Fairly large nest egg needed to retire comfortably in Thailand

[hotandsticky]

4 hours ago, zyphodb said:

You probably get a decent pension so you don't need any from your kids. Try living on 600 Bht/month which is what they get from the gov. here...

 

I am not talking about Thais, I am saying that it is not a concept that I subscribe to. 

 

Yes, my 40 years of working provided adequately for my retirement; a wholly different economic situation to that in Thailand. My wife's family subsisted quite well - even before my arrival on the scene.

[Neeranam]

6 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Really? That's just over 71,000 pounds-must cost more than that to live ''comfortably'' for 30 years.

The writer is obviously talking about poor people who haven't worked. 

71k pounds is enough to survive, especially in rural areas. 

Could invest that with enough to live comfortably. I know some who live well on 10k baht a month. 

[Neeranam]

4 hours ago, zyphodb said:

You probably get a decent pension so you don't need any from your kids. Try living on 600 Bht/month which is what they get from the gov. here...

Most Thais I know have much more than that. I was offered 4,000 baht a month  retirement but chose the lump sum of around $6,000 and bought 1 Bitcoin. 

[Bluespunk]

3 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

The writer is obviously talking about poor people who haven't worked. 

71k pounds is enough to survive, especially in rural areas. 

Could invest that with enough to live comfortably. I know some who live well on 10k baht a month. 

I couldn't

[Neeranam]

15 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

I couldn't

it's not talking about foreign expats. 

[Lacessit]

6 hours ago, hotandsticky said:

 

 

I brought my children up to become independent adults and I would not expect any support from them - unless I really fell upon hard times. Even then I would be loathe to ask....

I agree, with the proviso I always ask my son for technical assistance with computer issues. Since I paid for his tertiary education, I consider that's fair.

 

That is in a Western society. In Thailand, rural families must support one another, because the level of government social support is laughable. 600 baht/month when one hits sixty, rising to 800 baht /month at 80. I spend more than that in a single day.

My Thai GF will be well provided for when I die. The support I get from her in my last years beats the hell out of being stuck in an aged care facility in Australia, and fed pig slop.

[Bluespunk]

37 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

it's not talking about foreign expats. 

Expat or not, I'm saying I don't think it is possible to live comfortably on 71,000 pounds over 30 years. , especially those living in less rural areas.

Edited April 13, 2022 by Bluespunk

[newnative]

     I feel very fortunate that I have a traditional monthly pension and social security.   Month after month they arrive--with yearly COLAS to help keep up with inflation.  I remember years ago my Dad showing me his government retirement pension.  He noted that his contributions to his retirement had been depleted after just a few years and his pension was being funded entirely by the government.   And, thank goodness--he lived to nearly 95 and was actually retired for more years than he worked.  If I was funding my retirement with just my savings, I know I would not have put enough aside, no matter how hard I might have tried.

     Which brings me to several of my Thai relatives.  They are mandated to retire at 60 years old and they get a lump sum payment at retirement from their companies--which I suppose has to last them the rest of their lives.  I don't know if they also qualify for any sort of government pension.   I would absolutely hate that--trying to guess how long I will live and how much of the lump sum I can spend.  And, what I should be doing with it to try to make it last longer.   As others have said, I think it's unrealistic to expect 3.1MB to last 30 years.

[hotandsticky]

59 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I agree, with the proviso I always ask my son for technical assistance with computer issues. Since I paid for his tertiary education, I consider that's fair.

 

That is in a Western society. In Thailand, rural families must support one another, because the level of government social support is laughable. 600 baht/month when one hits sixty, rising to 800 baht /month at 80. I spend more than that in a single day.

My Thai GF will be well provided for when I die. The support I get from her in my last years beats the hell out of being stuck in an aged care facility in Australia, and fed pig slop.

 

 

I agree entirely.....especially about IT issues!

 

Apart from free health services there is no real social security in Thailand. There is no system and therefore no funding for it. I wonder what percentage of the Thai population actually pay tax - let alone any national insurance contributions.

 

The subsistence economy has been maintained for good reason - Thailand cannot afford social services; look how long it took to get the minimum wage over 300 Baht a day.

 

The one benefit of subsistence is that the rural Thais can virtually live on fresh air. When westerners were saying "Oh my God, the Thai economy is going to collapse", life was actually pretty normal in the villages. My missus will also be well provided for; a widows benefit 4x the Thai minimum wage. 

[Lacessit]

1 minute ago, hotandsticky said:

 

 

 

 

Apart from free health services there is no real social security in Thailand. There is no system and therefore no funding for it. I wonder what percentage of the Thai population actually pay tax - let alone any national insurance contributions.

