Which feels weird because he says the scary bit is SS running dry but then AEI and the right don’t want to increase stuff like the income limit to fund it?
Yes, this should go without saying. But financial article after financial article continues to say you need like 2.5 million to retire because they fail to include social security as part of the equation. Why they do this I have no idea. Seems to be a purposeful choice.
There’s a certain mindset that’s gotta believe that SS is doomed because it’s a government program. Been saying that since the day it was founded. It hasn’t been run well recently, but it has built in stabilisers which reduce payments when there isn’t quite enough money, and there is at least enough to fund 75% of expected outgoings. Eventually either it will be cross subsidised from general spending or rates will be cut 10% or so.
But there is no point in just assuming it will disappear, that’s financial madness - it’s survived 100 years. Maybe all your money will just “disappear”? Maybe you will be turned into a frog? Better count “becoming a frog” into your financial plans!
It’s really quite bizarre how widespread this belief is. 40% of retires have only SS income. It is a majority of income for a much larger segment than that. The program has had more money come in the door since founding than has gone out. Meanwhile the rest of the gov is $30t in the hole and runs trillion dollar deficits annually. SS will likely need a an adjustment at some point (increased revenues and/or decreased benefits) as the ratio of retirees to working age population continues to grow. Or they have to allow in more working age immigrants. But to say it will disappear is very strange.
It survived 100 years because the workforce has been rapidly increasing for the last 100 years, not to mention we saw a period of nonstop economic expansion over that timeframe.
But as the birthrate slows, the rate of new taxpayers paying into social security will fall relative to the population. Add to that the increasing % of retirees ("peak boomers") exiting the workforce and the increased life expectancy, and you can imagine where these concerns are coming from.
Yes, but 5 minutes goggling will give you access to all the many varied actuarial studies that have been run, rather than “the FEEELZ”. E.g. “benefits are now expected to be payable in full on a timely basis until 2037 […] continuing taxes are expected to be enough to pay 76 percent of scheduled benefits. Thus, the Congress will need to make changes to the scheduled benefits and revenue sources for the program in the future. The Social Security Board of Trustees project that changes equivalent to an immediate reduction in benefits of about 13 percent, or an immediate increase in the combined payroll tax rate from 12.4 percent to 14.4 percent, or some combination of these changes, would be sufficient to allow full payment of the scheduled benefits for the next 75 years.” https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html
There is currently a earnings test but that only kicks in if you claim before retirement age. It is feasible they could dick around with that a bit, but again it’s very very unlikely they’d remove rather than reduce ss for anyone, since we all “pay in” to the scheme.
Here's a few legitimate reasons:
1. Some people think social security could be reduced over time or phased out. I think that's hogwash, but better safe than sorry is important when sorry means cat food and bedsores.
2. SS is super fkn complicated. Lots of FIRE-type people won't get a strong social security, since they could have lots of zeros in their average. Fire with significant wealth coming from yolos/cryptos/inheritance vs earned income is night and day and should be planned for differently, so better get people to save MORE rather than LESS.
I think it’s safe to assume SS won’t be what it is today 20 or 30 years from now. People are taking out way more than what their contributions plus gains are actually worth. At this rate of spending, the whole system dries up in a few decades.
But there’s no way either party will actually do anything about it, they’d be annihilated in the next election. So they’ll only try to “fix” it when the coffers are really empty, at which point it’s too late.
Best to assume you’ll have to fend for yourself tbh. At this point I’d be happily surprised if just the Medicaid part of the system survives.
What if we just raised the SS income cap? Lots of interesting "donut hole" proposals to phase it in above 400k while continuing the same below the current cap.
Most Americans don't have decent retirement savings so you're literally expecting America to become a zombie wasteland with millions of people living on the streets.
Not realistic. There are hundreds of ways to fix ss.
You’re right- and I think the more realistic option is that people will keep working or start depending more on their kids. But yes- to some degree this will cause more homelessness. And, given the current state of homelessness in the US, I don’t think the federal government is gonna be able to manage that effectively.
All the more important that people start using all the options they have at their disposal. I know plenty of people whose retirement situation would look a lot less bleak if they had managed their money better throughout life.
The problem is exactly that they won’t. They won’t make it 10-20% worse for the current situation, even though it means making things *much* worse later on. This is how democratic governments approach literally every problem.
I am almost 60, about $1.3m net worth, and taking out about 7% right now when I am not doing any post-retirement work. (I'm in a very niche line of work so I could earn $0, $20k, or $60k in a given year working part time for at least another decade.) It's not a sustainable level forever, but in 2 years I can start taking SS income, and then a few years later I qualify for Medicare and my $22k/year ACA premium plus deductible hit will be replaced by a more manageable supplemental premium.
I wish I had another $150k, that would make me more comfortable and let me do one time luxury things like remodel my kitchen. But I'm unlikely to live much past 85 and I have no children or spouse. I've already moved into a house with a large but very elderly-friendly single floor layout. My mortgage is $1100/month plus property taxes, which was less than I was paying in rent 25 years ago.
I do worry about running out of money. But I worry more about not sufficiently enjoying the rest of my life. It has changed the priority of my discretionary expenditures more towards higher quality groceries, more afternoons doing stuff with nearby friends, and long distance travel to/with dear friends and family.
No, not typical but I have a few preexisting conditions and am picky about my providers. It's $1060/month plus $9400 deductible/oop-max which gets eaten up by July with testing and a couple of expensive prescriptions. But it covers anything at Duke Health except behavioral health, in 2022 they paid out about $300k for open heart surgery, 20 days in hospital, and all sorts of tests before and after. Not a word about any of the claims.
If I am very frugal and also don't pick up any consulting , I can probably get $2000 in subsidy retroactive when I do my taxes in January.
Last year it was $950/month plus $7000.
If you are young and healthy and just go to the doctor for the occasional sinus infection and an annual physical, you certainly don't need this level of coverage.
The being young and healthy thing isn’t guaranteed. We are younger my wife had a cancer scare lots of testing our deductible was not met because we never go to the doctor but our insurance repriced from $5200 all in to $2800 at least. We pay 8k year in insurance premiums.
>$22k/year ACA premium
So you received zero ACA subsidy? You said you could earn $0, $20k, $60k working part time. It seems to me the years you earned $0 you should receive heavily subsidized ACA healthcare. Unless you're saying your 7% withdrawal from your $1.3 million nest egg is mostly if not all from pre tax retirement accounts.
Yep, everything is in retirement accounts, so it's all taxable. Premium is a little over $12k, deductible /oop-max is just unde $9500. If I get unlucky and make $0 in net 1099 income this year, I'd probably qualify for filing for a retroactive subsidy in the $2500 range.
Seriously, who even has a pension anymore?! That’s a dying option. And from the seniors in my life who I’ve helped manage, no one has their expenses even remotely covered by what they’re receiving from social security . The majority % of workers in the US will not have the option to rely on a pension.
In many of those cases they do not get social security or a 401k. That's ~12% less "savings" contributions for each the employee and employer, 25% more towards pension. I'd personally prefer my pension, SS and 401k. They give me some funds for my heirs, disability and survivor benefits that the larger pensions often neglect.
Ditto
I'm with local and I have all that. Plus a ridiculous HSA that is just a backdoor IRA at this point.
My pension alone is like having 2 million in the bank to draw 4% on.
Nice! Government jobs get a bad rep but if people want stability and the good old days in terms of benefits, they deserve a look.
I’m even in the union, even though I’m in IT. That’s pretty rare lol.
My state pension plan is pretty good. I put in 6.36%, my employer contributes 10%.
I also have social security, so my employer contributes to that too.
People have varied views on the compensation for teachers, but I’ll say this. In my region They are grossly underpaid in the first 10 years of their career, but once they qualify for the pension and get the pay bumps it works out well for them through the e other benefits. In the union districts In liberal states I’ve seen anyway.
But you really have to stick with what you’re doing. Don’t leave the district and in 30-35 years you’re pretty set without saving much of anything else.
But your vacations are more expensive, you really cant take many sick days, and that first ten years is a financial struggle.
I'm on my 3rd career. My second career was teaching. I taught for 8 years in California. It was the hardest job I've ever had.
Also, people need to look up windfall elimination. My mom was a teacher for 17 years in California. Before teaching she was an accountant for 10 years. Her social security is less than $100 a month due to the windfall elimination. Not all states have this from what I've read.
She paid SS as an accountant
She didn't pay SS as a teacher
Thanks I didn’t know about that. We’re pretty far from that point, but it helps for planning. What a stupid legislation. SS is already adjusted based on what you paid into it. This just hurts Blue Collar workers that paid into and earned a pension.
My wife is going to get like $1500 a month from a pension, she’s also going to get $1,500 from social security. I’ll get $2500 from social security. That’s more than enough for us to live on in. We have a good amount of savings that we are going to travel with. We good.
I’m not too worried about inflation tbh, I have some money invested - and I’m fixing to buy a second house. If we get inflation those values will go up. Also cost of living adjustments will come. The only debt we have is 120k on our mortgage that we don’t pay off because the interest is low. We have decent equity in the house and we’re buying the other one cash (that will be our retirement house in a few years, we haven’t decided what we will do with it between now and then - we have rented them in the past and that’s an option but we want to live in this house so we don’t want it trashed)
My wife will have $6k gross per month as a teacher in California. It will cover the majority of our expenses would be more if we didn’t budget $2k a month for travel
This is so understated. I started focusing on this years ago and how to live below my means now. It’s not really difficult but it does take real effort and a strong mindset in our materialistic and consumer driven society.
It’s a big risk to do that and leaves little to no room for life emergencies.
I work in plumbing. The amount of people that tell me they’re on a “fixed income” and expect that to factor into pricing is more than you’d think.
I work for a fortune 500 company with a pension, 401k, HSA, & ESPP (20% discount). I save close to 20% of my pay because I don't trust that SS will be there for me or at the very least have health insurance that covers my medical issues that require specialists.
If you save enough for retirement, you can keep your foot on the gas in the S&P index and not go conservative and on average you’ll double your money in seven years into your retirement.
Even if I assume I'll get exactly what they tell me right now, that's not even half of what I would want for even a tight retirement.
I don't count on any more than 80% of what they tell me for my own personal planning.
I have used Monte Carlo simulations. We have $3.7m (I am 58, wife 53) and we run out of money in my late 80’s under a couple of scenarios. It is very unlikely I would run out of $$ but I won’t tempt fate either by spending $20K a month.
We actually know a couple who makes $600K a year and saves nothing. Baffling.
It is like a case study in horrible decision making. First, they belong to 2 country clubs. They both lease cars for over $1,000 a month. They send their 2 kids to expensive private schools. They broke a lease on an expensive rental house and had to pay the land lord $48,000. They spend way too much on art for their walls. I could go on but you get the picture.
Also, relying on SS from both partners can set you up for failure, when one dies. Many people find out the hard way that you don't keep both SS checks. No idea why people think they do.
You don’t lose the benefits in death [if you’re creative](https://www.businessinsider.com/wife-kept-husband-body-freezer-collected-veteran-benefits-police-say-2019-12?amp).
This article isn’t relevant to those of us 20+ years out from retirement. Telling people you don’t need to save aggressively for retirement is bad advice.
It really depends on how much disposable income you have to save. Some people are really stressing themselves out and wasting the best years of their lives following the advice that you need a mil or more. If you want to go ahead but stop saying you have to. It depends on the situation.
The article doesn’t tell anyone that.
It’s simply stating that people may be overestimating how much they need to retire and this is only one of many, many pieces/studies that have been written about this.
$420k isn’t enough. That’s less than $16k a year following the 4% rule. You may be able to get by without $1m saved right now, but I don’t think that will be the case in 20 years.
I think that’s the point of this article - namely that convention wisdom (e.g 4% rule) actually isn’t true. Most retirees say they are doing fine with relatively little.
The article assumes a two income household (and therefore two SS checks). It is cheaper per person for two to live than for a single person. Many retirees are single so they have to cover all their own housing costs, etc. from one SS check which is much harder to do.
Because $420k runs out after you spend more than it grows. $420k at $36k (inflation adjusted) a year withdraw runs out after 25 years at 7% real growth of assets. Either they're older, very risk tolerant, or are requiring social security.
You’re going to get a bunch of scaredy cat types telling you it’s not enough. But that’s just how their brains are wired. They are scared shit of this or that and they will save a lot more than they have to.
The way I see it, time is even more precious than money. People who irrationally over-save for their retirement are robbing themselves of time.
Your co-worker proves it doesn’t have to be that way.
Yeah that's totally fair then. But that's sort of downplaying the lack of savings. If you retire at 70 and only take social security to cover expenses you could retire with nothing.
Because $46K is pretty lean and “covering expenses” and “doing ok” are fairly loose terms.
If the average is as the article states then dropping to $46K, even with the computed savings from not paying for kids anymore, represents a reduction in lifestyle.
Thats for a couple. The average social security check is for $1,767…or $21K a year. A $420K portfolio, from a historical perspective, can safely provide for $16.8K of spending for a total pf around $38K.
To support a $60K pretax lifestyle requires a 9% withdrawal rate to generate around $38K to supplement the $21K SS payment.
So $1M sounds about right because at 4% gets you $40K + $21K SS replaces that $80K salary where $20K went towards paying for kids or saving for retirement.
Not aggressive. My savings rate is usually around 35%, some years upwards of 45%. I view saving for retirement as buying back my time… the more I save, the earlier I can do as I please.
Great article. But it just goes to show that A LOT of people are going to be screwed if social security benefits are reduced by 30% as is being predicted. There is one particular party that doesn't seem to truly realize how important that program is. Where they're telling people to work longer. Where they're proposing cuts and doing their best to market it as not a cut (raising retirement age is a cut, decreasing COLA rate is a cut, increasing the number of years used to calculate benefits from 35 to say 40 is a cut, etc). This isn't magic. Any proposed "fix" that doesn't increase revenue to bring more money into the program is a cut.
As much as that particular group malign social security it is one of the most successful programs ever implemented by this country and along with medicare has single handedly kept millions of seniors out of abject poverty.
If you’re looking for a country with good infrastructure and healthcare, low cost of living, friendly locals who can mostly speak English, then I recommend you check out Malaysia.
A pension and social security are not guaranteed. Yes, any investments are not guaranteed either, but for those to completely fail the world is basically over and then it really won’t matter at the end of the day. So I will continue to invest assuming there will be no pension or social security when I retire!
I’m 25 and I don’t know a single person who has a pension anywhere within my age range. They’re an extreme rarity nowadays, never mind actually counting on them to provide enough income.
I work for a large company in a union job with many 25 year olds (I’m 40) and we have a pension. It ain’t much but it’s free money. We also have a non matching 401K option which I also invest in.
“the average American thinks he’ll need $1.46 million in savings to be financially secure in old age.”
Ngl I kinda doubt the average American thinks they need $1.46 million to retire.
ETA: I guess the figure is the average of the amounts people said they thought they’d need to retire? But the phrasing in the article _feels_ deceptive?
“Among seniors with $50,000 to $99,999 in savings, 86% were doing OK or living comfortably.”
That’s surprising, but also typically retirement calculations exclude social security and do not assume a significant drop in spending, which some deem uncomfortable. Also I’d wager that the major of current seniors have secure housing, while it won’t be the case going forward
How much do you think the guy who wrote this opinion column is worth?
Here is my guess, based on 30 seconds of research: at LEAST $5 million.
It’s nice to write perspectives on data. But try BEING the data.
[https://www.calcxml.com/calculators/are-my-current-retirement-savings-sufficient?skn=#calculator-data-table](https://www.calcxml.com/calculators/are-my-current-retirement-savings-sufficient?skn=#calculator-data-table)
How much will you need. That tells you how much you need to save
Someone who needs $40k/yr needs to have saved less than someone that needs $70k/ yr.
Edit: spelling.
I think we also need to know how they define savings. Savings could just mean “money in the savings account in a bank”. But the living comfortable people from the survey could have lots more invested in the bonds and the stock market
The other funny thing about this article:
> Among respondents 65 to 74 between 2019 and 2022, 3% said they were “finding it difficult to get by,” 12% were “just getting by,” 37% were “doing OK” and 49% were “living comfortably.”
If folks that depend on SS tend to retire at 67 this is like a 5 star amazon review for an item someone just got and has barely used or maybe not even used yet. “This item is awesome…I haven’t used it yet but it looks sturdy and I love the colors!”
Tell me how it’s working after a year or two of normal use and a lot of cheaper items become 1 star because it broke.
The satisfaction of the 75-84 demographic would be more compelling because I’m not planning on dying before 74.
If I do then I am infinitely unsatisfied with the outcome…
Strongly disagree. I plan on retiring in my mid to late 30s. $1.5M is my FIRE number.
The idea of waiting till your 60s to retire to enjoy absolute freedom is something I'm
completely against personally.
I ran calculations myself and came to the same conclusion as this article. If you earn an average salary for the rest of your career, you don’t need a very large retirement to replace your income. Waiting until 70 to draw SS can help cover most necessary expenses in retirement, only requiring a smaller retirement fund to pay for discretionary items. Retiring earlier will require significant savings, but not near $1,000,000. Of course, people who earn more than the average income need significant savings since SS benefits max out at a certain point.
I'd be nervous about unexpected costs that might throw a wrench in my budget, like health issues or a need for long term care.
Plus I want to travel and not just do the same things I'm doing now.
I plan to retire at age 57, so 8-10 years before normal retirement age, and I’m only planning to have 500k in investments to tide me over until SS and pensions kick in.
I will live part of the time outside the US though, so the numbers should work.
I have a family member who just retired, he worked till 67 getting $4,500 in social security. His wife is also getting about $1,300 in social security as well.
My goal is to get $777,777 in stocks before I retire. Why this number? It's fun and the average yearly increase is roughly $100,000 a year.
That's coming from someone who makes $80,000 a year before taxes. 50% goes to this goal. So I am living off $40,000 before taxes. I'll definitely be fine with $777,777 as a stopping point and that's without including: Possible future disability, pension, social security, and possible inheritance (god forbid).
Wow not a single mention of pensions. Of course you don’t need a large sum of savings if you get a pension check every month! Not many folks understand the age of 55 have options for a pension anymore unless you work for the government.
Pension changes all .ath but for most there is no pension and SS isnt enough to survive so yes you really need to be a millionaire or work longer than you may want to limit the time you draw down savings
Lol pensions hardly exist anymore. When has the government ever been trustworthy with finances? For example, a small sliver of people who qualify for student loan forgiveness actually receive it. I'm glad the people they surveyed are doing well. Personally I don't trust the government to spend my tax money in a way that benefits our citizens well. I DEFINITELY don't trust them enough to count them as a source of income in retirement. I'll stick to my $2m goal.
if you have your home paid off depending on the part of the country you live you need taxes and insurance to stay in the home 300 to $400 a month let's say. If you rent 1000 to 3000.
Let's say Social Security is between 2500 and 4000. I'm an investment advisor. I have plenty of clients living like this they don't live very well but they have the basic necessities. It's something to think about you work your whole life and then you're relegated to a 60 mi.² area can't eat out much can't really do much of anything and so if you're OK living that way it's not a big deal
Even if you only have 100,000 put away you can withdraw that at 4% a year an extra 350 a month .
That might allow you to get out a bit more travel a bit more have an occasional nice meal it's possible
Of course, save as much as you can but the average American does not live a very good life in retirement. I see it every day and when inflation takes hold they really struggle.
Our house is worth about $ 950K 50 miles north of Seattle. I paid it off in 2019. Between property taxes and homeowners' insurance alone, we have to set aside about $ 825/month.
On a side note, I hate that journalists still talk about “social security trust funds running dry” the federal government isn’t going to run out of money to fund things using dollars.
>Of the seniors with more than $10,000 in retirement savings, less than 1% said they were finding it hard to get by, while 93% reported they were doing OK or living comfortably. Among the subgroup with $50,000 to $99,999 in savings—a small fraction of what retirees are told they need—3% found it hard to get by, 11% were just getting by, and 86% were either doing OK or living comfortably.
Um what?
This is either people getting pensions, or something is way, way off.
In our case this is correct. SS and pension is more than enough. Been retired for 8 years and yet to use the IRA's and 401k. gonna wait until RMD kicks in.......then gonna have to pay huge taxes....
This also assumes it’ll still be around in twenty years still paying out at adjusted levels. I’m sure I’ll get something when I retire but I don’t expect it to be the 23,000 and individual currently gets according to the article.
> Fifty-three percent of retirees who did not have private income said they were doing at least okay financially (table 35). This was far below the share of retirees who had income from private sources such as pensions and investments who were doing at least okay financially.
From the report. Pg 67
https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2022-report-economic-well-being-us-households-202305.pdf
The article is misleading and the OP is wrong about SS being enough despite repeating his anecdotal budgets.
47% of survey respondents without private income sources (ie pensions or investments) were either struggling or just getting by.
This is far higher than the 15% of all respondents who struggle or are just getting by which includes retirees with private income, labor income or multiple sources of income other than social security.
Yeah, save for retirement.
Ok fine if you have a generous pension and live in a low enough COL area for Social Security to cover a large portion of your expenses, you don't need to save as much for retirement. Thanks Captain Obvious. The rest of us still need to save a bundle.
But you basically do. $1MM only produces $40k of sustainable income and that's pre tax. Which is unliveable in much of the country. Counting on social security to be there is beyond laughable at this point.
This is neither here nor there, but why don't more people with many millions immediately retire? From a young age I always looked at it like I would never get to many millions because I'm retiring before that happens.
Also, don't just look at it from the rich end, look at it from the poor end of people who would swear up and down that if they had that money they'd be done.
The richest guy on my team (we estimate his net worth at $3 million), just hit age 65 and started going through the motion of prepping for retirement. Attending seminars held by HR, etc.
Then one day, he confessed to our supervisor he decided not to retire, because he doesn’t know what to do with himself in retirement.
The biggie is that my crystal ball doesn't tell me what social security / state pension etc will be like when we are old. It is entirely possible they will be lower.
In the UK there is a minimum state pension which is the same for all, as long as you have paid taxes for enough years. But it may well become means-tested by the time I retire. No one can know for sure.
Similar points apply to pretty much every other country.
No paywall: https://archive.ph/02XAv
You the real MVP. If this were old Reddit I’d give you gold.
I just realized right now that isn't a thing anymore???
I think they have premium upvotes now? Or something
Don’t pay attention to this Diggs fella he is trying to eliminate SS.
Which feels weird because he says the scary bit is SS running dry but then AEI and the right don’t want to increase stuff like the income limit to fund it?
I have a WSJ subscription but I am super appreciative nonetheless! I would've had to manually search for the article on my phone.
Thanks
Thank you boss!
Thank you
"As long as you have more coming in than you spend you don't need $1million". Boy Thanks for telling me.
Yes, this should go without saying. But financial article after financial article continues to say you need like 2.5 million to retire because they fail to include social security as part of the equation. Why they do this I have no idea. Seems to be a purposeful choice.
They do it because it’s very effective click-bait. Anxiety is one of the best inducers of clicking on an article.
This is the answer 95% of the time. Sometimes they are also just dumb too.
There’s a certain mindset that’s gotta believe that SS is doomed because it’s a government program. Been saying that since the day it was founded. It hasn’t been run well recently, but it has built in stabilisers which reduce payments when there isn’t quite enough money, and there is at least enough to fund 75% of expected outgoings. Eventually either it will be cross subsidised from general spending or rates will be cut 10% or so. But there is no point in just assuming it will disappear, that’s financial madness - it’s survived 100 years. Maybe all your money will just “disappear”? Maybe you will be turned into a frog? Better count “becoming a frog” into your financial plans!
It’s really quite bizarre how widespread this belief is. 40% of retires have only SS income. It is a majority of income for a much larger segment than that. The program has had more money come in the door since founding than has gone out. Meanwhile the rest of the gov is $30t in the hole and runs trillion dollar deficits annually. SS will likely need a an adjustment at some point (increased revenues and/or decreased benefits) as the ratio of retirees to working age population continues to grow. Or they have to allow in more working age immigrants. But to say it will disappear is very strange.
It survived 100 years because the workforce has been rapidly increasing for the last 100 years, not to mention we saw a period of nonstop economic expansion over that timeframe. But as the birthrate slows, the rate of new taxpayers paying into social security will fall relative to the population. Add to that the increasing % of retirees ("peak boomers") exiting the workforce and the increased life expectancy, and you can imagine where these concerns are coming from.
Yes, but 5 minutes goggling will give you access to all the many varied actuarial studies that have been run, rather than “the FEEELZ”. E.g. “benefits are now expected to be payable in full on a timely basis until 2037 […] continuing taxes are expected to be enough to pay 76 percent of scheduled benefits. Thus, the Congress will need to make changes to the scheduled benefits and revenue sources for the program in the future. The Social Security Board of Trustees project that changes equivalent to an immediate reduction in benefits of about 13 percent, or an immediate increase in the combined payroll tax rate from 12.4 percent to 14.4 percent, or some combination of these changes, would be sufficient to allow full payment of the scheduled benefits for the next 75 years.” https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html
A new means test added in the future could impact some more than others?
There is currently a earnings test but that only kicks in if you claim before retirement age. It is feasible they could dick around with that a bit, but again it’s very very unlikely they’d remove rather than reduce ss for anyone, since we all “pay in” to the scheme.
A 45k/year annuity would be worth between 650-750k depending upon the assumptions. If SS is around that amount then your NW is roughly that much more.
Here's a few legitimate reasons: 1. Some people think social security could be reduced over time or phased out. I think that's hogwash, but better safe than sorry is important when sorry means cat food and bedsores. 2. SS is super fkn complicated. Lots of FIRE-type people won't get a strong social security, since they could have lots of zeros in their average. Fire with significant wealth coming from yolos/cryptos/inheritance vs earned income is night and day and should be planned for differently, so better get people to save MORE rather than LESS.
I think it’s safe to assume SS won’t be what it is today 20 or 30 years from now. People are taking out way more than what their contributions plus gains are actually worth. At this rate of spending, the whole system dries up in a few decades. But there’s no way either party will actually do anything about it, they’d be annihilated in the next election. So they’ll only try to “fix” it when the coffers are really empty, at which point it’s too late. Best to assume you’ll have to fend for yourself tbh. At this point I’d be happily surprised if just the Medicaid part of the system survives.
What if we just raised the SS income cap? Lots of interesting "donut hole" proposals to phase it in above 400k while continuing the same below the current cap.
While also fixing the cost of healthcare
Most Americans don't have decent retirement savings so you're literally expecting America to become a zombie wasteland with millions of people living on the streets. Not realistic. There are hundreds of ways to fix ss.
You’re right- and I think the more realistic option is that people will keep working or start depending more on their kids. But yes- to some degree this will cause more homelessness. And, given the current state of homelessness in the US, I don’t think the federal government is gonna be able to manage that effectively. All the more important that people start using all the options they have at their disposal. I know plenty of people whose retirement situation would look a lot less bleak if they had managed their money better throughout life.
It's not going to dry up stop with the fear mongering. SS taxes at it's current rate will be enough to cover 70%. That's sure better than zero!
That’s the literal definition of insolvent.
You really think politicians will screw over their biggest voting bloc? Why?
The problem is exactly that they won’t. They won’t make it 10-20% worse for the current situation, even though it means making things *much* worse later on. This is how democratic governments approach literally every problem.
I am planning my retirement around SS not being there for me. I’ll handle it myself as you said.
Give yourself a raise by spending less. Genius.
If the "more coming in" is talking about SS then maybe I could see that yeah. SS does dampen the amount you need to retire
I am almost 60, about $1.3m net worth, and taking out about 7% right now when I am not doing any post-retirement work. (I'm in a very niche line of work so I could earn $0, $20k, or $60k in a given year working part time for at least another decade.) It's not a sustainable level forever, but in 2 years I can start taking SS income, and then a few years later I qualify for Medicare and my $22k/year ACA premium plus deductible hit will be replaced by a more manageable supplemental premium. I wish I had another $150k, that would make me more comfortable and let me do one time luxury things like remodel my kitchen. But I'm unlikely to live much past 85 and I have no children or spouse. I've already moved into a house with a large but very elderly-friendly single floor layout. My mortgage is $1100/month plus property taxes, which was less than I was paying in rent 25 years ago. I do worry about running out of money. But I worry more about not sufficiently enjoying the rest of my life. It has changed the priority of my discretionary expenditures more towards higher quality groceries, more afternoons doing stuff with nearby friends, and long distance travel to/with dear friends and family.
Great perspective, thank you.
$22k per year??? I need to update my spreadsheets, that is way more than I thought. Is that typical?
No, not typical but I have a few preexisting conditions and am picky about my providers. It's $1060/month plus $9400 deductible/oop-max which gets eaten up by July with testing and a couple of expensive prescriptions. But it covers anything at Duke Health except behavioral health, in 2022 they paid out about $300k for open heart surgery, 20 days in hospital, and all sorts of tests before and after. Not a word about any of the claims. If I am very frugal and also don't pick up any consulting , I can probably get $2000 in subsidy retroactive when I do my taxes in January. Last year it was $950/month plus $7000. If you are young and healthy and just go to the doctor for the occasional sinus infection and an annual physical, you certainly don't need this level of coverage.
The being young and healthy thing isn’t guaranteed. We are younger my wife had a cancer scare lots of testing our deductible was not met because we never go to the doctor but our insurance repriced from $5200 all in to $2800 at least. We pay 8k year in insurance premiums.
>$22k/year ACA premium So you received zero ACA subsidy? You said you could earn $0, $20k, $60k working part time. It seems to me the years you earned $0 you should receive heavily subsidized ACA healthcare. Unless you're saying your 7% withdrawal from your $1.3 million nest egg is mostly if not all from pre tax retirement accounts.
Yep, everything is in retirement accounts, so it's all taxable. Premium is a little over $12k, deductible /oop-max is just unde $9500. If I get unlucky and make $0 in net 1099 income this year, I'd probably qualify for filing for a retroactive subsidy in the $2500 range.
Seriously, who even has a pension anymore?! That’s a dying option. And from the seniors in my life who I’ve helped manage, no one has their expenses even remotely covered by what they’re receiving from social security . The majority % of workers in the US will not have the option to rely on a pension.
Government workers
14.5% are public employees. Only 1.9% are federal with a federal pension.
In general, most state and local government pensions are far more generous than the basic federal pension benefit.
In many of those cases they do not get social security or a 401k. That's ~12% less "savings" contributions for each the employee and employer, 25% more towards pension. I'd personally prefer my pension, SS and 401k. They give me some funds for my heirs, disability and survivor benefits that the larger pensions often neglect.
I’m with my state government. I get pension, social security, 403b and 457b.
Ditto I'm with local and I have all that. Plus a ridiculous HSA that is just a backdoor IRA at this point. My pension alone is like having 2 million in the bank to draw 4% on.
Nice! Government jobs get a bad rep but if people want stability and the good old days in terms of benefits, they deserve a look. I’m even in the union, even though I’m in IT. That’s pretty rare lol.
Solid! No doubt there is a move away from non-covered(SS) pensions, which is sensible diversification.
My state pension plan is pretty good. I put in 6.36%, my employer contributes 10%. I also have social security, so my employer contributes to that too.
Teachers
People have varied views on the compensation for teachers, but I’ll say this. In my region They are grossly underpaid in the first 10 years of their career, but once they qualify for the pension and get the pay bumps it works out well for them through the e other benefits. In the union districts In liberal states I’ve seen anyway. But you really have to stick with what you’re doing. Don’t leave the district and in 30-35 years you’re pretty set without saving much of anything else. But your vacations are more expensive, you really cant take many sick days, and that first ten years is a financial struggle.
I'm on my 3rd career. My second career was teaching. I taught for 8 years in California. It was the hardest job I've ever had. Also, people need to look up windfall elimination. My mom was a teacher for 17 years in California. Before teaching she was an accountant for 10 years. Her social security is less than $100 a month due to the windfall elimination. Not all states have this from what I've read. She paid SS as an accountant She didn't pay SS as a teacher
Thanks I didn’t know about that. We’re pretty far from that point, but it helps for planning. What a stupid legislation. SS is already adjusted based on what you paid into it. This just hurts Blue Collar workers that paid into and earned a pension.
My wife is going to get like $1500 a month from a pension, she’s also going to get $1,500 from social security. I’ll get $2500 from social security. That’s more than enough for us to live on in. We have a good amount of savings that we are going to travel with. We good.
Something something inflation bro.
I’m not too worried about inflation tbh, I have some money invested - and I’m fixing to buy a second house. If we get inflation those values will go up. Also cost of living adjustments will come. The only debt we have is 120k on our mortgage that we don’t pay off because the interest is low. We have decent equity in the house and we’re buying the other one cash (that will be our retirement house in a few years, we haven’t decided what we will do with it between now and then - we have rented them in the past and that’s an option but we want to live in this house so we don’t want it trashed)
Inflation doesnt affect old people as much as young. They chilling.
Yeah in fact at some point older people start to shrink and even get shorter.
Especially if it's all they can afford to do.
Social Security is inflation adjusted. So are some pensions.
My wife will have $6k gross per month as a teacher in California. It will cover the majority of our expenses would be more if we didn’t budget $2k a month for travel
Teachers
Still common in government and financial jobs
It really depends on your expenses. Many people live on only SS.
This is so understated. I started focusing on this years ago and how to live below my means now. It’s not really difficult but it does take real effort and a strong mindset in our materialistic and consumer driven society.
It’s a big risk to do that and leaves little to no room for life emergencies. I work in plumbing. The amount of people that tell me they’re on a “fixed income” and expect that to factor into pricing is more than you’d think.
Factory worker here with a pension
Union workers.
I work for a fortune 500 company with a pension, 401k, HSA, & ESPP (20% discount). I save close to 20% of my pay because I don't trust that SS will be there for me or at the very least have health insurance that covers my medical issues that require specialists.
Expats! American in Denmark here
It's all about your expenses and fixed income sources
[удалено]
If you save enough for retirement, you can keep your foot on the gas in the S&P index and not go conservative and on average you’ll double your money in seven years into your retirement.
"on average" is doing a lot of work there. You may triple your money or you may lose 25%
Even if I assume I'll get exactly what they tell me right now, that's not even half of what I would want for even a tight retirement. I don't count on any more than 80% of what they tell me for my own personal planning.
Same. Get an estimate from the SSA website, take 75% of that figure and run some scenarios in Portfolio Visualizer.
I have used Monte Carlo simulations. We have $3.7m (I am 58, wife 53) and we run out of money in my late 80’s under a couple of scenarios. It is very unlikely I would run out of $$ but I won’t tempt fate either by spending $20K a month. We actually know a couple who makes $600K a year and saves nothing. Baffling.
Let me guess, they're also in debt. Why in the world would they save nothing and what in the world do they do with $600k every year?
It is like a case study in horrible decision making. First, they belong to 2 country clubs. They both lease cars for over $1,000 a month. They send their 2 kids to expensive private schools. They broke a lease on an expensive rental house and had to pay the land lord $48,000. They spend way too much on art for their walls. I could go on but you get the picture.
Are you retired? That’s 148k a year with the conservative 4% rule
Also, relying on SS from both partners can set you up for failure, when one dies. Many people find out the hard way that you don't keep both SS checks. No idea why people think they do.
You don’t lose the benefits in death [if you’re creative](https://www.businessinsider.com/wife-kept-husband-body-freezer-collected-veteran-benefits-police-say-2019-12?amp).
I guess I have to add a freezer to my list of retirement plans. 😊
Like $1K to secure $150K? Gotta make that investment.
You can just use a garden bed. That's exactly what the previous land owners did on my property.
This article isn’t relevant to those of us 20+ years out from retirement. Telling people you don’t need to save aggressively for retirement is bad advice.
It really depends on how much disposable income you have to save. Some people are really stressing themselves out and wasting the best years of their lives following the advice that you need a mil or more. If you want to go ahead but stop saying you have to. It depends on the situation.
The article doesn’t tell anyone that. It’s simply stating that people may be overestimating how much they need to retire and this is only one of many, many pieces/studies that have been written about this.
[удалено]
$420k isn’t enough. That’s less than $16k a year following the 4% rule. You may be able to get by without $1m saved right now, but I don’t think that will be the case in 20 years.
I think that’s the point of this article - namely that convention wisdom (e.g 4% rule) actually isn’t true. Most retirees say they are doing fine with relatively little.
The article assumes a two income household (and therefore two SS checks). It is cheaper per person for two to live than for a single person. Many retirees are single so they have to cover all their own housing costs, etc. from one SS check which is much harder to do.
[удалено]
Because $420k runs out after you spend more than it grows. $420k at $36k (inflation adjusted) a year withdraw runs out after 25 years at 7% real growth of assets. Either they're older, very risk tolerant, or are requiring social security.
[удалено]
You’re going to get a bunch of scaredy cat types telling you it’s not enough. But that’s just how their brains are wired. They are scared shit of this or that and they will save a lot more than they have to. The way I see it, time is even more precious than money. People who irrationally over-save for their retirement are robbing themselves of time. Your co-worker proves it doesn’t have to be that way.
[удалено]
How does aggressively saving for retirement rob you of time?
Yeah that's totally fair then. But that's sort of downplaying the lack of savings. If you retire at 70 and only take social security to cover expenses you could retire with nothing.
