Median Retirement Savings of Pre-Retirees is $17,000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My property taxes are $1000 a month

And where do you live? Do you think most of America lives in a home like yours?

Toronto
No, but i don't know anyone who pays under $500.

You need to get out more.

The median property tax in FL (lots of seniors) is $1,773 -- A YEAR and no income tax.

Texas is considered a high property tax state and average is $2,275 -- A YEAR and no income tax.

They're the real takers - people who live in states where the tax burden isn't sufficient to provide for basic services, so they depend on the federal government (funded disproportionately by taxes from residents in states that have higher tax burdens) for subsidies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, but having only $17K saved is NOT a good thing either. There are financial sites that can advise you on how much you need to be/should be saving. You don't need to rely on DCUM estimates - aim for what legitimate financial sites indicate you will need.

no kidding its not good enough. the point is that most of america is not prepared for retirement.

and whose fault is that?

I don't think this thread is about fault -- the point is that people in DC are somewhat out of touch. do you not agree?

It may also become all of our problem when a great number of American are destitute in retirement.

Uh yeah you know this is coming.

[Anonymous]

My property taxes are 1000 a month and soon I won't even be able to deduct them! How fair and just. I love living in America.

/not

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My property taxes are $1000 a month

And where do you live? Do you think most of America lives in a home like yours?

Toronto
No, but i don't know anyone who pays under $500.

You need to get out more.

The median property tax in FL (lots of seniors) is $1,773 -- A YEAR and no income tax.

Texas is considered a high property tax state and average is $2,275 -- A YEAR and no income tax.

Haha- you choose to use Texas and Florida as examples? Check out taxes in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Oregon. All places I’d love to retire to (ok maybe not NJ), but property taxes, even in more “reasonably”priced towns are through the roof.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this statistic is pretty useless. DC area residents are not anywhere near the median in terms of education, income, or housing costs. I'd be willing to bet that most people in NW DC or close-in suburbs have at least $2 million in net worth by the time they retire.

So the only people who count as DC area residents are the ones who live in NW, Arlington or Bethesda? Interesting view of the world. If you live in SE/SW or Alexandria or Falls Church or Rockville, you aren't a DC area resident? Bc I'm fairly sure you'll find LOTS of households in those areas where $2 million at retirement would be akin to hitting the lottery.

If you want to feel better about yourself, by all means compare yourself to the national median. But realistically you should benchmark yourself against people who have had the same economic opportunities. In this region, people who live in NW, Arlington, or Bethesda are the ones who are above median. People who live in SE/SW or Gaithersburg are below median. Just because you can find others who are in your financial situation doesn't mean that it's not below median for the region and any higher expectations are unrealistic.

Economic opportunities are determined by geographic location, really? So every person in Manhattan has astounding economic opportunity because Manhattan has hedge fund portfolio managers, so everyone has a shot to be a hedge fund PM bc they live in the same area? And a scientist at NIH has the same economic opportunity as someone who works Carlyle or a lobbyist bc they all live and work within a few miles of each other?

I don't need to feel better about myself thanks -- very secure in my saving/investing decisions. Unlike you I recognize however that not everyone has equal opportunities so faulting and mocking others is of no use.

Of course economic opportunities are correlated with geography! How many people in WV even know what a hedge fund is or have ever met a NIH research scientist? $17K in retirement savings is admirable if you live in a low COL area. It's pathetic if you ever broke $100K in HHI and indicates poor financial planning.

Why compare WV with Manhattan or DC? Why not compare the people who live WITHIN Manhattan with each other or people in DC with each other? Does it not help your theory of "oh economic opportunities are the same for everyone living in the same places, those people were just too lazy or dumb to grab the opportunities, while I saved up $2 mil by age 32"?? Bc from a net worth perspective, most NIH scientists will never be up to the level of a Carlyle PM . . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this statistic is pretty useless. DC area residents are not anywhere near the median in terms of education, income, or housing costs. I'd be willing to bet that most people in NW DC or close-in suburbs have at least $2 million in net worth by the time they retire.

So the only people who count as DC area residents are the ones who live in NW, Arlington or Bethesda? Interesting view of the world. If you live in SE/SW or Alexandria or Falls Church or Rockville, you aren't a DC area resident? Bc I'm fairly sure you'll find LOTS of households in those areas where $2 million at retirement would be akin to hitting the lottery.

If you want to feel better about yourself, by all means compare yourself to the national median. But realistically you should benchmark yourself against people who have had the same economic opportunities. In this region, people who live in NW, Arlington, or Bethesda are the ones who are above median. People who live in SE/SW or Gaithersburg are below median. Just because you can find others who are in your financial situation doesn't mean that it's not below median for the region and any higher expectations are unrealistic.

Economic opportunities are determined by geographic location, really? So every person in Manhattan has astounding economic opportunity because Manhattan has hedge fund portfolio managers, so everyone has a shot to be a hedge fund PM bc they live in the same area? And a scientist at NIH has the same economic opportunity as someone who works Carlyle or a lobbyist bc they all live and work within a few miles of each other?

I don't need to feel better about myself thanks -- very secure in my saving/investing decisions. Unlike you I recognize however that not everyone has equal opportunities so faulting and mocking others is of no use.

Of course economic opportunities are correlated with geography! How many people in WV even know what a hedge fund is or have ever met a NIH research scientist? $17K in retirement savings is admirable if you live in a low COL area. It's pathetic if you ever broke $100K in HHI and indicates poor financial planning.

Why compare WV with Manhattan or DC? Why not compare the people who live WITHIN Manhattan with each other or people in DC with each other? Does it not help your theory of "oh economic opportunities are the same for everyone living in the same places, those people were just too lazy or dumb to grab the opportunities, while I saved up $2 mil by age 32"?? Bc from a net worth perspective, most NIH scientists will never be up to the level of a Carlyle PM . . . .

Aren't you just proving my point? I am comparing people within DC to each other. People in the DC area who can't accrue $2 million in assets before retirement are likely below the median, regardless of what the national stats are. Do you really think most NIH scientists will never reach $2 million in household net worth? I think you live in a bubble if you think that $2 million in assets is so stratospheric that only top people in finance can reach that level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:eh a lot of those people probably have pensions worth 1-2M maybe even more.

LOL!!!

You can say that again. Talk about whistling past the graveyard! It is very unlikely that these people have private pensions.

And to previous PPs talking about whose fault the low savings is, I didn't start the thread (OP here, obviously) to discuss blame. I wanted to provide a reality check to the other out-of-touch DCUMers talking about reaching the $2m mark in tneir 40s as if this were a common occurrence. Only 5% of households reach $2 million - ever.

If you reach retirement with a $1 million net worth, including home equity, congratulations. You are among the top 10% in the country.

[Anonymous]

Usually when the word "saving" is used, that does not include investments and other assets. The consistency in the reporting is very sloppy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this statistic is pretty useless. DC area residents are not anywhere near the median in terms of education, income, or housing costs. I'd be willing to bet that most people in NW DC or close-in suburbs have at least $2 million in net worth by the time they retire.

So the only people who count as DC area residents are the ones who live in NW, Arlington or Bethesda? Interesting view of the world. If you live in SE/SW or Alexandria or Falls Church or Rockville, you aren't a DC area resident? Bc I'm fairly sure you'll find LOTS of households in those areas where $2 million at retirement would be akin to hitting the lottery.

If you want to feel better about yourself, by all means compare yourself to the national median. But realistically you should benchmark yourself against people who have had the same economic opportunities. In this region, people who live in NW, Arlington, or Bethesda are the ones who are above median. People who live in SE/SW or Gaithersburg are below median. Just because you can find others who are in your financial situation doesn't mean that it's not below median for the region and any higher expectations are unrealistic.

Economic opportunities are determined by geographic location, really? So every person in Manhattan has astounding economic opportunity because Manhattan has hedge fund portfolio managers, so everyone has a shot to be a hedge fund PM bc they live in the same area? And a scientist at NIH has the same economic opportunity as someone who works Carlyle or a lobbyist bc they all live and work within a few miles of each other?

I don't need to feel better about myself thanks -- very secure in my saving/investing decisions. Unlike you I recognize however that not everyone has equal opportunities so faulting and mocking others is of no use.

Of course economic opportunities are correlated with geography! How many people in WV even know what a hedge fund is or have ever met a NIH research scientist? $17K in retirement savings is admirable if you live in a low COL area. It's pathetic if you ever broke $100K in HHI and indicates poor financial planning.

Why compare WV with Manhattan or DC? Why not compare the people who live WITHIN Manhattan with each other or people in DC with each other? Does it not help your theory of "oh economic opportunities are the same for everyone living in the same places, those people were just too lazy or dumb to grab the opportunities, while I saved up $2 mil by age 32"?? Bc from a net worth perspective, most NIH scientists will never be up to the level of a Carlyle PM . . . .

Aren't you just proving my point? I am comparing people within DC to each other. People in the DC area who can't accrue $2 million in assets before retirement are likely below the median, regardless of what the national stats are. Do you really think most NIH scientists will never reach $2 million in household net worth? I think you live in a bubble if you think that $2 million in assets is so stratospheric that only top people in finance can reach that level.

Your perspective is so skewed I can't believe you can't see it! You think people who don't have $2 million in assets (in the DC area) are below the median?! OMG. No wonder middle-income Americans are so fed up with the "elites." Now you're actually claiming that people in this area who don't have $2 million are in the bottom half?

Even in DC, the median for those approaching retirement is only $270,000. You're so clueless. And, that was for white families, who have a higher net worth. The median for black families is a few thousand, if that. (Not to argue why in this thread; it's just the article I found.)

https://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/news/housing-complex/blog/20839309/white-dc-area-households-have-a-net-worth-81-times-greater-than-black-ones

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Usually when the word "saving" is used, that does not include investments and other assets. The consistency in the reporting is very sloppy.

More denial. People that have only $17,000 for retirement, when they are five years away from it, aren't going to be swimming in other assets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My property taxes are $1000 a month

And where do you live? Do you think most of America lives in a home like yours?

Toronto
No, but i don't know anyone who pays under $500.

You need to get out more.

The median property tax in FL (lots of seniors) is $1,773 -- A YEAR and no income tax.

Texas is considered a high property tax state and average is $2,275 -- A YEAR and no income tax.

Haha- you choose to use Texas and Florida as examples? Check out taxes in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Oregon. All places I’d love to retire to (ok maybe not NJ), but property taxes, even in more “reasonably”priced towns are through the roof.

Ok, you get the concept of property taxes right? They are a percentage of the assessed value of your home. So if you live in an expensive house (NJ or MA for example) you are going to have a higher tax burden since your house is worth more.

BTW Medians:

NJ $6500
MA $3511
OR $2200

Oregon is your best bet and not through the roof though I would suggest Washington state since the property taxes are comparable to Oregon butt they too don't have an income tax even on retirement income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The thread in which some wealthy DCUMers are claiming that responsible college-educated couple should be worth $2 million by their 40s (!!) made me realize how out-of-touch with reality the DC elite really is.

The median retirement savings for people between 55 - 61, on the cusp of retirement, is only $17,000. That's a more accurate measure than the mean, which skews upward with a minority of wealthy people with advanced degrees (like DCUMers), but even then, the average amount saved is less than $170,000.

That's it! Half the people in their late 50s have LESS than $17,000 saved for retirement. And remember, this figure includes the 1/3 of all Americans who have college degrees and, presumably, professions that require an education. It's time for DCUMers yapping about $2 million as if it is an everyday occurrence to realize that they are in the upper 5% of all households, and that most people! including college grads will never accumulate even half that amount.

Time to get real, folks, and face the fact that we have an impending crisis on our hands, with the vast majority of Baby Boomers staring down retirement with a relative pittance saved for it.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/07/how-much-the-average-family-has-saved-for-retirement-at-every-age.html

makes perfect sense to me. what is is? only 25% of Americans graduate from College, only 83% graduate from high school, and 10% suffer from addiction, 34% of children are being raised by a unwed parent. There is a huge swath of the population that will always be paycheck to paycheck.

But yea, I agree, 2M by 40 is outlandish, but if you only have 17K and you are college educated, there is something wrong with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So for my wife and I (54 & 51, respectively), our $350K doesn't look so bad.

