Could you retire on $1 million or less and no pension?

Free version of article here

I know several people who retired with less than $75k in savings, retirement, 401k etc. They just live off social security (and their relatives). It is a precarious existnece but plenty are in the same situation.

Thanks R1

We're screwed.

Seems like a nice problem to have. I have only ever knowingly met one millionaire in my entire life.

It's not really a lot to live off for your entire retirement though, r5.

These people are so well oiff compared to (probably) most retired people.

I feel so heartbroken and worried for them!

Um…yes. We should all be so lucky. This insane 401k scam has driven people to waste their lives trying to make sure they have at least $1 million. A vast majority don’t and won’t. Yet we perpetuate this fear that we’ll be homeless eating dog food if we don’t have AT LEAST $1 million. The more likely scenario is dying after working your ass off in a job you hate with people you dont like - and dying by 72 with hundred of thousands of dollars that you spent your prime years of life slaving away to save.

Live frugally - don’t waste your life in fear of not having $1 million. Most of us won’t. And we’ll probably be fine.

R6 tell me you're fucking rich without telling me you're fucking rich lol

What r9 said

Thank God I will have a pension when I retire!

Yes OP...I do, plus social security.

Exactly, R9.

Most articles suggest $1M or more, and are quite emphatic about it. Most of those articles are geared for straight families, perhaps both working, and with kids and college costs factored in. That's not everyone's world.

Going on 13 years, too...^^

I'm no where near $1M.

Thanks for the article OP. I used to live in Maine and know Houlton, it is a small town but the cost of living is cheaper than a big city for sure. It seems odd they maintain a 13 room house, since they only live in 2 rooms to save heat, wouldn't it make sense to downsize. Seems a bummer they panicked during the great recession and sold all their stocks at a loss. No way to recover. I was newbie investor and had just opened a Roth IRA in 2007. I admit it was scary watching the value decline, but i kept investing $100 month and the return has been over 60%. I just "set it and forget" my retirement contributions now. I'm old enough to worry but young enough that I have time to weather a downtown before retirement.

That's footballer transfer fee money. OP is insane if he thinks that's normal.

I’m still working at 58 and feel lucky to still be in the game. I hope I did the right financial things and when I retire I want to go out clean, not hustle or be a life coach or consultant.

I always hate these threads when people log on and say they have $2.6m in one fund and their husband $6m, a co-op and country house, bla bla…but they’re so worried. That feels like a corny humble brag.

I do think, generationally, we may inherit less on average. I love my parents and would be happy to have them outlive most of their assets. My siblings and I will be ok.

I do feel bad for so many friends my age who are broke and trying to get by hustling podcasts or tutoring and things like that, and struggling to manage even controlled rents in NYC. It’s a shitty time to be broke (not that it has ever been easy). But it’s easy to think others have more than they really do, because we show our best selves to each other. I am always moved when a friend shares what they struggle with honestly.

I have friends who attend a lot of posh social events, but (very discreetly) get healthcare through Medicaid because it’s income-based and they don’t earn (or declare) even modest wages, so they qualify. Some have rental assistance and emergency waivers. It’s actually really interesting what social supports there are for people. Some of my brokest friends actually look the most prosperous. And some of my really loaded friends look pretty plain (drive older cars, own small homes, keep a lot of “dry powder” liquid assets different accounts here and there, and use cheaper cellphones, things like that). Money doesn’t mean status to me, but it does present some security and freedom. I really want to stay independent later in life, so I’m pretty careful. Everyone is different.

Other factors are relevant. Owning your home where you want to settle when you retire matters. Other things include making major repairs and replacements before you retire. Things like replacing your roof and replacing your car. That brings your annual requirements down significantly. That first couple in Maine discussed in the article made several mistakes like this. Keep in mind that if it costs you $50K/year to live, and your funds experience no great gains or losses, that will only last you roughly 20 years.

I need to find someone to sell me some fentanyl, as I will never be able to save a million dollars before I retire. I will have to recreate the Soylent Green scene with Edward G Robinson. I am sure I won't be the only Gen Xer with that retirement plan.

*I am not happy about this, you understand, but it is how it is.

My partner swears we need $6 million to retire - $3 million from each.

Won’t happen from me.

R22, that is *hilarious*. Is your partner self-centered or no? I just feel like that’s a red flag, but don’t feel bad, I have my own marital problems myself lolol.

I am retired and living well on so much less. The secret is to live in a place with low housing costs.

R22, he’s not actually. He’s cheap as fuck. But his folks had money. I had student loans. He got a house down payment from grandma. I saved mine up after paying off my student loans.

I tell him if he has $3 million when we retire, great. But I’ll have what I have and it’ll be enough.

Pay off your mortgage and living off social security is doable, especially for a dual income household. If you don't have a partner, find a housemate to share expenses.

Interesting article, but to me not for what the author intended. I look at what some of these people spend their money on and I am shocked. 400 dollars a month to the church...are you kidding me? 1000 dollars in groceries? My parents are fine in retirement and both have huge savings...they live a great life. They both have said that after retiring, both in their mid 70's that they don't spend nearly as much as when they were younger. They still travel and still eat out, but for some reason they don't have huge expenses. One thing I have learned is that when someone tells you to not start collecting your SS until a certain time because it will increase, don't listen to them. The amount of the increase is not that much and if you are still working, take the SS check and invest it...don't touch it till you retire. Both my parents took that advice from some accountant and it is wrong.

R27, I’m very curious about your comments re: Social Security. I have been getting so much conflicting advice from friends, family, websites and I have no idea who’s steering me in the right direction. I’ve never been terribly savvy about money but I want to do the right thing.

Apparently, in six months I’ll qualify for my maximum SS benefit. But if I begin collecting then, I may be subject to some sort of penalty if I continue working? Whereas if I wait another four years, there’ll be no such penalty? It’s all very confusing and I don’t find much help at the official SS site.

Don’t you just need $6m to spend on cruises and shit?

Of course it all depends on where you live. " Oh I don't have enough money to retire. I'm afraid I will be bankrupt and thrown on the streets. I live in Manhattan." Move.

Does the $1 million mean liquid assets or does it include real estate? I’m on my phone and can’t read the article tonight. Many people own homes that will be paid off by the time they retire. However, property taxes will still be a hefty expense. How does property play into retirement?

[R28] You are eligible to begin taking Social Security as early as age 62. The amount you can collect continues to increase until age 70 if you delay collecting. What is called "full Social Security" is age 67 for all people born in 1960 or later. The amount you can collect will still increase, up to age 70, if you delay. At "full Social Security" age you can make all of the money you want and keep all of your Social Security benefits. Prior to that age, they deduct $1 from your benefits for each $2 you earn above $21,240 (single filer) for 2023. For most people, it probably makes sense to delay taking Social Security if still working (up to age 70 max). If you have retired, it makes sense to go ahead and collect. After age 70, Social Security benefits do not increase for anyone.

r27-just googled your question, it looks like if you start collecting at 67, and still work, you don't get a penalty. My parents both worked till they were well into their 70s, not because they had too, but because they liked working. I would do your research before you start collecting, and I would not listen to anyone other than a real professional and ask lots of questions. Also make sure you check your insurance, so many people think that once they retire and start receiving Medicare, they don't need insurance, big wrong and big mistake. You will need an additional policy.

Get a good education that enables you to get a job with good pay. Live on one third of your income, save a third, and pay down school loans with the remaining third. Don't rely on 401ks, pension programs, or even Social Security to provide a retirement free from worrying about money. Save what money you can, diversify your income streams however possible, and buy a property or condo with manageable yearly taxes and fees. Also, take care of your body so you don't piss it all away on healthcare.

I am taking social security at 62. It covers my basic expenses: food, gas, utilities, taxes, cable, etc.

I receive a tiny pension that will be at full strength once I hit Medicare age (I'm paying for my so-so retiree health insurance from my pension until then.) To supplement, I withdraw various amounts from my modest brokerage account.

Some of my confusion and contradictory opinions result from the brokerage account, Vanguard. Their Monte Carlo projection method has me being in good shape, even if I were to withdraw a monthly amount equal to my monthly household expenses. Some expert friends suggest taking it out and living life because Vanguard has done the math for me. Other expert friends suggest leaving the account alone, and to pay for any extras with my occasional part-time income. I don't think it's enough income, frankly, and I'm inclined to take smaller amounts out of my account. My thinking, I guess, is to have a little bit of fun now while I am still physically able rather than spend it all in the future for medical bills.

Most of us on this thread, I suspect, are ruled by our parents or grandparents Great Depression experiences, and by extension, have shaped us as well.

I took early retirement because I had no mortgage or other debts. I've done ok despite not having $1M.

R35: Do the math yourself. Also forget the "advice" from Vanguyard and your friends and look at the assumptions they make----e.g., do they take into account the likelihood that your health care costs will rise with age? how do they treat volatility in the stock market or other investments? do they take into account the need to make big ticket purchases from time to time---new HVAC, new appliances, a new car?

Do the math, period. A million 2023 dollars will be worth a helluva lot less than a million dollars 30 or 40 years from now. F’rinstance, a dollar today buys about a third of what it bought in 1983 given the average annual inflation rate of about 2.8% since then. Add to that dispiriting news that healthcare costs almost inevitably increase with age, meaning you’ll need more of that money that’ll be worth less than it is today to pay for meds and docs and insurance.

That’s offset, hopefully, by continuing to save and having those savings grow tax-free at a rate greater than inflation. The value of the stock market using the Standard and Poor’s 500 Index (stocks of the 500 largest listed companies in the US) over those same 40 years has exceeded 11% annually, meaning an annual increase in real terms of more than 8% each year. Past performance is no guarantee of future gains, sure, but unless you can find a better, legal way to make money, what are the alternatives to saving and investing?

Rich or poor, retirement can be so dark and lonely unless you know yourself well enough to put yourself in the best environment for this phase of life. I keep a list in my head of the things and people that I’d want to be near when I retire, and I should be ok (touch wood) financially. I’m more careful now with my health because (many people posting to this thread above accurately point out) healthcare is the big trap door we can fall through. I stay in a healthy weight range and take really good care of my teeth because I see friends struggle to pay for periodontal care, implants, crowns out of pocket.

It freaks me out to see people go through multiple knee replacements and lose mobility too early in life, so I don’t punish my body or my systems . If I drank or smoked or overate or overspent and THEN had health and financial trouble, I would feel pretty bad about it. If these problems come to me in 20 or 30 years, at least I might know that I didn’t bring them on myself or make them worse but being impulsive or reckless during my “peak” years.

Anything could happen to anyone at any time, so I try to keep ahead of the risk that I can manage, and do what I can for myself (and sometimes others) while I have the conditions in life to do that. I try not to fuck up important things (get fired, go broke, hurt myself needlessly) if I can help it. So far, so good. I also try to learn from my friends’ mistakes.

Why is retirement in the richest country in history such a complicated mess? You have to be an expert in investment performance. You have to save a shitload for a long time. You have to avoid health issues and dementia. You can’t opt for euthanasia.

Why? Because a small group are making a shitload of money from our healthcare system, stock market, and labor market. We put up with this because the ruling class has trained the electorate to squelch any action that hints of “socialism.”

Even the French can’t win, and they are willing to riot.

The French benefits are far more generous, rely less on individual contributions, and start at 62 (soon to be 64). We get the short end of the stick.

God that article was depressing as hell!

What magic do you think SHOULD happen, R39, to allow everyone to retire mid 60s in blissful peace? In most countries you're lucky to retire at all. Most people work until they drop dead.

Saving a lot of money for a long time is exactly how you do it. It isn't magic, it's hard work and having the willpower to be diligent.

Of course I could retire and live comfortably on that. I am not a fool.

Most evidence says people have been doing fine with less than $1 million. Which is necessary because most have less than $65,000 - so no one is even coming close to this joke/scare tactic of a “minimum” perpetuated by number crunchers and financial advisors (who make money on you saving more).

Yes - not even the $200,000 “average” retirement account for 60 year olds is a real indicator of how much people have before retirement - because it includes the top 1-5% with $2 million +. (Median is the number of people with 1/2 above and 1/2 below that amount, vs the total everyone has divided by the total people).

Sure it’s nice to have more and worry less - but this constant social feeding of paranoia to the masses about the $1 million minimum is disgusting, cruel - and counterproductive. We should be saying live more frugally - instead we say save a ton, spend a ton, and keep working to the day you drop dead at your desk. After which everyone who you spend the majority of your day with - aka, coworkers - will quickly forget about “that guy” who worked here.

One million is $50,000 year for 20 years not including any interest.

If you have social security you'd live better but except for needing money for living assistance as you get very old (which can eat up a lot), the kind of things people spend money on when younger is usually just not part of your lifestyle anymore as you age. That makes it easier to live on less.

Obviously if you live to 100 you're fucked. LOL!

Unless you’ve annuitized some of your $1m….

Great post, R45, and others.

Of course, your region is a very significant factor as well. I'd simply perish if I lived in NYC or CA. My money would run out so fast. I've also seen those stats about how little most people have saved, be it median or average. Of course, we've all heard about the emergency $1,000 or even $400 most people would be hard pressed to come up with in an emergency.

Doesn't it seem to come down to being as frugal as you can. For me, it's trying to find the balance of living a pleasant life, enjoying it without spending like a drunken sailor, and watching my pennies. I've recently been watching various "frugal lifestyle" type youtube videos, and I don't know if I really want to go that route. I don't want to be the sort who lives on beans and rice, and using only free online entertainment sites. If you want to live in such an extreme fashion, more power to you, I guess, but that seems like such a depressing drain. I want some middle ground.

R48: “ I don't want to be the sort who lives on beans and rice, and using only free online entertainment sites.”

I LOVE beans and rice - add some bacon fat and chicken stock.

And as I hit my 50s, I find that I would rather just put Pluto on and scroll channels like I did back in the day. I would rather just stumble on something and watch it Dash commercials and all.

No offense to beans and rice, R49, and I love my oldies too.

The deciding factor on whether you get more money in total taking social security late or early is your age when you die. If you have a good sense of your likely life expectancy it will simplify the decision.

Making your livelihood depend on an accurate prediction of when you are going to die at 60 to 65 is an absurd exercise in sadism.

Individuals should not have to bear this risk alone. It should be distributed across public or private pools. But to do so, individuals would have to give up some of their fantasies of wealth and riches in addition to forgoing some money.

This is America. Guess which choice we made.

This ^^

After comparing the retirements of relatives of various means, including their nursing home and end of life experiences, and taking into account inflation, my age (40) and circumstances (married), I'd want more than $1 million if I didn't have a pension.

I'm not concerned as much about material things as I am about preserving my dignity, and that of any surviving spouse, as we age, particularly if one of us develops dementia. Should the US undergo a startling and overdue societal transformation in the coming years, and make quality healthcare more affordable for the elderly and infirm, I'll happily revisit the math.

[quote] I always hate these threads when people log on and say they have $2.6m in one fund and their husband $6m, a co-op and country house, bla bla…but they’re so worried. That feels like a corny humble brag.

Humblebrag would be a compliment. In all likeliness they have none of those thing, and some of them might even *think* they do nevertheless.

Don’t forget long term care insurance. You are more likely to need care rather than dropping dead. I’m almost 55 and about to get a policy to lock in my rates.

[quote]Don’t forget long term care insurance. You are more likely to need care rather than dropping dead. I’m almost 55 and about to get a policy to lock in my rates.

And if you plan to have a long-term partner and/or children, get as much term life insurance as you can while you're healthy (and it's dirt cheap). A serious diagnosis early in life disqualified me from most coverage, including long-term care insurance. If things had gone differently, I'd have a lower targeted savings amount.

Going to be 63 here and freelance and still enjoy my work. I’ve been thinking about this for a long time. What will retirement look like. I probably have enough saved but no great desire to move somewhere else. I’m thinking I might keep going on this way, working, but with a little less hustle until the business really slows down or something obvious requires a change.

As much as money is a concern, how and what you do with your time is important to have a vision for. I don’t, except to keep working, but to try to tone down the stress. Being older, I’ve seen the arc of my career rise and then slowly settle, as it does for almost everyone. I’m getting used to it.

Long-term care insurance is such a scam. If the company doesn’t go out of business - as many already have - they will do all they can to avoid paying your claims.

Health insurance is a good idea: everybody gets sick. Life insurance (up to a point) is a good idea if you want to leave some money when you die: everybody dies.

Less than 3% of the elderly ever need to be in a nursing home. Why would anyone beggar themselves now to pay premiums for something it’s extremely unlikely they’ll ever use?

I hope as we age, more options for care and services will continue to appear. I will also have to stay technologically fluent to be able to order things I need online and book tickets for travel, things like that.

More cheap housing would be nice too.

For some people saving into a pension is a luxury they can't afford. If you're living pay cheque to pay cheque month by month, you're not going to see a pension as a priority.

[quote]Don’t forget long term care insurance. You are more likely to need care rather than dropping dead. I’m almost 55 and about to get a policy to lock in my rates.

Several of my elderly relatives paid for long term care insurance for decades but they had to give it up in their 70s because the insurance cos. kept raising the monthly premiums and it became prohibitively expensive.

My Dad never made more than probably $40k when he retired at 59. He had to give 1/2 his pension to his ex in their divorce and did that before he was 59 1/2 (by about 2 months) and paid a penalty for that. Anyway, he's 87, was in relatively good health until lately, lives in a senior living apartment by himself and is doing very well on his pension and SS. I'm going to somewhat model my life on his. He didn't spend wildly or live wildly and took care of himself. Unfortunately, he has been diagnosed with kidney cancer and atria fibrillation but is ready to go when his time comes.

My dad died at 81, leaving us to discover that my 79 year old mom is well into dementia. She has a good chunk of money and income, but not enough for 10 or more years in memory care. It’s incredibly difficult.

Dementia is not really covered by Medicare. How many of you have $120k a year to spare? For 15 years?

R63 Very true. It's the same with life insurance. I used to work for an insurer and once customers reached a certain age, the system would send out yearly letters telling customers they either needed to increase their premium to keep the same level of cover, or reduce the cover and keep the premium the same.

I remember one time we had an angry customer on the phone because we'd sent an auto letter asking him to increase his premium from around £80 a month to over £600 a month. He assumed it was a mistake, but it was correct, due to his age. Crazy.

Before buying long-term care insurance look carefully at precisely what triggers benefits and how and when premiums can be raised.

My general impression is that long-term care insurance is a lot like travel insurance: the concept is real attractive but once you read the fine print you realize it's not a good deal after all.

