Early retirement, vacation home or travel? Hard decision

[Anonymous]

Travel

[Anonymous]

I would work another 5 years and then buy the beach house and travel.
I agree with others, if you can only chose one, you're not set for life.

Also, I have no desire to retire at age 55. Have you thought of what it will be like to just poke around day after day? Nothing about that is appealing to me but I love my job and derive a good deal of satisfaction out of it.

[Anonymous]

Vacation home is a money drain. Rent it if you want to, but don't commit to buying. You don't want to find out in 20 years that you need expensive skilled care for you or your spouse and you can't unload the vacation home.

[Anonymous]

How about a vacation home in a beautiful area that is also close to shopping, medical care, night life?

[Anonymous]

Travel. Ten years from now, you can buy a vacation home if you have money, but you won't be able to travel and see everything you want to see due to old(er) age (strength and health). It's not a hard decision.

[Anonymous]

I don't see the appeal of a vacation home personally, so I'd vote against that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't see the appeal of a vacation home personally, so I'd vote against that.

+1. I never could get my head around a vacation house. Why would I want another house to take care of? We've been able to afford one for a long time, and every time I go to a vacation rental I think about it. I would not want the hassle and cost. I'd rather pay the premium to rent someone else's. Then if it burns/floods/breaks/gets old, who cares? And if you have one, I'm guessing you'll feel obligated to use it. When I'm having my first glass of wine at 4 on Friday, you're starting your 4 hour drive to beach/mountains? Who needs that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't see the appeal of a vacation home personally, so I'd vote against that.

Well, you would eventually sell or rent out your "work" home and move into your vacation home. You would either have the proceeds of the home sale or rental income to play with during retirement.

[Anonymous]

We are about 5 years from retirement and are considering our options as well. We've decided to sell our current home and buy a vacation home, after we do quite a bit of traveling. We may also buy a condo near our child, but they are still deciding where to live (job opportunities for them in a few states). Vacation will be at a place we've been visiting for over 30 years, many memories, it's always been like our second home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Travel now. As you get older the idea of long adventurous trips will be less appealing and a nice vacation home will be relaxing.

+1. We're in a similar situation, and this is what we plan to do. A second home really only makes sense if you are able to spend months at a time there. It can also make sense if it is a low tax jurisdiction, and you can spend over 6 months of the year there. Our friends with houses in Florida keep track and know down to the day how long they need to stay to qualify as Florida residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I don't mean to piss anyone off or come off like a troll but here's my dilemma and I was hoping for opinion's from other's that might have been in the same boat. I was able to retire fairly young at 55 along with being financially set for life. The problem is my wife and I love to travel but at the same time would love to buy a vacation home for retirement. The issue is I really can't do both and spend the kind of money I'm looking at.

I guess my big question is, would you rather have a vacation home or several beautiful vacations around the world each year? Seem's like it should be easy to answer but it's not. Any serious suggestions or past experience would be appreciated. Also, I've heard all the pro's and con's of owning a second home.

Sorry to break it to you, but if you cannot afford to do both, you are not 'set for life'.

This is just silly. Typical DCUM snark. Of course someone can be "set for life" but not feel comfortable buying and maintaining two homes and traveling extensively. Or, perhaps they could afford to do all three for some period of time, but it wouldn't leave the kind of "cushion" that they need to feel comfortable that their money will last as long as it needs to. Retirement calculators just give you predictions -- most of us don't want to cut it that close.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see the appeal of a vacation home personally, so I'd vote against that.

+1. I never could get my head around a vacation house. Why would I want another house to take care of? We've been able to afford one for a long time, and every time I go to a vacation rental I think about it. I would not want the hassle and cost. I'd rather pay the premium to rent someone else's. Then if it burns/floods/breaks/gets old, who cares? And if you have one, I'm guessing you'll feel obligated to use it. When I'm having my first glass of wine at 4 on Friday, you're starting your 4 hour drive to beach/mountains? Who needs that?

I have a second home and I am here all summer. At 4 on Friday I might be sitting on the beach having my glass of wine. It doesn't totally suck.

[Anonymous]

Am I the only one wondering how you are "set for life" and can't have a vacation home and still travel?

To me, set for life means you have $8-10 million, lowest, working for you in investments. Plenty to have a million dollar vacation home and still travel a ton.

??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I don't mean to piss anyone off or come off like a troll but here's my dilemma and I was hoping for opinion's from other's that might have been in the same boat. I was able to retire fairly young at 55 along with being financially set for life. The problem is my wife and I love to travel but at the same time would love to buy a vacation home for retirement. The issue is I really can't do both and spend the kind of money I'm looking at.

I guess my big question is, would you rather have a vacation home or several beautiful vacations around the world each year? Seem's like it should be easy to answer but it's not. Any serious suggestions or past experience would be appreciated. Also, I've heard all the pro's and con's of owning a second home.

Sorry to break it to you, but if you cannot afford to do both, you are not 'set for life'.

This is just silly. Typical DCUM snark. Of course someone can be "set for life" but not feel comfortable buying and maintaining two homes and traveling extensively. Or, perhaps they could afford to do all three for some period of time, but it wouldn't leave the kind of "cushion" that they need to feel comfortable that their money will last as long as it needs to. Retirement calculators just give you predictions -- most of us don't want to cut it that close.

When someone says set for life, I think it has a connotation of a level of income that is not going to really restrict your activities. Technically, if you live in a trailer that costs $500/mo and you are collecting 2k a month in SS, ypu would be set for life, but I don't think that's what most people think of when they hear that term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I don't mean to piss anyone off or come off like a troll but here's my dilemma and I was hoping for opinion's from other's that might have been in the same boat. I was able to retire fairly young at 55 along with being financially set for life. The problem is my wife and I love to travel but at the same time would love to buy a vacation home for retirement. The issue is I really can't do both and spend the kind of money I'm looking at.

I guess my big question is, would you rather have a vacation home or several beautiful vacations around the world each year? Seem's like it should be easy to answer but it's not. Any serious suggestions or past experience would be appreciated. Also, I've heard all the pro's and con's of owning a second home.

Sorry to break it to you, but if you cannot afford to do both, you are not 'set for life'.

This is just silly. Typical DCUM snark. Of course someone can be "set for life" but not feel comfortable buying and maintaining two homes and traveling extensively. Or, perhaps they could afford to do all three for some period of time, but it wouldn't leave the kind of "cushion" that they need to feel comfortable that their money will last as long as it needs to. Retirement calculators just give you predictions -- most of us don't want to cut it that close.

When someone says set for life, I think it has a connotation of a level of income that is not going to really restrict your activities. Technically, if you live in a trailer that costs $500/mo and you are collecting 2k a month in SS, ypu would be set for life, but I don't think that's what most people think of when they hear that term.

But define "really restrict your activities." If you mean truly unlimited, then almost no none would ever retire. If you want to retire early, and come up with a budget of say, $250,000 per year in retirement, and you save enough money to throw off that much income every year (on average, adjusted for inflation), by my definition you could be "set for life." With that income, you could afford a million dollar house (you probably have about that much equity in your existing house), and be able to spend $20 to 30k per year on travel, but you probably couldn't afford a million dollar beach house, as well (depending on what else you spend money on -- country club, boat, etc). I know, because I'm doing this calculation right now. If you want to have money to travel extensively and have the beach house, you're going to work a little while longer. But that doesn't mean that, if you decide that second home isn't important to you, that you aren't "set for life."