Work is stressful. That’s the bit people forget.Wannaretireearly wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 7:08 pmTomorrow is Monday. It will interfere with my life. I will be on a 7am zoom call and beholden to whatever my senior leadership deems important tomorrow. On the flip side, I could be: waking up like it’s sunday, spend 30 mins meditating and stretching. 30 mins coffee. Take the dog out for a walk (cannot do that on a weekday morning),relax & hit the home gym. Perhaps go cycling and then grab a local beer.randomguy wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 2:05 pmOut of how many? Yeah I know a half dozen people who have died before 50. But it is out of a social circle of thousands. Yes I know some 70 year olds who are bedridden. They are also the exceptions versus the ones who are still active. Now there are no assurances of anything. But if I had to bet on the 50 year old who was doing 10 mile hikes versus the 50 year old who is winded going to the fridge about the chances of being active at 75, I know where I would place my money. Again anything can happen. But a majority (estimates tend to be up around 70-80%) of poor health outcomes in the under 75 crowd are self inflicted. You need to assess your situation and decide which group you are likely to fall into.rockstar wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 1:36 pm
People here in general have unrealistic expectations for how long they’re going to live. One of my friends in his 50s has already lost three friends in their 50s. My parents are pretty much bef ridden in their 70s. They won’t make it to 80. Even my active friends in their 70s are slowing down. You gotta live your life because it’s much shorter then we like.
These discussions always come down to how much work is really interfering with who you want to live. One group pretends that when you are working you can't do anything. The other says I can still do tons of stuff. Both have points. You have to think about who you are. I have a hard time believing any company wouldn't be flexible to keep a valuable employee who said I need 2 months off without pay to do life goal. But that could very well be industry specific.
Do you see the difference
Btw I appreciate your post. There is zero chance I could take two months off. I’ve been lucky to take 3 weeks (every year) at a stretch past 5 years.
I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
-
- Posts: 4880
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:39 pm
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
+1 in my tech industry this doesn’t happen. I wish it did!Patzer wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 3:15 pmYea, if I could rotate between 1 month of travel and 1 month of work, I would probably work until I was 55.randomguy wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 1:15 pmThat tends to be the problem with part time work in a lot of fields. The much higher pay that a lot of people can command (i.e. you make 100k versus 30k for the same amount of work) really incentives not quitting . And the other part is small increases in savings drastically improves the safety. You don't need to go to 50x+ like some people suggest. That is a crazy level of safety. But even 28x versus 25x is a huge increase in safety. Thats like 12-18 months working in normal cases. And if we have a market crash during that time, you might sleep better having worked through those 12 months.Patzer wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:23 am
Great analogy with the Hurricane.
It's definitely a thought I have had to do a nature related job, but a park ranger makes a small fraction of what I make, so the financial benefit of that extra income compared to my current income is pretty low. I.e. 1 year of my current job lets me save more than 5 years of being a ranger would.
Even with that low financial benefit, I have thought about doing something like that way later in life, even if it's voluntary or just for free parking/camping spot (i.e. a campground guide or off-trail guide at a national park). The older volunteers at national parks often have awesome stories if you spend a little time with them. At that point (70+) I am probably slower and can't go as far and maybe some of my joy of hiking comes from helping younger people to explore it.
Even stuff like working 3 months. Taking your 4 weeks vacation. Working another 3 months and quitting will end up adding a year. I will maintain that if I could work ~1000 hours/year in my field, I probably would never quit. But getting those jobs can be hard. Working 2500 vs 0, is a much tougher choice...
Doubt anyone is going to pay me to do that, and certainly not at my current position/salary.
I do wonder when I actually get to 23X what flexibility my employer might offer to keep me, while they sort out transitioning me and my team's projects.
Most common is that I have seen people stay on the payroll for 3 months to get them to work an extra month (beyond a 2 week notice), but I have seen a few people get as much as 6 months pay for sticking around 2 months.
“At some point you are trading time you will never get back for money you will never spend.“ |
“How do you want to spend the best remaining year of your life?“
-
- Posts: 4880
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:39 pm
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
Lol. A little condescending imo. Understand your talking to a group that has generally been around the block once or twice.rockstar wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 7:29 pmWork is stressful. That’s the bit people forget.Wannaretireearly wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 7:08 pmTomorrow is Monday. It will interfere with my life. I will be on a 7am zoom call and beholden to whatever my senior leadership deems important tomorrow. On the flip side, I could be: waking up like it’s sunday, spend 30 mins meditating and stretching. 30 mins coffee. Take the dog out for a walk (cannot do that on a weekday morning),relax & hit the home gym. Perhaps go cycling and then grab a local beer.randomguy wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 2:05 pmOut of how many? Yeah I know a half dozen people who have died before 50. But it is out of a social circle of thousands. Yes I know some 70 year olds who are bedridden. They are also the exceptions versus the ones who are still active. Now there are no assurances of anything. But if I had to bet on the 50 year old who was doing 10 mile hikes versus the 50 year old who is winded going to the fridge about the chances of being active at 75, I know where I would place my money. Again anything can happen. But a majority (estimates tend to be up around 70-80%) of poor health outcomes in the under 75 crowd are self inflicted. You need to assess your situation and decide which group you are likely to fall into.rockstar wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 1:36 pm
People here in general have unrealistic expectations for how long they’re going to live. One of my friends in his 50s has already lost three friends in their 50s. My parents are pretty much bef ridden in their 70s. They won’t make it to 80. Even my active friends in their 70s are slowing down. You gotta live your life because it’s much shorter then we like.
These discussions always come down to how much work is really interfering with who you want to live. One group pretends that when you are working you can't do anything. The other says I can still do tons of stuff. Both have points. You have to think about who you are. I have a hard time believing any company wouldn't be flexible to keep a valuable employee who said I need 2 months off without pay to do life goal. But that could very well be industry specific.
Do you see the difference
Btw I appreciate your post. There is zero chance I could take two months off. I’ve been lucky to take 3 weeks (every year) at a stretch past 5 years.
What is your grand plan? Tell us how you handle your stressful job and any advice you have for others here?
“At some point you are trading time you will never get back for money you will never spend.“ |
“How do you want to spend the best remaining year of your life?“
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
Learn to don't give a ****.Wannaretireearly wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:25 pmLol. A little condescending imo. Understand your talking to a group that has generally been around the block once or twice.rockstar wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 7:29 pmWork is stressful. That’s the bit people forget.Wannaretireearly wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 7:08 pmTomorrow is Monday. It will interfere with my life. I will be on a 7am zoom call and beholden to whatever my senior leadership deems important tomorrow. On the flip side, I could be: waking up like it’s sunday, spend 30 mins meditating and stretching. 30 mins coffee. Take the dog out for a walk (cannot do that on a weekday morning),relax & hit the home gym. Perhaps go cycling and then grab a local beer.randomguy wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 2:05 pmOut of how many? Yeah I know a half dozen people who have died before 50. But it is out of a social circle of thousands. Yes I know some 70 year olds who are bedridden. They are also the exceptions versus the ones who are still active. Now there are no assurances of anything. But if I had to bet on the 50 year old who was doing 10 mile hikes versus the 50 year old who is winded going to the fridge about the chances of being active at 75, I know where I would place my money. Again anything can happen. But a majority (estimates tend to be up around 70-80%) of poor health outcomes in the under 75 crowd are self inflicted. You need to assess your situation and decide which group you are likely to fall into.rockstar wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 1:36 pm
People here in general have unrealistic expectations for how long they’re going to live. One of my friends in his 50s has already lost three friends in their 50s. My parents are pretty much bef ridden in their 70s. They won’t make it to 80. Even my active friends in their 70s are slowing down. You gotta live your life because it’s much shorter then we like.
These discussions always come down to how much work is really interfering with who you want to live. One group pretends that when you are working you can't do anything. The other says I can still do tons of stuff. Both have points. You have to think about who you are. I have a hard time believing any company wouldn't be flexible to keep a valuable employee who said I need 2 months off without pay to do life goal. But that could very well be industry specific.
Do you see the difference
Btw I appreciate your post. There is zero chance I could take two months off. I’ve been lucky to take 3 weeks (every year) at a stretch past 5 years.
What is your grand plan? Tell us how you handle your stressful job and any advice you have for others here?
When you finished your job, nobody is really going to care less what you did unless you're in one of those life saving jobs. All of my retired friends are glad they're done working. None of them regret retiring.
-
- Posts: 4880
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:39 pm
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
Thanks. This above I agree is a good plan.rockstar wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:28 pmLearn to don't give a ****.Wannaretireearly wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:25 pmLol. A little condescending imo. Understand your talking to a group that has generally been around the block once or twice.rockstar wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 7:29 pmWork is stressful. That’s the bit people forget.Wannaretireearly wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 7:08 pmTomorrow is Monday. It will interfere with my life. I will be on a 7am zoom call and beholden to whatever my senior leadership deems important tomorrow. On the flip side, I could be: waking up like it’s sunday, spend 30 mins meditating and stretching. 30 mins coffee. Take the dog out for a walk (cannot do that on a weekday morning),relax & hit the home gym. Perhaps go cycling and then grab a local beer.randomguy wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 2:05 pm
Out of how many? Yeah I know a half dozen people who have died before 50. But it is out of a social circle of thousands. Yes I know some 70 year olds who are bedridden. They are also the exceptions versus the ones who are still active. Now there are no assurances of anything. But if I had to bet on the 50 year old who was doing 10 mile hikes versus the 50 year old who is winded going to the fridge about the chances of being active at 75, I know where I would place my money. Again anything can happen. But a majority (estimates tend to be up around 70-80%) of poor health outcomes in the under 75 crowd are self inflicted. You need to assess your situation and decide which group you are likely to fall into.
These discussions always come down to how much work is really interfering with who you want to live. One group pretends that when you are working you can't do anything. The other says I can still do tons of stuff. Both have points. You have to think about who you are. I have a hard time believing any company wouldn't be flexible to keep a valuable employee who said I need 2 months off without pay to do life goal. But that could very well be industry specific.
Do you see the difference
Btw I appreciate your post. There is zero chance I could take two months off. I’ve been lucky to take 3 weeks (every year) at a stretch past 5 years.
What is your grand plan? Tell us how you handle your stressful job and any advice you have for others here?
When you finished your job, nobody is really going to care less what you did unless you're in one of those life saving jobs. All of my retired friends are glad they're done working. None of them regret retiring.
“At some point you are trading time you will never get back for money you will never spend.“ |
“How do you want to spend the best remaining year of your life?“
-
- Posts: 1115
- Joined: Tue May 12, 2015 2:59 pm
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
Why did you put low income in quotes?
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
The way I read it, it's a wink to the idea that someone can technically be "low income" receiving government assistance, and a multi-millionaire early retiree at the same time.
"To achieve satisfactory investment results is easier than most people realize; to achieve superior results is harder than it looks." - Benjamin Graham
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
On life expectancy, anecdotal evidence is definitely not the way to go. Even relatives' lifespans don't correlate that closely, but acquaintances are almost entirely irrelevant unless it's some specific life limiting thing (toxic chemicals or something) you were all exposed to. To the extent it's important which way views of LE are biased on this forum though, I might even guess it's biased to the low side. Often discussion revolves around the SSA's mortality table, but that's the whole US population. The bottom socioeconomic half has significantly worse prospects than the top half and is obviously underrepresented on this forum.randomguy wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 2:05 pmOut of how many? Yeah I know a half dozen people who have died before 50. But it is out of a social circle of thousands. Yes I know some 70 year olds who are bedridden. They are also the exceptions versus the ones who are still active. Now there are no assurances of anything. But if I had to bet on the 50 year old who was doing 10 mile hikes versus the 50 year old who is winded going to the fridge about the chances of being active at 75, I know where I would place my money. Again anything can happen. But a majority (estimates tend to be up around 70-80%) of poor health outcomes in the under 75 crowd are self inflicted. You need to assess your situation and decide which group you are likely to fall into.rockstar wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 1:36 pm
People here in general have unrealistic expectations for how long they’re going to live. One of my friends in his 50s has already lost three friends in their 50s. My parents are pretty much bef ridden in their 70s. They won’t make it to 80. Even my active friends in their 70s are slowing down. You gotta live your life because it’s much shorter then we like.
Anyway if making aggressive assumptions about early retirement (age 46 23x definitely is, not saying it isn't doable if you want to take the risk for the reward in freedom now) realistic personalized estimate of LE is key. I'd recommend studying the results of various personalized LE calculators, and read up a bit generally on what drives life expectancy (it's not your close relatives' lifespans, various studies have found that in itself to be a minor factor generally). Because if you assume a short life in that case, a lot is riding on it. Expectancy of fully healthy life is a somewhat different issue. But there's a lot of room in between how you feel as fit person in your early 40's and 'I don't want to live anymore'. I bet a lot of us on this forum are in between those two points. 'Future self' may not agree w/ 'current self' about it either.
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
There is a line between not giving a **** and being a crappy employee. One will keep you sane. The other will stifle income growth or get you fired.rockstar wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:28 pmLearn to don't give a ****.Wannaretireearly wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:25 pmLol. A little condescending imo. Understand your talking to a group that has generally been around the block once or twice.rockstar wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 7:29 pmWork is stressful. That’s the bit people forget.Wannaretireearly wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 7:08 pmTomorrow is Monday. It will interfere with my life. I will be on a 7am zoom call and beholden to whatever my senior leadership deems important tomorrow. On the flip side, I could be: waking up like it’s sunday, spend 30 mins meditating and stretching. 30 mins coffee. Take the dog out for a walk (cannot do that on a weekday morning),relax & hit the home gym. Perhaps go cycling and then grab a local beer.randomguy wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 2:05 pm
Out of how many? Yeah I know a half dozen people who have died before 50. But it is out of a social circle of thousands. Yes I know some 70 year olds who are bedridden. They are also the exceptions versus the ones who are still active. Now there are no assurances of anything. But if I had to bet on the 50 year old who was doing 10 mile hikes versus the 50 year old who is winded going to the fridge about the chances of being active at 75, I know where I would place my money. Again anything can happen. But a majority (estimates tend to be up around 70-80%) of poor health outcomes in the under 75 crowd are self inflicted. You need to assess your situation and decide which group you are likely to fall into.
These discussions always come down to how much work is really interfering with who you want to live. One group pretends that when you are working you can't do anything. The other says I can still do tons of stuff. Both have points. You have to think about who you are. I have a hard time believing any company wouldn't be flexible to keep a valuable employee who said I need 2 months off without pay to do life goal. But that could very well be industry specific.
Do you see the difference
Btw I appreciate your post. There is zero chance I could take two months off. I’ve been lucky to take 3 weeks (every year) at a stretch past 5 years.
What is your grand plan? Tell us how you handle your stressful job and any advice you have for others here?
When you finished your job, nobody is really going to care less what you did unless you're in one of those life saving jobs. All of my retired friends are glad they're done working. None of them regret retiring.
I do agree that not stressing over the little things can go a long way with regards to minimizing burnout.
A time to EVALUATE your jitters: |
viewtopic.php?p=1139732#p1139732
-
- Posts: 1241
- Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 3:15 pm
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
Yup. Exactly how I read it, and how I would retire very young if the need was felt.JoMoney wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 8:25 amThe way I read it, it's a wink to the idea that someone can technically be "low income" receiving government assistance, and a multi-millionaire early retiree at the same time.
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
The OP work demands far too much of him, or he thinks they do. That’s why he wants to retire early. I bet if he had a different job or didn’t beat himself over his current one, he’d enjoy life more.EnjoyIt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:19 amThere is a line between not giving a **** and being a crappy employee. One will keep you sane. The other will stifle income growth or get you fired.rockstar wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:28 pmLearn to don't give a ****.Wannaretireearly wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:25 pmLol. A little condescending imo. Understand your talking to a group that has generally been around the block once or twice.rockstar wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 7:29 pmWork is stressful. That’s the bit people forget.Wannaretireearly wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 7:08 pm
Tomorrow is Monday. It will interfere with my life. I will be on a 7am zoom call and beholden to whatever my senior leadership deems important tomorrow. On the flip side, I could be: waking up like it’s sunday, spend 30 mins meditating and stretching. 30 mins coffee. Take the dog out for a walk (cannot do that on a weekday morning),relax & hit the home gym. Perhaps go cycling and then grab a local beer.
Do you see the difference
Btw I appreciate your post. There is zero chance I could take two months off. I’ve been lucky to take 3 weeks (every year) at a stretch past 5 years.
What is your grand plan? Tell us how you handle your stressful job and any advice you have for others here?
When you finished your job, nobody is really going to care less what you did unless you're in one of those life saving jobs. All of my retired friends are glad they're done working. None of them regret retiring.
I do agree that not stressing over the little things can go a long way with regards to minimizing burnout.
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
I may be a little more pessimistic than you.Patzer wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 1:30 pmYou don't buy the SPIA until you are 80, so what inflation happens between now and when I am 80 doesn't matter, because the source of the funds (the house) inflates with everything else).afan wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 1:14 pm Inflation?
How can you know now the rates decades in the future for an SPIA?
Assumes no unexpected expenses. Life can become costly in old age as ine may need to pay people for things now ine for oneself.
Social Security benefits will drop long before you start retirement unless the government does something. No way to know what, if any, action it will take. For now, do your calculations include the reduction inpayments under current law?
Life doesn't get more costly in old age. Look at any study on the topic. The rise in healthcare costs are more than offset by a decline in other spending. Spending beyond 80 dramatically falls and it only really increases in the last 1-2 years of life as you are dying.
Social Security's worst case scenario is a 75% payout. While my post assumes a 100% payout, because that's what is likely to happen, a 75% payout only adds about .5X to my needs. Since 22.4X would have survived the great depression with my AA, I don't need to add anything to my 23X to cover Social Security only paying out at 75%.
For planning purposes, you need to stress test your financial plan for the worst case scenarios. Your worst cases aren't "worst" enough.
Some thoughts to consider:
Note to moderators: To avoid discussing politics, I am going to speak in general terms based on logic and probabilities. Hopefully this is acceptable and stays within forum rules.
1) Social Security under current law is headed for a 75% payout. Because that's what will occur under current law, that is what I consider the most likely scenario. For any other outcome (better or worse than that), the law will have to change. Inaction is easier than action. The only possible changes to a closed system are to change the inputs, the outputs, or both. Stated more simply, it's a variant of increasing revenue or decreasing payouts. Ways that they might raise revenue are irrelevant to this discussion. Raising the retirement age is the equivalent of a decreased payout, because you're going to have to cover the additional years that you have to wait. You need to pay attention to the different proposals that are being bandied about, assign it a probability, and make sure your plan can handle that if it comes to pass.
2) Funding your SPIA is dependent on a single asset - your house. Although real estate in general will increase at the rate of inflation, your house is a specific property that is subject to individual risks. Those who had homes in the Detroit suburbs when the car industry crashed did not have their homes appreciate. Nor did the people who suddenly discovered that they were living on a future Superfund site (like Love Canal.) I suggest considering two sources of funding for that SPIA - Open up an IRA to keep the funds segregated, up to the amount allowed for a QLAC annuity. Then don't count those funds for the first phase of your retirement. You then have the option of funding the SPIA with funds that had been invested in the stock market, and/or funds that raised with a reverse mortgage.
3) Plan for "lumpy" predictable expenses. You own a home. The roof needs to be replaced every 30 years. Your water heater needs to be replaced every 10 years. Your car will be replaced several times during a long retirement. (And this doesn't even address long-term care.) If you pull the money from your retirement accounts, it counts as income, your tax costs go up, you might lose your ACA subsidy, or if you're on Medicare by then, your premiums go up. Does your plan address those events?
4) Plan for "lumpy" unpredictable expenses. When you're working, this is your emergency fund, which you then refill with new income (and perhaps stop saving for a while until it's replenished.) But when you're no longer working, you need a plan for big unexpected expenses. How are you handling unexpected expenses?
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
Some folks enjoy structure in their lives, feel they need to make a contribution measured in dollars, love the comradery of their coworkers. Work fulfills those goals. For them unemployment, voluntary or otherwise, is not pleasant and to be avoided until old age.Wannaretireearly wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 7:08 pmTomorrow is Monday. It will interfere with my life. I will be on a 7am zoom call and beholden to whatever my senior leadership deems important tomorrow. On the flip side, I could be: waking up like it’s sunday, spend 30 mins meditating and stretching. 30 mins coffee. Take the dog out for a walk (cannot do that on a weekday morning),relax & hit the home gym. Perhaps go cycling and then grab a local beer.randomguy wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 2:05 pmOut of how many? Yeah I know a half dozen people who have died before 50. But it is out of a social circle of thousands. Yes I know some 70 year olds who are bedridden. They are also the exceptions versus the ones who are still active. Now there are no assurances of anything. But if I had to bet on the 50 year old who was doing 10 mile hikes versus the 50 year old who is winded going to the fridge about the chances of being active at 75, I know where I would place my money. Again anything can happen. But a majority (estimates tend to be up around 70-80%) of poor health outcomes in the under 75 crowd are self inflicted. You need to assess your situation and decide which group you are likely to fall into.rockstar wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 1:36 pm
People here in general have unrealistic expectations for how long they’re going to live. One of my friends in his 50s has already lost three friends in their 50s. My parents are pretty much bef ridden in their 70s. They won’t make it to 80. Even my active friends in their 70s are slowing down. You gotta live your life because it’s much shorter then we like.
These discussions always come down to how much work is really interfering with who you want to live. One group pretends that when you are working you can't do anything. The other says I can still do tons of stuff. Both have points. You have to think about who you are. I have a hard time believing any company wouldn't be flexible to keep a valuable employee who said I need 2 months off without pay to do life goal. But that could very well be industry specific.
Do you see the difference
Btw I appreciate your post. There is zero chance I could take two months off. I’ve been lucky to take 3 weeks (every year) at a stretch past 5 years.
Others, such as myself, love freedom to do what I want, when I want, with whom I want. There may be a few careers out there that permit that, but none that I know of.
Neither of these is a "bad" choice, folks are different and I'm fine with whatever they choose. I would have loved to retire at 46, but alas that was not to be.
Life is good now. No wife (a long term partner instead), no kids, no boss, no landlord. Just the way I like it
-
- Posts: 6560
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:35 pm
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
OP,
By my calculations, using the bendpoints for 2023 (the newest available) I calculate that
you would need to have an average indexed monthly earnings of $5329.50 over your best 35 years,
which is an average annual indexed earnings of about $63,950K. Unless you started at age 11 earning
somewhere near $64K in today's dollars, I don't see how you come to $35K/year in estimated benefits.
Calculation:
.9*1115 + (5329.5-1115)*.32 = 2352.14
24% for delayed credits to age 70 = 564.51
Estimated Monthly benefit at 70 = 2916.65
12x for yearly benefits at 70 = 34,992
Let now of there is an error in my calculations.
By my calculations, using the bendpoints for 2023 (the newest available) I calculate that
you would need to have an average indexed monthly earnings of $5329.50 over your best 35 years,
which is an average annual indexed earnings of about $63,950K. Unless you started at age 11 earning
somewhere near $64K in today's dollars, I don't see how you come to $35K/year in estimated benefits.
Calculation:
.9*1115 + (5329.5-1115)*.32 = 2352.14
24% for delayed credits to age 70 = 564.51
Estimated Monthly benefit at 70 = 2916.65
12x for yearly benefits at 70 = 34,992
Let now of there is an error in my calculations.
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
I see an hour of activities which I did basically every day of my life when I worked. Well except for the drug use:) It didn't interfere one bit. As far as work stress, nah it was invigorating going in and getting exposed to new ideas and working with smart people. It never hit a stress level that was remotely unhealthy.rockstar wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 7:29 pmWork is stressful. That’s the bit people forget.Wannaretireearly wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 7:08 pmTomorrow is Monday. It will interfere with my life. I will be on a 7am zoom call and beholden to whatever my senior leadership deems important tomorrow. On the flip side, I could be: waking up like it’s sunday, spend 30 mins meditating and stretching. 30 mins coffee. Take the dog out for a walk (cannot do that on a weekday morning),relax & hit the home gym. Perhaps go cycling and then grab a local beer.randomguy wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 2:05 pmOut of how many? Yeah I know a half dozen people who have died before 50. But it is out of a social circle of thousands. Yes I know some 70 year olds who are bedridden. They are also the exceptions versus the ones who are still active. Now there are no assurances of anything. But if I had to bet on the 50 year old who was doing 10 mile hikes versus the 50 year old who is winded going to the fridge about the chances of being active at 75, I know where I would place my money. Again anything can happen. But a majority (estimates tend to be up around 70-80%) of poor health outcomes in the under 75 crowd are self inflicted. You need to assess your situation and decide which group you are likely to fall into.rockstar wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 1:36 pm
People here in general have unrealistic expectations for how long they’re going to live. One of my friends in his 50s has already lost three friends in their 50s. My parents are pretty much bef ridden in their 70s. They won’t make it to 80. Even my active friends in their 70s are slowing down. You gotta live your life because it’s much shorter then we like.
These discussions always come down to how much work is really interfering with who you want to live. One group pretends that when you are working you can't do anything. The other says I can still do tons of stuff. Both have points. You have to think about who you are. I have a hard time believing any company wouldn't be flexible to keep a valuable employee who said I need 2 months off without pay to do life goal. But that could very well be industry specific.
Do you see the difference
Btw I appreciate your post. There is zero chance I could take two months off. I’ve been lucky to take 3 weeks (every year) at a stretch past 5 years.
As far as no way to get 2 months off, there is only one way to find out. Go talk to the boss and tell them you need 2 months off and will quit if it isn't possible. I expect if you are valuable enough that they can't live without you for 2 months, they will find a way to make things work.... If not we get to find out how your plan works.
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
10k/month*20years/35years = 5.7k/month.MathWizard wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 11:55 am OP,
By my calculations, using the bendpoints for 2023 (the newest available) I calculate that
you would need to have an average indexed monthly earnings of $5329.50 over your best 35 years,
which is an average annual indexed earnings of about $63,950K. Unless you started at age 11 earning
somewhere near $64K in today's dollars, I don't see how you come to $35K/year in estimated benefits.
Calculation:
.9*1115 + (5329.5-1115)*.32 = 2352.14
24% for delayed credits to age 70 = 564.51
Estimated Monthly benefit at 70 = 2916.65
12x for yearly benefits at 70 = 34,992
Let now of there is an error in my calculations.
A quick input into the SS calculator gives me 2261 for someone retiring at 46. or 33.5k/year at 70. A bit low but maybe he has a few more years in there. It is in the ball park for a high earner who has put in 20+ years. Details like if they started at 22 or 25 will matter.
