How many years do you factor for retirement?

masonic

Millyonare said:

The only stat that really matters is healthy life expectancy (HLE).

HLE is the stat that enables you to "do stuff" in your retirement.

HLE in the UK is, on average, just 63yo...

The problem is that you still need to budget for the potential unhealthy years that will follow. These could be the most expensive years of your retirement if you want them to be comfortable.

Millyonare

masonic said:

Millyonare said:

The only stat that really matters is healthy life expectancy (HLE).

HLE is the stat that enables you to "do stuff" in your retirement.

HLE in the UK is, on average, just 63yo...

The problem is that you still need to budget for the potential unhealthy years that will follow. These could be the most expensive years of your retirement if you want them to be comfortable.

Of course. But personal spending during the unhealthy years drops off a cliff, as much as -80% in some cases. The need for cash is much less (or the state picks up the bill).

Albermarle

Millyonare said:

masonic said:

Millyonare said:

The only stat that really matters is healthy life expectancy (HLE).

HLE is the stat that enables you to "do stuff" in your retirement.

HLE in the UK is, on average, just 63yo...

The problem is that you still need to budget for the potential unhealthy years that will follow. These could be the most expensive years of your retirement if you want them to be comfortable.

Of course. But personal spending during the unhealthy years drops off a cliff, as much as -80% in some cases. The need for cash is much less (or the state picks up the bill).

Not if you elect to go private for your healthcare, to make your unhealthy years more comfortable.
Out of interest where did that statistic about HLE being only 63 come from? Not saying it is wrong, but have never seen a figure put on it before .

B0bbyEwing

solidpro said:

B0bbyEwing said:

1) averages - bit like when people talk about temperatures. 

OT but curious....Just to clarify, do you dismiss statistical evidence across the whole world showing that global temperature is rising "because of london" or did you mean something else?

@Apodemus - see this post here just kind of backs up what I said earlier about marking people.

See I don't start out with a low opinion of everyone. I think everyone is decent to begin with. I just mark them much quicker than what your average guy will. 

Take this for example. 

Now it's words on a screen so it's difficult to tell. solidpro may well be asking that as a genuine question.

But having seen plenty of these kinds of sly remarks around the board, I don't believe it. On this post alone, rightly or wrongly, I've already marked them as trying to be funny / clever. Trying to pick flaws in something someone else has said. Oneupmanship. 

This isn't a court room where we need to trip each other up, trying to catch people out with their own words.



As I say, it's words on a screen so it's much harder to tell than in person but based on what I've seen here anyway plus the insignificance of this to the OP in general, I'd say they're just trying to be clever.

It really is as quick as that.

B0bbyEwing

anonmoose said:

I think there will always be idiots B0bby, but the trick is not to let them upset you. Part of my trying to reduce stress has included trying to change the way I act to other people's stupid behaviour. I also pay attention and focus on the kindness people show. 

It's easy for me to say as I am self employed so I could cut people loose in the work environment if they are really awful although in practice I don't. 

But you will occasionally get altercations  and the way you deal with it is more important than the way they do.

For example a few months ago I witnessed a woman in the supermarket literally push in front of an elderly woman in a forceful way.   I spoke out as it was so wrong. The woman who pushed in threw a torrent of abuse at me and was screaming and shouting the shop down. The old me would have argued back, and stressed out myself and the poor old lady.

Instead I very calmly said you must be in a desperate rush, I am sure this lady won't mind you going first, she can go in front of me instead. I hope your day improves. I smiled and the 'push in' looked confused and furious but had nothing to say back to my kindness. 

Usually I would have been stewing on the altercation all day but I felt good about how I dealt with it and the push in was probably left feeling embarrassed about the situation.

You will always get idiots just don't let them stress you out. Kindness often unbalances them and stops them in their tracks. Also I try to think they must have a very unfortunate life to go around behaving that way. Just glad I am not them.

I admire your change. I'd say I wish I could do that. I suppose anyone can do anything just about but for whatever reason, I can't.

Believe it or not, I let much more go now than I used to. I used to take on every battle. 

My boss & I would be going toe to toe many a time. I'd bite so easily. It still happens as he knows how to push my buttons - he says the same thing 1000 times which annoys the hell out of me not to mention the fact he acts like I've just killed his mother over the most minor of easily fixable things that 99% of the time aren't even my fault. 

So these days I brush it off for the most part but occasionally he reels me in. My old manager gave me an insight. My old manager was the first guy I worked under who was actually quite decent. He told me that he got a telling off my boss for basically not talking to us like crap. My manager said why should I do that? Talk to them right & you get right back. Boss said no, you need to get them told, they need to be kept on their toes. 
Thing is, boss mans view of keeping us on our toes is getting in my face, spitting as he hurls abuse. 

And all his underlings do nothing because he owns the place so "what can you do". I get told "ignore it".

B0bbyEwing

Millyonare said:

The only stat that really matters is healthy life expectancy (HLE).

HLE is the stat that enables you to "do stuff" in your retirement.

HLE in the UK is, on average, just 63yo...

While I think the 90 odd years that was given earlier is much too high to be accurate, I would've thought that number would be higher than 63, although still, reasonably close to what I expected I suppose. More the 65-70 area.

Massively dependent on someones version of healthy though.

DoublePolaroid

Albermarle said:

Millyonare said:

masonic said:

Millyonare said:

The only stat that really matters is healthy life expectancy (HLE).

HLE is the stat that enables you to "do stuff" in your retirement.

HLE in the UK is, on average, just 63yo...

The problem is that you still need to budget for the potential unhealthy years that will follow. These could be the most expensive years of your retirement if you want them to be comfortable.

Of course. But personal spending during the unhealthy years drops off a cliff, as much as -80% in some cases. The need for cash is much less (or the state picks up the bill).

Not if you elect to go private for your healthcare, to make your unhealthy years more comfortable.
Out of interest where did that statistic about HLE being only 63 come from? Not saying it is wrong, but have never seen a figure put on it before .

ONS figures

As ever the statistics require some investigation, interpretation and dashes of salt. 

Firstly, it’s a self reported survey and anybody answering that their health is “good” or “very good” is considered “healthy” but anybody answering “fair” (which might include pessimists in rude health!) is not. I think that is likely to hugely and rather inaccurately skew the results negatively - especially given the unique tendency of British people to answer questions about how we feel ambiguously. 

Secondly, attitude and personality plays a big part in how people experience illness. My MIL for example simply cannot tolerate having any symptoms, however minor. Consequently a little sniffle, the like of which wouldn’t bother me in the slightest, makes her utterly miserable.

My gut feeling isn’t worth anything to anybody, but I would view the numbers given for HLE as absolute lower bounds when planning for the future. 

newatc

FrankRizzo said:

newatc said:

I seen, not literally, some work colleagues die within a short time after retirement so I was determined to retire early which I did at the age of 53 and to date have been lucky enough to have enjoyed 20 years of retirement. My parents died at the ages of 68 and 82 and had a much harder life than me so I don't think that is much of a guide. I live in a retirement area and I've seen many of my neighbours age and some survived until their nineties. Of those that did, none had an enviable life in their 90s so I for one will settle for a mid-eighties finish.
We are comfortable financially but who knows what the future will hold but it is something I no longer worry about. 

Hi, did you draw down your pensions or did you use saving to live until pension age? I would like to do something similar and looking for tips from someone who has done it.

I had a defined benefit company pension which I took on retirement. That covered most (if not all) of our outgoings (my wife had a miniscule pension which she also took a few years after me). So, when we both got our State Pensions our financial position improved considerably. 

bostonerimus

Millyonare said:

The only stat that really matters is healthy life expectancy (HLE).

HLE is the stat that enables you to "do stuff" in your retirement.

HLE in the UK is, on average, just 63yo...

The stat that matters isn't the average, it's the the age of the oldest 10% or 5% HLE. That's the stressor you should be using. There are some studies that show spending decreasing later in life, but if we have out of pocket LTC costs they could make the twilight years the most expensive. 

I retired at 52 and used 48 years as my maximum time in retirement as there's around a 5% chance I'll live that long and every year I survive the chance goes up a bit. 

Millyonare

Albermarle said:

Millyonare said:

masonic said:

Millyonare said:

The only stat that really matters is healthy life expectancy (HLE).

HLE is the stat that enables you to "do stuff" in your retirement.

HLE in the UK is, on average, just 63yo...

The problem is that you still need to budget for the potential unhealthy years that will follow. These could be the most expensive years of your retirement if you want them to be comfortable.

Of course. But personal spending during the unhealthy years drops off a cliff, as much as -80% in some cases. The need for cash is much less (or the state picks up the bill).

Not if you elect to go private for your healthcare, to make your unhealthy years more comfortable.
Out of interest where did that statistic about HLE being only 63 come from? Not saying it is wrong, but have never seen a figure put on it before .

Around 85-95% of UK retirees use the NHS. Very few use only private healthcare.

The average UK retirement stats make for sobering reading. We all think we're going to be rollerblading on a cruise ship at 80yo. But most people are effectively "done" by their 60s. Spending (and the need for cash) typically collapses in the 70s.

* Healthy working life expectancy (HWL) = 59yo
* Healthy life expectancy (HLE) = 63yo
* Healthy adjusted life expectancy (HALE) = 70yo
* Total life expectancy (TLE) = 82yo

Yes, they are averages. Yes, some are subjective. Yes, there are spreads -- a male factory worker in Blackpool will have a different HLE to a female office worker in Orkney (55yo vs. 75yo). But they're generally accepted worldwide as reliable average benchmarks for UK morbidity.

Key takeaway = retire as early as possible, and frontload the bucket list.

Dyor, etc.