Does anyone actually retire in this profession?

[oldstock]

When are you going to get it? Pharmacists


The fallacy of this statement is that you are assuming you can only retire when the S&P is at its peak. If you have been working as a pharmacist and have been making good money, you can't retire when the S&P is 5% below its peak?

If you are comfortable with retiring in 2007 when the S&P is at 1550, you can certainly retire today when the S&P is 1930 because:

(1) Inflation is only 2-3% per year so 1930 in 2014 is still better than 1550 in 2007
(2) Since you have been working the last 7 years, you should have more retirment money today than in 2007.
(3) For obvious reason, you wouldnt need as much retirement money if you are retiring today rather than 2007.

If a person does not know how and can't time the market, how would he/she know when the market is near top or at top ?? hmmmmm....

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[DocJL]

Better yet, former Army 11B here, then after college and dental school, Navy dental officer, 3 years with the Marines.

Just means I don't have to ask you "why was the marine staring at the can of orange juice?" Because it said, "concentrate".

Let me give you a Hooo-aaaaaaah! shout out instead.

Thanks for the compliment, I wish I could have actually done something useful.

Side note, thanks for calling me a marine haha, I was army. I wish sometimes I had been a marine instead, but they didn't have a medic position. To be a medic in the marines you have to join the navy as a medic and be assigned to a marine core unit. I just couldn't see myself being enlisted navy... I come from an Army and Air Force family.

 

[anewmanx]

Better yet, former Army 11B here, then after college and dental school, Navy dental officer, 3 years with the Marines.

Just means I don't have to ask you "why was the marine staring at the can of orange juice?" Because it said, "concentrate".

Let me give you a Hooo-aaaaaaah! shout out instead.

Hooah, I appreciate both your services! Nice to see more mustangs working their way through the ****.

I can't tell you how many times I've thought about trying to get my PDRL revoked now that my arm is... well, more functional, and get my RE code changed so I could go back as an officer in one of the health careers. The adjustment disorder could be cleared, no meds in three years. I could get the ankle repaired. Sleep apnea wouldn't bar me.

The biggest thing that keeps me from doing it is the unknown. If I knew I had enough heavy hitters pulling for waivers I'd jump at it, but in the meantime I don't want to mess up a good thing. At least not until I have my education under my belt. Glad you were able to serve as an officer!

 

[DocJL]

Do NOT. I repeat DO NOT risk messing up your disability rating. You will appreciate that steady income stream, especially later in life.

And being an O3 dental officer wasn't much better than being an E3, lol. Since docs start at O3 you are pretty much the bottom of the barrel, and the politics involved with being an officer really weren't to my liking. I got out with over a decade of active duty. Having what would have been an O5 retirement would be nice (speaking of never being able to retire, lol), but I have no regrets about getting out when I did.

 

[anewmanx]

Do NOT. I repeat DO NOT risk messing up your disability rating. You will appreciate that steady income stream, especially later in life.

And being an O3 dental officer wasn't much better than being an E3, lol. Since docs start at O3 you are pretty much the bottom of the barrel, and the politics involved with being an officer really weren't to my liking. I got out with over a decade of active duty. Having what would have been an O5 retirement would be nice (speaking of never being able to retire, lol), but I have no regrets about getting out when I did.

Yeah, that's what always keeps me leaving the matrix. VA Comp is awesome, and the tricare for life I get is a great benefit for my family. I just can't justify risking it.

 

[xiphoid2010]

When are you going to get it? Pharmacists


The fallacy of this statement is that you are assuming you can only retire when the S&P is at its peak. If you have been working as a pharmacist and have been making good money, you can't retire when the S&P is 5% below its peak?

If you are comfortable with retiring in 2007 when the S&P is at 1550, you can certainly retire today when the S&P is 1930 because:

(1) Inflation is only 2-3% per year so 1930 in 2014 is still better than 1550 in 2007
(2) Since you have been working the last 7 years, you should have more retirment money today than in 2007.
(3) For obvious reason, you wouldnt need as much retirement money if you are retiring today rather than 2007.

When are you going to get it? To get to the 2008, you had to go through the 2000 crash, and before you can recover from that one you are hit with the 2008 crash. So over the last 14 years, you have 0% gain after inflation (it's actually negative after inflation and expense ratio). So the only real increase on the account came from the $17.5K/yr you are putting in. For people whose portfolio that tracked S&P500, their retirement got pushed back 6 years.

Run a calculation: if you were investing $17.5K a year, at 7% for 35 years. How much would you have at retirement? ($2.5 mil) Now, run $17.5K a year x 21 years at 7%, then 0% for 14 years, only add another $17.5K/yr x 14 yrs during this time. How much do you have at year 35? ($1.06 mil) How much you are short by? ($1.4 mil) If start at year 36, we add 7%/yr on the $1.06 mil return + $17.5K/yr contribution, how many more years before it reach the original $2.5 mil? (11 years). Granted that more years you work, the less you need to save for retirement, so you don't need to work 11 years more, but damn!

 

[BMBiology]

Run a calculation: if you were investing $17.5K a year, at 7% for 35 years. How much would you have at retirement? ($2.5 mil) Now, run $17.5K a year x 21 years at 7%, then 0% for 14 years, only add another $17.5K/yr x 14 yrs during this time. How much do you have at year 35? ($1.06 mil) How much you are short by? ($1.4 mil) If start at year 36, we add 7%/yr on the $1.06 mil return + $17.5K/yr contribution, how many more years before it reach the original $2.5 mil? (11 years). Granted that more years you work, the less you need to save for retirement, but damn!

When are you going to stop making false assumption? The stock market didn't stay constant during those 14 years. Rate of return wasn't zero! It went well below its peak. It went negative. For example, it went down 50% from its 2007 peak by 2009. If you had kept on buying during those 14 years even when the market was up, you would have made a killing by now!

Your model doesn't make any sense. If you are 65 in 2007 and if you had kept on working until 2014 (now you are 72 year old):

(1) you would have made 125,000 x 7 = $875,000 in salary or $650,000 after taxes (assuming 25% tax).
(2) you would get more from social security since you are delaying retirement until you are 72

So even if your 401 k is only worth $1,060,000 (by your flaw model), you would have $1,060,000 + $650,000 = $1,710,000. You mean to tell me you would not retire at age 72 when you already have $1,710,000 plus monthly social security? How many more years are you planning to live?

 

[xiphoid2010]

Dang those Chinese are smart. They put all their money into their businesses or in gold or even under their mattresses and do not even bother playing with safe things like mutual or index funds.... lol

Well, the typical Chinese retirement fund is something called son/daughter. Thank God my parents don't need that from me, but if I had been an average red-neck chinese kid grew up on a farm... yikes.

 

[xiphoid2010]

When are you going to stop making false assumption? The stock market didn't stay constant during those 14 years. Rate of return wasn't zero! It went well below its peak. It went negative. For example, it went down 50% from its 2007 peak by 2009. If you had kept on buying during those 14 years even when the market was up, you would have made a killing by now!

Your model doesn't make any sense. If you are 65 in 2007 and if you had kept on working until 2014 (72 year old now)

(1) you would have made 125,000 x 7 = $875,000 in salary or $650,000 after taxes (assuming 25% tax).
(2) you would get more from social security so you are delaying retirement until you are 72

So even if your 401 k is only worth $1,060,000 (by your flaw model), you would have $1,060,000 + $650,000 = $1,710,000. You mean to tell me you would not retire at age 72 when you already have $1,710,000 plus monthly social security? How many more years are you planning to life?

False assumptions on stock return? Here's a link:

http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/commentaries/SPX-Dow-Nasdaq-Since-Their-2000-Highs.php

I quote: on price, the return on S&P500 adjusted for inflation from 2000-2014 is negative 6.8%. With dividends (but not counting tax), it's 1.39%/yr. False assumptions? I think not.

As to your (1) and (2). Correct, that's why I'm only estimating the retirement is pushed by ~6 years instead of the 11 years by raw computation. That's why those who were going to retire in 2008 is just starting to retire now, and those in 2009, 2010, 2011 are still working. I roughly factored those in for ya already.

P.S your (1) is off. I already factor in $17.5K/yr saving, and with federal income, FICA, state, sales, property tax, increased cost of going to work... most people are lucky to have 50% of gross pay to spend. Besides, it's not strictly a question of whether you have enough, but whether you have the amount you want to retire. Some people can settle for 70% of pre-retirement income, others want 100%.

 

[BMBiology]

False assumptions on stock return? Here's a link:

http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/commentaries/SPX-Dow-Nasdaq-Since-Their-2000-Highs.php

I quote: on price, the return on S&P500 adjusted for inflation from 2000-2014 is negative 6.8%. With dividends (but not counting tax), it's 1.39%/yr. False assumptions? I think not.

BUT, what if you had kept on buying during the bear years? what if you had bought in 2009? then your return rate would have been more than 150%! This is why your model is flaw. You keep on assuming the rate of return is zero but obviously, it is not if you had kept on buying during the bear market years. Look at the graph below:

https://www.google.com/finance?cid=626307

You get what I am trying to tell you?

 

[xiphoid2010]

BUT, what if you had kept on buying during the bear years? what if you had bought in 2009? then your return rate would have been more than 150%! Look at the graph below:

https://www.google.com/finance?cid=626307

You get what I am trying to tell you?

So you bough $17.5K in 2009. You think that makes up much of a dent on a $1.4 mil short fall? LOL.

So even if $17.5K grows 200%, and you now have $35K.... wow, that solves everything.

 

[BMBiology]

P.S your (1) is off. I already factor in $17.5K/yr saving, and with federal income, FICA, state, sales, property tax, increased cost of going to work... most people are lucky to have 50% of gross pay to spend. Besides, it's not strictly a question of whether you have enough, but whether you have the amount you want to retire. Some people can settle for 70% of pre-retirement income, others want 100%.

Get over it already. I was even counting social security. Even by your flaw model, if you had 1.7 mil by 72 and live for 10 more years, that is $170,000 a year!

 

[xiphoid2010]

Get over it already. I was even counting social security. Even by your flaw model, if you had 1.7 mil by 72 and live for 10 more years, that is $170,000 a year!

So you can't argue with that someone is 11 years behind on having $2.5 mil that they wanted. So you instead try to tell someone that they have enough, stop saving money or build a better safety margin, or leave money to their kids. You tell them how they should live their lives or when to retire. You go!

 

[BMBiology]

So you bough $17.5K in 2009. You think that makes up much of a dent on a $1.4 mil short fall? LOL.

So even if $17.5K grows 200%, and you now have $35K.... wow, that solves everything.

That is just one year! I am talking about over a 14 year period and I am not even including company matches/dividends.

What if you had bought in 2002? 2003? You would have also more than doubled your money by now. Even if you had invested starting in 2009 @ 17.5 k plus 6 k in company match/year, you would have close to $200 k by now! And that is only over a 5 year period.

At least you are coming to your senses about how flaw it is to assume the rate of return is zero those during 14 years.

 

[xiphoid2010]

That is just one year! I am talking about over a 14 year period and I am not even including company matches/dividends.

What if you had bought in 2002? 2003? You would have also more than doubled your money by now. Even if you had invested starting in 2009 @ 17.5 k plus 6 k in company match, you would have $200 k by now! And that is only over a 5 year period.

At least you are coming to your senses about how flaw it is to assume the rate of return is zero those during 14 years.

(1) I already factored in $17.5k/yr during those 14 years. Go read the math again. For each year you bought at the bottom, there are years where you bought at the peak and lost your shirt. You can't time the market. So all those purchases from 2000-2014 = 0% net return. You only end up with what you put in which is $245k.

You need to come to your sense when you planned 35 years to reach your retirement goal, but those last 14 years out of 35 years give you 0% return over all, your retirement is delayed. Common sense.

 

[BMBiology]

So all those purchases from 2000-2014 = 0% net return. You only end up with what you put in which is $245k.
.

So if I had put in $1 in 2002, I would still just have $1 today? If I had put $1 in 2009, I would also have $1 dollar today? Lol

Even if you had bought right before the stock market crashed in 2007, you would still be up today because the stock market is at a all time high.

 

[xiphoid2010]

So if I had put in $1 in 2002, I would still just have $1 today? If I had put $1 in 2009, I would also have $1 dollar today? Lol

Are you forgetting inflation? There is ~40% inflation from 2000-2014. That's why even with S&P going from 1520 (in 2000) to 1930 (today) nominally, it lost value when adjusted for inflation and expense ratio. Calculate that, you see the dollar in put in in 2000 lost money. The dollar you put in in 2001 also lost money. The dollar you put in 2002 did make money, but after inflation it only made 25 cents, and can't make up for your losses in 2000 and 2001.

 

[BMBiology]

First you said the rate of return is zero. Now you are talking about inflation without mentioning dividends.

Debating with you is like debating with a brick. Lol

 

[xiphoid2010]

First you said the rate of return is zero. Now you are talking about inflation without mentioning dividends.

Debating with you is like debating with a brick. Lol

With dividend it's 1.3%, but why stop there when we need to factor in dividend and capital gains tax in savings outside of 401k, commission on each trade/purchase and 0.2%/yr fund expense ratio. I had kept simple and initially by just using 0%.

Look, you have been just changing your argument ledft and right, but can't come up with the calculation and articles like I did that showed S&P 500 had no net gain for the last 14 years. Run some numbers and see if you can make up for a $1.4 million short fall by putting in $17.5k/yr each year from 2000 to 2014. (Hint, even if you break the rules and put all in at the very bottom in one miraculous mov, it still doesn't cut it by a long shot).

And if you still can't see that, then debating with you is like debating with a brick.

 

[BMBiology]

Do I really need to show you the numbers? The graph isn't good enough? https://www.google.com/finance?cid=626307

I am going to invest $1 at the begining of each year from 2001 to 2014:

Today's S&P: 1930

2001: 1298. Therefore, 1930 - 1298 = + 632 points so +48%
2002: 1172. Therefore, 1930 - 1172 = + 758 points so + 65%
2003: 909. Therefore, 1930 - 909 = + 1021 points so + 112%
2004: 1108. Therefore, 1930 - 1108 = + 822 points so + 74%
2005: 1212. Therefore, 1930 - 1212 = + 718 points so + 59%
2006: 1285. Therefore, 1930 - 1285 = + 645 points so + 50%
2007: 1409. Therefore, 1930 - 1409 = + 521 points so + 37%
2008: 1478. Therefore, 1930 - 1478 = + 452 points so + 30%
2009: 872. Therefore, 1930 - 872 = + 1058 points so + 121%
2010: 1140. Therefore, 1930 - 1140 = + 790 points so + 69%
2011: 1258. Therefore, 1930 - 1258 = + 672 points so + 53%
2012: 1257. Therefore, 1930 - 1257 = + 673 points so + 54%
2013: 1402. Therefore, 1930 - 1402 = + 528 points so + 39%
2014: 1848. Therefore, 1930 - 1845 = + 85 points so + 4.5%

As you can see, if you had invested in any year from 2001 to 2014, you would have been up! Every single year. Why? because the S&P is at an all-time high!

http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/commentaries/SPX-Dow-Nasdaq-Since-Their-2000-Highs.php

This article you posted discussed the value of your stock today if you had invested in 2000 (and then stop). I think that's where you got confused (or maybe just old age lol).

 

[BidingMyTime]

I'm either not smart enough, or just don't care enough, to figure out whether Xiphoid or BMBiology is correct. But what I do know is, I know real-life pharmacists who have delayed their retirement because of the recession (now whether their concern is real or perceived, or just a socially acceptable way to say they want to keep working....that I don't know.)

 

[xiphoid2010]

With dividend it's 1.3%, but why stop there when we need to factor in dividend and capital gains tax in savings outside of 401k, commission on each trade/purchase and 0.2%/yr fund expense ratio. I had kept simple and initially by just using 0%.

Do I really need to show you the numbers? The graph isn't good enough? https://www.google.com/finance?cid=626307

I am going to invest $1 at the begining of each year from 2001 to 2014:

Today's S&P: 1930

2001: 1298. Therefore, 1930 - 1298 = + 632 points so +48%
2002: 1172. Therefore, 1930 - 1172 = + 758 points so + 65%
2003: 909. Therefore, 1930 - 909 = + 1021 points so + 112%
2004: 1108. Therefore, 1930 - 1108 = + 822 points so + 74%
2005: 1212. Therefore, 1930 - 1212 = + 718 points so + 59%
2006: 1285. Therefore, 1930 - 1285 = + 645 points so + 50%
2007: 1409. Therefore, 1930 - 1409 = + 521 points so + 37%
2008: 1478. Therefore, 1930 - 1478 = + 452 points so + 30%
2009: 872. Therefore, 1930 - 872 = + 1058 points so + 121%
2010: 1140. Therefore, 1930 - 1140 = + 790 points so + 69%
2011: 1258. Therefore, 1930 - 1258 = + 672 points so + 53%
2012: 1257. Therefore, 1930 - 1257 = + 673 points so + 54%
2013: 1402. Therefore, 1930 - 1402 = + 528 points so + 39%
2014: 1848. Therefore, 1930 - 1845 = + 85 points so + 4.5%

As you can see, if you had invested in any year from 2001 to 2014, you would have been up! Every single year. Why? because the S&P is at an all-time high!
And totally forgets that inflation from 2000-14 eats 40% of the value.

You say "why? Because S&P is at an all-time high!". Well duh, if it S&P had just kept up with inflation from 2000-2014, it should be at ~2100 today, but yet we are 170 points short of that. You conveniently keep on forgetting to mention that inflation from 2000-20014 is 40%.

But let me be very generous and say inflation from 2000-2014 is 0%. (actually I'm just being lazy and want to simplify the next calculation)...

1) we already establishe inflation adjusted on S&P500 from 2000-2014 is basically 0%. So you had $1million dollar saved up at the start of 2000, that portion of the portfolio is still worth just $1million in 2014.

2) so let's see just focus on what happened to the money you put in after 2000. Since you you try to make up for the short by putting in $17.5K each year, saying "we are buying it cheap!"

2001: 48% gain on $17.5K--> $25.9K today
2002: 65% gain --> $28.9k today
2003: 112% gain --> $37.1K
2004: --> $30.5K
2005: --> $27.8K
2006: --> $26.3K
2007: --> $24K
2008: --> $22.8K
2009: --> $38.7K
2010: -->$29.6K
2009 --> $26.8K
2010: --> $27K
2011: --> $24.3K
2012: --> $18.3K

==== Total: $388k today ==

Wow, and that's me being very generous (and lazy) by not deducting inflation from all those gains. Wow, you are only still > $1 million short of the original $2.5 million set to retire.

That's why I estimated: even when factoring in increase SS payment for delayed retirement, and additional years of working and saving, the retirement is roughly 6 years behind schedule.

 

[BMBiology]

LOL I am glad you finally came to your senses that rate of return is not zero. The average gain would have been 58% during those 14 years. Your 40% inflation is when you compared 2000 to 2014. That is not the average and when you consider the compounding dividends you would get from stocks, inflation is minimize.

Don't forget to add 5-6 k in company matches per year so that is another 120 k (in addition to the 388 k). Add 6 additional years of pharmacist salary, 6 x 120 = 720 k (pre-taxed). Add 3 k in social security per month. That is another 360 k if you live for another 10 years.

If you had invested 17.5 k with 7% annual gain for 14 years, you would have 422 k, compared to 388 k. That is only 8% less but if you add those additional work years and the additional social security benefits, you would have easily made up for that 8%.

Even with your high bar of having just 1 mil in 2000 (not adjusted for the gains from 2001 to 2014; your model is also flaw because the annual gain wasn't just 7% from 1979 to 2000 due to the tech bubble) and retiring with 2.5 mil, I think you have more than you need at age 72.

 

[297point1]

So...after reading this thrilling debate , can we agree that someone who wanted to retire between 2008 and 2010 and worked an extra four to six years should be able to retire now?

 

[BMBiology]

That is exactly right. They would have been able to retire in 2012-2013.

 

[xiphoid2010]

LOL I am glad you finally came to your senses that rate of return is not zero. The average gain would have been 58% during those 14 years. Your 40% inflation is when you compared 2000 to 2014. That is not the average and when you consider the compounding dividends you would get from stocks, inflation is minimize.

Don't forget to add 5-6 k in company matches per year so that is another 100 k (in addition to the 388 k). Add 6 additional years of pharmacist salary, 6 x 120 = 720 k (pre-taxed). Add 3 k in social security per month. That is another 360 k if you live for another 10 years.

If you had invested 17.5 k with 7% annual gain for 14 years, you would have 422 k, compared to 388 k. That is only 8% less but if you add those additional work years and the additional social security benefits, you would have easily made up for that 8%.

Even with your high bar of having just 1 mil in 2000 (not adjusted for the gains from 2001 to 2014; your model is also flaw because the annual gain wasn't just 7% from 1979 to 2000 due to the tech bubble) and retiring with 2.5 mil, I think you have more than you need at age 72.

Tl;dr

So you are now agreeing with me that the retirement is delayed 6 yrs.

Glad you finally can see basic math.

 

[xiphoid2010]

So...after reading this thrilling debate , can we agree that someone who wanted to retire between 2008 and 2010 and worked an extra four to six years should be able to retire now?

So yes thos who would have retired back in 2008 but delayed by the double crash are just ready to retire now. 2009 will be ready about next year and 2010 will be in 2016ish. But individual milage may vary a bit.

 

[297point1]

So yes thos who would have retired back in 2008 but delayed by the double crash are just ready to retire now.

That is exactly right. They would have been able to retire in 2012-2013.