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
Which calculator? Have you tried using the SS quick calculator with higher earning for 20-25 yrs ending early on?randomguy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:23 pm10k/month*20years/35years = 5.7k/month.MathWizard wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 11:55 am OP,
By my calculations, using the bendpoints for 2023 (the newest available) I calculate that
you would need to have an average indexed monthly earnings of $5329.50 over your best 35 years,
which is an average annual indexed earnings of about $63,950K. Unless you started at age 11 earning
somewhere near $64K in today's dollars, I don't see how you come to $35K/year in estimated benefits.
Calculation:
.9*1115 + (5329.5-1115)*.32 = 2352.14
24% for delayed credits to age 70 = 564.51
Estimated Monthly benefit at 70 = 2916.65
12x for yearly benefits at 70 = 34,992
Let now of there is an error in my calculations.
A quick input into the SS calculator gives me 2261 for someone retiring at 46. or 33.5k/year at 70. A bit low but maybe he has a few more years in there. It is in the ball park for a high earner who has put in 20+ years. Details like if they started at 22 or 25 will matter.
https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/quickcalc/
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
No but let's do that. Born in 1978, retires in 2024. Was making 200k/year. 2340 at 62. Should be about 34.8k at 70.. Another data point that suggests about 35k will be right.smitcat wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 1:05 pmWhich calculator? Have you tried using the SS quick calculator with higher earning for 20-25 yrs ending early on?randomguy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:23 pm10k/month*20years/35years = 5.7k/month.MathWizard wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 11:55 am OP,
By my calculations, using the bendpoints for 2023 (the newest available) I calculate that
you would need to have an average indexed monthly earnings of $5329.50 over your best 35 years,
which is an average annual indexed earnings of about $63,950K. Unless you started at age 11 earning
somewhere near $64K in today's dollars, I don't see how you come to $35K/year in estimated benefits.
Calculation:
.9*1115 + (5329.5-1115)*.32 = 2352.14
24% for delayed credits to age 70 = 564.51
Estimated Monthly benefit at 70 = 2916.65
12x for yearly benefits at 70 = 34,992
Let now of there is an error in my calculations.
A quick input into the SS calculator gives me 2261 for someone retiring at 46. or 33.5k/year at 70. A bit low but maybe he has a few more years in there. It is in the ball park for a high earner who has put in 20+ years. Details like if they started at 22 or 25 will matter.
https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/quickcalc/
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
I got more than that - did you review the earnings they used for the calculations and adjust them in early years?randomguy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 1:11 pmNo but let's do that. Born in 1978, retires in 2024. Was making 200k/year. 2340 at 62. Should be about 34.8k at 70.. Another data point that suggests about 35k will be right.smitcat wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 1:05 pmWhich calculator? Have you tried using the SS quick calculator with higher earning for 20-25 yrs ending early on?randomguy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:23 pm10k/month*20years/35years = 5.7k/month.MathWizard wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 11:55 am OP,
By my calculations, using the bendpoints for 2023 (the newest available) I calculate that
you would need to have an average indexed monthly earnings of $5329.50 over your best 35 years,
which is an average annual indexed earnings of about $63,950K. Unless you started at age 11 earning
somewhere near $64K in today's dollars, I don't see how you come to $35K/year in estimated benefits.
Calculation:
.9*1115 + (5329.5-1115)*.32 = 2352.14
24% for delayed credits to age 70 = 564.51
Estimated Monthly benefit at 70 = 2916.65
12x for yearly benefits at 70 = 34,992
Let now of there is an error in my calculations.
A quick input into the SS calculator gives me 2261 for someone retiring at 46. or 33.5k/year at 70. A bit low but maybe he has a few more years in there. It is in the ball park for a high earner who has put in 20+ years. Details like if they started at 22 or 25 will matter.
https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/quickcalc/
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
"Born in 1978, retires in 2024. Was making 200k/year. 2340 at 62. Should be about 34.8k at 70."randomguy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 1:11 pmNo but let's do that. Born in 1978, retires in 2024. Was making 200k/year. 2340 at 62. Should be about 34.8k at 70.. Another data point that suggests about 35k will be right.smitcat wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 1:05 pmWhich calculator? Have you tried using the SS quick calculator with higher earning for 20-25 yrs ending early on?randomguy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:23 pm10k/month*20years/35years = 5.7k/month.MathWizard wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 11:55 am OP,
By my calculations, using the bendpoints for 2023 (the newest available) I calculate that
you would need to have an average indexed monthly earnings of $5329.50 over your best 35 years,
which is an average annual indexed earnings of about $63,950K. Unless you started at age 11 earning
somewhere near $64K in today's dollars, I don't see how you come to $35K/year in estimated benefits.
Calculation:
.9*1115 + (5329.5-1115)*.32 = 2352.14
24% for delayed credits to age 70 = 564.51
Estimated Monthly benefit at 70 = 2916.65
12x for yearly benefits at 70 = 34,992
Let now of there is an error in my calculations.
A quick input into the SS calculator gives me 2261 for someone retiring at 46. or 33.5k/year at 70. A bit low but maybe he has a few more years in there. It is in the ball park for a high earner who has put in 20+ years. Details like if they started at 22 or 25 will matter.
https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/quickcalc/
I think you have the difference between 62 and 70 at $28,080 vs $34,800, which is like 24%.
I believe that % is for FRA to 70 - the % for the span from 62 to 70 is 77%.
$28,080 X 1.77 = $49,700
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
Keep in mind that $64k in 2023 dollars was only $20k in 1988.MathWizard wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 11:55 am OP,
By my calculations, using the bendpoints for 2023 (the newest available) I calculate that
you would need to have an average indexed monthly earnings of $5329.50 over your best 35 years,
which is an average annual indexed earnings of about $63,950K. Unless you started at age 11 earning
somewhere near $64K in today's dollars, I don't see how you come to $35K/year in estimated benefits.
Calculation:
.9*1115 + (5329.5-1115)*.32 = 2352.14
24% for delayed credits to age 70 = 564.51
Estimated Monthly benefit at 70 = 2916.65
12x for yearly benefits at 70 = 34,992
Let now of there is an error in my calculations.
It's not that difficult to get to $35k in benefits for an above-average earner. The maximum is currently $45k https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/examplemax.html
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
The current max at 70 is $54,660.Gecko10x wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 1:57 pmKeep in mind that $64k in 2023 dollars was only $20k in 1988.MathWizard wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 11:55 am OP,
By my calculations, using the bendpoints for 2023 (the newest available) I calculate that
you would need to have an average indexed monthly earnings of $5329.50 over your best 35 years,
which is an average annual indexed earnings of about $63,950K. Unless you started at age 11 earning
somewhere near $64K in today's dollars, I don't see how you come to $35K/year in estimated benefits.
Calculation:
.9*1115 + (5329.5-1115)*.32 = 2352.14
24% for delayed credits to age 70 = 564.51
Estimated Monthly benefit at 70 = 2916.65
12x for yearly benefits at 70 = 34,992
Let now of there is an error in my calculations.
It's not that difficult to get to $35k in benefits for an above-average earner. The maximum is currently $45k https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/examplemax.html
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
Correct... I was thinking FRA for this hypothetical person.. so I was looking at the 67 column.smitcat wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 2:06 pmThe current max at 70 is $54,660.Gecko10x wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 1:57 pmKeep in mind that $64k in 2023 dollars was only $20k in 1988.MathWizard wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 11:55 am OP,
By my calculations, using the bendpoints for 2023 (the newest available) I calculate that
you would need to have an average indexed monthly earnings of $5329.50 over your best 35 years,
which is an average annual indexed earnings of about $63,950K. Unless you started at age 11 earning
somewhere near $64K in today's dollars, I don't see how you come to $35K/year in estimated benefits.
Calculation:
.9*1115 + (5329.5-1115)*.32 = 2352.14
24% for delayed credits to age 70 = 564.51
Estimated Monthly benefit at 70 = 2916.65
12x for yearly benefits at 70 = 34,992
Let now of there is an error in my calculations.
It's not that difficult to get to $35k in benefits for an above-average earner. The maximum is currently $45k https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/examplemax.html
-
- Posts: 6560
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:35 pm
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
Yes, indexed earnings takes wage inflation into consideration.Gecko10x wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 1:57 pmKeep in mind that $64k in 2023 dollars was only $20k in 1988.MathWizard wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 11:55 am OP,
By my calculations, using the bendpoints for 2023 (the newest available) I calculate that
you would need to have an average indexed monthly earnings of $5329.50 over your best 35 years,
which is an average annual indexed earnings of about $63,950K. Unless you started at age 11 earning
somewhere near $64K in today's dollars, I don't see how you come to $35K/year in estimated benefits.
Calculation:
.9*1115 + (5329.5-1115)*.32 = 2352.14
24% for delayed credits to age 70 = 564.51
Estimated Monthly benefit at 70 = 2916.65
12x for yearly benefits at 70 = 34,992
Let now of there is an error in my calculations.
It's not that difficult to get to $35k in benefits for an above-average earner. The maximum is currently $45k https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/examplemax.html
But I doubt that OP earned the 2023 equivalent of an average $64K/year for 35 years
if retiring at age 46. (Did OP make $64K in current dollars when he was 11?)
randomguy makes a calculation based on 20 years, from ages 26 to 46, but then the average
indexed earnings had to be $120K/year ($10K/month). How many 26 year olds make $120K?
That is the point of my post. If OP really did that much money on average, good for him,
but I believe that is more likely that OP did not calculate correctly.
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
"randomguy makes a calculation based on 20 years, from ages 26 to 46, but then the averageMathWizard wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 3:24 pmYes, indexed earnings takes wage inflation into consideration.Gecko10x wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 1:57 pmKeep in mind that $64k in 2023 dollars was only $20k in 1988.MathWizard wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 11:55 am OP,
By my calculations, using the bendpoints for 2023 (the newest available) I calculate that
you would need to have an average indexed monthly earnings of $5329.50 over your best 35 years,
which is an average annual indexed earnings of about $63,950K. Unless you started at age 11 earning
somewhere near $64K in today's dollars, I don't see how you come to $35K/year in estimated benefits.
Calculation:
.9*1115 + (5329.5-1115)*.32 = 2352.14
24% for delayed credits to age 70 = 564.51
Estimated Monthly benefit at 70 = 2916.65
12x for yearly benefits at 70 = 34,992
Let now of there is an error in my calculations.
It's not that difficult to get to $35k in benefits for an above-average earner. The maximum is currently $45k https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/examplemax.html
But I doubt that OP earned the 2023 equivalent of an average $64K/year for 35 years
if retiring at age 46. (Did OP make $64K in current dollars when he was 11?)
randomguy makes a calculation based on 20 years, from ages 26 to 46, but then the average
indexed earnings had to be $120K/year ($10K/month). How many 26 year olds make $120K?
That is the point of my post. If OP really did that much money on average, good for him,
but I believe that is more likely that OP did not calculate correctly.
indexed earnings had to be $120K/year ($10K/month). How many 26 year olds make $120K?"
Which calculator are you using?
-
- Posts: 6560
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:35 pm
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
That is the max for a worker at age 70, who earned the max or more subject to SS for 35 years.Gecko10x wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 2:10 pmCorrect... I was thinking FRA for this hypothetical person.. so I was looking at the 67 column.smitcat wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 2:06 pmThe current max at 70 is $54,660.Gecko10x wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 1:57 pmKeep in mind that $64k in 2023 dollars was only $20k in 1988.MathWizard wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 11:55 am OP,
By my calculations, using the bendpoints for 2023 (the newest available) I calculate that
you would need to have an average indexed monthly earnings of $5329.50 over your best 35 years,
which is an average annual indexed earnings of about $63,950K. Unless you started at age 11 earning
somewhere near $64K in today's dollars, I don't see how you come to $35K/year in estimated benefits.
Calculation:
.9*1115 + (5329.5-1115)*.32 = 2352.14
24% for delayed credits to age 70 = 564.51
Estimated Monthly benefit at 70 = 2916.65
12x for yearly benefits at 70 = 34,992
Let now of there is an error in my calculations.
It's not that difficult to get to $35k in benefits for an above-average earner. The maximum is currently $45k https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/examplemax.html
If retiring at age 46, OP had not worked at max for 35 years. 46-35 = 11 years old.
35K is possible working for only 20 years, as randomguy calculated, but requires being on
the upper end of the pay scale starting from the first year.
Also, people making $120K/year are not typically ones who only spend $22,726 a year. (Such high wages are
typically only found in HCOL places, where $22K is insufficient to live.)
OP must be a very unique person. As such, I'm not sure how actionable this thread is.
If it is meant as example for others to follow, I doubt that it can apply to very many people.
If it is a post where OP is asking for a sanity check, then that is what I was suggesting, run the numbers again.
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
MathWizard wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 3:41 pmThat is the max for a worker at age 70, who earned the max or more subject to SS for 35 years.Gecko10x wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 2:10 pmCorrect... I was thinking FRA for this hypothetical person.. so I was looking at the 67 column.smitcat wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 2:06 pmThe current max at 70 is $54,660.Gecko10x wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 1:57 pmKeep in mind that $64k in 2023 dollars was only $20k in 1988.MathWizard wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 11:55 am OP,
By my calculations, using the bendpoints for 2023 (the newest available) I calculate that
you would need to have an average indexed monthly earnings of $5329.50 over your best 35 years,
which is an average annual indexed earnings of about $63,950K. Unless you started at age 11 earning
somewhere near $64K in today's dollars, I don't see how you come to $35K/year in estimated benefits.
Calculation:
.9*1115 + (5329.5-1115)*.32 = 2352.14
24% for delayed credits to age 70 = 564.51
Estimated Monthly benefit at 70 = 2916.65
12x for yearly benefits at 70 = 34,992
Let now of there is an error in my calculations.
It's not that difficult to get to $35k in benefits for an above-average earner. The maximum is currently $45k https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/examplemax.html
If retiring at age 46, OP had not worked at max for 35 years. 46-35 = 11 years old.
35K is possible working for only 20 years, as randomguy calculated, but requires being on
the upper end of the pay scale starting from the first year.
Also, people making $120K/year are not typically ones who only spend $22,726 a year. (Such high wages are
typically only found in HCOL places, where $22K is insufficient to live.)
OP must be a very unique person. As such, I'm not sure how actionable this thread is.
If it is meant as example for others to follow, I doubt that it can apply to very many people.
If it is a post where OP is asking for a sanity check, then that is what I was suggesting, run the numbers again.
"That is the max for a worker at age 70, who earned the max or more subject to SS for 35 years.
If retiring at age 46, OP had not worked at max for 35 years. 46-35 = 11 years old.
35K is possible working for only 20 years, as randomguy calculated, but requires being on
the upper end of the pay scale starting from the first year."
Use the SS quick calculator on their site.
Input 1982 birth year (41 current age, 22 year SS deductions)
input zero for current and future wage
input 200,000 for 2022 income
press calculate in today's dollars - results are $3,472/month at age 70 or $41,244 annually.
Optional to press - view the past salary history we used.
You get the taxable salary they use for each year, here are some samples from the run above for 22 years of SS deductions.
2000 - $8,100
2010 - $101,200
2020 - $137, 700
So you can work 22 years and make well under $200K the last year (and other years) and get over $40K at 70 based on the SS.gov site.
-
- Posts: 6560
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:35 pm
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
No calculator, working straight from the SS benefit formula. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/piaformula.htmlsmitcat wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 3:33 pm"randomguy makes a calculation based on 20 years, from ages 26 to 46, but then the averageMathWizard wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 3:24 pmYes, indexed earnings takes wage inflation into consideration.Gecko10x wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 1:57 pmKeep in mind that $64k in 2023 dollars was only $20k in 1988.MathWizard wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 11:55 am OP,
By my calculations, using the bendpoints for 2023 (the newest available) I calculate that
you would need to have an average indexed monthly earnings of $5329.50 over your best 35 years,
which is an average annual indexed earnings of about $63,950K. Unless you started at age 11 earning
somewhere near $64K in today's dollars, I don't see how you come to $35K/year in estimated benefits.
Calculation:
.9*1115 + (5329.5-1115)*.32 = 2352.14
24% for delayed credits to age 70 = 564.51
Estimated Monthly benefit at 70 = 2916.65
12x for yearly benefits at 70 = 34,992
Let now of there is an error in my calculations.
It's not that difficult to get to $35k in benefits for an above-average earner. The maximum is currently $45k https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/examplemax.html
But I doubt that OP earned the 2023 equivalent of an average $64K/year for 35 years
if retiring at age 46. (Did OP make $64K in current dollars when he was 11?)
randomguy makes a calculation based on 20 years, from ages 26 to 46, but then the average
indexed earnings had to be $120K/year ($10K/month). How many 26 year olds make $120K?
That is the point of my post. If OP really did that much money on average, good for him,
but I believe that is more likely that OP did not calculate correctly.
indexed earnings had to be $120K/year ($10K/month). How many 26 year olds make $120K?"
Which calculator are you using?
and using 8% deferred credits for the 3 years past 67 for a person born after 1960.
The calculation is in my post. It use the bendpoints ($1115 and $6721)for 2023. (Since bendpoints are indexed for inflation each year,
using 2023 bendpoints works for using current (2023) dollars.
I solved an equation to get that the AIME had to be approximately $5329 to work out to a $35K/year benefit at age 70 for someone born
after age 60 based on current law.
Using $5329 for an AIME, I showed that in my calculation.
This is an average indexed earning of about $64K over 35 years,
or an average indexed earning of $120K over 20 years and $0 for the rest of OP's working life,
which was randomguy's comment.
