Reply to Upper and UMC Ppl: Do you Actually Know Anyone Living Beyond their Means?

Forum Index » Money and Finances

Reply to "Upper and UMC Ppl: Do you Actually Know Anyone Living Beyond their Means?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous]^ Some biglaw partners and the like don't retire bc it's their entire identity. My firm has a mandatory age 65 retirement which they do enforce, however if you really must stay -- you can stay BUT be stripped of partnership and be counsel on a salary. It really is a step down as you lose the profit %, you lose voting rights and you become a salaried employee. Some people will do it bc they don't want to sit home at 65, they want to finish out their existing cases over the next yr or two, and they want to go part-time ish. Those folks end up easing out by age 67 or 68. The truly sad ones are the ones who are 75 and STILL toiling away as counsel because they just WILL NOT let go.

But for every 1 I know that can't retire because they can't let go, I know 1 who can't retire because they are supporting adult children. An unusual % of partners I know (and maybe this is just my firm??) have daughters who have gone into majors that just don't generate $$, have not yet locked down a husband (or have locked one down who makes 100k which isn't affording the DD the lifestyle in which she was raised), and NYC is expensive -- so dad keeps on working and supplementing the young couple's income, renting them the gorgeous NYC apartment, paying their grandkids' 40k/yr preschool etc. That scenario always surprises me bc I assume those kinds of people have trusts for their kids/grandkids -- but lots of them don't want the kids to start eating away the trusts, so they cash flow the expenses with the thought that the kids will touch the trust when dad can no longer work.[/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