Can I Retire In Pattaya

[FarangBuddha]

I can live on $3,000 U.S. dollars per month here.

That's about 100,000 baht per month at todays rates.

About 3,300 baht per day.

With one million U.S. dollars in hand it would take me 30 years to finish that money.

30 really good years

or

20 amazing years

or

10 off the wall

I'll die now and never regret a minute

type of years

Go for it...especially the "off the wall" years...I mean, it worked out so well for Michael after all... didn't it?

[markone1]

The average wage after tax and rent in the US cant be higher then 20K a year, which is what you have to last until you can draw a pension, most in the US will live a decent life on this i cant see why a single male in Thailand cant.

Personally i can understand wanting to get away from what is clearly a dangerous place, but why not take a year out you'll be bored sh7tless after 6 months and see what opportunities come up (that dont involve investing capital), youre obviously a bit of a chancer to do the job you do, now sounds like the time to live off your wits again!

[Tolley]

I guess I'm a target for the 'little people'. Chuckle. Kind of like Duke's of Chiang Mai?

OK, so USD400K isn't enough for a man in his mid 40's, assuming he never works again, isn't a Warren Buffet in bis investment abilities and that we face continuous inflation, currency and investment risks.

So if USD400K isn't enough, what is?

Lets not discuss, just post a number that you think is enough to lead a comfortable, healthy and fun existence and assume the person will make some kind of reasonably wise investment choices....

I'll start off...........

USD 1.5 million

I reckon that 1.5 million at age 45 say is the absolute bare minimum you would need to retire.

Given average life expectancy of around 80 for males that means that money has to last 35 years.

The problem is inflation and making enough income from investments to cover inflation and your living needs. That is not easy. Look how much more expensive Thailand has become over the last 10 years and that trend looks to continue.

And health care becomes very expensive in a place like Thailand where you have to cover yourself for medical.

[Jingthing]

Global average life expectancy for males (most retirees here) is 64.52 years. Not 80.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

[gerry53]

Global average life expectancy for males (most retirees here) is 64.52 years. Not 80.

http://en.wikipedia....life_expectancy

JT you are nitpicking and wrong. Most people RETIRING here are westerners and have already achieved the age of 50 so statistically they will live longer than the average. They are usually not from the poorest of African, Asian or South American countries which your AVERAGE figures include. You can make statistics read whatever you want depending on how you word them but with the correct facts it makes it more difficult. In your example it was what you omitted.

(ie: age - 50 plus, western countries, etc)

[Jingthing]

Look, I have been very clear here. This is very individual. Average life expectancy means nothing to individuals. Estimating personal life expectancy is an important factor in retirement planning. For that you need to do a few things. Look how long close relatives have lived. Take some of the easily available online surveys to determine your OWN life expectancy based on health and habits. I reckon MOST of you will clock well under 80, sorry to inform the truth. Also, I find your western theory totally specious. Westerners moving here are moving into a dangerous environment. Thailand is a VERY polluted country. The air is dirty, the food is full of chemicals, even the clean drinking water is dodgy. The food is unhealthy, even eating just Thai food means eating palm oil. Then there is the very high murder rates and traffic death rates. The medical care outside Bangkok is nothing to write home about. A westerner moving to Thailand is no longer really a westerner, environmentally speaking.

Corporate culture "financial planners" will say plan to live to be very old based on adding many years on top of "averages" that have nothing to do with individuals. That's a nice luxury for some, but for many (especially men) it means irrationally delaying an earlier retirement that they could have enjoyed before the inevitable.

Interestingly, women really do live longer, and statistics show they are even less prepared than men for retirement.

