I’m not sure, but it looks like he’ll get his Suoreme Court full salary, for life, with 15 years service on the Court (plus his other pension, I guess). By then, I would guess the salary will be close to 300k and more of he’s Chief. If he retires then, and assuming the US is still a functioning country with its institutions and democratic values intact (I assume nothing in life) he can seek employment with a firm and take care of any and all money needs in a couple years.

He still has to make it to 65 and the 20 years on the bench. As long as he has life insurance, it seems tough to fault to gamble.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I think bothers some people here is that it doesn’t fit their narrative that a couple whom see themselves in aren’t as rich as they ‘should be.’ Surely this man could have obtained more than your combined 350k pay or whatever, or your husband’s pay at a second tier law firm. The Judge chose to have intellectually challengeing jobs that will place him in the history books. By contrast, you will toil away in obscurity, worrying about things like OBX decals and what they mean.

I don’t think anyone is critizing his career choice. The issues are his stupid financial decisions to live beyond his means and the question of who paid off the debt he was carrying for years. We expect more from a Supreme Court nominee.

You expect rich nominees?

I expect financial prudence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I think bothers some people here is that it doesn’t fit their narrative that a couple whom see themselves in aren’t as rich as they ‘should be.’ Surely this man could have obtained more than your combined 350k pay or whatever, or your husband’s pay at a second tier law firm. The Judge chose to have intellectually challengeing jobs that will place him in the history books. By contrast, you will toil away in obscurity, worrying about things like OBX decals and what they mean.

I don’t think anyone is critizing his career choice. The issues are his stupid financial decisions to live beyond his means and the question of who paid off the debt he was carrying for years. We expect more from a Supreme Court nominee.

You expect rich nominees?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or basics like how much you’d need to save in order to generate $220k annually!

TEST: how much does one need to save in order to generate $220k (gross) annually in retirement. Bonus If you factor in adding tax responsibility (how much you need to have $220k NET annually).

Extra bonus: how many of you have this saved?

Except once the house is paid off and the kids are grown and gone (all pre-retirement) most people do not need to match their annual salary in retirement, or anything near it. Clearly the bulk of his salary is going toward his mortgage and kids' expenses.

I'm not sure about your math. His house is decades away from being paid off and his kids are nowhere near being grown/done with college.

11:35 - yes, exactly!! They will have WAY more than they ever need in retirement!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I think bothers some people here is that it doesn’t fit their narrative that a couple whom see themselves in aren’t as rich as they ‘should be.’ Surely this man could have obtained more than your combined 350k pay or whatever, or your husband’s pay at a second tier law firm. The Judge chose to have intellectually challengeing jobs that will place him in the history books. By contrast, you will toil away in obscurity, worrying about things like OBX decals and what they mean.

I don’t think anyone is critizing his career choice. The issues are his stupid financial decisions to live beyond his means and the question of who paid off the debt he was carrying for years. We expect more from a Supreme Court nominee.

NP. He hasn't made stupid financial decisions. Just because you have more saved than he does not make him stupid. In the long run he will have more money than you, plus he will be part of history. I know that makes you angry, but it's true.

His kids will have student loan debt, because he chose to buy baseball tickets and renovate the house instead of save for them.

Speaking engagements, royalty payments for books he writes, and if necessary 2nd mortgage on his house or a PLUS loan that will easily be paid off with his LIFETIME pension. You are embarrassing yourself.

His pension isn't in addition to his current salary, it's in place of his current salary. He's already strapped on his current salary.

He could put his children's college tuition on his credit cards. There's nothing wrong with that, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I think bothers some people here is that it doesn’t fit their narrative that a couple whom see themselves in aren’t as rich as they ‘should be.’ Surely this man could have obtained more than your combined 350k pay or whatever, or your husband’s pay at a second tier law firm. The Judge chose to have intellectually challengeing jobs that will place him in the history books. By contrast, you will toil away in obscurity, worrying about things like OBX decals and what they mean.

I don’t think anyone is critizing his career choice. The issues are his stupid financial decisions to live beyond his means and the question of who paid off the debt he was carrying for years. We expect more from a Supreme Court nominee.

NP. He hasn't made stupid financial decisions. Just because you have more saved than he does not make him stupid. In the long run he will have more money than you, plus he will be part of history. I know that makes you angry, but it's true.

His kids will have student loan debt, because he chose to buy baseball tickets and renovate the house instead of save for them.

Speaking engagements, royalty payments for books he writes, and if necessary 2nd mortgage on his house or a PLUS loan that will easily be paid off with his LIFETIME pension. You are embarrassing yourself.

He lucked out. Had he continued on his regular path, no money for the kids. How terrible.

Anonymous wrote:Or basics like how much you’d need to save in order to generate $220k annually!

TEST: how much does one need to save in order to generate $220k (gross) annually in retirement. Bonus If you factor in adding tax responsibility (how much you need to have $220k NET annually).

Extra bonus: how many of you have this saved?

Except once the house is paid off and the kids are grown and gone (all pre-retirement) most people do not need to match their annual salary in retirement, or anything near it. Clearly the bulk of his salary is going toward his mortgage and kids' expenses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I think bothers some people here is that it doesn’t fit their narrative that a couple whom see themselves in aren’t as rich as they ‘should be.’ Surely this man could have obtained more than your combined 350k pay or whatever, or your husband’s pay at a second tier law firm. The Judge chose to have intellectually challengeing jobs that will place him in the history books. By contrast, you will toil away in obscurity, worrying about things like OBX decals and what they mean.

I don’t think anyone is critizing his career choice. The issues are his stupid financial decisions to live beyond his means and the question of who paid off the debt he was carrying for years. We expect more from a Supreme Court nominee.

NP. He hasn't made stupid financial decisions. Just because you have more saved than he does not make him stupid. In the long run he will have more money than you, plus he will be part of history. I know that makes you angry, but it's true.

His kids will have student loan debt, because he chose to buy baseball tickets and renovate the house instead of save for them.

How do you know one of their grandparents hasn't set up an educational trust? We save less than many would expect because grandparents have set up a trust for our kids, we expect to inherit a lot, and we both have pensions.

Anonymous wrote:Or basics like how much you’d need to save in order to generate $220k annually!

TEST: how much does one need to save in order to generate $220k (gross) annually in retirement. Bonus If you factor in adding tax responsibility (how much you need to have $220k NET annually).

Extra bonus: how many of you have this saved?

None of them have any idea. It's sad.

Or basics like how much you’d need to save in order to generate $220k annually!

TEST: how much does one need to save in order to generate $220k (gross) annually in retirement. Bonus If you factor in adding tax responsibility (how much you need to have $220k NET annually).

Extra bonus: how many of you have this saved?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I think bothers some people here is that it doesn’t fit their narrative that a couple whom see themselves in aren’t as rich as they ‘should be.’ Surely this man could have obtained more than your combined 350k pay or whatever, or your husband’s pay at a second tier law firm. The Judge chose to have intellectually challengeing jobs that will place him in the history books. By contrast, you will toil away in obscurity, worrying about things like OBX decals and what they mean.

I don’t think anyone is critizing his career choice. The issues are his stupid financial decisions to live beyond his means and the question of who paid off the debt he was carrying for years. We expect more from a Supreme Court nominee.

NP. He hasn't made stupid financial decisions. Just because you have more saved than he does not make him stupid. In the long run he will have more money than you, plus he will be part of history. I know that makes you angry, but it's true.

NP. You know, when someone starts bringing in emotions and calling people angry over a discussion over a public persons finances, it’s pretty obvious that they have an agenda and want to derail the discussion. This is the money forum and people here talk like grownups, so you can go back to the politics forum and fling poop there since it’s more your style. I can decide whether someone made stupid financial choices without having feelings about them personally. I personally am of the camp that living above your means I’d always unwise no matter what your pension is.

No - he gets guaranteed $220k annually from pension on top of anything else they have saved. The kids will be more than fine.

Ironic that people are criticizing personal finance choices when it’s clear most doing the criticizing don’t understand basics like a pension!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I think bothers some people here is that it doesn’t fit their narrative that a couple whom see themselves in aren’t as rich as they ‘should be.’ Surely this man could have obtained more than your combined 350k pay or whatever, or your husband’s pay at a second tier law firm. The Judge chose to have intellectually challengeing jobs that will place him in the history books. By contrast, you will toil away in obscurity, worrying about things like OBX decals and what they mean.

I don’t think anyone is critizing his career choice. The issues are his stupid financial decisions to live beyond his means and the question of who paid off the debt he was carrying for years. We expect more from a Supreme Court nominee.

NP. He hasn't made stupid financial decisions. Just because you have more saved than he does not make him stupid. In the long run he will have more money than you, plus he will be part of history. I know that makes you angry, but it's true.

His kids will have student loan debt, because he chose to buy baseball tickets and renovate the house instead of save for them.

Speaking engagements, royalty payments for books he writes, and if necessary 2nd mortgage on his house or a PLUS loan that will easily be paid off with his LIFETIME pension. You are embarrassing yourself.