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
Use the SS sites quickcalculator above - it will give you the numbers.MathWizard wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 3:57 pmNo calculator, working straight from the SS benefit formula. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/piaformula.htmlsmitcat wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 3:33 pm"randomguy makes a calculation based on 20 years, from ages 26 to 46, but then the averageMathWizard wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 3:24 pmYes, indexed earnings takes wage inflation into consideration.Gecko10x wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 1:57 pmKeep in mind that $64k in 2023 dollars was only $20k in 1988.MathWizard wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 11:55 am OP,
By my calculations, using the bendpoints for 2023 (the newest available) I calculate that
you would need to have an average indexed monthly earnings of $5329.50 over your best 35 years,
which is an average annual indexed earnings of about $63,950K. Unless you started at age 11 earning
somewhere near $64K in today's dollars, I don't see how you come to $35K/year in estimated benefits.
Calculation:
.9*1115 + (5329.5-1115)*.32 = 2352.14
24% for delayed credits to age 70 = 564.51
Estimated Monthly benefit at 70 = 2916.65
12x for yearly benefits at 70 = 34,992
Let now of there is an error in my calculations.
It's not that difficult to get to $35k in benefits for an above-average earner. The maximum is currently $45k https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/examplemax.html
But I doubt that OP earned the 2023 equivalent of an average $64K/year for 35 years
if retiring at age 46. (Did OP make $64K in current dollars when he was 11?)
randomguy makes a calculation based on 20 years, from ages 26 to 46, but then the average
indexed earnings had to be $120K/year ($10K/month). How many 26 year olds make $120K?
That is the point of my post. If OP really did that much money on average, good for him,
but I believe that is more likely that OP did not calculate correctly.
indexed earnings had to be $120K/year ($10K/month). How many 26 year olds make $120K?"
Which calculator are you using?
and using 8% deferred credits for the 3 years past 67 for a person born after 1960.
The calculation is in my post. It use the bendpoints ($1115 and $6721)for 2023. (Since bendpoints are indexed for inflation each year,
using 2023 bendpoints works for using current (2023) dollars.
I solved an equation to get that the AIME had to be approximately $5329 to work out to a $35K/year benefit at age 70 for someone born
after age 60 based on current law.
Using $5329 for an AIME, I showed that in my calculation.
This is an average indexed earning of about $64K over 35 years,
or an average indexed earning of $120K over 20 years and $0 for the rest of OP's working life,
which was randomguy's comment.
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
It's not that hard.MathWizard wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 3:24 pm
But I doubt that OP earned the 2023 equivalent of an average $64K/year for 35 years
if retiring at age 46. (Did OP make $64K in current dollars when he was 11?)
randomguy makes a calculation based on 20 years, from ages 26 to 46, but then the average
indexed earnings had to be $120K/year ($10K/month). How many 26 year olds make $120K?
That is the point of my post. If OP really did that much money on average, good for him,
but I believe that is more likely that OP did not calculate correctly.
Let's assume they start working at 15 and only earn $5k/yr through college (age 22).
Starting at age 23, they make $40k, with a $1k increase each of the next two years.
Then at 26, they get a bump to $50k, again with $1k increases for the next few years.
At 30, another bump to $60k, now with $2k increases.
Now at 33, a big bump to $80k. This is an above-average earner after all.
Another bump to $100k at 36.
$120k at 38, and 140k at 41. (continued $2k increases between).
By 46, they earn $150k.
Add in three years of $0 (to fill out the top 35 years) brings average lifetime annual salary to $63,971.
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
If the OP moved up retirement to 55 and found a job with better work life balance, then their math would make more sense as social security would have more years at a higher income. I agree that the OP math is likely off.MathWizard wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 3:41 pmThat is the max for a worker at age 70, who earned the max or more subject to SS for 35 years.Gecko10x wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 2:10 pmCorrect... I was thinking FRA for this hypothetical person.. so I was looking at the 67 column.smitcat wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 2:06 pmThe current max at 70 is $54,660.Gecko10x wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 1:57 pmKeep in mind that $64k in 2023 dollars was only $20k in 1988.MathWizard wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 11:55 am OP,
By my calculations, using the bendpoints for 2023 (the newest available) I calculate that
you would need to have an average indexed monthly earnings of $5329.50 over your best 35 years,
which is an average annual indexed earnings of about $63,950K. Unless you started at age 11 earning
somewhere near $64K in today's dollars, I don't see how you come to $35K/year in estimated benefits.
Calculation:
.9*1115 + (5329.5-1115)*.32 = 2352.14
24% for delayed credits to age 70 = 564.51
Estimated Monthly benefit at 70 = 2916.65
12x for yearly benefits at 70 = 34,992
Let now of there is an error in my calculations.
It's not that difficult to get to $35k in benefits for an above-average earner. The maximum is currently $45k https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/examplemax.html
If retiring at age 46, OP had not worked at max for 35 years. 46-35 = 11 years old.
35K is possible working for only 20 years, as randomguy calculated, but requires being on
the upper end of the pay scale starting from the first year.
Also, people making $120K/year are not typically ones who only spend $22,726 a year. (Such high wages are
typically only found in HCOL places, where $22K is insufficient to live.)
OP must be a very unique person. As such, I'm not sure how actionable this thread is.
If it is meant as example for others to follow, I doubt that it can apply to very many people.
If it is a post where OP is asking for a sanity check, then that is what I was suggesting, run the numbers again.
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
A single person with no kids can live about as slim as they want to.
Buy a $5k van. Convert to a camper. Boondock all over the country.
I think your plan can work at 46, because you just lower your spending or sell the house early or take SS early or go back to work.
Good luck!
Buy a $5k van. Convert to a camper. Boondock all over the country.
I think your plan can work at 46, because you just lower your spending or sell the house early or take SS early or go back to work.
Good luck!
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
I know one person currently doing this and renting out their home. I know another that tried it for a couple of years and is now selling their conversion van. It’s not for everybody.bloom2708 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 4:37 pm A single person with no kids can live about as slim as they want to.
Buy a $5k van. Convert to a camper. Boondock all over the country.
I think your plan can work at 46, because you just lower your spending or sell the house early or take SS early or go back to work.
Good luck!
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
Yes. People seem to do it for a few years and then opt out. When single, you only have to agree with yourself and can change course on a whim.rockstar wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 4:46 pmI know one person currently doing this and renting out their home. I know another that tried it for a couple of years and is now selling their conversion van. It’s not for everybody.bloom2708 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 4:37 pm A single person with no kids can live about as slim as they want to.
Buy a $5k van. Convert to a camper. Boondock all over the country.
I think your plan can work at 46, because you just lower your spending or sell the house early or take SS early or go back to work.
Good luck!
- AerialWombat
- Posts: 3106
- Joined: Tue May 29, 2018 1:07 pm
- Location: Cashtown, Cashylvania
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
I lived in my car over four years (not by choice). It's definitely doable. A van would have felt like a palatial estate to me. I know one person that's lived in a van for almost 30 years, by choice, and he wouldn't have it any other way.rockstar wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 4:46 pmI know one person currently doing this and renting out their home. I know another that tried it for a couple of years and is now selling their conversion van. It’s not for everybody.bloom2708 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 4:37 pm A single person with no kids can live about as slim as they want to.
Buy a $5k van. Convert to a camper. Boondock all over the country.
I think your plan can work at 46, because you just lower your spending or sell the house early or take SS early or go back to work.
Good luck!
I'm single, no kids, retired at age 43 with only 15X liquid, but also with some rental properties that generate positive cash flow. Until 2020, when I semi-retired, I had been living on about what you are. I had zero qualms about fully retiring on that combination, even with a 30/70 stock/bond portfolio. I think your numbers are perfectly fine, but us FIRE adherents are a minority here on Bogleheads.
My only suggestion to you would be to do things to preserve your earning potential. Do whatever to stay current in your field. For example, I keep up on the bare minimum required continuing education necessary to keep my professional license active. I'm also slowly but surely working on an additional credential in my field, as one of my retirement projects. If the fecal matter hit the rotating airfoils, I would have no problem finding a job. Not a very good job, but I know I could get one, working from home, and it would be more than enough to pay the bills.
I'll have ACA subsidies kicking in next year, further reducing my cost of living. Mortgage is a 15-year, so that's gone long before SS. My SS will only be about $1200/mo if I wait until age 70, but that's adequate, as long as I keep at least one rental property to liquidate later in life or don't spend down the entire portfolio.
I think you'll be fine. You might want to listen to some shows like the ChooseFI podcast, and hang out on the r/leanfire sub-Reddit.
This post is a work of fiction. Any similarity to real financial advice is purely coincidental.
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
Great post.wolf359 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 11:07 amI may be a little more pessimistic than you.Patzer wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 1:30 pmYou don't buy the SPIA until you are 80, so what inflation happens between now and when I am 80 doesn't matter, because the source of the funds (the house) inflates with everything else).afan wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 1:14 pm Inflation?
How can you know now the rates decades in the future for an SPIA?
Assumes no unexpected expenses. Life can become costly in old age as ine may need to pay people for things now ine for oneself.
Social Security benefits will drop long before you start retirement unless the government does something. No way to know what, if any, action it will take. For now, do your calculations include the reduction inpayments under current law?
Life doesn't get more costly in old age. Look at any study on the topic. The rise in healthcare costs are more than offset by a decline in other spending. Spending beyond 80 dramatically falls and it only really increases in the last 1-2 years of life as you are dying.
Social Security's worst case scenario is a 75% payout. While my post assumes a 100% payout, because that's what is likely to happen, a 75% payout only adds about .5X to my needs. Since 22.4X would have survived the great depression with my AA, I don't need to add anything to my 23X to cover Social Security only paying out at 75%.
For planning purposes, you need to stress test your financial plan for the worst case scenarios. Your worst cases aren't "worst" enough.
Some thoughts to consider:
Note to moderators: To avoid discussing politics, I am going to speak in general terms based on logic and probabilities. Hopefully this is acceptable and stays within forum rules.
1) Social Security under current law is headed for a 75% payout. Because that's what will occur under current law, that is what I consider the most likely scenario. For any other outcome (better or worse than that), the law will have to change. Inaction is easier than action. The only possible changes to a closed system are to change the inputs, the outputs, or both. Stated more simply, it's a variant of increasing revenue or decreasing payouts. Ways that they might raise revenue are irrelevant to this discussion. Raising the retirement age is the equivalent of a decreased payout, because you're going to have to cover the additional years that you have to wait. You need to pay attention to the different proposals that are being bandied about, assign it a probability, and make sure your plan can handle that if it comes to pass.
2) Funding your SPIA is dependent on a single asset - your house. Although real estate in general will increase at the rate of inflation, your house is a specific property that is subject to individual risks. Those who had homes in the Detroit suburbs when the car industry crashed did not have their homes appreciate. Nor did the people who suddenly discovered that they were living on a future Superfund site (like Love Canal.) I suggest considering two sources of funding for that SPIA - Open up an IRA to keep the funds segregated, up to the amount allowed for a QLAC annuity. Then don't count those funds for the first phase of your retirement. You then have the option of funding the SPIA with funds that had been invested in the stock market, and/or funds that raised with a reverse mortgage.
3) Plan for "lumpy" predictable expenses. You own a home. The roof needs to be replaced every 30 years. Your water heater needs to be replaced every 10 years. Your car will be replaced several times during a long retirement. (And this doesn't even address long-term care.) If you pull the money from your retirement accounts, it counts as income, your tax costs go up, you might lose your ACA subsidy, or if you're on Medicare by then, your premiums go up. Does your plan address those events?
4) Plan for "lumpy" unpredictable expenses. When you're working, this is your emergency fund, which you then refill with new income (and perhaps stop saving for a while until it's replenished.) But when you're no longer working, you need a plan for big unexpected expenses. How are you handling unexpected expenses?
Some thoughts.
1) Planning for 75% at 70 or 100% at 72 seem like realistic stress test scenarios
2) I hear you, but my house is in a very desirable area that only keeps getting more desirable and there is no data to suggest a change in the winds. If anything, it's accelerating.
Houses in this area from 1990-2010 increase 4X and 2010-Present increased 3X.
I am already being very pessimistic by assuming the house will only match inflation.
3) I have a record of every expense back to December 2003 and I have done all the homework you suggest. Everything I have spent money on in the past 20 years is in the formula. Expenses like a new car every 8-10 years, new HVAC every 10 years, etc. are annualized into the budget.
4) A bit harder for obvious reasons is the unexpected, but that is why 10% of my budget is "Surplus". Years I don't spend it help years where I might exceed it.
There are certainly expenses that could blow it up beyond my expectations, like Cancer, but I am trying to cover the unexpected within reason.
So far (last 20 years of budgeting) I have only exceeded my budget in 2 years. So, I have a reasonable expectation going forward to not exceed my budget, but certainly no guarantees.
Curious if you have any specific expenses in mind.
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
All that matters is how much you have in your top 35 years:MathWizard wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 11:55 am OP,
By my calculations, using the bendpoints for 2023 (the newest available) I calculate that
you would need to have an average indexed monthly earnings of $5329.50 over your best 35 years,
which is an average annual indexed earnings of about $63,950K. Unless you started at age 11 earning
somewhere near $64K in today's dollars, I don't see how you come to $35K/year in estimated benefits.
Calculation:
.9*1115 + (5329.5-1115)*.32 = 2352.14
24% for delayed credits to age 70 = 564.51
Estimated Monthly benefit at 70 = 2916.65
12x for yearly benefits at 70 = 34,992
Let now of there is an error in my calculations.
64K x 35 years = 2.24M
112K x 20 years also equals 2.24M, even with 15 "0 years".
They yield the same amount of social security.
By the time I am 46 I will have worked for 29 years.
Some of those years, like 17-22, were only a few thousand a year, but my current income exceeds the social security maximum of 160,200 (for 2023).
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
Agreed on your calculations using the SS quick calculator.Gecko10x wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 4:01 pmIt's not that hard.MathWizard wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 3:24 pm
But I doubt that OP earned the 2023 equivalent of an average $64K/year for 35 years
if retiring at age 46. (Did OP make $64K in current dollars when he was 11?)
randomguy makes a calculation based on 20 years, from ages 26 to 46, but then the average
indexed earnings had to be $120K/year ($10K/month). How many 26 year olds make $120K?
That is the point of my post. If OP really did that much money on average, good for him,
but I believe that is more likely that OP did not calculate correctly.
Let's assume they start working at 15 and only earn $5k/yr through college (age 22).
Starting at age 23, they make $40k, with a $1k increase each of the next two years.
Then at 26, they get a b
ump to $50k, again with $1k increases for the next few years.
At 30, another bump to $60k, now with $2k increases.
Now at 33, a big bump to $80k. This is an above-average earner after all.
Another bump to $100k at 36.
$120k at 38, and 140k at 41. (continued $2k increases between).
By 46, they earn $150k.
Add in three years of $0 (to fill out the top 35 years) brings average lifetime annual salary to $63,971.
https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/quickcalc/
Another example here...
input birthyear 1980 (current age 43)
input current salary to 0 (retired)
input 2022 salary to $160K
Outputs from calculator are $3,301/mo. at 70 which is $39,612 annually.
Taxable salaries used by SS calculator for some sample years (calculator gives every year, these are samples)
$5,600 - 1998
$77,700 - 2008
$119,400 -2018
$147,000- 2022
-
- Posts: 6560
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:35 pm
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
Congratulations. You have done quite well for yourself.Patzer wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 5:33 pmAll that matters is how much you have in your top 35 years:MathWizard wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 11:55 am OP,
By my calculations, using the bendpoints for 2023 (the newest available) I calculate that
you would need to have an average indexed monthly earnings of $5329.50 over your best 35 years,
which is an average annual indexed earnings of about $63,950K. Unless you started at age 11 earning
somewhere near $64K in today's dollars, I don't see how you come to $35K/year in estimated benefits.
Calculation:
.9*1115 + (5329.5-1115)*.32 = 2352.14
24% for delayed credits to age 70 = 564.51
Estimated Monthly benefit at 70 = 2916.65
12x for yearly benefits at 70 = 34,992
Let now of there is an error in my calculations.
64K x 35 years = 2.24M
112K x 20 years also equals 2.24M, even with 15 "0 years".
They yield the same amount of social security.
By the time I am 46 I will have worked for 29 years.
Some of those years, like 17-22, were only a few thousand a year, but my current income exceeds the social security maximum of 160,200 (for 2023).
I am so used to applying a potential 25% reduction to estimated benefits that I am
subconsciously applying them in every case. If the reduction does not happen, we'll travel more.
The other factor is that beyond the 2nd bendpoint, extra average indexed income only increases the benefit by 15%
as opposed to the 32% between the 1st and 2nd, so the tradeoff of extra SS benefits vs. retirement for working additional years once you are past the 2nd bendpoint tilts more in favor of retirement.
Enjoy your retirement!
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
I have to be honest, I practically ignore SS. Not because I do not expect it to be there in the future. But I am expecting it to cover my taxes once SS and RMDs kick in. I will also admit that I never did the math to see what my taxes will be because that is 20 years from now and depends on so many factors: How much longer we will work part time, returns on investments, Roth conversions, etc. Way too many variables to figure out. Anything extra will be used for first class flights overseasMathWizard wrote: ↑Tue Mar 28, 2023 11:52 amCongratulations. You have done quite well for yourself.Patzer wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 5:33 pmAll that matters is how much you have in your top 35 years:MathWizard wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 11:55 am OP,
By my calculations, using the bendpoints for 2023 (the newest available) I calculate that
you would need to have an average indexed monthly earnings of $5329.50 over your best 35 years,
which is an average annual indexed earnings of about $63,950K. Unless you started at age 11 earning
somewhere near $64K in today's dollars, I don't see how you come to $35K/year in estimated benefits.
Calculation:
.9*1115 + (5329.5-1115)*.32 = 2352.14
24% for delayed credits to age 70 = 564.51
Estimated Monthly benefit at 70 = 2916.65
12x for yearly benefits at 70 = 34,992
Let now of there is an error in my calculations.
64K x 35 years = 2.24M
112K x 20 years also equals 2.24M, even with 15 "0 years".
