Retirement In Perspective

[Razors Edge ★]

The WSJ periodically runs "what retirement looks like on $XYZ in savings" stories.  Today was the "under $1 million" crowds chance to be discussed, and all are interesting, for sure (it can be done), and this guy was one that jumped out - higher savings than some of the others, but way low spending.

 

Many Americans dream of saving $1 million for retirement. Most fall far short of that.

The typical family’s 401(k) and IRA-type accounts come to less than half that goal in the years approaching retirement age, according to the nonprofit Employee Benefit Research Institute. Total household balances in retirement accounts for those 55 to 64 years old are $413,814 on average, according to its estimates based on 2019 data, the most recent available.

Chris Ravenna

Savings and Investments: $800,000 &  Annual spending: $20,000

Chris Ravenna enjoys spending time at home in Bloomington, Ind., completing projects in his garage and yard. 

Chris Ravenna started working around age 17, and spent most of his career as a tool-and-die maker. He expected to keep at it until age 65, but changed his mind a few years ago and retired at 60 from his factory job.

His father had recently died of Covid-19, and the heightened political climate at work during the pandemic made it seem time. Calling it quits proved harder than he imagined.

“Not having a job is a big adjustment,” he said. 

At first, he continued to get up before dawn as though he still had to make the 6 a.m. shift. Eventually, he managed to start waking up around 9 a.m. and will now sometimes stay up until midnight watching television.

He often starts his day doing some projects around the Bloomington, Ind., home he purchased some 40 years ago for about $33,000. The original mortgage had a 13% interest rate, which he refinanced to around 6% about a decade ago and soon paid off. He estimates his home is now worth about $150,000.

Mr. Ravenna is single and has no children. 

He earned about $50,000 a year from his factory job and always aimed to save at least 20% of his income, largely by keeping his expenses low. He wears his clothes for decades and rarely purchases new ones, though he treated himself to some new socks last July.

“I get buyer’s remorse real quick,” he said. 

He spends about $20,000 a year with the bulk of the money going to car and home insurance. He mostly cooks at home, doesn’t travel and has no debt.

Mr. Ravenna saved about $800,000, mostly in a 401(k), which is invested in the stock market with a 60% stock, 40% bond allocation. He likes to buy stocks during stock market downturns, such as in 2008.

He hopes to finish building a motorcycle he started about 15 years ago, and spends free time watching YouTube videos on how to construct the bike. He is also thinking about adopting a dog from a nearby shelter. 

After seeing his late mother suffer from dementia, Mr. Ravenna worries about his future as a single person should he develop memory issues. He’s counting on his community to help if need be.

“I’ve got great neighbors so hopefully it all works out,” he said.

 

[Razors Edge ★]

For @BR46, his retirement hobby is building this motorcycle:

[MoseySusan]

Having no debt was the prerequisite to retirement for me, so we made extra payments on the mortgage and kept up the scheduled maintenance on our cars. Our pension is enough, so far. Haven’t had to tap into the IRAs or 401ks.

Edit: But we are looking at buying an AWD vehicle so we can go skiing. Neither of our cars is particularly good on snowpack.

[Razors Edge ★]

Just now, MoseySusan said:

Having no debt was the prerequisite to retirement for me, so we made extra payments on the mortgage and kept up the scheduled maintenance on our cars. Our pension is enough, so far. Haven’t had to tap into the IRAs or 401ks.

Yep - there are definitely a lot of strategic moves folks can make ahead of time to lower their retirement needs. Many folks can't come close to breaking even - for whatever reason - so that's seems the more challenging part many will face. Can't pay down debt when barely paying rent sort of thing.  Eventually, if they're lucky, they can scrape by on social security (theoretically a safety net, not a retirement plan) and medicare.  But it's gotta be pretty tight.

The Maine couple at the beginning of the story were in good shape until a couple health bombs went off.  That remains my biggest worry.  Even millions and million can go away pretty quick in catastrophic circumstances.

[BR46]

2 minutes ago, Fret Buzz said:

The Maine couple at the beginning of the story were in good shape until a couple health bombs went off.  That remains my biggest worry.  Even millions and million can go away pretty quick in catastrophic circumstances

I always tell Wo46 that we are one bad crash away from going back to work. 

[Razors Edge ★]

Just now, BR46 said:

I always tell Wo46 that we are one bad crash away from going back to work. 