Cool. Now can someone start telling those folks it is okay to hang up their white coats and open up some spots for the youngins?

 

[BMBiology]

You are welcome. I am happy to show you the rate of return wasn't zero from 2001 to 2014.

 

[anewmanx]

a = b

a + a = a + b

2a = a + b

2a - 2b = a + b - 2B

2(a - b) = a +b - 2b

2(a - b) = a - b

2 = 1
________________________________________

a^1 / a^1 = 1

a^(1-1) = 1

a^0 = 1​

This thread reminds me of these two problems. One is right and one is wrong. Both look right.​

 

[All4MyDaughter]

Sometimes, in a dick measuring contest, everyone comes up short.

 

[oldstock]

Sometimes, in a dick measuring contest, everyone comes up short.

lol

 

[xiphoid2010]

Cool. Now can someone start telling those folks it is okay to hang up their white coats and open up some spots for the youngins?

Even as the 2008 are finally financially at goal, you still can't tell people to retire. Just like you and me, we will retire when we feel safe and ready (unless we are talking about forced retirement). I for one is probably still going to work part time past retirement age just because I enjoy working and the sense of purpose/normalcy it provides. The old folks have their turn now, and in 35 years it will be our turn to tell the youngsters to wait their turn.

 

[297point1]

The old folks have their turn now, and in 35 years it will be our turn to tell the youngsters to wait their turn.

Our time horizons to retirement are, umm, quite different. But I appreciate the thought

 

[anewmanx]

Why in the hell does anyone need 2.5 million dollars to retire? That seems awful high to me. I lived comfortably on 2.5k a month for two years before they increased my pension to where it is now. Damn comfortably. And I have little kids!

What would be the calculated value of the retirement I receive now if it were being funded by a lump sum of cash? I honestly don't know how these calculations are derived. I get free health insurance for life, 2k pension tax free for life if I work, 4k tax free if I don't work. 400k in life insurance for $40 a month. The pension is linked to Federal COLA, increases accordingly. Exempt from property taxes.

Any of you math wiz, retirement wiz guys who want to chip in I'd appreciate it.

 

[oldstock]

Why in the hell does anyone need 2.5 million dollars to retire? That seems awful high to me. I lived comfortably on 2.5k a month for two years before they increased my pension to where it is now. Damn comfortably. And I have little kids!

What would be the calculated value of the retirement I receive now if it were being funded by a lump sum of cash? I honestly don't know how these calculations are derived. I get free health insurance for life, 2k pension tax free for life if I work, 4k tax free if I don't work. 400k in life insurance for $40 a month. The pension is linked to Federal COLA, increases accordingly. Exempt from property taxes.

Any of you math wiz, retirement wiz guys who want to chip in I'd appreciate it.

2.5k + free health insurance + 2k/4k + 400k@40 + no property taxes = Uncle Sam needs to crank up even more paper printing to make a huge pile to pay your retirement and your bragging right brother !! LOL jk

 

[anewmanx]

2.5k + free health insurance + 2k/4k + 400k@40 + no property taxes = Uncle Sam needs to crank up even more paper printing to make a huge pile to pay your retirement and your bragging right brother !! LOL

You know, all jokes aside, it's the paper printing habit and kool aid drinking in walstreet that makes me want to get an education just in case.

 

[oldstock]

You know, all jokes aside, it's the paper printing habit and kool aid drinking in walstreet that makes me want to get an education just in case.

Well but probably not pharmacy education, at least here in the US, the way I see it going now. Maybe in CR or Europe bro

 

[anewmanx]

Well but probably not pharmacy education, at least here in the US, the way I see it going now. Maybe in CR or Europe bro

Well, that's exactly it. It gives you options. Take Germany for instance. It takes about two years of hard studying to be conversational in German to a B2/C1 level. In Germany pharmacists have a union guaranteeing a minimum salary (something like 5k,) sure there are reprehensible taxes in Europe, but you get an INCREDIBLE social welfare system. They even pay 80% out of your salary on the government controlled pension funds when you retire. Not bad, not bad at all.

As for the US, my wife can make good money there. 54k to start as an ESL teacher and only work 186 days a year, 7 hours a day. If I even worked part time as a pharmacist, 10+ hours, I could help float our expenses.

I guess that's why I'm not worried like most people on here seem to be. I'm not addicted to a six figure income and I'm not shackled down with debt. It's a breathe of fresh air.

 

[oldstock]

Well, that's exactly it. It gives you options. Take Germany for instance. It takes about two years of hard studying to be conversational in German to a B2/C1 level. In Germany pharmacists have a union guaranteeing a minimum salary (something like 5k,) sure there are reprehensible taxes in Europe, but you get an INCREDIBLE social welfare system. They even pay 80% out of your salary on the government controlled pension funds when you retire. Not bad, not bad at all.

As for the US, my wife can make good money there. 54k to start as an ESL teacher and only work 186 days a year, 7 hours a day. If I even worked part time as a pharmacist, 10+ hours, I could help float our expenses.

I guess that's why I'm not worried like most people on here seem to be. I'm not addicted to a six figure income and I'm not shackled down with debt. It's a breathe of fresh air.

 

[xiphoid2010]

Why in the hell does anyone need 2.5 million dollars to retire? That seems awful high to me. I lived comfortably on 2.5k a month for two years before they increased my pension to where it is now. Damn comfortably. And I have little kids!

Basically just how safe do want to feel about outliving your money. There are too many moving parts. First thing though, pension has mostly gone the way of the doodoos. Anyway. Here is a good Monte Carlo retirement simulator.

https://retirementplans.vanguard.com/VGApp/pe/pubeducation/calculators/RetirementNestEggCalc.jsf

Enter $2.5 mil as the nest egg. Withdrawal $110K/yr (85% of $130K/yr per-retirement income). Run the simulation using the default portfolio --> 25% chances of running out of money before you die. Not safe enough for me. But I don't really like that allocation, a 50% stock/40% bonds/10%cash is more risky but still within reason, rerun the simulation --> down to 12% chance of running out of money before you die, a more reasonable chance to take.

What would be the calculated value of the retirement I receive now if it were being funded by a lump sum of cash? I honestly don't know how these calculations are derived. I get free health insurance for life, 2k pension tax free for life if I work, 4k tax free if I don't work. 400k in life insurance for $40 a month. The pension is linked to Federal COLA, increases accordingly. Exempt from property taxes.

Any of you math wiz, retirement wiz guys who want to chip in I'd appreciate it.

You are looking for an annuity calculator, such as this one:
http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/investing/annuity-calculator.aspx

Plug in all the numbers (use 3% annual growth to account for COLA, estimate your length of retirement), leave the starting principle blank. Calculate. It will tell you what the initial lump sum needed to be.

 

[anewmanx]

Basically just how safe do want to feel about outliving your money. There are too many moving parts. First thing though, pension has mostly gone the way of the doodoos. Anyway. Here is a good Monte Carlo retirement simulator.

https://retirementplans.vanguard.com/VGApp/pe/pubeducation/calculators/RetirementNestEggCalc.jsf

Enter $2.5 mil as the nest egg. Withdrawal $110K/yr (85% of $130K/yr per-retirement income). Run the simulation using the default portfolio --> 25% chances of running out of money before you die. Not safe enough for me. But I don't really like that allocation, a 50% stock/40% bonds/10%cash is more risky but still within reason, rerun the simulation --> down to 12% chance of running out of money before you die, a more reasonable chance to take.



You are looking for an annuity calculator, such as this one:
http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/investing/annuity-calculator.aspx

Plug in all the numbers (use 3% annual growth to account for COLA, estimate your length of retirement), leave the starting principle blank. Calculate. It will tell you what the initial lump sum needed to be.

Thanks for the links.

Woooow, 110k a year? Now that's living high on the hog. Especially if your home/vehicles are paid for. In some parts of Latin America, Eastern Europe, India, etc... you could be a freaking king with cash like that.

Assuming a 4k retirement for the next 39 years, adjusted for inflation, plus 600 for taxes, 600 for health insurance, and 200 for property taxes, gave me around $5400 a month draw-down. Put me at an initial nestegg around 1.7 million.

I think I'd still rather get an education and go back to work, cutting the pension in half. It's just, well, it's actually kind of weird and not really that enjoyable to be retired so early. It just feels unnatural. I'm not sure it's good for a person's mental health and wellbeing.

 

[xiphoid2010]

Thanks for the links.

Woooow, 110k a year? Now that's living high on the hog. Especially if your home/vehicles are paid for. In some parts of Latin America, Eastern Europe, India, etc... you could be a freaking king with cash like that.

