Enough to Live On (2011)

Asset allocation, risk, diversification and rebalancing. Pros/cons of hiring a financial advisor. Seeking advice on your portfolio?
Locked
User avatar
Bylo Selhi
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 29494
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 10:36
Location: Waterloo, ON
Contact:

Re: Enough to Live On (2011)

Post by Bylo Selhi »

I may be the leader of the free world, but when it comes to stocks, I invest passively. [...]
More likely, "Because I am the leader of the free world, when it comes to stocks, I must invest passively."

Not to criticize Obama's decision to invest in VFINX, but ISTM he didn't do it necessarily because he's a Boglehead. How else, other than broad US indexing, could he get equity exposure without his opponents claiming he was in a conflict of interest, didn't believe in the economic strength of 'Murrka, etc., etc., etc.?
Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity.
BRIAN5000
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 9063
Joined: 08 Jun 2007 23:27

Re: Enough to Live On (2011)

Post by BRIAN5000 »

In fact, studies show it doesn’t matter if a client has $500,000 or $5 million, the typical retiree feels they need approximately 25% - 30% more than what they currently have to really “feel” secure.
http://www.financial-planning.com/blogs ... ing_051911
This information is believed to be from reliable sources but may include rumor and speculation. Accuracy is not guaranteed
User avatar
Rickson9
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 669
Joined: 05 Apr 2011 00:00

Re: Enough to Live On (2011)

Post by Rickson9 »

Nice article. Funky phenomenon.
"We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." - Anais Nin
mudLark
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 1038
Joined: 27 Jun 2006 18:47

Re: Enough to Live On (2011)

Post by mudLark »

Some more wisdom to be found here:
If you believe that more money equals more happiness...
If you believe that rich people are greedy...
If you believe that your self-worth equals your net worth...
uhoh
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 3437
Joined: 03 Dec 2005 09:44
Location: Canada

Re: Enough to Live On (2011)

Post by uhoh »

sigh.

love the comment that the secret to financial planning is to get a government pension (or a comment something like that - I keep telling my nephews that).

I see, in my absence, that the financial facelifts have not changed - but the post above is interesting - that people feel they need about 25% more to feel secure.

No Mystery Here
[i]It could be that the purpose of my life is to serve as a warning for others[/i] ~ [i]anon[/i]
izzy
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 3019
Joined: 19 Feb 2005 19:06
Location: Winnipeg MB

Re: Enough to Live On (2011)

Post by izzy »

uhoh wrote:sigh.

love the comment that the secret to financial planning is to get a government pension (or a comment something like that - I keep telling my nephews that).

I see, in my absence, that the financial facelifts have not changed - but the post above is interesting - that people feel they need about 25% more to feel secure.

No Mystery Here
I love this bit:-
"Even with surplus cash flow being used to pay down debt, they still have about $500 a month of available funds to invest, the adviser says. The money can be invested either in an RRSP or a tax-free savings account to provide tax benefits and shelter the growth from taxes. Assuming a 5-per-cent rate of return after inflation, they would have saved about $33,000 in five years’ time."
Here we have a couple with a mountain of debt which must be paid in the next few years with after tax funds,yet they are advised to invest-and to assume an after inflation growth of 5% on their savings over the short term.What world is this guy living in?
"I disagree strongly with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
BRIAN5000
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 9063
Joined: 08 Jun 2007 23:27

Re: Enough to Live On (2011)

Post by BRIAN5000 »

Did Bob make a mistake when he choose his pension or did Kathryn come along afterward? Or?
If anything was to happen to Bob, and Kathryn was left on her own, she would be entitled to half his pension, but would that be enough?
This information is believed to be from reliable sources but may include rumor and speculation. Accuracy is not guaranteed
User avatar
kcowan
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 16033
Joined: 18 Apr 2006 20:33
Location: Pacific latitude 20/49

Re: Enough to Live On (2011)

Post by kcowan »

BRIAN5000 wrote:Did Bob make a mistake when he choose his pension or did Kathryn come along afterward? Or?
If anything was to happen to Bob, and Kathryn was left on her own, she would be entitled to half his pension, but would that be enough?
Usually, joint survivorship is an option upon retirement and 50-50 is the default. 100% costs a bit extra at the time. Depends on the age spread between the joint survivors. If the woman is 3 years older, then the cost is minimal.
For the fun of it...Keith
ig17
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 3418
Joined: 21 Feb 2005 20:54

Re: Enough to Live On (2011)

Post by ig17 »

Gotta love this reader comment in G&M:
I'm a government worker also who at 53, will retire shortly with only a $70k/year pension before taxes income (my partner will have a similar pension) I'm wondering how to get more so I don't end up eating cat food every night.
(excuse me while I go to cry in the corner)
BRIAN5000
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 9063
Joined: 08 Jun 2007 23:27

Re: Enough to Live On (2011)

Post by BRIAN5000 »

Usually, joint survivorship is an option upon retirement and 50-50 is the default
You mean 60/40 if there is a spouse involved?

If she was truely with Bob when Bob made his choice she would have had to sign off on it for a 50/50 split?
This information is believed to be from reliable sources but may include rumor and speculation. Accuracy is not guaranteed
BRIAN5000
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 9063
Joined: 08 Jun 2007 23:27

Re: Enough to Live On (2011)

Post by BRIAN5000 »

ig17 wrote:Gotta love this reader comment in G&M:
I'm a government worker also who at 53, will retire shortly with only a $70k/year pension before taxes income (my partner will have a similar pension) I'm wondering how to get more so I don't end up eating cat food every night.
(excuse me while I go to cry in the corner)
Good god man $140,000 a year in guaranteed income :roll: before CCP Let me join you in the corner
:cry: :cry: :cry:
This information is believed to be from reliable sources but may include rumor and speculation. Accuracy is not guaranteed
blonde
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 3250
Joined: 19 Feb 2005 13:43
Location: Calgary area

Re: Enough to Live On (2011)

Post by blonde »

Why do so many 90%ers work so hard all their working years to become 'poor-person' in their retiriement cycle?

The aim during the working-years shud be to OWN-the-Slaves and not be a Slave.

The retirement cycle provides the time frame to enjoy the fruit-of-the-harvest. To enjoy the finer-things in life requires MONEY...MEGA-MONEY. There is no free-lunch in this day and age moving forward.

It wasn't too long past that a C$1000K-Bill in non-reg Money appeared to be a lot of Money...today, several C$1000K-Bills must be had just to experience a tad of the Real-Freedom.

In retirement...W/O Mega-Money U R Real-TOAST.
Sometimes the questions are complicated and the answers are simple...Dr Seuss

Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind...Dr Seuss
Benchwarmer
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 616
Joined: 04 Dec 2010 20:39

Re: Enough to Live On (2011)

Post by Benchwarmer »

ig17 wrote:Gotta love this reader comment in G&M:
I'm a government worker also who at 53, will retire shortly with only a $70k/year pension before taxes income (my partner will have a similar pension) I'm wondering how to get more so I don't end up eating cat food every night.
(excuse me while I go to cry in the corner)
The person that posted it was a troll.
bbsj
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 302
Joined: 16 Nov 2006 20:37

Re: Enough to Live On (2011)

Post by bbsj »

BRIAN5000 wrote:
Usually, joint survivorship is an option upon retirement and 50-50 is the default
You mean 60/40 if there is a spouse involved?

If she was truely with Bob when Bob made his choice she would have had to sign off on it for a 50/50 split?
When the woman is much younger as in this case, the 60% survivor pension would mean considerable reduction in the current pension ( and consequently, the difference between the 60% of the lower pension and 50% of the current pension would also be reduced). So, if the man's health and genetics show good life expectancy, it is better to sign the waiver.
BRIAN5000
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 9063
Joined: 08 Jun 2007 23:27

Re: Enough to Live On (2011)

Post by BRIAN5000 »

So if its a big difference then if he was healthy they could/should have bought an insurance policy on him with some of the extra so as not to leave the wife with a 50% drop in income when he died?
This information is believed to be from reliable sources but may include rumor and speculation. Accuracy is not guaranteed
User avatar
ghariton
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 15954
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 18:59
Location: Ottawa

Re: Enough to Live On (2011)

Post by ghariton »

Benchwarmer wrote:The person that posted it was a troll.
How do you know?

There are lots of couples in Ottawa, both working for the federal government, each earning around $100,000 or more. If they started working for the government at age 20, they would each get a pension of $70,000 at age 55.

Keep in mind assortative mating: increasingly, people tend to marry others in situations similar to their own. The few couples I know in that situation tend to be very careful with their money. For example they don't buy books. Rather, they wait to get new books through the public library. And the amount they tip is embarrassing.

George
The juice is worth the squeeze
User avatar
kcowan
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 16033
Joined: 18 Apr 2006 20:33
Location: Pacific latitude 20/49

Re: Enough to Live On (2011)

Post by kcowan »

BRIAN5000 wrote:So if its a big difference then if he was healthy they could/should have bought an insurance policy on him with some of the extra so as not to leave the wife with a 50% drop in income when he died?
That is essentially what the option is. The lower monthly payout is because of the premiums needed to insure for the extra pension payout. If they are the same age then the insurance is for the difference in longevity, usually 3 years.
For the fun of it...Keith
kombat
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 929
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 09:23
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Enough to Live On (2011)

Post by kombat »

ghariton wrote:
Benchwarmer wrote:The person that posted it was a troll.
How do you know?
Because they claimed a $140,000 pension income, and expressed worry about having to eat catfood in retirement.

Any couple who can bring in that kind of an income and has been managing a household budget for several decades surely realizes that $140,000 in retirement income is far, far more than is needed to avoid being reduced to eating cat food.

The poster knows that the Facelift articles rile up a lot of anti-government pension ire, so they fabricated an inflammatory story to get a reaction.
User avatar
Nemo2
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 9670
Joined: 02 Jan 2006 14:27
Location: Belleville

Re: Enough to Live On (2011)

Post by Nemo2 »

BTW.....cat food ain't cheap...so why is it considered synonymous with poverty? :?

Stray cats, OTOH...
Exit, pursued by a bear.
William Shakespeare, Stage direction in "The Winter's Tale"
User avatar
Bylo Selhi
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 29494
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 10:36
Location: Waterloo, ON
Contact:

Re: Enough to Live On (2011)

Post by Bylo Selhi »

Nemo2 wrote:BTW.....cat food ain't cheap...so why is it considered synonymous with poverty? :?
Perhaps you should start a Canadian chapter of FAL.

Image
Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity.
Benchwarmer
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 616
Joined: 04 Dec 2010 20:39

Re: Enough to Live On (2011)

Post by Benchwarmer »

kombat wrote:
ghariton wrote:
Benchwarmer wrote:The person that posted it was a troll.
How do you know?
Because they claimed a $140,000 pension income, and expressed worry about having to eat catfood in retirement.

Any couple who can bring in that kind of an income and has been managing a household budget for several decades surely realizes that $140,000 in retirement income is far, far more than is needed to avoid being reduced to eating cat food.

The poster knows that the Facelift articles rile up a lot of anti-government pension ire, so they fabricated an inflammatory story to get a reaction.
In addition to claiming they are federal government employees entitled to $140,000 in pension income, he also wanted to find out how to claim disability on top of that. If he truly is making a high enough salary to generate that kind of pension income, then he is smart enough to know that you cannot collect superannuation & disability at the same time. The poster was a troll.
User avatar
bowtie
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 91
Joined: 10 May 2011 16:24
Location: The Big Smoke

Re: Enough to Live On (2011)

Post by bowtie »

I'm still amazed by these makeover stories. Just saw this today (from Wednesday's FP)
http://www.financialpost.com/personal-f ... story.html
National Post wrote:In Vancouver, a couple we’ll call Adrian, 62, and Vicky, 58, are moving toward retirement as they reduce their work in management consulting. Their goal is to retire fully in a few years, but they are not sure if they can afford to maintain their way of life in their $1.7-million house. For now, they are spending $5,850 per month. But their current after-tax income is $2,600. Their secured line of credit, $435,000, pays the difference. Their total liabilities are 14 times their annual income. They have nearly $947,000 in retirement savings and $28,000 in other savings. The problem is eliminating debt before they retire.
Nice house. Their neighbours must think they're rich. Or maybe their neighbours are just like them.

Not sure what kind of a condo they can buy for $500,000 in Vancouver though (as the columnist advises).
uhoh
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 3437
Joined: 03 Dec 2005 09:44
Location: Canada

Re: Enough to Live On (2011)

Post by uhoh »

[i]It could be that the purpose of my life is to serve as a warning for others[/i] ~ [i]anon[/i]
User avatar
Descartes
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 1856
Joined: 03 Nov 2008 09:59

Re: Enough to Live On (2011)

Post by Descartes »

At age 60, Lucinda’s defined-benefit pension plan would pay $30,532 a year, indexed for inflation, he estimates. She requires $35,000 a year of after-tax income in retirement to maintain her current lifestyle.
By the time she is age 90, the planner calculates, Lucinda’s investments will total $3.3-million – and she’ll still have her condo as well.
Great.. but why? Where is the balance between maintaining the means to live and actually living?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-in ... le2046769/
"A dividend is a dictate of management. A capital gain is a whim of the market."
User avatar
Spidey
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 4556
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 19:55
Location: Ottawa

Re: Enough to Live On (2011)

Post by Spidey »

Benchwarmer wrote:
ig17 wrote:Gotta love this reader comment in G&M:
I'm a government worker also who at 53, will retire shortly with only a $70k/year pension before taxes income (my partner will have a similar pension) I'm wondering how to get more so I don't end up eating cat food every night.
(excuse me while I go to cry in the corner)
The person that posted it was a troll.

The person likely posted that statement to provoke a reaction. However, I think it is true that most government workers have no idea of the value of their pensions. My wife and I occasionally get together with a couple who both work for government and they constantly express fears regarding financing their retirement. I tell them that their pensions will probably be worth in excess of a million each but I don't think it sinks in. A large part of the problem, for them, is simply that the pensions will be less than they're taking home now.
If life seems jolly rotten, then there's something you've forgotten -- and that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing. - Eric Idle
Locked