Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,030
Member is Online
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Feb 1, 2021 12:42:09 GMT -5
I'm thinking to pull it immediately at 62. I can't see that I would be working FT at that point, but will see how the next 5-6 years go. if I take it at 62 rather than 70, assuming invested in the market (or not removed from the market): According to my Phil Script, a monthly investment of $1,865.00 bearing an annualized return of 11% with gains compounded monthly could grow to $280,976.30 in 8 years! so then that is about 1k a month at a 4% withdrawal rate. although ss statement says 3,682 at 70, - which is nearly 2k month more ?!?! I wouldn't have the 280k in the kitty. But - I am sure that the difference between 62 and 67 (for me about 2800), and then to 70 has not been this high historically. Have they changed anything? One of the things that has changed is your salary. SS is based on the 35 best years, and you are now maxing out, right? Although they adjust those early years for inflation, you will have 8 more years of maxing out if you wait until 70. SS assumes you will keep working at your higher salary. Yes - I think you are right Susana - that must be why the extra years look so different from statements 5 or more years ago (which I can't access right now and just 'remembering' kinda sorta what those difference were.
|
|
|
Post by minnesotapaintlady on Feb 1, 2021 13:52:54 GMT -5
Mine is a whopping $1193/month at 62. At 70 it's $2182. I need to start researching what is the best course of action for when to start drawing. I'm thinking to pull it immediately at 62. I can't see that I would be working FT at that point, but will see how the next 5-6 years go. if I take it at 62 rather than 70, assuming invested in the market (or not removed from the market): According to my Phil Script, a monthly investment of $1,865.00 bearing an annualized return of 11% with gains compounded monthly could grow to $280,976.30 in 8 years! so then that is about 1k a month at a 4% withdrawal rate. although ss statement says 3,682 at 70, - which is nearly 2k month more ?!?! I wouldn't have the 280k in the kitty. But - I am sure that the difference between 62 and 67 (for me about 2800), and then to 70 has not been this high historically. Have they changed anything? I was leaning towards taking it at 62 and investing because then if I died at 67 my kids would have the money. But, then that means I have to take that much more out of investments to pay my expenses so I don't think I'm really winning anything there! The investing SS only seems to work if you have a pension you can live off of. Maybe taking it early still makes sense because it's money I don't have to pull from the market?
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,030
Member is Online
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Feb 1, 2021 14:34:57 GMT -5
I'm thinking to pull it immediately at 62. I can't see that I would be working FT at that point, but will see how the next 5-6 years go. if I take it at 62 rather than 70, assuming invested in the market (or not removed from the market): According to my Phil Script, a monthly investment of $1,865.00 bearing an annualized return of 11% with gains compounded monthly could grow to $280,976.30 in 8 years! so then that is about 1k a month at a 4% withdrawal rate. although ss statement says 3,682 at 70, - which is nearly 2k month more ?!?! I wouldn't have the 280k in the kitty. But - I am sure that the difference between 62 and 67 (for me about 2800), and then to 70 has not been this high historically. Have they changed anything? I was leaning towards taking it at 62 and investing because then if I died at 67 my kids would have the money. But, then that means I have to take that much more out of investments to pay my expenses so I don't think I'm really winning anything there! The investing SS only seems to work if you have a pension you can live off of. Maybe taking it early still makes sense because it's money I don't have to pull from the market? lets take a look at your numbers... What age did you retire - and start drawing, if those are different? I'm seeing 1800 a month for me at 62. Mine is a whopping $1193/month at 62. At 70 it's $2182. I need to start researching what is the best course of action for when to start drawing. According to my Phil Script, a monthly investment of $1,193.00 bearing an annualized return of 11% with gains compounded monthly could grow to $179,734.44 in 8 years! So if you take it at 62 and either invest and/or don't withdraw from investment that money, you get to 70 with an increased kitty of nearly 180k, and if you use the 4% withdrawal rate to keep the kitty bumb in perpetuity, you get 599/month extra "spend", so 1193+599 = 1792 month as the alternative to 2182, which is 390 less per month but with $179,734.44 to tap into if/when needed, and $179,734.44 to leave to heirs. Byt of course - you may not get the 11% a year annualized return, and other things may make the bigger check at 70 worth it. But those are all unknowns.
