Baby Boomers must die...

[SlowwHand]

U.S. presidential policy and interference was the problem, not the generation, ****forbrains.

[KrazyHorse]

That is true. The problem with the French is that every time they get imperial aspirations they act so blatantly French toward everybody else that they end up fighting them all at the same time...

[MRT144]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
That is true. The problem with the French is that every time they get imperial aspirations they act so blatantly French toward everybody else that they end up fighting them all at the same time...

[Drake Tungsten]

U.S. presidential policy and interference was the problem, not the generation, ****forbrains.

Whatever, Tex. I don't remember reading about WWII GIs shooting up and fragging their commanding officers...

[MRT144]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Just because you people haven't yet figured out a way to run an arms-length government agency doesn't mean it isn't possible.

Other countries do precisely this, by the way.

its because we have people that go into politics simply to exploit their position for personal gain.

[Drake Tungsten]

And you think other countries don't?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MRT144
its because we have people that go into politics simply to exploit their position for personal gain.

Isn't that the point?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
That seems overly pessimistic, according to a quick spreadsheet calculation.

Perhaps, but it's based on the new UK legislation where long-term liabilities must be matched with long-term investments (thus long-term bonds) which lowers the risk and return; and also on people's wage rising a lot over their life. Since you earn less when you're young, you don't invest much that has 40 years of interest ahead of it. You invest a lot more later then there's less time to grow. Also, when you take into account inflation, the real rate of interest is pretty low. IIRC they were presuming 7%pa interest and 3% inflation.

It definitely errs on the pessimistic side, so as to avoid the huge issues we have where pension funds haven't returned as much as people expected when they took them out. However I don't think it does sillily so, I think it's roughly correct.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Drogue

Is that including the years of interest on that $100k?

It is based on around 6% return of the $100k. I didn't bother with interest growth etc because it wasn't as if the $100k was an accurate claim.

However $100k is short of what it would take. I reckon around 10% of your salary over your entire life (40 years) would amass enough to retire on half your age 50 salary.

Depends entirely on what figures you put in.

Wage growth at 3%; Returns of 10%; Inflation 2%; Annuity rate 7%. Gives you a return of over twice your age 50 salary

Wage growth at 4%; Returns of 6%; Inflation 3%; Annuity rate at 5%. Gives you a return of less than 2/3rds of your age 50 salary.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drogue

Perhaps, but it's based on the new UK legislation where long-term liabilities must be matched with long-term investments (thus long-term bonds) which lowers the risk and return; and also on people's wage rising a lot over their life. Since you earn less when you're young, you don't invest much that has 40 years of interest ahead of it. You invest a lot more later then there's less time to grow. Also, when you take into account inflation, the real rate of interest is pretty low. IIRC they were presuming 7%pa interest and 3% inflation.

It definitely errs on the pessimistic side, so as to avoid the huge issues we have where pension funds haven't returned as much as people expected when they took them out. However I don't think it does sillily so, I think it's roughly correct.

I wrote down a pretty decent wage growth formula (added a percentage + a constant wage increase year on year to represent relatively quicker wage growth at beginning, tapering off toward end of career). Took 2.5% inflation into account. Basically, it looks like you need 8.5% annual returns to get your age 50 salary at retirement (in constant dollars, by the way) under my model (assuming 10% of gross goes to retirement fund).

[rah]

Dauphin
Obviously you have no idea what you're talking about.
At let's say 12% of your salary up to the cutoff level of let say for the sake of arguement 85K, is about 10K per year. I've been paying to the maximum for around 20 years. so there is 200k right there, not including the money at less then the max for 15 years prior. Let's add the interest that that money could have generated over 35 years and I think I could own an annuity that would pay more than 500-600 a month.
Yes, half of that would have been paid by my employer, except for the years I was consulting and I actually paid it. But I still consider that money contributed to me personally.

Now lets add another 130K + interest that I'm going to contribute before I qualify for a single penny.

Expecting to get some of that back isn't greedy. The younger generation wanting to take it is.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by rah
Dauphin
Obviously you have no idea what you're talking about.
At let's say 12% of your salary up to the cutoff level of let say for the sake of arguement 85K, is about 10K per year. I've been paying to the maximum for around 20 years. so there is 200k right there, not including the money at less then the max for 15 years prior. Let's add the interest that that money could have generated over 35 years and I think I could own an annuity that would pay more than 500-600 a month.
Yes, half of that would have been paid by my employer, except for the years I was consulting and I actually paid it. But I still consider that money contributed to me personally.

Now lets add another 130K + interest that I'm going to contribute before I qualify for a single penny.

Expecting to get some of that back isn't greedy. The younger generation wanting to take it is.

I am winding you up mate.

[Dauphin]

Rah, put it this way, if you aren't paying enough in for yourself, hardly anyone is. That is blatantly and patently obvious. To see you think you have to prove it is funny.

[rah]

Actually the point is that I've never planned that this will be my total retirement plan, but I've expected it to supplement it.
To add to it, my wife has paid in about 60% of what I have.

We do have well over 500K in 401 accounts and other savings.

The thing that got me worked up is being called greedy.
I've just been planing my retirement based on what we thought were the rules. And changing the rules on us and not expecting us to be a bit peeved is a bit unreasonable.

I do expect a reasonably good retirement, but think being called greedy because I planned is just silly.

[Dauphin]

But, you are greedy.