"Alan Ballow" <alanballow[at]comcast.net> writes:

- quote -

Don't count on it.

I did read an article about some folks in China suing their
children for support.

But don't count on that ever happening here.

Unless you are talking about Medicaid look-back periods -
if a parent gives a huge bunch of cash to his or her kids,
then declares poverty to have Medicaid pay for long term
care, Medicaid can demand that money back. But that's
very different from making children responsible for
parent's costs. It's a matter of parents responsible for
their own costs.

--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:19:59 -0500, Alan Ballow <alanballow[at]comcast.net> wrote:
- quote -

I would be astonished if such legislation could pass.

Did they try to sell something based on the premise of such
legislation? Or did they use it to support selling something at that seminar?

i

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 17:11:34 -0500, joetaxpayer
<joetaxpayer[at]nospam.com> wrote:


- quote -

I've always found it helpful to approach these "seminars" with a
healthy dose of skepticism.

That's as nice as I can put it. <grin

-HW "Skip" Weldon
Columbia, SC

Alan Ballow wrote:

- quote -

I'm not doubting you, but I doubt that could pass. There are children
estranged from their parents. Parents who didn't do much for them beyond
the giving birth. The states are going to track down their children and
send them a bill?

JOE

Yeah and I just spent the day in an insurance seminar and learned that the
states are all passing legislation making children responsible for parents'
Long Term Care costs!
- quote -

"Will Trice" <wwtrice[at]paragondynamics.com> wrote in message
news:4489F843.1070708[at]paragondynamics.com...
- quote -

Yikes indeed. I'm currently saving for two retirements. Mine and my
parents. They woke up at 55 (and 56) with the thought "... wonder how
we're gonna make it in retirement."

Seriously. My father's first dollar towards retirement was put away
at 55. YIKES!

Guess who gets to support them?

joetaxpayer wrote:

- quote -

How's this for a scary stat (this is from a newsletter sent out by the
company that runs my 401(k)):

ZERO SET ASIDE - 41% of American households headed by individuals ages
45-54 do not have any retirement savings, including IRAs, 401(k)s or
defined benefit pension plans (source: Congressional Research Service).

Yikes!

"Chris Cowles" <spam_magnet[at]remove-me-bellsouth.net> writes:

- quote -

To reasonably answer this one would need a lot more information
or to make several assumptions.

If you tell us an asset-allocation that you are comfortable with,
it's not too difficult to estimate a long-run return on it
though the day-to-day volatilities and management are much
more comples.

Example: There's a fund which is 60/40 stocks/bonds and
invested to match the Wilshire 500 and Leh Agg - 10 yr
return (before taxes on disrtributions or sale of funds)
was 8.24% as of 3/31. Questions to ask now - (a) what was
inflation over that time? I'm not sure, but I'd guess about
3% annually. (b) if you're extracting cash from that portfolio
over time, how do you do so and what is the impact of up and down
years on said extraction? Vastly more complex question, but
on a first pass, it sure looks like you'd have been reasonably
safe taking 4% out each year by, say, selling 0.33% of your
holdings each month. I certainly haven't worked up a spreadsheet or
program which simulates doing that, though.

Come to think of it, that looks pretty good...

On a more conservative note, for example. Vanguard's Lifestrategy
Income fund - 50% bonds, 30% stocks and 20% cash/short-term (though
it varies because 25% is in an asset-allocation fund which shifts
around and only 5% is fixed in their stock index) has had a
10 year annualized return of about 7% and, as far as I know, never a
down year, with annual returns ranging from barely break-even (2002)
to over 14% 1997). Again - make your inflation guess, factor
in how you'd take distributions and deal with taxes and come up with
something. 4% annual extractions against th (before taxes) seems
pretty reasonable here, too.

Anyway, "target return" depends on many things from asset allocation
to tax structure to how or whether one extracts cash on an ongoing
basis.


--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting

- quote -

Given the numbers that are out there, 20-25X one's income should be able
to replace that income, long term, I find the 'over-savings' concern to
be interesting. I've met too many people in their 40's with less than a
year's income saved, and too many 50 year olds who have no idea how
they'll live during retirement (or whether they can ever afford to).

Seems to me, that the answer to the oversavers is that as they approach
the magic "25", they can quit worrying about SS, or pensions, etc, and
can retire at will. A nice problem for a younger person to have.
JOE

On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 09:19:33 -0500, "W. Wells" <otf70[at]nc.rr.com> wrote:

- quote -

Based on my own observations I would modify the above to say that we
should be saving as much as we can. Don't get bogged down in minutia
- there'll never be too much money. So just save.

In my work I have met many retirees. They came from all economic
backgrounds and saved for retirement in a variety of ways. But I have
never heard single one of them complain that they saved too much.

Admittedly I do hear concerns of over-saving and see an inordinate
amount of attention paid to how much one should be saving. But in
every instance it comes from pre-retirees who, for a variety of
reasons, want to justify (feel better about) spending more now.


-HW "Skip" Weldon
Columbia, SC

W. Wells wrote:
- quote -

I agree with this poster. If getting by in retirement depends on
getting a consistent 7% rate of return over a 30 year period beginning
17 years from now then you are very vulnerable if your actual rate of
return is lower than this. I personally would recommend setting your
current savings rate based on the assumption that you will get a 3%
rate of return in retirement; that way if your investments in
retirement don't do so great it won't cause a crisis, but if it turns
out that your retirement rate of return is 7% or higher, you can take a
few extra cruises, etc.

Andy

I agree with W. Wells. You need to be comfortable with the risk and
you should not have money in equities that you need within 5 years. If
you plan to withdraw at 5%, then you need 25% of your portfolio in
non-equities beginning 5 years before you retire and thereafter. The
remaining 75% can be as agressive as you are comfortable with.

Frank


W. Wells wrote:
- quote -

My advise is make as much money as you can. The more you make, the less
return you have to have. If you have $ 2 mil and you can live on $100M a
year you only have to make 5%.
"Chris Cowles" <spam_magnet[at]remove-me-bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:MD%Sf.2066$Ef2.567[at]bignews4.bellsouth.net...
- quote -

"Bucky" <uw_badgers[at]email.com> wrote in message
news:1149193912.816413.106060[at]u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
- quote -

then again, where were bonds say ... in 2003? What happened to your
stocks between 2001 and 2003?

Or, on the flip side ...

What was going on with stocks between 1996 and 2000?

Averages are a good starting point, but they don't paint the
whole picture.

Chris Cowles wrote:
- quote -

The historical return of stocks is roughly 10%, bonds is roughly 5%. So
7% seems reasonable.

Can someone suggest what I should target as a reasonably achievable target
return, post-retirement? Clearly I should be more conservative by that time
(17 years away) but also just as clearly, I'm not going to put my money in
CDs or I'll be eating cat food before my demise. I expect to live 30 years
post-retirement.

Is 7% a reasonable expectation? 6.5? 7.5?

I'm reasonably tolerant of risk and don't create new a new allocation scheme
at the first sign of a downturn. That said, though, I'll be more comfortable
with stable investments at that time.

Thanks in advance.
--
Chris Cowles
Gainesville, FL