3 ms·
I agree with the parent's GP's interpretation. Woman was making $250k annual. Up to that point had only had a retirement account of $250k. Which strikes me as s
by fbdab103 4y ago
I agree with the parent's GP's interpretation. Woman was making $250k annual. Up to that point had only had a retirement account of $250k. Which strikes me as sheer bananas.
- neogodless 4y ago> She had 15 years of saving 26% of $250k to only have $250k??? But that part is just... wrong. We don't know what the savings rate was before her "mid 50s" - clearly it was LESS than 26% of $250k, and yes, that is bananas. But GGP's text does not match what the article says. In reality, she started with $250k around 55, and then saved (up to) 26% of $250k for 10 years, retiring at 65 with about $1 million saved.
- fbdab103 4y agoI think we were focusing on different parts. Yes, she was originally saving << 26% of her salary. My interest was strictly on her high salary and seemingly non-existent retirement strategy.
- Jtsummers 4y agoSince it wasn't clear, I was responding to this part of their comment: > She had 15 years of saving 26% of $250k to only have $250k??? Yikes. Which was a gross misinterpretation of the text they had just quoted. Yes, it's bananas that making that much she only had $250k in savings for retirement. But that's not what I was responding to. She did not save 26% of $250k for a decade and only end up with $250k in savings.