Stupid me emptied my 401k to buy a house at 42

[Anonymous]

PP here. Not tired* meant retired

[Anonymous]

OP- it's done and a little hard to know how it will play out ultimately.
Enjoy your house, but max your retirement savings and and other investments and live frugally.
We've made decisions that I look back and question- one was using some of our 401K for a house down payment in our late 30s. With bonuses, market, pay increases, etc. it worked out okay. We're in our mid 50s now and on track.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the bottom line is the OP bought a house she can't really afford. She decimated her retirement savings to purchase it and put too much down on it.

You may want to work forever, but as others have said that may not be an option due to an unexpected decline in health, layoff, etc.

If was OP, I would be working to aggressively save and bring in more money NOW. Since you bought a $700K house, I'm assuming it's more than one bedroom. I would take on a roommate to make extra money, see about getting a second job in retail or something on the weekends, and max out 401K, do an IRA, and also contribute to an after-tax investment account. You have a lot a catching up to do with your retirement account.

And, most importantly do NOT start spending even more money on the house (furniture, upgrades, renos), except for required maintenance.

Lol OP is 42. OP is fine folks.

Op has zero savings and like others have pointed out, job security isn’t guaranteed through your 60s. for better or for worse OP is now heavily invested in an asset that is very expensive (a house paid for with an expensive source of capital - withdrawing the 401k and paying taxes/penalties) instead of an asset that is cheap (stock indices). It was a very very stupid financial move. So yes, OP needs to carefully budget to ensure money is going back into the 401k and also take care to make sure their career is on track and that they are in a good position to work through their mid/late 60s. Possibly look for a job transition that increases earning potential. If all goes well, yes, OP has 25 more years to work and save and should be ok. But if OP continues to be a financial idiot then no. Check in here in 20 years to hear all about how OP has a giant second mortgage on the home because they felt entitled to use the equity on a kitchen reno and dream vacations …

I am not an economist but I hope we have one who can shed light on this.

What's the future of the American economy if people start losing hope of a secure job as soon as they reach 40? When read some of the comments it's as if once you get to 40 and lose your job you are done. Is the average American really able to save enough to retire in their early 50s if they work between the ages of 22 and 49?

There is no such thing as a “secure job” and there never has been. Your entire premise is flawed. The average American will still be working, not retired, until late 60s. It simply won’t be in the same job at the same rate they do today. This board is skewed from reality because the feds thought they could play solitaire for 40 years and still be paid once they got in. Welcome to real life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the bottom line is the OP bought a house she can't really afford. She decimated her retirement savings to purchase it and put too much down on it.

You may want to work forever, but as others have said that may not be an option due to an unexpected decline in health, layoff, etc.

If was OP, I would be working to aggressively save and bring in more money NOW. Since you bought a $700K house, I'm assuming it's more than one bedroom. I would take on a roommate to make extra money, see about getting a second job in retail or something on the weekends, and max out 401K, do an IRA, and also contribute to an after-tax investment account. You have a lot a catching up to do with your retirement account.

And, most importantly do NOT start spending even more money on the house (furniture, upgrades, renos), except for required maintenance.

Lol OP is 42. OP is fine folks.

Op has zero savings and like others have pointed out, job security isn’t guaranteed through your 60s. for better or for worse OP is now heavily invested in an asset that is very expensive (a house paid for with an expensive source of capital - withdrawing the 401k and paying taxes/penalties) instead of an asset that is cheap (stock indices). It was a very very stupid financial move. So yes, OP needs to carefully budget to ensure money is going back into the 401k and also take care to make sure their career is on track and that they are in a good position to work through their mid/late 60s. Possibly look for a job transition that increases earning potential. If all goes well, yes, OP has 25 more years to work and save and should be ok. But if OP continues to be a financial idiot then no. Check in here in 20 years to hear all about how OP has a giant second mortgage on the home because they felt entitled to use the equity on a kitchen reno and dream vacations …

I am not an economist but I hope we have one who can shed light on this.

What's the future of the American economy if people start losing hope of a secure job as soon as they reach 40? When read some of the comments it's as if once you get to 40 and lose your job you are done. Is the average American really able to save enough to retire in their early 50s if they work between the ages of 22 and 49?

There is no such thing as a “secure job” and there never has been. Your entire premise is flawed. The average American will still be working, not retired, until late 60s. It simply won’t be in the same job at the same rate they do today. This board is skewed from reality because the feds thought they could play solitaire for 40 years and still be paid once they got in. Welcome to real life.

This.
One of the few logical posts have read in this thread so far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should have put down only 20% to avoid paying taxes on the retirement liquidation. You could always liquidate more later if necessary.

Plus a larger mortgage gives you a larger tax deduction. The after-tax mortgage rate is around 4%. Surely you can beat that with your retirement investments.

OP here. I am on a single income. So I wanted a mortgage payment including property taxes cheaper than what I was paying for rent. If I had put 20% down, I don't think I will be able to keep my house if I were to be laid off and unable to find a job within a year. My mortgage payment and taxes would have been very high with only 20% down.

You know that saying about how the Good Lord looks after small children and fools? You'd better hope that's true.

[Anonymous]

Your timing was good, you sold before the orange regime started wrecking the economy and the market. People are selling US now so in a way you reduced your exposure to the current nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should have put down only 20% to avoid paying taxes on the retirement liquidation. You could always liquidate more later if necessary.

Plus a larger mortgage gives you a larger tax deduction. The after-tax mortgage rate is around 4%. Surely you can beat that with your retirement investments.

OP here. I am on a single income. So I wanted a mortgage payment including property taxes cheaper than what I was paying for rent. If I had put 20% down, I don't think I will be able to keep my house if I were to be laid off and unable to find a job within a year. My mortgage payment and taxes would have been very high with only 20% down.

You know that saying about how the Good Lord looks after small children and fools? You'd better hope that's true.

He sacrificed some growth in the market haha for sure. But he can always sells his house right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the bottom line is the OP bought a house she can't really afford. She decimated her retirement savings to purchase it and put too much down on it.

You may want to work forever, but as others have said that may not be an option due to an unexpected decline in health, layoff, etc.

If was OP, I would be working to aggressively save and bring in more money NOW. Since you bought a $700K house, I'm assuming it's more than one bedroom. I would take on a roommate to make extra money, see about getting a second job in retail or something on the weekends, and max out 401K, do an IRA, and also contribute to an after-tax investment account. You have a lot a catching up to do with your retirement account.

And, most importantly do NOT start spending even more money on the house (furniture, upgrades, renos), except for required maintenance.

Lol OP is 42. OP is fine folks.

Op has zero savings and like others have pointed out, job security isn’t guaranteed through your 60s. for better or for worse OP is now heavily invested in an asset that is very expensive (a house paid for with an expensive source of capital - withdrawing the 401k and paying taxes/penalties) instead of an asset that is cheap (stock indices). It was a very very stupid financial move. So yes, OP needs to carefully budget to ensure money is going back into the 401k and also take care to make sure their career is on track and that they are in a good position to work through their mid/late 60s. Possibly look for a job transition that increases earning potential. If all goes well, yes, OP has 25 more years to work and save and should be ok. But if OP continues to be a financial idiot then no. Check in here in 20 years to hear all about how OP has a giant second mortgage on the home because they felt entitled to use the equity on a kitchen reno and dream vacations …

I am not an economist but I hope we have one who can shed light on this.

What's the future of the American economy if people start losing hope of a secure job as soon as they reach 40? When read some of the comments it's as if once you get to 40 and lose your job you are done. Is the average American really able to save enough to retire in their early 50s if they work between the ages of 22 and 49?

There is no such thing as a “secure job” and there never has been. Your entire premise is flawed. The average American will still be working, not retired, until late 60s. It simply won’t be in the same job at the same rate they do today. This board is skewed from reality because the feds thought they could play solitaire for 40 years and still be paid once they got in. Welcome to real life.

I work in the private sector. I know who people who work for the Fed. They are hard workers and don't have the mindset that you are describing. My friend is an economist at the Bureau of Labor statistics. He works very long hours and is always stressed.

[Anonymous]

I know I’m in the minority here but I don’t think it was a bad idea. There is peace that money cannot buy in owning a home with a manageable mortgage. Also no one knows when and by how much the stock market will fall. The chances of a big downturn are high. My advice is to gradually build up your 401k when there are dips in the stock market.