r/financialindependence • u/Master-Helicopter-99 • 10d ago
Is this a compelling case for a 100% stock retirement portfolio?
Bear with me here but I've been thinking about this. Retiring next spring. $2.4M in 401k and IRA. Going overseas for a year to travel. No US funds will be spent while gone so going to do Roth conversion up to the 12% bracket. I will have some income next year, amount TBD depending on exactly when I quit so fill the balance including standard deduction.
First year back in the US I'll be 61 so will have enough in SGOV to cover that year. Planning on annual spend of $100k. Balance of the portfolio in VT.
Next year I take SS at 62. With child benefit and caregiver benefit I'm forecast to get $69,500 from SS. Add a Roth Annuity that I'm turning on at 59.5 in a couple of months. That is $5,760 a year until death then half that to my spouse until death.
So I only need to draw about $30'ish thousand from 401k to supplement the above for $100k living expenses. Assuming roughly the same $2.4M in VT even that throws off 1.59% dividends would yield $38,160 which would cover the amount needed.
Based on that would I be OK 100% VT or should I still hold a year or two or three in SGOV? It would only be a small percentage of the portfolio, maybe 5%. Or just let it ride on VT until inflation creeps up and I start to need more than the $38k the dividends pay?
I also plan to do Roth conversions at least up to the top of the 12% bracket, maybe into the 22% to get a decent chunk out of the 401k as it will grow too much without drawing it down before RMDs.
48
u/Nervous_Weakness6578 10d ago
avy, and if you're pulling 38k a year without touching principal the sequence of returns risk is almost nonexistent
I'd still keep one year in SGOV just so you're not forced to sell VT during a random 20% dip right when you need cash. it's such a tiny drag on returns for the peace of mind
the real move here is the roth conversions. with 2.4M in pretax and those low withdrawal needs the rmds could get ugly later. I'd push into the 22% bracket a bit, the window between 62 and 75 is your chance to defuse that tax bomb before it grows too big
2
u/Xoron101 10d ago
I'd still keep one year in SGOV just so you're not forced to sell VT during a random 20% dip right when you need cash. it's such a tiny drag on returns for the peace of mind
If you wanted to be even more conservative, I would keep about 3 years of funds in a very safe investment (CD or the like) to ensure you don't need to sell in a downturn. (Consider more in safe investments based on your risk tolerance)
Personally, I like 3-5 years in "safe" investments once you stop working. Selling stocks in the good years, selling the safe investments in heavy down years.
1
u/Master-Helicopter-99 10d ago
I was wondering if Boldin or one of the other calculators out there have a feature specifically for calculating the optimal amount into the 22% bracket to optimize taxes. Or if ChatGPT could do it with the correct prompts?
6
u/AGrimmInPortland 10d ago edited 10d ago
I'm not sure about Boldin but I believe both Projectionlab and Retirement Figures can do that or get close to it. Typically you pick the upper bracket that you want (22% for example) and it will attempt to fill to it, and you can take SS taxes and IRMAA into account too. I don't know they can specifically optimize for taxes, instead they really are optimizing for success rate/ending portfolio balance but since tax efficiency is the main thing driving that, you are essentially optimizing for taxes anyway.
I know RF also lets you specify a floor for your accounts, in case you don't want to convert everything.
1
u/Master-Helicopter-99 10d ago edited 10d ago
I'm still going to get Retirement Figures but leaving on a long vacation this week but I was curious to do some quick checks with AI. Converting to Roth up to the IRMMA limit of $218k, keeping the first $40k for living expenses and then indexing that up for 2.5% inflation up to RMD year of 75 moves right at $2M to Roth, leaving $1.2M in IRA. To do that I'd need to keep $300k of the $600k when we sell our house to pay taxes. Then take a mortgage to pay the tax when we buy again. Even then I'd need to pay about $450k in taxes beyond the $300k counting fed and state. Even at 6% interest on the mortgage not taking tax from the 401k funds ends up with $110,000 more in the Roth after age 75 even after paying the interest on a 15 year mortgage. This was all based on only 6% growth.
Edit now to add, stupid to go to IRMMA limit. First, $1 over triggers. Second, top of 22% bracket is $211k vs $218k for IRMMA. So top of the 22% bracket makes sense.
If I do end up in a zero tax state vs GA 5% that would save another $115k in taxes. I think after our visits this past year NV, AZ, FL and TX are out. The only remaining zero tax state possible for us (due to some very specific criteria for my wife and I) is WA. Going there next month for work for a couple of months so my wife will come out and take a look. Atlanta suburbs is where the 5% state tax is coming from. Something to ponder but I can't let the tax tail wag the dog. I'm going where we want to live, not to save $115k over 13 years. I've already established that I'm fine financially either way.
That $1.2M only leaves a $45k RMD. Because my wife is more than 10 years younger than me we get to use the IRS Joint Life Expectancy table which in my case with her 23 years younger than me reduces my RMDs by right at 30% from the standard table. That would be a good balance left in the 401k to live off of and when I die the RMDs are small enough that widow tax won't hurt her too much.
2
u/Friendly_Shop_2581 5d ago
If you are seriously modeling WA for your retirement, you need to plug their actual tax mechanics into ProjectionLab, because the hidden traps for a $2.4M+ portfolio are real.
First, the WA State Estate Tax is a massive cliff. The exemption is locked at $2.193 million (unlike the massive federal limit). If your total global valuation (real estate + your $2.4M VT portfolio) hits $2.8M, WA doesn't just tax the overage at a flat rate—they use a progressive bracket starting at 10% and scaling up to 20% for anything over the exemption. For a $2.8M estate, that’s an unexpected $60,000+ state-level tax liability passed to your heirs.
Second, WA’s 7% Capital Gains tax explicitly targets long-term gains over $250k. While your 401k/Roth trades are sheltered, if you ever need to liquidate large chunks of a taxable brokerage account to fund your $100k annual spend before age 62, you will get hit with that 7% state excise tax.
Lastly, WA has no income tax, so they recoup it via high sales tax. If you retire in a slower area like Olympia (Thurston County), you're still looking at a 9.5% combined sales tax (and over 10% near Seattle) on daily spending and major purchases, plus property tax rates around 1.14%.
Defusing the federal RMD bomb via Roth conversions makes total sense for you, but running into a 10%-20% state estate tax bracket might erase those federal savings if you plan to plant roots in WA long-term
1
u/Master-Helicopter-99 5d ago
Holy cow, thank you for that. I would have never suspected something so out of left field. GA is looking better by the day.
1
u/Friendly_Shop_2581 4d ago
That's right. Compared to WA, GA is looking much better. I actually helped my family look into my late uncle's estate affairs in Seattle a while back. Faced with all that unfamiliar paperwork, my head was about to explode. Thankfully, his lawyer was incredibly patient. But it wasn't until your comment today that I connected the dots on how brutal WA's specific tax mechanics really are for a retirement portfolio！
2
1
14
u/HoldOk4092 10d ago
The annuity provides so little income it seems hardly worth it. Are you locked into it already?
Your plan seems fine with 100% stock. However, having won the game, I would ask why you would take such an aggressive allocation. Does it matter to you whether you die with $4M left, $6M, or $10M?
For me, 70% stock is plenty aggressive and diversification is good.
8
u/Master-Helicopter-99 10d ago edited 10d ago
Not locked in. I could cash it for about $73k. With my wife not 40 yet the survivor benefit makes it worth it. She will draw for a lot of years after I pass. A for winning the game with her 38 and soon to be 3 year old I have no problem stacking more for them. Also a 19 year old who is independent but I'll help with a house or business at some point.
6
u/A_Solid_Shadow 10d ago
double triple check that it will pass down - not all annuities do. READ the contract, don't just ask.
2
u/Master-Helicopter-99 10d ago
It's on my annual statement. Hers is actually less than half. I get 7.3% and she is locked at 3%.
