Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:catching up on this long rambling thread.

$5MM in a HCOL area is not enough for a youngish couple to retire.

Retiring at 50 or even 55 means you need to play for 35-40 years of living. Assuming a $1MM home, is $4MM going to cut it - that's 150k max withrawal a year.

of course you could move to a LCOL, buy a smaller house and live okay for 40 years. but that's tough for lots of people to do.

You forget that the 4 million will also be compounding over the next 30+ years. So they are going to have a lot more than 4 million to retire on over the years. Their investable assets can double every 7 to 10 years. (Also, OP was meaning 5 million in investable assets excluding the home).

Anonymous wrote:catching up on this long rambling thread.

$5MM in a HCOL area is not enough for a youngish couple to retire.

Retiring at 50 or even 55 means you need to play for 35-40 years of living. Assuming a $1MM home, is $4MM going to cut it - that's 150k max withrawal a year.

of course you could move to a LCOL, buy a smaller house and live okay for 40 years. but that's tough for lots of people to do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I quit my teaching job when we hit $5m. I just couldn't put in another 5 years. We pay out of pocket for insurance for 3, while my DH is on Medicare.

Your DH is old enough for medicare and you still have TWO kids on your health insurance?? Wow.

Can't kids be on health insurance until 26 or something? When can you get Medicare? 62? 65? It doesn't seem that bad to me.

65. And yes, 26. So youngest age is 39 to become that parent.

It's not too bad for a man, but is a pretty bad idea for a woman.

whatever. i had my kid at 47. it's fine. happier to have had them late than not at all. we're only at $3M liquid net, so will probably work for another decade or so.

Except having a kid at age 47 means a significantly higher chance of health issues for the kid. Anything over 35 means an increased risk, but over 40 is much higher. So yeah, it's not really the best idea to have a kid at 40+

Can you imagine saying this to someone in real life? That they shouldn’t have had their already-born children so late?

I have said something similar to friends in real life. A good friend was trying for her first in her 40s. We talked about how difficult it would be to raise that child and how not getting pregnant may be a blessing. She did get pregnant and baby and she are healthy. And she is also aware of the potential struggles that younger moms dont face. Her parents were older and both passed when she was in college, so its surprising to me that she made this choice knowing she will likely die before they reach full adult age.

You see posts on here all the time about women who are exhausted, suffering health issues, having marital problems, having life problems and then it comes out that they are 49 and have a 3 year old and its like, well yeah, duh. Your life stage is not compatible to being a mother of young kids. With lots of money you can alleviate the struggle. But it should be discussed and explained. Women in their 40s should generally not be encouraged to give birth.

I know this is off topic, sorry OP!

You sound jealous.

Where did you read jealousy? I'm PP and had my last child at age 30. I am now close to retirement and empty nest at nearing 50. Live is great. I feel bad for women who didnt have children younger.

+1

Everyone gets to choose, but then you must live with the consequences of your choices. Having at kid at45 means you are 67 when they graduate college. If you live to see grandkids, you might not be able to actually do much physically with them.

But being in your early 50s and kids out of college is awesome.

Having kids at 45 for some people means they lived an amazing life before the age of 45 that you, who were raising kids, did not live at all. They lived this life in their 20s and 30s unencumbered by responsibilities, which is not even close to the same experience as being in your early 50s with an empty nest. It's just different. I would ask yourself why you are so committed to being convinced your way is the best and the "consequences of your choices" are the correct path. In my experience, only insecure people feel the need to think this way. YMMV.

And no, I didn't have my kids at 45 or anywhere close so no need to lob that insult. Just humble enough to realize there a lot of ways to live a life and many pros and cons to all the lives.

So you do you. Whatever people want to do is fine with me. But I'm still allowed to have opinions on what I'd like to do.

I also know people who had kids at age 20 and were grandparents by 42. I agree it's just a different way of life, but one I wouldn't personally choose for myself. Because I watched that option---the dad had to quit college after AA degree and keep a job to raise the family. Met him at a large company where he was doing well. But he was definitely held back/restricted from not having his 4 year degree (for no reason other than that---he could do the work and was excellent). So his career suffered as well, had he been able to finish college he would have advanced faster and more easily for the next 30+ years. People with a 4 year degree at the same age as him were definitely way ahead in terms of their positions (this company had 15-20 levels at both Technical and management, and it was well known how long you typically last at each level---he was at the high end or above many time simply because the lack of college degree)

Of course you're allowed to have opinions on what you want to do. What you should not do is crap on other people's life choices when you have no idea what the actual hell you are talking about. Again, humble yourself that you do not know everything and have not experienced everything.
That
And no, your hard to follow babble that I think is a story about someone who was held back professionally from having kids too young, does not make the point that YOU did everything right and OTHER people are wrong. It's just some bad story about one person.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I quit my teaching job when we hit $5m. I just couldn't put in another 5 years. We pay out of pocket for insurance for 3, while my DH is on Medicare.

Your DH is old enough for medicare and you still have TWO kids on your health insurance?? Wow.

Can't kids be on health insurance until 26 or something? When can you get Medicare? 62? 65? It doesn't seem that bad to me.

65. And yes, 26. So youngest age is 39 to become that parent.

It's not too bad for a man, but is a pretty bad idea for a woman.

whatever. i had my kid at 47. it's fine. happier to have had them late than not at all. we're only at $3M liquid net, so will probably work for another decade or so.

Except having a kid at age 47 means a significantly higher chance of health issues for the kid. Anything over 35 means an increased risk, but over 40 is much higher. So yeah, it's not really the best idea to have a kid at 40+

Can you imagine saying this to someone in real life? That they shouldn’t have had their already-born children so late?

I have said something similar to friends in real life. A good friend was trying for her first in her 40s. We talked about how difficult it would be to raise that child and how not getting pregnant may be a blessing. She did get pregnant and baby and she are healthy. And she is also aware of the potential struggles that younger moms dont face. Her parents were older and both passed when she was in college, so its surprising to me that she made this choice knowing she will likely die before they reach full adult age.

You see posts on here all the time about women who are exhausted, suffering health issues, having marital problems, having life problems and then it comes out that they are 49 and have a 3 year old and its like, well yeah, duh. Your life stage is not compatible to being a mother of young kids. With lots of money you can alleviate the struggle. But it should be discussed and explained. Women in their 40s should generally not be encouraged to give birth.

I know this is off topic, sorry OP!

You sound jealous.

Where did you read jealousy? I'm PP and had my last child at age 30. I am now close to retirement and empty nest at nearing 50. Live is great. I feel bad for women who didnt have children younger.

Sorry you didn’t get to enjoy your youth and now like to be smug towards women who had children later

DP: Had first kid at 29, 2nd at 34. I got to enjoy my youth (married at 22). And now get to enjoy retirement at 55 with way more than $5M to spend

Everyone can do what works for them. But fact remains the older you are the more risks of complications for mom and kids. And the fact you might still need to be working at 65+ because you still have kids in college/needing insurance/etc.
And fact that you might not be around to enjoy your kids getting married and having grand kids.

lol. Getting married at 22 is not enjoying your youth. 😂

It is if you did it right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:20 years of assisted living would cost about $5M according to Google. Per person so $10 if you need it for both.
3 kids going to private college is another 1.5, and if they want to be doctors or lawyers you can add onto that.
I also have anxiety about one of my kids getting a serious medical condition or injury where you need to pay $$$$ out of pocket to get appropriate care. If that happened and I didn’t have th money because I retired at 50, I’d feel awful.

20 years of assisted living? For both partners?? Risk assessment not your strength I see.

I know a couple that the wife was in assisted living and then nursing home for total 11 yrs. Her husband the same for 9 yrs. That equals total 20 yrs so it can happen.

It's because they could pay for the extra care. And there's a sharp difference in costs between assisted living and around the cost nursing. People who can't afford it make it work out. We do not have an elderly health crisis and homeless 80 year olds living on the streets. Think about that long and hard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I quit my teaching job when we hit $5m. I just couldn't put in another 5 years. We pay out of pocket for insurance for 3, while my DH is on Medicare.

Your DH is old enough for medicare and you still have TWO kids on your health insurance?? Wow.

Can't kids be on health insurance until 26 or something? When can you get Medicare? 62? 65? It doesn't seem that bad to me.

65. And yes, 26. So youngest age is 39 to become that parent.

It's not too bad for a man, but is a pretty bad idea for a woman.

whatever. i had my kid at 47. it's fine. happier to have had them late than not at all. we're only at $3M liquid net, so will probably work for another decade or so.

Except having a kid at age 47 means a significantly higher chance of health issues for the kid. Anything over 35 means an increased risk, but over 40 is much higher. So yeah, it's not really the best idea to have a kid at 40+

Can you imagine saying this to someone in real life? That they shouldn’t have had their already-born children so late?

I have said something similar to friends in real life. A good friend was trying for her first in her 40s. We talked about how difficult it would be to raise that child and how not getting pregnant may be a blessing. She did get pregnant and baby and she are healthy. And she is also aware of the potential struggles that younger moms dont face. Her parents were older and both passed when she was in college, so its surprising to me that she made this choice knowing she will likely die before they reach full adult age.

You see posts on here all the time about women who are exhausted, suffering health issues, having marital problems, having life problems and then it comes out that they are 49 and have a 3 year old and its like, well yeah, duh. Your life stage is not compatible to being a mother of young kids. With lots of money you can alleviate the struggle. But it should be discussed and explained. Women in their 40s should generally not be encouraged to give birth.

I know this is off topic, sorry OP!

You sound jealous.

Where did you read jealousy? I'm PP and had my last child at age 30. I am now close to retirement and empty nest at nearing 50. Live is great. I feel bad for women who didnt have children younger.

Sorry you didn’t get to enjoy your youth and now like to be smug towards women who had children later

DP: Had first kid at 29, 2nd at 34. I got to enjoy my youth (married at 22). And now get to enjoy retirement at 55 with way more than $5M to spend

Everyone can do what works for them. But fact remains the older you are the more risks of complications for mom and kids. And the fact you might still need to be working at 65+ because you still have kids in college/needing insurance/etc.
And fact that you might not be around to enjoy your kids getting married and having grand kids.

lol. Getting married at 22 is not enjoying your youth. 😂

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I quit my teaching job when we hit $5m. I just couldn't put in another 5 years. We pay out of pocket for insurance for 3, while my DH is on Medicare.

Your DH is old enough for medicare and you still have TWO kids on your health insurance?? Wow.

Can't kids be on health insurance until 26 or something? When can you get Medicare? 62? 65? It doesn't seem that bad to me.

65. And yes, 26. So youngest age is 39 to become that parent.

It's not too bad for a man, but is a pretty bad idea for a woman.

whatever. i had my kid at 47. it's fine. happier to have had them late than not at all. we're only at $3M liquid net, so will probably work for another decade or so.

Except having a kid at age 47 means a significantly higher chance of health issues for the kid. Anything over 35 means an increased risk, but over 40 is much higher. So yeah, it's not really the best idea to have a kid at 40+

Can you imagine saying this to someone in real life? That they shouldn’t have had their already-born children so late?

I have said something similar to friends in real life. A good friend was trying for her first in her 40s. We talked about how difficult it would be to raise that child and how not getting pregnant may be a blessing. She did get pregnant and baby and she are healthy. And she is also aware of the potential struggles that younger moms dont face. Her parents were older and both passed when she was in college, so its surprising to me that she made this choice knowing she will likely die before they reach full adult age.

