Can this person retire?

[Martha]

Curious to see what people think is enough.

 

[Andre1969]

I picked "yes" to every person except the first one, the 40 year old with $1 million. And truthfully, I'm sure that one could retire too if he/she didn't go too overboard with their lifestyle. I guess I'm just applying this to myself though, and what I'd be comfortable with. And I think I'd be comfy at 40 with $1.5 million, but still a little unsure at $1.0 million. But that's just me

 

[SteveR]

Too little information.

What expenses does this person have?
How much debt?
Medical Insurance partially company paid or all self-funded?
Health of individuals?

Goals, desires, wants, wishes and life-syle?

All these need to be considered; not just the $$ since how much you need is dependent on what you have to fund from it.

 

[brewer12345]

Martha, the post says "person", so it is just a single individual, right? In that case, they can all retire.

 

[maddythebeagle]

I voted "yes" for every option since I think it is possible for all. The younger person needs to minimize taxes and expenses (which isnt probably a problem since they accumulated so much by 40) and the older person with less assets needs to take advantage of subsidies/welfare (low income housing, public transportation, etc.)

 

[Martha]

Too little information.

What expenses does this person have?
How much debt?
Medical Insurance partially company paid or all self-funded?
Health of individuals?

Goals, desires, wants, wishes and life-syle?

All these need to be considered; not just the $$ since how much you need is dependent on what you have to fund from it.

I know that there really isn't enough info, but go with your gut.

 

[uncledrz]

I also assumed we were evaluating a single person.

Didn't think all could retire, did think some could, and the nest egg amount reduced as the age increased (and life expectancy decreased)

Obviously things many of us are thinking about. Going hand in hand with those thoughts have to be the type of life/lifestyle, activities, etc.

Uncledrz

 

[laurence]

Hmm, I was able to convince myself that every person on the list could retire. Jimmy Buffet comes to mind for the borderline cases. It doesn't take too much to live in a one room cabana with a blender in Mexico! As much as we may disdain their health care, you show up with a problem and a couple thousand dollars, and the Mexican doctor will do something for you, and you will probably be o.k. ....probably.

 

[HFWR]

You don't start up this time, I'm gonna cut off your dingo balls..."

Cheech Marin

Also appropriate for the "coldest car starting thread"...

 

[Dry Socks]

Nice poll!

I assumed the 'person' was married in all cases and still had kids to support at 40.
My answers seemed to match the consensus results so far.

Why is it that the right amount is always a little bit more... Must be a defect in my character

 

[Martha]

Well now I wished I had some lower numbers, going down to .5 and .75 million. And lower ages. I am supprised at how many thought the 40 year old with a million could retire. How about a 30 year old with a million?

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Well now I wished I had some lower numbers, going down to .5 and .75 million.  And lower ages.  I am supprised at how many thought the 40 year old with a million could retire.  How about a 30 year old with a million? 

A 20 year old with a million can retire and never look back.
Easy!

JG

 

[brewer12345]

Well now I wished I had some lower numbers, going down to .5 and .75 million.  And lower ages.  I am supprised at how many thought the 40 year old with a million could retire.  How about a 30 year old with a million? 

Yup, no problem. You kidding? 30 with a million and no dependents? I'd walk out and never look back.

 

[Martha]

Yup, no problem. You kidding? 30 with a million and no dependents? I'd walk out and never look back.

But at 30, you have pretty good odds of marrying and having a family. Plus who knows what would happen in the next 60 years.

 

[justin]

Well now I wished I had some lower numbers, going down to .5 and .75 million. And lower ages. I am supprised at how many thought the 40 year old with a million could retire. How about a 30 year old with a million?

If I was the 30 y.o. and single, I could do it pretty easy. A 3% SWR would give $30k/yr. And a 30 y.o. with a million$$ would probably have paid off a chunk of the mortgage.

With a wife and a couple of kids, it'd be rather difficult. However, if you're 30, you can always get back in the rat race if the portfolio tanks in the next few decades, or you need health insurance.

The only person I voted 'no' on was the 65 y.o. with $100k. I think it'd be hard to do, but I know the majority of people are in that position or much worse off.

 

[retire@40]

This is a trick question. If you go with only the information provided, they can all retire.

 

[astromeria]

All of these hypothetical people are as least as well off as the average American--isn't the average income $41k?  If these folks can't retire, how do average Americans survive?! The only problem I can see is becoming seriously ill or injured.

DH and I may prefer to live on $60k, but we certainly can live on $30k. The Kaderlis and Terhorsts are doing great on about that income! And plenty of people are making it right here in the US on $40k or less. They probably have to make their own roast duck & sushi instead of getting it at a posh restaurant, though. I don't think they're getting a new car every 3 years either.

 

[GTM]

65 years old with 100K, SS and Medicare may be an issue.
65 and 250K even a lesser situation.

40 and $1mm may be a challenge but other than those three all appear to a good amount of net worth for the respective ages.

 

[HKMike]

As a non-US resident, 1mm in an offshore account yielding 6-6.5% tax free, I don't think it would be a problem. I'm 42, married, one daughter. That's roughly how we are going to do it.

 

[Honkie]

Yet another board permutation of "how much is enough". Enough!!! All of these people could retire if they wanted to and were prepared to take the consequences of living within the financial limits they have set themselves.

This question could and should be reversed.

"What lifestyle do you and your family require in order to be happy/comfortable with permanently giving up employment".

Then cost that lifestyle out into an annual budget, factoring in the level of "security/buffer" that would enable you to sleep at night, then factor in the investment style that would also allow you to sleep at night, then factor any other personal aspirations/details/particulars (I really want Junior to go to Havard/when I retire I want the Lamborghini I've always promised myself/Half the groceries will be dumpster diving leftovers from Al's Diner) that you want or need or intend to do. Then work that backwards using your comfortable level of investment style and presto, you have "Your Number", unique to you and you alone.

Cheer

Honkie

 

[oisif]

there's something wrong with the poll..how can you have a lower number of yes answers to  bigger assets at the same age 

 

[haha]

But at 30, you have pretty good odds of marrying and having a family.  Plus who knows what would happen in the next 60 years. 

You could go gay, thus avoiding the family part anyway.
Ha

 

[haha]

None of these people should retire. Retirement is morally bankrupt at any age. Die with you boots on! Or your Ferragamo pumps, or your Allen Alden's.

 

[Martha]

there's something wrong with the poll..how can you have a lower number of yes answers to bigger assets at the same age

I am mystified as well.

 

[REWahoo]

I am mystified as well.

Since they are answered by human beans, polls of any type are imperfect. Remember this next time you see a poll telling you what people "really think".