capacity to invest their Social Security benefits, as they'll need that money to pay for living expenses. If you've managed to beat those odds and are in a position in which Social Security money isn't absolutely necessary for your day-to-day financial survival in retirement, then it opens up new options for you. In some cases, claiming your benefits early and investing it successfully will leave you and your heirs ahead of the game in the long run.h

[GeezerSteve]

Well, now we're getting personal. I'm almost 30 years out from the SS retirement age. As I understand it, the system either needs higher taxes, reduced benefits, higher retirement age, or some combination of the three to stay solvent. I think the most likely outcome is option 4: our government can't get anything done and the system falls apart. If I'm wrong, I'll have some retirement income I didn't count on, which won't be the worst thing.

There's alot of Koch brothers-funded fearmonginger re SS. The reality is that SS ran a surplus (i.e., took in more than it paid out) for the first 82 years of its 83 year history. Last year SS ran a small deficit. If, as Al Gore proposed, SS collection were put into a lock box from the onset, there would be money to pay out the next 50 years (or something like that). SS can be completely fixed for somewhere between 100+ years (pessimistic) and forever by lifting the earnings cap on SS taxes, which is currently around $120K. Another fix is to levy against certain kinds of unearned income. Another fix is to open to allow market forces to steer immigration, growing the labor base/payers into SS.

My advice to a 35 y.o. is to save and develop good habits re living within your means.

I like my chances.

We like our chances. Per my calculations, we're 95%-tile or better, and one of our hedges is that we very much enjoy living the simple life. I am quite concerned about those in the 50%-tile to 75%-tile tier and woefully concerned re the bottom 50%-tilers.

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017...ou-should.aspx

I've read that, and hundreds of other things on the subject. That's a contrarian view, which is no surprise coming from The Motley Fool.