Money Matters
Dear Community,

Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.

If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.

Thank you.

Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.

Retirement Question: How much is enough?

AprilZ81AprilZ81 member
500 Love Its 500 Comments Second Anniversary Name Dropper
edited April 2015 in Money Matters
I hope this doesn't come off as bragging, but I've been crunching retirement numbers today and if the calculators are correct my mind is blown.  I would like some outside perspective to the situation too see if I'm crazy or not.

With what DH and I currently have in retirement funds if we assume a 7% annual rate of return we could have 1.5 million in retirement accounts in 30 years (DH would be 67 and I would be 64).  That is if we do not contribute one more penny to retirement and doesn't include any other assets (house, non-retirement mutual funds, stocks, etc). If those funds get 8% return we would have just over 2 million.

Assuming we receive a TOTAL of $1,000 a month from Social Security (it could be much higher based on calculations of earnings, but I don't quite believe SS will be available when we retire) we could be drawing $5,800 a month in joint income (pre-tax) and it would last us 30 years. (7,000/month from 2 million in assets)  This assumes that we both retire at the same time when DH is 67 and I am 64 and assumes the online calculator I found is correct.

We live in a moderate cost of living area and without a mortgage that is almost more money than I can conceive of spending (that would be almost equal to what we made last year with both of us working) unless we bought a second home and became snowbirds.

Would you consider slowing down retirement contributions to focus on paying down a mortgage or traveling more? We would never stop it all together, but not having to "worry" about maxing out two ROTHs and contributing to 401(k) accounts would be pretty awesome.

Not having to worry about retirement contributions would also allow me to be a stay-at-home mom with less guilt because I would know we would be okay when we retire without my additional contributions.

It is also possible that we could inherit a decent amount of money from parents but we aren't counting on that at all because they could leave it all to charity for all we know (I doubt it, but it is their decision).  That would just be more padding to our accounts or we could use it to pay for college educations for our future kid(s).

ETA:  Both income calculations include 3% increases each year.
Formerly AprilH81
photo composite_14153800476219jpg

Re: Retirement Question: How much is enough?

  • Well, over time we all know how the cost of things increases, so $1.5M or $2M in 30+ years may not actually be very much money when you consider how costs of daily living expenses go up.

    For example, in today's dollars, my parents are retired (Dad is 71 and Mom is 63) both just retired this year and both plan on having part-time jobs just to stay busy, but they have between $1.5M and $2M and own their home outright. Each also earns SS and each has a pension. But, I know my dad wonders, "Is this enough?" Conceivably, they could each live another 25 years and either one knows how costly their medical expenses may be as they age (long-term care???).

    I know you said you would have other assets and that you may get money from the ILs and your parents.

    Personally, I would keep trucking along with retirement savings. Yes, you should have peace of mind for your nest egg as it stands and you CAN afford to take trips, and stay at home with children. But, I wouldn't begin throwing the retirement party yet!


  • Well, over time we all know how the cost of things increases, so $1.5M or $2M in 30+ years may not actually be very much money when you consider how costs of daily living expenses go up.

    This.

    $1.5-$2M may not be crazy in 30 years.  It also doesn't take that long to accumulate if you're dedicated to it.  My parents went broke when I was 2 building their house.  By the time I started college 16 years later they were millionaires.

    It's been 10 years since then, and they are now millionaires a few times over.  My dad is 61 and my mom is 59.  My mom is now retired but spent her whole career in a school system making significantly less than the teachers (tech specialist), and my dad is a public college professor.  They never had big salaries, but they invested well, lived well below their means, and saved diligently. 

    My inlaws on the other hand should be in the $6-$7M range with what I know they make.  But they can't afford to retire because they didn't save enough.  My parents (the teachers) have way more assets than my inlaws (the lawyers).

    Please don't cut back on your contributions.  Your retirement will be much more comfortable if you keep it up!
    Wedding Countdown Ticker
  • Is there a calculation that can help with the inflation rates? One of them even adjusted for inflation I think but I tested out several calculators to test the results and they were all in the same range.