You see posts on here all the time about women who are exhausted, suffering health issues, having marital problems, having life problems and then it comes out that they are 49 and have a 3 year old and its like, well yeah, duh. Your life stage is not compatible to being a mother of young kids. With lots of money you can alleviate the struggle. But it should be discussed and explained. Women in their 40s should generally not be encouraged to give birth.

I know this is off topic, sorry OP!

You sound jealous.

Where did you read jealousy? I'm PP and had my last child at age 30. I am now close to retirement and empty nest at nearing 50. Live is great. I feel bad for women who didnt have children younger.

Sorry you didn’t get to enjoy your youth and now like to be smug towards women who had children later

DP: Had first kid at 29, 2nd at 34. I got to enjoy my youth (married at 22). And now get to enjoy retirement at 55 with way more than $5M to spend

Everyone can do what works for them. But fact remains the older you are the more risks of complications for mom and kids. And the fact you might still need to be working at 65+ because you still have kids in college/needing insurance/etc.
And fact that you might not be around to enjoy your kids getting married and having grand kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:20 years of assisted living would cost about $5M according to Google. Per person so $10 if you need it for both.
3 kids going to private college is another 1.5, and if they want to be doctors or lawyers you can add onto that.
I also have anxiety about one of my kids getting a serious medical condition or injury where you need to pay $$$$ out of pocket to get appropriate care. If that happened and I didn’t have th money because I retired at 50, I’d feel awful.

20 years of assisted living? For both partners?? Risk assessment not your strength I see.

I know a couple that the wife was in assisted living and then nursing home for total 11 yrs. Her husband the same for 9 yrs. That equals total 20 yrs so it can happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:20 years of assisted living would cost about $5M according to Google. Per person so $10 if you need it for both.
3 kids going to private college is another 1.5, and if they want to be doctors or lawyers you can add onto that.
I also have anxiety about one of my kids getting a serious medical condition or injury where you need to pay $$$$ out of pocket to get appropriate care. If that happened and I didn’t have th money because I retired at 50, I’d feel awful.

20 years of assisted living? For both partners?? Risk assessment not your strength I see.

Anonymous wrote:5 million is a lot at 70.

5 million for a 50 year old with three kids yet to start college, family medical plan, mortgage if you stop working you will blow through that money by 65.
I had that much at 59 and folks asked why do I work.
Two kids in college 80k a year, House cost, 48K a year, bills food, home repairs, cars, utilities 36K a year. Going on a good family plan with medical, dental and vision 36k a years.

Now add in roof, water heater HVAC, or one of many things that break on a house need at least 5 a year.

So I am now pulling from stocks and bonds to fund this. What happens if a bear market and I am selling stocks like in 2022, 2018, 2008, 2001, 2002 when stocks are low. But I am not putting in those years.

What happens if like 2020,2021 and most of 2022 when CDs, money market fall to near zero and interest income disappears.

I think I would have needed 10 million to call is quits at 59 with my expenses.

Anonymous wrote:5 million is a lot at 70.

5 million for a 50 year old with three kids yet to start college, family medical plan, mortgage if you stop working you will blow through that money by 65.
I had that much at 59 and folks asked why do I work.
Two kids in college 80k a year, House cost, 48K a year, bills food, home repairs, cars, utilities 36K a year. Going on a good family plan with medical, dental and vision 36k a years.

Now add in roof, water heater HVAC, or one of many things that break on a house need at least 5 a year.

So I am now pulling from stocks and bonds to fund this. What happens if a bear market and I am selling stocks like in 2022, 2018, 2008, 2001, 2002 when stocks are low. But I am not putting in those years.

What happens if like 2020,2021 and most of 2022 when CDs, money market fall to near zero and interest income disappears.

I think I would have needed 10 million to call is quits at 59 with my expenses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our number is $8M in liquid assets.

So what? Why are you even posting here?