Long-term care insurance was, in previous decades, often a great buy. Now that healthcare costs are out of control and Americans are living longer, but with more chronic conditions, it's harder to find anything equivalent to those policies.

Most seniors in small towns live comfortably on just social security and they seem quite happy. It's people who live in cities and expensive areas that have this idea that you need millions of dollars in your older years. I grew up in a small town and the older people seemed much happier and content than the ones I see in cities now.

I don't understand why some old people have the desire to live a grand lifestyle after a certain age. You should have gotten that out of your system when you were younger, hotter and had the energy. Material things shouldn't matter to you after a certain age.

R69, let’s drop the piety. The revenue from high cost areas is subsidizing the happy retirements in low cost small towns. It’s the same with welfare, disability, and unemployment. Those benefits are helpful because they civet living expenses in small towns. If those benefits were indexed to the cost of living, that small town happiness would dry up.

R69 You don't have the money to live that grand lifestyle when you're younger, you can only dream. Then when you retire and have the nest egg to enjoy some luxuries you don't need them anymore.

i wouldn’t plan on leaning too hard on your fabulous, rent controlled NYC apartment as a retirement plan… landlords are being cunning about getting around it.

The little old lady I lived with had her building’s front entrance gutted and lined with three different colored marble the five years I lived with her. The landlord bills it as an expense to gradually drive up her and all the other fixed rent apartments up.

I posted this on another thread, but the idea that you need $1M is ridiculous. My parents (recently) retired with about $450K. Both receive SS benefits.

They aren't traveling the world, or doing anything "fancy", but honestly, I don't know if they could if they wanted to. They are more or less fine, but navigating a trip like flying to London would be tough (all the walking/changing planes).

They do just fine. The only thing I really worry about is unexpected major expenses (like what if they have to replace the roof or something).

They bitch about the hoops, but the Medicare Part C plans are a lifesaver cost wise.

A lot of peanut butter & jelly & coffee & tea

[quote]Pay off your mortgage and living off social security is doable, especially for a dual income household. If you don't have a partner, find a housemate to share expenses.

I should have added, my parents have NO debt. This was huge. The house was paid off before they retired.

With a steady diet of 9 Lives anyone can.

The general rule is that one should only take out 4% of savings each year to assure the retirement savings lasts 20-30 years.

With $1 million in savings, one should only tale out $40,000 per year. So, no, $1 million is not alot of savings for retirement

If one's house and car are paid off, $1 million can be enough. Estimates are that, even with Medicare, people will have about $200,000 in medical expenses in retirement.

One of the best things you can do, is buy a cheaper house in a cheaper area.

Do a Golden Girls House. Split the expenses, the house work, the cooking, and someone around when you need the. Three bedrooms and 3.5 baths with a few different lounging spaces.

This is the first time I heard you have to be a millionaire to retire. Maybe I'll just move to Mexico to be one.

[quote]The general rule is that one should only take out 4% of savings each year to assure the retirement savings lasts 20-30 years.

Pfft

[quote]Women’s life expectancy was 79 years in the U.S. in 2021, while men’s was about 73, according to CDC data.

Now of course, this is average, and there will be exceptions, but to worry about a 30 year retirement is ridiculous.

I’m 63 and retired 11 years ago. I’ve found the older I get I spend less on crap, The things that I used to spend much of my money on when working, like too many clothes, bars, restaurants and stuff, hold little interest for me now. I really don’t like busy crowded places like bars these days, I easily find people annoying so I like to stay home more. I still take regular vacations, but like many people I now find the whole shitty flying experience stressful.

I live in London and own my apartment outright. Living in a city actually makes senses when you are older. I have fantastic public transport so have never owned a car, tons of supermarkets, stores, a library etc all close by. If you live most places in the uk you need a car as public transport is dismal. You have to travel to maybe the only supermarket anywhere near you.

I am not frugal but I have always tried to live below my means. If you are still alive at 80 you won’t be doing too much, your days will mostly consist of a series of naps. Most of use on here are single childless eldergays, and our hard earned money will likely go to nephews and nieces. If we live to be old and infirm, will any of them ring us to see how we are, offer any assistance? I bet to most of them we are just the ‘funny uncle’ who never married. They will only become really interested once they get the phone call that we are dead, wanting to know if they are in the will.

We need to remind ourselves of this occasionally.

[quote]Now of course, this is average, and there will be exceptions, but to worry about a 30 year retirement is ridiculous.

No one can predict if they're going to live to 90 or not. Lifespans are lengthening so this isn't so far fetched.

Also, we tend to spend far more than we should in the first few years after retirement, more than the 4% recommended. This, they should spend far less than 4% with the remaining money to live a long while.

I'm hoping to travel more during retirement but if we should only spend so much, I have to save far more to keep traveling.

Retirement is all about expenses. You just need to be bringing in enough money to cover your expenses. The maximum social security benefit a retiree could get today is $3627 a month. That means that if your monthly expenses are less than $3627 a month, you could potentially retire without even having a penny saved in a separate retirement account. Since the biggest expense people have is their mortgage, paying off your house will dramatically reduce your monthly expenses. My point is most of us will be just fine, maybe not comfortable or affluent, but fine.

I make a little over $100k annually and live quite comfortably, but have accumulated over a $1.3m in 401k + Roth IRA + HSA, and another $300k in other savings. Instead of asking if people should save $1m, the question should be, why wouldn’t you? Unless you are dirt poor, why not save and not spend every cent you make so that you have some cushion when you retire? I expect to work at least another 7 years before retiring and hope to have $2m when I retire.

Oh, R21, I was so staggered by that scene when I saw it all those years ago. Leaving whatever else the movie had to say aside (because I don’t remember anything else about it), it seems so merciful to let people choose their own time and manner of death like that.

I have an inkling that getting through the paperwork would be a lot more onerous than it’s shown there, but as shown the process allows him his dignity and relieves him of whatever pain he was in. No one questions his ability and right to choose as he did.

And the attendants’ job looks relatively cushy, too. Don your scrupulously clean robe, mix up the potion, help the client disrobe, push a button, and leave. Return to collect the corpse and laundry? Maybe. Not too rough.

Real life would no doubt include people who had second thoughts after they’d passed the point of no return, and some would want to talk or have their hands held or bring a friend, but I truly would prefer to go that way when the ratio of pain to pleasure had tipped irrevocably. And I would NOT want to have to listen to anyone try to talk me out of it.

Accept my decision and distribute my stuff!

R86, exactly! I mean, what is wrong with people? I just don’t get it. Why not just go ahead and save $3 million or $4 million? The other thing I don’t get is why do people bother with the mess of applying and being approved for mortgages? They should open up their checkbooks and simply write a check when buying a house.

R85 You also have to add in unexpected medical, dental and drug bills (Medicare doesn't pay everything) along with long-term care if you have a stroke, dementia etc. These are big numbers.

Have you ever seen the sort of place you'll end up if Medicaid pays for your final resting place?

Unfortunately, Walmart has discontinued its store greeters programs

I've been doing it for 12 years now, but I don't think I could do it living on the coasts, I live in the midwest. I have about $500,000 in various types of savings and have never touched a dime of it or any of the earnings. I live off social security only, the house built in 2005 is paid off as is my vehicle. I don't travel not because I can't afford to, I just don't want to. I don't deny myself anything I really want but I don't buy much crap I really don't need.

R82 There's a reason you'll start getting Christmas cards from those nieces and nephews once you're in your 80s.

“let’s drop the piety. The revenue from high cost areas is subsidizing the happy retirements in low cost small towns”

The deindustrialized small towns of United States are still waiting for this money, because the big business people in the high cost areas fucked over the working class.

Also, fuck Wall Street and New York banks.

I plan my retirement on running a home for wayward boys and selling the video feed on Onlyfans… I have a kind face and a closet safe in case I land a thief or two.

One tip I took seriously is to steer clear of variable payments and really try to make all outgoing costs the same every month so you can budget better. We will likely have the condo paid off but it’s the ever increasing HOA fee that got me on the board to try to tackle the cost down.

There’s always busking for dollars

Dead cities like Buffalo and Rochester should try either to become more gay friendly or elderly friendly to revitalize.

The big problem is they’re cold as fuck

Then we can all cozy up in a pig pile!

[quote]I always hate these threads when people log on and say they have $2.6m in one fund and their husband $6m, a co-op and country house, bla bla…but they’re so worried.

They are all over DL. The 63 year old who is planning to work until 70 to max out his Social Security income - when he and his husband each have millions in liquid assets, millions more each in multiple residences and investment properties, and each expects substantial inheritances. But that extra $400 a month is the deciding factor that makes them feel secure about their financial health in retirement.

FFS, unload some real estate and relax and hope to live long enough to do something that doesn't involve a dark cloud of worry.

Yes, at times it seems like I am the only one on DL without a million in the bank.

Many retirees who own their homes are often literally taxed right out of it. Shameful.

[quote]Yes, at times it seems like I am the only one on DL without a million in the bank.

There are plenty of people on DL who have made bad decisions and spent their money instead of saving it. You are not alone.

Yes, unless you live in California with its property tax cap, inflation over 20-30 years in retirement can make taxes on your home pretty extraordinary.

I make $40,000 a year. I have a Bachelors Degree and hoping to start my masters next year.

I’m 35 years old. I’m a glorified receptionist with no romantic prospects or savings to speak of. Not only am I paycheck to paycheck, but I also usually am $500 in credit card debt each month.

I realize this is off-topic, but an above poster discussed taking Medicare Advantage (Plan C). Stay away from that scam. Stick with traditional Medicare and Plan G Medicare Supplement which pays for everything except the annual part B deductible (which is $226 this year). You should be able to get Plan G for $200 a month or less.

Plan C might seem like a good deal since it has lower or zero premiums and addtional benefits, but don't be fooled. Look at the potential annual out-of-pocket amount on the policy. Everything is fine...until you get sick with any chronic condition. Then, not only are you going to be stuck paying all the way to the OOP maximum, you won't be able to switch companies and go back to traditional Medicare and Medicare Supplement. All of the Medicare Supplement sellers can reject you based on health conditions except for when you sign up at your initial enrollment opportunity. Of course, you also have limited networks to deal with in Plan C which means you can't even travel within the United States and receive non-emergency care outside of the network without paying a ton for it.

r104, my mother had Medicare Advantage. She had many trips both to the ER and to regular doctor office visits in the last year of her life, all "out-of-state". Her Medicare Advantage plan was a Blue Cross plan with a nationwide network and there was no difference between coverage in-state or out-of-state. Reaching the low out-of-pocket maximum was great, because 100% of medical bills after that were paid for during the calendar year. Her Medicare Advantage coverage was better than my employer sponsored health insurance, and I have pretty good insurance.

[quote]until you get sick with any chronic condition. Then, not only are you going to be stuck paying all the way to the OOP maximum, you won't be able to switch companies and go back to traditional Medicare and Medicare Supplement

You realize that regular Medicare has NO out of pocket max right?

You will be paying that 20% all year even if it reaches $20K.

Regular Medicare also does not cover drugs. That is extra (Part D).

Medicare Advantage is managed care. Like any managed care plan that means you'll be limited to a panel of providers who can't touch a hangnail without getting authorization first.

By all means stick to traditional Medicare, which works like old-fashioned health insurance: providers just go ahead and in good faith do what they think is medically necessary. That is, it's your doctor managing your care, not some insurance company bureaucrat you'll never see.

It's possible if you:

- had already paid off your longtime home (so, lower property taxes)

- hit the society security income cap for 25 years of working (so were making between $100K-180K over those years), so are likely receiving close to the maximum social security benefit (if you retire at full retirement age in 2023, your maximum benefit would be $3,627).

It would be even easier if had a partner who is also receiving some social security benefits. "They" say you can probably safely withdrawn 4% with acceptable risk of not outliving your money. That's another $3333. There is some danger that you'd end up owing taxes, but it would likely be minimal.

Most people can live on $7K per month relatively comfortably.

If you had an extra $300,000 - $400,000, would you use it for the 20% on an 80/20 mortgage for a vacation home (that you could enjoy and possibly rent out for some extra income) or would you invest it? I think buying a vacation home is better because you enjoy the money. Obviously there are a ton of expenses, but hopefully it appreciates enough to make it worth it in the end. Any thoughts?

[quote]If you had an extra $300,000 - $400,000, would you use it for the 20% on an 80/20 mortgage for a vacation home (that you could enjoy and possibly rent out for some extra income) or would you invest it? I think buying a vacation home is better because you enjoy the money. Obviously there are a ton of expenses, but hopefully it appreciates enough to make it worth it in the end. Any thoughts?

The answer to the question comes down to the overall mix of assets in your portfolio, first and foremost. Then, the issues about ongoing income from potential rental and additional costs, including the single most important one of Opportunity Costs come into play.

Personal Utility and pleasure you might get from the house either becomes the first or last consideration. You have to decide whether you're making a financial decision with a personal component or a personal decision with a financial component.

You can, in fact, put a nominal value on the personal utility. In a very simplified example, let's say over some period of time, all the income (net of expenses) from the home (including mortgage, interest, property taxes, maintenance, income taxes) plus gain on sale result in a 15% gain. The market returns are 40% (S&P 500 5 Year Return is at 46.29%) - setting aside necessary calculations for time value of money and present value of both sets of returns - the difference is 25%, or the value you have implicity ascribed to your personal utility. Obviously, the actual calculation is a bit more involved, but you get the idea.

R110, just fucking tell me where to put my money!

[quote][R110], just fucking tell me where to put my money!

Based on that response, you should put it in a CD and pray.

Your lack of financial acumen or willingness to understand that it is, in fact, somewhat complex, is why people fall for all sorts of financial scams and make poor financial decisions, then cry and blame "Wall Street" and some nebulous corporate villains when they lose their money on poorly conceived get rich quick schemes.

I was kidding. But where would you put your money? Index fund? CDs. An annuity?

I have a modest pension and my Social Security. I just started taking it. Early. I have some health issues and I want my $$ now. I'm 64. My pension came with healthcare, but I'll be real glad when my Medicare kicks in. I am comfortable. I have a modest condo, an older car in good condition, and some credit card debt. I manage to go out two or three times a month to eat. I cook at home because it's healthier as well as less expensive. I manage to get out to New Mexico once a year to see family, and I go to NYC once a year to see few plays. I have memberships in two local museums so I can go often and not pay. We have nice parks. There are free things to do, through the local university and the Library. I was never a club person, but I love the summer concert season. Free music. I'm fine. I have friends. My life is peaceful and comfortable. Got an unexpected hospital bill the other day for a test they did. It was $700. I told them I wanted the payment plan. LOL! I'll auto pay it once a month. I'm not going to impose hardship on myself for a hospital bill.

People still retire? How quaint.

The French have balls. They riot when their livelihoods are negatively affected. Americans are so passive, so stupid and so clueless. They allow the rich and powerful rule their very existence. In essence, we are slaves, but are too lazy to do anything about it. We're glued to technology, and have ceased to give a damn about everything. We ARE a third world country.

That's the GOP's goal. The citizenry allows it.

R108 I would say that €7k a month is a fortune in retirement, and I bet so would most people.

R116 No, the French are ignorant of economics, as are a few posters here.

But if 10 percent inflation hasn't taught the ignoramuses what happens when governments try to resolve real problems by printing money, then nothing will.

I retired without without millions in the bank. But I own my home outright with no significant annual expenses and, in some big reversal, I could sell it for a good profit and rent or downscale. I moved from the U.S. to Europe before retiring which is a big boon. Property taxes are practically nothing, cost of living is low, and there are no worries about health care costs (no insurance policies, deductibles, co-pays, minimum out-of-pocket...) I have a modest Social Security income which I took at the earliest opportunity and can draw on other money for >20 years easily.

R19 Where in Europe? Do you have an EU passport? Is the home you own in the States or in the EU? Asking because living overseas but owning a home in the States sounds like you may need a rental agent to manage renting the US property, if you rent it out.

When I lived in France, there was only a two year foreign income tax exemption. Maybe they have a mechanism for retired expats on fixed incomes.

Sorry, my questions were meant for r119, not r19

Just move to Malaysia! Problem solved.

Americans may not have the best retirement schemes, but it balances out because of the cheap real estate. If you don't live in NY, LA, Chicago, or San Fran, you're spoilt rotten compared to the prices many others pay. Compared to England, or Switzerland, or the equally expensive Australia, they are joke prices! Where I live one has to cough up at least $1.5 million for a small dump before one can begin to think about saving for retirement. Yes, a New Yorker needs to do the same, but they can move to somewhere in the same country and live cheaper.

There’s a lot of shameless humblebragging on here

There's a problem when people correctly stating that they have acted responsibly and done the right thing is considered to be bragging.

R120: Yes, I have EU citizenship through 2 countries (and U.S.). I sold property in the U.S. before leaving; what real estate I have now is in the EU.

With insanely low property taxes, low cost of living, and national health care, I need only a fairly modest income in the form of Social Security and drawing from retirement funds.

It's not a situation that fits but a few Americans, but for me it's reduced the uncertainties and allowed me to retire sooner rather than later.

R110 if the vacation home will replace some of the cost of traditional vacations the purchaser would otherwise be taking, I think that savings needs to factored in to your equation. Money spent on the Marriott bill isn’t available to invest.

Alternatively, you could put the money in a CD or high yield savings account and take a vacation or buy something each year on the $15-20k of interest. Zero risk of depreciation, you don’t feel obligated to go to the same investment home every time you have a vacation, and your money is liquid.

A vacation home is going to have lots of expenses over time. It's a home. Unless, you can expect to make it an income property and live with the consequences---things wearing out , being damaged, not always having it when you want it it , then fine. It's probably not a good idea to invest in one when you retire, because you will still be figureing out what you need in the way of ordinary cash flow.

I'd rathare travel some place I haven't been before than just keep going back to a vacation destination, so values count, too.

No to Op's question. I do have just over a million in investments and savings but there's no way I'm living on 40k annually. I'm 50 so a long way off from. Social security. My annual spend has been around 45k in recent years but this year it will be a lot higher. I'm moving to a nicer apartment and I have dental and medical issues. Relying on 40k would be cutting way too close. Though, if I had no choice, I could live very simply on 40k.

I live in a high cost area and am lifelong renter. And there will be no inheritance so it's down to my finances. The plan is to get close to 2m before corporate America chews and spits me out. I figure with something btw 1.5 to 2m, I'll always have enough to pay for a roof over my head.

Americans who have done the “right thing” are so happy because they HAD to figure it out themselves, because retirement planning is perilous here. Also many have lucked into jobs that allowed them to save, and there are lots of nepo babies out there too with family money for house down payments, and those people are usually very defensive about it. So the “right thing” crowd can be pretty annoying, yes.

[quote] There's a problem when people correctly stating that they have acted responsibly and done the right thing is considered to be bragging.

Quite a bit of presumption going on there, and probably a good serving of privilege as well. Not everyone who is ill-prepared for retirement is so because they wasted their money on clothes and partying as a youth. Some people actually do have lifelong financial hardship and can never get ahead or a leg up. Count your blessings and be a little more empathetic, R125.

it all depends on where you live. If you live in a big expensive city and don't own your home outright and are paying a big mortgage you'd have a hard time existing on $1 million or less (if you lived 20 years past retirement age. But if you live in a rural setting and your expenses are very low one could easily live for 20 years on that kind of money. $2000/mo for 20 years is only $480,000.00. In a setting like that if you have anywhere close to $1million you could live particularly well in retirement.

R126, in what country in Europe do you live?

“Individuals should not have to bear this risk alone. It should be distributed across public or private pools”. —should?it DOES exist; it’s called Social Security and Medicare.

[quote]Most people can live on $7K per month relatively comfortably.

It's enough to live comfortably until the shit hits the fan. This recent Washington Post article ("Senior care is crushingly expensive. Boomers aren't ready") tells a familiar tale. Here's how it begins:

[quote]Beth Roper had already sold her husband Doug’s boat and his pickup truck. Her daughter sends $500 a month or more. But it was nowhere near enough to pay the $5,950-a-month bill at Doug’s assisted-living facility. So last year, Roper, 65, abandoned her own plans to retire.

I watched a video of this guy and he explained some things I didn't realize. I keep meaning to listen to more of his videos. He has 65 million subscribers - not necessarily an endorsement.

Here's his channel. Tons of shit on youtube explaining Medicare and your options.

Few people pay the full price for nursing home care out of pocket. When they go into a nursing home they must pay out of pocket until they become officially impoverished, which I know used to mean they have less than $2000.00 in monetary assets. Then the nursing home will apply for 'nursing home medicaid' for them. Once that's approved all but a very tiny amount (usually around $50.00) of their monthly income (Soc. Security or whatever else they receive) goes toward their nursing home bill and medicaid pays the rest. If they have no sort of income at all medicaid pays the whole thing.

Someone mentioned seniors having trouble paying property taxes. Not sure if any state doe this but there should be partial exemptions for seniors on their principal home like they have other exemptions, and they should be deferable until the property is sold. By remaining in place all those years seniors have helped stabilize neighborhoods and helped keep housing prices down - though I guess tax hungry governments don't like that. I think they should be rewarded for that like other investors are rewarded for hanging onto investments.

R138, I had to place my Mom in assisted living due to dementia. Yes, the facility has Medicare-designated beds/rooms. Problem is, you have to wait until one becomes available. Until that happens, the family has to pay the full cost. At least, that's how it was explained to me.

Medicare designated beds/rooms? That sounds like cruel discrimination and stigmatization. Like food stamp lunch kids in the cafeteria.

Who will speak for the oppressed and humiliated Seniors? Where is that damn AARP?

No discrimination against the poors. Especially after a lifetime of work.

R106, yes, if you don't get Part C you do have to buy a separate Part D drug policy as well for around $25 a month which I should have also mentioned. On the other hand, Med Supp plan G picks up the 20% coinsurance you reference so, other than some drug co-pays on the Part D, the OOP maximum with Plan G truly is just the annual Part B deductible.

Having Plan C is a much bigger financial risk. There is a reason it is cheaper, you realize! Insurance companies aren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.

There's a tendency to view senior care very simplistically, as the experts in the Washington Post piece pointed out:

[quote]“It’s this really enormous financial bomb sitting out there that most people are just hoping won’t hit them,” said Marc A. Cohen, co-director of the LeadingAge LTSS Center at the University of Massachusetts at Boston. “There’s an incredible amount of confusion and denial.”

No one wants to think about unpleasant things. They hear a friend say "It was a breeze getting Dad a bed at a nursing home" and take it as the gospel, unaware that their parents' financial circumstances (or their own) might be radically different.

It's especially important for the gay community to be realistic about our retirement plans, since many of us don't have kids and won't necessarily feel comfortable in predominantly straight senior facilities.

[quote] Most articles suggest $1M or more, and are quite emphatic about it. Most of those articles are geared for straight families, perhaps both working, and with kids and college costs factored in. That's not everyone's world.

That's an old figure. Most financial advisors today will say you need $2M, maybe even $3M, to retire and maintain your same standard of living. It's a f*cking scam, all of it. The government wants your tax dollars and the financial services companies take a percentage of your savings as its fee.

[quote] I always hate these threads when people log on and say they have $2.6m in one fund and their husband $6m, a co-op and country house, bla bla…but they’re so worried. That feels like a corny humble brag.

How can one "humblebrag" at a completely anonymous forum?! We don't know each other and have every reason to believe everyone is lying.

[quote] many have lucked into jobs that allowed them to save

When you lie to yourself about careful career planning being “luck” instead of diligent research, sound decision making, and being responsible, you’re only hurting yourself.

I AM one of the lucky ones.

Have you ever run a search committee before? Luck matters.

Retired at 56, large salary reduction, but with a pension of 72,000 per year and paid health benefits. I have about 300,000 in a 401k, other savings of 70,000. Worked as a consultant until 62, then claimed SS benefits. Again could have worked part time till 70, and netted more. But the stress free life has been invaluable. My monthly income is about 7,000 net. I rent, moved to a less costly area. This year at 72, I will be required to begin withdrawals from the 401K, which I don't need. I will likely put it in CDs. My largest and ever increasing expense is long term care insurance. Very reasonable premiums when I got it at 56. Now it is about 250 per month. I have no family so feel it necessary. I hope never to use it.

My modest and comfortable life is thanks to the pension and paid health benefits. The destruction of unions and the abandonment of guaranteed pension plans has led to the common insecurity of older Americans. Most Americans have not earned incomes in excess of 6 figures. There was little to save.

I have never met so many people who have done the "right thing" and managed to rake up millions for their retirement. It seems 90 per cent of DL are millionaires.

[quote]It's especially important for the gay community to be realistic about our retirement plans, since many of us don't have kids and won't necessarily feel comfortable in predominantly straight senior facilities.

A friend of mine (a former DLer - RIP) and I used to discuss that developing senior facilities geared toward gay people would an interesting business opportunity for someone. What would a group of DLers be called - a gaggle? a pandemodium? a hiss?

[quote]many have lucked into jobs that allowed them to save

[quote]When you lie to yourself about careful career planning being “luck” instead of diligent research, sound decision making, and being responsible, you’re only hurting yourself.

I agree with r146. What most people often ascribe to luck is usually the confluence of opportunity and preparation. However, that "opportunity" is the result of previous good decision making. For example, I know a couple people who seemingly had opportunities dropped into their laps. But, what people fail to recognize is that these people had spent years developing skills and expanding their professional networks through building a reputation for doing excellent work and showcasing that work in meetings.

I made a lot of tradeoffs throughout my career. I used to work 70-80 hour weeks, excluding travel for work which was often Mon-Thurs for 3-4 month stretches, with countless all-nighters. I used to joke that I spent all of college practicing for this job which is probably what saved me and my sanity. There was a two year period when I worked every weekend. I used to have to do calls from hotel rooms while on "vacation." But, it goes further back. I didn't party through my twenties or even in high. While I probably stressed too much about "getting into a good school," it paid off when I got into a good school, then good business school whose reputation allowed me to get hired at a "prestige" company that paid well. In turn, I spent my entire career developing skills with an eye toward my next career move - and sucked it up when working for crappy people asking ridiculously unreasonable demands.

Do I regret not having more fun - in some ways. But, I know that when it comes time to retire, I'd rather have a less stressful 20-30 year retirement than be wondering how I'm going to buy groceries or pay for internet. I mean, someone's got to pay for monthly DL fees.

If you're in a stable occupation, it's easy to save money. You don't have to put aside a huge proportion, but you have to do it consistently and if you start small, you prioritize raiseswinfalls, etc. for savings. If you invest conservatively, you wont have bigs ups and downs in your growth and return. People without a stable occupation are the ones who have difficulty along with those who treat their retirement fund as a piggy bank.

Depends on where you live and your situation.

I'm in Los Angeles and if I stay (which I am leaning to) I need 1.75 to 2M. I'm currently at 1.5M and hope to be somewhere between that range in the next 5 years which is when I am looking at retirement.

I’m just ranting. Don’t feel like you need to read this. I just need to vent.

I would like to be able to say this thread has been useful. But it’s only made me feel less prepared and more confused.

It’s possible that I envy those of you who own homes free and clear and also have large pensions. OK, of course I envy you. But (and maybe it’s just my own insecurity) the tone of some of the posts comes off as a bit smug.

I imagine some of you well positioned for retirement are right to feel proud of having worked hard and saved well. But my gut tells me you were born on second or third base. And now you’re taking credit for that. Some of us came up in somewhat rougher circumstances.

Changing gears…

Some of you are suggesting retiring in places with a lower cost of living. When I research those places, they are invariably places that require a car to get anywhere. It doesn’t seem to make sense, as someone who’s aging and may at some point lose the ability to drive, to move from a place with very good public transit to one with no meaningful public transit.

The other things that those low-cost-of-living towns often have in common:

> lower quality medical care and/or more distant hospitals

> utter lack of an arts scene (I may die soon but don’t ask me to give up live music and theater)

> Republican-controlled local and/or state governments (sorry, a dealbreaker for me)

> I don’t want to live in an all-white town. I just don’t.

I could go on but I think my point is clear. I guess I’m just more Lisa Douglas than Oliver Douglas.

Any other retirees or soon-to-be retirees share my concerns?

R154, what you say is true - a lot is based on how you grew up and those circumstances. Throw in education, luck and looks and some are better off.

Unfortunately, you have to play the hand you were dealt. Try to constantly improve your situation and hopefully things will play out better for you.

I hope that didn't come across as smug - I was just sharing my thoughts.

For me, I could very comfortably live in a less desirable location, but luckily I don't have to. However, I can fully understand your thoughts and also how they might be scary in what the future holds.

[quote]Some of you are suggesting retiring in places with a lower cost of living. When I research those places, they are invariably places that require a car to get anywhere. It doesn’t seem to make sense, as someone who’s aging and may at some point lose the ability to drive, to move from a place with very good public transit to one with no meaningful public transit.

I think your bulleted concerns are valid and similar to what many people will face. None of the issues you raised are particularly outrageous.

Everyone who didn't make a few million is going to have to make some very tough tradeoffs, no matter how any of us got to that point or what we "should" have done differently 20 or 30 years beforehand.

As for a lower cost of living location, I'd start with blue states in the Northeast US, Oregon, or CA. Then, I'd consider college towns not in big cities which will have a more vibrant environment, tend to be more liberal, and usually are more compact and have better transportation. Even a borderline state like PA might be worth exploring - Pittsburgh has some interesting things going for it.

The one thing I would suggest is that, rather than trying to solve everything and trying to tackle everything, you being to read and research in smaller, more mangeable bites. Read multiple articles that pop up when you google "best places to live when I retire" and beging to triangulate. Then perhaps, "how to manage healthcare when I retire." The key is to get MULTIPLE opinions and evaulate what they all have in common to begin to develop your own point of view. Becoming better informed will help you feel better and in more control of the situation.

R151: “ What would a group of DLers be called - a gaggle? a pandemodium? a hiss?”

A “faggle”

[quote] I imagine some of you well positioned for retirement are right to feel proud of having worked hard and saved well. But my gut tells me you were born on second or third base. And now you’re taking credit for that.

That’s another lie people tell themselves to feel less guilty about not properly saving when they were younger. My mother was a single parent and a public school teacher in a poor district. We didn’t have much money, but she did teach me to save and that lesson has been far more valuable to me than an inheritance.

[quote] I have never met so many people who have done the "right thing" and managed to rake up millions for their retirement. It seems 90 per cent of DL are millionaires.

Not surprisingly, they all post at Datalounge.

Far too people ever come to the realization that being happy and secure in your dotage takes a fair amount of hard work, and at times, sacrifice to accomplish. They're not willing to put in the effort and just plod along hoping and praying that everything will work out for them.

"They donate $400 a month to their church, spend $350 a month on groceries, and owe $300 a month on a $30,000 home-equity loan."

Why on earth are the giving that much to their church?

Jehovahs Witnesses or Church of Christ maybe.

They probably tithe on a four thousand dollar a month income R161.

R150 I think DataLounge skews older and more urban than the general population. And then on top of that I think many people post in threads like these because they think they have information that can be helpful for others or they are interested in hearing information that can help them save financially and those two types of people are likely to be wealthier than average. (Not that there aren’t liars on DL. I am sure that there are some of those people too.)

Personally having been both a poor person and not a poor person, I think it’s really useful in terms of making the most of the luck you’ve been (and might still be given) to separate your prejudices about people based upon their economic class being lower than your own and any resentments towards people more wealthy than yourself and just take the information that can be useful in improving your own lot in life. (And what improves your lot in life is going to depend on what you value.)

Why don't they HEAT those rooms and rent some of them. To good christians, for example. Stupid fucks.

[quote]I have never met so many people who have done the "right thing" and managed to rake up millions for their retirement. It seems 90 per cent of DL are millionaires.

[quote] I think DataLounge skews older and more urban than the general population. And then on top of that I think many people post in threads like these because they think they have information that can be helpful for others or they are interested in hearing information that can help them save financially and those two types of people are likely to be wealthier than average. (Not that there aren’t liars on DL. I am sure that there are some of those people too.)

I agree with r163 - DL in general and respondents in this type of thread in particular are a very skewed sample. In addition to ElderLez's points, I'd argue that the age skew for DL likely also plays directly into the old canard that gay people:

1) have more disposable income because they don't spend on children;

2) are often estranged from family and don't have to fund the poor choices of other family members;

3) needed to work extra hard to escape from less than ideal family situations (ending up in the aforementioned urban locations), as well as recognizing early on that they would only have themselves to depend on when they're old with no family and no kids

4) generally draws a better educated group illustrated by the caliber of commentary and knowledge about a wide variety of topics beyond Golden Girls.

Even among gay people, DL is a very skewed sample that would likely be better positioned.

I didn't save nearly enough (my fault) and am a lifetime renter. The only thing going for me is that I have a little over $5000/month (gross) between my pension and social security plus my pension includes healthcare benefits (part B premium and supplement). I'm okay, but I wish I'd put more away in savings. Fortunately I don't have much debt. I'm in my 60s now so too late to change anything now.

R166 could you work? Would you want to?

[quote]The only thing going for me is that I have a little over $5000/month (gross) between my pension and social security plus my pension includes healthcare benefits (part B premium and supplement). I'm okay, but I wish I'd put more away in savings.

Depending on the taxable portion of your pension, that's actually a very solid amount for retirement. Sure, you won't be traveling first class on monthly vacations, but it's certainly enough to do a nice trip once a year and live relatively comfortably.

r167: [R166] could you work? Would you want to?

Be careful about working when you get social security benefits. With r166's pension (depending on how it's structured), the income threshhold could be fairly low.

[quote]between $25,000 and $34,000, you may have to pay income tax on up to 50 percent of your benefits. more than $34,000, up to 85 percent of your benefits may be taxable.

[quote] I have never met so many people who have done the "right thing" and managed to rake up millions for their retirement. It seems 90 per cent of DL are millionaires.

In general gays are known to be better educated than straights, and enjoy higher incomes per capita. We also enjoy a higher level of discretionary income. Of course that doesn't play out across the board, but face it we are just better at most things we take part in. I suppose it's because many of us realize early on that we'll have to work much harder than straights to get what we want so we become high achievers.

I have about $300k invested with Vanguard. I don't touch it. I live on my SS. It's not ideal, but it's enough. My partner, 20 years younger, pays for food and household expenses. We're doing OK, in Brooklyn. Saw Sweeney Todd this week, for about $600 for the two of us. Can't do it every week, but, that's life.

R170, on the plus side, you have a boytoy 20 years younger than you who pays the bills. Sounds nice to me!

R158, I’ll grant you that those of us who have not always managed our finances responsibly (and I’ll cop to being one of those people) may unfairly let our resentment of more financially stable people get the better of us.

That said, I think your description of your own circumstances proves, at least to some extent, my point. No, I would never say you were born on second or third base. But you did grow up with a mother who was a teacher, someone better educated, better organized, and perhaps more intelligent than the parents some of us grew up with.

Even more to the point, however, is that you yourself said SHE TAUGHT YOU HOW TO SAVE MONEY. So you learned in childhood the importance of managing your finances, a lesson many of us never got as kids and didn’t figure out until we’d already done a fair amount of damage to our futures.

Suze Orman is the one who started the idea that you need at least $3 million to retire. That's not doable, or needed, for 90% of the population.

It's funny how our grandparents did just fine on social security and modest savings. My grandparents had a nice Airstream trailer and they used to travel all over the country. They would go to Florida during the winter and stay in their trailer for months. People today live too high on the hog, which is why they can't make ends meet.

Not r158, but that's utterly ridiculous r172.

While it is true that having a decent home life and a parent who actually parents usually results in better life outcomes, at a certain point, it's a fundamental abdication of personal responsibility to suggest that it creates such an uneven playing field that it results in some ridiculous advantage.

Sure, if r158's mother were an heiress who had a trust fund, so didn't have to work and could devote herself to raising a child, that would qualify. But, his situation is hardly so advantageous that tens of millions of people could not claim similar or even greater advantages in life.

R173 Older generations didn't face long-term care issues. Either they wouldn't live so long that they'd need it or family members would take care of them.

Look at the numbers for 5-10 years of care if you get to the point where you need help with your life. Don't forget to add inflation. That's what drives all the talk of "millions needed."

If I develop Alzheimer's or some other debilitating disease that would make me live in a nursing home for years, I hope I have enough notice that I can take a graceful exit before that happens.

Born on third has varying results. I'll admit it: I was, and we're doing fine, but I have two siblings who are just getting by. We all got the same lessons about money: my dad was self-made and my parents were children of the Depression. When we grew up we all got cars at 16, foreign travel as kids, tutors and coaches for everything, and four years of college paid for.

Fifty years later my older brother lives like a hermit, twice divorced which cost him. My sister and her husband fucked up almost every job they had and now live in subsidized senior housing. Our parents taught all of us how to make money and how to save it, but only one of us did. There's fate and there's luck and then there's common sense: you won't have much money later if you piss most of it away now.

R167 Don't really want to, and as R168 pointed out, not really worth it.

Fortunately my pension has a COLA to keep up with inflation (although it's capped at something like 6.5% per annum). Social Security also gets COLA adjustments at least for now. If the world goes down the shitter, I suppose nothing is safe (maybe gold bars) so I don't worry much about that.

As far as long term care is concerned, it's not worth the premiums in my case. If worse came to worse, my little savings would go and I would end up in a nursing home on assistance as my grandmother did. I have no partner or children/grandchildren that need my "estate". People that are married really do have to consider that as they could end up leaving a spouse destitute. I hope that I would have the awareness to end things before being placed in a nursing home.

Moving abroad might be a better option. I have a brother who moved to Thailand, and he seems to be living well on less than 1800 a month and that is with managing a long term health issue. I visited him prior to Covid and he had a pretty good set up.

[quote]Moving abroad might be a better option. I have a brother who moved to Thailand, and he seems to be living well on less than 1800 a month and that is with managing a long term health issue. I visited him prior to Covid and he had a pretty good set up.

20 years ago, this wouldn't be viable option for most people and in 20 years it won't be an option for a different reason.

20 years ago, lack of amenties and facilities (like healthcare) in cheaper countries wouldn't have been at adequate levels for most western people. In 20 years, those cheaper countries will no longer be sufficiently cheap to make the move and radical lifestyle changes worthwhile.

Perhaps Thailand will not be cheap in 20 years but keep in mind my brother is 72 now. I suspect he will not be alive then. Dead people don't need money.

R108....7K a month, for me, would be more than comfortable. I get a little over $4300.00 a month, including SS....that's enough for me to be fine...covers everything, my mortgage, bills/utilities, food and gas. I still have some money left over. I haven't traveled in over ten years, but will again someday. I don't need to travel a lot. I don't really miss it. I feel pretty comfortable.

I'm 45... what will the world be like when I'm 77?

Speaking of aging and the US healthcare system, today there was a depressing article in the NY Times Science Times.

The article focused on many seniors, and others, who don't have much of a support system, especially when they need to be accompanied home from an operation, or a medical procedure, even a brief procedure where they will only be in the hospital a few hours or need a colonoscopy.

A new law now requires that someone to pick you up and take you home, even for a colonoscopy. Years ago, after my colonoscopy, my gastroenterologist had a local car service take his patients home, that was included in his practice. A local car service took me home and I was fine. The driver walked me to my building door, waited until I got into my elevator and I was perfectly okay.

Lots of older people have either outlived their spouses, partners and even their closest friends have passed away or moved out of their state.

Others never had children to help or their kids live out of state. Not to mention, not everyone who is young, and still employed, can get time off from work to help a friend or family member. Most bosses usually okay time off for immediate family members and partners/spouses, certainly not time off to help a friend, even a close friend.

Of course, our over-priced bloated US healthcare system is to blame. Most people, especially those who pay high out-of-pocket premiums for their health insurance, should have some sort of service in these instances.

Basically, what does one do when there is absolutely no one to accompany them home from hospital or procedure stay? And the procedure is needed, never schedule any needed procedures? What until you are half-dead then get rushed into the ER? That seems to be the case. The article also mentioned, many seniors are forgoing important diagnostic tests such as colonoscopies because they basically have no one to pick them up.

Ironically, Medicaid seems to be the only health program which will provide a temporary home aide to take you home from a hospital stay or a procedure. Yes, oh the irony, these patients don't pay a dime for health insurance, yet seem to get so many special perks.

R184 There is no law requiring that you have someone to assist you home! It's big bureaucratic medical practices making it their law.

I don't know if I have any practical advice to add to this. I'm 61 and retired. I expected to work several more years, but I developed a chronic health issue and recognized that work was making things worse, so I retired as soon as I was eligible, at 59. I had one of those jobs that provides a pension and health insurance and other benefits (like a LTC policy I signed up for at 50). Due to my health issue, I knew realistically I would be very lucky to make it another 10 years, and I'm okay with that.. I've had a good run and a really good time. I'm going to start taking SS as soon as I turn 62.

I am enjoying the hell out of being retired. I love sleeping late , planning and making meals for myself and my husband , arranging flowers, gardening, and eating out somewhere nice once a week. We used to travel frequently, and lived in a place we rented in an expensive city. When we retired, we bought a place just outside that same city. It's on the water and has a resort-like vibe, so we don't have a hankering to take the weekend trips we used to several times a year. We had about $1,400,000 in savings and investments when we retired and put 300k of that into the place we bought as a down payment. About half of our money was in IRAs, 401Ks and other savings vehicles, but the other half was a random inheritance my husband received from a friend who didn't have any family. He had no idea it was coming, and boom... $700K.

So maybe I do have a message. The people saying privilege isn't real or isn't a factor are wrong. I made a lot of bad choices and honestly stumbled into a job with a pension. We never saw the inheritance coming, it was pure dumb luck. And finally, get out when you can. I got my first job at 13 and have worked my ass off since then. I really loved my job I had for a decade or so before retiring, but not working is a gas. I love it. Take some time for yourself before it's all over.

My parents didn't have a lot growing up; both were born during the Depression. Their mortgage was $397 including property taxes back in 1965. We didn't have a lot but were comfortable with 4 kids. I went through some tough financial times as a young adult (remember cash advances? Yeah, I took the max on one ($15k). I didn't realize how high the interest rate would be. I wasn't making much money but all my bills were paid. At times, I had about $50 in my checking account until the next pay date which was 2 weeks away. That taught me to start paying myself first.

My first really great job, I worked for the HR Director who would ask me every pay day if I had joined the 401k. I was27 at the time and I'm so glad he kept asking. I did join it after within by first 2 years with the company. I was lucky to work for a company with a great tuition reimbursement plan ($5250 reimbursed per year). I went to school night and weekends to get my AA and then my BA. I'm almost 61 and have finally cracked the 6-figure salary threshold.

My Mom owned the house but it was in very bad shape. What should have been worth over $350k went for a little over $110k. That was split 4 ways. My Dad is living comfortably on his pension and SS. All that to say that there is no hefty inheritance coming my way. I knew that when I was young so I started taking care of myself. My current SS would pay for my household expenses so what's in my 401k should be more enough. I don't live extravagantly. I am fixing up my condo so that I can max out when I sell. Right now, condos in my complex are easily going for over $300k; I paid $132k in 1999.

For those who are in their 30s and 40s, start now. I started my 401k contributions when I was 27 and making maybe $35k a year. I realize that things were different in the '80s but starting now is better than nothing. You never know what's going to happen. Things could get better or worse but do something for yourself.

I think the reason a lot of gay people panic about retirement is because they are used to spending a lot of money throughout their lives without giving it much thought. My straight parents are in their 70s, and they have never once traveled to Europe or Asia, yet you talk to a lot of younger gay people, and they are constantly going on about how they go to Europe every year or fly to Thailand or Australia every now and then. All of that must cost a lot money, but they do it, probably without thinking much of the expense. Once they retire, however, taking exotic vacations every year may not be so easy to do, especially if they haven’t saved much because they already spent a lot of it on travel, so I can see why a lot of them look into the future and get nervous.

Well of course. What's the alternative? Thousands do it every day so obviously.

[quote] yet you talk to a lot of younger gay people, and they are constantly going on about how they go to Europe every year or fly to Thailand or Australia every now and then.

I imagine if you assembled 1000 random gay people you might find 1, maybe 2, who "goes to Europe every year or flies to Thailand or Australia every now and then". If there are others who make this claim, they're probably lying, something far too many in our ranks do rather well.

R190, just check out their social media. You see a lot of younger gay men posting pics of their vacations, and listing it on their timelines.

[quote][R184] There is no law requiring that you have someone to assist you home! It's big bureaucratic medical practices making it their law.

Read the article from the NY Science Times, why would I lie? I gain nothing by lying.

Of course, the 'law' is set by health insurance companies and hospitals, they do this because they don't want their customers to sue. What if a person gets dizzy, collapses then injures themself on the way home from surgery or a procedure, these insurance companies and hospitals want to protect themselves from being sued. Well, duh.

R192, this is sometimes set by the facility doing the procedure.

Fifteen years ago, I had a colonoscopy at an outpatient facility. They used propophol (sp?) to put me out. Their prep instructions included me having someone to drive me home. The same thing happened about 20 years ago when I had my wisdom teeth removed. The oral surgeon's office required me to have someone there to drive me home. In both cases, they asked who the person was. I had my sister drive both times. I've heard that lately, they won't accept an Uber/Lyft or taxi driver to be your designated driver. It has to be someone you know. How they police that, I have no idea.

There are medical escort services - no,it's not whores who jerkoff hospital patients - that you can pay to escort you from medical procedures.

If those were to become unacceptable, it would be a huge problem for many of us, not because we don't have family and friends, but because some of us prefer not to impose on other people and force them to take time off work to babysit.

You can have a colonoscopy w/o anesthesia and walk home. I did it once. You feel full but it's not painful. My husband is going to have one [italic]sans[/italic] anesthesia next month. He won't walk home though. The hospital is 15 miles away.

As he said when they scheduled him, "The PA showed me the size of the scope and I said 'no problem'"

My guess is that the anesthesiologists push for knocking you out so they can get a fee.

[quote]I imagine if you assembled 1000 random gay people you might find 1, maybe 2, who "goes to Europe every year or flies to Thailand or Australia every now and then". If there are others who make this claim, they're probably lying, something far too many in our ranks do rather well.

I don't think that's true. I have a wide gay social circle that's very balanced between all classes, and of the working class guys, only two people live tightly. They're on state pensions: one with bad luck working in up and down creative industries that never put money aside, the other in a really wonderful 2 bed state housing unit (they rent out the second bedroom for spare cash and the company). Everyone else I know is quite to quite comfortable, and of course, at the top there are friends with $10-20m plus in assets with several homes, including overseas. No one is suffering.

The one statistic that jumped out at me - and I checked 2 sources online - is that only 4% of seniors end up in nursing homes! That fact, along with my experience that it is very rare, confirm my general opinion that the $1 million…no, sorry $2 million …. “minimum” is a fear-mongering clickbait that has left the majority of people terrified of retirement/old age. The reality is MOST people have nowhere near that and most who do will end up dying with a lot left over.

As someone who never knew what happiness was until I retired - which I was terrified to do - i am proselytizing the need for people to stop worrying and ensure they live before they die. Save what you can, live frugally - but don’t keep working until you die.

Absolutely.. looking forward to doing it!

[quote] I imagine some of you well positioned for retirement are right to feel proud of having worked hard and saved well. But my gut tells me you were born on second or third base. And now you’re taking credit for that. Some of us came up in somewhat rougher circumstances.

Yes, there are some who would never admit to privilege -- inheriting houses, 401ks and intergenerational wealth. That's why wealth inequality is the great divide in our society, those with wealth begrudge any miniscule benefit conferred on those without.

[quote] If I develop Alzheimer's or some other debilitating disease that would make me live in a nursing home for years, I hope I have enough notice that I can take a graceful exit before that happens.

I think so many Republicans are against physician-assisted suicide because health care for dementia patients is so lucrative. Averaging $8k to $12k a month to care for someone who is completely non-functioning.

It's insulting that some of you think that the only way to successfully save for retirement is to have started by inheriting houses, 401ks, intergenerational wealth, etc.

I was the first person from either side of my lower middle class family to graduate from college which I paid for by being intelligent enough to get full ride academic scholarships based on working hard at school from the beginning. I also religiously saved money from the time I was a kid. I never even had an allowance!

I believe the grand total of my inheritance, that I received at she 57, was $24,000. I retired at 59 with a few million. Telling stories to yourself that you can't do it unless you inherit a lot is a complete cop out. Take responsibility and save money instead of spending it on junk.

R197 It's true that only a relatively small number end up needing exceptionally expensive full-time care because of dementia etc.

But if you live past 90, the odds are you'll need some sort of help getting by with your daily life, such as it is, and end up in an assisted living place. Nice ones are not cheap.

My retirement plan is to make sure I'm dead before I'm old enough to retire. Because based upon my calculations, I'm going to be nowhere near $1 million and will never reach it if going solely by my monthly 401K contributions.

Oh well. That's one less senior citizen the government has to worry about caring for.

I'm about to turn 45 and I have about $330k in my 401(k), almost all of it saved over the past 15 years.

I appeared to be on a strong trajectory to have around $2mil by retirement age, with about $365k around 18 months ago, but it dropped to almost $300k and has been bouncing all over since then.

401(k)s are the only options for most people who have any option, and we really have no control over how they'll end up. We are forced to gamble our future financial security. If we save conservatively, we definitely will not have enough to live on for long. If we do a riskier investment portfolio, it can look like we are on track to do well but then the bottom can fall out at anytime.

It's wrong to blame people for how they end up in retirement not knowing how carefully they planned. One major health crisis at any point between young adulthood and retirement, or today's tuition costs and requirements to have postgraduate credentials just to land a good job, can prevent anyone from getting close to what they will need. It's a pretty fucked up system considering how many countries still have the types of pensions we used to have.

[quote]I imagine if you assembled 1000 random gay people you might find 1, maybe 2, who "goes to Europe every year or flies to Thailand or Australia every now and then". If there are others who make this claim, they're probably lying, something far too many in our ranks do rather well.

It seems that this poster knows a different 1000 random gay people than I do. Different people have different priorities. Money is hardly unimportant, yet I know gay people without wealth or big incomes who have managed to see much of the world. And I know others who have incomes and resources that dwarf mine, who are always in the process of buying a bigger house, a third house, new prestige brand cars, spa weekends, flashy events, who seem to make a full-time job of haemorrhaging money, yet who talk about foreign travel it were some exotic impossible dream far beyond their reach.

[quote]I believe the grand total of my inheritance, that I received at she 57, was $24,000. I retired at 59 with a few million. Telling stories to yourself that you can't do it unless you inherit a lot is a complete cop out. Take responsibility and save money instead of spending it on junk.

Some people take less responsiblity for their futures than they should do, yet they were never in a position to have saved a few million by age 59 or to retire by that age. They never had jobs that, had they risen to the top, would have afforded that sort of income. They never had academic promise enough to set them on a course or education that would land them lucrative jobs that would have landed them into that promised land. For all the overemphasis on gay and lesbian disposable income, a lot of gays and lesbians of retirement age are not in a position to retire because they were skipped over investment in their education and went directly into the workforce, in a series of jobs that required few qualifications and offered few rewards or opportunities. Many never had the chance for securing full scholarships to land lucrative and promising jobs. A lack of discipline in saving is all the more critical when they never had jobs that paid well, offered real stability, or offered any opportunity to get a leg up in venturing out on their own.

Good for R201 for having done quite well for himself without the obvious benefits of class background/expectation, inheritance, connections, etc. But one persons path to scholarships and fastidious saving habits and foresight from childhood and for qualifying and succeeding at jobs that allowed him to retire at 59 with millions in the bank are matched by many more stories of more mediocre, less driven, less successful lives that never achieved the same high trajectory. Not everyone is driven like R201 was; it's a pity, he may think, but it'ß more than backed up statistically. Not everyone gets rich from luck of birth or from devoted attention to pulling themselves up by their modest bootstraps. It's always been that way.

R205 All the Western people here moaning how the luck of the draw left them with few opportunities to make their million are still one hell of a lot better than if they'd been born into a village in Africa or India, where they wouldn't have to worry about funding life after 60.

Because they'd already be dead.

Basically that's true, r206. If you are ok living within your means, you can do quite well as an older person in America.

But nearly all of us are greedy. So "being able to get by on what I have" is seen as oppressive and a result of whatever the 'ism or 'ology is that you think has "fucking ruined America".

I began with a small million-dollar loan from my father and managed to accomplish destroying an entire country.

I'm doing just fine into retirement. I drink bleach and inject UV every morning, and I'm more vital than ever and ready to put the final nail in the American coffin!

Financially, I have everything I want because despite being the world's worst custodian of personal wealth and business assets, I tell people I am a billionaire and they in turn give me whatever I want with no limits!

After Deutsche Bank was stupid enough to give me a huge loan and I defaulted, I just went to another branch and told them to give me a bigger loan to pay off the first loan, plus a few hundred million extra to line my pockets and they did it.

You dummies just don't know what you're doing! Money is easy!

DJT 👑

Those decisions you make in high school turn out to have life-long consequences.

Yep, anything bad that happens is all your fault!

Very true in my case, R210. My Mom pushed me to take typing in HS. I hated it and never wanted to be a secretary/administrative assistant. My heart was set on Broadcast Journalism as a major in college. i wanted to be the next Sue Simmons.

Well, that didn't work out but being a secretary certainly did. I wound up as the secretary of an HR Director who saw potential in me to work in HR as more than his secretary. I have worked for some big and small organizations in HR and made good money. I never thought I'd be making what I am now when I started typing memos for people already making 6-figures.

Anybody tried rolling your 401k into annuity? Is it good or a bad idea?

[quote]There are medical escort services - no,it's not whores who jerkoff hospital patients - that you can pay to escort you from medical procedures. If those were to become unacceptable, it would be a huge problem for many of us, not because we don't have family and friends, but because some of us prefer not to impose on other people and force them to take time off work to babysit.

That was mentioned in the NY Times Science Times article, however, these medical escorts do not come cheap and are not covered by any health insurance plans, EXCEPT Medicaid. Some medical escorts, essentially home health aides you can hire privately, charge up to $400 a day, who can afford that. In my state, home health aides make between $25-$50 an hour, depending on the level of care a patient requires.

If you’re older, most US cities and towns have a Council on Aging, Visiting Nurse organization or similar that can arrange your ride home from a procedure for little or no money. Many places do something like this through the local senior center: free rides from volunteers to and from medical appointments.

I have had colonoscopies without anaesthesia. Of course, I am an experienced bottom. Sometimes I even rode my bike to and from the doctor's office.

For r201:

[quote] I have had colonoscopies without anaesthesia. Of course, I am an experienced bottom. Sometimes I even rode my bike to and from the doctor's office.

If the doctor did the colonoscopy with a handheld camera, that would be hardcore.

R218: I had one of those. You can look at the monitor in realtime and see the inside of just about everything on the way up mildly distended by the air they pump in. It was a while ago: black and white, not color like now nor quite as well lit.

The doc was Indian. His pride was obvious and his accent was perfect: "We call it the Discovery Channel."