    We won't be stopping all together, because I'm too paranoid, but the thought of lightening up for a few years when we have kids so I can stay home until the youngest starts school that would be awesome.

    I just wish there was a way to tell how much things will cost 30 years from now.  It is no wonder so many people put of retirement savings, there are so many "if then" and "what if" scenarios that most people give up.  It honestly makes my brain hurt!


    Formerly AprilH81
    photo composite_14153800476219jpg

  • bmo88bmo88 member
    500 Comments Fourth Anniversary 250 Love Its Name Dropper
    I agree with what PP said, $1.5 million today is not worth the exact same amount in the future. Cost of living will increase and time value of money must be accounted for. 

    According to our calculations, we would be on a similar path, but plan on continuing to contribute to retirement. There are far too many unknowns to account for. What if the market crashes again? What if you lose a job or your expenses change. Having saved that money in some form means it's accessible (even if you take a penalty for accessing it). I think you should still live an enjoyable life, but continue contributing a safe amount (whatever you consider comfortable).
    Lilypie Pregnancy tickers
  • Follow up question.

    When the "experts" say that Gen X or Millenialls will need "X million" to retire does that take inflation into account?  

    I've read articles that say Millenialls (I'm the oldest in this group) will need $2M for a comfortable retirement.  I would assume that it means $2M in 2045 right?  

    So the above calculations would be correct it would just mean that what I thought would be "more money than I can imagine spending" would be more "meets all of our needs and some of our wants".

    I just can't wrap my head around having that much money available to spend and for it to not be "enough" as long as our mortgage has been paid off.
    Formerly AprilH81
    photo composite_14153800476219jpg

  • Count me in the camp of believing that a million or two in 30 years is not going to feel like as much as it feels like now.  Inflation is going to play a huge part.  Health care costs scare me.  Neither DH nor I get pensions.  And we're not counting on social security to be there for us.  We're saving as much as we can.  I still worry, and we're fairly high earners with no kids and no plans for kids.  We hope to retire by 60 and while we love traveling now, we hope that we are able to take some really grand, extended vacations that we just don't have the time for now.
  • We would have about the same amount if we didn't contribute anything but it's still important for us to put money into it. For me it seems so unreal that that much money will grow in there within 30 years.
    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker
  • What we do is 15% of our income toward retirement and cap it at that until the house is paid off, and we live a little. That still gives you a good nest egg.
    Also, another way you can look at it is how much money do you need to have saved in order to just live on the growth? That way you can pass your nest egg down to your children.

    TTC since 1/13  DX:PCOS 5/13 (long, anovulatory cycles)
    Clomid 50mg 9/13 = BFP! EDD 6/7/14 M/C 5w6d Found 11/4/13
    1/14 PCOS / Gluten Free Diet to hopefully regulate my system. 
    Chemical Pregnancy 03/14
    Surprise BFP 6/14, Beta #1: 126 Beta #2: 340  Stick baby, stick! EDD 2/17/15
    Riley Elaine born 2/16/15

    TTC 2.0   6/15 
    Chemical Pregnancy 9/15 
    Chemical Pregnancy 6/16
    BFP 9/16  EDD 6/3/17
    Beta #1: 145 Beta #2: 376 Beta #3: 2,225 Beta #4: 4,548
    www.5yearstonever.blogspot.com 
                        Image and video hosting by TinyPic

  • Although I mostly agree with the others about inflation, I do think you have put yourself in a position where you could dial back a little, just for a few years, to SAH with kids if you want to. If that's something that you really feel called to do, I see that as worth the future sacrifice (though I realize that's a personal decision for every couple).
  • als1982als1982 member
    1000 Comments 500 Love Its Third Anniversary Name Dropper
    edited April 2015
    I agree with others about inflation but also with @Xstatic3333 about prioritizing staying home versus working just to continue at the same rate you're currently going with retirement savings. I think if that's something you want to do and it would be meaningful to your family, you should go for it. IMO, that time is more valuable than money.

    Our personal goal is to have $100,000 saved before baby is here, so that absolute worst case scenario, we'll have $1.6 million at 75. Again, that'd be what we could reasonably assume to have without adding another dime after starting a family. However, I don't think we'd truly be comfortable at that age with anything less than $3 million. But, family is more important than money, so it'll be worth the sacrifice if for some reason we don't make it to that number.

    Also, we're personally not banking on the expectation of social security, but that's just us.
    HeartlandHustle | Personal Finance and Betterment Blog  
  • I think the AARP calculator is one of the best.  I'm pretty sure it does take average rate of inflation into account as well as the standard of living you want to have in retirement.

    Being able to stay home would be great.  The frustrating part, of course, is that staying home with little ones generally occurs at a time in your life when adding money to your retirement is very valuable because you're on the young side - vs. later in life when cutting back doesn't have as big of a net effect because your retirement age is closer.

    I do think that if having the mortgage paid off is part of your retirement plan, then maybe you can scale back a little bit.  Kids are a compelling enough reason to do it.  I don't think that more travel is compelling enough to cut back though, and you know I love travel.

    I think the healthcare costs are going to be what kicks our generation in the butt.  It seems to be kind of like college tuition where it's just growing out of control.  Unlike college though, medical care can be a matter of life or death.  It's so important, and most of us would probably pay whatever it costs to get the appropriate care during retirement.
    Wedding Countdown Ticker
  • I am older than most of you (42 next month) and I can say that in the 20 years since I graduated from college, prices on things seem to have doubled. It has been a slow creep, so I didn't really notice it until I realized that a lunch out was around $10 instead $5. So no. I would not EVER suggest cutting back on retirement savings so you could travel especially when you are young. Kids are effing expensive. And God forbid you have a special needs kid (mine has autism) because even with pretty great insurance, it is killing us. Right now we are paying about $110 per week in copays for the various therapies. And my kid is pretty high functioning. If you get a lot put away now, you might be able to ease up in your child rearing years. And there is no way to predict what taxes are going to look like in 30 years. Those Baby Boomers are going to demand their services when they are old and it wouldn't take much to make Roth IRAs taxable.
  • I know how you feel, April. It is so hard to balance saving for the future with enjoying the present. I get everyone's concern on being sure you are prepared.  But, then I also want to enjoy the present a little too.

    We've decided to strive for 15% to 20% of our income towards retirement. Our income is kinda low, so we will still not be maxing out our ROTHs (like we could be doing if we cut out all travel,, eating out, and waited until we were like 40 before having kids)  Anything more than the 15% is just not worth it to me...I feel confident that it will be enough, and I think it is a good balance to me.

    As far as $1 million goes, I know that sounds like a lot, but it is not. I've calculated that we should have about $3 million total saved for retirement (but that is for both of us to live on). From the calculators I've seen, that should be enough for us but we will not be living fancy. With that amount, we will be able to maintain our current standard of living IF our mortgage is paid off.

  • The cost of health care scares me too. I know a couple in their mid 70s. Both healthy until this past year. Mrs is now in a hospital bed almost 24/hrs a day. Hospice is in place. Medicare and supplemental insurance covers hospice charges but not in-home care. They pay $1200/week for care and that is not 24/hr care. Their long-term care insurance reimburses $100/day max. But $500/week is cheaper than long term care in a nursing home which is $8000/month on average in my region.
    Lilypie Kids Birthday tickers Lilypie Kids Birthday tickers
  • The cost of health care scares me too. I know a couple in their mid 70s. Both healthy until this past year. Mrs is now in a hospital bed almost 24/hrs a day. Hospice is in place. Medicare and supplemental insurance covers hospice charges but not in-home care. They pay $1200/week for care and that is not 24/hr care. Their long-term care insurance reimburses $100/day max. But $500/week is cheaper than long term care in a nursing home which is $8000/month on average in my region.

    Health care is just ridiculous for the elderly!  Who knows what will be going on with it when we get that age.
    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker
  • I have heard a stat that 2/3 of healthcare costs are spent in the last 6 months of a person's life. I certainly hope my generation considers hospice care with more and more frequency.
  • smerka said:

    I have heard a stat that 2/3 of healthcare costs are spent in the last 6 months of a person's life. I certainly hope my generation considers hospice care with more and more frequency.

    Yes. Advance directives can make a huge difference!
    Lilypie Kids Birthday tickers Lilypie Kids Birthday tickers
  • I read an interesting stat back when all that Affordable Care debate was going on.  By and large, everyone's medical expenses cost virtually the same amount over the course of their lifetime.

    For example, someone with a pre-existing condition might cost more to take care of as a young adult than a similar aged person without a condition...but then they will typically die younger, whereas their similar cohort will start costing big bucks as they become elderly.

  • I have a question to piggy back this. I've been with my current company 10 years this July. I've been putting 15-16% of my salary into my retirement since I was hired. You guys are saying that she could dial back if she wanted to plan to stay home with her children. Is that to say the money she would be putting towards retirements would now be going to savings to afford her to stay home? Just trying to understand the logic. I have three in daycare ($2100 a month) and still put currently 16% into my 401k. I would think you'd want to keep it up so that when you do stay home and aren't contributing for x number of years, you aren't as behind.
    :-/
  • I have a question to piggy back this. I've been with my current company 10 years this July. I've been putting 15-16% of my salary into my retirement since I was hired. You guys are saying that she could dial back if she wanted to plan to stay home with her children. Is that to say the money she would be putting towards retirements would now be going to savings to afford her to stay home? Just trying to understand the logic. I have three in daycare ($2100 a month) and still put currently 16% into my 401k. I would think you'd want to keep it up so that when you do stay home and aren't contributing for x number of years, you aren't as behind.
    :-/

    I don't know if there's a right answer to this.  It's going to depend on how much you have saved, your future earning potential, the standard of living you want in retirement, when you started contributions, your age....  you get the picture.

    I could see scaling back maybe 2-5% to allow extra savings for staying at home.  But again - that assumes you've saved enough up to that point and can afford to dial it back.
    Wedding Countdown Ticker
  • hoffse said:

    I have a question to piggy back this. I've been with my current company 10 years this July. I've been putting 15-16% of my salary into my retirement since I was hired. You guys are saying that she could dial back if she wanted to plan to stay home with her children. Is that to say the money she would be putting towards retirements would now be going to savings to afford her to stay home? Just trying to understand the logic. I have three in daycare ($2100 a month) and still put currently 16% into my 401k. I would think you'd want to keep it up so that when you do stay home and aren't contributing for x number of years, you aren't as behind.
    :-/

    I don't know if there's a right answer to this.  It's going to depend on how much you have saved, your future earning potential, the standard of living you want in retirement, when you started contributions, your age....  you get the picture.

    I could see scaling back maybe 2-5% to allow extra savings for staying at home.  But again - that assumes you've saved enough up to that point and can afford to dial it back.
    We most likely wouldn't slow down contributions (except for an emergency) until I stopped working.  It was a hypothetical question to see if we wanted to slow down before that point would it be catastrophic.

    I just found out that DH is contributing more to his 401(k) than I thought.  He is doing 5% and his company match is 100% up to that point, so that is 10% of his income into a 401(k), I was doing 10% into my 401(k) with a 100% match up to 3% and then putting as much as we can into a ROTH.  We were probably a bit over 15% this year, but I haven't done the math.
    Formerly AprilH81
    photo composite_14153800476219jpg

  • In the hypothecial situation, yes I would say you could scale back a bit during the SAHM years, but it also happens naturally since you go down to one jncome. And 15% of one income would be less (all other things staying equal). The most you could contribute to retirement accounts would be $17,500 into husband's 401k and 11,000 into IRAs (spousal for the SAHP). If you have a good amount in retirement by the time you have kids, I could see where easing up for the 5-10 years one stays home (assuming kids close thogether) would be reasonable. But retirement savings would still take precedent over vacations, etc.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards