Retirees -- are you SPENDING enough money?

[Jingthing]

35 minutes ago, statman78 said:

I agree with your statement that they do not need to maintain the entire nest egg but why would they be foolish?  In the example given, if the person is living the life they want to live why should they spend more?

I'm assuming they would be spending less with the goal of maintaining (or growing the nest egg). In cases where they are just having the most wonderful time and not even thinking about that and the nest egg just happens to stay the same or grow, that would be different. 

I'm pretty sure this is a thing. You hear people saying that stuff all the time. I never touch principle! Like its some kind of taboo or something. 

Edited May 19, 2017 by Jingthing

[55Jay]

11 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I'm assuming they would be spending less with the goal of maintaining (or growing the nest egg). In cases where they are just having the most wonderful time and not even thinking about that and the nest egg just happens to stay the same or grow, that would be different. 

I'm pretty sure this is a thing. You hear people saying that stuff all the time. I never touch principle! Like its some kind of taboo or something. 

Not touching principle IS a THING.  It's a very basic thing.  You know that, Fidelity should be telling you that. 

 

If rich people want to die clutching their bank books and portfolio statements, what is your interest in that?  It's up to them.  They are probably smart enough to have distributions set up on their death.  What is your interest here? 

Edited May 19, 2017 by 55Jay

[Jingthing]

9 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

Not touching principle IS a THING.  It's a very basic thing.  You know that, Fidelity should be telling you that. 

 

If rich people want to die clutching their bank books and portfolio statements, what is your interest in that?  It's up to them.  They are probably smart enough to have distributions set up on their death.  What is your interest here? 

The topic is not about building wealth. It's about getting to a point in life when it's more logical to spend down a notch or two or three, or more, enjoying their money while still ALIVE. Depending on a lot of personal factors of course.

Already mentioned, multiple times, including in the OP article, is that if a person is very interested in leaving a bigger legacy, the concept of spending down will be less relevant or not at all relevant. 

 

It's just a discussion topic. I'm not "interested" in it beyond that.

 

Edited May 19, 2017 by Jingthing

[55Jay]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The topic is not about building wealth. It's about getting to a point in life when it's more logical to spend down a notch or two or three, or more, enjoying their money while still ALIVE. Depending on a lot of personal factors of course.

Already mentioned, multiple times, including in the OP article, is that if a person is very interested in leaving a bigger legacy, the concept of spending down will be less relevant. 

 

It's just a discussion topic. I'm not "interested" in it beyond that.s

 

10-4!  I get it, don't bite my head off!  I have mates in their late 60s on SSI, who are pulling down on principal to supplement the monthly spend rate.   I try to give them gentle advice but they aren't having it, so I just let it go.

 

But... would you allow that your views aren't shared by some who are in the position you are talking about?  Why would you seek to impart your baseless wisdom on others?  I do get your point in this, and agree for the most part, but, as usual, you take it too far in some of your comments.

 

I'm not THAT much younger than you, so you can quit the barking nonsense.  

 

My perspective qualifies here in that I have a lump larger than the average dead person in your OP link article.  My intent is to preserve it as long as I can, and if I never have to "touch principal" tp maintain my current quality of life, then who are you to suggest I'm being foolish or selfish? 

 

To me, my sock full of coins is the same as having a house in the US or UK, that I rent out, and collect a passive income from.  I'll do that until I die, and then arrangements are in place to transfer that wealth to certain designees.  I'm sure they won't complain that I was too conservative in my spending whilst I was alive. 

[Jingthing]

Yes, do what you want with your money.

Your personal decisions about your money don't concern me in the slightest.

I never said otherwise.

 

I'm going to ignore your baiting personal insults. So transparent. I'm wise to your game yet you don't quit. Weird. 

 

 

Referring to friends on SSI spending down, I'm going to make an assumption that is often because their income (plus savings) are so inadequate they don't really have a choice. 

 

Well, that might be OK for them in the long run depending on their life span. Or a disaster.

 

Money issues for older people can be very serious.

 

But for quite wealthy older people, as suggested in the OP, it may be possible to be too conservative and follow lifetime wealth building/preserving habits when there are no longer good reasons to do so (excluding legacy). 

Edited May 19, 2017 by Jingthing

[55Jay]

5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Yes, do what you want with your money.

I never said otherwise.

 

I'm going to ignore your baiting personal insults. So transparent. I'm wise to your game yet you don't quit. Weird. 

 

 

Referring to friends on SSI spending down, I'm going to make an assumption that is often because their income (plus savings) are so inadequate they don't really have a choice. 

 

Well, that might be OK for them in the long run depending on their life span. Or a disaster.

 

Money issues for older people can be very serious.

True the last part.

 

I'm not baiting you.  Give that a rest.  What you are doing is manufacturing a narrative you can action later with Mods, and you bait to draw it out to get more ammo.  It's obvious, please stop. 

 

We have different political views, but not as varied as you like to imagine, nor I am some serial stalker, as you have made me out to be.   Quit trying to build an out of proportion, false narrative. 

 

My views on this thread stand.  They are not outrageous but I do regret and apologize for whatever personal slant they had toward you, in particular the second one where I called it as I see it.  Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant, but I respect your right to punch me right back in the face.  That's what a forum is all about, isn't it?

[Jingthing]

The topic is about the topic. 

 

I am happy to discuss the topic in a general way.

 

I will continue to resist being personally BAITED. 

 

Edited May 19, 2017 by Jingthing

[55Jay]

12 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The topic is about the topic. 

 

I am happy to discuss the topic in a general way.

 

I will continue to resist being personally BAITED. 

 

By baited you mean challenging your position.  Fine.  Up to you.  As usual.

 

Those with money who fail to spend it or use in the manner you deem appropriate, are wrong.

 

Case closed. Next. 

[Jingthing]

Just now, 55Jay said:

By baited you mean challenging your position.  Fine.  Up to you.  As usual.

 

Those with money who fail to spend it or use in the manner you deem appropriate, are wrong.

 

Case closed. Next. 

Do not put words in my mouth. 

But if you would like to make that obnoxious mischaracterization of my POV your final word on this thread, be my guest. 

 

[55Jay]

22 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Do not put words in my mouth. 

But if you would like to make that obnoxious mischaracterization of my POV your final word on this thread, be my guest. 

 

Well, nobody else seems to be diggin' your dumb thread, might as well make it the last word.  555!

 

Anyway, it's late, going to go kick the wife and shag the cat now.  Nighty night, JT.  Luv you lots, dude!  Cheers!  

Edited May 19, 2017 by 55Jay

[Mangkhut]

23 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Perhaps read the linked article in the OP and it would be obvious.

It's about people with a good degree of wealth. 

Unless their goal is to leave a large legacy, generally it means spending enough to enjoy your money while you are ALIVE and not "waste" it by dying without spending it motivated by perhaps irrational worry that you don't have enough.

I've met older people, and heard them here, that are quite wealthy but are determined to never spend down a nest egg at all. Not to nothing, that would be a disaster of course, but at all!

The article talks about many people even growing a large nest egg after retirement. For some people, worth a look at these attitudes. 

If eldery people with a certain degree of wealth dont want to spend a lot of money - it must be up to them!  

 

Hey bigmouth - leave them wealthy elderly alone.... ;-)

[Jingthing]

3 minutes ago, Mangkhut said:

If eldery people with a certain degree of wealth dont want to spend a lot of money - it must be up to them!  

 

...

Yes, of course, it is up to them.

But as the article covers -- some of those restricting their spending out of fear or out of long standing habit that made sense earlier in life but might not later -- probably don't really need to.

Removed your troll comment. 

Edited May 20, 2017 by Jingthing

[Mangkhut]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

 

Removed your troll comment. 

Since when was humor banned on this forum?

Edited May 20, 2017 by Mangkhut

[Jingthing]

Just now, Mangkhut said:

Since when was humor bannedon this forum?

That was humor? Fooled me. 

I doubt you have anything further to say about the actual topic, right? 

[Mangkhut]

6 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

That was humor? Fooled me. 

I doubt you have anything further to say about the actual topic, right? 

For persons without a sense of humor and too much moderator power I guess it isnt....

 

 

 

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, Mangkhut said:

For persons without a sense of humor and too much moderator power I guess it isnt....

 

 

 

I have no moderator power but I don't appreciate moronic troll posts that clearly aren't really about the topic. Do you think anyone reading this actually believes you posted here to discuss the topic? 

[BuaBS]

I'm not spending enough because there is nothing worth spending it on. I 'd rather throw it in the sea than spending it on cr_p or leave it to heirs.

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, BuaBS said:

I'm not spending enough because there is nothing worth spending it on. I 'd rather throw it in the sea than spending it on cr_p or leave it to heirs.

I don't quite understand that POV. 

I'd like to travel but that's one thing that I really can't fit into my budget (and something I did a lot of in younger years). 

If you have money to literally throw in the sea, enjoying luxury level travel doesn't appeal to you? 
That's just one example. 

It's not only about stuff but new experiences as well.

 

[Bikeman93]

The human beings forte is adapting to his/her environment. Seems the brains reward system becomes wired to find pleasure from repeated acts, like saving money and watching the bank account grow. Then there seems to be an imbalance for the rewards spending can bring so they become less likely to spend.

 

If there was only 1 baht in circulation the person who possessed that baht would have to pay for everything, for most others it would be free. Money is the root of all evil but necessary for progress. OK if changing the world is what you want, but who's progress?

 

Having said that I am guilty of this also, except the being rich part. Have to keep reminding myself I wont live forever. I like Warren Buffets line "I want my last check for the funeral to bounce". Hmmm maybe that's the same thinking though.

[Anon999]

On 2017-5-19 at 0:49 PM, Jingthing said:

Perhaps read the linked article in the OP and it would be obvious.

It's about people with a good degree of wealth. 

Unless their goal is to leave a large legacy, generally it means spending enough to enjoy your money while you are ALIVE and not "waste" it by dying without spending it motivated by perhaps irrational worry that you don't have enough.

I've met older people, and heard them here, that are quite wealthy but are determined to never spend down a nest egg at all. Not to nothing, that would be a disaster of course, but at all!

The article talks about many people even growing a large nest egg after retirement. For some people, worth a look at these attitudes. 

Many retirees have nothing to do and find that making money is a great pastime, that they don't really need more is irrelevant. If they are enjoying their hobby so what?

[Jingthing]

55 minutes ago, Anon999 said:

Many retirees have nothing to do and find that making money is a great pastime, that they don't really need more is irrelevant. If they are enjoying their hobby so what?

Yeah. So what? 

[Bikeman93]

Since semi retiring early I have made spending my nest egg wisely my job/hobby. Trying to save money where I can by rewarding valued businesses with repeated visits. The only problem is that in Asia it seems these businesses seem to close or relocate or something, but that's OK, looking for new places also keeps me busy.

 

Having several good friends die recently has, to me, validated my early retirement (hope that doesn't sound cold) and as I get older I find many other things validate this as well, like increased taxes on income and tighter means testing on pensions etc.

 

We all want to have our cake and eat it too, but always remember you cant take that cake into the next life.

[Jingthing]

The flip side of the coin on this topic. Uh oh ...

 

 

Quote

 

Almost half of Americans die nearly broke

In a recent GoBankingRates study, 69% of adults admitted to having less than $1,000 in the bank, while 34% said they actually don't have any savings at all. But apparently, this collective lack of savings doesn't get all that much better with age. A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found not so long ago that almost half of Americans die nearly broke. Of the general population, 46% of retirees die with savings of $10,000 or less. But that number climbs to 57% among retirees who are single.

 

 

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/retirement/2017/06/02/almost-half-of-americans-die-nearly-broke/102312340/

[whiteman]

now the poms will also join them when the pound tanks

[Naam]

On 5/19/2017 at 3:29 PM, bazza73 said:

The other alternative is to hire a qualified nurse for full time care for about 10,000 baht a month.

Every September, the Thai government retrenches all nurses in government hospitals who have hit age 45. They don't get much as a pension, and are quite happy to take up positions as full-time carers. I've seen several adverts for them.

in Bangkok and Pattaya you can't get an, according to western standards, untrained housemaid for less than 10,000 Baht a month. good luck to find a qualified full time nurse for that salary