Reply to Lump sum vs monthly benefit and life expectancy

Forum Index » Money and Finances

Reply to "Lump sum vs monthly benefit and life expectancy "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I turned down my lump sum because the payout was too little.

I wanted the steady income.[/quote]

This. It's actually the case for most people. I work for an international organization and I am retiring in 5 years. My organization gives me either lump sum + reduced yearly benefit or yearly benefit.

So what do you guys think? I have these 2 options.

[b]Option 1: $63k/year for life [/b]
Option2: $423k lump sum + $29k/year for life (i can't recall the exact numbers but that's the ballpark)

I also have a.Roth IRA but I am not eligible for  US social security. I have an additional rental income of $1500/month after all expenses  (paid off property)

I am tempted to take option 2, but I need to look further into the tax implications of the lump sum (option 2).

I don't plan on having an extravagant lifestyle during retirement. And I did all my bucket list over the years anyways.  [/quote]

No take option 1 especially since you will not have social security. If you currently have a house that almost paid off you can sell it and move to a lower cost of living area if you are not in one already. Around $60k per year as a retiree (esp if you are single) is not bad at all. Your most basic needs will be met. And you also have an IRA and rental income. So if you take option 1 (lifetime payments) along with your modest IRA and rental income, you are look at perhaps $85k a year. Anyone pulling that amount yearly without social security has to be in the 20% of retirees in the United States. Please don't take the people retiring with $10 million on this forum as the norm because it is not.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics