5 ms·
There are very few really reasonable assumptions over a 50 year timeframe. 5-7% ROI is not one of them, I'd say. On the other hand, you missed an important poin
by brazzy 14y ago
There are very few really reasonable assumptions over a 50 year timeframe. 5-7% ROI is not one of them, I'd say. On the other hand, you missed an important point:
4. "No longer working" isn't a permanent all-or-nothing decision. You can start working again if it becomes necessary for some reason (probably won't earn quite as much though). Or even keep working, just with fewer hours and/or a job that pays less but which you enjoy more.
- hudibras 14y agoThat's true, it's the flexibility to work exactly as much as you want--even if it's zero hours a year. In my own financial calculations, I also assume that I start collecting social security benefits when I turn 67. A lot of people consider that naive ("SS is going bankrupt!"), but I don't. So that'll be either a raise for my retirement income or at least a cushion to soften the losses I may have taken in the market in the preceding 25 years.
- marvin 14y agoI'm a big fan of MMM, but I'm also not from the US. From an external point of view, making any assumptions about United States pensions far in the future seems like a bad idea. The United States can barely pay interest on its foreign debt (debt ceiling/fiscal cliff debate), how do you expect it will be able to honor its national debt obligations without resorting to inflation?
- hudibras 14y agoAs you probably know, discussions about Social Security in the U.S. quickly become holy wars so I'll just answer your question without explanation: I trust the Democrats will protect and defend Social Security from the Republicans who want to destroy it.
- marvin 14y agoI'm just saying practically. Where will the money come from? Politics aside, how are you going to be able to afford it at all, without inflation?