 

 

 

 

There's a huge chasm between the rich and the poor in Thailand. The rich would probably laugh at the concept of actually paying taxes.

 

The health services are free to Thais, but they are fairly ineffectual when a Thai gets to the end of the road. Palliative care consists of dispensing paracetamol, Xanax and sleep medications. Effective opioids are prohibited.

 

 

[Oxx]

2 hours ago, overherebc said:

Just don't get seriously ill or have a serious accident.

I'm reminded of a speech given by Neil Kinnock (left wing British politician) in 1987:

 

Quote

 

If Margaret Thatcher wins on Thursday–

– I warn you not to be ordinary

– I warn you not to be young

– I warn you not to fall ill

– I warn you not to get old.

 

How right he was.

[Stubby]

8 hours ago, bkk6060 said:

The younger people are developing more western thinking.  They don't want to take care of old people.

People aren't as caring as they like to portray themselves. I don't know about Thailand, but most young people crave a family in the UK. But, then, once they become parents, they live for the day their kids grow up and sod off. We really are a strange species. 

 

And, out of the 8.7 million creatures inhabiting the earth, humans are the only mugs that have to pay to stay alive.

 

Still, at least we have the good lord above to watch over us, or the elderly would definately be up the proverbial creek without a paddle.

[Neeranam]

9 hours ago, webfact said:

As of 2017, about 10 percent of Thailand’s senior population was living alone.

Not sure the point here, in the USA, it's 27%.

[Neeranam]

Some rather critical posts about the Thai social system. 

A pensioner in the UK gets about 23,000 baht a month. Might manage to go down the pub, or eat in a restaurant once or twice  a month. Probably most have to go down the library in the winter to keep warm and eat beans on toast most days. 

A pensioner here gets around 2-3k baht a month. I know which I'd rather have, and it's not a cold bedsit in Skegness.

[RocketDog]

20 hours ago, Maha Sarakham said:

Eventually these old traditions will become less prevalent in Thai society as the older generation fades into the sunset.  It's just going to take time.

Wait. Are you saying that a some point people will stop aging? When they do money will magically rain from heaven?

I'm confused.

[Maha Sarakham]

12 minutes ago, RocketDog said:

Wait. Are you saying that a some point people will stop aging? When they do money will magically rain from heaven?

I'm confused.

No, I'm saying the new generation does not think the same way as the older generation in many cases.

[KhunLA]

47 minutes ago, Maha Sarakham said:

No, I'm saying the new generation does not think the same way as the older generation in many cases.

Blame it smartphones & the internet.  They realize there is more to life, than following their parents' village life.

 

First wife's village, rice farming, and after most kids got done school, went to work in town, coming back for a week of planting & harvesting, but then back to their jobs.  Some going to BKK in search of money, a few lasses headed to the holiday islands.  Some even using legit brokers and going overseas.  After a couple years, the 'parents' had to join together and alternate, doing the planting & harvesting, as many kids didn't return.  Did send money to hire someone in their stead, but preferred the 'city' or employed life.

 

Then a few did nothing but follow in parents footsteps, just being a lay about, drinking in between season, living off parents & money sent home by siblings.  Vicious cycle and guessing they are hoping to inherit the farm, sell or lose to pay of debts for being lay abouts, since not having the same work ethics as parents.

[gearbox]

17 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Hmmm...........

 

There seems to be a lot of confusion about what "life expectancy" means. 

 

When actuarials talk about Thai people's "life expectancy" being "77.7 years," they're talking about the "life expectancy" of a person BORN THIS YEAR! And this number is based on knowing that some will die much younger, and some will live well passed that point. It's a projected AVERAGE. 

 

But here's the thing............. 

 

The longer a person has already lived, the progressively longer their projected "life expectancy" becomes!

 

Why is this? This is because all those younger ages when they might have died..... get factored out. They've already lived PAST those ages! Therefore, the average gets recalibrated!

 

Take me, for example......... 

 

When I was 38, I had a heart attack. Pretty young for one of those. But because I had a heart attack so young, my "life expectancy" got recalibrated from the 68-or-so it had been when I was born.............. to a disappointing 58! YIKES!

 

The expectation from having a heart attack so young was........... I'll probably have another one, and that one'll kill me....... well before "ripe old age" kicks in! (That was the good 'ol dying-at-younger-ages thing, dragging my projected average down! 555) 

 

When I turned 58 and was still kicking, I looked up my "life expectancy," yet again. SURPRISE! 

 

My NEW "life expectancy" was now 85! WOOHOO! 

 

Why? Because I had already survived all those younger years when I.......... (because of the heart attack)......... had a high likelihood of dying! The average got recalibrate! (I'm 64, now.) 

 

So........... 

 

If you know someone in their, say, mid-50s to mid-60s, their "life expectancy" now ISN'T "77.7 years!" 

 

Their "life expectancy" NOW is probably more like mid-to-late 80s, or maybe even 90s! And the longer they live......... the more might-have-died-already years they put behind them........... the higher that number will go! 

 

Are there people today with "life expectancies" into their 100s? Well, if they are already in their mid-to-late 80s or 90s........... there's a good chance there are! 

 

Continuing to survive pushes your "life expectancy" higher and higher! Anyone who's 80 today........... has probably already lived 15 years past what their "life expectancy" was when they were born!

 

And, I say, more power to 'em! 555

 

A "life expectancy" number can be pretty scary. It certainly was for me, as I skated my way towards  "58!"

 

But if you know how "life expectancy" actually works......... and if you know how long you've survived already........... then "life expectancy" shouldn't be a scary number, at all! 

 

And it especially.......... ESPECIALLY........ should never be a number on which you make a PLAN! Because "life expectancy" is.......... and always has been.............. a moving target. It's a target that's constantly........ always and forever....... moving AWAY from you! 

 

So, cheer up, y'all! 

 

555

 

Cheers!

True to some extent, but don't expect your life expectancy to be way higher than those born right now. Being alive at 60 or 65 adds just a couple of years at best.

 

https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/life-expectancy-death/deaths-in-australia/contents/life-expectancy

[futsukayoi]

20 hours ago, RafPinto said:

True.
Show me an average Thai person who has 100,000 baht saved up, let alone 3,1Million

There are obviously a lot of poor people in Thailand but overall it is no longer a anything like a poor country.  The average household income in Bangkok is 42,000 baht per month although it is much less in some other areas.  There are also 19,000,000 registered vehicles in Thaialnd and in some areas car ownership among adults is 60%.  That suggests quite a few people are able to save 100,000 or more.

[KanchanaburiGuy]

2 minutes ago, gearbox said:

True to some extent, but don't expect your life expectancy to be way higher than those born right now. Being alive at 60 or 65 adds just a couple of years at best.

 

https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/life-expectancy-death/deaths-in-australia/contents/life-expectancy

And still being alive after those "couple of years"............ adds another couple of years. And still being alive after THOSE "couple of years"......... adds another couple of years. See how that works? 

 

Remember, we're talking "expectancy"........... an educated guess; a prediction. The only day you're guaranteed  is the one you're living now.......... and there's no guarantee you'll make it to the end! ????????????

 

Cheers! 

 

[KhunLA]

54 minutes ago, gearbox said:

True to some extent, but don't expect your life expectancy to be way higher than those born right now. Being alive at 60 or 65 adds just a couple of years at best.

 

https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/life-expectancy-death/deaths-in-australia/contents/life-expectancy

I might be around for a while.  Remember being on one site (trying to find) that based on you year born, it estimated how long you had, after you passed certain age levels.  If you lived this long, expect to live said # of yrs more.  But had a top out, and wouldn't go much higher.

 

While searching, saw this calculator, and not sure I agree, but like the results ... ????

Way down the page and you see the 'select your sex' dropdown for calculator.  

https://www.superguide.com.au/retirement-planning/life-expectancy#calculator

That's going to p i s s  a few people off ... ????

Wife will be 63 and kid will 41.

My cousin is 83, and quite healthy, physically & mentally.  So who knows.

Another one ... 82.7 ... feeling lucky

https://www.bankrate.com/retirement/life-expectancy-calculator/

 

Another simply by date born, and I'm on borrowed time already ????

 

Edited April 14, 2022 by KhunLA

[BritManToo]

34 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

I might be around for a while.  Remember being on one site (trying to find) that based on you year born, it estimated how long you had, after you passed certain age levels.  If you lived this long, expect to live said # of yrs more.  But had a top out, and wouldn't go much higher.

 

While searching, saw this calculator, and not sure I agree, but like the results ... ????

Way down the page and you see the 'select your sex' dropdown for calculator.  

 

https://www.bankrate.com/retirement/life-expectancy-calculator/

 

Another simply by date born, and I'm on borrowed time already ????

 

I think the 2nd one is more realistic.

At 66.5 I don't think I have much longer left in me.

But no need for me to worry about money, my pensions last for as long as I live.

[KhunLA]

4 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I think the 2nd one is more realistic.

At 66.5 I don't think I have much longer left in me.

But no need for me to worry about money, my pensions last for as long as I live.

If I make to 75 ish (8 more yrs) I'll be quite happy.  

Considering the dog is knockin' on 9 yrs, and if she can squeeze 5-10 more yrs, then that works for me.