|
|
|
Post by minnesotapaintlady on Feb 1, 2021 14:52:29 GMT -5
I was leaning towards taking it at 62 and investing because then if I died at 67 my kids would have the money. But, then that means I have to take that much more out of investments to pay my expenses so I don't think I'm really winning anything there! The investing SS only seems to work if you have a pension you can live off of. Maybe taking it early still makes sense because it's money I don't have to pull from the market? lets take a look at your numbers... Mine is a whopping $1193/month at 62. At 70 it's $2182. I need to start researching what is the best course of action for when to start drawing. According to my Phil Script, a monthly investment of $1,193.00 bearing an annualized return of 11% with gains compounded monthly could grow to $179,734.44 in 8 years! So if you take it at 62 and either invest and/or don't withdraw from investment that money, you get to 70 with an increased kitty of nearly 180k, and if you use the 4% withdrawal rate to keep the kitty bumb in perpetuity, you get 599/month extra "spend", so 1193+599 = 1792 month as the alternative to 2182, which is 390 less per month but with $179,734.44 to tap into if/when needed, and $179,734.44 to leave to heirs. Byt of course - you may not get the 11% a year annualized return, and other things may make the bigger check at 70 worth it. But those are all unknowns. But what would I live off of? If I don't use the $1193 from SS I would HAVE to pull it from investments (unless I was drawing SS while still working which I'm not planning on doing).
|
|
plugginaway22
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 2, 2011 10:18:42 GMT -5
Posts: 1,655
|
Post by plugginaway22 on Feb 1, 2021 16:06:19 GMT -5
DH and I are planning to collect at 62 and then take minimal withdrawals to make up difference. We have about 2 years expenses in cash so that not forced to cash out investments at the wrong time.
|
|
saveinla
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 2:00:29 GMT -5
Posts: 5,222
|
Post by saveinla on Feb 1, 2021 17:07:26 GMT -5
For people who have already retired, are you SS numbers close to what was in your statement?
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,030
Member is Online
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Feb 1, 2021 17:57:32 GMT -5
lets take a look at your numbers... According to my Phil Script, a monthly investment of $1,193.00 bearing an annualized return of 11% with gains compounded monthly could grow to $179,734.44 in 8 years! So if you take it at 62 and either invest and/or don't withdraw from investment that money, you get to 70 with an increased kitty of nearly 180k, and if you use the 4% withdrawal rate to keep the kitty bumb in perpetuity, you get 599/month extra "spend", so 1193+599 = 1792 month as the alternative to 2182, which is 390 less per month but with $179,734.44 to tap into if/when needed, and $179,734.44 to leave to heirs. Byt of course - you may not get the 11% a year annualized return, and other things may make the bigger check at 70 worth it. But those are all unknowns. But what would I live off of? If I don't use the $1193 from SS I would HAVE to pull it from investments (unless I was drawing SS while still working which I'm not planning on doing). So - if you retire at 62 and your expenses are 3k/month and you draw on your ss - you are getting 1193 from ss and 1807 from investments. If you retire at 62 and delay taking SS, you are taking 3k month from investment, so 1193 more per month than if you drew ss.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 24, 2024 23:35:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2021 19:04:09 GMT -5
For people who have already retired, are your SS numbers close to what was in your statement? Mine were. Even in my last few working years the numbers were pretty accurate because I'd been making over the max for so many years that more work years would have changed my amount only minimally.
|
|
|
Post by minnesotapaintlady on Feb 1, 2021 20:07:34 GMT -5
But what would I live off of? If I don't use the $1193 from SS I would HAVE to pull it from investments (unless I was drawing SS while still working which I'm not planning on doing). So - if you retire at 62 and your expenses are 3k/month and you draw on your ss - you are getting 1193 from ss and 1807 from investments. If you retire at 62 and delay taking SS, you are taking 3k month from investment, so 1193 more per month than if you drew ss. But, that's my point. It's kind of a horse a piece. I'm not really gaining anything taking it early if I'm taking an equal amount out of retirement accounts, so waiting for a higher payout might make more sense.
|
|
MN-Investor
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:22:44 GMT -5
Posts: 1,937
|
Post by MN-Investor on Feb 1, 2021 20:20:01 GMT -5
Besides tracking expenses, one thing I had not even thought about until after my sweetie retired, was to track income. Ok, maybe obvious to most, but I missed it because we had enough in a money market account for several years of expenses and I hadn't thought beyond that. When we were saving for retirement, I didn't pay a lot of attention to interest and dividends in our IRAs and 401(k)s. In fact, I don't remember that DH's 401(k) really showed you dividends. They just got reinvested. I was really only concerned with the total balance in those accounts. After DH retired, he rolled his 401(k) into an IRA and invested it. None of our investments were done with an eye towards maximizing interest and dividends. We just wanted solid stock and bond index funds. Which, as a side benefit, do pay interest and dividends. So now I have a spreadsheet (former accountant here, what would you expect?) which tracks social security, interest, and dividends for each investment by month. The good news? My social security + dividends + interest for the year exceed my expenses by a good margin. I'm still living off of a money market account in a taxable account, so I'm not withdrawing any of that income from my retirement accounts, but it's nice to know that I don't need to sell assets to meet current expenses.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,141
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 1, 2021 20:37:54 GMT -5
So - if you retire at 62 and your expenses are 3k/month and you draw on your ss - you are getting 1193 from ss and 1807 from investments. If you retire at 62 and delay taking SS, you are taking 3k month from investment, so 1193 more per month than if you drew ss. But, that's my point. It's kind of a horse a piece. I'm not really gaining anything taking it early if I'm taking an equal amount out of retirement accounts, so waiting for a higher payout might make more sense. Unless you absolutely need the money to live on, whether to claim SS early or wait is basically a bet on your life expectancy. If you can get by on investments and expect to live well into your eighties, then wait and claim later. If not, then claim earlier and keep more money in investments.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,030
Member is Online
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Feb 1, 2021 21:06:57 GMT -5
So - if you retire at 62 and your expenses are 3k/month and you draw on your ss - you are getting 1193 from ss and 1807 from investments. If you retire at 62 and delay taking SS, you are taking 3k month from investment, so 1193 more per month than if you drew ss. But, that's my point. It's kind of a horse a piece. I'm not really gaining anything taking it early if I'm taking an equal amount out of retirement accounts, so waiting for a higher payout might make more sense. but you're not? If you take ss, there is $1,193 a month that you don't pull from investments, and at the end of 8 years, you have $179,734.44 more left in your account, than you would if you were pulling the whole 3k out a month without ss. If your expenses are 3k a month, and you get ss of 1,193 a month and pull 3k, you're living on $4,193 if you spend it all.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,141
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 1, 2021 21:11:12 GMT -5
But, that's my point. It's kind of a horse a piece. I'm not really gaining anything taking it early if I'm taking an equal amount out of retirement accounts, so waiting for a higher payout might make more sense. but you're not? If you take ss, there is $1,193 a month that you don't pull from investments, and at the end of 8 years, you have $179,734.44 more left in your account, than you would if you were pulling the whole 3k out a month without ss. If your expenses are 3k a month, and you get ss of 1,193 a month and pull 3k, you're living on $4,193 if you spend it all. Think you misunderstood the response.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,030
Member is Online
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Feb 1, 2021 21:13:49 GMT -5
but you're not? If you take ss, there is $1,193 a month that you don't pull from investments, and at the end of 8 years, you have $179,734.44 more left in your account, than you would if you were pulling the whole 3k out a month without ss. If your expenses are 3k a month, and you get ss of 1,193 a month and pull 3k, you're living on $4,193 if you spend it all. Think you misunderstood the response.so what am I misinterpreting here? taking, equal, or retirement accounts?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,141
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 1, 2021 21:15:40 GMT -5
Think you misunderstood the response. so what am I misinterpreting here? taking, equal, or retirement accounts? Taking an additional amount equal to the foregone SS benefits....
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,030
Member is Online
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Feb 1, 2021 21:18:16 GMT -5
so what am I misinterpreting here? taking, equal, or retirement accounts? Taking an additional amount equal to the foregone SS benefits.... I guess I'll need to wait for MPL to explain because I don't know what is beeing miscommunicated and this doesn't clarify anything to me.
|
|
|
Post by minnesotapaintlady on Feb 1, 2021 21:35:33 GMT -5
Taking an additional amount equal to the foregone SS benefits.... I guess I'll need to wait for MPL to explain because I don't know what is beeing miscommunicated and this doesn't clarify anything to me. You were saying I should take SS at 62 and invest it to have an extra 180K at 70, but I couldn't do that without taking an extra $1193/month out of investments. I'm going to need the hypothetical 3K/month either way.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,030
Member is Online
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Feb 1, 2021 22:32:36 GMT -5
I guess I'll need to wait for MPL to explain because I don't know what is beeing miscommunicated and this doesn't clarify anything to me. You were saying I should take SS at 62 and invest it to have an extra 180K at 70, but I couldn't do that without taking an extra $1193/month out of investments. I'm going to need the hypothetical 3K/month either way. but you don't take an extra $1,193 out. You take out $1,193 less, and each month, leave that $1,193 you didn't take out for expenses to continue to grow. To keep it separated, you could always take 3k out of your investments, and then directly deposit the ss check into a different investment account and you'd know exactly how much that grew over the years. But my interpretation of what you are posting is that the $1,193 a month you would get at 62 would just disappear every month for 8 years and you'd still be taking 3k out of investments? I think we are at cross purposes, and I can't reconcile where we are missing each other.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,141
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 1, 2021 23:32:34 GMT -5
She is saying that if she takes the SS and invests it, she has to take the same amount out of investments to make up for not having the SS to spend. She ends up in the same place, at best. The whole idea of investing the SS is silly for someone who needs more than the SS amount to live on. It makes no sense to take with one hand and replace with the other. You are introducing an extra complexity with no benefit, and probably a worse outcome due to taxes.
|
|
CCL
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 19:34:47 GMT -5
Posts: 7,591
|
Post by CCL on Feb 2, 2021 0:17:26 GMT -5
For people who have already retired, are you SS numbers close to what was in your statement? Yes. Hubbies was the same. I'm not old enough yet.
|
|
countrygirl2
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 7, 2016 15:45:05 GMT -5
Posts: 16,887
|
Post by countrygirl2 on Feb 2, 2021 0:18:12 GMT -5
Have you taken into account paying for insurance till you are age 66?
Ours this year for the 2 of us is $754.65 a month, we got our drug premiums lowered but our supplements went up about the same amount. And I'm not sure they factored in all our scrips. Hubs just paid out of pocket $565 for a 3 month supply of one of his drugs and I think she missed my premarin. I paid $147 for that, hope we are meeting our deductibles this month.
Hubs and I get $4200 a month from SS. So $50400, the part B premiums are $148.50 this year but income based. I fear with our property sales we may hit the next income based raise. It's $207 each for us for a year, in 2 years if we have. Also our supplement and drug would be penalized and raised for a year.
We get about $20k per year from RMD, we don't take money out of several other accounts. We net income tax wise from our rentals, but hubs was dumping it all back in, plus I think. And with the rentals, now reduced, sold 1, sold a potential one, and right now one empty. So we will end up this year if it stays that way of an income of about $90 to $96k. But selling the 2 properties is going to cost us this year and probably for income based insurance penalties in 2 years. Our income is unlikely to grow, as we aren't going to add more rentals. When I get the mobile rented we should gross $36k from them and net around $26k depending on maintenance.
We are ok, but if one of us gets in a nursing home for years, we are screwed. Sometimes I think we would be better off divorced and dividing things down the middle now, so at least the surviving one can keep what they have. It's tempting sometime.
But this it through, I took mine at 62, a dumb move and lowered my SS 25% from now on. And I believe it would lower hubs 25% if I'm the survivor. I would work till age 66 if I were you. I would have but circumstances prevented me and I paid dearly.
|
|
countrygirl2
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 7, 2016 15:45:05 GMT -5
Posts: 16,887
|
Post by countrygirl2 on Feb 2, 2021 0:21:35 GMT -5
Yes ours were close, hubs worked overseas for 15 years and no SS was taken out. We did invest that money. Looking back we see things we could have done better.
But we are ok, still have a good chunk of money in savings, I do think spending is going to go down. He has a house with flooring to go in and another with trim, that seems to be it this year. And we are going to divest of some things that cost us, so will see.
|
|
CCL
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 19:34:47 GMT -5
Posts: 7,591
|
Post by CCL on Feb 2, 2021 0:32:50 GMT -5
But, that's my point. It's kind of a horse a piece. I'm not really gaining anything taking it early if I'm taking an equal amount out of retirement accounts, so waiting for a higher payout might make more sense. Unless you absolutely need the money to live on, whether to claim SS early or wait is basically a bet on your life expectancy. If you can get by on investments and expect to live well into your eighties, then wait and claim later. If not, then claim earlier and keep more money in investments. I always figured we'd live about the same age as our parents and grandparents, 80s. Then our siblings started dying... in their 60s. It makes me very glad hubby retired early and we are able to check some things off our bucket list while our health is still (relatively) good. Don't wait too long, people.
|
|
CCL
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 19:34:47 GMT -5
Posts: 7,591
|
Post by CCL on Feb 2, 2021 1:26:31 GMT -5
I'm amazed you all track your numbers so well. I never really bother.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,141
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 2, 2021 1:55:01 GMT -5
Unless you absolutely need the money to live on, whether to claim SS early or wait is basically a bet on your life expectancy. If you can get by on investments and expect to live well into your eighties, then wait and claim later. If not, then claim earlier and keep more money in investments. I always figured we'd live about the same age as our parents and grandparents, 80s. Then our siblings started dying... in their 60s. It makes me very glad hubby retired early and we are able to check some things off our bucket list while our health is still (relatively) good. Don't wait too long, people. I was pretty sure I could walk away any time after 55, but didn't want to take money out of either taxable or Roth and didn't want to deal with the 72(t) rules. I ended up semi-retiring at 56.5 and fully retired shortly after turning 58. Best thing I ever did. I'm going to be limiting my income for tax purposes, but the way things turned out I will still have far more per year than I need. Life is good. I don't even want to imagine what it would be like if I actually had to be working now.
|
|
cronewitch
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:44:20 GMT -5
Posts: 5,974
|
Post by cronewitch on Feb 2, 2021 6:55:04 GMT -5
I do other random things and end up about even with my income. I don't budget and might make a major purchase on a whim like a 4th wheel or central air or major gift like a van for a friend. I do "random things", too (except buying a car for someone- you are a generous friend!) I try to keep my withdrawal rate under 3.5% and I find ways to spend it, donate it or put it in the 529s. Last year I had quartz countertops put in; this year I'm having the exterior of the house repainted and the deck rebuilt. Those things are done only when funds are available. The only year I/we went over the 3.5% was 2015, when we downsized- one thing after another needed to be done to fix the house we were selling and then the work we wanted done on the house we bought cost more than we expected. (It always does. No regrets at all- average is still under 3.5%, I love this house and the carrying costs have been a lot less than the other place. Buying her a vehicle was a impulse thing, I said we should do lunch but she just got out of an abusive relationship and is disabled and no car. I invited her to for the night and picked her up from a friend's house I said e could look at cars if she wanted so we did. Her budget of 3K 3K and borrow about 3K. I decided to gift her the 15K van because to me it isn't a big deal and to her life changing. I met her around 1990 and worked together at 2 companies. I even attended her 3rd wedding. H
|
|
mamasita99
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 3, 2011 5:42:27 GMT -5
Posts: 1,623
|
Post by mamasita99 on Feb 2, 2021 7:42:26 GMT -5
I was pretty sure I could walk away any time after 55, but didn't want to take money out of either taxable or Roth and didn't want to deal with the 72(t) rules. I ended up semi-retiring at 56.5 and fully retired shortly after turning 58. Best thing I ever did. I'm going to be limiting my income for tax purposes, but the way things turned out I will still have far more per year than I need. Life is good. I don't even want to imagine what it would be like if I actually had to be working now. I'm glad to hear this worked out for you -- it's what I'm hoping for! I'll turn 56.5 in December. If things go according to plan, I won't HAVE to touch any retirement accounts until age 74. If I can bring in 20-30k/year for at least a few years, I should be able to avoid pulling anything from taxable investments and continue contributing 7k/yr to my Roth IRA.
But how do you bring in the 20-30k/year in your 50s if not working and not pulling from investments?
|
|
|
Post by minnesotapaintlady on Feb 2, 2021 8:32:52 GMT -5
So if you take it at 62 and either invest and/or don't withdraw from investment that money, you get to 70 with an increased kitty of nearly 180k, and if you use the 4% withdrawal rate to keep the kitty bumb in perpetuity, you get 599/month extra "spend", so 1193+599 = 1792 month as the alternative to 2182, which is 390 less per month but with $179,734.44 to tap into if/when needed, and $179,734.44 to leave to heirs. Byt of course - you may not get the 11% a year annualized return, and other things may make the bigger check at 70 worth it. But those are all unknowns. So, after a good nights sleep I went back to the beginning of where we diverged and realize we've been saying the same thing the entire time.
|
|
|
Post by minnesotapaintlady on Feb 2, 2021 8:38:05 GMT -5
But this it through, I took mine at 62, a dumb move and lowered my SS 25% from now on. And I believe it would lower hubs 25% if I'm the survivor. I would work till age 66 if I were you. I would have but circumstances prevented me and I paid dearly. But you still have lots of money every month, what would you really gain quality of life-wise by having 25% more SS?
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,030
Member is Online
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Feb 2, 2021 9:13:02 GMT -5
She is saying that if she takes the SS and invests it, she has to take the same amount out of investments to make up for not having the SS to spend. She ends up in the same place, at best. The whole idea of investing the SS is silly for someone who needs more than the SS amount to live on. It makes no sense to take with one hand and replace with the other. You are introducing an extra complexity with no benefit, and probably a worse outcome due to taxes. How are you taking with one hand and replacing with the other? You either have 1193/month in ss coming in to pay towards bills or you don't. This is a difference between withdrawing 3k/month and withdrawing 1807 a month - and that will make a nonneglible difference after 8 years. If you are thinking that delaying payment=SS "saving" it for you and increasing your payout, the effficiency of that mechanism can be debated, but having a monthly check of 1193 a month doesn't just evaporate with no effect on the investment funds you are otherwise living on. But again - the ss increase is guaranteed and investment returns are not, and that could be a major consideration. The trade off wouldn't work in all situations, although if the stock market is not doing well - withdrawing more each month also comes with drawbacks.
|
|