4 ms·
As long as you stay single and don't live in CA or any other blue state, then yes, that will be more then enough to live well. Right now, I know it might seem
by pascalxus 7y ago
As long as you stay single and don't live in CA or any other blue state, then yes, that will be more then enough to live well. Right now, I know it might seem like you'll be single forever. But, that might change. If you do get a GF, she may want marriage and kids. That will change the equation: at that point you'll need about at least 4-5 times more then what you needed as a single person.
Keep in mind, most forecasts (the average) for long term equities say it will yield roughly 3% real, from here on out, much less than the 6.7% that people have become accustomed to in the last century. This is due to slowing world growth, both in population and a slowing of per capita productivity increase.
- ohnocentral 7y agoWhat specifically is the issue about retiring in a 'blue state'? If you mean cost of living, the OP might choose Needles CA or some place that is much less expensive than, say the Bay Area. Is there a tax you're referring to that is problematic (i.e. cap. gain tax on investment income in state) or just the hidden taxes (i.e. taxes on fuel etc)?
- pascalxus 7y agoCost of living is much higher in blue states, unfortanetly. It's a outcome of higher regulation which customers end up paying for. Higher cost of living in terms of Shelter cost, Utilities and generally higher taxes.
- jppope 7y agoCA generally has a heavy tax burden. There are other "blue states" with lower tax burdens but the original comment was right on... generally middle of the country is cheaper.