They yield the same amount of social security.
By the time I am 46 I will have worked for 29 years.
Some of those years, like 17-22, were only a few thousand a year, but my current income exceeds the social security maximum of 160,200 (for 2023).
I am so used to applying a potential 25% reduction to estimated benefits that I am
subconsciously applying them in every case. If the reduction does not happen, we'll travel more.
The other factor is that beyond the 2nd bendpoint, extra average indexed income only increases the benefit by 15%
as opposed to the 32% between the 1st and 2nd, so the tradeoff of extra SS benefits vs. retirement for working additional years once you are past the 2nd bendpoint tilts more in favor of retirement.
Enjoy your retirement!
A time to EVALUATE your jitters: |
viewtopic.php?p=1139732#p1139732
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
I ran my own numbers. And I’m at $36k at 70 if I stopped working at the end of this year. I’m around the same age as OP. Math looks legit.
The unknown is the SPIA and healthcare costs and keeping up with inflation in the short term. I also have zero clue about future taxes or potential means testing.
My expenses almost match the OP except for my mortgage that currently adds on an additional $20k.
Seems like a good plan. But I still want to wait until 55 and revisit. I can potentially juice my SSA almost another $1k a month given how much social security went up year over year. That would maximize my second bend.
My current thought is to maximize the second bend and see where the unknowns sit. Will taxes go up in the next decade? If so, how much? When will inflation get back to pre pandemic levels? When will my car insurance stop going up so much?
The unknown is the SPIA and healthcare costs and keeping up with inflation in the short term. I also have zero clue about future taxes or potential means testing.
My expenses almost match the OP except for my mortgage that currently adds on an additional $20k.
Seems like a good plan. But I still want to wait until 55 and revisit. I can potentially juice my SSA almost another $1k a month given how much social security went up year over year. That would maximize my second bend.
My current thought is to maximize the second bend and see where the unknowns sit. Will taxes go up in the next decade? If so, how much? When will inflation get back to pre pandemic levels? When will my car insurance stop going up so much?
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
I too would like to see myself hitting the top of the second bend point. I think that ends up being about $41k/yr for SS. $41k covers our base non-discretionary expenses without a mortgage. $41k should cover car and home insurance, utilities, medicare premiums, groceries, property tax, even getting someone to take care of the lawn, a maid, and going out to dinner every so often. And that doesn't take into account SS from my spouse.rockstar wrote: ↑Tue Mar 28, 2023 1:15 pm I ran my own numbers. And I’m at $36k at 70 if I stopped working at the end of this year. I’m around the same age as OP. Math looks legit.
The unknown is the SPIA and healthcare costs and keeping up with inflation in the short term. I also have zero clue about future taxes or potential means testing.
My expenses almost match the OP except for my mortgage that currently adds on an additional $20k.
Seems like a good plan. But I still want to wait until 55 and revisit. I can potentially juice my SSA almost another $1k a month given how much social security went up year over year. That would maximize my second bend.
My current thought is to maximize the second bend and see where the unknowns sit. Will taxes go up in the next decade? If so, how much? When will inflation get back to pre pandemic levels? When will my car insurance stop going up so much?
My parents who have not reached the top of the second bend point are living very comfortably on just SS alone. That includes traveling and going out for dinner. Every few years they sell some assets for a new luxury car or some other big expense. It is amazing how inexpensive life can be when one has no debt, and too old for expensive hobbies like scuba diving which they used to do frequently when younger.
A time to EVALUATE your jitters: |
viewtopic.php?p=1139732#p1139732
-
- Posts: 847
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2022 5:16 am
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
From the Bogleheads agreement we all made when we joined:Patzer wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 1:33 pmIt's an investment theory post.
So I am positing a theory that longevity concerns are manageable and this forum's concerns about them are overstated.
Already, I see many folks making counterpoints to the theory. The goal is to have those discussions in an open and productive forum.
"It must be actionable. You must be able to do something specific with the replies that will make a difference in your situation."
Not saying this isn't interesting but wanted you, the OP to be aware of your agreement.
"When I was a kid my parents moved a lot, but I always found them." R. Dangerfield
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
I think this post has been very actionable to plenty of readers. There is plenty more to think about regarding withdrawal strategies than simply 25x if you’re 65 and 29x or 33x if you’re planing on early retirement.thedaybeforetoday wrote: ↑Tue Mar 28, 2023 3:55 pmFrom the Bogleheads agreement we all made when we joined:Patzer wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 1:33 pmIt's an investment theory post.
So I am positing a theory that longevity concerns are manageable and this forum's concerns about them are overstated.
Already, I see many folks making counterpoints to the theory. The goal is to have those discussions in an open and productive forum.
"It must be actionable. You must be able to do something specific with the replies that will make a difference in your situation."
Not saying this isn't interesting but wanted you, the OP to be aware of your agreement.
A time to EVALUATE your jitters: |
viewtopic.php?p=1139732#p1139732
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
I agree. More discussion about bridging early retirement and retiring with less than 25x should be discussed because both are possible. The strategies are the interesting part. How to make it work. Far more interesting then threads about potential retirement with 50x expenses or buying expensive vehicles.EnjoyIt wrote: ↑Tue Mar 28, 2023 5:39 pmI think this post has been very actionable to plenty of readers. There is plenty more to think about regarding withdrawal strategies than simply 25x if you’re 65 and 29x or 33x if you’re planing on early retirement.thedaybeforetoday wrote: ↑Tue Mar 28, 2023 3:55 pmFrom the Bogleheads agreement we all made when we joined:Patzer wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 1:33 pmIt's an investment theory post.
So I am positing a theory that longevity concerns are manageable and this forum's concerns about them are overstated.
Already, I see many folks making counterpoints to the theory. The goal is to have those discussions in an open and productive forum.
"It must be actionable. You must be able to do something specific with the replies that will make a difference in your situation."
Not saying this isn't interesting but wanted you, the OP to be aware of your agreement.
-
- Posts: 683
- Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2021 6:44 pm
- Location: Minnesota
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
+1.EnjoyIt wrote: ↑Tue Mar 28, 2023 5:39 pmI think this post has been very actionable to plenty of readers. There is plenty more to think about regarding withdrawal strategies than simply 25x if you’re 65 and 29x or 33x if you’re planing on early retirement.thedaybeforetoday wrote: ↑Tue Mar 28, 2023 3:55 pmFrom the Bogleheads agreement we all made when we joined:Patzer wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 1:33 pmIt's an investment theory post.
So I am positing a theory that longevity concerns are manageable and this forum's concerns about them are overstated.
Already, I see many folks making counterpoints to the theory. The goal is to have those discussions in an open and productive forum.
"It must be actionable. You must be able to do something specific with the replies that will make a difference in your situation."
Not saying this isn't interesting but wanted you, the OP to be aware of your agreement.
In addition... posts like this usually have an unspoken challenge to the forum members: Poke a hole in the OP's logic, if you can.
I've read all the comments. The OP's plan seems to stand up to scrutiny. There's a level of risk to any plan you come up with. But the OP seems to have remarkably low risk... despite the young age, long retirement horizon, and sub 25X in savings.
It gives me hope that I can retire in my 40s with a similar level of X saved.
--- Brian
-
- Posts: 4880
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:39 pm
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
I posit I’d be retired without kids and family to support
Who knows: it really is quite hard when kids costs are high and random! If you/op has stable expenses last few years, it seems you can launch into the promised land
Who knows: it really is quite hard when kids costs are high and random! If you/op has stable expenses last few years, it seems you can launch into the promised land
“At some point you are trading time you will never get back for money you will never spend.“ |
“How do you want to spend the best remaining year of your life?“
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
There has been plenty of actionable discourse on the thread.thedaybeforetoday wrote: ↑Tue Mar 28, 2023 3:55 pmFrom the Bogleheads agreement we all made when we joined:Patzer wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 1:33 pmIt's an investment theory post.
So I am positing a theory that longevity concerns are manageable and this forum's concerns about them are overstated.
Already, I see many folks making counterpoints to the theory. The goal is to have those discussions in an open and productive forum.
"It must be actionable. You must be able to do something specific with the replies that will make a difference in your situation."
Not saying this isn't interesting but wanted you, the OP to be aware of your agreement.
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
What if SS isn't there due to changes in laws?
Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X
I hate that argument.
1) In the history of the US, once the government giveth, the government almost never taketh away. It would be political suicide to even mention in passing the desire to cut SS.
2) I can also say, what if I get hit by a car and die?
Or, what if a tiger is loose when I go visit the zoo and it mauls my leg off? What if I win the lottery. What if I inherit $452,192 and 33 cents from my parents?
I think we can all come up with unlikely what ifs, but the reality is that we should work within the confines we are currently aware of and adjust when that rare and unlikely “what if” comes to reality and not the other way around. Otherwise, we will keep finding more and more “what ifs” to worry about and end up with a sub 2% withdrawal rate, which frankly is ridiculous.
A time to EVALUATE your jitters: |
viewtopic.php?p=1139732#p1139732