Soon to be 56. Am I in the right place?

All in one stock? And a telecom to boot? :eek::eek::eek:

Check out the results of MCI, US West, and some of the other major former telecom mega corps before you go that route.

Notice I said "for arguments sake."

I'd be more inclined to spread my investments across a number of "dividend aristocrats."

But to be honest...AT&T does not belong in the same class as the other telecoms that you mentioned. And no...I don't work for them.
 
Welcome to the forum.

Does your pension have a cost of living benefit? If so - better hang onto it.

If you do take the buyout - consider a bit more diversification. The market goes up, the market goes down... I'd want some bond component, and I'd definitely want more than just 1 stock... or 1 sector...

I'll admit - I'm a big fan of the 3 legged stool approach to retirement when possible... 1 leg is Soc. Security. 2nd leg is pension, 3rd leg is savings... If you have all 3 you have a very stable income base.

Also - when I was offered a pension buyout I looked at what the buyout amount would purchase in terms of a pension equivalent (single premium income annuity). I found, in my case, the pension was a much better deal than the cash they were offering. You can use an online calculator like https://www.immediateannuities.com/ to get an idea.

The pension is locked in. Minute increases on very rare occasions when bargained.

And like I said in my last post...the AT&T example was for arguments sake only. I would never put all my eggs in one basket. Honestly, I've been an S&P 500 fan for the last 29 years. Probably could've done better with a tad more diversification...but it has served me well in the long run in my 401k.

I agree with that "3-legged approach."

Right now I'm working on the 5-legged approach.

401k, pension buyout, net gain from selling my old house and buying a brand new one in the Richmond, NC area (twice the house for 1/2 the price), decent bank account, and no debt. And the sixth leg of Social Security not too far off in the distance.

And to be 100% honest...I'm not a big fan of annuities. It means someone else is making money off of my money. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a profitable industry. Just my humble opinion.
 
Welcome to the forum.

Does your pension have a cost of living benefit? If so - better hang onto it.

If you do take the buyout - consider a bit more diversification. The market goes up, the market goes down... I'd want some bond component, and I'd definitely want more than just 1 stock... or 1 sector...

I'll admit - I'm a big fan of the 3 legged stool approach to retirement when possible... 1 leg is Soc. Security. 2nd leg is pension, 3rd leg is savings... If you have all 3 you have a very stable income base.

Also - when I was offered a pension buyout I looked at what the buyout amount would purchase in terms of a pension equivalent (single premium income annuity). I found, in my case, the pension was a much better deal than the cash they were offering. You can use an online calculator like https://www.immediateannuities.com/ to get an idea.

And full disclosure...I'm a huge fan of SoCal. :dance:
 
Three and 5-legged chairs? Are the legs all even too?

10-legged-chair_5.jpg


Many of us only have a pogo stick, namely our savings. And when we start SS, we get upgraded to a 2-legged chair. And my future 2-legged chair will not have even legs. I also must be careful not to be too relaxed and lean back too far.

61551-283x424-Pogo-stick.jpg


19cf2ff53455d527d8144702c5a745b4.jpg
 
Three and 5-legged chairs? Are the legs all even too?

10-legged-chair_5.jpg


Many of us only have a pogo stick, namely our savings. And when we start SS, we get upgraded to a 2-legged chair. And my future 2-legged chair will not have even legs. I also must be careful not to be too relaxed and lean back too far.

61551-283x424-Pogo-stick.jpg


19cf2ff53455d527d8144702c5a745b4.jpg

Nice pics. Especially the 5...or should I say...10 legged chair.

BTW...if your chair only has 2 legs...and you're posting here...can I assume your savings are very substantial?
 
Right now I'm working on the 5-legged approach.

401k, pension buyout, net gain from selling my old house and buying a brand new one in the Richmond, NC area (twice the house for 1/2 the price), decent bank account, and no debt. And the sixth leg of Social Security not too far off in the distance.

What you've described is really only 2 legs. Savings (which includes 401k, pension buyout proceeds, net equity cash out after house change, bank accounts).

SS is a 2nd stool leg.

No debt means you don't need as much to spend each year... Like you, I'm debt free.

Full disclosure - my 3 legged stool is tilted pretty much to one side because of a very short leg. (My pensions are only about $5500/year... pretty tiny.) But I also have some rental income to help even out the stool.

I was not suggesting buying an annuity. Most annuities are total crap, but SPIAs, in a decent interest rate environment have their place... But that's not the environment now. That's why corporations are paying out pensions in lump sums... They want to move the risk off their books, and onto your books.

I like SoCal too. :cool:
 
...if your chair only has 2 legs...and you're posting here...can I assume your savings are very substantial?

