Another favorite saying here is today will likely be the healthiest that you are for the rest of your life.
Another favorite saying here is today will likely be the healthiest that you are for the rest of your life.
But, contra, many people's health has improved, sometimes substantially, after retirement due to decrease in stress, increase in exercise, better eating, etc.
Another favorite saying here is today will likely be the healthiest that you are for the rest of your life.
One thing regarding the ACA that I learned from this forum is to have separate policies for each spouse. That keeps the out of pocket minimum lower for each spouse. For example if the OOP is $6,500 for one but $13,000 per family plan; if only one spouse is injured/sick the OOP of $13k is the ceiling for combined policies. Stay with individual policies.
That's how mine works. We have a joint plan (DH and me), but we each have our own deductibles to meet. There would be no difference if we had separate plans or not.Not sure I understand this. If you have both people on the policy, and only 1 gets sick the MOOP is $6,500 for the sick person. The $13,000 is for both. The sick person will not pay more than $6,500. This happened to us 2 years ago in an employer sponsored plan. Is it different under ACA? Please clarify for me as we will be taking an ACA plan for 2023.
Thanks
2HOTinPHX,
To answer your question straight up point blank honestly? No, we could not. We are both 60, and have had a few health problems ourselves, and we are retired. We are also here in the Valley of the Sun, and just to give you an example, we’ve had to replace our AC unit this year ($12k), had to pay a deductible for radiation therapy ($8.7k), not to mention everyday expenses, in just the past few weeks. Several years back, health insurance declined to pay for gold standard cancer treatment, so to get it, we paid $50k out of pocket. And we still hope for another 20-25 years (both cancers were caught early, thank goodness).
What I’m saying is, some people might be able to do it. If we had retired with the assets you described, we’d never be able to make it, first because these extraordinary expenses seem to have become the ordinary, and second, we have been accustomed to a higher income for quite a long time, so it just would not work for us.
The only advice I have for you is to think long and hard about it before pulling the trigger, and make sure to plan for healthcare and other “extraordinaries”.
IMO, a lot depends on your location. I can only speak for So California, but we retired with just under a million ONLY because our house was paid for. Cost of living and taxes can be drastically different depending on location.
also, remember Ca has prop 13 tax law which basically states that once your house's assessed value is established, your taxes can (roughly) go up a max of 2% per year. Huge difference in property taxes if you bought 20 yrs ago, or just bought yesterday. Both houses may be worth $800K today, but one will pay a lot less in prop taxes.
Yes prop 13 is a big help for those who have owned a home a long time in California. It has helped many people like my parents from being hit with huge property tax bill increases just cause the lived in SF Bay area. Sure their house value increased dramatically but to them it was just their happy home not an investment. The new owners are now going to be paying about 10 times the property taxes for the same home. Seems there should be some sort of balance. Property taxes are forever...wages are not.
Well, I bought a home in San Jose ~15 years ago and currently property tax is around $14K annually. Still, my plan is to retire here because it is a nice area and property tax is not a deal breaker even with 2% increase every year. I also consider alternatives and looking at other places but cannot really find anything which fit the life style and amenities present here. For example Reno, NV is a nice place but prices are rising rapidly and there is no Prop 13 in place. I'm not sure if property tax would be higher than I currently have in Bay Area some day.Even with Prop 13, CA property taxes in urban areas are enormous.
My buddy in a bedroom community of San Jose who bought nearly 25 years ago still is paying over $9,000 annually on his 3/2, ~1,000 sqft. small ranch home...tax valuation is only ~1/3 of current market value, so, what, roughly triple current taxes for any new owner?
IMHO only if one's parents bought back when Prop 13 passed would they enjoy the full benefit of it as an urban CA homeowner.
Now THAT is a scary thought!
Even with Prop 13, CA property taxes in urban areas are enormous.
I also consider alternatives and looking at other places but cannot really find anything which fit the life style and amenities present here.
That may be true in some urban areas, but not all. Some of our neighbors are paying $1 - $2K in property taxes on $2M homes. Our property taxes are .25% of the current market value.
Did they buy back when Ford was President?
Even with Prop 13, CA property taxes in urban areas are enormous.
My buddy in a bedroom community of San Jose who bought nearly 25 years ago still is paying over $9,000 annually on his 3/2, ~1,000 sqft. small ranch home...tax valuation is only ~1/3 of current market value, so, what, roughly triple current taxes for any new owner?
IMHO only if one's parents bought back when Prop 13 passed would they enjoy the full benefit of it as an urban CA homeowner.
Did they add an Additional Living Unit or something that would trigger a property tax hike?
I understand that California is trying to encourage ADUs but that would seem to be an uphill battle with the potential property tax consequences
My main question is how sure are you of that expense number? Have you tracked actual spend or is this an estimate? If you're confident of the numbers, play around with firecalc and see what it tells you,