How much money should I have saved at age 34?

[Anonymous]

10x your age

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Congrats on the humblebrag disguised as a "I'm sooooo worried" problem.

I'm not humble bragging! I don't own any property. Did you miss that part?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congrats on the humblebrag disguised as a "I'm sooooo worried" problem.

I'm not humble bragging! I don't own any property. Did you miss that part?

Why are you hung up on owning property? It's not a prerequisite to vote anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congrats on the humblebrag disguised as a "I'm sooooo worried" problem.

I'm not humble bragging! I don't own any property. Did you miss that part?

Why are you hung up on owning property? It's not a prerequisite to vote anymore.

I'm just saying, it's not like I have this money AND a house or something. I still pay rent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congrats on the humblebrag disguised as a "I'm sooooo worried" problem.

I'm not humble bragging! I don't own any property. Did you miss that part?

I didn't miss this part and yeah you are bragging. Why does property matter? 450k NW is 450k NW. Why does it matter if it's in property or stock? Who cares how it's held?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congrats on the humblebrag disguised as a "I'm sooooo worried" problem.

I'm not humble bragging! I don't own any property. Did you miss that part?

Why are you hung up on owning property? It's not a prerequisite to vote anymore.

I'm just saying, it's not like I have this money AND a house or something. I still pay rent.

Ok fine. You’re in dire straits and IDK how you sleep at night. Feel better?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congrats on the humblebrag disguised as a "I'm sooooo worried" problem.

I'm not humble bragging! I don't own any property. Did you miss that part?

Why are you hung up on owning property? It's not a prerequisite to vote anymore.

I'm just saying, it's not like I have this money AND a house or something. I still pay rent.

You have this money and it is a net worth way higher than what homeowners have at your age.
Why is it a problem? Are you obsessed about home ownership? Maybe this is your problem.

[Anonymous]

I am a big fan of Charles Farrell's "Your Money Ratios" Book. You can get it on ebay or at your local library. Gives good, easy to understand benchmarks to aim for, and explains how all of your financial decisions are inter-related (in a simple way).

Here is a quick synopsis:

"Capital-to-Income Ratio
Called the CIR, this ratio looks at how much savings you have compared to how much money you make. The ratio also factors in your age. This is based on the theory that the longer you’ve been in the workforce, the more money you should have saved.

The book contains charts to look up the ideal CIR based on your age. The goal? To have saved 12 times your income by retirement age of 65. At 35, for example, your CIR should be 1.4. This means that for every $10,000 in income, you should have $14,000 saved."

So, if your income is $$100K, you should have roughly $140,000 saved in order to be on track for the "gold standard." If you aren't there, then he explains your options (silver standard, bronze standard, what changes you should make, what your other ratios should be, etc.).

But, just as a benchmark, you should have 1.4 times your salary saved at 35.

[Anonymous]

Here's the link:



And here it is on amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/Your-Money-Ratios-Financial-Security/dp/1583334165

[Anonymous]

If you're like me, the amount will be about the same in 20 years because stuff happens. Save all you can now!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a big fan of Charles Farrell's "Your Money Ratios" Book. You can get it on ebay or at your local library. Gives good, easy to understand benchmarks to aim for, and explains how all of your financial decisions are inter-related (in a simple way).

Here is a quick synopsis:

"Capital-to-Income Ratio
Called the CIR, this ratio looks at how much savings you have compared to how much money you make. The ratio also factors in your age. This is based on the theory that the longer you’ve been in the workforce, the more money you should have saved.

The book contains charts to look up the ideal CIR based on your age. The goal? To have saved 12 times your income by retirement age of 65. At 35, for example, your CIR should be 1.4. This means that for every $10,000 in income, you should have $14,000 saved."

So, if your income is $$100K, you should have roughly $140,000 saved in order to be on track for the "gold standard." If you aren't there, then he explains your options (silver standard, bronze standard, what changes you should make, what your other ratios should be, etc.).

But, just as a benchmark, you should have 1.4 times your salary saved at 35.

Does this take into account higher cost of living areas? I’m 31 and make $140,000 but also owe $120000 in loans. I’ve only been making this salary for one year. I started at $60K four years ago and $180000 in loans.

[Anonymous]

One of the ratios is a "debt to income " ratio. I suggest you read the book and adapt the info to your situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You should be saving 20% of your income. Figure out what you have made since you started working, multiply by 20% and that's how much you should have saved before appreciation.

So 20% includes 401k and taxable accounts? Or is 20% outside of those accounts?

[Anonymous]

Oh good grief Charlie Brown. You are 34, with $450K saved and no debt. Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

[Anonymous]

One hundred million dollars. Maybe think about a part-time job?