You haven't experienced a major market downturn yet. You will. Then we'll see how confident you are being fully invested in stocks.

 

Whoa, who ever said I was invested fully in stocks? And yeah, I'm not at all concerned about another major downturn (btw, I had a 401k when the last one happened, and it turned out fine), because I'm not going to touch my money for at least 30-35 more years.

I, and I'm pretty sure UKMF does as well, have a 401k. That will be our retirement. Not to mention, the chances of us collecting on either of those programs by the time we retire are slim and none, IMO.

 

You'll probably get something but stick to figuring on your 401K for the bulk of your nest egg.

I disagree. Let's assume that at age 25 you make $35,000 per year and your start putting 15% of that into a 401k. Let's also assume that their is no employer match and that you get a salary increase of 2% per year. Even at a modest return of 8% per year by age 65 you will have just under $2 million in the account. Who couldn't live off of that?

 

Would be nice but don't plan on putting 15% away every year through houses, babies, medical emergencies, college tuition, etc. I imagine few are able to make such a committment.

BTW I heard an intriguing idea. The House should pass a CR that fully funds Obamacare and mandates that all of the special carve outs and exemptions that the Dems and Obama gave to their base should be eliminated as well and scrapping the delay of the business mandate that Obama gave.

 

Let's see Harry and the boys justify not voting for that.

 

That would be interesting, wouldn't it?

The goal of the 401k is once you hit retirement to have an annual income of roughly 80% of your finaly salary when you retired....So if you're making $75,000 when you call it quits, you want your 401k to have enough that you'll be able to draw roughly $60k a year to live off of.

Would be nice but don't plan on putting 15% away every year through houses, babies, medical emergencies, college tuition, etc. I imagine few are able to make such a committment.

 

even if you're squirreling away as much as 15 percent of your pay now into your 401

 

I don't. The 15% was used to illustrate that the above statement is incorrect. And youngest of my babies will soon be 10 so I know what I am up agaisnt.

I don't. The 15% was used to illustrate that the above statement is incorrect. And youngest of my babies will soon be 10 so I know what I am up agaisnt.

The worst fault an investor can have is believing that one's "system" will work forever because it's worked so far, whether it's investing in a 401(k) or trading stocks, as I did (and still do). Having a diversity of income streams -- 401(k), Social Security, Medicare, perhaps a defined benefit pension plan, a spouse with retirement income -- is key.

The goal of the 401k is once you hit retirement to have an annual income of roughly 80% of your finaly salary when you retired....So if you're making $75,000 when you call it quits, you want your 401k to have enough that you'll be able to draw roughly $60k a year to live off of.

Using the principle of tapping your principal to the tune of 4 percent a year, you'd need $1.5 million in your 401(k) to generate $60 grand a year. (And don't forget the tax implications when you start withdrawing your money.) If you can squirrel away $1.5 million in your 401(k) while raising kids who require braces, auto insurance and college tuition help, then I tip my hat. I think far more people will try and fail than try and succeed.

Using the principle of tapping your principal to the tune of 4 percent a year, you'd need $1.5 million in your 401(k) to generate $60 grand a year. (And don't forget the tax implications when you start withdrawing your money.) If you can squirrel away $1.5 million in your 401(k) while raising kids who require braces, auto insurance and college tuition help, then I tip my hat. I think far more people will try and fail than try and succeed.

 

In reality, it'd be much less than that, that is needed. Not many people are going to retire before age 60 (my Dad just did last October at 55, but he was an exception, not the rule), so you aren't going to need to account for 25 years worth of money, most will be more in the 10-15 year range, which would take the required amount to somewhere between $600,000 - $900,000. Very doable. Also, a lot depends on when you start the 401k. I started mine at 18. If you can start that early, and don't go through any extended periods of unemployment, $1.5M is not unreasonable.

The worst fault an investor can have is believing that one's "system" will work forever because it's worked so far, whether it's investing in a 401(k) or trading stocks, as I did (and still do). Having a diversity of income streams -- 401(k), Social Security, Medicare, perhaps a defined benefit pension plan, a spouse with retirement income -- is key.

 

Deleting my post because its obvious you aren't very informed on this topic. So I'm not going to go down this road.

Using the principle of tapping your principal to the tune of 4 percent a year, you'd need $1.5 million in your 401(k) to generate $60 grand a year. (And don't forget the tax implications when you start withdrawing your money.) If you can squirrel away $1.5 million in your 401(k) while raising kids who require braces, auto insurance and college tuition help, then I tip my hat. I think far more people will try and fail than try and succeed.

 

Hope she is hot.

This debate takes a lot of directions and I have thoughts on a few of them. None of us like the idea of the Government forcing us to do anything, but I like the idea that everyone be insured. We must all remember that it is us who are currently paying the tab of those folks who do not have insurance. Those on government handouts are paid for with tax dollars. The overwhelming majority of uninsured fail to pay and so we pay their freight as well through higher medical bills and higher premiums on our own insurance. Those who are the biggest losers are the working uninsured who have to pay medical expenses out of pocket. They pay the full bill. Not the Medicaid allowance or a rate negotiated by an insurer. So a broken bone that cost the welfare recipient nothing, the insured a couple of co pays and his insurance company a small percentage of the actual bill, will cost the working uninsured thousands out of his pocket.

 

Though some mention they favor the elimination of Medicare and Medicade in favor of their own savings in a 401K you could not be more misguided. Is that 401k payout going to pay an insurance premium? If so you better start putting a whole lot more in NOW. If you intend to go uninsured and pay out of pocket God be with you as you will need all of his graces to avoid a catastrophic medical event. Ten years ago my mother walked into a hospital for a procedure. 77 days later she left in an ambulance to go to the rehab center where she spent another 24 days. Five days of the hospital stay were in surgical icu. Twice more she was sent to the icu for several days. Total bills for the hospital, doctors, equipment, and rehab was 2.3 million dollars. If your uninsured with a 1.5 million 401k you just lost it and you still owe another 700k. Enjoy those golden years.

 

Another flaw in your plan is the lack of planning for inflation. For those of us old enough to remember the years of double diget inflation we know the reality of lost buying power. If you retired in 1975 your buying power was cut in half over the next ten years. Can your projected $75,000 a year even withstand just a few years of double diget inflation?

 

The reality is no social security, Medicare, and Medicare, and you have have no US economy.

Buy a catastrophic plan with all the excess earning you would see over your lifetime. Problem solved. Even if you got hit with high inflation as you retired you would still be far ahead of social security. Problem is that many or most people would not have the discipline it would take.

I'd be upset, but still not as upset with the Democrats for letting this farce take place in the first place.

Hope she is hot.

 

She's a he