I never thought about it, but is there any insurance policy that covers you two monkeying around on the track?  And do they make it insanely expensive if it is offered?  My buddy regularly took his car to the track on weekends, and when I did some nutty laps in the passenger seat with him driving, I didn't even consider what the insurance implications were of me getting in a wreck with him driving like a madman around a race track 

[BR46]

24 minutes ago, Fret Buzz said:

For @BR46, his retirement hobby is building this motorcycle:

My experience with that S&S carburetor they can work ok but have a flat spot under hard acceleration. I took the S&S off and I'm running a stock Harley CV carburetor. 

I took the stock carburetor off my 1977 Harley and cut it up and welded the mounting flang to the CV carburetor....works great. 

[MoseySusan]

17 minutes ago, Fret Buzz said:

The Maine couple at the beginning of the story were in good shape until a couple health bombs went off.  That remains my biggest worry.  Even millions and million can go away pretty quick in catastrophic circumstances.

For sure. One of my colleagues had colon cancer that resulted in just over a million in costs. Her retirement plans went out the window. 

[Ralphie ★]

Health bombs-new addition to the vernacular. 

[Kirby]

I recall one they did on retirement comparisons where they were grouping people by savings, although they later pointed out one of the people had a significant monthly pension.  It seemed a bit disingenuous to compare people when one was living entirely off their savings and another was living off a pension that covered expenses and their savings was just a reserve they intended to leave to the kids.  But these snapshots are interesting just to see the choices different people make.

[Razors Edge ★]

6 minutes ago, Kirby said:

I recall one they did on retirement comparisons where they were grouping people by savings, although they later pointed out one of the people had a significant monthly pension.  It seemed a bit disingenuous to compare people when one was living entirely off their savings and another was living off a pension that covered expenses and their savings was just a reserve they intended to leave to the kids.  But these snapshots are interesting just to see the choices different people make.

They give maybe a 10,000' view of several folks - usually a mix and match of savings/retirement acct balances, and income amounts (like SS or pensions) vs spending habits. 

I think Mosey's no debt is the one that really wins for ANY moderate to higher retirement saver.  

[Randomguy]

Here is another perspective, I really am liking the French more and more.

--------------------------

 

 

Opinion: ‘Work’ means something different in France than in the US

 

Opinion by Catherine Poisson

Updated 4:33 PM EDT, Thu March 23, 2023

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Video Ad Feedback

Trash is piling up on the streets of Paris. Here's why

01:48 - Source: CNN

Editor’s Note: Catherine Poisson is an associate professor of Romance Languages at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut. Her research has focused on literature and culture of France from the 19th century to the present. The views expressed in this article are her own.

 

As a native of France who has lived in America for many years, I never fail to be shocked at the sight of older workers packing groceries at the supermarket. It suggests to me a deplorable lack of social supports that could allow aged people to enjoy a dignified retirement.

While it’s true that some people choose to work past retirement, most of us in this country, at some point or the other, have seen elderly people hard at work in occupations that people many years younger would find taxing.

 

Catherine Poisson

And yet, many Americans somehow seem to be puzzled by the recent protests over retirement benefits that are roiling the country of my birth.

For the past three months, a spasm of demonstrations has gripped France over moves by the government to raise the retirement age from 62 to 64. In recent days, French indignation led to a no-confidence vote that President Emmanuel Macron only narrowly survived. A new round of mass protests called by organized labor took place on Thursday — the ninth day of strikes since the bill was introduced in January.

Schools are closed because teachers are on strike. Transportation, including France’s usually reliable train service, is suddenly erratic because of the work stoppages. On top of all this, Parisians have seen their city’s streets strewn with tons of trash, after sanitation workers launched a labor action in solidarity.

I return to France for several weeks each year, but have lived in the United States some 30 years and know both countries well. One thing that seems clear to me is that the kind of upheaval playing out in the country of my birth would be almost unthinkable in America. Americans seem not to be able to understand the source of the boiling national rage felt by the French over the planned increase in the retirement age.

 

Opinion: Paris is still burning, but Macron survives by a hair

The closest analogy in the United States to anything like what my compatriots are experiencing would be the decision four decades ago to raise the age at which Social Security benefits are doled out.

And that’s exactly what happened: The US government announced in 1983 that it would gradually raise the age for collecting full Social Security retirement benefits from 65 to 67 over a 22-year period, beginning in 2000. Of course, older Americans care deeply about Social Security — and often cast their votes accordingly. Still, it’s hard to imagine such a change going over quite so easily in France.

For the most part, the demonstrations in France haven’t awakened Americans’ sense of empathy or solidarity. Instead, it has elicited expressions of sheer befuddlement. What on earth, my friends and acquaintances here ask, do the French have to complain about?

Life in France is not perfect. But French citizens have a generous health care system, which means workers pay next-to-nothing out of pocket for medical care. University education is nearly free. Unemployment benefits allow laid-off workers to sustain a reasonable quality of life while they look for their next jobs.

Yes, French workers have all of that. It is, in short, part of their birthright as citizens of France.

After World War II, both the retirement system and the National Health care system were introduced in France, and though there have been limitations over the last twenty years, social benefits still make it among the most envied countries in Europe in terms of its social programs.

If Americans are baffled by the French willingness to fight to hold onto these hard-won benefits, it is in part because the two countries have very different ideas about what it means to be a worker. In the United States, work is an identity. You are what you do.

 

France's government survives no-confidence votes and controversial pension reforms will move ahead

For those of us raised in French culture, work refers to a finite period of life lasting roughly 40 years. And when that work is done, you are still young enough and fit enough to enjoy the best of what life has to offer. It’s the norm that retirement years — or decades actually — are spent traveling, caring for grandchildren or picking up new hobbies.

It’s part of our social compact: The French work hard during their most productive years during which time they pay what most Americans would consider usuriously high taxes. But then comes the much anticipated “Troisieme Age” — the “third age.” It’s a concept French people grow up with and cling to fervently for their entire lives.

The “first age” is childhood. During life’s “second age,” many of us are saddled with responsibilities of work and raising children. The third age however promises a good, healthy retirement free from want and worry — the kind of retirement many in the United States cannot even dream of. It is no wonder that people are willing to take to the streets to protect it.

The ongoing protests are also seen as a pushback against Macron’s imperious governing style. Years ago, he earned the nickname “Jupiter” — after the king of the Roman gods — as he was derided by some for his highhanded approach to governing — imposing his will, in the eyes of his critics, as if he were a sovereign rather than elected.

Macron says retirement reform is necessary because the system is near collapse. There’s some disagreement about that, however. The budget appears to be balanced for the next dozen years, although it’s true that falling birth rates and increasing longevity pose a problem that will have to be addressed.

Still, there are less draconian ways to fix problems posed by a future retirement fund shortfall. For starters, Macron might reverse his move to abolish the wealth tax. He might also reconsider corporate tax breaks that have benefited big business handsomely.

 

French airports, schools and oil refineries hit by national strike over pension age increase

His administration’s use last week of a constitutional maneuver to bypass a vote in the National Assembly and raise the retirement age is an example of his imperial style. It’s an approach to governing that Macron has used multiple times, including when he passed a budget late last year. And as the protests wear on, there’s been another sign of government heavy-handedness: Macron now has resorted to the “requisition” of some striking workers — in short requiring them to return to their places of employment or risk losing their jobs.

Such moves are, in my view, an admission of political impotence rather than strength. The president has failed to see politics as the art of persuasion and is instead ruling by fiat. The brutal police crackdown on demonstrators protesting pension reforms led to hundreds of arrests in recent days, another sign that he lacks political deftness. The unions meanwhile show no sign of backing down, and are continuing to organize massive protests urging workers to stand firm and remain off the job.

So what’s next? Surely the French will continue to take to the streets, something they always do with great gusto. Beyond this, it’s hard to say how this upheaval ends.

 

There’s no question that the French are slow to embrace change. I am and will always remain staunchly French, although after many years in the US, I can see that my compatriots need to show greater flexibility. They hold on too long to obsolete aspects of their cherished way of life. It’s time for the French to abandon their “c’est tout ou rien” (“all or nothing”) approach as we negotiate what French society will look like in the future.

But then I read about the latest moves to raise the US retirement age to 70, and think that my protesting countrymen have a thing or two that they can teach workers in America when it comes to protecting the sanctity of their golden years.

 

 

[shootingstar]

I'm sure there some strong unions in France.  

That definitely is not right....thought to raise US retirement age to 70 or etc.  Just unhealthy and demanding to people in general. THere are some jobs where it's too taxing on people in later years.

Nearly free university education in France....sounds super hard to believe.  I did hear of same in Germany, although it changed in Germany. 

University education in Canada is absolutely not free to Canadians.  However one can get very high quality level of education in certain well-established universities here that are partially publicly funded. (There is aggressive fundraising by the universities.) 

France, is facing just like alot of countries:  falling birth rate, etc.

[Longjohn ★]

I retired seven years ago. Last year I had to start mandatory withdrawal from my IRA. I just took the minimum amount required. Decided to do the Erie Canal ride again.

[JerrySTL ★]

I retired in 2019 and WoJSTL retired in 2014. We don't have quite a $1 million in investments; however, we haven't touched them except for one small exception. I cashed in a small 403b to pay for our trip to London this summer.

We both have Social Security and retirement checks. Plus good health insurance. Life is good.

[shootingstar]

While part of me has not properly prepped how to use swaths of availalbe time in retirement (beyond blogging, cycling and minor travel trip annually either in Canada or abroad), I don't want to look back to think I could have used time better doing stuff I want with people who I care the most and I rarely see when I work.

We were glad my father retired @65 yrs. as a cook. Sure, my parents were poor. And if people had my father's savings, they would have thought:  not enough!  But my father needed to take things his way after standing on his feet for ...several decades...as a cook to support his family.  When he retired, there was no outstanding mortgage...which is very good for them after moving to Toronto in his retirement in their final home. It's...incredible.  And we didn't finance our parents for their home since we were too busy saving /paying for our own.

[Bikeguy]

10 hours ago, Fret Buzz said:

Many Americans dream of saving $1 million for retirement. Most fall far short of that.

Google tells me that about 90 percent of the people in the US have fallen short of that goal.  link

According to U.S. Census Bureau data, 50% of women and 47% of men between the ages of 55 and 66 have no retirement savings.   link

[MoseySusan]

1 hour ago, shootingstar said:

While part of me has not properly prepped how to use swaths of availalbe time in retirement

I thought I’d pursue one interest, but a different opportunity came along and I’ve been very involved doing something I love. 

[shootingstar]

38 minutes ago, MoseySusan said:

I thought I’d pursue one interest, but a different opportunity came along and I’ve been very involved doing something I love. 

To share here?  Or may be you mentioned it already.

[ChrisL]

Our goal is to to go into retirement debt free.  We should also have our house paid off well before retirement which will allow more for retirement savings.  But we’ll likely fall short of the $1M “goal”.

I find it interesting that my FIL is planning to give us all of his money upon his passing and my MIL is trying to take aa much of our money as she can before her passing… “Oh I just walk away from my bills as I know you pay them…”. Guess which of my In laws said that the other day???

[Further]

So.. to look at something in perspective, is usally to look back it. I don't want to be looking back at retirement for a long, long time

[Dottleshead ★]

How much money you going to have @Fret Buzz?  I mean how much do you think you'll have??  1-2 million? 8?

[Ralphie ★]

11 hours ago, Longjohn said:

I retired seven years ago. Last year I had to start mandatory withdrawal from my IRA. I just took the minimum amount required. Decided to do the Erie Canal ride again.

I think a lot depends on whether you have a decent pension payment or not. For those of us withoot that, you do need to sock a lot of moolah away. SS is snot going to go far in a high cost of living state like nj.  And moving was a pain  even before the housing boom. 

[Square Wheels]

19 hours ago, Fret Buzz said:

Many Americans dream of saving $1 million for retirement. Most fall far short of that.

For couples is that still 1, or does it go up to 2?

[MickinMD ★]

I wish those retirement stories would pick typical people and wouldn't go out of their way to pick people whose "plight" is sensationalized by non-normal lifestyles.

Of course, most of these articles are disguised ads to try to convince you that you need more money than you do and you need to hire a financial advisor because you're too stupid to figure it out on your own - even though study after study shows that people with ordinary finances lose money by hiring one.  This article is less direct but sprinkled with "...greater anxiety about outliving your money, say retirees and financial advisers," and ""...doesn’t match the facts of their everyday financial lives,” said Larry Raffone, chief executive of Edelman Financial Engines."

 

I read that article earlier and noted that the couple with $411K had one home in the NE - with only a $300/month mortgage, spent part of the year in Maine and in Florida and gave $400/month to their church. They have a monthly income of $4377 and a SiL who is a doctor.  They do NOT have the avg. couple's expenses or retirement income.

Additionally, the $413.814 avg. household retirement savings the article claims is misleading because it's a MEAN average where very wealthy people throw off the average, just like 1, 2, 3, 4, and 90 have a mean average of 20 and a median of 3.  The MEDIAN household savings of retirees is closer to $100K.  Additionally, the avg. ONLY included 401k and IRA savings and only 58% of Americans have them (not mentioned in the article).

Based on the article, if someone had a mortgage-free $500,000 house, $500,000 in non-retirement savings, a pension or annuity or rental property, but only $15,000 in an IRA, that person would be considered worse off than a renter with no non-retirement savings but $50,000 in an IRA.

How much of your savings you need to spend in retirement is greatly influenced by a lot of things, especially retirement income and cost of renting/maintaining a house.

When I was in my 40's, one of our high school's guidance counselors, Frank, was retiring after inheriting his wealthy parents' money and was already managing money for his parents' wealthy friends' estates.  So I picked his brain for how much I needed to save for retirement.

Frank said something like, "Make sure your mortgage is paid off and you have enough savings for emergencies like a new roof, then with Social Security and your teacher's pension with mostly-subsidized, excellent health insurance, you'll have as much spending money as you do now."

That was the first time I realized what a great thing a pension is - something a lot more common to my parents' generation so it hadn't occurred to me it was becoming unusual - and ever since I've figuratively patted my younger self on the back for making the decision to take a cut in pay to move from industrial chemistry research with no pension (a lots of carcinogens) to teaching, where the pension is basically deferred-salary.

[Longjohn ★]

Well said Dr. Mickin

[shootingstar]

2 hours ago, MickinMD said:

I read that article earlier and noted that the couple with $411K had one home in the NE - with only a $300/month mortgage, spent part of the year in Maine and in Florida and gave $400/month to their church. They have a monthly income of $4377 and a SiL who is a doctor.  They do NOT have the avg. couple's expenses or retirement income.

Additionally, the $413.814 avg. household retirement savings the article claims is misleading because it's a MEAN average where very wealthy people throw off the average, just like 1, 2, 3, 4, and 90 have a mean average of 20 and a median of 3.  The MEDIAN household savings of retirees is closer to $100K.  Additionally, the avg. ONLY included 401k and IRA savings and only 58% of Americans have them (not mentioned in the article).

Based on the article, if someone had a mortgage-free $500,000 house, $500,000 in non-retirement savings, a pension or annuity or rental property, but only $15,000 in an IRA, that person would be considered worse off than a renter with no non-retirement savings but $50,000 in an IRA.

How much of your savings you need to spend in retirement is greatly influenced by a lot of things, especially retirement income and cost of renting/maintaining a house.

When I was in my 40's, one of our high school's guidance counselors, Frank, was retiring after inheriting his wealthy parents' money and was already managing money for his parents' wealthy friends' estates.  So I picked his brain for how much I needed to save for retirement.

Frank said something like, "Make sure your mortgage is paid off and you have enough savings for emergencies like a new roof, then with Social Security and your teacher's pension with mostly-subsidized, excellent health insurance, you'll have as much spending money as you do now."

That was the first time I realized what a great thing a pension is - something a lot more common to my parents' generation so it hadn't occurred to me it was becoming unusual - and ever since I've figuratively patted my younger self on the back for making the decision to take a cut in pay to move from industrial chemistry research with no pension (a lots of carcinogens) to teaching, where the pension is basically deferred-salary.

The housing is an important piece of the whole retirement budget /portfolio.

Only 2 close friends of mine owns a 2nd home, which is a condo in my city while she continues to live and own house in Toronto for past 3 decades. Her intention is to sell her Toronto home one day.  Other friend shares ownership of a vacation home with 3 other siblings for the past 20 yrs.

The rest of my close friends like me, have middle-class incomes and don't have a vacation home. Nor do they plan to.  None of my siblings nor I have a vacation/2nd home at all.  If any of us did, we would be living on the edge.

I do have a friend who lives a very low income with hubby..ie. $25,000 /yr. Their home mortgage might have been paid. I am not sure. Their adult children live elsewhere in the world, working or studying. Her husband had severe depression 15 yrs. ago and is on medication but he is fine. So that is 1 couple I know who is truly poor and living on the edges for quite awhile. This is on Vancouver Island.  It's not all idyllic.

[Tizeye]

One of the things that use to drive me up a wall as a stockbroker were people in their 30's and 40's were people tapping into their IRA to purchase depreciating assets like cars or furniture. I would point out that it is the most expensive money they can get. Not only is the distribution taxed at their current rate and potentially push to the next tier and being below 59 1/2, the government will take 10% of the distribution on top of taxes paid. As an example at $30,000 distribution gives the government $3000 netting you $27,000 but also adds $30,0000 to taxable income. In one ear and out the other. These are the same individuals who will be moaning in a few declares how can't live on Social Security. The younger crowd is also the target group for 'Social Security Reform' because retirement is so out of sight out of mind, and by the time they get old enough...surprise!

[Wilbur ★]

16 hours ago, shootingstar said:

I'm sure there some strong unions in France.  

That definitely is not right....thought to raise US retirement age to 70 or etc.  Just unhealthy and demanding to people in general. THere are some jobs where it's too taxing on people in later years.

Nearly free university education in France....sounds super hard to believe.  I did hear of same in Germany, although it changed in Germany. 

University education in Canada is absolutely not free to Canadians.  However one can get very high quality level of education in certain well-established universities here that are partially publicly funded. (There is aggressive fundraising by the universities.) 

France, is facing just like alot of countries:  falling birth rate, etc.

They also have very few extremely wealthy as taxes caused them to flee, dumping the social responsibility on the middle class.  Tax the rich never has the desired effect. 

[Tizeye]

18 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

They also have very few extremely wealthy as taxes caused them to flee, dumping the social responsibility on the middle class.  Tax the rich never has the desired effect. 

The big difference in that is that the USA is one of only two countries in the world that taxes their citizens irrespective to where they live in the world. My daughter files both US and Swiss tax forms, and granted given tax credit for foreign taxes paid, it is still a double filing. Where are the rich going to move? Two options - Complicated tax avoidance schemes or renounce US citizenship. Renouncing citizenship for affluent is costly as it also adds an asset buyout tax based on the value of assets repatriated out of the US.

[shootingstar]

36 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

They also have very few extremely wealthy as taxes caused them to flee, dumping the social responsibility on the middle class.  Tax the rich never has the desired effect. 

Don't care about the very wealthy and if they get taxed.  They have their tax lawyers to do sophisticated tax planning. I saw enough working for a global accounting firm...I was on the tax research side.

[dinneR ★]

21 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

They also have very few extremely wealthy as taxes caused them to flee, dumping the social responsibility on the middle class.  Tax the rich never has the desired effect. 

except in the U.S. during the 90s.

I believe income tax rates on the wealthy in the U.S. were very high until the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Showdown at Gucci Gulch is an excellent explanation of the bill. Jim Baker is quite a character.

[Tizeye]

3 hours ago, Square Wheels said:

For couples is that still 1, or does it go up to 2?

Somewhere less than 12 to avoid estate taxes. I could live on that!

[Tizeye]

17 hours ago, Randomguy said:

 

But then I read about the latest moves to raise the US retirement age to 70, and think that my protesting countrymen have a thing or two that they can teach workers in America when it comes to protecting the sanctity of their golden years.

 

This is what referring to in other post concerning Social Security Reform. They are targeting those 35 and younger as wouldn't fly with those closer to retirement. That age, retirement is also "out of sight out of mind." Surprise! Also, there is the payback issue as 35 y/o of the future are likely to do what 35 y/o of today do. The 50+ crowd had the more senior job responsibility and higher pay. If they can make life difficult for them and force them to leave, it opens a promotion opportunity for the "gotta have it now" 35 y/o. Good luck making it to 70 in the workplace.

[Randomguy]

1 hour ago, Wilbur said:

They also have very few extremely wealthy as taxes caused them to flee, dumping the social responsibility on the middle class.  Tax the rich never has the desired effect. 

Let them flee.  There seem to be plenty of rich folks all over the globe (including France) who aren't being taxed anywhere near commensurate with the protections and privileges that come from maintaining the status quo for them, already dumping tax responsibility on the middle class with precious little to show for it.   We seem to be paying lots of taxes to support them skipping out however possible.  Here is how reality works when we give the rich big tax breaks:

Trickle down NEVER works, and never worked.  Tax the rich, if they go, they go, I honestly don't care, plus the good 'ol US and A will still take a tiny bite of when they try and skip out.

I have nothing against the individual rich having good accountants, I have a problem with an extremely rigged system that allows the loopholes to be lobbied for and passed for the sole benefit of the rich.   

[shootingstar]

16 minutes ago, Randomguy said:

Let them flee.  There seem to be plenty of rich folks all over the globe (including France) who aren't being taxed anywhere near commensurate with the protections and privileges that come from maintaining the status quo for them, already dumping tax responsibility on the middle class with precious little to show for it.   We seem to be paying lots of taxes to support them skipping out however possible.  Here is how reality works when we give the rich big tax breaks:

Trickle down NEVER works, and never worked.  Tax the rich, if they go, they go, I honestly don't care, plus the good 'ol US and A will still take a tiny bite of when they try and skip out.

I have nothing against the individual rich having good accountants, I have a problem with an extremely rigged system that allows the loopholes to be lobbied for and passed for the sole benefit of the rich.   

There is lobbying for the rich... among the tax professionals when they approach behind closed doors to the federal govn't.

Make no mistake about this. It's all about networking within the profession.

You folks have no idea. No idea. Whole knowledgebases are set up in the global firms to monitor developments, etc. and finding ways to outsmart the tax authorities  --CRA, IRS, etc.

[JerrySTL ★]

7 minutes ago, Randomguy said:

I have nothing against the individual rich having good accountants, I have a problem with an extremely rigged system that allows the loopholes to be lobbied for and passed for the sole benefit of the rich. 

Then vote out the bastards and bitches in Congress who passed all the tax laws.

[shootingstar]

12 minutes ago, JerrySTL said:

Then vote out the bastards and bitches in Congress who passed all the tax laws.

Sadly the ordinary citizen groups don't even have the complex tax knowledge to even analyze part so the tax code to mount the technical tax challenge in law, which leads to tax avoidance, etc. Tax law is the most arcane areas of law.  Many lawyers in other specialty areas don't even approach it.  So to lead the charge, one needs a tax lawyer to support citizen taxpayer group to shoot down tax law changes.

Ok, I worked the national tax research centre for 1 of the global firms for 3 yrs.  Yes, it has given me far more knowledge of inner workings than I care to know and I'm not even a tax lawyer.

[dinneR ★]

4 minutes ago, shootingstar said:

There is lobbying for the rich... among the tax professionals when they approach behind closed doors to the federal govn't.

Make no mistake about this. It's all about networking within the profession.

You folks have no idea. No idea. Whole knowledgebases are set up in the global firms to monitor developments, etc. and finding ways to outsmart the tax authorities  --CRA, IRS, etc.

Why would we have no idea. Are we naive? Or just not as wise as you?

[Randomguy]

2 minutes ago, JerrySTL said:

Then vote out the bastards and bitches in Congress who passed all the tax laws.

Trying to, but people who suck the rich's asses tend to lobby and market to the dumbest to influence them to vote against their self-interests or the interests of the greater society.  This is why politicians bought by the wealthy set like the useful idiots to be as ignorant as possible and to be on their side.

[shootingstar]

14 minutes ago, dinneR said:

Why would we have no idea. Are we naive? Or just not as wise as you?

I didn't know until how I saw it worked internally with a certain amount steps and processes.  I was part of all the machinations also. It was part of my job.  The firm and its people were fine. 

THen I left....and worked coincidentally for a totally different organization.  I ended up working for legal aid in British Columbia.

 

[Randomguy]

3 minutes ago, dinneR said:

Why would we have no idea. Are we naive? Or just not as wise as you?

It sounds like she worked in the industry and saw things generally kept behind closed doors.  I would agree that the general population is pretty naive, Shootie is just confirming it with what she has seen.

[dinneR ★]

4 minutes ago, shootingstar said:

I didn't know until how I saw it worked internally with a certain amount steps and processes.  I was part of all the machinations also. It was part of my job.  The firm and its people were fine. 

THen I left....and worked coincidentally for a totally different organization.  I ended up working for legal aid in British Columbia.

 

1 minute ago, Randomguy said:

It sounds like she worked in the industry and saw things generally kept behind closed doors.  I would agree that the general population is pretty naive, Shootie is just confirming it with what she has seen.

Good to know, I have no idea. 

 

[JerrySTL ★]

1 hour ago, shootingstar said:

Sadly the ordinary citizen groups don't even have the complex tax knowledge to even analyze part so the tax code to mount the technical tax challenge in law, which leads to tax avoidance, etc. Tax law is the most arcane areas of law.  Many lawyers in other specialty areas don't even approach it.  So to lead the charge, one needs a tax lawyer to support citizen taxpayer group to shoot down tax law changes.

Ok, I worked the national tax research centre for 1 of the global firms for 3 yrs.  Yes, it has given me far more knowledge of inner workings than I care to know and I'm not even a tax lawyer.

My son is a CPA and he avoids doing taxes as much as he can.

[Kirby]

Back to the retirement issue, it's reassuring to read some of these articles because most people are looking for "a number" that will give them confidence and reassurance.  It's scary to stop working and wonder if what you have is "enough" to live a comfortable life for  as long as you live.  Volatile stock markets, inflation, medical costs etc all make it even harder to get confidence.  But as the articles show, there's no magic number.  So much depends on individual factors such as guaranteed income (annuities/pension etc) and the cost of living.   For some people, $5 million isn't enough and for others $1 million is far more than enough.

That's why it's important to have a realistic number of what your living expenses are and do as good an estimate as you can for future expenses such as medical and "unexpected" repairs.

[Bikeguy]

10 hours ago, Ralphie said:

I think a lot depends on whether you have a decent pension payment or not. For those of us withoot that, you do need to sock a lot of moolah away.

My dad worked, and he had no pension.   His income was all based in sales commission.   He didn't sell (food products musty used by food service industry)  he didn't get paid. 

This year he'll be 93.  He hasn't run out of money yet.   I guess I learned how to save from him. 

[shootingstar]

1 hour ago, JerrySTL said:

My son is a CPA and he avoids doing taxes as much as he can.

Ummm it would shock the pants off if one knows the hourly billing rate for major tax practice partner at the firm where I was .... 20 yrs. ago.  I realize all the fees pay partially for the office space lease, staff salaries, etc. But there is profit also.

The amount was just shocking.   But it was good experience since skills I picked up there held me elsewhere in other jobs later on.  More on employee training, etc.

[Bikeguy]

7 hours ago, MickinMD said:

I wish those retirement stories would pick typical people and wouldn't go out of their way to pick people whose "plight" is sensationalized by non-normal lifestyles.

So...  50% of the men (between 55 and 66) who have $0 saved for their retirement isn't 'typical' of the population in the US?  

3 hours ago, Randomguy said:

It sounds like she worked in the industry and saw things generally kept behind closed doors.  I would agree that the general population is pretty naive, Shootie is just confirming it with what she has seen.

That was my understanding too. 

There is  elite / ruling class/ etc..  and the rest of us.   We don't get to see who is in control behind the curtain.   I learned that watching The Wizard of Oz.  They are hiding in plain sight. 

[Dottleshead ★]

I will be 84 before this place is paid off.  Most folks can't pay off their home by retirement... certainly if you bought a new home in recent years.  But one of my drives to move from my last place in the middle of the pandemic and move way the heck up into the corner of the United States was that we were able to reduce or mortgage $400-600 a month w/ lower taxes.  I also got a financial advisor who flat out said the mortgage rate I acquired is gold (2.49%) and that w/ our relatively low payment(we downsized) we can continue to live here w/o a drop in standard of living in retirement.  I asked if it made sense to double our mortgage payment or say pay and extra $400 a month and aggressively attack the mortgage debt and he flat out confirmed that the money I make in investments would be greater than anything paying off the mortgage. In other words, my investments easily would outperform the money I would need to pay or invest in paying down or off my mortgage. He confirmed if I continue to pay into my retirement at the rate I am, I can retire 100% by age 65 w/o a drop off in standard of living.  If I buy a manufactured home out on the outskirts somewhere, I can reduce the retirement age down to 61.

So while it would be ideal to not have a mortgage, it's not necessary. And if we ever need to, I'm guessing in ten years from now, our current home is still going to be worth quite a bit more than moving into a 55+ community or manufactured home that we clearly would own (let's not talk about the outrageous space rents for a moment). And I'm not against pooling resources with my wife's sister either if we have to.

So there are a lot of choices in retirement.  If living in a large home on a slice of property alone in the city or suburbs (in today's market) is one of them, then for sure you'll have a more challenging go. But owning your home is not a requirement.

[Wilbur ★]

8 hours ago, shootingstar said:

You folks have no idea. No idea.

You underestimate the public a great deal.  Many know how the system works and is gamed.