Post #511 by Mark on the Retirement Investing board

Personal Finance Topics / Retirement Investing

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (51)

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

No. of Recommendations: 2

If you look at the "All Households" line of that table (Table 29 for those of you who have a copy of the study), you would see that if your maximum age of life is 80, your total increase in discretionary spending is $4535. That's it. Less than $5k. If you live to 85, the increase is ~$25k. Living to 90? $57k. 95? $85k. Even were you to live to 100 in the "All Households" category you would see $116k increase.

Sounds like you are saying that for pretty much anyone, taking social security at age 70 instead of at age 65-67 will give them an overall increase in spending money in retirement. And furthermore, for people like us (that discuss this stuff on message boards) who tilt toward affluence, we will live even longer on average and benefit even more. It really sounds like that is what this [math] is saying!

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

Print the post

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (51)

Prev | Next

Announcements

Retirement Investing FAQ

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

A community forum supporting civilized, and highly helpful, self-educating investors that come together for Shrewdness and merry spirits. These message boards closely follow the look and feel of the old message boards at boards.fool.com prior to the boards redirected to discussion.fool.com. Shrewd'm is not affiliated with the comprehensive and excellent investment website, The Motley Fool (TMF), in any way. The Shrewd commmunity here has owed, and continues to owe, gratitude to The Motley Fool for nurturing a culture of jovial irreverence towards Wall St, and that tradition will continue here.