obgyn65
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
"Take a couple, both age 60, with a combined salary of $100,000 and a $500,000 nest egg. If they saved 15% of their annual income until age 62 and then retired—, the cliff-diver approach—, their retirement income from savings and Social Security would be $52,000 per year, and their cumulative total income from age 60 through 69 (net of retirement-plan contributions) would be $586,000 pretax, assuming various investment, inflation and withdrawal rates.
If instead they saved 15% from age 60 through 69 and retired at age 70—, worker bees— they'd have $96,000 a year in retirement income, plus total income in their 60s of $850,000.
And what if they stopped saving at age 60 and retired at 70— retirees in training? They'd have $88,000 a year in retirement income— $8,000 less than the worker bees— but $1 million in total income through age 69 because they stopped making contributions to a (401)k— $150,000 more than the worker bees and nearly twice as much as the cliff divers."
How to Get to Retirement? Practice! - WSJ.com
The maths make sense, but what is missing, in my view, is the life expectancy factor.
If instead they saved 15% from age 60 through 69 and retired at age 70—, worker bees— they'd have $96,000 a year in retirement income, plus total income in their 60s of $850,000.
And what if they stopped saving at age 60 and retired at 70— retirees in training? They'd have $88,000 a year in retirement income— $8,000 less than the worker bees— but $1 million in total income through age 69 because they stopped making contributions to a (401)k— $150,000 more than the worker bees and nearly twice as much as the cliff divers."
How to Get to Retirement? Practice! - WSJ.com
The maths make sense, but what is missing, in my view, is the life expectancy factor.
Last edited: