[QUOTE=Foxy40]
Depending on your area and style of living, 500K is not much to retire on and I am with the other posters that said they would be in a panic if that is all they had. I have only accumulated about half that and at 40(ish) that is extremely low since I do not have a pension. If I am fortunate enough to kick the bucket at 85, I will need at least 1.5 million to stop working at 65.
.
[/QUOTE]
You’ll need a monthly income of $9000?!? :eek: :dubious:
[QUOTE=LonesomePolecat]
Or I could just go on doing what I do now: live very frugally and take a great deal of pride in meeting my simple wants and needs on a budget most Americans would consider poverty level.
[/QUOTE]
If you can do that, that’s fantastic. In any part of the country I’ve lived in, living on $2K/month would require you to have basically zero housing expenses, which is why I tossed out the “move in with your kids.” If your own home is paid off by then, that’s another alternative.
[QUOTE=LonesomePolecat]
How much is? What’s the absolute minimum one needs to retire?
I figure I’ll be getting about $2000 monthly from SS and a pension. If things go as planned, I may have as much as $20,000 saved in addition to that. What are my options? Move to Mexico? Take up bank robbery?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know how old you are, but I personally am not counting on Social Security providing anywhere near the current level of benefits in thirty years that it does today, seeing as Congress continues to be populated by cowardly fucks who lack the balls to make the painful choices needed to avoid a problem that won’t be felt until they’re safely out of office. Because of this, and the high cost of living in our area, I’m guessing I’ll need a fairly good-sized nest egg to keep from eating cat food in retirement. However, I’d expect that amount to vary widely depending on how old you are and where you live.
[QUOTE=OneCentStamp]
If you can do that, that’s fantastic. In any part of the country I’ve lived in, living on $2K/month would require you to have basically zero housing expenses, which is why I tossed out the “move in with your kids.” If your own home is paid off by then, that’s another alternative.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure I understand you properly. Are you saying you couldn’t figure out how to live–not necessarily at a middle class level, but at least comfortably above the poverty level–on $2000 a month?
I ask because, you see, it’s less than I’m living on now. Financially, I actually expect to be better off after retirement than before. I’m not being snide or confrontational here. I really am puzzled that you seem to think you couldn’t live on that amount and avoid hardship.
[QUOTE=Giraffe]
Because of this, and the high cost of living in our area, I’m guessing I’ll need a fairly good-sized nest egg to keep from eating cat food in retirement.
[/QUOTE]
You should start planting trees now, they’ll be all grown up when you retire.
[QUOTE=Giraffe]
Because of this, and the high cost of living in our area, I’m guessing I’ll need a fairly good-sized nest egg to keep from eating cat food in retirement.
[/QUOTE]
Husband and I are lucky - he’s already providing for our retirement! Last kitchen remodel he did he saved the appliance boxes - so you’re always welcome to come stay with us in our boxes on lower Wacker Drive.
[QUOTE=Giraffe]
I don’t know how old you are, but I personally am not counting on Social Security providing anywhere near the current level of benefits in thirty years that it does today, seeing as Congress continues to be populated by cowardly fucks who lack the balls to make the painful choices needed to avoid a problem that won’t be felt until they’re safely out of office. Because of this, and the high cost of living in our area, I’m guessing I’ll need a fairly good-sized nest egg to keep from eating cat food in retirement. However, I’d expect that amount to vary widely depending on how old you are and where you live.
[/QUOTE]
Amen to that, I place no faith in Social Security being near enough in 21-25 years.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
You’ll need a monthly income of $9000?!?
[/QUOTE]
I think your calculations are off. How do you get a $9000 per month income from $1.5M? My figures are much lower even for only 20 years of retirement life. Additionally, please don’t forget inflation.
Jim
[QUOTE=LonesomePolecat]
I’m not sure I understand you properly. Are you saying you couldn’t figure out how to live–not necessarily at a middle class level, but at least comfortably above the poverty level–on $2000 a month?
I ask because, you see, it’s less than I’m living on now. Financially, I actually expect to be better off after retirement than before. I’m not being snide or confrontational here. I really am puzzled that you seem to think you couldn’t live on that amount and avoid hardship.
[/QUOTE]
How are you doing right now, health-wise? Do you expect the answer to be different in the years following retirement? When you are 85?
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Yes, but apparently he will not do anything about except complain and rant.
[/QUOTE]
You can’t expect him to get much done when he’s forced to spend so much time pondering why black people be like they is.
-Joe
[QUOTE=OneCentStamp]
If you can do that, that’s fantastic. In any part of the country I’ve lived in, living on $2K/month would require you to have basically zero housing expenses, which is why I tossed out the “move in with your kids.” If your own home is paid off by then, that’s another alternative.
[/QUOTE]
]
$2k month is more than the combined income we make. That’s myself and my wife. Of course, we can’t get sick or anything like that. And rent and associated expenses use up more than half of it. Add gas, food etc and there isn’t much left over.
But we get by.
[QUOTE=Steve MB]
I am reminded of the old Hembeck cartoon of the Invisible Woman on “The Newlywed Game”:
Q: What’s the last place you’ve made whoopee?
A: The kitchen and the bedroom.
Q: We need one answer.
A: That is one answer; I was in the kitchen, and Reed was in the bedroom…
[/QUOTE]
“What is Glory Hole”.
Alex: You are correct.
“I’ll take VCO3’s youthful misguided rants for $200”…
[QUOTE=storyteller0910]
How are you doing right now, health-wise? Do you expect the answer to be different in the years following retirement? When you are 85?
[/QUOTE]
My present health is fair to middling. Nearly as I can tell, pretty much everybody in my family enjoyed pretty good health throughout their lives, though perhaps I’m being a tad over-optimistic. I work in a government job where the health benefits are excellent, and I will have the option to continue them after retirement. Even with my piddling salary, I have insurance out the wazoo. At least as far as medical costs are concerned, I suspect I’ll be better off than most.
$500K is a lot of money. Even in America. It’s a fact; look it up. I consider myself pretty solid upper-middle class, and I don’t have anywhere near that kind of money. Should I downgrade my class status? Maybe by the time I retire, but even if that’s deflated by half, it’s still a lot of money. Even if it’s not enough for me to live on for 10 years, it’s still a lot of money simply because most people don’t have that much.
Look at it this way: what percentage of people in the USA have that kind of money, invested or otherwise? I would be surprised if it’s as high as 5% (but hey, feel free to fight my ignorance). But even if it’s 10%, then doesn’t that put everybody with $500K in the upper class? And if you’re in the top 10% in terms of wealth, like it or not, you’re rich.
You can make all kinds of mitigating arguments, sure. You’ve been saving for your whole life, you’re 70, and that paltry $500K is all you have to live on for the rest of your life. So you won’t be living like you’re rich, because you’re smart. You still can’t buy a house in San Jose. Hell, if you’re an American without health insurance, then $500K is practically living hand-to-mouth if you get really sick. But bottom line, if you still have more money than 9 out of 10 people, you’re rich. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Expand this discussion to the world and I’m pretty sure almost all of us here are rich. Just owning a computer or a car would qualify us. While I’m not ready to follow the OP down his/her rabbit hole, only in America would people with $500K question whether they’re rich or not.
[QUOTE=Sequent]
$500K is a lot of money. Even in America. It’s a fact; look it up. I consider myself pretty solid upper-middle class, and I don’t have anywhere near that kind of money. Should I downgrade my class status? Maybe by the time I retire, but even if that’s deflated by half, it’s still a lot of money. Even if it’s not enough for me to live on for 10 years, it’s still a lot of money simply because most people don’t have that much.
[/QUOTE]
It depends on where you live. Just as an example, in California the average detatched home value is $591,000 and the home ownership rate is 57%. At best, investments of $500K and up would put you around…top 30%. And that isn’t even counting any assets outside of a home.
[QUOTE=LonesomePolecat]
My present health is fair to middling. Nearly as I can tell, pretty much everybody in my family enjoyed pretty good health throughout their lives, though perhaps I’m being a tad over-optimistic. I work in a government job where the health benefits are excellent, and I will have the option to continue them after retirement. Even with my piddling salary, I have insurance out the wazoo. At least as far as medical costs are concerned, I suspect I’ll be better off than most.
[/QUOTE]
Well, that’s good, but can you see why someone with a higher salary but poorer or less definite insurance options might require a higher average monthly income after retirement than you might?
[QUOTE=Sequent]
$500K is a lot of money. Even in America. It’s a fact; look it up. I consider myself pretty solid upper-middle class, and I don’t have anywhere near that kind of money. Should I downgrade my class status? Maybe by the time I retire, but even if that’s deflated by half, it’s still a lot of money. Even if it’s not enough for me to live on for 10 years, it’s still a lot of money simply because most people don’t have that much.
Look at it this way: what percentage of people in the USA have that kind of money, invested or otherwise? I would be surprised if it’s as high as 5% (but hey, feel free to fight my ignorance). But even if it’s 10%, then doesn’t that put everybody with $500K in the upper class? And if you’re in the top 10% in terms of wealth, like it or not, you’re rich.
You can make all kinds of mitigating arguments, sure. You’ve been saving for your whole life, you’re 70, and that paltry $500K is all you have to live on for the rest of your life. So you won’t be living like you’re rich, because you’re smart. You still can’t buy a house in San Jose. Hell, if you’re an American without health insurance, then $500K is practically living hand-to-mouth if you get really sick. But bottom line, if you still have more money than 9 out of 10 people, you’re rich. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Expand this discussion to the world and I’m pretty sure almost all of us here are rich. Just owning a computer or a car would qualify us. While I’m not ready to follow the OP down his/her rabbit hole, only in America would people with $500K question whether they’re rich or not.
[/QUOTE]
This is a good point. The median household net worth in 2000 in the US was about $55,000. So strictly speaking, having assets over half a million does make you pretty rich.
That figure doesn’t include chattel, so true median net worth is going to be a little higher.
Next to our day program for developmentally disabled adults is a one acre lot for sale…asking price is $495,000. I need to expand my business to accommodate the increase of clients that are moving into the area as well as an increase of employees who work for me. This investment is seen as a good thing by me, my employees and our clients we serve as well.
But damn, I just missed the beheading by $5,000! Thank God I’m not on VCO3’s greed radar!
[QUOTE=Sequent]
$500K is a lot of money. Even in America. It’s a fact; look it up. I consider myself pretty solid upper-middle class, and I don’t have anywhere near that kind of money. Should I downgrade my class status? Maybe by the time I retire, but even if that’s deflated by half, it’s still a lot of money. Even if it’s not enough for me to live on for 10 years, it’s still a lot of money simply because most people don’t have that much.
Look at it this way: what percentage of people in the USA have that kind of money, invested or otherwise? I would be surprised if it’s as high as 5% (but hey, feel free to fight my ignorance). But even if it’s 10%, then doesn’t that put everybody with $500K in the upper class? And if you’re in the top 10% in terms of wealth, like it or not, you’re rich.
You can make all kinds of mitigating arguments, sure. You’ve been saving for your whole life, you’re 70, and that paltry $500K is all you have to live on for the rest of your life. So you won’t be living like you’re rich, because you’re smart. You still can’t buy a house in San Jose. Hell, if you’re an American without health insurance, then $500K is practically living hand-to-mouth if you get really sick. But bottom line, if you still have more money than 9 out of 10 people, you’re rich. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Expand this discussion to the world and I’m pretty sure almost all of us here are rich. Just owning a computer or a car would qualify us. While I’m not ready to follow the OP down his/her rabbit hole, only in America would people with $500K question whether they’re rich or not.
[/QUOTE]
That’s nice, thank you for informing us that all but the homeless in the US are rich compared to the average of the rest of the world. But, that is not what Rich, Middle-Class or Poor means to citizens of the US, Canada, Western Europe, Japan and many other nations.
For those of us that do live and work in the US, those that are frugal and careful in our spending and scrupulous in our savings, $500,000 is not enough for 1 and definitely not enough for a couple. You can spin it anyway you like, but that is the reality for Middle-Class Americans.
Jim
I do not wish to be defender of the dingbat here, but VCO3 did clearly state that the 500 large was over and above the needs (and then desires) of the target market.
Clearly, saving for retirement is a need. Well, maybe not in his world, but in a sane person’s world. So if one were to be charitable, one would assume that he’s actually addressing down-the-back-of-the-sofa money that is over and above the retirement necessity. He’s got the point of the ad wrong, but I think that’s what he meant.
(By the way, what’s the state of pensions in the US: do you have pension funds with tax breaks, or does everyone just use their 401K? That’s certainly the impression the vast majority of posters in this thread are giving me.)
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
For those of us that do live and work in the US, those that are frugal and careful in our spending and scrupulous in our savings, $500,000 is not enough for 1 and definitely not enough for a couple. You can spin it anyway you like, but that is the reality for Middle-Class Americans.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not spinning anything, and I don’t contest your point. I’m simply noting that, meagre as it might be in any particular context, $500K is still a lot more money than most people have–even just in the USA. And if you have a lot more money than most other people, you’re rich. Even if you don’t live like it. Even if you don’t feel like it. Even if all you see are other people who are even richer. It doesn’t make you evil, or greedy, or even unusually fortunate. But it does make you very wealthy in the eyes of most Americans.