|
#2
| |||
| |||
| "Charlie" <charlie[at]comcast.com> wrote - quote - > Most of what I see is by and for persons who have done
Charlie, you're right that a lot of people do not plan for> well and planned ahead. I personnally like to see what > other minds might come up with regarding the large > majority who do not concern themselves with the future or > who can only try to help themselves very late. I think > joetaxpayer completely missed what I was asking about and > did what I said not to do. their financial futures. As you may have noticed, it is in fact much discussed in the media. I personally think a mass movement has begun in the last few years to curb personal debt, not unlike the movement to curb obesity. Joe's post I think was largely responsive to your question. What he came up with is that, under certain assumptions, one of your two hypothetical people will likely have to save more if s/he wants to have about the same standard of living as now. How to fix this? Save more, find new employment, learn how to live on less money. This group, for one, offers advice on all these. You originally asked: "if a person has any specified income and invests regularly in a serious savings plan then how much actual money will that person get to SPEND in retirement after taxes and other significant expenses?" One can get some idea of the answer using, say, the calculators at www.fincalc.com (click on "ConsumerCalcs" on the left; then look for the link to "What will my current savings grow to?"). Four percent of the total amount this calculator computes then denotes a guideline for how much a person can annually spend without exhausting his/her savings. It's a crude guideline, but all long term financial planning guidelines are crude, since they rest on assumptions about the future. You can use this approach to compare different scenarios. Otherwise, I think the moderators' guidelines are to steer discussion away from, say, lamentations over the failure of so many to plan for the future, and instead promote posting of immediately useful, constructive advice to help people plan for the future. |
|
#1
| |||
| |||
| On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 04:18:33 -0500, Charlie <charlie[at]comcast.comwrote: - quote - > An enormous part of the population is living
In an effort to REDIRECT THIS THREAD TO FINANICAL PLANNING, one> hand-to-mouth or spending freely with no regard to the future. When > they "need" they will TAKE, one way or another. No wonder there is so > much pressure to take away our guns. reaction to the above is that we can't control what others do. We can control what we do. And one thing I've noticed is that money in the bank cures all financial problems. So I do the things necessary now (financial planning) that let me accumulate lots of wonderful money. That way I can handle pretty much anything. -HW "Skip" Weldon Columbia, SC |
| | |||
| |||
| Charlie wrote: - quote - > I think
It's certainly possible I missed the point of your question. The> joetaxpayer completely missed what I was asking about and did what I > said not to do. original question had many points to it, reinvesting dividends, post-tax vs pre tax, time horizon, final spending potential, etc. I tried to address each, as I read them. Perhaps I missed the larger theme? Again, my mistake. JOE |
|
#-1
| |||
| |||
| For Elle: It is an exercise to look at things perhaps from a different direction. I am curious about the after-tax and after-expense end product in various situations. There are no imperatives to participate. Most of what I see is by and for persons who have done well and planned ahead. I personnally like to see what other minds might come up with regarding the large majority who do not concern themselves with the future or who can only try to help themselves very late. I think joetaxpayer completely missed what I was asking about and did what I said not to do. For Sgt Sausage: About your taxes as you commented in adjacent entries- Get used to it. An enormous part of the population is living hand-to-mouth or spending freely with no regard to the future. When they "need" they will TAKE, one way or another. No wonder there is so much pressure to take away our guns. I am not a "Boomer," I am a lot older than that. When the "Boomers" are old and hungry and don't care any more, can you imagine 100 million or so hungry (read: marginally starving) well-armed elderly raiding grocery stores? Tax rates that take everything above a survival amount from those with anything at all? I wonder how it will turn out, but I will be raising daisys long before it begins to get that bad. Oh. . . When the guns are gone- except for police and military- most other 'Liberties' and 'Rights' will dissapear with them. We are well along that path already. And this is not a pro-gun or political diatribe but a reminder that History Repeats. |
| Tags |
| money |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |