Broke by 62, YES

[Astro Camper]

Hi guys, My first post here.

I've been reading this forum for over a year. One thing I noticed is that many of you are looking to retire in 50s, even late 50s with huge amount a money that you will leave behind when dead. Everybody fallows the same 4% rule so the money lasts forever just because Mr MMM says so. Most of you already are living frugally and have enough put away for the next 20 years, so why are you still working? Let me explain.

My wife retired 3 years ago at age 36 and I'm retiring next June at 41. But unlike many of you who plan to draw 4% till death, we will be broke by age 62.

My wife worked as Hospice nurse for 14 years and has a different view on things. Slowly I came to realize the same thing after hearing and seeing hundred of her patients and watching my own family. The people with more money on their death bed were much, much worse off than those that lived on SS and were leaving nothing behind. The family drama over money, the anger over Hospice costs, nursing cost. Patients who are in pain but refuse pain treatments in fear of the bill or leaving less for kids, or feeling guilty in front of their kids. End of the life care insurance fights and on and on and on. Even on their death beds, many still obsess about money.

The patients who are broke with no assets have the least amount of problems. The family is there because they want to. There is no money to fight over. All costs are paid by Medicare or Medicaid. The patients actually receive better care because no Insurance company is involved dictating what will be covered and what wont. And this is just a Hospice part.

Just looking at our large family (mom has 8 siblings), some have money, others none. The aunts and uncles that live strictly on SS live just as comfortable as those with money. Sure they can't travel or go out eat but they did most of that when they were younger and healthier (reason they are broke now). But because they have 0 left, they worry about nothing. Their healthcare is fully covered, free glasses, free dentures, free nurse assistance. Where my Las Vegas uncle who has the most money is always running around to doctors (almost like a hobby). He has 20 different health conditions (self diagnosed) and is obsessed with living forever. My Chicago aunt who also has money is the same way. All those two trade is supplements websites and insurance quotes. Arthritis runs deep in my family and it breaks my heart watching those that worked till mid 60s to spend it all on healthcare. Their entire life revolves around doctors, hospitals, dentists, physical therapies and drugs and they have to pay for it all.

If I compare my aunt that is broke, living on SS, gets everything for free, who quit working in her 30s and hit the road for 11 years. Traveled all over Asia and Europe. I see her as a winner.  Now with 2 hip and 1 knee replacements  she sits in front of TV just like the rich uncle but has no worries and is glad she did all these things when she was healthy.

So why worry about having 600K in 401K at age 62????

My wife and I saved just over 500K, most in 401K. We always lived frugally (old cars, small house) and plan on keep living that way except on the road.  Bought 1999 truck I'm restoring to tow small trailer I plan on buying. We should live very comfortably bouncing around RV parks and some boondocking. Then in between spend some time in Asia and South America. If I budget everything right, by the time we reach 62, we will be broke. Starting with 20K per year, ending with 30K in 2036. Already talked to SS office. Actually we were very surprised how much we will be getting at 62 with this scenario.

[Lordy]

This scenario assumes that the SS rules in 20 years will be the same they are today.
I would not bet a dime on that, let alone my well-being.

[partgypsy]

Hmm, you and your wife have had different experiences with people who have no financial resources at the end of life. I personally wouldn't want to be in a situation of having no financial resources at age 62.

I'm glad you actually talked to someone at social security office; the calculations on the website and what they mail you are based on the assumption whatever is the last amount made, earning roughly the same amount yearly, until retirement. The calculations are off for people who retire early, and even those who work until full retirement age the benefits are not large. And the traditional retirement age is 66 or 67, so you will be getting less if start drawing at age 62 if that's what you plan to do. For example my father worked his entire life, a number of years making a good income, and continued to work until old age and delayed withdrawal until age 70. He receives 1400 a month so I anticipate you retiring early and drawing at 62 would be less.

[Astro Camper]

SS will still be there. They may raise the age by couple years, which we would adjust our budget to it.

I just don't understand people saying SS wont be there. So you will have 120 million seniors (by 1036) on the street living in a box starving to death. No chance.

I bet my freedom during my young healthy years on it.

[BarkyardBQ]

Living longer and needing long term care, good luck with that.
Depending on poverty prevention (social security) doesn't sound like a satisfactory lifestyle.
I've seen plenty of patients with and without money who's family abandon them because their relationships were terrible. That's about the relationship, not the money.
Building this scenario for yourself because you can't teach your kids/family proper money habits to keep them from being greedy sounds kinda silly.
You're basic mentality is that money creates problems. Well, if you don't know how to handle it, any tool can kick back and hurt you.

Why does your family need to know you have money at all?
You can donate it to charity upon your death. If anyone ever questions you about inheritance or handouts, tell them to earn their own, and when you die your leftovers go to charity.

Read the Millionaire Next Door.

[ditheca]

Many of the people in this community value integrity and self-reliance.  While calculating how to live off the hard work of others is a clever as a thought experiment, it doesn't meet the needs of those of us who feel the responsibility to provide for our families and set a good example for our children.

[MrMoogle]

Well, I haven't worked 10 years, so I'm not yet eligible for SS benefits at 62.  So, I'd literally be broke, not broke w/ SS. 

Also, most of my relatives in my grandparent's generation lived very well until their 80s, and it was only then when their health started to go.  I plan to stay active until then. 

Also, 32 years is a long time, things will change, I want to be prepared for changes.

[jim555]

Remember Social Security is based on the highest 35 years of work.  Each year less than 35 is a zero to your average. 
I think you should carefully research what the exact amount you will be getting.  Get your Social Security statement and work up your yearly amounts.

My age 62 amount will be around $1400, and I worked 31 years.

[Matumba]

I'm following this topic.  While I believe 62 may be too early,   I agree with the general premise. 

I would adjust the age to 65 or even 67.

[TheOldestYoungMan]

I think it's fine to be aware of the assistance that is out there, but relying on a benefit from an insurance product (it's called social security insurance) is morally wrong.  It is why insurance is often discussed when the topic of moral hazards comes up.  If you knowingly fail to prevent something bad from happening (in this case, poverty upon no longer being able to work) because you have insurance, you have defrauded your insurance company.

And to beav700, it isn't that social security won't be there, it's that the benefit will be reduced.  The official prediction afaik is that it ought to be ~70% of what it is now (adjusted for inflation) for folks retiring in 20-40 years.  So not nothing, but not as good as it is currently.

There's elements of the OP's post that touch on things folks should be aware of.  Means testing for long term care under medicare can wipe out huge portions of savings.  My grandma spent her last few years in a long term care facility, so when my grandpa died Medicare got his house, not us.  A million dollars worth of care was worth the trade, but it's a thing I certainly knew nothing about.

But for the MMM crowd, what he's done, saving up 500k and planning to live frugally, towing his own travel trailer, well, I mean, if I had 500k now I'd be done, my number with safe withdrawal is like 300k so I'm not sure he's proposing something all that different from us.  He's just coming at it a little wonky and from a weird entitled place.

[Money Mouse]

My grandmother had assets of about a half million when she passed, none of what you stated was true in her case. Her care at the nursing home was fine for the six weeks or so that she was there (she essentially died of old age at 93), surrounded by loving family, with no fights at all over money or personal possessions. My uncle was executor, he paid the final expenses, sold the condo, and cut checks of what was left to the heirs. No one made a peep about anything. 

My father will likely need assisted living and/or nursing home care before the end, we're trying to get him some in-home care set up now as a matter of fact since he needs a bit of help around the house. Assets of 3/4 of a mil (that I'm aware of, could be higher) and my brothers and I are in complete agreement regarding his care. Any estate left after his passing is dictated by the family trust - fighting over it would be a waste of time even if I or my brothers were inclined to, which we are not. We want the best care for him, even if it means we get little or nothing after he passes.

Now that's not to say fights over estates don't happen, they do and it's beyond tragic. But I wouldn't make my plans based on assuming my child and grandchildren are going to be fighting over my bed in the nursing home either.

[Astro Camper]

I spent some time in a Hospice visiting my wife at work. Best thing any MMM can do. Really opens your eyes. You can also volunteer.

Sure we are taking a gamble. I'm quitting at the top of my career with nice salary. But I'm completely burned out. All I dream about is traveling, fishing, riding my bike, hiking, stargazing, painting. Too many hobbies to work 40hrs. I don't care if I have to live on rice and beans when I'm 60. I will travel the world 20 times by then.

[MudDuck]

Many of the people in this community value integrity and self-reliance.  While calculating how to live off the hard work of others is a clever as a thought experiment, it doesn't meet the needs of those of us who feel the responsibility to provide for our families and set a good example for our children.

::Drops mic.::

[jim555]

Astro Camp,

Are you sure the estimate you got from SS is accurate?  I know when they do estimates they assume the person works until FRA.
Just want to make sure, considering how important the number is.

[Telecaster]

Now that's not to say fights over estates don't happen, they do and it's beyond tragic. But I wouldn't make my plans based on assuming my child and grandchildren are going to be fighting over my bed in the nursing home either.

Fighting over the assets sounds like the children's and grandchildren's problem.   

[Astro Camper]

Yes, I'm sure about the numbers. It was based on my wife already not working and me stopping in June. I thought they would drop us to minimum but because I maxed out SS payments for the last 11 years, I will still receive $1200 in today's dollars. Wife will get $700

[Josiecat]

When I was growing up I saw first hand older relatives living in complete poverty.  It impacted me deeply.  I don't want to end up like that.  I want choices and be able to do the things I want to do when I want to do them.

[StetsTerhune]

Many of the people in this community value integrity and self-reliance.  While calculating how to live off the hard work of others is a clever as a thought experiment, it doesn't meet the needs of those of us who feel the responsibility to provide for our families and set a good example for our children.

::Drops mic.::

I don't want to re-hash this philosophical argument that's been had many times on this forum. I've come to accept that reasonable minds may differ on this one. But since there's been a lot of negative feedback, I do want to say to the OP that I see absolutely nothing wrong with planning on living on SS/medicaid in your old age. None of us are self-reliant, we all rely on government services every day. I also do not see incorporating benefits you are legally entitled to into your plans as lacking "integrity."

I'm not sure I'd plan on being as extreme as the OP, but I have often thought about incorporating a very cheap old age into my plans. My grandparents in their final years lived very simple lives due to their physical limitations. I don't think more or less money made much of a difference to their happiness at that point. Money opens up options for me now, but there will come a time when options will be limited by my age and not my money.

[boarder42]

well i'll have over 2.5MM in today's dollars by the time i reach your burnt out level of 41 so I think i'll be fining waiting on the 4% rule and retiring at 36

i mean you're walking a really slippery slope for a long time.  i'll just work 2 extra years and not care b/c the difference between 4% and what you're talking about as you get younger and younger is not very large.

[AZDude]

The thing I wonder about is why you dont pick up some part-time work over the next X years. Living so frugally and having a good amount of savings, it would be trivial to supplement your income to last into your 80s.

Also, its called a will. Leave all your money to a charity if you hate your children.

*fixed typo*

[AZDude]

well i'll have over 2.5MM in today's dollars by the time i reach your burnt out level of 41 so I think i'll be fining waiting on the 4% rule and retiring at 36

i mean you're walking a really slippery slope for a long time.  i'll just work 2 extra years and not care b/c the difference between 4% and what you're talking about as you get younger and younger is not very large.

Its not a contest.

[UnleashHell]

you have over 500k saved.
spending 25k a year for 20 years will see you out of money.

but only if your stache doesn't increase at all.

Looks like you haven't done any math on this. Either you aren't thinking this through at all or you are trolling.


your call.

[Eric222]

...
My wife and I saved just over 500K, most in 401K. We always lived frugally (old cars, small house) and plan on keep living that way except on the road.  Bought 1999 truck I'm restoring to tow small trailer I plan on buying. We should live very comfortably bouncing around RV parks and some boondocking. Then in between spend some time in Asia and South America. If I budget everything right, by the time we reach 62, we will be broke. Starting with 20K per year, ending with 30K in 2036. Already talked to SS office. Actually we were very surprised how much we will be getting at 62 with this scenario.

62 seems awfully specific, especially budgeting that far out (20 years, if I read correctly).  Stocks go up, stocks go down.  Interest rates climb, interest rates drop.  Inflation may not stay below 2% forever.  Do you have any safety margin if your budget isn't just right?  It isn't like you can carry the money in a trunk in your RV and know how much it will buy in 2030. 

[Astro Camper]

well i'll have over 2.5MM in today's dollars by the time i reach your burnt out level of 41 so I think i'll be fining waiting on the 4% rule and retiring at 36

i mean you're walking a really slippery slope for a long time.  i'll just work 2 extra years and not care b/c the difference between 4% and what you're talking about as you get younger and younger is not very large.

One more year, one more year. I have many co-workers doing just that with over 1mil in 401K. Never enough.

And if you reach 2.5mm by 41, wow good for you. Unfortunately we woke up 8 years ago and started to pile the money away. If i only kept 401k from my first job. If only.

Again, I'm trading my freedom in good healthy years and suffering later for it. Don't much care when my hips and knees are shot what place will I live in.

[elaine amj]

For what it's worth, I don't think you're too far off base.

I factored all the extra govt money I will be entitled to in our old age into my retirement calculations too. Also helps that we live in Canada, with a pretty generous social safety net.

While we will work an extra couple of years as a safety margin(DH doesn't like taking on too much risk), I don't intend to have a massive amount of money laying around when I am 70. I have watched my husband's father, mother, and grandmother all live well within the income they get from the government (and none of them had much of a pension saved). My mother in law just moved into a nursing home which is geared to income. They are taking the bulk of the monthly income my MIL gets but the $200 or so a month in spending money really is more than sufficient. She has nothing much to spend that money on - she has to buy a wheelchair, pay for diabetic pedicures, and spend on gifts for the rest of us. The nursing home provides all her necessities.

[Astro Camper]

62 seems awfully specific, especially budgeting that far out (20 years, if I read correctly).  Stocks go up, stocks go down.  Interest rates climb, interest rates drop.  Inflation may not stay below 2% forever.  Do you have any safety margin if your budget isn't just right?  It isn't like you can carry the money in a trunk in your RV and know how much it will buy in 2030.

My wife is a nurse and I am an engineer. Plus I'm good with cars. Been restoring and building cars since I was 16. We can always find work. Even for cash on the side.

I always look at the best and worse scenario. Best, we travel next 21 years and enjoy our hobbies. Worse, we go back to work for couple years.

[Josiecat]

You have a dream to travel.  With your budget, you'll be staying at hostels and backpacking instead of staying in nice hotels.  I'll pass.

[Moostache]

Ultimately I cannot fathom why anyone with means would actually choose to design a lifestyle where they are dependent on government benevolence.  That's absolutely a no-go option for me.  I don't want to be dependent on anyone to survive later in life.

As far as being broke at 62 goes... Why on earth would you pick that low an age.  My parents are currently in their 80s and enjoying life as much as their health allows them to.  Would you really want to live for 20 to 30 years with nothing to live on but government handouts?

[Daisy]

Interesting perspective, OP.

Looking at my older relatives, the ones with the least amount of money seem to have the best health. My parents, on the higher income level than their siblings, seem to have worse health and spend most of their days at doctors, talk about doctors, always obsessed with getting more tests done.

Meanwhile my mom's  oldest sister just turned 90, had an active lower paid job at a hospital, came to the US in her late 30s, didn't learn to drive until her late 50s. She always stayed active (from working and raising children and grandchildren, cooked for the whole family), never owned much. Well we just celebrated her 90th birthday and she was dancing and drinking while her more well off and younger siblings couldn't.

I also think that after 70 any surplus money I have for travel and stuff would just be an extra blessing. I'd rather enjoy my 50s and 60s and have great stories to tell when I am older and less likely to have the energy to travel and stuff.

I probably wouldn't want to spend a ton of money in my 80s to extend my life. I accept my mortality.

[Fishindude]

Many of the people in this community value integrity and self-reliance.  While calculating how to live off the hard work of others is a clever as a thought experiment, it doesn't meet the needs of those of us who feel the responsibility to provide for our families and set a good example for our children.

This !

[boarder42]

You have a dream to travel.  With your budget, you'll be staying at hostels and backpacking instead of staying in nice hotels.  I'll pass.

Than you are not a traveler. You are a tourist. This is my wife and I travelling. 30,000 miles over 7 trips across the country. In a van.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhYWip1JrDU

if thats your goal why not sell the home upgrade to a class C and pull a fuel efficient car and slowly travel the country.  If you want to go to another continent ... sell it off and purchase something over three.

[Astro Camper]

Many of the people in this community value integrity and self-reliance.  While calculating how to live off the hard work of others is a clever as a thought experiment, it doesn't meet the needs of those of us who feel the responsibility to provide for our families and set a good example for our children.

This !

I have no guilt at all being on SS starting at 62. I paid into it since my Subway job at 16. I paid just over 160K in SS taxes and my employer paid another 160k. (Just SS, not including Medicare, federal, state)My wife paid her share. They way I look at it, if that money was ours and invested in SP500, I would be a multi millionaire by 62. This was not my choice. I was forced to it just like everyone else.

[Kaspian]

Retire at 36 with $500K and die broke because other people will squabble over my money and I'll just be watching TV all day waiting to die is not my plan.  Thanks for the suggestion though--have fun with that!

[Astro Camper]

if thats your goal why not sell the home upgrade to a class C and pull a fuel efficient car and slowly travel the country.  If you want to go to another continent ... sell it off and purchase something over three.

That is exactly what we are planning to do. Except truck and trailer combo vs motorhome. More flexibility with a truck and trailer. We have many hobbies that we need this setup for.

250cc Motorcycle (our main transportation), kayaks with gear, bicycles, astronomy gear,tools,  4X4 with lockers to get way out there).

Motorhome? Maybe for old years

[Astro Camper]

By the way, we have no kids and no one to leave anything to. My nieces and nephews are all spoiled rotten as far as I'm concerned. They are as far away from MM life style as one can be.

[AnEDO]

There can definitely be negative issues associated with having a lot of money.  As a previous poster said, why should anyone need to know you have it?  Wealth enables freedom and options in life.  How can you know that there won't be something in your life that you would like to accomplish/experience/give to when you turn 62 that SS payments alone are not enough for?   

[desk_jockey]

It seems your decisions are being driven by the experiences of a sample size too narrowly collected.  The ugly issues that you describe in the last months of life in a hospice or nursing home only occur with a fraction of people.  I would venture to say it’s a small minority.  There are people with Alzheimer’s  who don’t notice their surroundings, people who die in their sleep at home, and some even that go with heart attacks while making love.

It is one thing to you make the decision to retire earlier to avoid OMY and enjoy life while recognizing that you have a higher chance of being broke in your 60s.   It’s another thing to plan to be broke and rely on social security for fear of what happens in a hospice.

If your decision is driven by the hospice fear, then I’d suggest there are better solutions.   Write a will long before you would need end-of-life care that clearly and fairly disposes of your assets, and then communicate that will to those affected long in advance.    Write a living will and establish a medical power of attorney if you worry that you’ll be too cheap to take pain killers. 

[Matumba]

I already mentioned above that i agree with OP's general idea and thought process, but what concerns me is the rise of "dependency ratio" due to baby boomers retiring and people not having as many kids as they used to. Dependency ratio = retired people/working people who support them. I can't remember the exact numbers off the top of my head, you can google them if interested, this ratio is expected to go up a few times over then next decades.

What does it mean to somebody who expects to rely on the government when they are old?

-While Social Security will not disappear, it is likely to be cut and/or means tested, e.g. the Government adds 2-3 years to the current eligibility age and possibly cuts the benefit amount. This is already happening in some countries, particularly in Europe.

-If you are planning to rely on public housing, such as Section 8, it may not be there for you or you may have to wait much longer for an opening. Even now, it is not available for new applicants in many states and cities. This situation is only likely to get worse.

-If you are planning to spend last years at a senior home or a hospice paid for by Medicaid, again, it may not be available or you may have to wait much longer and then stay in a shelter-like room with 10 people instead of having just one roommate as per current standards (as far as i know them, correct me if I'm wrong).

-Finally here is a not so politically correct observation. Who do you think will be sharing this publicly funded senior accommodation with you? The demographic profile of current low income retirees is very different from those who will retire even a couple of decades from now. While I'm not making any statements as to whether it's a good or a bad thing, look around at the lowest income people from your generation. The worst trouble makers among them will probably not reach the retirement age, but the rest will be competing for government resources against you and most likely sharing senior housing with you.

Please feel free to provide counter arguments. I'd like to know if I am wrong, because I am in a similar situation as you and also share similar ideas and values.

[Astro Camper]

We are not doing this because what we have seen at Hospice with money drama. We are doing this because we see our family and other older folks in their homes doing nothing worth living. Watching TV and running to doctors. I know so many of you telling me how your folks in their 80s heaving the the time of their lives. I just don't see it in my large family. What I see is sad.

I rather live free now and fish and hike and bike till I can't. I simply feel pity for those that are retiring at 62 or even at 55.

There are hundreds of people in their 30s and 40s living in RV full time enjoying life and being free by living frugally. Living on 500-600/month.

Please don't waste best years of your life waiting for magic 4% redraw rate because MM told you so.

Out of all the people, I figured you guys would better understand this concept but instead I feel like I'm talking to my rich uncle who worked till 67.

[partgypsy]

Many of the people in this community value integrity and self-reliance.  While calculating how to live off the hard work of others is a clever as a thought experiment, it doesn't meet the needs of those of us who feel the responsibility to provide for our families and set a good example for our children.

This !

I have no guilt at all being on SS starting at 62. I paid into it since my Subway job at 16. I paid just over 160K in SS taxes and my employer paid another 160k. (Just SS, not including Medicare, federal, state)My wife paid her share. They way I look at it, if that money was ours and invested in SP500, I would be a multi millionaire by 62. This was not my choice. I was forced to it just like everyone else.

Well good for you. I'm 48 had jobs also since HS and I've only contributed 45K towards SS(about 7 years no SSA income due to college and post doc). You must have been towards the top of cut off in maximum charged salary (estimate average of 107K) every single year you worked in order to pay that amount in, unless you were self-employed. 


So you are planning as a couple living off of 22800 a year? Is that what your current household budget is? Because it sounds like you have had a high income up until now.

[dude]

Many of the people in this community value integrity and self-reliance.  While calculating how to live off the hard work of others is a clever as a thought experiment, it doesn't meet the needs of those of us who feel the responsibility to provide for our families and set a good example for our children.

::Drops mic.::

I don't want to re-hash this philosophical argument that's been had many times on this forum. I've come to accept that reasonable minds may differ on this one. But since there's been a lot of negative feedback, I do want to say to the OP that I see absolutely nothing wrong with planning on living on SS/medicaid in your old age. None of us are self-reliant, we all rely on government services every day. I also do not see incorporating benefits you are legally entitled to into your plans as lacking "integrity."

I'm not sure I'd plan on being as extreme as the OP, but I have often thought about incorporating a very cheap old age into my plans. My grandparents in their final years lived very simple lives due to their physical limitations. I don't think more or less money made much of a difference to their happiness at that point. Money opens up options for me now, but there will come a time when options will be limited by my age and not my money.

yeah, not sure I see the problem with living on the benefit one paid for and has been promised.  Relying on Social Security in one's financial planning is totally sound, provided one discounts the full benefit to 77% based on the actuarial numbers.

[Kaspian]

The couple in the middle of this photograph are my friends, H & L.  They live in Canada and every year I meet them (with a group) somewhere in Europe to hang out for a week.  This year it was Belgium.  They've travelled lots over the years (pre and post-retirement) and are now well over the age of 62 (probably past 70).  If you asked them, I'm 100% sure they'll tell you they're glad they're not broke sitting at home on assistance instead of eating Belgian waffles overseas.

[boarder42]

We are not doing this because what we have seen at Hospice with money drama. We are doing this because we see our family and other older folks in their homes doing nothing worth living. Watching TV and running to doctors. I know so many of you telling me how your folks in their 80s heaving the the time of their lives. I just don't see it in my large family. What I see is sad.

I rather live free now and fish and hike and bike till I can't. I simply feel pity for those that are retiring at 62 or even at 55.

There are hundreds of people in their 30s and 40s living in RV full time enjoying life and being free by living frugally. Living on 500-600/month.

Please don't waste best years of your life waiting for magic 4% redraw rate because MM told you so.

Out of all the people, I figured you guys would better understand this concept but instead I feel like I'm talking to my rich uncle who worked till 67.

props to you for going out on the limb .. .in stark contrast to those that keep OMY'ing it.  your new lifestyle has fun.. .you should start a jounral or blog about your journeys.

[Rollin]

I get your point about living for today, but have to disagree on how you place everyone into two distinct groups.  I feel it is somewhere in-between, but everyone is different.  I'll have enough next year to living comfortably for the rest of my life and leave all the principal to the kids.  That is simply my conservative planning, but if something comes up I sure as heck will start to dig into the savings - so long as I don't run out of $$.  If the kids end up with $$ then so be it (but if they do I might have miscalculated :).

I also want to add that i know a lot of older people who have to count every penny and others who do what they want and I don't see them the same way as you do.

[Astro Camper]

Well good for you. I'm 48 had jobs also since HS and I've only contributed 45K towards SS(about 7 years no SSA income due to college and post doc). You must have been towards the top of cut off in maximum charged salary (estimate average of 107K) every single year you worked in order to pay that amount in, unless you were self-employed. 


So you are planning as a couple living off of 22800 a year? Is that what your current household budget is? Because it sounds like you have had a high income up until now.

Yes, as I stated before, for the past 11 years I maxed SS taxes. An yes we live very frugally, way under 28,000. It wasn't always the case. Use to blow money like crazy. Living Downtown Chicago on 40th floor with swimming pool on the roof with valet parking. How stupid.

And yes, I do know how to calculate withdraw rate. Sure If I get 5 or 7% return, we will still have 400k at 62 but we count on zero and we are fine with that. I get 3.55% fixed guarantee from Mass Mutual so I know there will be some extra money but the inflation can go crazy too so I count 0 at 62. Plus I can loose a lot in stock market, tho we do not plan on putting more than 30% of money into stocks. Mass Mutual always had the best fixed rates (around 4.5% long term) so we should be fine.

[Cookie78]

Very thankful my family is not like your family. However, with the exception of my mother I have zero idea about the net worth of my family members. It is none of my business and it makes no difference. As a whole we all get along with everyone and there have never been any money disputes. So my plan is different than yours. I'd prefer to have enough to support myself and use any social security as a safety net. I may need it since I'm planning on FIREing a little earlier than most would, but I certainly am not planning to depend on it. I want to enjoy my life now, but I also want to enjoy my elder years.

You have a dream to travel.  With your budget, you'll be staying at hostels and backpacking instead of staying in nice hotels.  I'll pass.

Than you are not a traveler. You are a tourist. This is my wife and I travelling. 30,000 miles over 7 trips across the country. In a van.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhYWip1JrDU

I agree completely about your traveler vs tourist thoughts. Cheap travel of all sorts is far more fun to me than 'nice hotels'.

But PLEASE stop shaking the camera. I couldn't even get past the first few seconds of that video.

if thats your goal why not sell the home upgrade to a class C and pull a fuel efficient car and slowly travel the country.  If you want to go to another continent ... sell it off and purchase something over three.

That is exactly what we are planning to do. Except truck and trailer combo vs motorhome. More flexibility with a truck and trailer. We have many hobbies that we need this setup for.

250cc Motorcycle (our main transportation), kayaks with gear, bicycles, astronomy gear,tools,  4X4 with lockers to get way out there).

Motorhome? Maybe for old years

No kidding. I want to start with just a campervan, for panamerican a landcruiser with rooftop tent, and possibly a truck/trailer at some point, but I have ABSOLUTELY ZERO desire to haul around a bigass clumsy gas guzzling motorhome that is restricted to pavement and well maintained gravel roads. Barf.

 

[Rollin]

Ultimately I cannot fathom why anyone with means would actually choose to design a lifestyle where they are dependent on government benevolence.  That's absolutely a no-go option for me.  I don't want to be dependent on anyone to survive later in life.

As far as being broke at 62 goes... Why on earth would you pick that low an age.  My parents are currently in their 80s and enjoying life as much as their health allows them to.  Would you really want to live for 20 to 30 years with nothing to live on but government handouts?

Very good point.  I know people that are 62 and run circles around the 40 and 50 somethings I also hang out with.

[Rollin]

We are not doing this because what we have seen at Hospice with money drama. We are doing this because we see our family and other older folks in their homes doing nothing worth living. Watching TV and running to doctors. I know so many of you telling me how your folks in their 80s heaving the the time of their lives. I just don't see it in my large family. What I see is sad.

I rather live free now and fish and hike and bike till I can't. I simply feel pity for those that are retiring at 62 or even at 55.

There are hundreds of people in their 30s and 40s living in RV full time enjoying life and being free by living frugally. Living on 500-600/month.

Please don't waste best years of your life waiting for magic 4% redraw rate because MM told you so.

Out of all the people, I figured you guys would better understand this concept but instead I feel like I'm talking to my rich uncle who worked till 67.

Glad I'm going to FIRE at 54!

Oh, and BTW - I agree with your philosophy for living now, and I also suspect that you will do fine financially (and know that) when you are 62.

[Kaspian]

No kidding. I want to start with just a campervan, for panamerican a landcruiser with rooftop tent, and possibly a truck/trailer at some point, but I have ABSOLUTELY ZERO desire to haul around a bigass clumsy gas guzzling motorhome that is restricted to pavement and well maintained gravel roads. Barf.

My plan as well.  Smallest used Airstream I can get with smallest car capable of tugging it up hills.  This will be my dream home for two years.

[Fishindude]

I have no guilt at all being on SS starting at 62. I paid into it since my Subway job at 16. I paid just over 160K in SS taxes and my employer paid another 160k. (Just SS, not including Medicare, federal, state)My wife paid her share. They way I look at it, if that money was ours and invested in SP500, I would be a multi millionaire by 62. This was not my choice. I was forced to it just like everyone else.

I have no problem with someone taking their social security soon as possible.

Broke at 62 to me means BROKE.   Social security isn't likely enough to keep a roof over your head, feed and take care of your health.   That likely means you will be living in government provided housing, using government paid for healthcare, etc. for the last 20+ years of your life.   
This is a conscious choice you are making, not much different than a whole lot of other freeloading welfare recipients.