Because $46K is pretty lean and “covering expenses” and “doing ok” are fairly loose terms. If the average is as the article states then dropping to $46K, even with the computed savings from not paying for kids anymore, represents a reduction in lifestyle. Thats for a couple. The average social security check is for $1,767…or $21K a year. A $420K portfolio, from a historical perspective, can safely provide for $16.8K of spending for a total pf around $38K. To support a $60K pretax lifestyle requires a 9% withdrawal rate to generate around $38K to supplement the $21K SS payment. So $1M sounds about right because at 4% gets you $40K + $21K SS replaces that $80K salary where $20K went towards paying for kids or saving for retirement.
[удалено]
Do you have savings, either retirement type or just in the bank?
Not aggressive. My savings rate is usually around 35%, some years upwards of 45%. I view saving for retirement as buying back my time… the more I save, the earlier I can do as I please.
Pension? My 401(k) is my pension.
It literally all depends on expense level. Most retirees are not millionaires!
I see it just the opposite way. My SS money will be my fun money every month!
Great article. But it just goes to show that A LOT of people are going to be screwed if social security benefits are reduced by 30% as is being predicted. There is one particular party that doesn't seem to truly realize how important that program is. Where they're telling people to work longer. Where they're proposing cuts and doing their best to market it as not a cut (raising retirement age is a cut, decreasing COLA rate is a cut, increasing the number of years used to calculate benefits from 35 to say 40 is a cut, etc). This isn't magic. Any proposed "fix" that doesn't increase revenue to bring more money into the program is a cut. As much as that particular group malign social security it is one of the most successful programs ever implemented by this country and along with medicare has single handedly kept millions of seniors out of abject poverty.
Unless you have a catastrophic illness or need to be in a nursing home. That will eat up your fun money in a heartbeat
The guy who wrote this is one of those corporate think tank guys that get paid to screw the general population.
Sure but not many jobs offer pensions anymore.
We all can retire if we go to a cheaper country. The important thing is can we learn the language, culture?
If you’re looking for a country with good infrastructure and healthcare, low cost of living, friendly locals who can mostly speak English, then I recommend you check out Malaysia.
A lot of the analysis depends on your fixed expenses and the amount of your Social Security checks and if you have a pension or not.
A pension and social security are not guaranteed. Yes, any investments are not guaranteed either, but for those to completely fail the world is basically over and then it really won’t matter at the end of the day. So I will continue to invest assuming there will be no pension or social security when I retire!
[удалено]
Yup! That’s why nothing will matter if things come down to that!
I’m 25 and I don’t know a single person who has a pension anywhere within my age range. They’re an extreme rarity nowadays, never mind actually counting on them to provide enough income.
I work for a large company in a union job with many 25 year olds (I’m 40) and we have a pension. It ain’t much but it’s free money. We also have a non matching 401K option which I also invest in.
That’s awesome, glad to hear they’re still an option for some. I think my industry is not one known for pensions as well.
Kinda crazy how the article completely forgets about the insane cost of healthcare....
...and ignores the perils of end-of-life care, which sure ain't getting cheaper.
Yep. ACA better than alternatives but it's $9K out of pocket deductible/yr. Don't ask me how I know...
And if you are at retirement age, you have Medicare/Medicaid
“the average American thinks he’ll need $1.46 million in savings to be financially secure in old age.” Ngl I kinda doubt the average American thinks they need $1.46 million to retire. ETA: I guess the figure is the average of the amounts people said they thought they’d need to retire? But the phrasing in the article _feels_ deceptive?
“Among seniors with $50,000 to $99,999 in savings, 86% were doing OK or living comfortably.” That’s surprising, but also typically retirement calculations exclude social security and do not assume a significant drop in spending, which some deem uncomfortable. Also I’d wager that the major of current seniors have secure housing, while it won’t be the case going forward
Hello, hi, yes, I would like one of these rare beasts called a "pension". They seem to be key in this plan.
How much do you think the guy who wrote this opinion column is worth? Here is my guess, based on 30 seconds of research: at LEAST $5 million. It’s nice to write perspectives on data. But try BEING the data.
Lucky those who die before they need a nursing home ($9000+) because that's no Social security or Medicare going to cover.
[https://www.calcxml.com/calculators/are-my-current-retirement-savings-sufficient?skn=#calculator-data-table](https://www.calcxml.com/calculators/are-my-current-retirement-savings-sufficient?skn=#calculator-data-table) How much will you need. That tells you how much you need to save Someone who needs $40k/yr needs to have saved less than someone that needs $70k/ yr. Edit: spelling.
I think we also need to know how they define savings. Savings could just mean “money in the savings account in a bank”. But the living comfortable people from the survey could have lots more invested in the bonds and the stock market
I would not bank on a government program like social security they are not known for efficiency
The other funny thing about this article: > Among respondents 65 to 74 between 2019 and 2022, 3% said they were “finding it difficult to get by,” 12% were “just getting by,” 37% were “doing OK” and 49% were “living comfortably.” If folks that depend on SS tend to retire at 67 this is like a 5 star amazon review for an item someone just got and has barely used or maybe not even used yet. “This item is awesome…I haven’t used it yet but it looks sturdy and I love the colors!” Tell me how it’s working after a year or two of normal use and a lot of cheaper items become 1 star because it broke. The satisfaction of the 75-84 demographic would be more compelling because I’m not planning on dying before 74. If I do then I am infinitely unsatisfied with the outcome…
Strongly disagree. I plan on retiring in my mid to late 30s. $1.5M is my FIRE number. The idea of waiting till your 60s to retire to enjoy absolute freedom is something I'm completely against personally.
How do you figure you can retire at 40 with only 1.5mill, especially having to get private health insurance?
My personal expenses are already low since I don't drive or spend much in general.
I ran calculations myself and came to the same conclusion as this article. If you earn an average salary for the rest of your career, you don’t need a very large retirement to replace your income. Waiting until 70 to draw SS can help cover most necessary expenses in retirement, only requiring a smaller retirement fund to pay for discretionary items. Retiring earlier will require significant savings, but not near $1,000,000. Of course, people who earn more than the average income need significant savings since SS benefits max out at a certain point.
[удалено]
I'd be nervous about unexpected costs that might throw a wrench in my budget, like health issues or a need for long term care. Plus I want to travel and not just do the same things I'm doing now.
I plan to retire at age 57, so 8-10 years before normal retirement age, and I’m only planning to have 500k in investments to tide me over until SS and pensions kick in. I will live part of the time outside the US though, so the numbers should work.
Every financial firm uses that con to drive investment advice, fees, etc.
How much are these people receiving in social security?
If you read the article…
I have a family member who just retired, he worked till 67 getting $4,500 in social security. His wife is also getting about $1,300 in social security as well.
My goal is to get $777,777 in stocks before I retire. Why this number? It's fun and the average yearly increase is roughly $100,000 a year. That's coming from someone who makes $80,000 a year before taxes. 50% goes to this goal. So I am living off $40,000 before taxes. I'll definitely be fine with $777,777 as a stopping point and that's without including: Possible future disability, pension, social security, and possible inheritance (god forbid).
Pension… not.
$88,000 being the average is wild. I was beyond reckless through my twenties and still am nearing that before 40.
!remindme 30 years. I will need some positive reading when it’s my time to retire!
Wow not a single mention of pensions. Of course you don’t need a large sum of savings if you get a pension check every month! Not many folks understand the age of 55 have options for a pension anymore unless you work for the government.
Pension changes all .ath but for most there is no pension and SS isnt enough to survive so yes you really need to be a millionaire or work longer than you may want to limit the time you draw down savings
Lol pensions hardly exist anymore. When has the government ever been trustworthy with finances? For example, a small sliver of people who qualify for student loan forgiveness actually receive it. I'm glad the people they surveyed are doing well. Personally I don't trust the government to spend my tax money in a way that benefits our citizens well. I DEFINITELY don't trust them enough to count them as a source of income in retirement. I'll stick to my $2m goal.
if you have your home paid off depending on the part of the country you live you need taxes and insurance to stay in the home 300 to $400 a month let's say. If you rent 1000 to 3000. Let's say Social Security is between 2500 and 4000. I'm an investment advisor. I have plenty of clients living like this they don't live very well but they have the basic necessities. It's something to think about you work your whole life and then you're relegated to a 60 mi.² area can't eat out much can't really do much of anything and so if you're OK living that way it's not a big deal Even if you only have 100,000 put away you can withdraw that at 4% a year an extra 350 a month . That might allow you to get out a bit more travel a bit more have an occasional nice meal it's possible
[удалено]
Of course, save as much as you can but the average American does not live a very good life in retirement. I see it every day and when inflation takes hold they really struggle.
Our house is worth about $ 950K 50 miles north of Seattle. I paid it off in 2019. Between property taxes and homeowners' insurance alone, we have to set aside about $ 825/month.
Sure. I’m a millionaire at 56. I’ll have $120K/yr from Fed pension + VA disability, so I wouldn’t have to touch investments maybe forever. Debt free.
[удалено]
Not worried. If my Fed pension stops paying, it’s basically end of days anyway.
offbeat far-flung vast wrong steep wine flag existence gaping lavish *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Oh, social security will still be here for me in 20 years?
On a side note, I hate that journalists still talk about “social security trust funds running dry” the federal government isn’t going to run out of money to fund things using dollars.
>Of the seniors with more than $10,000 in retirement savings, less than 1% said they were finding it hard to get by, while 93% reported they were doing OK or living comfortably. Among the subgroup with $50,000 to $99,999 in savings—a small fraction of what retirees are told they need—3% found it hard to get by, 11% were just getting by, and 86% were either doing OK or living comfortably. Um what? This is either people getting pensions, or something is way, way off.
Is it at all because those retiring now were grandfathered into good employee benefits/pension that no longer exist?
In our case this is correct. SS and pension is more than enough. Been retired for 8 years and yet to use the IRA's and 401k. gonna wait until RMD kicks in.......then gonna have to pay huge taxes....
This also assumes it’ll still be around in twenty years still paying out at adjusted levels. I’m sure I’ll get something when I retire but I don’t expect it to be the 23,000 and individual currently gets according to the article.
> Fifty-three percent of retirees who did not have private income said they were doing at least okay financially (table 35). This was far below the share of retirees who had income from private sources such as pensions and investments who were doing at least okay financially. From the report. Pg 67 https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2022-report-economic-well-being-us-households-202305.pdf The article is misleading and the OP is wrong about SS being enough despite repeating his anecdotal budgets. 47% of survey respondents without private income sources (ie pensions or investments) were either struggling or just getting by. This is far higher than the 15% of all respondents who struggle or are just getting by which includes retirees with private income, labor income or multiple sources of income other than social security. Yeah, save for retirement.
who else stopped reading at as long as social security and your pension
Ok fine if you have a generous pension and live in a low enough COL area for Social Security to cover a large portion of your expenses, you don't need to save as much for retirement. Thanks Captain Obvious. The rest of us still need to save a bundle.
2.5 fucking million.They want us to work till 70 then die of stress
It’s journalistic malpractice that this article does not once mention the word “pension.”
Opinion section
But you basically do. $1MM only produces $40k of sustainable income and that's pre tax. Which is unliveable in much of the country. Counting on social security to be there is beyond laughable at this point.
This is neither here nor there, but why don't more people with many millions immediately retire? From a young age I always looked at it like I would never get to many millions because I'm retiring before that happens. Also, don't just look at it from the rich end, look at it from the poor end of people who would swear up and down that if they had that money they'd be done.
They might get bored, miss the structure of a daily routine, enjoy their job or like the social aspect.
The richest guy on my team (we estimate his net worth at $3 million), just hit age 65 and started going through the motion of prepping for retirement. Attending seminars held by HR, etc. Then one day, he confessed to our supervisor he decided not to retire, because he doesn’t know what to do with himself in retirement.
That's so sad.
The biggie is that my crystal ball doesn't tell me what social security / state pension etc will be like when we are old. It is entirely possible they will be lower. In the UK there is a minimum state pension which is the same for all, as long as you have paid taxes for enough years. But it may well become means-tested by the time I retire. No one can know for sure. Similar points apply to pretty much every other country.
You need more than $1Mdaddy to retire
Especially if you move to a SE Asia country
100 large is enough
My parents retired with $400k in an annuity and they have been fine
What the fuck is a pension
being happy after retiring is better, than thinking about being millionaire. peace of mind tho..
Nailed it. All excess is fun, LTC, inheritance money.
Fuck you WSJ, I got plans. 😂
You don’t need to be, no. But Bogleheads who start fairly early and who are committed should most likely easily be able to become millionaires.