Savings Needed For My Lifestyle

[Khun ?]

Fact is a guy getting ready to hit his 40's needs to be a bit savey into todays world.

Anything under a $700K is not much of a future long term at 30 years. When you have the income

you state your goals should be more on what you can achieve at such and such savings.

You enjoy your work and life is not so bad other than you miss Thailand.

What you should be doing is saying when I save another $100K it will be another 4 great years

in Thailand without worry or the ball and chain of basing everything for the rest of your life on what

it cost to do.

You have enough for 10 years decent living if not good in Thailand at this point, now work on the

next 20 years. The hardest part is done getting the work that will provide a great future that you do not hate doing. You lower your goals when the work is unbearable and not accomplishing a decent rate of future stability. You are just starting to get ahead in life and you are going to quit again. Grow up and be a man that is interested in a bright future for your family not a self centered

pansy. You finally get what you have wanted in life for your future and your going to give up so easy. Keep the demons in the back of your mind and continue with the success at hand.

Since you are so uncertain about your future you should put your savings into some decent paying CD's or money market and start building a wise portfolio with what you are earning each month.

Most likely a good bet would be 80% investments and 20% cash here on out until you have a clear direction. The CD's would lock in a few years of income at no risk ($300K = after tax about $1K a month). If you do not work longer than one more year at least the CD's would give you a bearable

but meager amount to live for a couple years to sort out what you really are going to do in life.

If you are really getting ready to retire the portfolio you set up should be more on preservation of capital and do not plan on more than 5% after tax long term returns.

Good Luck

[Bruce1]

Yes, generally I would also think that if you adopted an objective of saving more and not drawing on your savings for several years, so you get the benefits of earning interest on interest, then you'll come out the other end a lot happier. After all, they say if you're healthy at 50 you're likely to live well into your 80s statistically, so that's a long time to fund a lifestyle.

[Khun ?]

Yeah he will probally want more than a mountain bike some time in life. May also want to

have children or/ and take a few nice vacations back home with the wife or look for a new ex wife

as most of us have done.

Ideal would be not to touch savings until at least 60 and live on interest till then. Met many of people who done the same as he is talking about and cannot remember anyone of them saying

it was a good move later in life. Also later on might like to have a little extra to do something different without worrying so much about every baht it will cost. Not much worse than being the guy in the group that never has the cash to do what the plan is for the day.

These cash strapped guys are a dime a dozen in these low cost havens. When the dollar gets 30 to 1 and below having that extra will not only be handy but necissary.

[JimsKnight]

Fact is a guy getting ready to hit his 40's needs to be a bit savey into todays world.

Anything under a $700K is not much of a future long term at 30 years. When you have the income

you state your goals should be more on what you can achieve at such and such savings.

You enjoy your work and life is not so bad other than you miss Thailand.

What you should be doing is saying when I save another $100K it will be another 4 great years

in Thailand without worry or the ball and chain of basing everything for the rest of your life on what

it cost to do.

You have enough for 10 years decent living if not good in Thailand at this point, now work on the

next 20 years. The hardest part is done getting the work that will provide a great future that you do not hate doing. You lower your goals when the work is unbearable and not accomplishing a decent rate of future stability. You are just starting to get ahead in life and you are going to quit again. Grow up and be a man that is interested in a bright future for your family not a self centered

pansy. You finally get what you have wanted in life for your future and your going to give up so easy. Keep the demons in the back of your mind and continue with the success at hand.

Since you are so uncertain about your future you should put your savings into some decent paying CD's or money market and start building a wise portfolio with what you are earning each month.

Most likely a good bet would be 80% investments and 20% cash here on out until you have a clear direction. The CD's would lock in a few years of income at no risk ($300K = after tax about $1K a month). If you do not work longer than one more year at least the CD's would give you a bearable

but meager amount to live for a couple years to sort out what you really are going to do in life.

If you are really getting ready to retire the portfolio you set up should be more on preservation of capital and do not plan on more than 5% after tax long term returns.

Good Luck

I really can't grasp how people can consider an amount up to $700k not enough as a savings plan! Invest that wisely and you can retire out here!

A bunch of people I know retired in their thirties with less and are living very comfortably in thailand.

Once you have bought everything you need and are set into a routine you can live very nicely indeed compared to our home countries.

I can live like a king for 40 K baht in thailand. All these folk exclaiming 100 to 150 k are shooting way to high than is needed.

[Bruce1]

I agree you can live comfortably on 40k in Thailand, since I more or less do it myself.

However, I also like the thought if I need cash to buy a car or whatever, I can dip into my reserve funds, which are sitting there untouched and multiplying.

What happens if it all goes pear shaped, you have huge expenses for some reason (medical etc), you suddenly need money? A reserve fund buys peace of mind.

I just assume sooner or later somethjing will go wrong and plan accordingly...

[siamamerican]

I'm a little surprised by what posters think is adequate to retire in Thailand. The federal reserve issued a report, in March of 2006, showing the median income for heads of households that are 45-54 year old to be $144,000 and 55-64 to be $248,000. Real estate values the last few years of the survey increased wealth by 25%. Taking real estate out of the equation, I bet wealth would be reduces by at least 50%.

I'm 39 and will be moving to Thailand with $300-400k. I'll be living in one of the most affordable countries in the world and working part time. Can't predict the future, but it seems like I'm better off than most Americans.

I knew non-Thais of all ages in Thailand with less than me and most seemed happy(some wouldn't be happy with millions). If money defines you, I don't think my measly savings would be that self-full feeling(nothing wrong with this-just not my cup of tea).

Is there anyone else out there that feels the same or am I just crazy?

[peteinCM]

I'm wondering why you are not considering using a part of your savings to open a business in CM? A decent business would have startup costs that would equal only a small portion of your savings and that could take care of your needed monthly income and could also allow you enough of an income to even leave your savings untouched for a number of years (both the principal and the interest). You seem smart enough to do the research and to put together a solid business plan. As an American, you can qualify for Amity, and you have a Thai wife who can partner with you and help grease your way in Thai society. There is always a risk in business, but there are plenty of farang in LOS who have created a good life for themselves by running their own business. Seems to be to be a smarter alternative than teaching for low wages.

With a profitable business you could then focus on starting a business you might really love doing such as planning and leading mountain bike tours in SE Asia. You say you need to work, so why not work at something you love doing? Your capital allows you to start a business to pay the bills that could set you on the path to having the extra funds to create a vanity business for yourself without needing it to be an overnight success (or even turn a profit).

If it scares you to invest some of what you've already saved in a business then spend an extra six months working in the US and with the extra 2-3 mill baht, you would have enough for a decent business startup that you could build upon and within a year (or less) could be earning the minimum monthly salary you say you can live on in LOS.

I do realize there are many who have no stomach for owning a business and the risks involved, but you seem to have the background, the ability, and a couple of intangibles (a Thai wife to grease the wheels and American citizenship to qualify you for Amity).

Pete

[bkkexplorer]

best advise so far IMHO.

[backflip]

"The federal reserve issued a report, in March of 2006, showing the median income for heads of households that are 45-54 year old to be $144,000 and 55-64 to be $248,000."

No it does not. You are confusing "income" with "wealth" - two completely different

statistics.

"Is there anyone else out there that feels the same or am I just crazy?"

The latter.

Edited January 4, 2007 by backflip

[gharknes]

you need 2000baht every day to live here in comfort, you could stretch it out with 1500baht but would have to find something cheap to do 2-3 days a week, in 2 years I get my pension at 50yoa, it will be worth 12,000 sterling per year, I also have savings/investments giving me another 6000 sterling per year, this is more than enough for most. My current spend rate is about 9000baht per week excluding condo rent.

[JimsKnight]

you need 2000baht every day to live here in comfort, you could stretch it out with 1500baht but would have to find something cheap to do 2-3 days a week, in 2 years I get my pension at 50yoa, it will be worth 12,000 sterling per year, I also have savings/investments giving me another 6000 sterling per year, this is more than enough for most. My current spend rate is about 9000baht per week excluding condo rent.

If you're living in down-town Bangkok agreed. It will be less though if your living in the north. Considerably so if your in the Issan outlands.

[siamamerican]

"The federal reserve issued a report, in March of 2006, showing the median income for heads of households that are 45-54 year old to be $144,000 and 55-64 to be $248,000."

No it does not. You are confusing "income" with "wealth" - two completely different

statistics.

"Is there anyone else out there that feels the same or am I just crazy?"

The latter.

Backflip,

were you drinking when you wrote this post. Do you really think the median income for Americans is $248,000 for 55-64 year olds? I pulled the data from the Fed survey below. Go to page 8 under age of head of household. Also, read the title of the survey on Page 8(Family Net Worth...).

Nice attempt at being funny.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulleti...nancesurvey.pdf

Edited January 4, 2007 by siamamerican

[backflip]

"Backflip,

were you drinking when you wrote this post. Do you really think the median income for Americans is $248,000 for 55-64 year olds? I pulled the data from the Fed survey below. Go to page 8 under age of head of household. Also, read the title of the survey on Page 8(Family Net Worth...).

Nice attempt at being funny."

siamamerican,

You have incorrectly attributed someone else's quote to me. I, in fact, was pointing out that the poster made an error. If you read the survey, you'd see that I was correct, and the original poster was wrong. Nice attempt at being intelligent.

Edited January 4, 2007 by backflip

[Khun ?]

http://www.answers.com/topic/household-inc...e-united-states

SOURCE: US Census Bureau, 2003[16]

Age of householder

Household income in the United States varies substantially with the age of the person who heads the household. Overall the median household income increased with the age of householder until retirement age when household income started to decline.[22] The highest median household income was found among households headed by working baby-boomers.[22] Households headed by persons between the ages of 45 and 54 had a median household income of $61,111 and a mean household income of $77,634. The median income per member of household for this particular group was $27,924. The highest median income per member of household was among those between the ages of 54 and 64 with $30,544. The group with the second highest median household income, were households headed by persons between the ages 35 and 44 with a median income of $56,785, followed by those in the age group between 55 and 64 with $50,400. Not surprisingly the lowest income group was compromised of those household headed by individuals younger than 24, followed by those headed by persons over the age of 75. Overall households headed by persons above the age of seventy-five had a median household income of $20,467 with the median household income per member of household being $18,645. These figures support the general assumption that median household income as well as the median income per member of household peaked among those households headed by middle aged persons, increasing with the age of the householder and the size of the household until the householder reaches the age of 64. With retirement income replacing salaries and the size of the household declining, the median household income decreases as well.[22]

[sfokevin]

Siamamerican - please read your post #66 and see the "median income" mis-statement that was made...

Edited January 5, 2007 by sfokevin

[backflip]

khun,

What was the purpose of the cutting-and-pasting? How about something that cannot be cut-and-pasted from the report? How about your analysis of the differences between the median and the mean? For a head of household, 55-64, the ratio of mean-to-median is almost 3.4 - what does that tell you? There are many things that are (statistically) normally distributed. Obviously, net worth in the US is not.

[backflip]

"Siamamerican - please read your post #66 and see the "median income" mis-statement that was made..."

Note that the misstatement was made by our friend siamamerican.

[siamamerican]

"Siamamerican - please read your post #66 and see the "median income" mis-statement that was made..."

Note that the misstatement was made by our friend siamamerican.

My point was an intelligent person should have realized that I meant wealth not income. Especially if you read the next 2 sentences after the mis-statement that use wealth not income.

"Real estate values the last few years of the survey increased wealth by 25%. Taking real estate out of the equation, I bet wealth would be reduces by at least 50%".

Anyhow, I'm sorry if my mis-statement confused you and to all of you that care, it was me that made the made the error.

[siamamerican]

I'm wondering why you are not considering using a part of your savings to open a business in CM? A decent business would have startup costs that would equal only a small portion of your savings and that could take care of your needed monthly income and could also allow you enough of an income to even leave your savings untouched for a number of years (both the principal and the interest). You seem smart enough to do the research and to put together a solid business plan. As an American, you can qualify for Amity, and you have a Thai wife who can partner with you and help grease your way in Thai society. There is always a risk in business, but there are plenty of farang in LOS who have created a good life for themselves by running their own business. Seems to be to be a smarter alternative than teaching for low wages.

With a profitable business you could then focus on starting a business you might really love doing such as planning and leading mountain bike tours in SE Asia. You say you need to work, so why not work at something you love doing? Your capital allows you to start a business to pay the bills that could set you on the path to having the extra funds to create a vanity business for yourself without needing it to be an overnight success (or even turn a profit).

If it scares you to invest some of what you've already saved in a business then spend an extra six months working in the US and with the extra 2-3 mill baht, you would have enough for a decent business startup that you could build upon and within a year (or less) could be earning the minimum monthly salary you say you can live on in LOS.

I do realize there are many who have no stomach for owning a business and the risks involved, but you seem to have the background, the ability, and a couple of intangibles (a Thai wife to grease the wheels and American citizenship to qualify you for Amity).

Pete

Pete,

I have given this some thought, but I felt including this in my original post would have been a mistake. I've read many original posts about starting a business in Thailand and most of the replies aren't constructive.

Your post makes sense and I have a few ideas. Having a Thai wife would simplify the process. I had little contact with non-Thai business owners during my last stay in Thailand. The next go around, I plan on networking and acquiring some first hand knowledge. I'm fearful of losing a portion of my savings, but would be willing to part with a few million if the right opportunity presented itself.

The best scenario would be to be employed by my current employer in a reduced capacity. The CEO knows my intentions to relocate to Thailand and, I think, would at least try it for a year.

If nothing pans out with my current employer or my own business, I think I could live comfortably in CM as detailed in my original post.

If you don't mind me asking, do you own a business in Thailand?

Thanks for input.

[LivinLOS]

I really can't grasp how people can consider an amount up to $700k not enough as a savings plan! Invest that wisely and you can retire out here!

A bunch of people I know retired in their thirties with less and are living very comfortably in thailand.

Once you have bought everything you need and are set into a routine you can live very nicely indeed compared to our home countries.

I can live like a king for 40 K baht in thailand. All these folk exclaiming 100 to 150 k are shooting way to high than is needed.

Rapid periods of inflation, stock market tumbles, an emerging economy gaining wealth around you (also inflation but driven differently), a falling dollar..

All these things are not only possible but even likely IMO.. Over a 30 - 40 year time table I would feel very nervous about having a nest egg that size and stopping real productive earning.

What about of Thailand becomes anti farang ?? The visa's are taken from us.. We need to head back to the west.. Being back there old and with no or low money would suck hard.

I do agree though that the advice of peteinCM was probably very good, a positive mindset and some savings could be parlayed into a successful business in a country you enjoy living in.. Makes the most sense considering you assets IMO. No need to run into that though definately live in country for a while first.

[Bruce1]

I think, (I'm not an expert, but I do try to listen to people smarter than me) that you could safely make the following assumptions about the $US over the next few years:

a. It will probably continue to fall in value.

b. It will probably become less important as an international currency.

Given that, what does it mean if you hold your money in $US and need to regularly convert it to baht while living here? Will the $US buy fewer and fewer baht? Should you park at least some of it in another currency? I don't know the answers, but lets just say I certainly won't be changing my Aussie $ into $US any time soon.

Have you thought about taxation? Should you hold your money outside the US for taxation purposes? Would that affect anything else in your finances? These are questions I've been asking myself about holding my money in Aus. Don't have the answers yet. Be interested in what others think.

[PeaceBlondie]

I think, (I'm not an expert, but I do try to listen to people smarter than me) that you could safely make the following assumptions about the $US over the next few years:

a. It will probably continue to fall in value.

b. It will probably become less important as an international currency.

Given that, what does it mean if you hold your money in $US and need to regularly convert it to baht while living here? Will the $US buy fewer and fewer baht? Should you park at least some of it in another currency? I don't know the answers, but lets just say I certainly won't be changing my Aussie $ into $US any time soon.

Have you thought about taxation? Should you hold your money outside the US for taxation purposes? Would that affect anything else in your finances? These are questions I've been asking myself about holding my money in Aus. Don't have the answers yet. Be interested in what others think.

Agreed, the US$ does not look safe for the future, at all. As for taxation, the USA is one of the few developed countries that taxes its citizens on their world-wide income. And, investment income is not eligible for the earned foreign income exclusion. Good questions to be asking oneself.

[Khun ?]

Median would be all ethnic groups average, Mean would be highest ethnic group which believe it or not asian american has a average higher than white american.

I believe this info was from tax filings. It could be two person family working or one person working.

Wealth itself would not take into consideration if the person is working or spending the wealth.

If the guy stops working at 40, 41 or 42 and the last being at double the savings would not

seem to be to hard of a decision.

Take some time before you start thinking about business or how and where to live in Thai sticks.

If you cannot shuffle paperwork on "no doc" high risk loans for $500+ a day, why get into a miserable situation that may only clear that much a month after some headaches and time.

You wouldn't be worried about some of these no doc loan lawsuits catching up with you, would you?

khun,

What was the purpose of the cutting-and-pasting? How about something that cannot be cut-and-pasted from the report? How about your analysis of the differences between the median and the mean? For a head of household, 55-64, the ratio of mean-to-median is almost 3.4 - what does that tell you? There are many things that are (statistically) normally distributed. Obviously, net worth in the US is not.

Edited January 5, 2007 by Khun ?

[NovaBlue05]

Anyhow, I'm sorry if my mis-statement confused you and to all of you that care, it was me that made the made the error.

Whew.....Glad you cleared that up!

[backflip]

"Median would be all ethnic groups average, Mean would be highest ethnic group which believe it or not asian american has a average higher than white american."

The median is the point that has an equal number of people below it, as above it. The mean is the average. The fact that the average is significantly higher than the mean, indicates that the more wealthy 50% is substantially more wealthy, and that data supports the high US Gini index. Since the report only covers "white non-Hispanic" and "nonwhite or Hispanic", it's a stretch to call into consideration of another racial segment. For a more substantive analysis, I suggest "The Statistical Abstract of the United States, available online or for purchase (CD or printed). Finally, the report covers only 4,522 out of 100 million households. Your mileage might vary.

[Khun ?]

Yes you could very well be right I did not more than skim over it yesterday and what I stated was

one of the statements that I remembered. The mean seem to be $77K and median $61K

for the highest group in earnings not important enough to skim again now. The gov site took to much effort and I did not see where it stated annual income, with a skim, nor did anyone else post it from the site.

The average wealth in the states has not a whole lot of bearing on his situation. If the guy at his age has

income in the top 5% for a year, with only average wealth and being his age does not make alot

of sense giving up after a few years and specially when a good friend got him the job.

Sounds like he has an important position and now he got a little saved, he is out the door to adult disneyland.

Maybe he is right, maybe wrong just stirring the pot luck dinner and see what it ends up being.

Most people once they have something set in their mind thats it no matter what is best or reasoning.

For each their own. Like being best man at a miserable wedding.

"Median would be all ethnic groups average, Mean would be highest ethnic group which believe it or not asian american has a average higher than white american."

The median is the point that has an equal number of people below it, as above it. The mean is the average. The fact that the average is significantly higher than the mean, indicates that the more wealthy 50% is substantially more wealthy, and that data supports the high US Gini index. Since the report only covers "white non-Hispanic" and "nonwhite or Hispanic", it's a stretch to call into consideration of another racial segment. For a more substantive analysis, I suggest "The Statistical Abstract of the United States, available online or for purchase (CD or printed). Finally, the report covers only 4,522 out of 100 million households. Your mileage might vary.

[Khun ?]

Your right, the house in the Ozarks is much nicer with 5 times the land than the one in California but only half the worth. Could the 3.4 be the persons at the median of that group compared to 1 for upper mean level in the same group.

That was 2003, three years ago and housing prices where most have their wealth is up 50%

give or take a bit. Maybe the $400K net worth would put him average today.

khun,

What was the purpose of the cutting-and-pasting? How about something that cannot be cut-and-pasted from the report? How about your analysis of the differences between the median and the mean? For a head of household, 55-64, the ratio of mean-to-median is almost 3.4 - what does that tell you? There are many things that are (statistically) normally distributed. Obviously, net worth in the US is not.

Edited January 5, 2007 by Khun ?

[Khun ?]

Here is a newer census report: over 600K families make over $250K.

http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032005/hhinc/new06_000.htm

SOURCE: US Census Bureau, 2004/05[30]

Median income

The median income divides households in the US evenly in the middle with half of all household earning more than the median income and half of all households earning less then the median household income. In 2004 the median household income in the United States was $43,389.[20] According to the US Census Bureau, the median is "considerably lower than the average, and provides a more accurate representation."[33] Considering other racial and geographical inequities in regards to household income, it should come as no surprise that the median household income varies with race, size of household and geography. The state with the highest median household income in the United States was New Hampshire with $57,352, followed by New Jersey, Maryland and Connecticut, making the Northeastern United States the wealthiest area by income in the entire country.[34] In terms of region the median household income was as follows: "Northeast ($47,994), West ($47,680) and South ($40,773)." Median household income in the Mid-West declined by 2.8% to $44,657.[35] The exception was the Midwest, where income declined 2.8 percent, to $44,657. While median household income has tendency to increase up to four persons per household, it declines thereon after. This indicated that while four person households have larger incomes than those with one, two or three members, household with seem to earn progressively less as their size increases beyond four persons. According to the US Census Bureau 2004 Community Survey, two-person households had a median income of $39,755, with $48,957 for three-person households, $54,338 for four-person households, $50,905 for five-person households, $45,435 for six-person households, with seven-or-more-person households having the second lowest median income of only $42,471.[36]. In terms of race, Asian-Americans households had the highest median household income of $57,518, European-American households ranked second with $48,977, Hispanic or Latino households ranked third with $34,241. African American or Black households had the lowest median household income of all races with $30,134.[35]

Mean income

Another common measurement of personal income is the mean household income. Unlike the median household income which is the divides all households in two halves, the mean income is the average income earned by American households. In the case of mean income, the income of all households is divided by the number of all households.[37] The mean income is usually more affected by the relatively unequal distribution of income which tilts towards the top.[33] As a result the mean tends to be higher as the median income with the top earning households boosting it. Overall the mean household income in the United States according to the US Census Bureau 2004 Economic Survey was $60,528, $17,210 or 39.73% higher than the median household income.[38]

"Median income is the amount which divides the income distribution into two equal groups, half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount. Mean income (average) is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a group by the number of units in that group. The means and medians for households and families are based on all households and families. Means and medians for people are based on people 15 years old and over with income."[37]

-US Census Bureau, Frequently Asked Question, published by First Gov.

The mean household income for households headed by persons identifying as White alone was $65,317, $40,685 for those headed by persons identifying as African American or Black, $45,871 for those headed by persons identifying as Hispanic or Latino, and $76,747 for those households headed by persons identifying as Asian alone. Approximately one third, or 36.5%, of all households earned more than the mean income, while 63.5% earned less than the mean.[38]

Edited January 5, 2007 by Khun ?

[Bruce1]

I'm surprised those American household income figures aren't higher. Even allowing for currency fluctuations, it reminds me of how wealthy Australians have become, not that far behind Americans I guess.

[siamamerican]

I'm surprised those American household income figures aren't higher. Even allowing for currency fluctuations, it reminds me of how wealthy Australians have become, not that far behind Americans I guess.

Your right, we are losing our lead. Our economy is still heathy, but other econimies are growing faster. I would guess most Americans think Australian's wealth per capita is comparible to Americans.