Is retirement an age or an asset number for you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is my question if you are a married man with a Stay at home wife what is in it for her for husband to retire before 67?

I mean she finally has a taste of freedom after raising 2-4 kids. Her husband is bringing in good income. She is most likely 2-4 years younger so her medical depends on him. Her income stream is cut greatly if he retires before full retirement age of 67. She gets stuck with expensive medical bills and now she has to deal with him getting in the way and wanting breakfast and lunch.

My math the absolute earliest I can retire is 67 as wife will almost be 65 after I get my bonus for year then we can do Cobra a few months and go straight to medicare for her.

the wife wants the husband to be happy and rested?

[Anonymous]

57 and $5 million

[Anonymous]

A bit of both. Latest we will retire is in 7 years when dh is 70 and I’m 62. We might skip out at 68/60 or stagger our retirements. Our “number” is also a bit adjustable, but 4m (not including equity or funds in kids accounts) is our floor. That plus pensions and social security (even if decimated) should be more than enough. We are almost there now.

[Anonymous]

The age of my youngest child. Once she's at college, I plan to retire.

We'll see if that happens. That's about 9 years from now and, assuming I'm in a similar role as at present, I'll have some golden handcuffs I'll need to walk away from. Which may be difficult to do. But I have no intention of working past 60. Life is too short and I want to make room for others in the workforce.

[Anonymous]

We have enough to retire now at 52 but waiting till 57 for health insurance purposes.

[Anonymous]

Our original number was $4 million in retirement accounts plus $1 million in brokerage, which would have been ages 56/52. Because of market returns, we may reach that number in 3-4 years (as oppose to 7). We have a military pension and Tricare for Life. If that happens, we may continue to work to fund graduate school and future down payments for the kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our original number was $4 million in retirement accounts plus $1 million in brokerage, which would have been ages 56/52. Because of market returns, we may reach that number in 3-4 years (as oppose to 7). We have a military pension and Tricare for Life. If that happens, we may continue to work to fund graduate school and future down payments for the kids.

Having Tricare for life is a huge benefit. Do you have to pay any monthly fee? Or just the copays, deductibles, etc?

For others, it can be 20-30K for 2 from your mid 50s until 65

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is my question if you are a married man with a Stay at home wife what is in it for her for husband to retire before 67?

I mean she finally has a taste of freedom after raising 2-4 kids. Her husband is bringing in good income. She is most likely 2-4 years younger so her medical depends on him. Her income stream is cut greatly if he retires before full retirement age of 67. She gets stuck with expensive medical bills and now she has to deal with him getting in the way and wanting breakfast and lunch.

My math the absolute earliest I can retire is 67 as wife will almost be 65 after I get my bonus for year then we can do Cobra a few months and go straight to medicare for her.

the wife wants the husband to be happy and rested?

Also the wife wants to hang out with her husband? Believe it or not, the wife actually chose the person to spend the rest of her life with.

[Anonymous]

Both age and number.
At age 55, I was eligible to collect my pension with 70% health insurance premiums covered.
My number was where my investments needed to be for a 3.5% withdrawal rate to supplement my pension.
I also invested in CDs to cover health insurance premiums until I am 65.
I was able to retire at 55.

[Anonymous]

When I was younger, I thought it would be nice to retire at 55 if DH and I had enough in assets.

Now that I am 55, I still really enjoy my career and want to keep working at least another 5-10 years. Same for my DH. Now that we're in our top earning years, we figure that we might as well take advantage of it.

In the future, if my adult children (now ages 20 and 23) have children of their own in the future, I'd like to keep working so that my daughters can have the option to be a SAHM. (This is the opposite of having the grandparents take care of the grandchildren while the parents work.) When my own kids were young, I was always a working mom, as my husband made a decent income but not huge. That was normal for me because my own mom had a demanding career, and so I was not familiar with the SAHM experience.

As I ponder the experience of being a working mom (and growing up as the daughter of a working mom), I have concluded that it's better for children to have one parent at home, at least for ages 0 to 10 years. If that means that I continue to work while my DD's stay at home with their own children in the future (if they decide to have children), then I am completely fine with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I was younger, I thought it would be nice to retire at 55 if DH and I had enough in assets.

Now that I am 55, I still really enjoy my career and want to keep working at least another 5-10 years. Same for my DH. Now that we're in our top earning years, we figure that we might as well take advantage of it.

In the future, if my adult children (now ages 20 and 23) have children of their own in the future, I'd like to keep working so that my daughters can have the option to be a SAHM. (This is the opposite of having the grandparents take care of the grandchildren while the parents work.) When my own kids were young, I was always a working mom, as my husband made a decent income but not huge. That was normal for me because my own mom had a demanding career, and so I was not familiar with the SAHM experience.

As I ponder the experience of being a working mom (and growing up as the daughter of a working mom), I have concluded that it's better for children to have one parent at home, at least for ages 0 to 10 years. If that means that I continue to work while my DD's stay at home with their own children in the future (if they decide to have children), then I am completely fine with that.

So you'd "like to keep working so your daughter can have the option to be a SAHM"? What does that entail? Are you planning to provide them with income from your working extra years?
You do you, but I'm not remaining in the workforce to support my healthy and capable adult kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I was younger, I thought it would be nice to retire at 55 if DH and I had enough in assets.

Now that I am 55, I still really enjoy my career and want to keep working at least another 5-10 years. Same for my DH. Now that we're in our top earning years, we figure that we might as well take advantage of it.

In the future, if my adult children (now ages 20 and 23) have children of their own in the future, I'd like to keep working so that my daughters can have the option to be a SAHM. (This is the opposite of having the grandparents take care of the grandchildren while the parents work.) When my own kids were young, I was always a working mom, as my husband made a decent income but not huge. That was normal for me because my own mom had a demanding career, and so I was not familiar with the SAHM experience.

As I ponder the experience of being a working mom (and growing up as the daughter of a working mom), I have concluded that it's better for children to have one parent at home, at least for ages 0 to 10 years. If that means that I continue to work while my DD's stay at home with their own children in the future (if they decide to have children), then I am completely fine with that.

Ugh. The DHs can stay at home too!

[Anonymous]

It's a number for us. Hope to hit it in the next 10 years and retire at 60.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I was younger, I thought it would be nice to retire at 55 if DH and I had enough in assets.

Now that I am 55, I still really enjoy my career and want to keep working at least another 5-10 years. Same for my DH. Now that we're in our top earning years, we figure that we might as well take advantage of it.

In the future, if my adult children (now ages 20 and 23) have children of their own in the future, I'd like to keep working so that my daughters can have the option to be a SAHM. (This is the opposite of having the grandparents take care of the grandchildren while the parents work.) When my own kids were young, I was always a working mom, as my husband made a decent income but not huge. That was normal for me because my own mom had a demanding career, and so I was not familiar with the SAHM experience.

As I ponder the experience of being a working mom (and growing up as the daughter of a working mom), I have concluded that it's better for children to have one parent at home, at least for ages 0 to 10 years. If that means that I continue to work while my DD's stay at home with their own children in the future (if they decide to have children), then I am completely fine with that.

So you'd "like to keep working so your daughter can have the option to be a SAHM"? What does that entail? Are you planning to provide them with income from your working extra years?
You do you, but I'm not remaining in the workforce to support my healthy and capable adult kids

PP here. Yes, that's correct. I can work while my daughters stay at home with their children. I'm at a point where I'm making a very good salary, and I wish I could have had the option to SAH with my children when they were young. If my DD's have DH's who can support them fully to stay at home, then great. But if their DH's do not have enough of a salary for them to stay at home, then I'll work so that my DD's can be SAHM's (if they would like that). Like I said, it's the opposite of having the grandparents take care of the grandchildren while the parents work. Plenty of grandparents provide financial support for their children and grandchildren. My own parents give us up to the gift tax each year (approximately $15,000 per person), and also pay tuition for our kids. So this is similar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I was younger, I thought it would be nice to retire at 55 if DH and I had enough in assets.

Now that I am 55, I still really enjoy my career and want to keep working at least another 5-10 years. Same for my DH. Now that we're in our top earning years, we figure that we might as well take advantage of it.

In the future, if my adult children (now ages 20 and 23) have children of their own in the future, I'd like to keep working so that my daughters can have the option to be a SAHM. (This is the opposite of having the grandparents take care of the grandchildren while the parents work.) When my own kids were young, I was always a working mom, as my husband made a decent income but not huge. That was normal for me because my own mom had a demanding career, and so I was not familiar with the SAHM experience.

As I ponder the experience of being a working mom (and growing up as the daughter of a working mom), I have concluded that it's better for children to have one parent at home, at least for ages 0 to 10 years. If that means that I continue to work while my DD's stay at home with their own children in the future (if they decide to have children), then I am completely fine with that.

So you'd "like to keep working so your daughter can have the option to be a SAHM"? What does that entail? Are you planning to provide them with income from your working extra years?
You do you, but I'm not remaining in the workforce to support my healthy and capable adult kids

PP here. Yes, that's correct. I can work while my daughters stay at home with their children. I'm at a point where I'm making a very good salary, and I wish I could have had the option to SAH with my children when they were young. If my DD's have DH's who can support them fully to stay at home, then great. But if their DH's do not have enough of a salary for them to stay at home, then I'll work so that my DD's can be SAHM's (if they would like that). Like I said, it's the opposite of having the grandparents take care of the grandchildren while the parents work. Plenty of grandparents provide financial support for their children and grandchildren. My own parents give us up to the gift tax each year (approximately $15,000 per person), and also pay tuition for our kids. So this is similar.

Similar, but most who do it do NOT work into their 60s to do so. But if you enjoy and want to do it, go for it