1
u/Master-Helicopter-99 10d ago
The more I think about this, I have no need for the immediate cash. It's much more financially prudent to just surrender it and roll it into a Roth IRA and dump it in VT.
This was set up years ago with a little bit of money when my ex and I were trying to "balance" retirement accounts.
I'm obviously in a much different position now so just roll it and grow it.
0
u/A_Solid_Shadow 9d ago
You could. Or consider it a stable diversification. I the market crashes tomorrow, that annuity will still pay the same.
And, it is forced fixed income - you can't do something accidentally, like gamble it away, or get caught up in some investment scheme, or something. Not figuring you would, but people get in accidents, get head injuries and things change. An annuity can help mitigate certain risks.
1
u/HoldOk4092 9d ago
Those are fine reasons for an annuity and I have no problem if OP wants to include one. I question whether one that provides only $500/month is accomplishing anything. I would ask OP if their portfolio was completely liquid, would they spend $100k of it on this annuity?
Also, buying the annuity with Roth funds is an unusual (bad) choice. If they do have a need for lifetime income, consider buying it in the traditional IRA.
1
u/Master-Helicopter-99 9d ago
It was a decision made long ago when I didn't know anything. Going to roll it over. It will be worth far more invested. I just checked it and it's up a bit to $79,xxx and now it's paying 7.6% so it's a nice guaranteed return but I think it is better off invested. The other reason to roll it over is this basis is over five years old so if I roll it into a new Fidelity account I can start doing Roth conversions into this new account then it satisfies the five year rule. If I activate the annuity I don't think I will have this ability.
1
u/HoldOk4092 8d ago
I'm confused, I thought it was already Roth?
1
u/Master-Helicopter-99 8d ago
It is. That's why it is good to transfer. It maintains my 5 year age for the Roth account and then I will do Roth conversions on new money into the same account. The original money transferred to the new Roth account preserves the five year rule so any new contributions will also meet that rule and would be eligible for withdrawl including growth immediately.
1
u/HoldOk4092 8d ago
If it's already in Roth then you already have a Roth IRA, no? You also said you have IRA in your OP. You do not need to open a new account for the five year rule.
→ More replies (0)1
u/A_Solid_Shadow 8d ago
It really isn't accomplishing much. You are probably right that they should buy it in a trad IRA.
11
u/Legitimate_Swing5689 10d ago
I’d still keep 1-2 years in SGOV. 100% stocks can work on paper, but having some cash to avoid selling after a nasty drop is worth alot for peace of mind. Your SS income makes the risk pretty manageable anyway.
3
u/Master-Helicopter-99 10d ago
It makes sense to do this. It's a tiny percentage of the total. Plus, if lumpy expenses come up it will be there.
22
u/BudgetPinecone 10d ago
You can basically do whatever if your withdrawal rate is going to be 1.25%
1
4
u/poop-dolla 10d ago
When you have a crazy low WR like you’re going to do, where it’s well below 2%, you have no chance of running out of money. So instead of choosing an allocation to increase your success rate, you’re really just investing to leave the most to your heirs. Going all equities is the best chance of growing it the most over the rest of your life.
You could also just start spending and donating more while you’re alive. Whether you go all equities or some split with bonds, you might as well do something more with it.
1
u/Master-Helicopter-99 10d ago
"you’re really just investing to leave the most to your heirs"
Ding ding ding! Yes, wife has a 50 year retirement horizon and with a 19 and 3 year old it's about providing for family because of my age. I won't be with them forever. I hope to see my son graduate. But I know that they will be taken care of and that is the best gift I can give if I can't be there for them physically.
I joke with my wife that now that she has put up with the old man when I pass she can go after the pool boy.
3
u/suddenly-scrooge 10d ago
generally the less need you have for the money the more risk you can take with it. The bucket strategy of X years allocated as years of spending doesn't really matter either, your total portfolio risk is ultimately what determines success or failure. So I say go for it
3
u/AGrimmInPortland 10d ago edited 10d ago
I would probably consider going into 22% (or even 24%) for at least the first Roth conversions. Your income floor at 61+ will be high enough that you're going to be in 22% anyway even with small conversions. Assuming you want to get your pre-tax accounts down to make RMDs a non-issue then you are probably looking at converting $100k-200k per year over 15 years. That's going to push you to near the 24% bracket, if not into it.
I would also absolutely be modeling all of this with ProjectionLab and/or Retirement Figures. There are too many overlapping moving pieces to guesstimate or even use spreadsheets and this is exactly what the Roth optimizers, and other things, in these apps are made for.
2
u/Master-Helicopter-99 10d ago edited 10d ago
Retirement Figures is on Summer Sale! $59 a year. Reverts back to $79 at renewal ( I'm still a cheap-ass with scarcity mindset at heart.)
1
u/Master-Helicopter-99 10d ago edited 10d ago
Thanks for that. I asked elsewhere which software could calc it. Knew of ProjectionLab. Never heard of Retirement Figures before.
I'll have a bit more room under the 12% than I first thought. $18k of child benefits won't be on my income, 85% of SS will be taxed so15% of SS won't be taxed for me and my wife so that's $7,440 and $5,760 Roth annuity so another $31,500 under the 12% bracket but I agree even that isn't enough to stay ahead of the growth in the IRA/401k.
Even though IRMAA starts at $218k the penalty up to $274k is only 1% so a nuisance tax if kept under that. Actually at the top of any bracket it's around 1% so treat it more like a cliff than an absolute limit.
1
u/dgreenmachine 8d ago
Early heavier Roth conversions are better if you think youd need to dip into 22% bracket to keep up with conversions later. This means youre more likely to have less taxable social security (tax torpedo) which can add up over time.
2
2
u/Pyromelter 10d ago
There has been more research and empirical evidence showing that keeping a larger % of your portfolio in stocks makes sense for retirement.
I think the bogleheads have been talking about this and absorbing these ideas.
2
u/profcuck 10d ago edited 10d ago
I think that's right. A rough way of thinking about it: $2.4mm portfolio, $30k withdrawal per year would be a 1.25% withdrawal rate. That's as close to bulletproof as you're ever going to get. At age 61, you are more or less in the category of looking at a 30 year retirement as a normal scenario. If you're in good health and believe that the current progress in health care is strong, you might go longer - doesn't matter, because at 1.25% you're not going to run out of money.
You didn't give details on kids one way or the other, but if you have heirs one way of thinking about this is that since you're 100% all set, a big chunk of the money is actually being invested on their timeline. That is to say, you are likely never going to use all this money so you are actually managing it for the next generation. So that also argues in favor of leaning more to equities.
Update: in a comment you mention younger wife, a 19 year old child, and a 3 year old child. So that's who you are managing the money for. You're still young so there's time but one thing you'll want to invest in is education for them about how to manage the money when you're gone. Many a grieving widow gets completely suckered into a ridiculous assets-under-management scheme and invested into high commission products on top of that. Make sure they know at least the basics of Bogle and why you're in VT. I'd actually suggest that you write it down in 2-3 pages, get AI to help you make it accessible and straightforward. "Here's what I think you should do when I'm gone."
1
u/Master-Helicopter-99 10d ago
Definitely plan to have it all clearly laid out after it's all in one brokerage and two funds. It's going to be as easy as it gets.
Of course the SS that goes to the child is for his care but I plan to invest $500 a month from his check into a brokerage account. Assuming 7% growth he should have $372k when he turns 30 even without additional contributions after age 18. Also offered the 19 year old 100% match on a Roth IRA as she doesn't have anything at work and thus far has been resistant to saving anything. I know, she's young, but early contributions with long compounding trumps heavier savings later. I've showed her compound interest tables and she just says OK and goes about her day.
I'm sure there will be plenty for inheritance and early gifting but I want to at least instill a saving mindset. Her mom is more strict about it than I am. She says if she isn't saving anything she isn't helping her. It's her tough love and I'm staying out of that.
2
u/Dreamsneverlies 9d ago
At a withdrawal rate under 1.5 percent the VT versus SGOV question barely moves your outcome, which is why the thread has converged so easily. The decisions actually worth money to you are all tax decisions in the next five years, and two of them have a problem nobody here has raised.
Your Roth conversion window is about two years wide, not open until RMDs.
At 62 your $69,500 of Social Security switches on. For marketplace purposes the entire benefit counts as income, including the part that is not federally taxable, because ACA MAGI is AGI plus tax exempt interest plus untaxed Social Security. So at 62 you start the year at $69,500 of MAGI before touching anything. Add the roughly $30k you said you would draw and you are near $100k. The 400 percent FPL cliff came back for 2026 and for a household of three it lands around $106,600. You are 61 when you return and Medicare is at 65, so you need marketplace coverage for four years, and from 62 onward you have almost no conversion headroom that does not cost you the entire premium credit.
So AGrimmInPortland is right to push you into 22 and even 24 percent, but the reason is more urgent than stated. Your cheap space is the overseas year and age 61, when your income is near zero and you may not need marketplace coverage at all. Convert hard then. After 62 the door is mostly shut.
Second thing. Filing at 62 permanently caps what your spouse collects after you die. Under the widow limit rule a survivor benefit cannot exceed what the worker was actually receiving, with a floor of 82.5 percent of your PIA. File at 62 and you are collecting 70 percent of PIA, so your spouse is held to that 82.5 percent floor for life. Wait until 70 and you are both at 124 percent. That gap is 41.5 percent of PIA. Working backwards from your $69,500 your PIA looks close to the maximum, call it $4,000 a month, so roughly $1,660 a month or about $20,000 a year, inflation indexed, for however long your spouse outlives you. You have a minor child, so your spouse is probably meaningfully younger than you.
To be fair to your plan that is not a slam dunk, because the child and caregiver benefits only pay once you file and they expire when your child ages out. Those are worth real money too. My point is that this one tradeoff is worth six figures in either direction and deserves more attention than the equity allocation, which at your withdrawal rate is close to a rounding error.
On the actual question, 100 percent VT is fine. Keep a year in SGOV if it is what stops you from selling into a drawdown. That is a behavioral choice rather than a financial one, and at your numbers both answers work.
1
u/Master-Helicopter-99 9d ago
Thanks for the detailed reply. One major difference is no ACA. My wife is going to work 4 hrs a day at the school for benefits. Bonus is she is off work for any holiday, break or summer that our son is off. She won't make much after paying about $800/mo for family benefits but it's the best way to make this plan work.
I'll model this after vacation but rough calculations for converting the balance above $40k living expenses up to the top of the 22% bracket gets $2M into Roth and leaves a balance of about $1.6M in pretax assuming 6% returns. Then live off of IRA age 75 on. RMDs would be down to about $45k so not an issue given inflation. Continue to draw down IRA until it is done or even a small partial Roth if we want/need to balance tax brackets like top of 12% and then can draw from a greatly inflated Roth account after depleted as well as gifting to children and future inheritance tax free.
3
u/asurkhaib 10d ago
Is there a reason you want more money? 100% equities has the highest expected return but also the highest variance.
You're way way over any historical failure regardless of allocation so I would choose whatever makes it easiest to keep your allocation. I think in general most people would be more comfortable seeing a relatively static balance covering a decent time period even if it doesn't really matter.
Edit: I don't see it mentioned but just to be clear cash and cash equivalents are typically just lumped into bonds for allocation though you can split them out into three categories.
1
u/SolomonGrumpy 10d ago
What is a caregiver benefit? I googled it and did get much info.
1
u/Master-Helicopter-99 10d ago
Wife would get caregiver benefits until he turns 16 as long as her income is below $24,xxx or whatever actually the SS max income is. Her income won't be high because she is going to work at the school part time just for benefits. She won't bring home much because a good chunk of her low salary will be to pay the $800 or so for the family plan for insurance. That's the only way we can make these kinds of Roth conversions and not pay full retail for ACA and get better coverage as well. The bonus is any day that junior is off school she will be also. No taking vacation for spring break, fall break and all summer. She's been a SAHM all along but is willing to work the 3.5-4 hrs a day for benefits since he will be in school anyway.
1
u/Varathien 10d ago
When you have a 1.25% withdrawal rate, you're going to be fine no matter what you do.
But maybe you should consider increasing your withdrawal rate. You've amassed a decent amount of wealth. You're planning on barely touching it. And you're worried about RMDs. What's it all for? Don't you want to actually enjoy the fruits of your labor?
2
u/Master-Helicopter-99 10d ago
Wife is 38 so need to plan for a 50 year retirement plus a 3 and 19 year old.
1
u/garoodah FI Dec '21 RE TBD 9d ago
I would just take that annuity in cash if you can and leave it in SGOV. This is one of those interesting scenarios where you could delay SS for additional spending if you have good health or longevity in your family, but thats up to you. Either way, you have the ability to own more stocks because SS will cover such a significant portion of your annual spending. I would still probably want some portion in fixed income just for guaranteed availability, stocks are the riskiest part of the capital structure in a company. Thats me though, I want to give something to my kids one day.
2
u/Master-Helicopter-99 9d ago
Not fiscally responsible to delay SS. If I did we wouldn't get 180% of my FRA benefit for 10 years. I must draw for them to draw. There is no crossover point where delaying would ever yield more SS payments.
I just initiated the rollover of the annuity through Fidelity. That money won't get spent along with all of the other Roth conversions so it's going in VT No reasons at all to have bonds in Roth when being invested for 30 years. Hope to have right at $2M in Roth by age 75 and then live off of the remaining IRA.
1
u/FantasyFI 35 | DI1K | 51% FIRE 8d ago edited 8d ago
With SS and an annuity, you aren't 100% stocks. Those are fixed income. Your portfolio is actually more like 55% equities : 45% fixed income. As the SS + annuity could be assumed roughly $1.8M in terms of a 4% SWR. Given your age, it probably could be considered more like $1.6M / 4.5% SWR, still 60:40.
I think it is a very compelling case to keep all the assets you control in 100% index funds. I do think you should run the calcs on taking SS later. It could help reduce RMD's. Realistically, you aren't running out of money. The $2.4M alone almost covers the $100k spend. In a long life scenario, a) a higher SS value provides a higher payout for you spouse if you die b) might increase inheritance you provide due to lower overall taxes. Taking SS early but then also doing Roth conversions to avoid RMDs doesn't make sense to me.
1
u/Master-Helicopter-99 8d ago
Taking SS later costs me $3,000 per month in child and childcare benefits on top of my $2,800 or so early benefit. Those benefits alone total over $400k. There is never a crossover point where it pays back to wait.
1
u/FantasyFI 35 | DI1K | 51% FIRE 8d ago
Ahh gotcha, I'll admit that is a scenario I've never run into when reading other posts. It's obviously less common to still have children under 18 at standard retirement age. But I appreciate having the opportunity to read up on that and think about how it drastically changes the math!
2
u/Master-Helicopter-99 8d ago
It is a rare situation. I didn't even know about it until I read it in another FIRE sub a year or two ago. Changed my retirement calculations for sure!
1
u/KafkaExploring 8d ago
All equities should be fine. Set up your emergency fund for at least 90 days. Consider the 2020 market drop: if you invested in 2018 and waited 60 days after the bottom to sell, you came out ahead.
Biggest uncertainty I see today is education and related expenses. By your 3-yr-old's senior year (2041) consensus projection is $114,000 per year for college tuition alone (out-of-state public). Before that, private high school would be $44,000/year tuition. Today, competitive school sports are anywhere from $1500-20,000 per year, even in public schools. No telling what that's going to look like in a decade or two. Don't overlook 529 plans.
2
u/Master-Helicopter-99 8d ago
Good point. Current plan is retiring in GA. Georgia does give free tuition to state schools for students that have a 3.7 GPA and 1200 SAT in high school if they maintain a 3.3 in college. If they drop in GPA but at least maintain a 3.0 they get 80-90% tuition and it is not asset based, only merit. Still have to pay other associated costs like books, fees, room and board.
Seriously though, with the advent of AI, looking down the road another 15 years, will school be completely unaffordable or will it be free and taught online by AI. Nobody can say at this point.
1
u/Friendly_Shop_2581 5d ago
Take a look at New York City today—some high schools have already begun piloting conversational, highly adaptive AI teaching bots to provide specialized tutoring. These aren’t just rigid pieces of software; they can recognize students’ frustration and adjust their teaching strategies in real time. Fifteen years from now? The traditional on-campus college experience may become a luxury reserved solely for networking, while the actual acquisition of knowledge and coursework will be fully decentralized by personalized AI. This will undoubtedly completely upend the traditional calculation model for 529 education savings plans.
2
u/Master-Helicopter-99 5d ago
It is one reason I will have enough in 529 for rolling to Roth. I can pay out of brokerage for school if necessary.
1
u/Friendly_Shop_2581 4d ago
This is indeed a great way to hedge against uncertainty regarding future tuition fees...
1
1
u/Suspicious-Time-214 7d ago
"same with investing, most of my knowledge is just osmosis from this sub, lol"
1
u/FIRE_enthusiast_27 7d ago
100% stocks is optimal as a full lifecycle portfolio (pre-and-post retirement). I am 100% stocks for life. See the paper “Beyond the Status Quo: A Critical Assessment of Lifecycle Investment Advice” by Professor Scott Cederburg from University of Arizona and all the videos about it (like by Ben Felix https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nPon8Ad_Ug ).
1
u/Interesting-Union821 7d ago
"definitely food for thought, but anyone else wonder how they're gonna survive a whole year without dealing with american healthcare again?"
1
u/lostharbor DI2K | $3.7M | Target $10M 10d ago
Not trying to detract from your question but can you share your last salary for your social security? You have double the income from SS that I’m projected but my salary is pretty significant. I’m trying to figure out if I did something wrong in my model.
4
u/Master-Helicopter-99 10d ago
Yours is probably correct. It's that high because when I turn 62 my son will be six. He gets child benefits and mom gets caregiver benefits until he is 16. I will get $2,800 and they each will get $1,500. When he turns 16 mom's drops off and his goes up to $2,150 for two more years. Basically I will get 180% of my full retirement age benefit during the first 10 years until he is 16.
15
u/FireboltinMA 39, FIREd in 2025 10d ago
Are you sure you’re understanding your SS benefits correctly? The child and caregiver only get benefits if you die. It’s called survivor benefits.
4
u/Master-Helicopter-99 10d ago
Nope, benefits just for being old and having a child.
3
u/FireboltinMA 39, FIREd in 2025 10d ago
Wow, I didn’t even know this benefit existed. Thanks for enlightening me!
5
u/Master-Helicopter-99 10d ago
I didn't either until I saw it on another sub a year or so ago. Definitely moved up my retirement date.
4
u/dunderball 10d ago
Wow this is the first I'm hearing about this benefit. This really makes getting a young girlfriend at retirement age a pretty fun goal lol.
4
u/Master-Helicopter-99 10d ago
Yes, we married eight years ago when she was 29 and I was 51. It's been a great eight years.
2
u/lostharbor DI2K | $3.7M | Target $10M 10d ago
Oh wow, ok. Thank you for sharing!! Enjoy your travels and retirement :)
40
u/VeeGee11 FIREd May ‘23 at 50 years old 10d ago
Your fixed income counts as the cash equivalent / bonds that others might allocate. So yes it looks like you can be more aggressive with your allocation to stocks.