Heck, I could move back to china and retire on a farm for a $10k a year, and take chinese medicine stuff like dried sea horses. But in the states, 85% of pre-retirement is a typical number financial advisors will tell you to plan for, with recommendation ranging from lowest at 70% to highest at 100%. I guess it's because while some stuff like mortgage might be done, but other stuff like health care bills will suck more.

 

[anewmanx]

Heck, I could move back to china and retire on a farm for a $10k a year, and take chinese medicine stuff like dried sea horses. But in the states, 85% of pre-retirement is a typical number financial advisors will tell you to plan for, with recommendation ranging from lowest at 70% to highest at 100%. I guess it's because while some stuff like mortgage might be done, but other stuff like health care bills will suck more.

The direction the country has been going in since FDR instituted socialism based government overreach seventy something years ago, might not be too many decades more before you find more freedom in China. I certainly found heaps more freedom in Central America.

Wow, 10k a year is a living when there..... that's incredible.

 

[Momus]

Heck, I could move back to china and retire on a farm for a $10k a year, and take chinese medicine stuff like dried sea horses. But in the states, 85% of pre-retirement is a typical number financial advisors will tell you to plan for, with recommendation ranging from lowest at 70% to highest at 100%. I guess it's because while some stuff like mortgage might be done, but other stuff like health care bills will suck more.

This number is full of sh1t. Take 100% of income minus all these.

1. 20% income taxes you don't have to pay
   
2. 20% When you are retired, you are no longer has to save up 20% of your income
3. 5% You can forgo life insurance and disability insurance
4. 15% mortgage related expenses are gone
   
5. 5% No kids to raise, you might choose to down size to an apt/condo - a huge windfall after selling your house
   
6. Medicare kicks in to help out your health insurance
7. 1% No job related expenses - no commute, less gas bill, can go with 1-2 car instead of 3-4 cars, less insurance, no work clothes, no professional dues
8. 1-2% Your charitable contribution is most likely go down as well, less income, less to give

You will not need 70% of your gross income; this number is highly exagerated. After subtracting all cost you don't have to pay when you retire, ~40% of gross income is all you need to retire when you are ready. Credit to whitecoatinvestor.

 

[xiphoid2010]

This number is full of sh1t. Take 100% of income minus all these.

1. 20% income taxes you don't have to pay
   
2. 20% When you are retired, you are no longer has to save up 20% of your income
3. 5% You can forgo life insurance and disability insurance
4. 15% mortgage related expenses are gone
   
5. 5% No kids to raise, you might choose to down size to an apt/condo - a huge windfall after selling your house
   
6. Medicare kicks in to help out your health insurance
7. 1% No job related expenses - no commute, less gas bill, can go with 1-2 car instead of 3-4 cars, less insurance, no work clothes, no professional dues
8. 1-2% Your charitable contribution is most likely go down as well, less income, less to give

You will not need 70% of your gross income; this number is highly exagerated. After subtracting all cost you don't have to pay when you retire, ~40% of gross income is all you need to retire when you are ready. Credit to whitecoatinvestor.

While I agree that the 70-100% is a general rule, just like student loan = 1x your income, it does apply to the majority out there. Financially savvy folks like you and me are the exception rather than the rule. I know I won't need 70% since I save >30% right now, but I still use 85% to plan my retirement just because I am cautious by nature and think the US economy will under perform compare to history. I rather have too much saved up than come up short.

But got a questions for ya. On your point (1), how does that math work out? I didn't even pay 20% of my income in taxes last year. That doesn't look right.

 

[y0ssarian87]

But got a questions for ya. On your point (1), how does that math work out? I didn't even pay 20% of my income in taxes last year. That doesn't look right.

I think the 20% figure for taxes includes state income tax, which, being in TX, you don't pay. If you were in CA, you'd be paying a hefty amount in state income.

 

[anewmanx]

I think the 20% figure for taxes includes state income tax, which, being in TX, you don't pay. If you were in CA, you'd be paying a hefty amount in state income.

Oh man, but without those Cali taxes they couldn't afford to make intrusive rules for every aspect of your life. Why, just recently a city threatened fines to a family for having a brown lawn, when they were unable to water their lawn for threat of being fined for using water during a drought.

Magic!!

 

[y0ssarian87]

Oh man, but without those Cali taxes they couldn't afford to make intrusive rules for every aspect of your life. Why, just recently a city threatened fines to a family for having a brown lawn, when they were unable to water their lawn for threat of being fined for using water during a drought.

Magic!!

 

[anewmanx]

View attachment 184166View attachment 184167

For the WIN!!