Poll: How would you feel with $90k/year in retirement?

[kenpoed]

If you were told you could retire at 60 on 90k in todays dollars, exclusive of SS income, would you be happy, disappointed, etc?

Is this high, low, about the target you personally strive for to meet your lifestyle goals?

 

[pb4uski]

$90k is slightly higher than my retirement living expenses budget, so I could splurge a bit more here and there. However, given I just turned 57 and have been retired for almost a year, there is no way I would want to wait until I'm 60.

 

[panhead]

This is about twice what I would be very happy with so I picked "Way More". That being said, I live in a relatively low cost area. Stick me in the bay area and I'd probably be targeting at least this income. Also, I'm single, if I had an SO, I would have picked the next one up. Put me in the bay area with an SO, it'd at least go up another notch, and so on and so forth...

 

[Backpacker]

voted for way more than I would ever need.

But we are in a very low cost area of the mid west, and have been totally debt free for about a year now. DW and I are both about 6-7 years from ER. I'm 48 she's 45.

Just can't imagine We'd need 90K, my bare bones budget is for about 40k net, but that doesnt allow for sinking funds to repair roof and buy replacement cars, so realistically 50k would probably do.

 

[MichaelB]

All for me or do I have to share with DW?

 

[Bestwifeever]

If you were told you could retire at 60 on 90k in todays dollars, exclusive of SS income, would you be happy, disappointed, etc?

Is this high, low, about the target you personally strive for to meet your lifestyle goals?

Do you mean what I would think if I'd been told I would have $90k available to retire with or that my expenses were $90k so I couldn't retire unless I had that available?

If the former, I'd wish I'd been told I could retire on $100k .

 

[HFWR]

It's more than I'll retire with, but more than I'll ever need?

 

[rothlev]

If you were told you could retire at 60 on 90k in todays dollars, exclusive of SS income, would you be happy, disappointed, etc?

Do you mean in addition to the 90k there would be social security income ? Or are you asking in total how adequate 90k in income is.?

 

[Midpack]

If you were told you could retire at 60 on 90k in todays dollars, exclusive of SS income, would you be happy, disappointed, etc?

Is this high, low, about the target you personally strive for to meet your lifestyle goals?

I voted, but based on what? Unless it's some sort of ironclad pension, not sure what it means. SWR calcs would suggest we could spend that much, but we're planning on $50-60K/yr ±. IOW, SWR says we have $90K+ but we wouldn't dare spend that much with 40 years ahead of us. If I was actually comfortable spending $90K/yr - we'd be ecstatic!

 

[Rambler]

I'm guessing that 90k would be barebones for us. We could live with it, and if a major recession hits again, we may live on that amount for the sole purpose of investing in more stocks and/or bonds that have been unduly over-beaten to a pulp. During that time, there wouldn't be much travel, accruals for major items would slow to a trickle, and in general life may not be much fun. We plan to keep about 300k in cash, so that we don't need to sell anything and can thus survive up to 3 years even if the bond tap and the dividend flow slows to a trickle. If this were to happen, I'd also need to make a minor invetment in a rocking chair to put on the porch to sit in and [-]navel gaze[/-] watch the world go by. For us, 11.5k goes to property insurance, 16k to medical insurance and related copays and about 14k (all per budget, and experience, or reality per google). That is over 40k, thus in a 90 k budget and since we still have to pay taxes...so I'd guess we'd be living on less than 40k if we take all of the above into account.

 

[marko]

Reading these posts, I gotta move to a cheaper part of the country.

 

[Dawg52]

I would feel peachy. Of course I'm a cheap old bastard.

 

[FIREd]

If we decided to stay in the Bay Area, $90K per year would be tight for our lifestyle. But it would be swell if we moved back to the South.

 

[Richard4444]

As the OP says, this is exclusive of Social Security, so to retire on an annual income of $90,000 would almost imply that you were a high earner and at age 66 would be adding $30,000 or so to your income. And, it would make a big difference over 30 - 40 years whether that $90K was COLA'd. So, a total of $120,000 COLA'd for one person? Where do I sign??

 

[KingB]

Remember to set aside money for Federal and State income tax.

 

[NW-Bound]

As always, the answer is "It depends". In a place with a lower cost of living, that amount should be OK. Not a luxurious life, but comfortable.

And when SS kicks in like an earlier poster mentioned, it would be even nicer. But, but, but there might be means testing for SS in the future, and this hypothetical retiree may not get much.

 

[pb4uski]

I had missed the $90 was excluding SS. In that case I would be happy and it would probably be way more than what I need.

 

[rescueme]

I'm guessing that 90k would be barebones for us.

In our case, it would be much less than barebones.

However, I'm glad that someone else stated that they needed more than that $90 (for us, two people) to retire - regardless of future SS benefits.

 

[rbmrtn]

At current expenses... way more than I need. I just would not want to wait till 60 to get out, I left younger with a lot less....

 

[Meadbh]

I would be pretty happy with that number. It is significantly more than I plan to spend.

 

[catccc]

I didn't answer the poll because I really feel there are two parts to this. the $90K is part one. The age 60 is the other.

$90K would be plenty for us to live on in retirement, but there is no way I'm waiting until 60 to retire. (Currently 33, hoping to retire by 48)

 

[Richard4444]

Just throwing in that a $90,000 annual 'income' without a COLA for a 65 year old male requires a $1,368,014 SPIA .... just for fun.

 

[Animorph]

While I answered that I'd be disappointed, I have to think that it would be a well above average retirement income, especially if SS is added. Hard to complain about that.

 

[kyounge1956]

I didn't answer the poll because I really feel there are two parts to this. the $90K is part one. The age 60 is the other.

$90K would be plenty for us to live on in retirement, but there is no way I'm waiting until 60 to retire. (Currently 33, hoping to retire by 48)

At current expenses... way more than I need. I just would not want to wait till 60 to get out, I left younger with a lot less....

+1
I didn't vote in the poll. $90K/year is more than I made when working full time, and if "in today's dollars" means this is a COLA'd income, it's way more than I would need in retirement.

But I'm planning to retire at 57 and I don't think I'd be willing to work for another 3 years, even if at the end of it I'd get $90K with a COLA.

 

[Major Tom]

I'm curious as to why you chose the figure of 90K? Why not 120K, 60K, 30K or 150K? Is it the figure that you think you might be able to retire on when you reach 60, and the poll is a way of gauging how many others are in a similar position to you?

I hope I don't come across as grouchy (which is not the intention) - was merely wondering why you chose that figure.

I agree with catccc in that I wouldn't want to wait until 60 to retire. 90K is more than 5 times what I'm living on now (in the Bay Area too), so I'd be ecstatic with that as an income. I stopped working at about 47. If I'd had a choice to continue working, I'd probably work until my mid 50's and retire on more than I have now, but less than 90K/year.

However, as we've seen in this thread, there are all sorts of people with all sort of income requirements, so you're getting a whole range of answers, from "It's way more than I need" to "Not on your Nelly!" Actually, I don't think I've seen a "Not on your Nelly" answer yet, though I did see a few indicating that 90K would be a bit tight for them.