How old will you be when you can retire?

wymondham

all things considered and looking at my pension/investments and savings i'd say about 113 ?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

MrRee wrote: »

How old will you be when you can retire?

45-50.

If I was willing to live very frugally.

60-65.

If I wish to maintain the same standard of living I have today.

Loughton_Monkey

chewmylegoff wrote: »

I will never retire because I never started working. Sure, I go to an office and they pay me, but all I do is gossip about other people in the office, flirt unsuccessfully with my secretary and play on-line chess on my phone. Isn't that what everyone does?

No!

Some of us were rather more successful with the flirting......

zagubov

100 and a half, but my diet of deep fried battered salad, sorry mars bars means I might not make that final half.

New_and_Improved_Me

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

No!

Some of us were rather more successful with the flirting......

Now I see where I went wrong.....Thank you, I will try harder at flirting...:)

Loughton_Monkey

purch wrote: »

I assume the idea of someone being successful in their career that they could afford to retire well below that age is beyond the imagination of the OP.

He assumes everyone is a failure like himself.

The concept of retirement, early or otherwise, from a financial point of view is basically very 'simple'. Once you start concentrating on "spending" rather than "saving" [or investing in pensions....] it becomes very clear and more manageable. The 'ingredients' are:

1. You leave education and you start work. So you have a "career". That career, for the sake of argument, can come in 'small', 'medium', or 'large' from a salary/benefits point of view. This is a matter for each individual. Whether we like it or not, your lifestyle is ultimately affected by your total income over your working life. A waiter cannot reasonably expect the retirement income of a mid-manager, and a mid-manager cannot reasonably expect the retirement income of a brain surgeon.

2. That career will give you an income, for as long as you choose to persue that career. Anyone can 'map out' that career, and earnings, by making simple assumptions. Each year, for 30/40 years you have the ideal opportunity to re-visit your plan, and update it.

3. It then becomes a matter of mathematics as to when you can retire. It depends primarily on how much you choose to spend and [to a lesser but relevant extent] how well you invest and manage what you don't spend. You can set out what sort of spending you want in retirement [which in my experience will usually be 'similar' to your spending during your last few years in work]

4. Thus, by making assumptions as to your lifespan [say age 90] you have a complete and utter choice in the matter. Spending 100% of income will invariably prove than you can never 'afford' to retire, but spending 90% will give you quite a high age. Ramp down the spending to 85% and you can retire earlier. 80% even better.....

5. Such a calculation for anybody is really not that difficult. And throughout a 40 year income pattern, there are 480 monthly opportunities to re-plan, revise, control, update, and change course. Just like sailing. You will ultimately get there, and more or less on time subject only to the odd wind blowing this way and that. Provided your assumptions are 'reasonable'.

It is a sad fact that the majority of people start off not by thinking about spending, but about pensions or saving [which is important, but secondary]. Hence there is a 'disjoint' between (a) what their pensions/savings will produce, (b) what they are currently spending, (c) when they expect to retire, and (d) what they were 'used' to spending just before retirement. Full of 'good intentions', these people will set sail and could end up 479 months later about 1,500 miles off course and will flounder.

The simple [only moderately time consuming] act of having a proper spending plan joins all these things up. It's far from rocket science, and more to the point will - for those with a modicum of strong will - ensure that they retire on or before they wished, with the desired amount of spending money. The 'skill' with which we invest the 20% (or so) of income not spent is 'interesting' but in my experience, far from rocket science, and different people will get reasonably similar returns - not so different as to change retirement age wildly.

grizzly1911

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

The concept of retirement, early or otherwise, from a financial point of view is basically very 'simple'. Once you start concentrating on "spending" rather than "saving" [or investing in pensions....] it becomes very clear and more manageable. The 'ingredients' are:

1. You leave education and you start work. So you have a "career". That career, for the sake of argument, can come in 'small', 'medium', or 'large' from a salary/benefits point of view. This is a matter for each individual. Whether we like it or not, your lifestyle is ultimately affected by your total income over your working life. A waiter cannot reasonably expect the retirement income of a mid-manager, and a mid-manager cannot reasonably expect the retirement income of a brain surgeon.

2. That career will give you an income, for as long as you choose to persue that career. Anyone can 'map out' that career, and earnings, by making simple assumptions. Each year, for 30/40 years you have the ideal opportunity to re-visit your plan, and update it.

3. It then becomes a matter of mathematics as to when you can retire. It depends primarily on how much you choose to spend and [to a lesser but relevant extent] how well you invest and manage what you don't spend. You can set out what sort of spending you want in retirement [which in my experience will usually be 'similar' to your spending during your last few years in work]

4. Thus, by making assumptions as to your lifespan [say age 90] you have a complete and utter choice in the matter. Spending 100% of income will invariably prove than you can never 'afford' to retire, but spending 90% will give you quite a high age. Ramp down the spending to 85% and you can retire earlier. 80% even better.....

5. Such a calculation for anybody is really not that difficult. And throughout a 40 year income pattern, there are 480 monthly opportunities to re-plan, revise, control, update, and change course. Just like sailing. You will ultimately get there, and more or less on time subject only to the odd wind blowing this way and that. Provided your assumptions are 'reasonable'.

It is a sad fact that the majority of people start off not by thinking about spending, but about pensions or saving [which is important, but secondary]. Hence there is a 'disjoint' between (a) what their pensions/savings will produce, (b) what they are currently spending, (c) when they expect to retire, and (d) what they were 'used' to spending just before retirement. Full of 'good intentions', these people will set sail and could end up 479 months later about 1,500 miles off course and will flounder.

The simple [only moderately time consuming] act of having a proper spending plan joins all these things up. It's far from rocket science, and more to the point will - for those with a modicum of strong will - ensure that they retire on or before they wished, with the desired amount of spending money. The 'skill' with which we invest the 20% (or so) of income not spent is 'interesting' but in my experience, far from rocket science, and different people will get reasonably similar returns - not so different as to change retirement age wildly.

All very well but for some they simply need their income to live in the here and now, regardless of how frugal they be.

There is a tipping point at which it is possible to start making provision for the future.

There is a further tipping point where that starts to be sufficient to have a comfortable retirement.

And yet another tipping point before you can contemplate bringing that retirement forward substantially.

The numbers reaching the next tipping point fall off dramatically after each one is reached.

There will also be further derailments for some, along the way, for life events outside most peoples planning capacity.

Goldiegirl

I was made redundant at age 50, and took my pension as part of my redundancy settlement.

I now work part time, two days a week, at present, but I'm intending to retire fully at age 55, when my husband retires.

We won't be rich, but with our pensions, savings, and at some point in the future we could downsize our house, we will be comfortable, and plan live fairly simply day to day, but still have some nice holidays and cruises.

Loughton_Monkey

grizzly1911 wrote: »

All very well but for some they simply need their income to live in the here and now, regardless of how frugal they be.

There is a tipping point at which it is possible to start making provision for the future.....

In that case, the 'good' news is that state pension plus benefits entitlement will continue to keep them in their frugal lifestyle during retirement!

Again, it is mathematics (and nothing more) that the further up the scale you are with income, the more you need to [and 'can'] make extra provision. I see it as a bit of a myth that it's more difficult on lowish incomes.... If you earn £25K less tax, then maybe you only need to drop your lifestyle by (guess) 8% to retire 'evenly'. On £100K it will be pretty much 25% or more!

That apart, there is nothing whatsoever in my post that doesn't apply whether you earn £15K, £35K, £80K or £250K. I explained that in point 1.

Even those on reasonably modest incomes have the same choice as fat-cat bankers. You can choose to live up to income while working, and then retire with a huge drop on lifestyle. Everyone is free to choose that route. Any fat-cat banker who does that would arguably find it more difficult than a 'poor' person.

If you visit the Pensions board frequently, you would see the propensity of people to bung a few quid into their pension, and tick the box "Retirement - Sorted!" and wake up when they are 50 to find that their position is irreconcilable.

Ask any retired person carefully, and I think you will find that it isn't by any means all down to "pension". Or even "Income". It is down to how much they can spend in retirement, compared with what they are used to spending. This is every bit to do with Capital resources as well as pensions and investment income.

Everyone can calculate the level of spending at which they can retire at age X and fully meet realistic continuance of that spending. Or as an alternative, everyone can calculate the age at which they can realistically retire if they spend Y% of income. On top of which they can control it every year (or month or even every week!). Those who choose not to peform this simple discipline will 'get what they get'.

Your choice!

grizzly1911

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

In that case, the 'good' news is that state pension plus benefits entitlement will continue to keep them in their frugal lifestyle during retirement!

Again, it is mathematics (and nothing more) that the further up the scale you are with income, the more you need to [and 'can'] make extra provision. I see it as a bit of a myth that it's more difficult on lowish incomes.... If you earn £25K less tax, then maybe you only need to drop your lifestyle by (guess) 8% to retire 'evenly'. On £100K it will be pretty much 25% or more!

That apart, there is nothing whatsoever in my post that doesn't apply whether you earn £15K, £35K, £80K or £250K. I explained that in point 1.

Even those on reasonably modest incomes have the same choice as fat-cat bankers. You can choose to live up to income while working, and then retire with a huge drop on lifestyle. Everyone is free to choose that route. Any fat-cat banker who does that would arguably find it more difficult than a 'poor' person.

If you visit the Pensions board frequently, you would see the propensity of people to bung a few quid into their pension, and tick the box "Retirement - Sorted!" and wake up when they are 50 to find that their position is irreconcilable.

Ask any retired person carefully, and I think you will find that it isn't by any means all down to "pension". Or even "Income". It is down to how much they can spend in retirement, compared with what they are used to spending. This is every bit to do with Capital resources as well as pensions and investment income.

Everyone can calculate the level of spending at which they can retire at age X and fully meet realistic continuance of that spending. Or as an alternative, everyone can calculate the age at which they can realistically retire if they spend Y% of income. On top of which they can control it every year (or month or even every week!). Those who choose not to peform this simple discipline will 'get what they get'.

Your choice!

I don't disagree with what you are saying. As with all things in life the more you have the more choices you can make in life.

I know several people as you describe who have earned shed loads but have always lived fully who are virtually net penniless in their 50s let alone with limited pension provision.

Stuff does happen in life for many that does over turn the apple cart regardless of how well you load it.