Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

PBS Frontline : The Retirement Gamble, sorta Must See


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I listen to a lot of financial podcasts. Edelman, Ramsey, Planet Money, Vanguard, Stacking Benjamins, etc.  I like to be objective but i think that in general, debt is bad.  Although I disagree w

A preview of the US without pensions It's long but much like the program that inspired this thread, it's worth the read.  Unlike the Social Security, this is a much bigger issue in the comin

Just one guy's opinion but one of the dumbest things regarding setting up trusts and hanging onto money to give to heirs is the entire notion that you have to hold onto it and set up elaborate plans a

7 hours ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

Question for those familiar with running Firecalc projections.

When running projections with taking Social Security at 62 for both self and spouse, it's difficult to come up with any scenarios that produce any cycle failures. If I take SS out, I can start to get some actual failure cycles, with parameters like if we live until 100, or spend $80K+ per year. Now, I don't like to count on SS any more than the next guy, but with 29 non-zero years for me, and 26 non-zero years for spouse, it's difficult to envision a scenario without any SS benefits actually coming to fruition. I use conservative estimates based on the SS Retirement Calculator on ssa.gov.

Updated Actuals for Firecalc:

  • Self age: 46, Spouse Age: 42
  • Joint Brokerage & Savings accounts: $315K
  • Self 401k: $275K
  • Spouse 401k: $235K
  • Estimated Home Equity: $160K. No debt outside of mortgage
  • A one time $400-$500K lump in roughly 25 years (conservative estimate)
  • Dual income, $205K combined (roughly split 50/50)
  • Annual Spend: $42K or $45K, I run it several ways

So, for Firecalc users, are you running Firecalc projections with or without SS? It winds up making a big difference in the projections with the above actuals, in terms of getting any failure cycles. Thanks for all the advice and conversation in here.

(P.S.My updated goal: Find a low stress job until 59 1/2. Allow for spouse to retire at 49 (pre-50), keep her job until then. She may not want to leave it.)

With your savings, income and spending I would think it would be almost impossible to have a cycle failure.  My wife and I make half your income and have 1/3 the savings and feel good about our retirement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

My company contributes the 401K match in one lump sum at the end of the year.  My overall allocation is currently about 87% equities (61% domestic, 26% Int'l), 6% bonds, and the rest cash and "alternatives" that are part of the funds I own.  I'm 45 so have 20 years or so until retirement.

With the equity market at all time highs, it has me thinking about where to direct this lump sum next week, which will be around $10K.  Am I overthinking that with 20 years to go, or is there a strategy I should be considering here?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, SFBayDuck said:

My company contributes the 401K match in one lump sum at the end of the year.  My overall allocation is currently about 87% equities (61% domestic, 26% Int'l), 6% bonds, and the rest cash and "alternatives" that are part of the funds I own.  I'm 45 so have 20 years or so until retirement.

With the equity market at all time highs, it has me thinking about where to direct this lump sum next week, which will be around $10K.  Am I overthinking that with 20 years to go, or is there a strategy I should be considering here?  

That is messed up, the one-time contribution at the end of the year. I've never heard of that. With that said and at your age, I wouldn't overthink it. Invest it as you would have throughout the year, mostly in equities. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, pecorino said:

That is messed up, the one-time contribution at the end of the year. I've never heard of that. With that said and at your age, I wouldn't overthink it. Invest it as you would have throughout the year, mostly in equities. 

My company does the same stupid lump contribution at the end of the year.   I complained about it for years but nothing changed.   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, pecorino said:

That is messed up, the one-time contribution at the end of the year. I've never heard of that. With that said and at your age, I wouldn't overthink it. Invest it as you would have throughout the year, mostly in equities. 

The match is nice but yeah, you're losing out on the growth this year. 

Of course in the year the market tanks, it would be better. 

The only thing I'd consider is your ideal allocation and what is needed to adjust accordingly.

Most of us should probably be putting more into bonds now to bring our allocation back into our goal.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DocHolliday said:

My company does the same stupid lump contribution at the end of the year.   I complained about it for years but nothing changed.   

Yea, the company saves money by not contributing to those who left during the year.  Another win for the worker. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, James Daulton said:

Yea, the company saves money by not contributing to those who left during the year.  Another win for the worker. 

Kind of like the trend toward "unlimited vacation time". Employees take fewer vacation days and the company doesn't have to pay out unused time when someone leaves. 

