Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [IBM Pension] Are Americans saving too much for retirement?

Expand Messages
  • king daddy
    QUOTE: 2) Without wage income you won t be paying social security.... FYI: Not true in most cases. I am living it. It s not wage income, it s any other
    Message 1 of 15 , Feb 1, 2007
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      QUOTE:
      2) Without wage income you won't be paying social security....

      FYI: Not true in most cases. I am living it.
      It's not "wage" income, it's any "other income" that is taxed, like
      "earnings" or "401K/IRA" distributions that are converted to ROTH or
      "required minimum distributions."

      The other hitter is losing a spouse and becoming a "Single Taxpayer".
      This bumps you from the 15% bracket to the 25% bracket quickly. The
      "pension RESTORE option" and loss of spouse insurance 'premium' do not
      adequately offset the increased tax hit of being single.

      My pension plus "other income" and a little 401K need crosses the line
      where SS becomes (up to) 85% taxable. I can beat that for a while (until
      age 70.5) with ROTH distributions, but 401K Required Minimum
      Distributions are really hurtful. Then being taxed at 25% or more being
      single really disrupts good planning.

      Then the paid off house starts having maintenance needs that you used to
      do yourself, but deteriorating physical capabilities require one to hire
      out things you used to do yourself.

      And lets face it, there is an increase in health care requirements, even
      with a good health plan. ...and if you have a major hitter that spans
      two or more benefit years, that's max out of pocket in consecutive years.

      Bottom line is that one needs to plan on converting as much 401K to ROTH
      as sensibly feasible, and do it while you have the advantage of "joint"
      filing.

      Carl






      thekanck wrote:
      >
      > I might have read it incorrectly, but the way I read it we would only
      > be "over-saving" if we were, as a group, saving as much as is
      > suggested by the typical on-line calculators.
      >
      > Indeed I don't think "we" (again we as a generation) are saving
      > anywhere near as much as even the most conservative of the calculators
      > would estimate we will need so we probably have very few "oversavers"
      > among us in reality.
      >
      > Most of the calculators assume your "needs" in retirement are some
      > fraction of your pre-retirement salary. I find this a bit simplistic.
      > a number of other factors should be considered:
      >
      > On the plus side...
      >
      > 1) Since you are retiring you can STOP saving for retirement.
      > If for example you currently contribute the max. amount to my 401K of
      > $20K/year ,Once you retire I won't be doing that, so needs can be
      > "reduced" in retirement accordingly...
      > e.g. if on makes $90K they really only "count" the net $70K that they
      > have left after the 401K contributions so what they need to replace is
      > some fraction of $70K not 90K.
      >
      > 2) Without wage income you won't be paying social security which is
      > (roughly) 6.2% of my 1st $97K of salary (for each person if married).
      > Potentially this is an additional $6K a retiree do not have to
      > "replace" when calculating retirement income
      >
      > 3) Overall, tax rates on "passive" income are generally lower than on
      > salary income ... hard to measure but generally a tangible reduction.
      >
      > Taking these items into account, potentially, an earnest saver with a
      > salary of $90K might start with an effective replacement income of
      > only $64K or less even if they wanted to "fund" retirement at at the
      > 100% level.
      >
      > 4) Mortgage, if not already payed off, will (hopefully ?)be paid off
      > at or some time during retirement freeing up cashflow. And as a
      > sidelight, a FIXE RATE mortgage, due to inflation, actually costs one
      > less over time (I.E. it is not growing with inflation). Assmuing you
      > do live in a house which is paid off, or in which you have substantial
      > equity you will have the ability to do a "reverse mortage" as an
      > "emergency parachute" if you have an income shortfall in retirement.
      >
      > On the down side:
      >
      > 1) I'm not going to beat this one to death – we all know it's a big
      > issue -- Most folks retiring in the future will NOT be able to count
      > on employer sponsored health insurance. for those retiring prior to
      > age 65 this could mean an additional $20K+/year of out of pocket
      > expense (If they are lucky enough to find coverage at all).
      >
      > A bill before congress now to allow those aged 55 - 65 to "buy in" to
      > the medicare system early could help address this issue.
      >
      > 2) Some folks have been living large -- large at least in comparison
      > to their salaries. Enjoying bonuses, home equity withdrawals, and/or
      > withdrawals from investment accounts to fund a lifestyle beyond what
      > is implied by their base saleries. This additional spending, where it
      > exists, needs to be factored into retirement plans.
      >
      > 3) Some annuities and many retirement plans are not inflation
      > adjusted; even at just 3% inflation, the "value" of a retirement
      > annuity drops by half in 24 years.
      >
      > I'd love to hear comments on what I'm missing from this list in terms
      > of factors that should be considered in truing up funding needs in
      > retirement.
      >
      > TK
      >
      > --- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com
      > <mailto:ibmpension%40yahoogroups.com>, "Evanie" <evanied@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > Just to add -- Dr. Koltikoff is not an economic optimist. He's
      > co-author of The Coming Generational Storm, which outlines in painful
      > detail what stresses will hit the entitlement programs when the
      > Boomers start to retire.
      > >
      > > I am of the opinion (and have been for some time) that the issues
      > Koltikoff raises with regard to retirement savings are correct. The
      > "how much do you need in retirement" tools on the web seem to
      > overstate retirement needs by as much as 50%. Reading between the
      > lines of this article (particularly the quote from the AARP gentleman)
      > seems to indicate that the more traditional side of this debate
      > believes that lying about the matter is OK because Americans are such
      > bad savers.
      > >
      > > But if we're oversaving, how can we be bad savers?
      > >
      > > Evanie
      > >
      >
      >
    • Evanie
      ... This comes very close to an issue I ve been looking into -- the conventional wisdom that in retirement, we ought to have a paid off home for the sake of
      Message 2 of 15 , Feb 1, 2007
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        > Then the paid off house starts having maintenance needs that you
        > used to do yourself, but deteriorating physical capabilities
        > require one to hire out things you used to do yourself.

        This comes very close to an issue I've been looking into -- the "conventional wisdom" that in retirement, we ought to have a paid off home for the sake of financial security.

        In some (many?) areas of the country, property tax + maintenance + homeowner fees equals or exceeds the cost of renting a decent place, which was NOT the case when the "conventional wisdom" become wisdom.

        Evanie
      • ibm20yrsnot40
        ... Actually this is true. If you read the post carefully they are talking about Social Security tax, not income tax or income tax on Social Security income.
        Message 3 of 15 , Feb 1, 2007
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          --- king daddy wrote:
          > QUOTE:
          > 2) Without wage income you won't be paying social security....
          >
          > FYI: Not true in most cases. I am living it.

          Actually this is true. If you read the post carefully they are talking about Social Security tax, not income tax or income tax on Social Security income. If you are no longer working you no longer have to pay any FICA-OASDI (Social Security tax) or FICA-MED (Medicare tax) for that matter. These taxes are only levied on earned or wage income and can be quite significant. In 2007 the rates for these taxes are 6.2% of income up to $97,500 for SS and 1.45% with no upper cap for Medicare.

          Mark
        • Mike
          ... expectations you have. Many baby boomers don t want to downsize their lifestyles. They want to still keep a large house, travel, remain active, etc..., so
          Message 4 of 15 , Feb 1, 2007
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Germano" <mike_germano@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > It probably also depends a lot on how you define retirement and what
            expectations you have. Many baby boomers don't want to downsize their
            lifestyles. They want to still keep a large house, travel, remain
            active, etc..., so for them the 85% number is a minimum. And most of
            them used credit cards and home equity loans to finance those
            lifestyles, so whatever house equity they do have could be cancelled
            out by their debts.

            snip


            yeah, I guess I agree with that. - 85% is the number for us.
            Here's how we approched retirement needs

            Fist we didn't use any calulators.
            we looked at our combined annual income.

            we subtracted out savings (which for us, has always been 15% off the
            top - now matter what, this always came first !! Payroll ductions are
            a BEAUTIFUL THING !!)

            We didn't want to adjust our spending habits or our life syle
            We realized that we were not going to 'save' any additional money
            so we subtracted the 15% from our income and stated that the remainder
            is what we required as annual income

            we anticipted an annual growth of 5% on assets

            then to see if we were going to meet the annual $ requirement it was
            only an exersice of evaluation of income sources and asset liquadation
            over an anticipated dual life span of 28-30 years
          • Mike
            ... agreed ... there are some over savers for sure, but agree that it s no where near the majority ... snip exactly the approch that we used to come to our
            Message 5 of 15 , Feb 1, 2007
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, thekanck <no_reply@...> wrote:
              >
              > I might have read it incorrectly, but the way I read it we would only
              > be "over-saving" if we were, as a group, saving as much as is
              > suggested by the typical on-line calculators

              agreed


              >
              > Indeed I don't think "we" (again we as a generation) are saving
              > anywhere near as much as even the most conservative of the calculators
              > would estimate we will need so we probably have very few "oversavers"
              > among us in reality.

              there are some 'over savers' for sure, but agree that it's no where
              near the majority

              >
              > Most of the calculators assume your "needs" in retirement are some
              > fraction of your pre-retirement salary. I find this a bit simplistic.
              > a number of other factors should be considered:
              >
              > On the plus side...
              >
              > 1) Since you are retiring you can STOP saving for retirement.
              > If for example you currently contribute the max. amount to my 401K of
              > $20K/year ,Once you retire I won't be doing that, so needs can be
              > "reduced" in retirement accordingly...
              > e.g. if on makes $90K they really only "count" the net $70K that they
              > have left after the 401K contributions so what they need to replace is
              > some fraction of $70K not 90K.
              >
              > 2) Without wage income you won't be paying social security which is
              > (roughly) 6.2% of my 1st $97K of salary (for each person if married).
              > Potentially this is an additional $6K a retiree do not have to
              > "replace" when calculating retirement income
              >
              > 3) Overall, tax rates on "passive" income are generally lower than on
              > salary income ... hard to measure but generally a tangible reduction.
              >
              > Taking these items into account, potentially, an earnest saver with a
              > salary of $90K might start with an effective replacement income of
              > only $64K or less even if they wanted to "fund" retirement at at the
              > 100% level.
              >
              > 4) Mortgage, if not already payed off, will (hopefully ?)be paid off
              > at or some time during retirement freeing up cashflow. And as a
              > sidelight, a FIXE RATE mortgage, due to inflation, actually costs one
              > less over time (I.E. it is not growing with inflation). Assmuing you
              > do live in a house which is paid off, or in which you have substantial
              > equity you will have the ability to do a "reverse mortage" as an
              > "emergency parachute" if you have an income shortfall in retirement.
              >
              >
              snip

              exactly the approch that we used to come to our retirement 'income
              needs' .... we went 100% funded to be on the conserative side, we're
              sorta 'over savers' :-)
            • Mike
              ... snip ... snip interesting - our outlook was that achievement of 100% would provide us with a chusion .. retire a bit eariler at 100%, and cut back if we
              Message 6 of 15 , Feb 1, 2007
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, "abouthadit" <abouthadit@...> wrote:
                >
                snip

                >
                > I, myself, did something similar while planning for my retirement. My
                > one deviation was to plan for 120% of my retirement needs since, as a
                > true IBMer, I wanted to exceed requirements. :-))

                :-) - I got a good chuckle out of that ... you clearly are a '1'


                > 100% or less leaves too much to chance, IMHO.

                snip

                interesting - our outlook was that achievement of 100% would provide
                us with a chusion .. retire a bit eariler at 100%, and cut back if we
                'need' to. Travel less than anticipated or forgoe the upgrade if need
                be. But at 100% we anticipate that our life style in retirement will
                be as it were while working.
              • thekanck
                Carl: Sorry I was not clear, I didn t mean you wouldn t pay INCOME tax, only that you would not pay FICA-OASDI (Social Security tax) or FICA-MED (Medicare
                Message 7 of 15 , Feb 2, 2007
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Carl:

                  Sorry I was not clear, I didn't mean you wouldn't pay INCOME tax, only
                  that you would not pay FICA-OASDI (Social Security tax) or FICA-MED
                  (Medicare tax). You still of course have income and have to pay
                  federal and (perhaps) state income tax as levied, but NOT having to
                  pay the FICA payroll taxes which at 7%+ is a worthwhile savings.

                  To be fair, your 401K dollars saved during your working years were not
                  subject to income tax at that time so, in fairness, "should" be taxed
                  when withdrawn... geezzzzzzzzzzzzzz I never thought I used the term
                  "in fairness" in the same sentence as "income tax"... ;-)

                  TK


                  --- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, king daddy <king-daddy@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > QUOTE:
                  > 2) Without wage income you won't be paying social security....
                  >
                  > FYI: Not true in most cases. I am living it.
                  > It's not "wage" income, it's any "other income" that is taxed, like
                  > "earnings" or "401K/IRA" distributions that are converted to ROTH or
                  > "required minimum distributions."
                  >
                  > The other hitter is losing a spouse and becoming a "Single Taxpayer".
                  > This bumps you from the 15% bracket to the 25% bracket quickly. The
                  > "pension RESTORE option" and loss of spouse insurance 'premium' do not
                  > adequately offset the increased tax hit of being single.
                  >
                  > My pension plus "other income" and a little 401K need crosses the line
                  > where SS becomes (up to) 85% taxable. I can beat that for a while
                  (until
                  > age 70.5) with ROTH distributions, but 401K Required Minimum
                  > Distributions are really hurtful. Then being taxed at 25% or more being
                  > single really disrupts good planning.
                  >
                  > Then the paid off house starts having maintenance needs that you
                  used to
                  > do yourself, but deteriorating physical capabilities require one to
                  hire
                  > out things you used to do yourself.
                  >
                  > And lets face it, there is an increase in health care requirements,
                  even
                  > with a good health plan. ...and if you have a major hitter that spans
                  > two or more benefit years, that's max out of pocket in consecutive
                  years.
                  >
                  > Bottom line is that one needs to plan on converting as much 401K to
                  ROTH
                  > as sensibly feasible, and do it while you have the advantage of "joint"
                  > filing.
                  >
                  > Carl
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > thekanck wrote:
                  > >
                  > > I might have read it incorrectly, but the way I read it we would only
                  > > be "over-saving" if we were, as a group, saving as much as is
                  > > suggested by the typical on-line calculators.
                  > >
                  > > Indeed I don't think "we" (again we as a generation) are saving
                  > > anywhere near as much as even the most conservative of the calculators
                  > > would estimate we will need so we probably have very few "oversavers"
                  > > among us in reality.
                  > >
                  > > Most of the calculators assume your "needs" in retirement are some
                  > > fraction of your pre-retirement salary. I find this a bit simplistic.
                  > > a number of other factors should be considered:
                  > >
                  > > On the plus side...
                  > >
                  > > 1) Since you are retiring you can STOP saving for retirement.
                  > > If for example you currently contribute the max. amount to my 401K of
                  > > $20K/year ,Once you retire I won't be doing that, so needs can be
                  > > "reduced" in retirement accordingly...
                  > > e.g. if on makes $90K they really only "count" the net $70K that they
                  > > have left after the 401K contributions so what they need to replace is
                  > > some fraction of $70K not 90K.
                  > >
                  > > 2) Without wage income you won't be paying social security which is
                  > > (roughly) 6.2% of my 1st $97K of salary (for each person if married).
                  > > Potentially this is an additional $6K a retiree do not have to
                  > > "replace" when calculating retirement income
                  > >
                  > > 3) Overall, tax rates on "passive" income are generally lower than on
                  > > salary income ... hard to measure but generally a tangible reduction.
                  > >
                  > > Taking these items into account, potentially, an earnest saver with a
                  > > salary of $90K might start with an effective replacement income of
                  > > only $64K or less even if they wanted to "fund" retirement at at the
                  > > 100% level.
                  > >
                  > > 4) Mortgage, if not already payed off, will (hopefully ?)be paid off
                  > > at or some time during retirement freeing up cashflow. And as a
                  > > sidelight, a FIXE RATE mortgage, due to inflation, actually costs one
                  > > less over time (I.E. it is not growing with inflation). Assmuing you
                  > > do live in a house which is paid off, or in which you have substantial
                  > > equity you will have the ability to do a "reverse mortage" as an
                  > > "emergency parachute" if you have an income shortfall in retirement.
                  > >
                  > > On the down side:
                  > >
                  > > 1) I'm not going to beat this one to death – we all know it's a big
                  > > issue -- Most folks retiring in the future will NOT be able to count
                  > > on employer sponsored health insurance. for those retiring prior to
                  > > age 65 this could mean an additional $20K+/year of out of pocket
                  > > expense (If they are lucky enough to find coverage at all).
                  > >
                  > > A bill before congress now to allow those aged 55 - 65 to "buy in" to
                  > > the medicare system early could help address this issue.
                  > >
                  > > 2) Some folks have been living large -- large at least in comparison
                  > > to their salaries. Enjoying bonuses, home equity withdrawals, and/or
                  > > withdrawals from investment accounts to fund a lifestyle beyond what
                  > > is implied by their base saleries. This additional spending, where it
                  > > exists, needs to be factored into retirement plans.
                  > >
                  > > 3) Some annuities and many retirement plans are not inflation
                  > > adjusted; even at just 3% inflation, the "value" of a retirement
                  > > annuity drops by half in 24 years.
                  > >
                  > > I'd love to hear comments on what I'm missing from this list in terms
                  > > of factors that should be considered in truing up funding needs in
                  > > retirement.
                  > >
                  > > TK
                  > >
                  > > --- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com
                  > > <mailto:ibmpension%40yahoogroups.com>, "Evanie" <evanied@> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > Just to add -- Dr. Koltikoff is not an economic optimist. He's
                  > > co-author of The Coming Generational Storm, which outlines in painful
                  > > detail what stresses will hit the entitlement programs when the
                  > > Boomers start to retire.
                  > > >
                  > > > I am of the opinion (and have been for some time) that the issues
                  > > Koltikoff raises with regard to retirement savings are correct. The
                  > > "how much do you need in retirement" tools on the web seem to
                  > > overstate retirement needs by as much as 50%. Reading between the
                  > > lines of this article (particularly the quote from the AARP gentleman)
                  > > seems to indicate that the more traditional side of this debate
                  > > believes that lying about the matter is OK because Americans are such
                  > > bad savers.
                  > > >
                  > > > But if we're oversaving, how can we be bad savers?
                  > > >
                  > > > Evanie
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                • mr_quarkwrench
                  ... ... To be really fair, all monies you put in savings should be tax exempt since that money is being loaned, mostly to business, to create wealth
                  Message 8 of 15 , Feb 2, 2007
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, thekanck <no_reply@...> wrote:
                    <snip>
                    > To be fair, your 401K dollars saved during your working years were not
                    > subject to income tax at that time so, in fairness, "should" be taxed
                    > when withdrawn... geezzzzzzzzzzzzzz I never thought I used the term
                    > "in fairness" in the same sentence as "income tax"... ;-)
                    >
                    > TK

                    To be really fair, all monies you put in savings should be tax exempt
                    since that money is being loaned, mostly to business, to create wealth
                    which is being currently taxed.

                    -- Don
                  • ibmaccountant
                    Folks, Here s a contrarian view to this thread. Found it on the Yahoo IBM finance board. I firmly believe that no one has the answer...yet and each answer will
                    Message 9 of 15 , Feb 2, 2007
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Folks,

                      Here's a contrarian view to this thread. Found it on the Yahoo IBM
                      finance board.

                      I firmly believe that no one has the answer...yet and each answer
                      will depend on each individual's lifestyle, etc.

                      Too many experts that have no idea what it will be like for many in
                      retirement. As a many of fact, my cynical side tells me some will try
                      to cover up a problem by selling us an illusion, not unlike IBM
                      senior management.

                      http://www.fool.com/personal-finance/retirement/2007/02/02/prepare-to-
                      un-retire.aspx?source=eptyholnk303100&logvisit=y&npu=y

                      ------------

                      Prepare to Un-Retire
                      By Selena Maranjian
                      February 2, 2007
                      If you're imagining that once you wave goodbye to your pointy-headed
                      boss and head off into the sunset, you'll live out the rest of your
                      life in blissful retirement, think again. That's not how it's working
                      for many people. It turns out that many people are returning to the
                      workforce after retiring -- some by choice, and some not. Heck, even
                      a 67-year-old woman in Spain recently gave birth to twins. Our 60s
                      are not turning out to be like our parents' 60s.

                      Un-retiring, by choice
                      Why would anyone un-retire by choice? Well, for several reasons. For
                      one thing, retirement may end up being not all that the retiree
                      expected. Boredom can set in! That happened to Vinita Weaver, 80. As
                      the Fort Worth Star-Telegram explained, Weaver worked in the retail
                      clothing industry for 43 years before retiring at age 78:

                      "First she caught up with all those little chores she'd been meaning
                      to do. That consumed two or three months. Then she sat. And fidgeted.
                      And got bored. And as to the cash flow from sitting, there wasn't
                      much. Weaver not only enjoys selling and meeting new people, she also
                      likes the constant learning so necessary in today's competitive
                      world."

                      So at age 80, she began pursuing a real estate license and preparing
                      for a new career.

                      She's not alone. There are more older workers toiling away now than
                      ever (more than twice as many as in 1984), with the Bureau of Labor
                      Statistics noting that 36% of those 56 or older are still working.
                      That's the highest level recorded since 1972. Relatively low
                      unemployment rates are one factor driving this trend -- the jobs are
                      out there.

                      Un-retiring, not by choice
                      Sadly, though, some retirees want to stay retired but find they
                      can't. One reason is that, in general, people are entering the
                      workforce later than in past generations (because of schooling) and
                      are living longer. That results in longer retirements, which cost
                      much more to support. On top of this, health care is costly, and it's
                      getting more so each year.

                      Imagine that you're 50 and have saved $200,000 for your retirement.
                      That might make you feel pretty smug -- and it is much more than many
                      people have saved. But let's look more closely. If you're planning to
                      retire in 15 years, at age 65, and you expect your money to grow at
                      an average annual rate of 12% (which is ambitious, as the stock
                      market's average annual growth rate is closer to 10%), then you'll
                      end up with $1.1 million.

                      In our Rule Your Retirement service, I learned that to make your nest
                      egg last, you should conservatively plan to withdraw about 4% of it
                      per year in retirement. So 4% of $1,100,000 is nearly $44,000, or
                      roughly $3,650 per month. Will that be enough? For many people, the
                      answer is a resounding "yes." For many others, it's "no, not at all."

                      Meanwhile, remember that most people aren't at $200,000 by age 50.
                      According to the folks at the Employee Benefit Research Institute,
                      more than half of workers 45 to 54 have saved less than $50,000 for
                      retirement. If you're 50 and your $50,000 earns the market average of
                      10% over the coming 20 years (let's say you retire at 70), it will
                      become just $336,375, enough to provide you with just $13,000 or so
                      in annual income, if you're withdrawing 4%.

                      On the bright side ...
                      Fortunately, all is not lost. If you're biting your fingernails now,
                      stop. You have ways to improve the rest of your life.

                      Simply save and invest more, regularly. Remember that the earliest
                      dollars you invest have the greatest chance of significant growth.


                      Invest more effectively. If you've been sticking to CDs and bonds,
                      know that you can probably do much better over the long haul in
                      stocks. Take some time to learn more about your options, and consider
                      taxes, too. It's often smart to max out IRAs (especially the Roth
                      IRA) and 401(k) accounts.


                      Consider investing in mutual funds designed with target retirement
                      dates in mind. The T. Rowe Price Retirement 2035 (TRRJX) fund, for
                      example, is meant for those planning to retire in 2035 and is
                      invested in a range of other T. Rowe Price funds that focus on
                      growth, value, income, bonds, and so on. Some 28% of it is in T. Rowe
                      Price Growth Stock (PRGFX), which is invested in the likes of
                      Medtronic (NYSE: MDT) and General Electric (NYSE: GE). Another 23% of
                      the 2035 fund it is in T. Rowe Price Value (TRVLX), which is invested
                      in companies such as IBM (NYSE: IBM), Anheuser-Busch (NYSE: BUD), and
                      Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO). So you can see how target funds offer a simple
                      way to be instantly very diversified.


                      Remember that you may be able to count on some income from Social
                      Security, and you may have some other assets, too, such as your home.


                      Consider retiring a little later than you planned. Giving your money
                      a few more years to grow can make a huge difference.


                      Start thinking now about how you might want to live in retirement.
                      Prepare yourself for the possibility of holding at least a part-time
                      job and think about what kinds of jobs appeal to you. AARP regularly
                      publishes lists of the best employers for older workers, and some
                      include Deere and MetLife.
                      Also, don't go through all of this thinking and planning alone. Seek
                      some help. For retirement guidance, I refer most often to Robert
                      Brokamp's Rule Your Retirement service. You can, and should, try it
                      for free for a whole month. Doing so will give you access to all of
                      the past issues, which feature a host of "Success Stories" profiling
                      people who retired early and are willing to share their strategies.
                      Robert also recently published the anniversary issue, titled "8 Steps
                      to Ruling Your Retirement," in which he spells it all out for you --
                      start to finish. It'll cost you nothing, there's no obligation to
                      subscribe, and I'm pretty sure you'll like what you see.

                      And here's to un-retiring by choice, and not by force!

                      Longtime Fool contributor Selena Maranjian owns shares of Home Depot,
                      Coca-Cola, and General Electric. Anheuser-Busch, Coca-Cola, and Home
                      Depot are Motley Fool Inside Value recommendations. The Motley Fool
                      is Fools writing for Fools.
                    • jonatha1
                      ... Of course whoevers paying the interest on the loan is deducting the interest, so they re not paying tax on it...
                      Message 10 of 15 , Feb 2, 2007
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, mr_quarkwrench <no_reply@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > --- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, thekanck <no_reply@> wrote:
                        > <snip>
                        >
                        > To be really fair, all monies you put in savings should be tax exempt
                        > since that money is being loaned, mostly to business, to create wealth
                        > which is being currently taxed.
                        >
                        > -- Don
                        >

                        Of course whoevers paying the interest on the loan is deducting the
                        interest, so they're not paying tax on it...
                      • Mike
                        ... yeah, I think it s right to have to pay taxes on the contribution amounts put into 401K s. However, I d really like the GROWTH component dollars to be
                        Message 11 of 15 , Feb 5, 2007
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, thekanck <no_reply@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > snip

                          > To be fair, your 401K dollars saved during your working years were not
                          > subject to income tax at that time so, in fairness, "should" be taxed
                          > when withdrawn... geezzzzzzzzzzzzzz I never thought I used the term
                          > "in fairness" in the same sentence as "income tax"... ;-)
                          >
                          > snip

                          yeah, I think it's right to have to pay taxes on the contribution
                          amounts put into 401K's.

                          However, I'd really like the 'GROWTH' component dollars to be tax
                          free, just like Roth IRA's. Now that would be nice :-D
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.