Anonymous wrote:Why are people here obsessed about saving for retirement?
I do save for the future but not aggressively. I do not max my 401k.
I am not concerned about retirement because I plan to work well into my 70s possibly 80s if still alive.

Retirement is for blue collar workers and poor people. These blue collar jobs are often unpleasant, they take a toll on the body and require a
physical fitness that workers no longer have as they age. It makes perfect sense to call it quit and retire.

White collar don't often face the same situation. They even get wiser and better with age. Why retire if you love what you are doing?

Most successful people I know are not thinking about retiring. You find a lot of old men and women at the top of the business, corporate and
political pyramid in our society. They are still working.

I know my perspective might be unique here. I'm a research scientist. Maybe I'm a crazy scientist?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with the PPs above. When people go on about - oh it’s only lazy bums retiring at 65, I think they forget industries vary. If you’re a tenured professor or a govt paper pusher with a lifetime job or in some field that ends up being so high demand at 65 that you can work until you choose to quit, great. Don’t save. For many others out there including in fields that are always pushed in these boards like STEM, push outs at 50 or 55 are very real; lots of law firms are also now super strict with their retirement at 65 clauses. And while everyone says, so what go hang a shingle - let’s be real in fields like engineering and law the majority of the million dollar projects/cases you worked on for 30 yrs aren’t going to solo practitioners - with your own firm started at 50 or 65 you easily could be taking a huge cut from your salaried job bc of lack of business and costs like healthcare. I’ve seen one mechanical engineer after the next laid off in their 50s or early 60s. And frankly even in regular “business” jobs, the threat of layoff just increases as you get older and higher prices for the company. So if working until 80 is guaranteed for you, great. But realistically everyone should think thru what happens if there’s a “forced retirement” earlier than planned.

Meh. Expert witness testimony is a lucrative field for retired white collar workers. We just had one who is 80 years old. The firm puts them up, pays for food and travel, and they often charge $$ per hour. No need to stress about hanging your own shingle at 50.

Anonymous wrote:Agree with the PPs above. When people go on about - oh it’s only lazy bums retiring at 65, I think they forget industries vary. If you’re a tenured professor or a govt paper pusher with a lifetime job or in some field that ends up being so high demand at 65 that you can work until you choose to quit, great. Don’t save. For many others out there including in fields that are always pushed in these boards like STEM, push outs at 50 or 55 are very real; lots of law firms are also now super strict with their retirement at 65 clauses. And while everyone says, so what go hang a shingle - let’s be real in fields like engineering and law the majority of the million dollar projects/cases you worked on for 30 yrs aren’t going to solo practitioners - with your own firm started at 50 or 65 you easily could be taking a huge cut from your salaried job bc of lack of business and costs like healthcare. I’ve seen one mechanical engineer after the next laid off in their 50s or early 60s. And frankly even in regular “business” jobs, the threat of layoff just increases as you get older and higher prices for the company. So if working until 80 is guaranteed for you, great. But realistically everyone should think thru what happens if there’s a “forced retirement” earlier than planned.

Anonymous wrote:Why are people here obsessed about saving for retirement?
I do save for the future but not aggressively. I do not max my 401k.
I am not concerned about retirement because I plan to work well into my 70s possibly 80s if still alive.

Retirement is for blue collar workers and poor people. These blue collar jobs are often unpleasant, they take a toll on the body and require a
physical fitness that workers no longer have as they age. It makes perfect sense to call it quit and retire.

White collar don't often face the same situation. They even get wiser and better with age. Why retire if you love what you are doing?

Most successful people I know are not thinking about retiring. You find a lot of old men and women at the top of the business, corporate and
political pyramid in our society. They are still working.

I know my perspective might be unique here. I'm a research scientist. Maybe I'm a crazy scientist?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you start putting money away with every paycheck when you're young, you will be used to having that money taken out of your paycheck just like you are used to having money taken out for taxes. There is no obsessing about saving for a retirement you just do it. Over the years that money adds up. You also make your house payment every month - at first it seems that the balance barely even goes down. But over time those payments add up until you eventually pay your mortgage off and own your home free and clear.

You may not have 5 million in your bank account when it comes time to retire but you will be glad that you bothered to save something. 104K/160K is not a small chunk of change. The ones who will really be hurting are the ones who bothered to save nothing at all.

For retirement, $160k is extraordinarily small. Using the 4% rule (which, in today's low interest rate environment, likely is too aggressive), that yields $6400 per year, or less that $535 per month.

Average retired worker is getting a check for roughly $1368/month (Motley Crew) so if they are also getting $535/month in investment income, that adds up to $1,903/month. If they also have a pension and their home paid off, they aren't doing too badly.

SS and pensions are taxed. People still have to pay property taxes, the average nationwide is $2,100/yr. My mom pays $300/mo in supplemental insurance and still has pretty hefty co-pays and prescription costs. living on $2,000 a month IS most definitely doing pretty badly.

At least for SS there is a floor below which SS is not taxed. Also, if both parties in the couple worked that SS check would be doubled.

Yes, of course you're right. If you take this person who is getting $1903 in income (SS and investment) per month, and assume that (i) he has a paid off house, (ii) a pension, and (iii) a spouse who receives the same social security benefit, he's doing fine!

If you also assume that he has 42 lbs of gold bullion buried in his garden, he'd be doing great. Or maybe assume he's the long lost Rockefeller scion, and unbeknownst to him has a trust at his disposal - if someone tell him about it, he's on easy street. So everything is fine!

I was a NP and was just correcting the statement that SS would be taxable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you start putting money away with every paycheck when you're young, you will be used to having that money taken out of your paycheck just like you are used to having money taken out for taxes. There is no obsessing about saving for a retirement you just do it. Over the years that money adds up. You also make your house payment every month - at first it seems that the balance barely even goes down. But over time those payments add up until you eventually pay your mortgage off and own your home free and clear.

You may not have 5 million in your bank account when it comes time to retire but you will be glad that you bothered to save something. 104K/160K is not a small chunk of change. The ones who will really be hurting are the ones who bothered to save nothing at all.

For retirement, $160k is extraordinarily small. Using the 4% rule (which, in today's low interest rate environment, likely is too aggressive), that yields $6400 per year, or less that $535 per month.

Average retired worker is getting a check for roughly $1368/month (Motley Crew) so if they are also getting $535/month in investment income, that adds up to $1,903/month. If they also have a pension and their home paid off, they aren't doing too badly.

SS and pensions are taxed. People still have to pay property taxes, the average nationwide is $2,100/yr. My mom pays $300/mo in supplemental insurance and still has pretty hefty co-pays and prescription costs. living on $2,000 a month IS most definitely doing pretty badly.

At least for SS there is a floor below which SS is not taxed. Also, if both parties in the couple worked that SS check would be doubled.

Yes, of course you're right. If you take this person who is getting $1903 in income (SS and investment) per month, and assume that (i) he has a paid off house, (ii) a pension, and (iii) a spouse who receives the same social security benefit, he's doing fine!

If you also assume that he has 42 lbs of gold bullion buried in his garden, he'd be doing great. Or maybe assume he's the long lost Rockefeller scion, and unbeknownst to him has a trust at his disposal - if someone tell him about it, he's on easy street. So everything is fine!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you start putting money away with every paycheck when you're young, you will be used to having that money taken out of your paycheck just like you are used to having money taken out for taxes. There is no obsessing about saving for a retirement you just do it. Over the years that money adds up. You also make your house payment every month - at first it seems that the balance barely even goes down. But over time those payments add up until you eventually pay your mortgage off and own your home free and clear.

You may not have 5 million in your bank account when it comes time to retire but you will be glad that you bothered to save something. 104K/160K is not a small chunk of change. The ones who will really be hurting are the ones who bothered to save nothing at all.

For retirement, $160k is extraordinarily small. Using the 4% rule (which, in today's low interest rate environment, likely is too aggressive), that yields $6400 per year, or less that $535 per month.

Average retired worker is getting a check for roughly $1368/month (Motley Crew) so if they are also getting $535/month in investment income, that adds up to $1,903/month. If they also have a pension and their home paid off, they aren't doing too badly.

SS and pensions are taxed. People still have to pay property taxes, the average nationwide is $2,100/yr. My mom pays $300/mo in supplemental insurance and still has pretty hefty co-pays and prescription costs. living on $2,000 a month IS most definitely doing pretty badly.

At least for SS there is a floor below which SS is not taxed. Also, if both parties in the couple worked that SS check would be doubled.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you start putting money away with every paycheck when you're young, you will be used to having that money taken out of your paycheck just like you are used to having money taken out for taxes. There is no obsessing about saving for a retirement you just do it. Over the years that money adds up. You also make your house payment every month - at first it seems that the balance barely even goes down. But over time those payments add up until you eventually pay your mortgage off and own your home free and clear.

You may not have 5 million in your bank account when it comes time to retire but you will be glad that you bothered to save something. 104K/160K is not a small chunk of change. The ones who will really be hurting are the ones who bothered to save nothing at all.

For retirement, $160k is extraordinarily small. Using the 4% rule (which, in today's low interest rate environment, likely is too aggressive), that yields $6400 per year, or less that $535 per month.

Average retired worker is getting a check for roughly $1368/month (Motley Crew) so if they are also getting $535/month in investment income, that adds up to $1,903/month. If they also have a pension and their home paid off, they aren't doing too badly.

SS and pensions are taxed. People still have to pay property taxes, the average nationwide is $2,100/yr. My mom pays $300/mo in supplemental insurance and still has pretty hefty co-pays and prescription costs. living on $2,000 a month IS most definitely doing pretty badly.

At least for SS there is a floor below which SS is not taxed. Also, if both parties in the couple worked that SS check would be doubled.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm glad I put a lot in my 401k in my early 30's as it allowed me to purchase a home in my mid 30's. I needed a large amount of assets to qualify for a mortgage and my 401k was the only asset worth anything in my possession.

Didn't realize 401k assets count for a mortgage - since they're tied up until age 65? I've done something similar -- starting maxing out the 401k the minute I got my real job at 25; now early-mid 30s, I'm starting think about buying. Seems like my friends did it the other way -- house was the first priority.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you start putting money away with every paycheck when you're young, you will be used to having that money taken out of your paycheck just like you are used to having money taken out for taxes. There is no obsessing about saving for a retirement you just do it. Over the years that money adds up. You also make your house payment every month - at first it seems that the balance barely even goes down. But over time those payments add up until you eventually pay your mortgage off and own your home free and clear.

You may not have 5 million in your bank account when it comes time to retire but you will be glad that you bothered to save something. 104K/160K is not a small chunk of change. The ones who will really be hurting are the ones who bothered to save nothing at all.

For retirement, $160k is extraordinarily small. Using the 4% rule (which, in today's low interest rate environment, likely is too aggressive), that yields $6400 per year, or less that $535 per month.

Average retired worker is getting a check for roughly $1368/month (Motley Crew) so if they are also getting $535/month in investment income, that adds up to $1,903/month. If they also have a pension and their home paid off, they aren't doing too badly.

SS and pensions are taxed. People still have to pay property taxes, the average nationwide is $2,100/yr. My mom pays $300/mo in supplemental insurance and still has pretty hefty co-pays and prescription costs. living on $2,000 a month IS most definitely doing pretty badly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a coworker in his early 70s who is quite ill. He is still attempting to come to work every day. It's awful to see him, because he is too sick to be here. We don't know the details, but it's been made clear he can't afford to stop working.

It's heartbreaking.

So yes, I will save for retirement. I'd much rather have money leftover to pass to my kids than not have enough and be forced to work while elderly and infirm.

He can't go out on disability?