Early Retirement?

[Dakota731]

ACA on the other hand is completely open-ended. And the more "socialized" it becomes, the less incentive for anyone remotely connected to the plan to attempt to contain costs. That's the scary part.

Wait till next year when a lot corporations decide to drop their employee health care benefits because the prices are skyrocketing. I've had two friends (stay at home moms) whose coverage was dropped from their husband's policies because the companies can no longer afford to cover spouses.

 

[eliza61]

Wait till next year when a lot corporations decide to drop their employee health care benefits because the prices are skyrocketing. I've had two friends (stay at home moms) whose coverage was dropped from their husband's policies because the companies can no longer afford to cover spouses.

And that's exactly the question we should be researching. Why are healthcare cost rising?
Why are they rising triple the rate of inflation?
Why is it so expensive toward end of life? What role does the insurance companies play.
All I know is that they can't keep growing exponentially like they have been

I've taken this way ot sorry

 

[Gumbo4x4]

And that's exactly the question we should be researching. Why are healthcare cost rising?
Why are they rising triple the rate of inflation?
Why is it so expensive toward end of life? What role does the insurance companies play.
All I know is that they can't keep growing exponentially like they have been

I've taken this way ot sorry

Indeed - address the REASONS for the cost. Don't just move the costs around to new places on the same side of the equation and in the process add yet another layer of gov't cost. Ugh! As you noted, we were all kind of paying for it before, and in a pretty inefficient manner at that. Now, we're still paying for it, but in an even more inefficient manner - oh, and it also just went up another 10% to boot

 

[Dakota731]

And that's exactly the question we should be researching. Why are healthcare cost rising?

And how does putting our kids and grandkids into billions of dollars of debt help answer those questions? The Congressional Budget Office projected that the provisions of the ACA related to health insurance coverage would cost the federal government $759 billion during fiscal years 2014 through 2019.

 

[Dakota731]

that's the phone company. The government is not forcing companies to take part (the last I researched it, it was not mandatory). The phone company is getting a kickback. they past the cost onto the consumer.

Wrong You better research it again - Congress has mandated that all telephone companies providing interstate service must contribute to the USF.

As we've seen with many of the post above it's much easier to say I can't retire because some poor person is getting free cell phone usage worth 2.50 LOL.

And on October 27, 2011, the FCC approved a six-year transfer process that would transition money from the Universal Service Fund High-Cost Program to a new $4.5 billion a year Connect America Fund for broadband Internet expansion, so this is not a drop in the bucket in my eyes. This is in essence another government tax that would all added together makes it hard for anyone not in a government job to retire. That might be funny to you, but not to senior citizens who are paying for everyone else not to work and get their free stuff but they can no longer afford to pay the taxes on their home.

 

[AquaDame]

We want our seniors to retire, live off their wealth and also spend but we want our 30, 40 and 50 some things getting good jobs.
they are the ones getting car loans, getting 3 and 4 mortgages.

30 something chiming in here - mortgage secured, happy to do my part. But if you hope my generation thinks we can get away with reaching that 3rd or 4th mortgage in our lifetimes I would say think again. We aren't crazy enough to think we're going to be able to live like the boomers - we plan to stay in our 1600 square foot house (the banks and elders in our family wanted us in a larger one but we said no way) and not take out another car loan until either the one we will have paid off this year gets totaled or my 18 year old car finally bites the dust. Watching the crash when so many of our parents lost a good chunk of their pensions (if said pensions even survived corporate greed) and 401Ks disappear and our peers struggle to find livable wages... oof. We'll more closely match the greatest generation in our spending habits than the boomers methinks. We're confused and angry that we are worse off than the generation before us. As our wages go down so do taxes... I'm quite afraid of what is going to happen between now and the time we are able to retire.

Sorry that seems selfish to me to expect my kids and grandkids to subsidize my healthcare. They are having enough trouble now as it is to pay their OWN healthcare and taxes. There are a lot of other things we can cut out instead of passing the burden onto our young people. Let's eliminate some of the entitlement programs - there are so many out there that I can't name them all but we can start with free cellphones and free internet for those who aren't working.

Young people, hah. There is another large issue - look to Japan and see our future... more and more young people are opting to NOT have kids as healthcare and schooling goes up. Now that our finite dollars are fewer and fewer something has to give... for us that was the easiest solution. You're right that we can't keep counting on the generation behind us to pay our way, especially as more and more companies streamline and use mechanical labor or just pick up and go where wages are lower. We're fighting amongst ourselves for the crumbs.

As a single mom not making six figures, how much do you pay in federal income taxes to subsidize anyone? Probably not much of which a fraction will go to health care.

And, do your kids go to public school?

Just wanted to say that it does bug me that I pay for public schools even though I don't have kids... oh well, we all pay for something we don't use. (I consider myself paid already on my parent's taxes).

And that is different how?
Either through tax breaks or direct pricing, the cost is passed on.
The cost for uninsured gets directly passed on to those with insurance.
The cost for social security cones out of our pockets

When did this all of a sudden become "surprising". Seniors in Philly get a reduction in their energy bills, most areas do this, Who do you think pays for that? What you think PECO and con ed, are doing it out of concern?

They get tax breaks and pass the cost amongst the general consumer.

Please believe me, Concast is not going to lower your rates if they stop giving free WiFi to poor school kids.

Our next generation will still be used to fund SS, Medicaid and Medicare. That is how the system is designed. You could get rid of ever Trac phone on the planet.
I'm paying the tab on some seniors drug plan and when I get 65 my son's salary will go to fund my benefits.

Listen, I'm not arguing the merits or wastefullness of free cell phones, as far as I know, no company is forced to participate. They do it for the same reasons any company does something, they get economic benefit from it.
What I am arguing is the notion that one generation does not support the older generation. They do, they always have. Thank FDR for that.

Hasn't there been murmurs of overhauling/ceasing SS since they keep borrowing from it and now it's under funded? I could have sworn I had heard that for awhile... I definitely know enough people have admitted they aren't counting on it being there when we reach retirement age (just like pensions, 401Ks etc disappeared). Again, as for ourselves we have no children to "pay it forward" for us. Such a system seems so ridiculous to me... how can we be so shortsighted as to think things will ALWAYS get better, the economy will just magically grow and grow and grow, and we can always count on a population increase? Wishful thinking to me...

My dad died at 55 and never got to retire. I worked the past 28 years thinking I was retiring last June 2013 at 50 years old- until I ran some numbers with my company and found out if I stayed just 2 more years and had 30 years there my pension would be over $30,000 a year MORE than what I would get if I went with 28 years. It was a no brainer to me to suck it up and stay 2 more years. So now I have about 13 more months to go. So I will be retiring when I am 52 rather than 50-

Its the same for my husband too! If he were to retire as soon as he could he'd only get about 50% of what he would get from his company if he worked a few more years. No matter what anyone says, that speaks volumes for not wanting people to retire IMO!

that's the phone company. The government is not forcing companies to take part (the last I researched it, it was not mandatory). The phone company is getting a kickback. they past the cost onto the consumer. ONCE again, how is this any different than farmers getting subsidies to artificially keep prices low.? For example the big cell phone program Lifeline. The feds tell the big cell phone guys, if you give low income folks who meet federal welfare standards, X amount of service (and that service can be text, talk or any combo the cell phone provider decides on), we will give X amount of tax breaks. Now yes, they indirectly pass the cost onto. MY QUESTION IS THIS. HOW IS THIS ANY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE DO NOW?? When some one goes to the hospital and cannot pay, how do you think it gets paid for? Do you think the hospital, doesn't bill them out of the kindness of their hearts? When some one gets food stamps, where do you think the money is coming from? When a senior gets a SS check, where is the money coming from.

Please stop pretending that all of a sudden we are now footing the bill for people. Our entire system is built on person X getting benefits paid for by person Y.

Of course there are millions of people who don't pay into the system. There were millions of people back in 1937 when the checks first went out that had not paid into the system.

And most people take more money out of the system than they put in. YOUR employee puts in a chunk of change. So EVERY BODY is getting a piece of some thing at the expense of some one else.

I don't know enough on illegal immigration to say what's going on, but I have read that the situation you mention has been a problem in many areas.

GUMBO, I think the entire retirement Health care is open ended. I will get most of my HC cost covered by my pension from a private company. Now granted my company is huge and not likely to go under but the reality of it is that at any time they can cut benefits. They have most definitely reduced them over the years. The thing is, in this country most of these plans are already very much "socialized". My company's profits of today are going to the cost of folks that are already retired. so very much I'm working for Retiree Joe and Jane to pay their health care cost.

A guy that has retired from my company 10 years ago, has definitely seen his out of pocket hc gone up. now this hypothetical guy has a couple of recourses. Hopefully he's saved and can absorbed this cost, but if he can't and he's on a fix income, some thing gives.

So I think for us the problem remains, how do we effectively plan for retirement especially if we want to go before Medicaid kicks in when at any time our health care cost can be so variable.

But I think one of the issues is that no one is addressing the real problem which is why are health care cost skyrocketing in the first place. As we've seen with many of the post above it's much easier to say I can't retire because some poor person is getting free cell phone usage worth 2.50 LOL.
I think it will always be a losing battle if health care cost keep rising 10-15% annually. I read a report about how happy every one in Washington was because hc cost only rose 9.5% !! Seriously? That's good news?

Edited: these are just my ramblings. I am not advocating nor speaking out against centralized medicine. I've heard too many convicting reports.

Well, as you said one way they seem to differ is that the phone companies, cable or whatever are double dipping.... they take the tax breaks AND pass the costs on to their customers. Dairy farmers do not do that.. it would be like them pocketing their money from the government and not changing their prices at all unless you pay with stamps or something. Its not just healthcare... a LOT Of things have gone up crazy amounts. Mortgages for one... my parents house has gone up 4.53x more than what they paid for it in 28 years. I don't see that happening again, especially when most people I know who purchased in the last 5-10 years are still underwater (ours has only gone up about 2K in value supposedly, which I don't actually feel to be true considering the work we have done to it but who knows). Food has outpaced cost of living increases as has inflation even (if you are lucky enough to get one every year) as have utility increases (at least in my area).

 

[eliza61]

Wrong You better research it again - Congress has mandated that all telephone companies providing interstate service must contribute to the USF.

And on October 27, 2011, the FCC approved a six-year transfer process that would transition money from the Universal Service Fund High-Cost Program to a new $4.5 billion a year Connect America Fund for broadband Internet expansion, so this is not a drop in the bucket in my eyes. This is in essence another government tax that would all added together makes it hard for anyone not in a government job to retire. That might be funny to you, but not to senior citizens who are paying for everyone else not to work and get their free stuff but they can no longer afford to pay the taxes on their home.

Yes it is funny in my eyes considering seniors are one of the largest groups getting "free" stuff in this country. and one of the most active groups fighting tooth and nail to keep getting that "free stuff".

 

[Dakota731]

Yes it is funny in my eyes considering seniors are one of the largest groups getting "free" stuff in this country. and one of the most active groups fighting tooth and nail to keep getting that "free stuff".

Most seniors I know have "some skin in the game", worked hard all their lives and have contributed to social security and paid their taxes. More than I can say for all the welfare receipiants and illegal immigrants who have not paid one cent into the system, yet get more benefits than our seniors and veterans combined. The seniors I know live within their means and would be too proud to take handouts they didn't earn. My father who worked hard all his life doing manual labor paid twice as much into the system before he passed than he ever got in benefits, yet I see young people who are able bodied and don't want to work getting free food, free housing, free medical care, free phones, and the list goes on and on.

 

[NancyIL]

I read Mr. Money Moustache often just because I find him really funny. I don't think I have it in me to live his lifestyle. For instance, I'd get one of those punch in the face things for the vehicle I drive and I'm not giving it up!

But I have learned a bunch from him. I think he's great. My husband and I have a goal to be able to live solely off of our investments and pensions by age 59 if not sooner. I don't know if we'll make it, but hopefully. Probably more than any other writer he has helped me to define how to structure what we own into income flows and then how to examine our lives for ways to get just as much enjoyment for little to no cost. He has a natural gift for making things sound easy and uncomplicated.

The other ones you mention sound familiar to me so I'm sure I've read them occasionally.

Thanks to those of you who mentioned Mr Money Mustache! I LOVE reading his articles and the reader comments. Although I was a "simple living" kind of gal in my poorer post-college days, creeping affluenza has taken hold over the years. MMM has certainly gotten me to think about all of my spending lately - including the trips I have planned. Yes, I'll be cutting way back on the Disney vacations!

 

[eliza61]

Thanks to those of you who mentioned Mr Money Mustache! I LOVE reading his articles and the reader comments. Although I was a "simple living" kind of gal in my poorer post-college days, creeping affluenza has taken hold over the years. MMM has certainly gotten me to think about all of my spending lately - including the trips I have planned. Yes, I'll be cutting way back on the Disney vacations!

I think it all depends on why you are doing the spending.

Events in my life recently have gotten me thinking about spending vs. value.

Am I giving up my Disney trip because some guru says I will possible need the money if I possibly hit 95? Am I giving up the money because I have to fund my kids college tuition? or am I paying for the trips with credit.

when is enough, enough?

So I'm taking a balance approach. If I meet certain parameters (college tuition for kids) then I have no problem blowing money on a trip or a LV bag. So do I want to die with a bank account full of cash and no life? Nope. Do I want to have to eat catfood when I retire? again the answer is no.

Like I always say, would I skip dinner out to send my mortgage co. a few extra hundred bucks. sure. would I give up my vacations to pay off my mortgage early? naw

I just posted a question about ceiling fans. the one I love is 2X's the amount of my ceiling fan budget. Now I'm sure Mr. MM and Dave would tell me go for the cheaper one and save the money but you know what, this is my house that I live in, why not have some thing in it that I will love for the next 10, 20 years?

Now I own a dvc, Dave and Suzy both scream, holler and jump up and down about the "evil" time share
but you know what, my dvc has brought my family and I countless hours of joy (lol, they'd faint when if I called in and said I can't wait until Poly dvc opens up. I'm seriously salivating at the thought of owning points there.)

 

[NancyIL]

I think it all depends on why you are doing the spending.

Events in my life recently have gotten me thinking about spending vs. value.

Am I giving up my Disney trip because some guru says I will possible need the money if I possibly hit 95? Am I giving up the money because I have to fund my kids college tuition? or am I paying for the trips with credit.

when is enough, enough?

So I'm taking a balance approach. If I meet certain parameters (college tuition for kids) then I have no problem blowing money on a trip or a LV bag. So do I want to die with a bank account full of cash and no life? Nope. Do I want to have to eat catfood when I retire? again the answer is no.

Like I always say, would I skip dinner out to send my mortgage co. a few extra hundred bucks. sure. would I give up my vacations to pay off my mortgage early? naw

I just posted a question about ceiling fans. the one I love is 2X's the amount of my ceiling fan budget. Now I'm sure Mr. MM and Dave would tell me go for the cheaper one and save the money but you know what, this is my house that I live in, why not have some thing in it that I will love for the next 10, 20 years?

Now I own a dvc, Dave and Suzy both scream, holler and jump up and down about the "evil" time share
but you know what, my dvc has brought my family and I countless hours of joy (lol, they'd faint when if I called in and said I can't wait until Poly dvc opens up. I'm seriously salivating at the thought of owning points there.)

I think MMM would tell you to buy the ceiling fan you love...on Craigslist! His spending priorities are not necessarily my priorities, but he does make me think. I'm not about to start biking places, but I walked to the grocery store a few weeks ago to buy hamburger buns - just to see how long it would take me. (It took 29 minute each way!)

 

[MrsPete]

That's the frustrating thing. I mean at this rate nobody will ever retire. You follow the gurus like MM, DR and Suzy. You save until you have a gabillon dollars and then the next day you read a report that it's not enough because now you need a Long term health plan, then it's not enough because the older you get the higher your risk for a debilitating disease. ON and On.

That's not the impression I get from reading these "gurus". In fact, just last weekend we just happened to be watching Suze and a 22-year old was saying she was just out of college, what should she do to start out well. The advice to her was 1) put aside just $100/month until she's 62 (that'd be 40 years), and it'd turn into a million dollars. My 20-year old was listening, and she said, "Wow, once I'm out of school and working, I should easily be able to put aside $200/month -- once I'm married, the two of us should easily be able to put aside $400/month, especially if we do it from the very beginning. That'll work out great for us -- if we start young." She gets it. Her greatest asset is time.

One of the things an early retirement guru will point out is that you don't need 80% of your INCOME - you need 80% of your SPENDING

Absolutely! This "you need 80% thing" implies that you current spend every penny you earn and will continue to spend at that rate after retirement, dropping only your work expenses. That's just not what most of us are going to do.

Speaking only for me and my husband, we're already in a paid-for house, and by the time we retire we'll be done raising and educating our children (though we hope to have grandchildren to spoil). We'll no longer be saving for retirement. We'll downsize to one car (which is a monumental savings), and that also means spending less on insurance, maintenance, and gas. On the other hand, we'll have more time available to garden and preserve food. We'll have more time to comparison shop. Even with more travel and higher medical bills, I anticipate we'll spend less than we do today!

nother thing they'll point out is that a lot of them have side hustles. They aren't fully retired at 40, they just don't hold a job any longer - they might sell a little real estate, or do a little consulting. A lot of them own rental property - and owning rental property is a job - unless you hire a property manager. They buy at garage sales and sell on eBay or Craigslist. Maybe they dog sit.

Again, agree. We'll retire in our mid-50s, but we will do something either seasonal or part-time -- something entirely unlike our current professional jobs -- and that'll allow us to travel and avoid dipping into our savings too early.

Retiring from your full-time job doesn't necessarily mean earning 0 for the rest of your life.

30 something chiming in here - mortgage secured, happy to do my part. But if you hope my generation thinks we can get away with reaching that 3rd or 4th mortgage in our lifetimes I would say think again. We aren't crazy enough to think we're going to be able to live like the boomers

I don't doubt that plenty of individual 30-somethings are living like you, but I'm not convinced that it's all that widespread amongst your age group.

My upper 20s/young 30s co-workers are thrifty in some ways (i.e., living with a roommate), but in other ways they're much more spendy than I am: They tend to eat out more, buy more clothes, trade cars more often, and a new trend that's popping up: A girls' Bachelorette trip (or guys' Bachelor trip) before a wedding. I see some pretty spending people in your age group. A common sentiment I hear is, "I'll be in debt forever anyway, so why shouldn't I spend?"

Most seniors I know have "some skin in the game", worked hard all their lives and have contributed to social security and paid their taxes. More than I can say for all the welfare receipiants and illegal immigrants who have not paid one cent into the system, yet get more benefits than our seniors and veterans combined.

Yeah, my Mom worked for years and deposited money into Social Security. She's not greedy or entitled to think she should collect benefits now. In contrast, my Dad didn't live long enough to collect a penny -- no one ever seems to mention people like him when they're talking about those greedy seniors expecting a check every month.

 

[DVCcurious]

We are close to being completely debt free, including cars and house and hubby wants to retire early at age 55. That's the soonest he can retire and access his 401k.

That statement isn't true. You can quit working and access your 401k at any age.

What you need to do is roll the 401k into an IRA, then using IRS Code section 72T you can take distributions from your IRA without paying the 10% early withdrawal tax.

I'm not suggesting you should do this. Leaving the money alone as long as possible is always the best strategy, but if anyone NEEDS to get to the money they can without paying the 10% penalty. But this is a last resort.

 

[DVCcurious]

Now that this has become a healthcare topic I'll throw my two cents in.

I am extremely knowledgable about healthcare finance.

I have worked for three providers (Hospital system, dialysis provider, assisted living provider) and one insurer, all in finance positions.

Pretty much everything that gets talked about in these conversations is missing the whole point.

Fact: the USA pays more per capita than other countries.

Fact: the USA has lower life expectancy

Fact: the USA's lower life expectancy is almost entirely explained by Stillborn children (who are counted as deaths in the USA but not in other countries, and a person who dies with a lifetime of 1 day tends to drastically drive down the averages) and BMI statistics (the USA is fatter than other countries but that's beginning to change as everyone else is getting fatter, too).

So why does the USA pay more per capita than other countries?

Because we pay extradorniary amounts to keep people alive wheras other countries don't.

My father had terminal cancer that was discovered in January 2008. He was given 90 days to live if there were no operations performed.

He died in April 2011. His total medical expenses the last 3 years and 4 months came to 11 million dollars.

ELEVEN MILLION.

Yet in these conversations people are debating the merits of "free birth control" because someone else has to pony up the $30 per month you are getting subsidized so you can get birth control for free.

Who cares? $30 per month is irrelevant. $11,000,000 over 3 years is what's relevant. And that's the discussion we are not having in this country. We refuse to address it because it's "scary" to talk about death. So we go around and around about these stupid irrelevant costs while we ignore the gigantic elephant in the room: how much does it cost to keep doing surgeries on a terminal patient who has no hope of being cured but can live a few more months if they get a million dollar surgery.

One of our close family friends lived in Sweden until the past ten years or so. He told my dad that if he was in Sweden in January 2008 when his terminal cancer was discovered that the Swedish system would have given him some morphine and sent him to hospice care and he would have died in April 2008. The Swedish government would not have paid 11 million dollars to keep someone with terminal cancer alive a little bit longer.

And that is pretty much the entire explanation for why the USA's per capita healthcare cost is more than other countries. We spend $11 million on terminal cancer patients, the Swedes don't.

So you guys all argue about what system is better all you want. But realize that you are ignoring the only question that matters.

How much should our society pay to keep someone alive one day longer, even if there is no hope that person will ever recover?

Our society paid $9,000 per day for my dad (11 million / 1200 days). Other societies have determined it's not worth $9,000 per day to keep someone with a terminal illness alive.

 

[MrsPete]

That statement isn't true. You can quit working and access your 401k at any age.

What you need to do is roll the 401k into an IRA, then using IRS Code section 72T you can take distributions from your IRA without paying the 10% early withdrawal tax.

I'm not suggesting you should do this. Leaving the money alone as long as possible is always the best strategy, but if anyone NEEDS to get to the money they can without paying the 10% penalty. But this is a last resort.

It's actually worse than that: If you withdraw your 401K money too soon, you pay the penalty PLUS that money is considered "unearned income" on your next year's taxes . . . which will raise your tax bill.

Last resort is putting it mildly. To make the choice to withdraw 401K money early, you'd better have a serious emergency.

 

[MrsPete]

How much should our society pay to keep someone alive one day longer, even if there is no hope that person will ever recover?

Your example is cut-and-dry: Your father was elderly and very sick with a terminal disease. The money spent was foolish.

On the other hand, if the question is a 30-year old mother of two who has breast cancer caught early -- I think we'd all say, "Spend to treat her".

It's the in-betweens that're hard to decide. What if it's a 65-year old woman with breast cancer? What if it's a 45-year old man with a less treatable form of cancer? What if the cancer was self-imposed by chain smoking? The extreme situations are easy -- it's the ones that fall into the gray area that are hard.

 

[tvguy]

I think it all depends on why you are doing the spending.

Events in my life recently have gotten me thinking about spending vs. value.

Am I giving up my Disney trip because some guru says I will possible need the money if I possibly hit 95? Am I giving up the money because I have to fund my kids college tuition? or am I paying for the trips with credit.

when is enough, enough?

So I'm taking a balance approach. If I meet certain parameters (college tuition for kids) then I have no problem blowing money on a trip or a LV bag. So do I want to die with a bank account full of cash and no life? Nope. Do I want to have to eat catfood when I retire? again the answer is no.

Like I always say, would I skip dinner out to send my mortgage co. a few extra hundred bucks. sure. would I give up my vacations to pay off my mortgage early? naw

I just posted a question about ceiling fans. the one I love is 2X's the amount of my ceiling fan budget. Now I'm sure Mr. MM and Dave would tell me go for the cheaper one and save the money but you know what, this is my house that I live in, why not have some thing in it that I will love for the next 10, 20 years?

Now I own a dvc, Dave and Suzy both scream, holler and jump up and down about the "evil" time share
but you know what, my dvc has brought my family and I countless hours of joy (lol, they'd faint when if I called in and said I can't wait until Poly dvc opens up. I'm seriously salivating at the thought of owning points there.)

Love your post. The key is BALANCE. But as your note underscores, the definition of balance can cover a lot of ground. I would have no issue at all splurging on the ceiling fan. But a time share like DVC, well, before my children were adults, I could never afford that. And now that I can, I realize with a job that only has 3 weeks vacation a year, and no holidays off, I would never ever use it enough to justify the expense.
But, having to place an elderly parent in a care home though, and seeing the other folks there who had family struggling to pay for their care, statistically speaking, your odds of outliving your money are several times greater than saving the money and not needing it.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

Maybe I've missed it in this thread, but I find the biggest hurdle in retiring to be healthcare costs. Most companies have done away with retirement health benefits or supplements. While we may have saved enough to retire and pay for our living expenses, paying for healthcare OOP will erode that nest egg. Until something is put in place for those 50 -65, I don't see many able to completely "retire" before 65.

 

[DVCcurious]

Your example is cut-and-dry: Your father was elderly and very sick with a terminal disease. The money spent was foolish.

My dad was 60 years old when cancer was discovered.

I'm not sure why you think 60 is "elderly" but I think most people would consider that later-middle age rather than "elderly"

 

[tvguy]

Maybe I've missed it in this thread, but I find the biggest hurdle in retiring to be healthcare costs. Most companies have done away with retirement health benefits or supplements. While we may have saved enough to retire and pay for our living expenses, paying for healthcare OOP will erode that nest egg. Until something is put in place for those 50 -65, I don't see many able to completely "retire" before 65.

It may have been mentioned, but that is the big unknown for DW and I. On paper, we have everything in place to retire at age 62 just under 6 years from now with a little more income than we currently have working. But we have been saving in IRA's and 401ks for 35 years. No pensions here, or healthcare options other than COBRA which would only run for 18 months, not the 48 we will need.