Retirement Planning: Epictetus, Jimmy Buffett, and You
Jimmy Buffett has a very profitable career selling people like you and me a lyrical dream. Here you are, picking bins in a warehouse in Akron, Ohio. The old boombox you repurposed for your work radio starts pumping out that tropical beat while Jimmy yodels about smoking weed and swilling rum while laying in the sun on a white sand Caribbean beach. You hum along to the catchy tune while taking a 3-minute mental vacation. As the station transitions to a Bee Gees classic, you look back at your work, shrug your shoulders, and get picking. You have kids, a mortgage, and a car payment that all rely on this job. Back to work.
In my last column, I shared how our Jimmy Buffet dreams are used by financial advisors and insurance companies to pitch retirement services. Once you’ve picked your retirement dream, the next step is to figure out how to pay for it. Whether it’s a winery in France, a condo in Hawaii, or a yacht in the Mediterranean, you will need to run some calculations to see how you can pay for your dreams.
It’s fascinating when you consider the phenomenon of retirement planning didn’t even exist until mid-way through the 20th century. For the sweep of all human existence up until the end of World War II, retirement was the privilege of only a handful of the wealthiest members of any society. But even royalty struggled in their planning as retirement usually meant banishment at best or beheading at worst. It made planning difficult.
For millennia, employment for almost the entire population was confined to agricultural peasantry. Sure, there were some folks cranking out wagons, nails, and even stained glass, but most everyone clustered into family units to work the land. Everywhere. It was dangerous, back-breaking labor. You didn’t plan retirement. Retirement happened when you died or became too crippled to work in the fields. If you were very lucky, you had offspring willing to take you in – like Grandpa Joe in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. If not, you were kicked to the curb – literally – where you had to beg for sustenance.
Now that our society has the luxury to contemplate retirement, we have these dream salespeople who will run a simple calculator on your behalf. The math is dead simple and should be easy for anyone with facility, using grammar school level calculations. First, they ask you how long you foresee needing to receive that income. They will want an answer in years of age. Hint: they are asking you to estimate the date of your death – for purely mathematical purposes, mind you.
You then decide what you will want to spend annually during retirement. The planner will smile and tell you to “think big” and “chase your dreams”. You come up with a number. The planner will then extrapolate a VERY LARGE NUMBER that you will need on the day you retire from your labors. They then do some more simple math to determine you need to currently be saving a monthly sum that exceeds your total monthly income by a couple orders of magnitude. That’s when reality strikes, and you realize you have to think small and forget about those dreams. Heck, you’ll be lucky to afford your healthcare insurance.
The advisors really earn their money, though, when analyzing all the minor nuances of tax policy and government regulations. When writing tax policy legislation, our representatives play around with numbers to benefit various constituencies and donors. They don’t care about you. This is why you can’t really get ahead of the game and why the advisors will always have a job. Tax rules change annually, and many times can have dramatic effect on how much of your money our betters think you should keep.
One of the rules of thumb for retirement planning is that most people will need at least 85% of their preretirement income. Advisors arrive at this percentage by subtracting from your working income your lunches at restaurants, the food truck, or the cafeteria. They also subtract those annual expenses for silk ties, business suits, and Redwing work boots. Toss in a few bucks for less fuel for your vehicles and your stop at the drive-through coffee shop.
The reason 85% seems high is that you still need to live somewhere and you’re likely to motor around in vehicles to which you have become accustomed. What turns this whole calculation on its head, however, is the element of debt in your personal financial journey. If you have been able to dramatically reduce or eliminate debt entirely, you need a lot less money flow.
Of course, the dream sellers have noticed this as well and have added suggested products such as reverse mortgages, insurance policy surrender, or my personal favorite, the JG Wentworth option for selling future income for a small percentage up-front now: the time value of money. Need a down payment for that new Camaro? Sell off your future to get it today! Trying to scare up more money after retirement is the new “thing” since you’ve already likely fallen way behind in the saving-up timeline.
If you want to know where you’ll end up financially in retirement, it’s really easy. Just tally up all you have and subtract your debts to determine your net worth. Then project all the extra money and property you intend to save up before the magic “retirement date” you picked. Then draw a line with a negative slope between that date and the date you predicted for your death. Then toss it in the trash. My advice is to work to pay off your debts as best you can as we all prepare for an uncertain future. The Greek philosopher Epictetus has some good advice that rings through the ages: wealth consists not in having great possessions, but in having few wants.
About a decade ago, maybe less, my advisor said my retirement plan “failed” because my expected life expectancy was longer than my retirement fund having money by one year. I told her I’d die before 92 anyway so my plan is still valid. 🙂
Seriously, the best way to not spending money, I’ve found, is to not have it. Money gets taken out for my 401k, before I get my paycheck, then the credit union takes more money and shoves it into other accounts outside of my checking account. I live on what’s in the checking account, with only the occasional savings withdraw to cover large unexpected expenditures or vacations, both of which get re funded back into savings. But I also don’t drive a 50K SUV, and my car is a 2012 model year.Report
Okay. What would you need to have in the bank for you to *REASONABLY* retire?
85%?
Because I am lazy, let’s say that our hypothetical person currently makes $100,000. So, what’s 85% of $100,000? Um… okay. $85,000.
Okay, first off, that’s *WAY* too much. That’s nuts. You’re retired! You should be living in a house that is paid off, at least, and what are your entertainments that they require that much money? Okay, okay, okay. So assuming you get paid out 4% of your interest payments from your retirement (so you can keep the nut of it), what’s 25 x $85,000? Get on the google and… $2,125,000.
Huh. That’s not as bad as I thought. I mean, 2 and an eighth million dollars is a *LOT*. But if you’re making $100,000, it should be achievable. Right? By age 67, right? Is 4% an insane goal?
$85,000 seems like an insane goal.Report
The 85% applies to take-home pay, not gross. So from that $100,000 gross, subtract out $7,500 for FICA payroll taxes, some amount for income taxes, some amount for employer-provided health insurance, and whatever you were saving towards retirement. Let’s guess that take-home amount was $60,000. Now subtract out your Social Security benefit*, say $22,000, so $38,000. Add back in a Medicare Advantage plan ($148.50 per month this year) puts it at $40,000. Add 10% for income taxes but no FICA and arrive at $44,000. Assuming linearity on your savings formula, you don’t need $2.125M, you only need a nice round $1.0M.
* In structured interviews, when people are asked a series of questions about government competence and solvency, they arrive at a stated opinion of “I won’t ever get a dime from Social Security.” When the questions lead up to funding a retirement, they arrive at “Well, first there will be Social Security…”Report
And reviewing my work after submission, I see that I never did apply that 85%. So even less.Report
I am making *ZERO* assumptions about Social Security. The last time I looked, the report said something about insolvency right around the time I turned 65. Which, as I recall, was funny.
So if so-and-so wins the lottery (not, like, mega millions or powerball, just the state lottery) and after taking the lump sum and paying taxes, ends up with 1 million bucks. (Maybe 1 million plus whatever remains on the mortgage. So they pay off the mortgage and end up with 1 million bucks.)
If they drop this million bucks into a retirement fund, they could, in theory, retire now.Report
If you don’t include it in your planning, that’s an assumption. Keep in mind that when conservatives in particular say that Social Security will be “insolvent”, they mean the trust fund hits zero and benefits will only be paid at 70-75 cents on the dollar (so, $16,500 rather than $22,000). That is, the massive trust fund that the Boomers built up — paid to prefund part of their benefits rather than the straight PAYGO public pension arrangement for earlier and later generations — runs out just about the time the last of the Boomers die off.
This is exactly the 60-year future that the Greenspan Commission under Reagan recommended and Congress approved. They got all but one of the details right. Eg, lifespan and worker-per-retiree ratios are almost exactly on pace. The only thing they got wrong was the salary cap. The Commission’s actuaries assumed productivity gains would be uniformly spread across the full range of incomes. That wasn’t a bad assumption based on 1945-1980 data. Instead, those gains have been largely captured by high-income individuals.Report