Our after-tax savings and 401k's allows me to draw annually a significantly higher amount than what we will get from SS, even if we wait till 70.

And when I croak, it stays for my wife and her pool boy to enjoy, in contrast to her SS that will go away when she upgrades to mine.
 
What you've described is really only 2 legs. Savings (which includes 401k, pension buyout proceeds, net equity cash out after house change, bank accounts).

SS is a 2nd stool leg.

No debt means you don't need as much to spend each year... Like you, I'm debt free.

Full disclosure - my 3 legged stool is tilted pretty much to one side because of a very short leg. (My pensions are only about $5500/year... pretty tiny.) But I also have some rental income to help even out the stool.

I was not suggesting buying an annuity. Most annuities are total crap, but SPIAs, in a decent interest rate environment have their place... But that's not the environment now. That's why corporations are paying out pensions in lump sums... They want to move the risk off their books, and onto your books.

I like SoCal too. :cool:

Then I guess the legs on a chair are in the eyes of the beholder.

One could argue that Soc Sec are retirement "savings" as well. I won't, but someone else might.

I guess I categorize things differently because each of my "legs" was attained through different methods. And I keep them separate when I calculate my net worth.

Apples and oranges as they say.

My long term intention is to keep my 401k and pension buyout in a "conservative stock" portfolio, if there truly is such a thing. And my aftex-tax money in a money market account.

I'll take money out of the before tax accounts when the markets are good and live off the after tax funds when the markets aren't so good.

Sort of a two bucket approach.

And Pacific Beach/La Jolla is my favorite spot to hang.
 
Our after-tax savings and 401k's allows me to draw annually a significantly higher amount than what we will get from SS, even if we wait till 70.

And when I croak, it stays for my wife and her pool boy to enjoy, in contrast to her SS that will go away when she upgrades to mine.

I comprehend. So you're one-legged savings leg is well-funded.

Using that analogy...I've got one really strong leg, like you. And SS will be very nice icing on the cake.

Nothing personal, but this whole legged chair thing has me flustered. :)
 
It's not as well-funded as I would like. It's still just a chair leg. It's not something like the following.

A bunch of veteran forum posters are talking about how to beef up our chair leg in a couple of concurrent threads. I dunno if it is not the same as putting a coat of paint on that leg and hoping it gets reinforced.

By the way, welcome to the forum. I also fully retired at 56.

stock-photo-ionic-column-on-white-background-144602912.jpg
 
It's not as well-funded as I would like. It's still just a chair leg. It's not something like the following.

A bunch of veteran forum posters are talking about how to beef up our chair leg in a couple of concurrent threads. I dunno if it is not the same as putting a coat of paint on that leg and hoping it gets reinforced.

By the way, welcome to the forum. I also fully retired at 56.

Thank you, and, congrats.

Not quite sure how one would "beef up" that chair leg once one was retired.

Good investments no doubt. But good investments are only good when they actually pay off.

If someone knows how to shellac that chair leg while in retirement without investing...I'm all ears.

P.S. Honeymooned at Capri By The Sea 3 decades ago.
 
Well, actually, what we are talking about is ripping that leg in half and turning it into two skinnier legs. Maybe a bit more stable?
 
Last edited:
Well, actually, what we are talking about is ripping that leg in half and turning it into two skinnier legs. Maybe a bit more stable?

See...now you're going back to my 5-legged chair.

Wish I could do that with my legs. Been awhile since I've been able to wear slim-cut jeans.
 

One person's opinion...:)

I mean if one was to be truly open-minded, pension and social security could both be categorized as pensions...no? Or annuities.

So in that article, a pension is one leg of 3. But a pension buyout is savings and reduces you to 2 legs?

Personally...I consider after-tax savings as a stand alone leg. That's been built up over time and has always been the fund that I've lived off of.

I consider my 401k a 2nd leg. I attained that in a different way. 30 years of 16% contributions + company match. Never touched. Treated it as a hands-off entity.

The pension/pension buyout is my companies begrudging way of saying thank you for your years of hard labor. If it wasn't bargained for, I'm sure it would have already been capped, reduced, or eliminated. I consider this a bonus leg.

Social Security is the obvious 4th leg.

The value in my home is a definitely a 5th leg. After the sale of it, and the purchase of a new home...the remaining proceeds will become part of my after tax savings and will eliminate one of my legs.

Not having any debt might not be considered a leg to some...but for those who still have debt, I can assure you...they consider it a "minus leg." So my deduction makes no debt a "plus leg."