Thanks for the input, all. It's probably really more about year-end rebalancing in general than this contribution. So might just leave the contribution as is (so I don't have to change it back to "normal" again afterward), and just do a bit of a rebalancing of the portfolio. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, James Daulton said:

Yea, the company saves money by not contributing to those who left during the year.  Another win for the worker. 

I think the percentage given at the end of the year is done by gross pay.  I know smaller companies do it this way based on company performance and burden, ie what they can afford.

So if an employee left in the middle of the year and was in the plan they still get a part of the lump sum distribution.  

Edited by The_Great_Dane
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SFBayDuck said:

My company contributes the 401K match in one lump sum at the end of the year.  My overall allocation is currently about 87% equities (61% domestic, 26% Int'l), 6% bonds, and the rest cash and "alternatives" that are part of the funds I own.  I'm 45 so have 20 years or so until retirement.

With the equity market at all time highs, it has me thinking about where to direct this lump sum next week, which will be around $10K.  Am I overthinking that with 20 years to go, or is there a strategy I should be considering here?  

Cav, here.  While I expect a huge market correction in the next few years, I like your percentages and would stay aggressive.  People live longer now and would be more concerned with expense ratios if they are high.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-19/why-your-new-year-s-resolution-should-be-to-spend-more-money

...

Why You Should Be Spending More Money in 2018

Financial advisers say wealthy retirees hanging on to their cash should “decumulate” faster.

By 

Suzanne Woolley

December 19, 2017, 4:00 AM CST

The Biggest Retirement Mistake People Make

The Biggest Retirement Mistake People Make

With so much advice out there about saving money, being encouraged to spend could sound a little weird. But that’s what some financial services firms are telling retirees to do—to make a New Year’s resolution to use more of those dollars they’ve been socking away. 

With about 10,000 baby boomers turning 65 every day, more attention is being paid to “decumulation” strategies—the process of systematically drawing down all that money you’ve saved over the years. In theory, that should be a pleasant prospect. In reality, it’s hard to flip a mental switch after decades of sacrifice. Moreover, spending more money when less is coming in can be pretty stressful.

“When we speak about spending resolutions, we usually speak about how to encourage people to spend less,” said Meir Statman, a behavioral finance professor at Santa Clara University. “This is right for most young people. But with many older people, the problem is too little spending because of a reluctance to dip into capital.” 

A good chunk of retired Americans are financially situated to live it up a bit more. Research by the Employee Benefit Research Institute and BlackRock Retirement Institute found that, on average, a significant portion of retirees at all levels of wealth weren’t spending down much of their non-housing assets even well into retirement. A sample of 9,760 retiree households found that 18 years into retirement, many households still had 80 percent of their assets. (The research measured median non-housing assets, such as IRAs, and taxable savings and investment accounts.) There was even an increase in assets for many retirees through age 85. 

“People have never been taught how to spend money,” said Nick Nefouse, head of the defined contribution strategy team at BlackRock. “When you’re accumulating money, you think about savings, and compounding, and the weighting of assets. You can’t apply those ideas to decumulation—that’s about cash flow, volatility around that cash flow, and longevity.” BlackRock positions its LifePath target date fund as both an accumulation and decumulation product. The company said it is developing a decumulation tool tied to the fund that will adjust withdrawal recommendations based on factors that include changes in BlackRock’s forward-looking capital market assumptions.

:oldunsure::moneybag:

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Tiger Fan said:

It's too bad you can't start a 529 before pregnancy. It might get complicated if you never have kids but maybe you'd just pay the tax later like you would if you end up not using it for education.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We've had this discussion before but with the end of the year pending (decent time to consider rebalancing) and the tax changes (is there an impact?) What is your current and goal allocation? Especially in bonds. 

I'm 48% domestic stock, 10% bonds, 10% REIT, 32% international. Roughly half growth half value, a little more than half large cap, slightly less small cap. The college accounts are roughly 33% bonds, retirement 2% bonds. Thinking of moving to 15% bonds in retirement accounts but this year has been great for equities. I'm 20 years from retirement in a secure job. 

In theory I could dump the REITs and put that into bonds without touching the rest.

Edited by -OZ-
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, -OZ- said:

It's too bad you can't start a 529 before pregnancy. It might get complicated if you never have kids but maybe you'd just pay the tax later like you would if you end up not using it for education.

I'm pretty sure you can set up an account with yourself or your spouse as the beneficiary and then transfer it to a child after they are born. Transfers between family members are allowed subject to certain restrictions.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, -OZ- said:

We've had this discussion before but with the end of the year pending (decent time to consider rebalancing) and the tax changes (is there an impact?) What is your current and goal allocation? Especially in bonds. 

I'm 48% domestic stock, 10% bonds, 10% REIT, 32% international. Roughly half growth half value, a little more than half large cap, slightly less small cap. The college accounts are roughly 33% bonds, retirement 2% bonds. Thinking of moving to 15% bonds in retirement accounts but this year has been great for equities. I'm 20 years from retirement in a secure job. 

In theory I could dump the REITs and put that into bonds without touching the rest.

REITs win with tax reform:

 

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4133517-reits-win-tax-reform?auth_param=1eem5m:1d3qir6:7681526ad0863e3b994b52a03e37b91b&dr=1 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tom Hagen said:

I'm pretty sure you can set up an account with yourself or your spouse as the beneficiary and then transfer it to a child after they are born. Transfers between family members are allowed subject to certain restrictions.

Never thought about doing this. Thanks. It's entirely too late for my kids but maybe for the grandkids.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/1/2017 at 6:35 PM, wilked said:

401k is pretax and taxable would be post tax. That might throw your math off

Just started perusing this thread but this caught my eye. This statement isn't necessarily true. Many companies, mine included, offer Roth 401k options. So your 401k could be taxable. I'm debating when to switch over to keep a good balance of taxable and non-taxable withdrawals in retirement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/20/2017 at 0:15 PM, -OZ- said:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-19/why-your-new-year-s-resolution-should-be-to-spend-more-money

...

Why You Should Be Spending More Money in 2018

Financial advisers say wealthy retirees hanging on to their cash should “decumulate” faster.

By 

Suzanne Woolley

December 19, 2017, 4:00 AM CST

The Biggest Retirement Mistake People Make

The Biggest Retirement Mistake People Make

With so much advice out there about saving money, being encouraged to spend could sound a little weird. But that’s what some financial services firms are telling retirees to do—to make a New Year’s resolution to use more of those dollars they’ve been socking away. 

With about 10,000 baby boomers turning 65 every day, more attention is being paid to “decumulation” strategies—the process of systematically drawing down all that money you’ve saved over the years. In theory, that should be a pleasant prospect. In reality, it’s hard to flip a mental switch after decades of sacrifice. Moreover, spending more money when less is coming in can be pretty stressful.

“When we speak about spending resolutions, we usually speak about how to encourage people to spend less,” said Meir Statman, a behavioral finance professor at Santa Clara University. “This is right for most young people. But with many older people, the problem is too little spending because of a reluctance to dip into capital.” 

A good chunk of retired Americans are financially situated to live it up a bit more. Research by the Employee Benefit Research Institute and BlackRock Retirement Institute found that, on average, a significant portion of retirees at all levels of wealth weren’t spending down much of their non-housing assets even well into retirement. A sample of 9,760 retiree households found that 18 years into retirement, many households still had 80 percent of their assets. (The research measured median non-housing assets, such as IRAs, and taxable savings and investment accounts.) There was even an increase in assets for many retirees through age 85. 

“People have never been taught how to spend money,” said Nick Nefouse, head of the defined contribution strategy team at BlackRock. “When you’re accumulating money, you think about savings, and compounding, and the weighting of assets. You can’t apply those ideas to decumulation—that’s about cash flow, volatility around that cash flow, and longevity.” BlackRock positions its LifePath target date fund as both an accumulation and decumulation product. The company said it is developing a decumulation tool tied to the fund that will adjust withdrawal recommendations based on factors that include changes in BlackRock’s forward-looking capital market assumptions.

:oldunsure::moneybag:

 

I think there’s two reasons for this. First, people want the peace of mind knowing they will outlive their money. Second, they want to leave some for their heirs. 

I can totally understand chilling out on spending in retirement for those two reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, kutta said:

I think there’s two reasons for this. First, people want the peace of mind knowing they will outlive their money. Second, they want to leave some for their heirs. 

I can totally understand chilling out on spending in retirement for those two reasons.

The first reason I understand, the second not so much.  If you are slow rolling your money to make sure you have enough to give to your grandkids, you should have established a trust long ago.  To me those are two very different pots of money and one has little to do with the other.  Having enough to live the kind of life you want to live into your golden years is your primary consideration, leaving stuff to charity/kin is something that should be thought about when you retire.  Not when you're multiple years in. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Binky The Doormat said:

very similar to evacuate - I do it a couple times a day.

Definition of decumulation

: disposal of something accumulated

Excuse me while I go decumulate for a few minutes.. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Doctor Detroit said:

The first reason I understand, the second not so much.  If you are slow rolling your money to make sure you have enough to give to your grandkids, you should have established a trust long ago.  To me those are two very different pots of money and one has little to do with the other.  Having enough to live the kind of life you want to live into your golden years is your primary consideration, leaving stuff to charity/kin is something that should be thought about when you retire.  Not when you're multiple years in. 

I disagree. I can easily see situations where old folks start to think about leaving their kids some money so they slow down a bit. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, kutta said:

I disagree. I can easily see situations where old folks start to think about leaving their kids some money so they slow down a bit. 

Yeah, I'm undecided on this. I do want to leave my kids something but I'm leaning towards that something being a legacy, them being debt free after college (they'll work and pay some themselves), and a cabin in Tennessee (we used to want a beach house). But I can easily see when I'm in my 70s or older deciding to leave money for my grandkids or covering some of their college costs. I think I'd rather do these things while we're alive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Doctor Detroit said:

The first reason I understand, the second not so much.  If you are slow rolling your money to make sure you have enough to give to your grandkids, you should have established a trust long ago.  To me those are two very different pots of money and one has little to do with the other.  Having enough to live the kind of life you want to live into your golden years is your primary consideration, leaving stuff to charity/kin is something that should be thought about when you retire.  Not when you're multiple years in. 

Just one guy's opinion but one of the dumbest things regarding setting up trusts and hanging onto money to give to heirs is the entire notion that you have to hold onto it and set up elaborate plans and schemes for the rolling out the funds at a point in time you hope to be 20, 25,30+ years down the road.

If you have the kind of money to leave to someone, go ahead and give it to them (obviously, assuming talking about adult children and grandchildren children, etc...not minors and babies). Clear your ledger and know what YOU have to live on in retirement and, at the same time, go ahead and help that beneficiary out now while they are still young enough to put it to good use.  What's the big issue to leave it for someone when you're gone?

My family sat down about a half a year ago and the matriarch of the family sat down and issued checks to everyone she wanted to leave something to.  Her reasoning was she knew what she wanted to do with the money and she wanted her family to do what they wanted with it now, saying she would prefer her grand daughter to buy that lake house she always wanted now while she's in her 30's while she could enjoy it instead of waiting until she was in her 40's or 50's. "it will cost you less now than after to buy and you'll get 10-20 more years of enjoyment out of it in your own life." 

Another grandchild paid off their mortgage and saved something like $70,000 in interest by doing so.  That's a major life-stresser off his back and more money to fund for kid's colleges, etc.

And the best things that come from it:. No fighting and antimosity when the matriarch passes.  The matriarch can visit the lake house and have great memories there while she is still with us.  The grandson can tell his grandmother face to face "thank you" and she can see the impact her generosity makes.  

 

Just my two cents.

Edited by Shutout
  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, -OZ- said:

Yeah, I'm undecided on this. I do want to leave my kids something but I'm leaning towards that something being a legacy, them being debt free after college (they'll work and pay some themselves), and a cabin in Tennessee (we used to want a beach house). But I can easily see when I'm in my 70s or older deciding to leave money for my grandkids or covering some of their college costs. I think I'd rather do these things while we're alive.

I think people overestimate the amount they will need overall in retirement. First, you could die any time and not spend a penny. And if you do make it to 65 or so, it seems like most of the spending would be done in 10 years or so. I mean, how much are you really going to spend when you are 85? I think I’ll be watching Cops and ordering food from Uber Eats every day.

The decision to help the kids out probably gets easier with every year and subsequent doctor appointment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shutout said:

Just one guy's opinion but one of the dumbest things regarding setting up trusts and hanging onto money to give to heirs is the entire notion that you have to hold onto it and set up elaborate plans and schemes for the rolling out the funds at a point in time you hope to be 20, 25,30+ years down the road.

If you have the kind of money to leave to someone, go ahead and give it to them.  Clear your ledger and know what YOU have to live on in retirement and, at the same time, go ahead and help that beneficiary out now while they are still young enough to put it to good use.  What's the big issue to leave it for someone when you're gone?

My family sat down about a half a year ago and the matriarch of the family sat down and issued checks to everyone she wanted to leave something to.  Her reasoning was she knew what she wanted to do with the money and she wanted her family to do what they wanted with it now, saying she would prefer her grand daughter to buy that lake house she always wanted now while she's in her 30's while she could enjoy it instead of waiting until she was in her 40's or 50's. "it will cost you less now than after to buy and you'll get 10-20 more years of enjoyment out of it in your own life." 