 

Really no sense me being around, after she passes, all alone, with nobody to talk to ... ????

[KanchanaburiGuy]

1 hour ago, gearbox said:

True to some extent, but don't expect your life expectancy to be way higher than those born right now. Being alive at 60 or 65 adds just a couple of years at best.

 

https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/life-expectancy-death/deaths-in-australia/contents/life-expectancy

From your link........... 

 

"Men aged 65 in 2017–2019 could expect to live another 20.0 years (an expected age at death of 85.0 years), and women aged 65 in 2017–2019 could expect to live another 22.7 years (an expected age at death of 87.7 years)." 

 

Significantly, men who were 65 in 2017........... couldn't even have reasonably expected to still be alive in 2017.......... based on when they were born! 

 

(Born in 1952, male "life expectancy" was only about 62 or 63. [chart in link] So,  being 65 in 2017 means they've already outlived their original "life expectancy!") 

 

So imagine............ 

 

You've lived your whole life knowing the realistic practical limit is something like 62 or 63. After all, actuarials are usually pretty good at this stuff! 555 Then, suddenly, at 65, you discover your "expectancy" is now for 20 more years! (Not "just" a "couple more years.") WOOHOO! 

 

But imagine also......... (given the topic of the thread)............ how poorly  it might have turned out you planned for your retirement! YIKES! 

 

????????????

 

Cheers! 

[RafPinto]

1 hour ago, futsukayoi said:

There are obviously a lot of poor people in Thailand but overall it is no longer a anything like a poor country.  The average household income in Bangkok is 42,000 baht per month although it is much less in some other areas.  There are also 19,000,000 registered vehicles in Thaialnd and in some areas car ownership among adults is 60%.  That suggests quite a few people are able to save 100,000 or more.

Average household income 42k ?  Where do you have this from?
Probably some have hundreds of thousands and most hand on with 12-15k

 

Yes, many cars but most on finance.

[KhunLA]

13 minutes ago, RafPinto said:

Average household income 42k ?  Where do you have this from?
Probably some have hundreds of thousands and most hand on with 12-15k

 

Yes, many cars but most on finance.

Household  being a bit different the per capita.  3 generations, 2 MB & 1 pick up works for most out of the metro areas.

 

Mix the minimum wage income with the billionaires, and the 'average wage' per capita is neither.

[gearbox]

43 minutes ago, RafPinto said:

Average household income 42k ?  Where do you have this from?
Probably some have hundreds of thousands and most hand on with 12-15k

 

Yes, many cars but most on finance.

That's the meaning of average....e.g one person eats pork, 10 other eat only rice, on average the group eats pork with rice.

[KhunLA]

1 hour ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

From your link........... 

 

"Men aged 65 in 2017–2019 could expect to live another 20.0 years (an expected age at death of 85.0 years), and women aged 65 in 2017–2019 could expect to live another 22.7 years (an expected age at death of 87.7 years)." 

 

Significantly, men who were 65 in 2017........... couldn't even have reasonably expected to still be alive in 2017.......... based on when they were born! 

 

(Born in 1952, male "life expectancy" was only about 62 or 63. [chart in link] So,  being 65 in 2017 means they've already outlived their original "life expectancy!") 

 

So imagine............ 

 

You've lived your whole life knowing the realistic practical limit is something like 62 or 63. After all, actuarials are usually pretty good at this stuff! 555 Then, suddenly, at 65, you discover your "expectancy" is now for 20 more years! (Not "just" a "couple more years.") WOOHOO! 

 

But imagine also......... (given the topic of the thread)............ how poorly  it might have turned out you planned for your retirement! YIKES! 

 

????????????

 

Cheers! 

Maybe they figure if you didn't die in the many wars / conflicts, during age of eligibility, and made it out of the inner city gang life, along with not killing yourself w/cancer (liver or lungs) then you got pass the curve, and it's all good from there.

 

Balances out those the died <60 and those >85 for 75ish yr old average

 

For Thailand, I think the only criteria is, you're attentive enough to look both ways before crossing the street, and smart enough to drive the speed limit & wear a helmet.  That gets you pass the curve.

Edited April 14, 2022 by KhunLA

[Bluespunk]

15 hours ago, Stubby said:

Still, at least we have the good lord above to watch over us, or the elderly would definately be up the proverbial creek without a paddle.

If people have to rely on god then we should all learn how to paddle...

[RafPinto]

28 minutes ago, gearbox said:

That's the meaning of average....e.g one person eats pork, 10 other eat only rice, on average the group eats pork with rice.

Imagine Elon Musk would move to Thailand.

Suddenly, the average thais will all be millionaires.