Edited April 25, 2011 by Jingthing

[gerry53]

Look, I have been very clear here. This is very individual. Average life expectancy means nothing to individuals. Estimating personal life expectancy is an important factor in retirement planning. For that you need to do a few things. Look how long close relatives have lived. Take some of the easily available online surveys to determine your OWN life expectancy based on health and habits. I reckon MOST of you will clock well under 80, sorry to inform the truth. Also, I find your western theory totally specious. Westerners moving here are moving into a dangerous environment. Thailand is a VERY polluted country. The air is dirty, the food is full of chemicals, even the clean drinking water is dodgy. The food is unhealthy, even eating just Thai food means eating palm oil. Then there is the very high murder rates and traffic death rates. The medical care outside Bangkok is nothing to write home about. A westerner moving to Thailand is no longer really a westerner, environmentally speaking.

Corporate culture "financial planners" will say plan to live to be very old based on adding many years on top of "averages" that have nothing to do with individuals. That's a nice luxury for some, but for many (especially men) it means irrationally delaying an earlier retirement that they could have enjoyed before the inevitable.

Interestingly, women really do live longer, and statistics show they are even less prepared than men for retirement.

Look, I have been very clear here, thats laughable!!! You are starting to believe your own BS.

All this is is a great smoke screen to covered your skewered statistics JT.

[Jingthing]

What's laughable about looking in the mirror and accessing your own specific situation? You aren't serious about this. That and/or you failed to read this thread and took one post completely out of context of what indeed I have been very clear about. I don't trust the retirement industry or financial experts about these things. You need to take responsibility for your own life and decisions on important things like this and do your own research.

Edited April 25, 2011 by Jingthing

[FarangBuddha]

Global average life expectancy for males (most retirees here) is 64.52 years. Not 80.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

The problem with that stat is that it includes the 6 billion poor people living in Third World conditions and die off early. A more useful figure would be life expectancy of the 1 billion or so living in the developed world and to which most foreign retirees would include themselves.

[gerry53]

What's laughable about looking in the mirror and accessing your own specific situation? You aren't serious about this. That and/or you failed to read this thread and took one post completely out of context of what indeed I have been very clear about. I don't trust the retirement industry or financial experts about these things. You need to take responsibility for your own life and decisions on important things like this and do your own research.

JT you are still putting up that smoke screen, but thanks for the sermon dad! Try writing less with researched content combined with some common sense. Just because you produce lots of responses does not make you correct.

NEXT!

Edited April 25, 2011 by gerry53

[Jingthing]

Again, my point is CLEARLY that average life expectancies are interesting to governments and insurance companies, but what's important to you is your PERSONAL life expectancy. True, most people don't really want an exact date, but it is possible to make an educated guess based on your own personal factors, which again, don't have much at all to do with anybody's average.

[morphic]

also,

if he put 200k into philip morris and kraft he would get a dividend of roughly 3k U.S. per month

If those 2 go out of bizness we are in more trouble than money can solve

The dividend yield for both of those companies is roughly 3.8% a year at the moment. That means USD 200K would yield about USD 7600 per year. That is just over USD 600 per month, not USD 3000. Maybe you are looking at out of date dividend rates or need a new calculator. Also, Im calculating before tax is deducted. After tax the yield will be much lower and as the tax is deducted automatically there is no obvious way to escape it.

[highchol]

500,000 us$ for me would be enough to retire at 45 if staying single.

[morphic]

500,000 us$ for me would be enough to retire at 45 if staying single.

So far we have 1.5 million x 2, 1 million, 500K and 400K for the OP, hope I haven't missed any.

Lets see if we get a few more contributions to see if any kind of picture emerges.

[gk10002000]

also,

if he put 200k into philip morris and kraft he would get a dividend of roughly 3k U.S. per month

If those 2 go out of bizness we are in more trouble than money can solve

The dividend yield for both of those companies is roughly 3.8% a year at the moment. That means USD 200K would yield about USD 7600 per year. That is just over USD 600 per month, not USD 3000. Maybe you are looking at out of date dividend rates or need a new calculator. Also, Im calculating before tax is deducted. After tax the yield will be much lower and as the tax is deducted automatically there is no obvious way to escape it.

I have a portfolio worth literally exactly $400,000 USD. About $250,000 USD of that of that is in my brokerage account, the rest is in either my Traditional IRA, Roth IRA, or 401-k accounts. I assure you, that taxes are NOT automatically deducted when one gets dividend income. No taxes are taken out automatically. The dividend distribution is paid by the fund or company. Yes, dividends are in general taxable and depending on whether they are "qualified" distributions or not, they are taxed a bit differently than other ordinary income. I own dividend paying stocks (AT$T mostly), dividend paying mutual funds, and individual "taxable" bonds in my IRA accounts.

I have a large part of my regular brokerage account monies in Tax Free Municipal Bond funds or Individual Municipal bonds. Most are also exempt from any AMT considerations.

[Naam]

people yawn when they read questions "how long is a piece of string?" (like yours). that's what you don't grasp.

Naam, I get the feeling you are a small fish in an extremely small pond. Do you know what I mean by that?

even if you try hard i won't tell you what feeling i have about you

[Naam]

I have a portfolio worth literally exactly $400,000 USD. About $250,000 USD of that of that is in my brokerage account, the rest is in either my Traditional IRA, Roth IRA, or 401-k accounts. I assure you, that taxes are NOT automatically deducted when one gets dividend income. No taxes are taken out automatically. The dividend distribution is paid by the fund or company. Yes, dividends are in general taxable and depending on whether they are "qualified" distributions or not, they are taxed a bit differently than other ordinary income. I own dividend paying stocks (AT$T mostly), dividend paying mutual funds, and individual "taxable" bonds in my IRA accounts.

I have a large part of my regular brokerage account monies in Tax Free Municipal Bond funds or Individual Municipal bonds. Most are also exempt from any AMT considerations.

the capital you mentioned does not tell a story. how much is you average net income tax paid p.a.? after all your "traditional accounts" prove that you are a slave of the IRS.

[gk10002000]

I have a portfolio worth literally exactly $400,000 USD. About $250,000 USD of that of that is in my brokerage account, the rest is in either my Traditional IRA, Roth IRA, or 401-k accounts. I assure you, that taxes are NOT automatically deducted when one gets dividend income. No taxes are taken out automatically. The dividend distribution is paid by the fund or company. Yes, dividends are in general taxable and depending on whether they are "qualified" distributions or not, they are taxed a bit differently than other ordinary income. I own dividend paying stocks (AT$T mostly), dividend paying mutual funds, and individual "taxable" bonds in my IRA accounts.

I have a large part of my regular brokerage account monies in Tax Free Municipal Bond funds or Individual Municipal bonds. Most are also exempt from any AMT considerations.

the capital you mentioned does not tell a story. how much is you average net income tax paid p.a.? after all your "traditional accounts" prove that you are a slave of the IRS.

I have no idea what you are talking about, or why you seem to be drawing the conclusions you do. But I will add some clarifications:

(1). I am a Florida resident. So I do not pay any state income tax.

(2). A large portion of my pay is tax free in the form of Per Diem. No IRS touchee.

(3). I used the word "Traditional" only when referring to my Traditional IRA, so as to point out that I also have a ROTH IRA. I will assume, somewhat incorrectly probably, that you understand the difference between the two,.

(4). My traditional IRA account is really a Rollover IRA that I transferred in the monies from three other 401-k accounts.

(5). Being a Florida resident, for the times when I am working in a different state than florida, and that state does tax my wages, I use a company 401-k quite effectively. The $22,000 a year gets taken off the top. Then later, when I retire, I can take that money out, but I will be taking it out as a Florida resident. So, I completely avoid paying any state income tax on tat $22,000 every year.

(6). I don't know what you mean by "p.a.".

(7). I am still working, and my base rate is $41.55/hour taxable, and $36.75/hour tax free. When on Over time I get $112.50/hour taxable.

(8). As far as net after taxes, I assume you mean right now, and JUST my Brokerage account earnings, since the Roth IRA and Traditional IRA and 401-k accounts are not taxed. My brokerage account is mosly in Muni bond funds and individual muni bonds, with the exception of my ATT stock. My Brokerage account earns about $15,000, and most is tax free.

(9). Combining the monies "earned" in all my accounts, the income is about $22,000. Of course I won't withdraw or use the IRA accounts for 5 more years until I reach 59 1/2 years old. At that time, my ROTH IRA income will be tax free. Traditional IRA income will be taxed as ordinary income. But again, this is where I do well, because every year I shelter wage income from taxable states and later will withdraw in a Tax free state. I think I work the system pretty well.

(10). I just finished the 2011 40-1k contribution of $22k. Now every month I buy another $10,000 Municipal bond. When the year is done, things should look pretty good.

By the way, last week I went to a great Wat Lao here in San Diego for their New Year, and yesterday I went to the Local Wat Thai here in Escondido, CA. had a great time. Looking forward to my next trip to "eeeesan"

[Naam]

I have no idea what you are talking about

and i have no idea why you are telling us the story of your life. this thread is called "Can I Retire in Pattaya?" the opening poster was asking whether his income respectively his capital of $ 400k will suffice to retire. as you mentioned an identical amount i mistook you for that poster.

i did not draw any conclusions but asked a valid question pertaining to the discussions of this thread.

[morphic]

also,

if he put 200k into philip morris and kraft he would get a dividend of roughly 3k U.S. per month

If those 2 go out of bizness we are in more trouble than money can solve

The dividend yield for both of those companies is roughly 3.8% a year at the moment. That means USD 200K would yield about USD 7600 per year. That is just over USD 600 per month, not USD 3000. Maybe you are looking at out of date dividend rates or need a new calculator. Also, Im calculating before tax is deducted. After tax the yield will be much lower and as the tax is deducted automatically there is no obvious way to escape it.

I have a portfolio worth literally exactly $400,000 USD. About $250,000 USD of that of that is in my brokerage account, the rest is in either my Traditional IRA, Roth IRA, or 401-k accounts. I assure you, that taxes are NOT automatically deducted when one gets dividend income. No taxes are taken out automatically. The dividend distribution is paid by the fund or company. Yes, dividends are in general taxable and depending on whether they are "qualified" distributions or not, they are taxed a bit differently than other ordinary income. I own dividend paying stocks (AT$T mostly), dividend paying mutual funds, and individual "taxable" bonds in my IRA accounts.

I have a large part of my regular brokerage account monies in Tax Free Municipal Bond funds or Individual Municipal bonds. Most are also exempt from any AMT considerations.

OK, I forgot about you Yanks and your retirement accounts. The question then is what tax rate you will pay when you draw from your account when it comes to using it.

Irrespective, you aren't getting USD 3000 per month from USD 200 K in Philip Morris and Kraft, not anywhere close and that was the claim you made.

[morphic]

Does anyone else want to tell the forum how much they think a 45 year old needs to retire in Pattaya? Remember, we know it depends and is personal and there is no unique answer, just want your personal estimate to help build a distribution of estimates. Just a number, no need to explain how you arrived at that number.

So far we have 2 posters saying USD 1.5 million, one at 1 million, one at USD 500K and one at USD 400K (the OP).

We need more estimates to build a picture of what the average estimate is and what the lows and highs are.

[Naam]

instead of asking how much income a single male needs per month or per annum to live an x, y or z lifestyle without touching the capital (actually the number of expense possibilities is virtually infinite and ranges from pennypenching to money wasting) the amateurish "research" for irrelevant capital goes on.

in my [not so] humble opinion it is not only amateurish but utterly foolish and irresponsible to take age or remaining statistical lifetime of a 45 year (or any other age) old into consideration and plan on that basis drawing from the capital. exceptions prove the rule, e.g. when it's about somebody who diagnosed with a terminal disease and two or more specialists agree on "less than one year".

but of course that's just my opinion and we all know that opinions are as galore as àssholes because everybody got one.

[morphic]

but of course that's just my opinion and we all know that opinions are as galore as àssholes because everybody got one.

On this one we agree.

As I said, the question is how much capital is enough for a 45 year old to retire on Pattaya, as per the OP's question. Everyone will have a different opinion on this, whether they intend to invest the capital and live of the returns, allow the capital to erode, live a luxury lifestyle or a frugal one etc etc.

The point is to learn what the distribution of estimates looks like, see what most people think, what the average is, what the lows are and what the highs are.

Thats why the request is to submit an estimate without a description of how that estimate was arrived at.

[Naam]

Thats why the request is to submit an estimate without a description of how that estimate was arrived at.

i give up and comply.

here's my estimate... 6.852 million US-Dollars, home and cars paid for, all capital and some real estate outside Thailand except two years expenses in THB, no Thai in-laws, no financial drain because of ex-wives and/or child support, no tax liabilities where you capital is located respectively income is generated.

[Thailaw]

Thats why the request is to submit an estimate without a description of how that estimate was arrived at.

i give up and comply.

here's my estimate... 6.852 million US-Dollars, home and cars paid for, all capital and some real estate outside Thailand except two years expenses in THB, no Thai in-laws, no financial drain because of ex-wives and/or child support, no tax liabilities where you capital is located respectively income is generated.

My first estimate was $4,782,911.43. But I realized that I had punched an incorrect digit into the calculator, and after correcting the error, my estimate is $4,782,911.66. I am quite comfortable with that.

[morphic]

Thats why the request is to submit an estimate without a description of how that estimate was arrived at.

i give up and comply.

here's my estimate... 6.852 million US-Dollars, home and cars paid for, all capital and some real estate outside Thailand except two years expenses in THB, no Thai in-laws, no financial drain because of ex-wives and/or child support, no tax liabilities where you capital is located respectively income is generated.

My first estimate was $4,782,911.43. But I realized that I had punched an incorrect digit into the calculator, and after correcting the error, my estimate is $4,782,911.66. I am quite comfortable with that.

All that matters is that each contribution to the distribution of estimates is genuine, i.e., sincere.

The last two aren't. i think these two characters are obsessed by the idea there is no unique answer (how long is a piece of string etc) and don't understand that we all know there is no unique answer, the future is uncertain etc etc, but that everyone does have some idea of what constitutes a sufficient amount to retire and live off that capital and returns on it.

As we will all finish work at some point, I assume, there must be some amount we presume to be enough, as otherwise we would all be too scared to retire. And as many people have retired and have not dies of starvation, there must be amounts that are sufficient. The objective to the request to submit a number is to arrive at a distribution of different estimates, I would like to know where I fit in and I think other people might be interested in that too. There might be some other interpretations too.

[Naam]

All that matters is that each contribution to the distribution of estimates is genuine, i.e., sincere.

The last two aren't.

don't bet the ranch on your claim

[morphic]

All that matters is that each contribution to the distribution of estimates is genuine, i.e., sincere.

The last two aren't.

don't bet the ranch on your claim

I'm not doubting the sincerity of your contributions because of the relatively large amounts of several million, but because of the sarcastic number of decimal places you have both used...could it possibly be that you are mocking me?

[sotsira]

Ok morphic here;s my estimation

As a capital sum that needs to be invested at 3-4% per annum you need a min of $700,000

[morphic]

Ok morphic here;s my estimation

As a capital sum that needs to be invested at 3-4% per annum you need a min of $700,000

So far:

2 x 1.5 million, 1 million, 700K, 500K, 400K

and in addition we have 6.8 million and a 4.8 million contribution but i don't think they were genuine, just an attempt to be sarcastic