Another grandchild paid off their mortgage and saved something like $70,000 in interest by doing so.  That's a major life-stresser off his back and more money to fund for kid's colleges, etc.

And the best things that come from it:. No fighting and antimosity when the matriarch passes.  The matriarch can visit the lake house and have great memories there while she is still with us.  The grandson can tell his grandmother face to face "thank you" and she can see the impact her generosity makes.  

 

Just my two cents.

I agree that’s a great way to do it. But a lot of people don’t know how long they will live and if they will have enough money. I could have $1M at 70, but that might have to last me 30 years or 3 years. I don’t want to give it away to the kids until I’m dead because I might need it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kutta said:

I think people overestimate the amount they will need overall in retirement. First, you could die any time and not spend a penny. And if you do make it to 65 or so, it seems like most of the spending would be done in 10 years or so. I mean, how much are you really going to spend when you are 85? I think I’ll be watching Cops and ordering food from Uber Eats every day.

The decision to help the kids out probably gets easier with every year and subsequent doctor appointment.

Yep.

Personally I plan on being super healthy and traveling in my 80s but that might not happen and frankly the millions in the bank won't mean as much as the good we can do while alive and the memories we can make. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kutta said:

I agree that’s a great way to do it. But a lot of people don’t know how long they will live and if they will have enough money. I could have $1M at 70, but that might have to last me 30 years or 3 years. I don’t want to give it away to the kids until I’m dead because I might need it.

Understood. I suppose a lot of it comes down to the family.  For us, we know, collectively, between us all, that our elders are going to be taken care of if needed.  If she runs out of money or something comes up, we will do the right thing.  If she is giving money to family now, they aren't turning their backs later if needed.  That's just the way that goes. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kutta said:

I agree that’s a great way to do it. But a lot of people don’t know how long they will live and if they will have enough money. I could have $1M at 70, but that might have to last me 30 years or 3 years. I don’t want to give it away to the kids until I’m dead because I might need it.

And that's really the crappy part about pensions becoming so uncommon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, -OZ- said:

And that's really the crappy part about pensions becoming so uncommon.

Yes. 401s have been around long enough now for a good part of the working generation to have lived their whole life in a system of never knowing that 401's and similar never originally being designed for what people assume they are.  

A lot of people even talk down about a pension in comparison to what they think they can do with complete control of their funds but at least with a pension you know your budget.  So many people keep saving and saving and really don't know when it's okay to stop and retire or to loosen up and it's okay to spend some. I'd much rather go into things saying I know I've got x amount each month versus wondering" will x amount 15 years from now be enough to last somewhere between 1 day and 40 years?"

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shutout said:

Yes. 401s have been around long enough now for a good part of the working generation to have lived their whole life in a system of never knowing that 401's and similar never originally being designed for what people assume they are.  

A lot of people even talk down about a pension in comparison to what they think they can do with complete control of their funds but at least with a pension you know your budget.  So many people keep saving and saving and really don't know when it's okay to stop and retire or to loosen up and it's okay to spend some. I'd much rather go into things saying I know I've got x amount each month versus wondering" will x amount 15 years from now be enough to last somewhere between 1 day and 40 years?"

Right. So people go with the 4 percent or whatever other rule.  And just hope for the best. Social security covers some of this but who knows the future of SS?

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Walking Boot said:

I guess I look at it a bit differently. All my grandparents made it to 90. One made 100, but the last five-ten years were rough. Needed a live in caretaker. Allow his money was well used up by then so it fell to my parents to fund his care. Living in a facility was beyond his means. 

Anyway, I could see care being very expensive, especially if I need 20 years of it and don't want to burden my (distant) family... With no children of my own to fall back on, I look at it as needing to be sure that I can cover it all myself. If I had kids, I would probably feel the same way seeing what my parents went through with their folks. 

I guess I fear outliving my money. Being in ill mental health at 90 would suck if I'm broke too. And if my body still has 10+ years on it, who knows what technology we'll have then, it'd be awful. I fear underestimating my needs, retiring too early, and having to call on nephews to foot the bill when costs are highest.  

Yes, good point about health care. I don’t want to be a burden to anyone when I’m older so I’m damn sure going to hang onto my $ until the last second.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/22/2017 at 5:30 AM, Tiger Fan said:

Sweet. Hope I don't have to touch it during high school, but good to know I can if I need to (job loss or something). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kutta said:

I agree that’s a great way to do it. But a lot of people don’t know how long they will live and if they will have enough money. I could have $1M at 70, but that might have to last me 30 years or 3 years. I don’t want to give it away to the kids until I’m dead because I might need it.

kutta - I think you are different than most here.  You have a successful business and making bank. Many are salary guys and thinking about things differently.  

you got the world by the tail my friend :thumbup:

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tiger Fan said:

Yeah, this is one of those, the younger you have kids, the better type things.  

:confused:

Just because tuition is rising faster than your investments?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Binky The Doormat said:

kutta - I think you are different than most here.  You have a successful business and making bank. Many are salary guys and thinking about things differently.  

you got the world by the tail my friend :thumbup:

I agree that I’ve been pretty fortunate. But I don’t think that changes my point. I would think that people with less in retirement would be even less likely to want to give it to the kids before they die.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, -OZ- said:

Yeah, I'm undecided on this. I do want to leave my kids something but I'm leaning towards that something being a legacy, them being debt free after college (they'll work and pay some themselves), and a cabin in Tennessee (we used to want a beach house). But I can easily see when I'm in my 70s or older deciding to leave money for my grandkids or covering some of their college costs. I think I'd rather do these things while we're alive.

I'm going to start out with establishing 529's for every grandkid when they are born.  Seeding with 5K I think.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Judge Smails said:

I'm going to start out with establishing 529's for every grandkid when they are born.  Seeding with 5K I think.  

Love the idea. 

With 5 kids, if they each have 2.4 kids, that's 12 grandkids. Could probably swing 5k each at that point but it would be tough if timing isn't right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, kutta said:

Yes, good point about health care. I don’t want to be a burden to anyone when I’m older so I’m damn sure going to hang onto my $ until the last second.

Also the handful of years you may have to live at a full care retirement home.   You may be including that in healthcare.   Those places are super expensive.    I'm not even as concerned as much about my comfort as I am with forcing my kids to have to put me into some bottom of the barrel home b/c that's all that medicaid will pay for.  Seeing one of your parents reach that point of health deterioration is hard enough.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Walking Boot said:

 

I guess I fear outliving my money. Being in ill mental health at 90 would suck if I'm broke too. And if my body still has 10+ years on it, who knows what technology we'll have then, it'd be awful. I fear underestimating my needs, retiring too early, and having to call on nephews to foot the bill when costs are highest.  

A solid argument for bringing back tontines.   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, kutta said:

Yes, good point about health care. I don’t want to be a burden to anyone when I’m older so I’m damn sure going to hang onto my $ until the last second.

Just to offer the other side up, consider this:. You have x amount of money. You hang onto it to the last second. You spend it all on health care. Your kids get little to nothing. 

Or, you have x amount of money and you give it away before those last ten miserable years of mental illness and poor health. If you spend it 5 years before you need that home, Medicare picks up the bill and doesn't come after you forcing you to exhaust your resources and sell off your home and you give something significant to your family. 

 

Guess I'm just saying I've seen a handful of people try to play it close to the vest and keep control and all they have done is bankrupt themselves in order to follow health care rules and meet the requirements to receive nursing home and caretender type care. Had they let it go, their children, not a hospital or the government, would have the money. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shutout said:

Just to offer the other side up, consider this:. You have x amount of money. You hang onto it to the last second. You spend it all on health care. Your kids get little to nothing. 

Or, you have x amount of money and you give it away before those last ten miserable years of mental illness and poor health. If you spend it 5 years before you need that home, Medicare picks up the bill and doesn't come after you forcing you to exhaust your resources and sell off your home and you give something significant to your family. 

 

Guess I'm just saying I've seen a handful of people try to play it close to the vest and keep control and all they have done is bankrupt themselves in order to follow health care rules and meet the requirements to receive nursing home and caretender type care. Had they let it go, their children, not a hospital or the government, would have the money. 

Its medicaid that pays for retirement homes and those places aren't pretty.   Just saying, it could be a couple of rough years for your kids with them knowing their parent is spending the final years of their lives with mediocre care.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Walking Boot said:

 

I don't want my plan to be conditional on Social Security and Medicare still existing in 50 years. I mean, I hope they are. And it's gravy if they do. But if not, I don't want to be ######.

I would imagine we will have joined almost every other non third world country on the planet in having universal healthcare by then. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...