Race from $2M to $4M...and Beyond!

[2sk22]

Absolutely no regrets 😀

[markbike528CBX]

I never thought that I would say this,but I may talk with a financial planner to ease my wife's fears.  Back of the napkin math says we can draw over 13K a month right now.   Part of that will be my pension for the longest life of either of us.   It's about 4310 a month till we both croak.  The rest is based on 4% burn rate.  We don't spend that right now!
You guys know this is solid.  Leaning towards middle of August and done.  She can work till the year end. I'm OK with that if it makes her feel more secure.

@Bateaux

The thread regulars have been trying to get YOU to relax and FIRE for years, we STILL haven't crossed the FIRE line with you yet.
Even after a coworker died on the job.  https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/say-hi-and-introduce-yourself/msg2861847/#msg2861847

Your wife has been new to this (unless she has been looking over your shoulder at MMM forum posts).  It might take a while.
While I approve of your plan, you should vet the "financial advisor" prior to you wife meeting them.   
You could end up with a Boglehead/Suzie Ormond (10M not quite enough) or someone who can't get the FIRE concept straight.
Even new FIREes get nervous.

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/post-fire/serious-'one-more-year'-syndrome-advice-appreciated/
specifically https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/post-fire/serious-'one-more-year'-syndrome-advice-appreciated/msg2448503/#msg2448503

Less relevant for you, (mostly accumulation phase stuff).
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/how-to-convert-your-so-to-mmm-in-50-awesome-steps/msg0/?topicseen#new

[arcturus]

I kinda play it more in the present - the extra money I make now, post FI, needs to be spent more now.  If I don't want to spend it, I need to stop making it.  But I've managed to add in a lot of nice extras (we upgraded the final windows on the house, took more trips, tip and donate more, etc.) to help justify continuing to bring in money beyond FI.  I'm living each and every year I get to the fullest.  Until I drop to $2M (still my FI number), I'm not going to worry too much.

You folks thinking about your future 90 year old selves all the time depress me :)  Like those broke or dead folks that look at how much more likely they'll be dead than broke and find comfort in that.  Sheesh, no wonder FIRE is losing it's mojo, I don't want to make decisions based on that stuff, I want to be more like Bill Perkins and Die With Zero - headed toward broke well before being dead.

All good points!   The other thing to keep in mind is that you will not spend money uniformly over the entire duration of your retirement years.  I assuming a pretty robust retirement lifestyle for ~20 years, and then I believe I will naturally become less active and therefore spend less on travel, hobbies, etc.   Then, one could easily argue spending will continue to trend down as you age beyond that.   I don't view this as "belt tightening," rather I tend to view it as just a natural progression called aging.

I guess that is one huge positive that I have -- I know when I decide I'm ready to pull the escape hatch, DW will be fully supportive!   I'm the more conservative one in that regard.   But even then, as I see others in my life age and receive health diagnoses, etc., it just reinforces the notion that, at a certain point, life is just too short and too precious.   

[arcturus]

Hah.. I'm walking past all the other millionaires on my way to the wooden slat seats with the spikes!

The "slightly" irritating thing is I used to fly all over the World earning air miles. So of course I've had a lot of upgrades. But I'm still not paying 6X for business class..:)

I'm with you....I don't think I will be capable of paying for business class / first class for myself.  Not even on international.  Like you, I've done my share of business travel and the airline perks that go with it -- and miss it for sure.   However, the fare difference is just too great for me to process!

[BeanCounter]

I think I’d rather my kids inherit too much money than spend up for business class or first class. But I’m only 5’2 and 130lbs. So maybe that’s why it doesn’t seem worth it to me.

Size is one thing that comes into play, for sure.

There is also quite a bit of difference between the airlines and domestic versus international.  First class United domestic gets you early boarding, a really wide seat, and of course you only rub elbows with the other millionaires (@Exflyboy) - I wouldn't pay for it.  Emirates international business class gets you a much quieter area, really really nice food, and a lie flat seat inside a miniature cubby / cubicle.  I would pay for Emirates business class, but not $10K.

I mean it sounds really nice but it’s still an airplane.
Besides my M.O. on international flights is two drink minimum and a melatonin. I could sleep standing up at that point. Blow up my neck pillow. Pull down my eye mask. I’m drooling in 10.

[lhamo]

@Bateaux -- have you had a look at Mark Zoril's company Planvision?  I think we had a thread about them sometime in the last year or two (that I may actually have started).  I'm in the process of sorting out some financial/legal logistics at the moment and once that is taken care of I am probably going to sign up with them.  Much more affordable than a traditional financial planner, and the access to the higher level software that Fidelity uses appeals.  And the underlying philosophy matches my general approach.

https://planvisionmn.com/get-started/

There are some other affordable services suggested over on Bogleheads but the names escape me at the moment.

https://planvisionmn.com/get-started/

[GhostSaver]

I kinda play it more in the present - the extra money I make now, post FI, needs to be spent more now.  If I don't want to spend it, I need to stop making it.  But I've managed to add in a lot of nice extras (we upgraded the final windows on the house, took more trips, tip and donate more, etc.) to help justify continuing to bring in money beyond FI.  I'm living each and every year I get to the fullest.  Until I drop to $2M (still my FI number), I'm not going to worry too much.

You folks thinking about your future 90 year old selves all the time depress me :)  Like those broke or dead folks that look at how much more likely they'll be dead than broke and find comfort in that.  Sheesh, no wonder FIRE is losing it's mojo, I don't want to make decisions based on that stuff, I want to be more like Bill Perkins and Die With Zero - headed toward broke well before being dead.

All good points!   The other thing to keep in mind is that you will not spend money uniformly over the entire duration of your retirement years.  I assuming a pretty robust retirement lifestyle for ~20 years, and then I believe I will naturally become less active and therefore spend less on travel, hobbies, etc.   Then, one could easily argue spending will continue to trend down as you age beyond that.   I don't view this as "belt tightening," rather I tend to view it as just a natural progression called aging.

I guess that is one huge positive that I have -- I know when I decide I'm ready to pull the escape hatch, DW will be fully supportive!   I'm the more conservative one in that regard.   But even then, as I see others in my life age and receive health diagnoses, etc., it just reinforces the notion that, at a certain point, life is just too short and too precious.

You may want to consider that life as a 90 year old does not generally involve less spending for most people. Medical expenses and nursing care get very spendy in a hurry. It's more common than not to see people spend down a good little chunk of NW in their final few years.

If you're posting in this thread in this forum, you can budget for that with your eyes wide open without an issue. But I would have some nursing care and EOL medical expenses padded in if you're modeling a life expectancy up to 85, 90, or above. Not that I am trying to rain on your parade: if you're young and retired and can afford a nice new bike or some pseudo-spendy travel, you definitely should do it while you have the energy and bodily integrity to enjoy it.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

[2sk22]

@Bateaux -- have you had a look at Mark Zoril's company Planvision?  I think we had a thread about them sometime in the last year or two (that I may actually have started).  I'm in the process of sorting out some financial/legal logistics at the moment and once that is taken care of I am probably going to sign up with them.  Much more affordable than a traditional financial planner, and the access to the higher level software that Fidelity uses appeals.  And the underlying philosophy matches my general approach.

https://planvisionmn.com/get-started/

There are some other affordable services suggested over on Bogleheads but the names escape me at the moment.

https://planvisionmn.com/get-started/

This is the thread in Bogleheads you were probably referring to: https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=407051

[2sk22]

I think I’d rather my kids inherit too much money than spend up for business class or first class. But I’m only 5’2 and 130lbs. So maybe that’s why it doesn’t seem worth it to me.

Size is one thing that comes into play, for sure.

There is also quite a bit of difference between the airlines and domestic versus international.  First class United domestic gets you early boarding, a really wide seat, and of course you only rub elbows with the other millionaires (@Exflyboy) - I wouldn't pay for it.  Emirates international business class gets you a much quieter area, really really nice food, and a lie flat seat inside a miniature cubby / cubicle.  I would pay for Emirates business class, but not $10K.

I mean it sounds really nice but it’s still an airplane.
Besides my M.O. on international flights is two drink minimum and a melatonin. I could sleep standing up at that point. Blow up my neck pillow. Pull down my eye mask. I’m drooling in 10.

I have done my share of business travel, mostly n the 1990s but I seem to have had the misfortune of working for tightwad companies that would only pay for economy. For a couple of years. I used to fly to France for work almost every other month: I would arrive in Nice in the morning overnight from JFK, pick up my rental car and drive straight to work bleary eyed. I have also done my share of domestic red-eyes when I was working with a team in Silicon Valley. And to make matters worse, the way my company bought our tickets, I didn't even get to keep the frequent flier points. I am really thankful that business travel was mostly over for me after 2012 when remote collaboration tools became good enough.

I know that many people, especially here on this forum, retire early just to travel. If you really enjoy traveling, I fully understand that you would rather spend your money at the destination than on the journey. But I am not one of those people. I am not an enthusiastic traveler but at the same time I do like to go somewhere maybe a couple times a year. Mostly, I am happy in my basement working on my model trains. Now, if I have to take a flight over 3 hours, I absolutely will not travel unless I am in a comfortable seat, preferably lie-flat, at the front of the plane. I have no problem at all paying for the comfort and I can now afford it. As Ramith Sethi says that’s my rich life :-)

[BeanCounter]

I kinda play it more in the present - the extra money I make now, post FI, needs to be spent more now.  If I don't want to spend it, I need to stop making it.  But I've managed to add in a lot of nice extras (we upgraded the final windows on the house, took more trips, tip and donate more, etc.) to help justify continuing to bring in money beyond FI.  I'm living each and every year I get to the fullest.  Until I drop to $2M (still my FI number), I'm not going to worry too much.

You folks thinking about your future 90 year old selves all the time depress me :)  Like those broke or dead folks that look at how much more likely they'll be dead than broke and find comfort in that.  Sheesh, no wonder FIRE is losing it's mojo, I don't want to make decisions based on that stuff, I want to be more like Bill Perkins and Die With Zero - headed toward broke well before being dead.

All good points!   The other thing to keep in mind is that you will not spend money uniformly over the entire duration of your retirement years.  I assuming a pretty robust retirement lifestyle for ~20 years, and then I believe I will naturally become less active and therefore spend less on travel, hobbies, etc.   Then, one could easily argue spending will continue to trend down as you age beyond that.   I don't view this as "belt tightening," rather I tend to view it as just a natural progression called aging.

I guess that is one huge positive that I have -- I know when I decide I'm ready to pull the escape hatch, DW will be fully supportive!   I'm the more conservative one in that regard.   But even then, as I see others in my life age and receive health diagnoses, etc., it just reinforces the notion that, at a certain point, life is just too short and too precious.

You may want to consider that life as a 90 year old does not generally involve less spending for most people. Medical expenses and nursing care get very spendy in a hurry. It's more common than not to see people spend down a good little chunk of NW in their final few years.

If you're posting in this thread in this forum, you can budget for that with your eyes wide open without an issue. But I would have some nursing care and EOL medical expenses padded in if you're modeling a life expectancy up to 85, 90, or above. Not that I am trying to rain on your parade: if you're young and retired and can afford a nice new bike or some pseudo-spendy travel, you definitely should do it while you have the energy and bodily integrity to enjoy it.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

I disagree. From what I’ve seen from late 80’s to late 90’s spending takes a drastic downturn. People generally stop traveling, the don’t go out much, heck they don’t even eat much. And then the last year or two they might need nursing care which is a couple hundred grand not millions and then they die.
I read an article once that showed the statistics around nursing care and the vast majority of nursing home residents are there 2 years or less. The exception being Alzheimer’s patients.

[arcturus]

I kinda play it more in the present - the extra money I make now, post FI, needs to be spent more now.  If I don't want to spend it, I need to stop making it.  But I've managed to add in a lot of nice extras (we upgraded the final windows on the house, took more trips, tip and donate more, etc.) to help justify continuing to bring in money beyond FI.  I'm living each and every year I get to the fullest.  Until I drop to $2M (still my FI number), I'm not going to worry too much.

You folks thinking about your future 90 year old selves all the time depress me :)  Like those broke or dead folks that look at how much more likely they'll be dead than broke and find comfort in that.  Sheesh, no wonder FIRE is losing it's mojo, I don't want to make decisions based on that stuff, I want to be more like Bill Perkins and Die With Zero - headed toward broke well before being dead.

All good points!   The other thing to keep in mind is that you will not spend money uniformly over the entire duration of your retirement years.  I assuming a pretty robust retirement lifestyle for ~20 years, and then I believe I will naturally become less active and therefore spend less on travel, hobbies, etc.   Then, one could easily argue spending will continue to trend down as you age beyond that.   I don't view this as "belt tightening," rather I tend to view it as just a natural progression called aging.

I guess that is one huge positive that I have -- I know when I decide I'm ready to pull the escape hatch, DW will be fully supportive!   I'm the more conservative one in that regard.   But even then, as I see others in my life age and receive health diagnoses, etc., it just reinforces the notion that, at a certain point, life is just too short and too precious.

You may want to consider that life as a 90 year old does not generally involve less spending for most people. Medical expenses and nursing care get very spendy in a hurry. It's more common than not to see people spend down a good little chunk of NW in their final few years.

If you're posting in this thread in this forum, you can budget for that with your eyes wide open without an issue. But I would have some nursing care and EOL medical expenses padded in if you're modeling a life expectancy up to 85, 90, or above. Not that I am trying to rain on your parade: if you're young and retired and can afford a nice new bike or some pseudo-spendy travel, you definitely should do it while you have the energy and bodily integrity to enjoy it.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

I disagree. From what I’ve seen from late 80’s to late 90’s spending takes a drastic downturn. People generally stop traveling, the don’t go out much, heck they don’t even eat much. And then the last year or two they might need nursing care which is a couple hundred grand not millions and then they die.
I read an article once that showed the statistics around nursing care and the vast majority of nursing home residents are there 2 years or less. The exception being Alzheimer’s patients.

Right, this is what I meant.   Having observed others go through their mid-70s and into their 80s, I have witnessed a marked change in spending behavior that just relates to general activity level.

Certainly not dismissing the point on elder health care and/or nursing home expenses, but I suppose that if nursing care did start to enter the picture, this is where one relies on a Living Trust and puts what assets you can into that (I already have one, but its a bit outdated) to protect what's left for others while your (or your trustee, on your behalf) spend down everything else in your final years and then.....

[BeanCounter]

I kinda play it more in the present - the extra money I make now, post FI, needs to be spent more now.  If I don't want to spend it, I need to stop making it.  But I've managed to add in a lot of nice extras (we upgraded the final windows on the house, took more trips, tip and donate more, etc.) to help justify continuing to bring in money beyond FI.  I'm living each and every year I get to the fullest.  Until I drop to $2M (still my FI number), I'm not going to worry too much.

You folks thinking about your future 90 year old selves all the time depress me :)  Like those broke or dead folks that look at how much more likely they'll be dead than broke and find comfort in that.  Sheesh, no wonder FIRE is losing it's mojo, I don't want to make decisions based on that stuff, I want to be more like Bill Perkins and Die With Zero - headed toward broke well before being dead.

All good points!   The other thing to keep in mind is that you will not spend money uniformly over the entire duration of your retirement years.  I assuming a pretty robust retirement lifestyle for ~20 years, and then I believe I will naturally become less active and therefore spend less on travel, hobbies, etc.   Then, one could easily argue spending will continue to trend down as you age beyond that.   I don't view this as "belt tightening," rather I tend to view it as just a natural progression called aging.

I guess that is one huge positive that I have -- I know when I decide I'm ready to pull the escape hatch, DW will be fully supportive!   I'm the more conservative one in that regard.   But even then, as I see others in my life age and receive health diagnoses, etc., it just reinforces the notion that, at a certain point, life is just too short and too precious.

You may want to consider that life as a 90 year old does not generally involve less spending for most people. Medical expenses and nursing care get very spendy in a hurry. It's more common than not to see people spend down a good little chunk of NW in their final few years.

If you're posting in this thread in this forum, you can budget for that with your eyes wide open without an issue. But I would have some nursing care and EOL medical expenses padded in if you're modeling a life expectancy up to 85, 90, or above. Not that I am trying to rain on your parade: if you're young and retired and can afford a nice new bike or some pseudo-spendy travel, you definitely should do it while you have the energy and bodily integrity to enjoy it.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

I disagree. From what I’ve seen from late 80’s to late 90’s spending takes a drastic downturn. People generally stop traveling, the don’t go out much, heck they don’t even eat much. And then the last year or two they might need nursing care which is a couple hundred grand not millions and then they die.
I read an article once that showed the statistics around nursing care and the vast majority of nursing home residents are there 2 years or less. The exception being Alzheimer’s patients.

Right, this is what I meant.   Having observed others go through their mid-70s and into their 80s, I have witnessed a marked change in spending behavior that just relates to general activity level.

Certainly not dismissing the point on elder health care and/or nursing home expenses, but I suppose that if nursing care did start to enter the picture, this is where one relies on a Living Trust and puts what assets you can into that (I already have one, but its a bit outdated) to protect what's left for others while your (or your trustee, on your behalf) spend down everything else in your final years and then.....

Uh, I’ll have to double check but I’m pretty sure a living trust will protect your assets from future health and nursing care costs.

[arcturus]

@BeanCounter , perhaps it wasn't clear from my wording, but that's what I was trying to say.  And I'm specifically thinking of protecting your home equity by putting the home in a living trust.  Spend down the rest.  As I re-read my post, it was somewhat awkwardly worded :-)

[ixtap]

@BeanCounter , perhaps it wasn't clear from my wording, but that's what I was trying to say.  And I'm specifically thinking of protecting your home equity by putting the home in a living trust.  Spend down the rest.

I think @BeanCounter left out a "not." Generally, a living trust protects the estate from probate costs (and publicity) and makes having a trustee take over easier than dealing with POAs, but has few other protections.

[arcturus]

@BeanCounter , perhaps it wasn't clear from my wording, but that's what I was trying to say.  And I'm specifically thinking of protecting your home equity by putting the home in a living trust.  Spend down the rest.

I think @BeanCounter left out a "not." Generally, a living trust protects the estate from probate costs (and publicity) and makes having a trustee take over easier than dealing with POAs, but has few other protections.

Interesting, I'll have to look into that.....I had a different understanding.

[BeanCounter]

@BeanCounter , perhaps it wasn't clear from my wording, but that's what I was trying to say.  And I'm specifically thinking of protecting your home equity by putting the home in a living trust.  Spend down the rest.

I think @BeanCounter left out a "not." Generally, a living trust protects the estate from probate costs (and publicity) and makes having a trustee take over easier than dealing with POAs, but has few other protections.

Correct.

[Fomerly known as something]

I think I’d rather my kids inherit too much money than spend up for business class or first class. But I’m only 5’2 and 130lbs. So maybe that’s why it doesn’t seem worth it to me.

Size is one thing that comes into play, for sure.

There is also quite a bit of difference between the airlines and domestic versus international.  First class United domestic gets you early boarding, a really wide seat, and of course you only rub elbows with the other millionaires (@Exflyboy) - I wouldn't pay for it.  Emirates international business class gets you a much quieter area, really really nice food, and a lie flat seat inside a miniature cubby / cubicle.  I would pay for Emirates business class, but not $10K.

I mean it sounds really nice but it’s still an airplane.
Besides my M.O. on international flights is two drink minimum and a melatonin. I could sleep standing up at that point. Blow up my neck pillow. Pull down my eye mask. I’m drooling in 10.

I have done my share of business travel, mostly n the 1990s but I seem to have had the misfortune of working for tightwad companies that would only pay for economy. For a couple of years. I used to fly to France for work almost every other month: I would arrive in Nice in the morning overnight from JFK, pick up my rental car and drive straight to work bleary eyed. I have also done my share of domestic red-eyes when I was working with a team in Silicon Valley. And to make matters worse, the way my company bought our tickets, I didn't even get to keep the frequent flier points. I am really thankful that business travel was mostly over for me after 2012 when remote collaboration tools became good enough.

I know that many people, especially here on this forum, retire early just to travel. If you really enjoy traveling, I fully understand that you would rather spend your money at the destination than on the journey. But I am not one of those people. I am not an enthusiastic traveler but at the same time I do like to go somewhere maybe a couple times a year. Mostly, I am happy in my basement working on my model trains. Now, if I have to take a flight over 3 hours, I absolutely will not travel unless I am in a comfortable seat, preferably lie-flat, at the front of the plane. I have no problem at all paying for the comfort and I can now afford it. As Ramith Sethi says that’s my rich life :-)

I’m also in the Front of the plane.  Except with work trips where I’m still in the back since that is all they will pay for.  But I’m only paying for one ticket, I might have a different opinion if I were buying 2.  I also won’t pay any price for said ticket, I’m not 100% sure what my upper limit is.  Once I FIRE and can travel more I might change my mind again, but who knows.  Domestically it is about 2x, internationally it’s generally 2.5-3x.

[flyingaway]

For those of you who wants to spend $6k to $10k for a business seat, is there anything at the other end of the destination that is worth that $6k or $10k?
I always buy the cheapest seats available. I spend less each trip, so that I can travel more distance and to more places, but I would not pay for a $10k ticket to visit most places on earth.

[arcturus]

@BeanCounter , perhaps it wasn't clear from my wording, but that's what I was trying to say.  And I'm specifically thinking of protecting your home equity by putting the home in a living trust.  Spend down the rest.

I think @BeanCounter left out a "not." Generally, a living trust protects the estate from probate costs (and publicity) and makes having a trustee take over easier than dealing with POAs, but has few other protections.

Correct.

Here's an interesting read on the subject...for those who are interested.

https://www.kiplinger.com/retirement/estate-planning/603120/deciding-between-a-revocable-and-irrevocable-trust

[2sk22]

For those of you who wants to spend $6k to $10k for a business seat, is there anything at the other end of the destination that is worth that $6k or $10k?
I always buy the cheapest seats available. I spend less each trip, so that I can travel more distance and to more places, but I would not pay for a $10k ticket to visit most places on earth.

The most I have paid for a business class seat was $5500 (round trip) when I went to visit my brother who lives in Australia a few years ago. That trip was a lot of fun as I got to spend time with my nephews. I know others who would rather spend that $5500 on six months in Southeast Asia - much diversity :-)

[BeanCounter]

@BeanCounter , perhaps it wasn't clear from my wording, but that's what I was trying to say.  And I'm specifically thinking of protecting your home equity by putting the home in a living trust.  Spend down the rest.

I think @BeanCounter left out a "not." Generally, a living trust protects the estate from probate costs (and publicity) and makes having a trustee take over easier than dealing with POAs, but has few other protections.

Correct.

Here's an interesting read on the subject...for those who are interested.

https://www.kiplinger.com/retirement/estate-planning/603120/deciding-between-a-revocable-and-irrevocable-trust

So the devil is in the details on trusts as it’s a pretty complicated topic. I’ve taken a few classes on estate planning so I know enough to be dangerous but not enough to be truly competent in the ins and outs.

I hate articles like this that suggest setting up a revocable trust is needed to avoid probate and save on estate taxes.
Most assets can be TOD (including your home) thereby avoiding probate altogether.
With current estate tax at $12.9M, you need a huge estate to before tax kicks in.
 
Trusts are so expensive. Not just to setup, but for their entire existence. I’m the beneficiary of one and the bank makes almost as much in earnings for maintaining the damn thing as I do as a beneficiary!
We are currently paying crazy dollars for attorneys to petition the court to have the trust modified because of the tax law changes. It’s a mess.

So if you’re considering a trust proceed with caution. They often don’t work as intended and honestly you can’t trust most attorneys to advise because they seem to all think that if you have any sort of money you NEED a trust and that’s simply not true.

Also, in most states much of your home equity is already protected from Medicare, so the trust doesn’t help you there either.

So when should someone consider getting a trust-

- when their estate tips $12.9M (this is scheduled to drastically decrease in future years and could start to impact people on this thread)
- you want to “control money from the grave” there are lots of scenarios where this might be necessary.

But buyer beware the law is constantly changing. The trust I’m beneficiary of was set up in the 1980s as revocable, became irrevocable (and thus its own entity) in early 2000s to avoid estate taxes and now is totally unnecessary as the tax law is so drastically different.

[arcturus]

Thank you for the knowledge-share, @BeanCounter .   Seems just another complexity in the maze of retirement / tax / healthcare / estate planning!  Yay!  :-)

[MaybeBabyMustache]

For those of you who wants to spend $6k to $10k for a business seat, is there anything at the other end of the destination that is worth that $6k or $10k?
I always buy the cheapest seats available. I spend less each trip, so that I can travel more distance and to more places, but I would not pay for a $10k ticket to visit most places on earth.

The most I have paid for a business class seat was $5500 (round trip) when I went to visit my brother who lives in Australia a few years ago. That trip was a lot of fun as I got to spend time with my nephews. I know others who would rather spend that $5500 on six months in Southeast Asia - much diversity :-)

The only times I've flown business has been when work is paying for it. I don't really sleep on flights, and the full recline makes a tremendous difference in my ability to maybe sneak in a short nap. I'm usually on a 5 day work trip, and jet lag is a killer, so yes, it's a big upgrade to be able to sleep a bit, and then jump straight into work when I get there. I have to jump straight in, regardless if i've slept or not. By flying business for work trips, I have a lot of status I use personally. We flew to Dubai to see my inlaws in April, and all four of us were upgraded to business on the way there. The way home we were in economy. A 24 hour travel day is made quite a bit better by having some room to stretch out in. I also have lupus, and sleep is one of the core tenents of managing my health & staying in remission. I'm pretty miserable without sleep, so that's another factor.

We have enough money that we could fly business whenever we travel, but we instead try to optimize. I typically pay for premium economy, and then use Plus Points (not the same as miles, this is on United) to get upgraded. If we don't, premium economy does give you more room than regular economy, at least.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

I've been spoiled by business class.  As an expat, we had to travel internationally quite often on KLM and then Emirates.  The lounges are nice to relax before the flight, especially if you have young children, and the extra space during the flight really does make a difference.  That said, definitely not worth the sticker price if paying out of pocket.  There are loads of strategies out there to upgrade, I think it is one of the most cost effective uses of airlines miles and certainly my plan for overnight flights now that I'm older.  And carrier matters - newer airlines like Emirates have better planes and staff.  I have had trips where the flights were one of the highlights!

[Fomerly known as something]

For those of you who wants to spend $6k to $10k for a business seat, is there anything at the other end of the destination that is worth that $6k or $10k?
I always buy the cheapest seats available. I spend less each trip, so that I can travel more distance and to more places, but I would not pay for a $10k ticket to visit most places on earth.

The most I have paid for a business class seat was $5500 (round trip) when I went to visit my brother who lives in Australia a few years ago. That trip was a lot of fun as I got to spend time with my nephews. I know others who would rather spend that $5500 on six months in Southeast Asia - much diversity :-)

So far my Maximum has been $4,500.  I’ve recently looked at AUS/NZ and it’s been in the $8k range for a better known airline, but I could still get there on Fiji air for around the $5,500 mark. 

I’m likely to use miles for either of these spots.  I might consider premium economy, but I end up getting a pain in my shoulder from trying not to get in someone else’s space in regular economy.

[Bateaux]

I looked up my next potential flight.  Tampa to Albany NY.  Southwest Airlines one way.  My way back to the Appalachian Trail potentially.

$138 I'm eternally cheap. $165 if out of New Orleans.  I'll be in Tampa area next month.  Got to get back on the trail.  I'm still bucking the work saddle.

[Exflyboy]

@BeanCounter , perhaps it wasn't clear from my wording, but that's what I was trying to say.  And I'm specifically thinking of protecting your home equity by putting the home in a living trust.  Spend down the rest.

I think @BeanCounter left out a "not." Generally, a living trust protects the estate from probate costs (and publicity) and makes having a trustee take over easier than dealing with POAs, but has few other protections.

Correct.

Here's an interesting read on the subject...for those who are interested.

https://www.kiplinger.com/retirement/estate-planning/603120/deciding-between-a-revocable-and-irrevocable-trust

So the devil is in the details on trusts as it’s a pretty complicated topic. I’ve taken a few classes on estate planning so I know enough to be dangerous but not enough to be truly competent in the ins and outs.

I hate articles like this that suggest setting up a revocable trust is needed to avoid probate and save on estate taxes.
Most assets can be TOD (including your home) thereby avoiding probate altogether.
With current estate tax at $12.9M, you need a huge estate to before tax kicks in.
 
Trusts are so expensive. Not just to setup, but for their entire existence. I’m the beneficiary of one and the bank makes almost as much in earnings for maintaining the damn thing as I do as a beneficiary!
We are currently paying crazy dollars for attorneys to petition the court to have the trust modified because of the tax law changes. It’s a mess.

So if you’re considering a trust proceed with caution. They often don’t work as intended and honestly you can’t trust most attorneys to advise because they seem to all think that if you have any sort of money you NEED a trust and that’s simply not true.

Also, in most states much of your home equity is already protected from Medicare, so the trust doesn’t help you there either.

So when should someone consider getting a trust-

- when their estate tips $12.9M (this is scheduled to drastically decrease in future years and could start to impact people on this thread)
- you want to “control money from the grave” there are lots of scenarios where this might be necessary.

But buyer beware the law is constantly changing. The trust I’m beneficiary of was set up in the 1980s as revocable, became irrevocable (and thus its own entity) in early 2000s to avoid estate taxes and now is totally unnecessary as the tax law is so drastically different.

Estate tax at Fed is at $12.9M (individual).. But in Oregon it bites at $1M.

I don't care when I'm dead as I hope to have it all spent by then anyway..:)

[Taran Wanderer]

I’m on the taller end of the size spectrum, and I ended up in the back of the plane. The seat porch was so low that I was wedged in with my knees almost poking between the seats into the space of the people in front of me. It was pretty horrible. Survivable for 2.5 hours, but horrible. The next leg of the flight is in premium of some kind (wider, more legroom) and will be much more tolerable.

I had another flight (little connector plane turboprop) a couple of years ago where I was getting so claustrophobic before we even took off that I turned my phone back on and upgraded the next leg to first class. ($30/seat)  Did you know that your cell phone will work up to a couple thousand feet in the air? 

For me, especially as I get older, premium economy is a must-have. I just don’t fit in today’s economy class seats.

[Car Jack]

Estate tax at Fed is at $12.9M (individual).. But in Oregon it bites at $1M.

I don't care when I'm dead as I hope to have it all spent by then anyway..:)

I'm in Massachusetts, where there's a cliff at $1M.  If the estate is $1M, estate tax for the state is zero.  $1,000,001 and the tax is about $33,000.

On the probate front, I know from helping DW who was executor on her aunt's estate.  Holy cow, is it easy for previous probated estates.  The aunt was the sole beneficiary of the grandparents.  Why's this matter?  The family was very old school and their over riding motto was "don't let the government know anything".  Thus, in the safe deposit box was $75k in US savings bonds.  All were over 30 years old, so had been earning zip for years.  The oldest was from 1941.  Because the grandfather's estate was probated, I could go into the county website and see the will, all probate information and how probate progressed.  As it turned out, we had to re-open probate in order to cash the savings bonds. 

My mom has a condo and was yipping at me that we should put it in my name so that her estate would not have to go through probate.  I know from the attorney and court costs from DW's aunt that these are piddly amounts.  I told my mom that it didn't matter what she did, when she passes, I will open probate even if there's nothing to put into it.  I want the will and all estate information to be permanent public record.  Also, if the deed were put into my name, I'd lose the step up basis and when sold, I'd owe far more tax than what probate costs would be.

I've probably mentioned before but we had our will done along with homestead declaration which limits liability in our state.  We were moving forward with a revolkable trust so we could define how our assets would go to our kids.  You know, at this age, this percentage goes to the kids and at the next older age, another percentage goes.  The problem is that we don't have younger, trusted people to be trustees.  It makes no sense for either of us to use our sisters because they're too close to our ages and could be dead before us.  What about a corporate trustee?  That's pretty easy and it would work.  The downside?  1-3% per year cost.  We're talking $4M for us so between $40k and $120k a year.  Nope.  We dropped the whole thing and decided to just go with a will and if the kids wasted all the money in 3 days, well, not our problem.

[BeanCounter]

Estate tax at Fed is at $12.9M (individual).. But in Oregon it bites at $1M.

I don't care when I'm dead as I hope to have it all spent by then anyway..:)

I'm in Massachusetts, where there's a cliff at $1M.  If the estate is $1M, estate tax for the state is zero.  $1,000,001 and the tax is about $33,000.

On the probate front, I know from helping DW who was executor on her aunt's estate.  Holy cow, is it easy for previous probated estates.  The aunt was the sole beneficiary of the grandparents.  Why's this matter?  The family was very old school and their over riding motto was "don't let the government know anything".  Thus, in the safe deposit box was $75k in US savings bonds.  All were over 30 years old, so had been earning zip for years.  The oldest was from 1941.  Because the grandfather's estate was probated, I could go into the county website and see the will, all probate information and how probate progressed.  As it turned out, we had to re-open probate in order to cash the savings bonds. 

My mom has a condo and was yipping at me that we should put it in my name so that her estate would not have to go through probate.  I know from the attorney and court costs from DW's aunt that these are piddly amounts.  I told my mom that it didn't matter what she did, when she passes, I will open probate even if there's nothing to put into it.  I want the will and all estate information to be permanent public record.  Also, if the deed were put into my name, I'd lose the step up basis and when sold, I'd owe far more tax than what probate costs would be.

I've probably mentioned before but we had our will done along with homestead declaration which limits liability in our state.  We were moving forward with a revolkable trust so we could define how our assets would go to our kids.  You know, at this age, this percentage goes to the kids and at the next older age, another percentage goes.  The problem is that we don't have younger, trusted people to be trustees.  It makes no sense for either of us to use our sisters because they're too close to our ages and could be dead before us.  What about a corporate trustee?  That's pretty easy and it would work.  The downside?  1-3% per year cost.  We're talking $4M for us so between $40k and $120k a year.  Nope.  We dropped the whole thing and decided to just go with a will and if the kids wasted all the money in 3 days, well, not our problem.

You don’t need the deed in your name. You need to do the paperwork work to have the transfer on death recorded for the deed, then when your mom passes it’s just a trip to the recorders office to transfer it to you and you DO NOT lose the step up in basis.
Same thing with a vehicle.
I executed my mothers entire estate (over $1M in assets) without probate. It’s easy if you do the work ahead of time.

So if you put your kids as beneficiaries of your investment accounts they won’t have to go to probate and you won’t need the expensive trust. That part is easy.
In the case of multiple children the physical assets get more difficult. I don’t think you can put TOD for the house deed in multiple children’s names. But you might. For the vehicles best to just pick a kid to put TOD on the title too and not worry about splitting all that.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

You may want to consider that life as a 90 year old does not generally involve less spending for most people. Medical expenses and nursing care get very spendy in a hurry. It's more common than not to see people spend down a good little chunk of NW in their final few years.

If you're posting in this thread in this forum, you can budget for that with your eyes wide open without an issue. But I would have some nursing care and EOL medical expenses padded in if you're modeling a life expectancy up to 85, 90, or above. Not that I am trying to rain on your parade: if you're young and retired and can afford a nice new bike or some pseudo-spendy travel, you definitely should do it while you have the energy and bodily integrity to enjoy it.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

I disagree. From what I’ve seen from late 80’s to late 90’s spending takes a drastic downturn. People generally stop traveling, the don’t go out much, heck they don’t even eat much. And then the last year or two they might need nursing care which is a couple hundred grand not millions and then they die.
I read an article once that showed the statistics around nursing care and the vast majority of nursing home residents are there 2 years or less. The exception being Alzheimer’s patients.

Right, this is what I meant.   Having observed others go through their mid-70s and into their 80s, I have witnessed a marked change in spending behavior that just relates to general activity level.

Certainly not dismissing the point on elder health care and/or nursing home expenses, but I suppose that if nursing care did start to enter the picture, this is where one relies on a Living Trust and puts what assets you can into that (I already have one, but its a bit outdated) to protect what's left for others while your (or your trustee, on your behalf) spend down everything else in your final years and then.....

I also agree with people who have observed spending drastically go down later in life.  Most of the time, one of the couple has vastly more health issues and travel becomes too cumbersome or impossible.

Health expenses don't go out of control as long as there is still a healthy person in the household, unless the couple are wealthy and choose to have more help or if they move to a retirement / assisted living community.  Is anyone here considering a Long Term Care insurance policy?  I'm getting to net worth levels where I might consider having one just so all of the care doesn't fall on the healthy spouse...  Having extra help can really improve quality of life as well as take significant burden off of the children. 

[BeanCounter]

You may want to consider that life as a 90 year old does not generally involve less spending for most people. Medical expenses and nursing care get very spendy in a hurry. It's more common than not to see people spend down a good little chunk of NW in their final few years.

If you're posting in this thread in this forum, you can budget for that with your eyes wide open without an issue. But I would have some nursing care and EOL medical expenses padded in if you're modeling a life expectancy up to 85, 90, or above. Not that I am trying to rain on your parade: if you're young and retired and can afford a nice new bike or some pseudo-spendy travel, you definitely should do it while you have the energy and bodily integrity to enjoy it.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

I disagree. From what I’ve seen from late 80’s to late 90’s spending takes a drastic downturn. People generally stop traveling, the don’t go out much, heck they don’t even eat much. And then the last year or two they might need nursing care which is a couple hundred grand not millions and then they die.
I read an article once that showed the statistics around nursing care and the vast majority of nursing home residents are there 2 years or less. The exception being Alzheimer’s patients.

Right, this is what I meant.   Having observed others go through their mid-70s and into their 80s, I have witnessed a marked change in spending behavior that just relates to general activity level.

Certainly not dismissing the point on elder health care and/or nursing home expenses, but I suppose that if nursing care did start to enter the picture, this is where one relies on a Living Trust and puts what assets you can into that (I already have one, but its a bit outdated) to protect what's left for others while your (or your trustee, on your behalf) spend down everything else in your final years and then.....

I also agree with people who have observed spending drastically go down later in life.  Most of the time, one of the couple has vastly more health issues and travel becomes too cumbersome or impossible.

Health expenses don't go out of control as long as there is still a healthy person in the household, unless the couple are wealthy and choose to have more help or if they move to a retirement / assisted living community.  Is anyone here considering a Long Term Care insurance policy?  I'm getting to net worth levels where I might consider having one just so all of the care doesn't fall on the healthy spouse...  Having extra help can really improve quality of life as well as take significant burden off of the children.

We will likely go back and look at it again but up to now our research and experience indicates LTC insurance is likely not worth it.
My mom had what looked like a fantastic policy, that she paid on for years. But when her cancer made life really difficult for her and she needed help we applied to get in home care and sadly she didn’t live past the waiting period.
I think for this group the better option is just to self fund.
The only case where LTC insurance might make sense would be Alzheimer’s disease. But even then I worry about eligibility, exclusions and waiting periods etc.

I know we will have enough money to provide a lot if not all the care we could need. How much is left for our heirs will depend on our longevity and over all health.

[Exflyboy]

  Did you know that your cell phone will work up to a couple thousand feet in the air? 

Yes... I used to send texts from my airplane at 18,000ft. Not sure about voice because small airplanes have large engines mere inches away with no exhaust silencing. That and the 200 mph breeze make it a touch hard to hear..:)

 Its not legal to do so because your phone triggers every cell tower for hundreds of miles. I have never actually seen the law that makes it illegal though.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

We will likely go back and look at it again but up to now our research and experience indicates LTC insurance is likely not worth it.
My mom had what looked like a fantastic policy, that she paid on for years. But when her cancer made life really difficult for her and she needed help we applied to get in home care and sadly she didn’t live past the waiting period.
I think for this group the better option is just to self fund.
The only case where LTC insurance might make sense would be Alzheimer’s disease. But even then I worry about eligibility, exclusions and waiting periods etc.

I know we will have enough money to provide a lot if not all the care we could need. How much is left for our heirs will depend on our longevity and over all health.

We are at a point in life now where a lot of our friends and acquaintances parents are needing more care.  Some are couples with one really bad situation (Parkinson's, Alzheimer's / dementia, or just generally failing - disability, long term issues, etc.) and some are survivors that are failing.  They have hung on to trying to stay independent way too long, even though most of them have plenty of money...  it really is a tough final problem to come up with a good solution to.

I have a similar feeling toward getting a partial annuity.  Now that interest rates are a bit higher, they might make more sense.  There is never a clear one size fits all the situations answer though.

[Dancin'Dog]

In the "Land of the Free", I think it's a shame we don't have legal euthanasia, except for our pets.  Many of my buddies and I say "If I ever reach that point I hope somebody will "help me out", but there's never anyone that actually will when we are in that crappy position.


My Dad feared death til The End, so I was never faced with that dilemma.  But DW and a close friend have both faced it within the past few months.  Of course, they couldn't do it.  (And obviously couldn't talk about it if they had.)  But it's just terrible that we live in an age with such incredible medical life-extending technologies, yet we're ethically opposed to allowing our citizens to pass away in a painless, dignified manner.  Who really wants to be hooked up to breathing machines indefinitely, or drooling on ourselves for years in a facility, covered in bedsores, and lying in soiled diapers?  All while paying $10+K per month for it!


Perhaps there is an offshore service that caters to this situation.  If so, I would certainly like to know about it. 


Sorry for such a "downer" post.  But this just has been on my mind lately.  I feel guilty mentioning it, but I feel that our financial privilege should somehow help us avoid this dreadful possibility.  (Facepunch me if I deserve it...) 


I blame all of this on our country's religious hangups and the capitalistic desire to milk us til our last dollar. 

[Exflyboy]

In the "Land of the Free", I think it's a shame we don't have legal euthanasia, except for our pets.  Many of my buddies and I say "If I ever reach that point I hope somebody will "help me out", but there's never anyone that actually will when we are in that crappy position.


My Dad feared death til The End, so I was never faced with that dilemma.  But DW and a close friend have both faced it within the past few months.  Of course, they couldn't do it.  (And obviously couldn't talk about it if they had.)  But it's just terrible that we live in an age with such incredible medical life-extending technologies, yet we're ethically opposed to allowing our citizens to pass away in a painless, dignified manner.  Who really wants to be hooked up to breathing machines indefinitely, or drooling on ourselves for years in a facility, covered in bedsores, and lying in soiled diapers?  All while paying $10+K per month for it!


Perhaps there is an offshore service that caters to this situation.  If so, I would certainly like to know about it. 


Sorry for such a "downer" post.  But this just has been on my mind lately.  I feel guilty mentioning it, but I feel that our financial privilege should somehow help us avoid this dreadful possibility.  (Facepunch me if I deserve it...) 


I blame all of this on our country's religious hangups and the capitalistic desire to milk us til our last dollar.

A number of countries have legal euthanasia.. If you can get there. I know of cases from TV where a couple with one of them terminal has flown to Belgium to get taken care of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_euthanasia#:~:text=As%20of%202023%2C%20euthanasia%20is,%2C%20Victoria%20and%20Western%20Australia).

Oregon has Physician assisted suicide, but the Dr has to cerify you are likely to die within 6 months.. Doesn't work for Alzheimers of course.

[BeanCounter]

In the "Land of the Free", I think it's a shame we don't have legal euthanasia, except for our pets.  Many of my buddies and I say "If I ever reach that point I hope somebody will "help me out", but there's never anyone that actually will when we are in that crappy position.


My Dad feared death til The End, so I was never faced with that dilemma.  But DW and a close friend have both faced it within the past few months.  Of course, they couldn't do it.  (And obviously couldn't talk about it if they had.)  But it's just terrible that we live in an age with such incredible medical life-extending technologies, yet we're ethically opposed to allowing our citizens to pass away in a painless, dignified manner.  Who really wants to be hooked up to breathing machines indefinitely, or drooling on ourselves for years in a facility, covered in bedsores, and lying in soiled diapers?  All while paying $10+K per month for it!


Perhaps there is an offshore service that caters to this situation.  If so, I would certainly like to know about it. 


Sorry for such a "downer" post.  But this just has been on my mind lately.  I feel guilty mentioning it, but I feel that our financial privilege should somehow help us avoid this dreadful possibility.  (Facepunch me if I deserve it...) 


I blame all of this on our country's religious hangups and the capitalistic desire to milk us til our last dollar.

I don’t disagree with you.
I’ve told this story here before so apologies if you’ve seen it. Years ago I worked at a very fancy “blue blood” country club. There was an old member who was a widow. For her 90th birthday she threw a huge party inviting all her friends and family. Live band, drinks dancing dinner. The works.
The next week she poured herself a drink, took a bottle of pills and took a bubble bath with classical music. The note she left her family was said to be loving and detailed but included something about “I believe that nothing good comes after 90”.
And that was it.

[arcturus]

In the "Land of the Free", I think it's a shame we don't have legal euthanasia, except for our pets.  Many of my buddies and I say "If I ever reach that point I hope somebody will "help me out", but there's never anyone that actually will when we are in that crappy position.


My Dad feared death til The End, so I was never faced with that dilemma.  But DW and a close friend have both faced it within the past few months.  Of course, they couldn't do it.  (And obviously couldn't talk about it if they had.)  But it's just terrible that we live in an age with such incredible medical life-extending technologies, yet we're ethically opposed to allowing our citizens to pass away in a painless, dignified manner.  Who really wants to be hooked up to breathing machines indefinitely, or drooling on ourselves for years in a facility, covered in bedsores, and lying in soiled diapers?  All while paying $10+K per month for it!


Perhaps there is an offshore service that caters to this situation.  If so, I would certainly like to know about it. 


Sorry for such a "downer" post.  But this just has been on my mind lately.  I feel guilty mentioning it, but I feel that our financial privilege should somehow help us avoid this dreadful possibility.  (Facepunch me if I deserve it...) 


I blame all of this on our country's religious hangups and the capitalistic desire to milk us til our last dollar.

I don’t disagree with you.
I’ve told this story here before so apologies if you’ve seen it. Years ago I worked at a very fancy “blue blood” country club. There was an old member who was a widow. For her 90th birthday she threw a huge party inviting all her friends and family. Live band, drinks dancing dinner. The works.
The next week she poured herself a drink, took a bottle of pills and took a bubble bath with classical music. The note she left her family was said to be loving and detailed but included something about “I believe that nothing good comes after 90”.
And that was it.

Fully agree with all of this.  DW and I have an agreement that if either of us gets to that point, the other will "take care of it," but one wonders whether we actually would in that situation.  I know neither of us want to live that way.   I've often thought of it as the **alternative retirement plan** if the funds run out or if I become completely dependent on other people for day-to-day living needs.   

Man, I hope I'm not the one that has put us on the grim path.....somebody post some numbers or buy a yacht or something! 

[Dancin'Dog]

In the "Land of the Free", I think it's a shame we don't have legal euthanasia, except for our pets.  Many of my buddies and I say "If I ever reach that point I hope somebody will "help me out", but there's never anyone that actually will when we are in that crappy position.


My Dad feared death til The End, so I was never faced with that dilemma.  But DW and a close friend have both faced it within the past few months.  Of course, they couldn't do it.  (And obviously couldn't talk about it if they had.)  But it's just terrible that we live in an age with such incredible medical life-extending technologies, yet we're ethically opposed to allowing our citizens to pass away in a painless, dignified manner.  Who really wants to be hooked up to breathing machines indefinitely, or drooling on ourselves for years in a facility, covered in bedsores, and lying in soiled diapers?  All while paying $10+K per month for it!


Perhaps there is an offshore service that caters to this situation.  If so, I would certainly like to know about it. 


Sorry for such a "downer" post.  But this just has been on my mind lately.  I feel guilty mentioning it, but I feel that our financial privilege should somehow help us avoid this dreadful possibility.  (Facepunch me if I deserve it...) 


I blame all of this on our country's religious hangups and the capitalistic desire to milk us til our last dollar.

I don’t disagree with you.
I’ve told this story here before so apologies if you’ve seen it. Years ago I worked at a very fancy “blue blood” country club. There was an old member who was a widow. For her 90th birthday she threw a huge party inviting all her friends and family. Live band, drinks dancing dinner. The works.
The next week she poured herself a drink, took a bottle of pills and took a bubble bath with classical music. The note she left her family was said to be loving and detailed but included something about “I believe that nothing good comes after 90”.
And that was it.

Fully agree with all of this.  DW and I have an agreement that if either of us gets to that point, the other will "take care of it," but one wonders whether we actually would in that situation.  I know neither of us want to live that way.   I've often thought of it as the **alternative retirement plan** if the funds run out or if I become completely dependent on other people for day-to-day living needs.   

Man, I hope I'm not the one that has put us on the grim path.....somebody post some numbers or buy a yacht or something!

We are throwing an engagement party for DD this coming weekend.  The wedding will be in Tuscany, in the Fall of 2024.  We've placed a deposit on a place that was originally a hunting villa for the Medici family, it sleeps about 50.  They're planning to have the ceremony on the grounds, but there is plenty of room, with beautiful ceilings & columns, for the ceremony as well as an ornate dining room. 
I was pleasantly surprised to find such places available for around $15K per week.  They are trying to keep the wedding small, but the host has additional cottages available nearby in case we need them.  We're planning to visit in November to meet the host & discuss the details. 


Since it's such a long flight, DW & I are planning to stay an extra week or so and visit Croatia or Greece.  If Covid wasn't still an issue, I'd suggest a cruise from Istambul to Lisbon.  But DW is still barely willing to eat inside restaurants, so there's no way she'll get on a cruise ship.  We still haven't caught Covid, so I can't argue with her diligence to be safe. 

[BeanCounter]

While it is a sad conversation it’s a good reminder. I refuse to be overly cautious with our money in an effort to provide for some inevitable mountain of medical care costs. It’s quite likely we have enough to cover whatever and in the case of really extreme medical expenses, at that point money will be the least of my worries. And as far as being a burden to my children, I don’t care how much money you have for care, those last couple years are a burden of some sort to your family.
This is where my yolo kicks in.

[Exflyboy]

Fully agree with all of this.  DW and I have an agreement that if either of us gets to that point, the other will "take care of it," but one wonders whether we actually would in that situation.  I know neither of us want to live that way.   I've often thought of it as the **alternative retirement plan** if the funds run out or if I become completely dependent on other people for day-to-day living needs.   

Got a handgun? Then you got a retirement plan!...:)

[arcturus]

Fully agree with all of this.  DW and I have an agreement that if either of us gets to that point, the other will "take care of it," but one wonders whether we actually would in that situation.  I know neither of us want to live that way.   I've often thought of it as the **alternative retirement plan** if the funds run out or if I become completely dependent on other people for day-to-day living needs.   

Got a handgun? Then you got a retirement plan!...:)

LOL - Indeed!!

[arcturus]

@GreenEggs , that sounds like an amazing wedding venue -- and you are right, it seems very reasonably priced.   Amazing how much weddings cost these days!   

[Fomerly known as something]

So I leave for France in 4 days.  Today I realized I couldn’t take my work cell phone with me if I wanted to.  We have a major project that is just starting to really get rolling.  I “can’t” access email for two glorious weeks.  I can’t wait.  It’s the first international trip I’ve taken in 3 years.  I’ve never wondered should I bring my phone before.  In the US I still bring it and while I don’t work, I do check it every couple of days in case there is something “important”.  I can’t wait.  Also I’m just waiting to see some logistical stuff before I plan next years overseas trip as this is super amazing to me right now.

[jeroly]

So I leave for France in 4 days.  Today I realized I couldn’t take my work cell phone with me if I wanted to.  We have a major project that is just starting to really get rolling.  I “can’t” access email for two glorious weeks.  I can’t wait.  It’s the first international trip I’ve taken in 3 years.  I’ve never wondered should I bring my phone before.  In the US I still bring it and while I don’t work, I do check it every couple of days in case there is something “important”.  I can’t wait.  Also I’m just waiting to see some logistical stuff before I plan next years overseas trip as this is super amazing to me right now.

I can completely understand not wanting to bring it, but... why not bring it if you want to? All the US carriers' phones work in Europe these days (I'm guessing your work phone is less than five years old).

Moreover, I don't get the 'I can't access email' bit either. Again I wouldn't want to but that's different than being unable to.

[Fomerly known as something]

So I leave for France in 4 days.  Today I realized I couldn’t take my work cell phone with me if I wanted to.  We have a major project that is just starting to really get rolling.  I “can’t” access email for two glorious weeks.  I can’t wait.  It’s the first international trip I’ve taken in 3 years.  I’ve never wondered should I bring my phone before.  In the US I still bring it and while I don’t work, I do check it every couple of days in case there is something “important”.  I can’t wait.  Also I’m just waiting to see some logistical stuff before I plan next years overseas trip as this is super amazing to me right now.

I can completely understand not wanting to bring it, but... why not bring it if you want to? All the US carriers' phones work in Europe these days (I'm guessing your work phone is less than five years old).

Moreover, I don't get the 'I can't access email' bit either. Again I wouldn't want to but that's different than being unable to.

Work rules.  I bring my personal phone.  I’m not allowed to bring the one that belongs to work internationally unless it is a work trip.  I cannot access my work e-mail from my personal phone.

ETA:  my work phone is an IPhone.  Work locks it down so much I call it my “I don’t work right phone”

[pecunia]

So I leave for France in 4 days.  Today I realized I couldn’t take my work cell phone with me if I wanted to.  We have a major project that is just starting to really get rolling.  I “can’t” access email for two glorious weeks.  I can’t wait.  It’s the first international trip I’ve taken in 3 years.  I’ve never wondered should I bring my phone before.  In the US I still bring it and while I don’t work, I do check it every couple of days in case there is something “important”.  I can’t wait.  Also I’m just waiting to see some logistical stuff before I plan next years overseas trip as this is super amazing to me right now.

I can completely understand not wanting to bring it, but... why not bring it if you want to? All the US carriers' phones work in Europe these days (I'm guessing your work phone is less than five years old).

Moreover, I don't get the 'I can't access email' bit either. Again I wouldn't want to but that's different than being unable to.

Work rules.  I bring my personal phone.  I’m not allowed to bring the one that belongs to work internationally unless it is a work trip.  I cannot access my work e-mail from my personal phone.

ETA:  my work phone is an IPhone.  Work locks it down so much I call it my “I don’t work right phone”

I no longer work.  Was it just me or were the IT departments working harder and harder to control any digital device.  We had laptops used for testing other equipment and they had to get their paws into the control of that equipment even though it barely interfaced with their network.

[ATtiny85]

So I leave for France in 4 days.  Today I realized I couldn’t take my work cell phone with me if I wanted to.  We have a major project that is just starting to really get rolling.  I “can’t” access email for two glorious weeks.  I can’t wait.  It’s the first international trip I’ve taken in 3 years.  I’ve never wondered should I bring my phone before.  In the US I still bring it and while I don’t work, I do check it every couple of days in case there is something “important”.  I can’t wait.  Also I’m just waiting to see some logistical stuff before I plan next years overseas trip as this is super amazing to me right now.

I can completely understand not wanting to bring it, but... why not bring it if you want to? All the US carriers' phones work in Europe these days (I'm guessing your work phone is less than five years old).

Moreover, I don't get the 'I can't access email' bit either. Again I wouldn't want to but that's different than being unable to.

Work rules.  I bring my personal phone.  I’m not allowed to bring the one that belongs to work internationally unless it is a work trip.  I cannot access my work e-mail from my personal phone.

ETA:  my work phone is an IPhone.  Work locks it down so much I call it my “I don’t work right phone”

I no longer work.  Was it just me or were the IT departments working harder and harder to control any digital device.  We had laptops used for testing other equipment and they had to get their paws into the control of that equipment even though it barely interfaced with their network.

There are for sure some very good reasons for the tight control. However, at my megacorp we think everything we write is some sort of atom splitting genius and most of the controls they put in place are around IP protection. 99.99% of the stuff we do is no more IP than a simple beam calculation is. I manage a document that lays out how to apply some heat transfer equations to some exhaust gas. It is so locked down that I sometimes wonder if they think the Coke recipe is embedded in it.

The result is a phone (and almost laptop…) that I can’t really do much work on. I love the “I don’t work right phone” moniker.

[Fomerly known as something]

So I leave for France in 4 days.  Today I realized I couldn’t take my work cell phone with me if I wanted to.  We have a major project that is just starting to really get rolling.  I “can’t” access email for two glorious weeks.  I can’t wait.  It’s the first international trip I’ve taken in 3 years.  I’ve never wondered should I bring my phone before.  In the US I still bring it and while I don’t work, I do check it every couple of days in case there is something “important”.  I can’t wait.  Also I’m just waiting to see some logistical stuff before I plan next years overseas trip as this is super amazing to me right now.

I can completely understand not wanting to bring it, but... why not bring it if you want to? All the US carriers' phones work in Europe these days (I'm guessing your work phone is less than five years old).

Moreover, I don't get the 'I can't access email' bit either. Again I wouldn't want to but that's different than being unable to.

Work rules.  I bring my personal phone.  I’m not allowed to bring the one that belongs to work internationally unless it is a work trip.  I cannot access my work e-mail from my personal phone.

ETA:  my work phone is an IPhone.  Work locks it down so much I call it my “I don’t work right phone”

I no longer work.  Was it just me or were the IT departments working harder and harder to control any digital device.  We had laptops used for testing other equipment and they had to get their paws into the control of that equipment even though it barely interfaced with their network.

My work place has always been um extremely controlling.  I have a separate work computer that I use for one side of my job that cannot interface with the regular network and need to use our quest network because I need to basically be able to manipulate the computer and run software programs that is 100% not allowed on my regular work computer.  On the I don’t work right phone, currently we cannot send group texts, on texts to individuals and no photos can be sent via text.

[Much Fishing to Do]

I officially work a little less than 20hrs/wk right now, and not putting my work email on my phone was the best work move I have ever made.  The time/thought creep that occurs from having accessible work email away from the laptop is extreme and at that point may as well work a full time job. Workdays I dont schedule to work I usually check my email from my laptop once in the evening and then call it a day.