Should we eat dessert first

Those are great points. Does anyone know of data from the 1950s, 60s and 70s that might support or conflict with the consumer finance surveys of 1984 to present?
 
Those are great points. Does anyone know of data from the 1950s, 60s and 70s that might support or conflict with the consumer finance surveys of 1984 to present?
I can read the words, but I don't know what a "consumer finance survey" is, nor why 1984 is considered significant.

If you're asking how spending varies with age, I'd suspect that medical technology and healthcare costs (plus the healthcare legislation) have rendered historical data irrelevant.
 
When to take SS is a financial decision.

IMO - It needs to be done considering current needs and longevity risk. We are planning on the 62/70 approach.

Since we have prepared for retirement, we are in good shape financially. Deferring one SS till 70 makes the plan stronger.

I have seen studies that show that people tend to spend less when they get older in several categories... We have seen this with our family and relatives. Health care cost are the wild card. IMO - it is not just a funding exercise, but a risk mitigation exercise that needs to protect the survivor.


Regarding the general idea of spend it while one is still viable... Absolutely! That is why I am going to FIRE soon. :dance:
 
or whether the rich retirees' wealth was rising much faster than the poor retirees' wealth was dropping.

This seems like a pretty critical phenomenon to control for. If he didn't segregate the population by income, I think his conclusions are going to be meaningless to anyone not in the upper strata of wealth.
 
I'm surprised by the lackluster protest from the 4% or lower SWR group. Come on people, don't let Scott get away with this.

I think that is because there is no right answer. Those of us who prefer a more cautious approach can't really criticize those who are comfortable with taking more risk, as long as they understand those risks, and as long as their plan is within the bounds of something that has a chance of working (the guy planning to spend all of the coupon from a 100% high yield bond portfolio comes to mind). And we also have to realize that our tradeoffs aren't the same as everyone elses. A high-income desk jockey can't really offer worthwhile advice to a coal miner about the appropriate tradeoffs between working longer and achieving a lower withdrawal rate.
 
What does "fail" mean?
Good question....

For me, it is the ability to have enough income (via income sources, along with personal investments) that will allow me/DW to live the life we wish for the remainder of our lifetime along with having enough assets to enable to have the next generation live the life they need (not necessarily what they want); not all on "my dime", but to ensure their "success".

For most folks, the next generation is not necessarily a concern; however being parents of a disabled adult "child", we also want to ensure his lifestyle (very minimalist) after we have passed.

If I live to my 90's and have a good stash, I'll expect my private nurse to attend to me in her French maid's outfit while she gives me my daily sponge bath.

If I can't have that? Then I've failed :cool: ...
 
If I live to my 90's and have a good stash, I'll expect my private nurse to attend to me in her French maid's outfit while she gives me my daily sponge bath.

What does she wear now?
 
Part of the answer for most will be what kinds of income streams they will have at the start of retirement and which will kick in along the way. I will retire in a bit over 1 year from now but will only have my Naval Pension at that time. But over the next 7 years, various other things kick in (SS for both of us) and various other things drop off (mortgage, college for kids, etc). So I intend to dip deeper into my investments, 401K, Roth in the early years with the knowledge that our double SS and Naval Pension later will pretty much cover all of our basic expenses. Plus in 10 years will probably sell the house and move into smaller digs.

So why suffer with a 4% withdrawal number early on when we are young and can do things when at 80 will still have more than enough $ to sit around in rocking chairs?......
 
My budget projections have my overall spending just increasing for inflation, but the buckets change over time. For the first 10 years of retirement (from 57 to 67), my projected travel budget is large, and my medical budget increases by some larger-than-inflation percentage. After that, my travel budget starts to go down, but my medical costs go up. It kind of gets at this idea of spending for pleasure early.

I have seen it both ways in my own family. When my parents retired at 57, they traveled quite a bit and did more things. Now, at 74, they still play golf and have quite a few hobbies, but they are home most of the time. Their general living expenses are much lower than 10 years ago.

My aunt and uncle are different. They also retired early. For years, my aunt worried about money and didn't spend much. They traveled in their RV around the country for a few months every year, but did that fairly cheaply. About 4 years ago, we went on a cruise to Alaska and they LOVED it. They have since been on 4 other cruises (including one in Europe and one that went from the US to Australia), and she went with girlfriends to Italy. At 70 (with my uncle being 84 and starting to show signs of Alzheimers) my aunt is realizing that they may have only a few travel years left, and after scrimping for years, she also realizes they have the money to do it.
 
Why wait till retirement to travel?

We have traveled quite a bit while working... but squeezing it into one or two weeks.


Now we can take one, two, or even 3 months if we want.
 
A few years ago while out with friends my wife came up with 'dessert island' - you're trapped on dessert island and only get one dessert - what would you choose?

I always vote for peach cobbler with vanilla ice cream.
 
Back
Top Bottom