Lastly, and I didn't mention this before, is health care coverage. I've had excellent coverage with my company over the years and it will continue into retirement and through the Medicare years. Not having to plan for major medical expenses might also be considered an additional leg.

Like I said...legs are in the eyes of the beholder.

When I reach 60ish, The legs will be reduced because the accounts will merge. I'll be closer to that 3 legged chair at that time. Social, savings, and "pensions." Pensions being my withdrawals from my combined retirement accounts. My own personal pension account.

That all make sense to you?
 
.....My long term intention is to keep my 401k and pension buyout in a "conservative stock" portfolio, if there truly is such a thing. And my aftex-tax money in a money market account. ...

You probably already know this, but that is very tax inefficient since most common stock dividends and LTCG are tax-preferenced (0% or 15% depending n your total income) and money market interest and 401k withdrawals are ordinary income.

You will likely pay less taxes and have more to spend by doing the inverse, especially if your 401k plan has a stable value fund that pays a decent interest rate.

Also see: https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Principles_of_tax-efficient_fund_placement

And yes, you are in the right place... and welcome.
 
One person's opinion...:)

I mean if one was to be truly open-minded, pension and social security could both be categorized as pensions...no? Or annuities...
The reason pensions, SS, and personal savings are considered 3 individual legs because one can be cut or reduced, and you still have the other 2 for support.

If your pension gets converted to cash value and you merge it with your IRA, you now have a bigger leg, but that leg is still susceptible to market vagaries. Similarly, I consider our IRA's and 401k's as just one leg. They go up/down together.

Of course pensions can go down the tube too when the market is bad, so it is not a clear cut. Or some pensions may run into trouble due to specific reasons. Some posters with more pension than IRA/401k have expressed a wish that they had a money pile that they could really control.

In any event, nobody here talks about their home(s) as an individual leg. Having a paid-for place to stay is pretty much a given among retirees. Or if one has a mortgage for a personal reason, he has much more $ in his stash relative to the debt, so his mortgage is a don't care.
 
Last edited:
I'd say "early" has nothing to do with age. In my book, "early" is before you are ready, emotionally and/or financially.
I think "early" is retiring before the rest of the rat race generally does. Before 62, I'd say. What you described strikes me as "unprepared" or "TOO early."
 
You probably already know this, but that is very tax inefficient since most common stock dividends and LTCG are tax-preferenced (0% or 15% depending n your total income) and money market interest and 401k withdrawals are ordinary income.

You will likely pay less taxes and have more to spend by doing the inverse, especially if your 401k plan has a stable value fund that pays a decent interest rate.

Also see: https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Principles_of_tax-efficient_fund_placement

And yes, you are in the right place... and welcome.

Actually, I didn't. And I'm not so sure I understand exactly what you're saying.

My 401k and pension buyout (which will go directly to an IRA) are both tax advantaged. So any withdrawals will be taxed as ordinary income. As well as any interest on my after-tax money market.

Basically, the only things that won't be taxed are my current money market savings, as well as, the profit that I make on my house sale (up to 500K).

And thank you for the welcome.
 
The reason pensions, SS, and personal savings are considered 3 individual legs because one can be cut or reduced, and you still have the other 2 for support.

If your pension gets converted to cash value and you merge it with your IRA, you now have a bigger leg, but that leg is still susceptible to market vagaries. Similarly, I consider our IRA's and 401k's as just one leg. They go up/down together.

Of course pensions can go down the tube too when the market is bad, so it is not a clear cut. Or some pensions may run into trouble due to specific reasons. Some posters with more pension than IRA/401k have expressed a wish that they had a money pile that they could really control.

In any event, nobody here talks about their home(s) as an individual leg. Having a paid-for place to stay is pretty much a given among retirees. Or if one has a mortgage for a personal reason, he has much more $ in his stash relative to the debt, so his mortgage is a don't care.

Understood.

And I wasn't actually counting the home as a leg. It was the money that I will make between selling my old home and buying a new one that's the additional leg I spoke of.

It will be a considerable after-tax gain that will ultimately increase my savings leg.

All this "leg" talk has me shaken. :)

To be quite honest...I'm a net worth type.

Assets vs. liabilities.

Right now I have assets and no liabilities. I would hope that would be the situation with most early retirees. My assets have many "legs."

Those asset legs will be combined and reduced over the next couple of years.

At that point, I will have just 1 leg by your definition.

After tax savings + before tax retirement savings.

When Soc Sec arrives...I'll have that 2nd leg.
 
I think "early" is retiring before the rest of the rat race generally does. Before 62, I'd say. What you described strikes me as "unprepared" or "TOO early."

I concur.

Wholeheartedly.

I believe I'm early. And I'm ready financially AND emotionally.
 
Actually, I didn't. And I'm not so sure I understand exactly what you're saying. ....

Let me see if I can explain. For qualified dividend income (which is typically most domestic equity fund dividends and a lion's share of international equity fund dividends) and long-term capital gains the effective tax rate is 0% for people who are in the 15% tax bracket or lower ($96k in income in 2016 for a couple filing jointly with standard deductions or $48k for a single). For people in 25% and higher tax brackets, QDI/LTCG are generally taxed at 15% instead of 0%.

So if you are in the 15% tax bracket or lower, then most dividends and LTCG are tax-free. If your taxable accounts are cash in an on-line savings account for spending (much better return than a money market) and equities, then your taxes will be lower.

OTOH... by putting equities into a tax-deferred account as you intend to do, you are effectively converting tax preferenced income (0% if you are in the 15% tax bracket, 15% for most others) into ordinary income (taxed at 15% or higher rates).

In addition, many international equity funds pay allow foreign tax credit for foreign taxes that the fund paid (direct reduction to your tax bill) if in a taxable account but you get NO benefit if they are in a tax-deferred account.

You may ask... well then where do I get money to live on.... you can do that by periodically selling stocks to raise cash (if you do this so your gains are all long-term and keep in the 15% tax bracket then tax free!) and then rebalancing as needed in your tax-deferred accounts.

Between now and when you start SS is also a prime time to do low tax-cost Roth conversions is you are not managing your income for ACA subsidies. Many of us are converting to the top of the 15% tax bracket at a very modest cost of 8-10% vs 25% or more when we deferred the income or 25% or more once SS starts.... and saving 15-17% in the process.

P.S. beachbum, you are way too wrapped up on legs... perhaps you're spending to much time at the beach gawking at the hotties. :D
 
Last edited:
Let me see if I can explain. For qualified dividend income (which is typically most domestic equity fund dividends and a lion's share of international equity fund dividends) and long-term capital gains the effective tax rate is 0% for people who are in the 15% tax bracket or lower ($96k in income in 2016 for a couple filing jointly with standard deductions or $48k for a single). For people in 25% and higher tax brackets, QDI/LTCG are generally taxed at 15% instead of 0%.

So if you are in the 15% tax bracket or lower, then most dividends and LTCG are tax-free. If your taxable accounts are cash in an on-line savings account for spending (much better return than a money market) and equities, then your taxes will be lower.

OTOH... by putting equities into a tax-deferred account as you intend to do, you are effectively converting tax preferenced income (0% if you are in the 15% tax bracket, 15% for most others) into ordinary income (taxed at 15% or higher rates).

In addition, many international equity funds pay allow foreign tax credit for foreign taxes that the fund paid (direct reduction to your tax bill) if in a taxable account but you get NO benefit if they are in a tax-deferred account.

You may ask... well then where do I get money to live on.... you can do that by periodically selling stocks to raise cash (if you do this so your gains are all long-term and keep in the 15% tax bracket then tax free!) and then rebalancing as needed in your tax-deferred accounts.

Between now and when you start SS is also a prime time to do low tax-cost Roth conversions is you are not managing your income for ACA subsidies. Many of us are converting to the top of the 15% tax bracket at a very modest cost of 8-10% vs 25% or more when we deferred the income or 25% or more once SS starts.... and saving 15-17% in the process.

P.S. beachbum, you are way too wrapped up on legs... perhaps you're spending to much time at the beach gawking at the hotties. :D

You can never spend too much time on the beach "looking" at hotties. Plan on doing it again in a couple of weeks in St. Maarten. And, truth be told, I've always big a huge fan of legs and what they're connected to.

As for the financial part of your post...that's way above my financial intellect pay grade.

For what it's worth...my first plan of action after doing the moving thing was to sit down with a CPA and discuss exactly the things that I believe you're describing above.

I'm currently in a high enough tax bracket. I hope to be in a relatively high tax bracket annually going forward. Since I don't intend to touch my pre-tax money until I reach Social Security...I can't imagine it would make sense for me to do a conversion at this time. My guess is that I'll be in a lower bracket down the road a bit, so those withdrawals might be taxed at a lower rate. Especially if the Trump 3 tier tax plan comes around.

P.S. If you want to be blog-buddies...feel free to dumb down your responses to me. :)
 
Last edited:
Welcome and no 56 is not too young to retire but it is early. I retired at 50 and DH at 57. Loving life and the freedom retirement affords. Good luck with your retirement.
 
I am another 56 year old retiring December 31. There appears to be a number of us 1960 babies. Only a stone's throw from 57. My wife and I are excited about our new life.
 
Back
Top Bottom