Compared to normal, middle America -- nope, not bad at all. On DCUM -- OMG I don't know how you sleep at night bc these people had 350k saved up individually while single at age 30.

yea, and and the average american is a fat pig. Should I be proud that I'm a size 14 and not yet insulin resistant?

i'm not really thrilled to get the award for being the tallest midget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So for my wife and I (54 & 51, respectively), our $350K doesn't look so bad.

Compared to normal, middle America -- nope, not bad at all. On DCUM -- OMG I don't know how you sleep at night bc these people had 350k saved up individually while single at age 30.

yea, and and the average american is a fat pig. Should I be proud that I'm a size 14 and not yet insulin resistant?

i'm not really thrilled to get the award for being the tallest midget.

You sound lovely.

Just kidding! You suck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this statistic is pretty useless. DC area residents are not anywhere near the median in terms of education, income, or housing costs. I'd be willing to bet that most people in NW DC or close-in suburbs have at least $2 million in net worth by the time they retire.

So the only people who count as DC area residents are the ones who live in NW, Arlington or Bethesda? Interesting view of the world. If you live in SE/SW or Alexandria or Falls Church or Rockville, you aren't a DC area resident? Bc I'm fairly sure you'll find LOTS of households in those areas where $2 million at retirement would be akin to hitting the lottery.

If you want to feel better about yourself, by all means compare yourself to the national median. But realistically you should benchmark yourself against people who have had the same economic opportunities. In this region, people who live in NW, Arlington, or Bethesda are the ones who are above median. People who live in SE/SW or Gaithersburg are below median. Just because you can find others who are in your financial situation doesn't mean that it's not below median for the region and any higher expectations are unrealistic.

Economic opportunities are determined by geographic location, really? So every person in Manhattan has astounding economic opportunity because Manhattan has hedge fund portfolio managers, so everyone has a shot to be a hedge fund PM bc they live in the same area? And a scientist at NIH has the same economic opportunity as someone who works Carlyle or a lobbyist bc they all live and work within a few miles of each other?

I don't need to feel better about myself thanks -- very secure in my saving/investing decisions. Unlike you I recognize however that not everyone has equal opportunities so faulting and mocking others is of no use.

Of course economic opportunities are correlated with geography! How many people in WV even know what a hedge fund is or have ever met a NIH research scientist? $17K in retirement savings is admirable if you live in a low COL area. It's pathetic if you ever broke $100K in HHI and indicates poor financial planning.

Why compare WV with Manhattan or DC? Why not compare the people who live WITHIN Manhattan with each other or people in DC with each other? Does it not help your theory of "oh economic opportunities are the same for everyone living in the same places, those people were just too lazy or dumb to grab the opportunities, while I saved up $2 mil by age 32"?? Bc from a net worth perspective, most NIH scientists will never be up to the level of a Carlyle PM . . . .

Aren't you just proving my point? I am comparing people within DC to each other. People in the DC area who can't accrue $2 million in assets before retirement are likely below the median, regardless of what the national stats are. Do you really think most NIH scientists will never reach $2 million in household net worth? I think you live in a bubble if you think that $2 million in assets is so stratospheric that only top people in finance can reach that level.

Your perspective is so skewed I can't believe you can't see it! You think people who don't have $2 million in assets (in the DC area) are below the median?! OMG. No wonder middle-income Americans are so fed up with the "elites." Now you're actually claiming that people in this area who don't have $2 million are in the bottom half?

Even in DC, the median for those approaching retirement is only $270,000. You're so clueless. And, that was for white families, who have a higher net worth. The median for black families is a few thousand, if that. (Not to argue why in this thread; it's just the article I found.)

https://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/news/housing-complex/blog/20839309/white-dc-area-households-have-a-net-worth-81-times-greater-than-black-ones

Sure, why not compare yourself to the average American who is fat, divorced, and uneducated? Some of us are only interested in comparing ourselves to peers who have the same drive and educational and job opportunities. And learn to read. The article you cited states that the median net worth for whites approaching retirement was over half a million, and that's across all educational levels. It's not a skewed perspective to think that $2 million in net worth by retirement is fully attainable by people with progressional and graduate degrees.