EE bonds....pension or SPIA substitute

[Rukh O'Rorke]

Hey all - thought I had posted this somewhere but not seeing it? Anyhoo...

Not sure if I saw mention here or elsewhere but there's a thing on bogleheads about using EE bonds as a pension. So you can get 10k of EE bonds (in addition to the Ibonds) and they are guranteed to double in 20 years. So if you do 10k/year for 20 years into the EE bonds, then you can pull 20k minimum per year for 20 on the withdrawal side. And use that as a pension substitute. Its about 1,666/month, so relatively decent and if combined with SS could be a really good hedge against bad markets in the beginning of your retirement.

I think it's really too late for me to try this out!  I'd like to think....if only I'd started this 18 years ago!....but I sure did not have that extra money! Was hard enough many years to scrape 10k and sometimes less into the 401k - even with all the tax benefits of doing so.....

Interested if I'm not seeing a way to use this for me now? I struggle to think I might be working 5 more years, but it could happen. EEs have the same early penalties as Ibonds, they are currently at 2.5% fixed interest for the life of the bond - but will true up to double at the 20 year mark - which is about 3.5%, and then continue (I assume!) with their 2.5% interest up to 30 years.

deferring to minnesotapaintlady for any info she might add. I think she had mentioned these in another thread - likely the ibond thread -- but I can't find it right now.

bogelheads info here:


www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=358793#p6243130


How else might the EE bonds fit into a retirement plan? Interested if there are scenarios where I havent' "missed the boat".....

[CCL]

3.5% per year seems low, but maybe I'm missing something? At the end of 20 years won't all your $$$ be gone?

[minnesotapaintlady]

May 15, 2023 13:10:58 GMT -5 CCL said:

3.5% per year seems low, but maybe I'm missing something? At the end of 20 years won't all your $$$ be gone?

It's not being drawn down at 3.5% it earns 3.5%.  I think the idea is you keep buying 10K/year of EE bonds while working so you can draw up to 20K/year during retirement as guaranteed income.

It never really appealed to me though mainly because I don't make enough to take advantage of all the better places before hitting EE bonds.  If you don't keep them for the full 20 years they're pretty worthless (IMO) and if I'm going to have it invested that long, I would prefer it be in stocks and only have to pay LTCG tax and not ordinary income tax like you do with interest/dividends.

[CCL]

I mean, during that 20 years you are accumulating it, it earns approx. 3.5%.

[minnesotapaintlady]

Right.  So why would it be gone after 20 years?

[Rukh O'Rorke]

May 15, 2023 13:19:48 GMT -5 minnesotapaintlady said:

May 15, 2023 13:10:58 GMT -5 CCL said:

3.5% per year seems low, but maybe I'm missing something? At the end of 20 years won't all your $$$ be gone?

It's not being drawn down at 3.5% it earns 3.5%.  I think the idea is you keep buying 10K/year of EE bonds while working so you can draw up to 20K/year during retirement as guaranteed income.

It never really appealed to me though mainly because I don't make enough to take advantage of all the better places before hitting EE bonds.  If you don't keep them for the full 20 years they're pretty worthless (IMO) and if I'm going to have it invested that long, I would prefer it be in stocks and only have to pay LTCG tax and not ordinary income tax like you do with interest/dividends.

I think one of the advantages- similar to ibonds - is that the interest accumulates tax free and is state tax free, so you only have to pay the taxes on the 10k earned when at a lower tax rate and it is state tax free. So that seems pretty good. 

cuurent 30 year trasury bond is a little more than 3.5 percent - but it doesn't accumulate and you have to pay taxes on it yearly.

So I am hearing you are not a fan! i feel like if MPL is rejecting them out of hand, I shouldn't bother thinking about them!!

[minnesotapaintlady]

Well, keep in mind I am going down my priority list...

1. 401K to the match

2. Max HSA

3. Max Roth IRA (plus catch-up)

4. Max 401K (plus catch-up)

5. 529s (contributing to 4 of them)

6. I bonds

7. Taxable account

I typically run out of money somewhere between 5 and 7 depending on the year.  LOL  E bonds are not on the radar.

[Tiny]

May 15, 2023 15:00:18 GMT -5 minnesotapaintlady said:

Right.  So why would it be gone after 20 years?

I was thinking it would be gone 20 years AFTER you retire and stop buying more and redeeming your oldest ones (as they turn 20 years old).   

If you start the ladder at age 40 - you'd buy your last ee or I bonds at age 60, and start redeeming at 61 thru 81... after that you wouldn't have any left to redeem. 

[minnesotapaintlady]

May 15, 2023 16:53:56 GMT -5 Tiny said:

May 15, 2023 15:00:18 GMT -5 minnesotapaintlady said:

Right.  So why would it be gone after 20 years?

I was thinking it would be gone 20 years AFTER you retire and stop buying more and redeeming your oldest ones (as they turn 20 years old).   

If you start the ladder at age 40 - you'd buy your last ee or I bonds at age 60, and start redeeming at 61 thru 81... after that you wouldn't have any left to redeem. 

Well. You don't have to cash them all in every year and they earn interest for 30 years. Most people seem to be using it as a temporary income bridge. Like retire at 60 and draw the EE bonds for 10 years as a SS substitute that doesn't mess with ACA subsidies as much as 401K draws would. Not so much as a lifelong annuity.

[Tiny]

How else might the EE bonds fit into a retirement plan? Interested if there are scenarios where I havent' "missed the boat".....

I'm thinking some amount in EE or Ibonds can be helpful in retirement when some extra "income" is needed along with the ability to manage income for tax purposes. Or to help pull less from invested money if there's an economic downturn. I'm not saying that the bonds would REPLACE taking out invested money - but rather that it might give you more flexibility for a year when you have a lot of big expenses (a new vehicle, a new roof, new appliances, whatever).


If you didn't replace your car before you retire - it means you will most likely need to buy a vehicle at some point during your retirement.
Same goes with your house upkeep.

I'm not sure if retired people do something like

I to need to put 12K per year from my 401K into a "sinking fund" for "house, car, whatever maintenance" to keep their income stream steady and predictable
OR
wow! I need a new car this year - let me pull an extra 40K out of my 401K this year! which means it may be a little more tricky come tax time.

Or maybe they just have really big "taxable accounts" and do something like "I'll sell some investments and buy that new 40K vehicle - doesn't matter if the market is up or down... I'm just doing it!" again more tricky at tax time.


TBH, I'm sure this is were having a Roth IRA comes in super handy.

[Tiny]

May 15, 2023 17:07:23 GMT -5 minnesotapaintlady said:

May 15, 2023 16:53:56 GMT -5 Tiny said:

I was thinking it would be gone 20 years AFTER you retire and stop buying more and redeeming your oldest ones (as they turn 20 years old).   

If you start the ladder at age 40 - you'd buy your last ee or I bonds at age 60, and start redeeming at 61 thru 81... after that you wouldn't have any left to redeem. 

Well. You don't have to cash them all in every year and they earn interest for 30 years. Most people seem to be using it as a temporary income bridge. Like retire at 60 and draw the EE bonds for 10 years as a SS substitute that doesn't mess with ACA subsidies as much as 401K draws would. Not so much as a lifelong annuity.

Yes. this. I wasn't financially savvy enough at 40 to think/act along these lines. I also didn't have enough income to max my 401K, roth, and eventually an HSA.

I can see where someone with enough income and a desire to "retire" early might get to the point of buying EE and I-Bonds as part of their "retirement" plan.

At 40, I was still assuming that all financial advice was applicable to my situation - when most of it was aimed at Married (with kids) people.    And I was single no kids.    I am not the brightest bulb.

[Opti]

May 15, 2023 17:19:07 GMT -5 Tiny said:

May 15, 2023 17:07:23 GMT -5 minnesotapaintlady said:

Well. You don't have to cash them all in every year and they earn interest for 30 years. Most people seem to be using it as a temporary income bridge. Like retire at 60 and draw the EE bonds for 10 years as a SS substitute that doesn't mess with ACA subsidies as much as 401K draws would. Not so much as a lifelong annuity.

Yes. this. I wasn't financially savvy enough at 40 to think/act along these lines. I also didn't have enough income to max my 401K, roth, and eventually an HSA.

I can see where someone with enough income and a desire to "retire" early might get to the point of buying EE and I-Bonds as part of their "retirement" plan.

At 40, I was still assuming that all financial advice was applicable to my situation - when most of it was aimed at Married (with kids) people.    And I was single no kids.    I am not the brightest bulb.

There needs to be more financial advice for single no kids people, especially those over 40 yrs old. 

There are also people who cash EE bonds after their parent or loved one dies. Not always the original owner that cashes out the bonds. Also might be a good reason to co-own some bonds, so the wife or the daughter of who bought the bonds can cash them easily instead of through the estate or however they would do that.

[CCL]

May 15, 2023 16:53:56 GMT -5 Tiny said:

May 15, 2023 15:00:18 GMT -5 minnesotapaintlady said:

Right.  So why would it be gone after 20 years?

I was thinking it would be gone 20 years AFTER you retire and stop buying more and redeeming your oldest ones (as they turn 20 years old).   

If you start the ladder at age 40 - you'd buy your last ee or I bonds at age 60, and start redeeming at 61 thru 81... after that you wouldn't have any left to redeem. 

Yes! That's what I was thinking, too.

[minnesotapaintlady]

May 15, 2023 18:59:02 GMT -5 Opti said:

There needs to be more financial advice for single no kids people, especially those over 40 yrs old.

Wouldn't it basically be the same though?  I mean, I can see if you're married health insurance options and how you plan for LTC in retirement might be different, but budgeting, and utilizing tax-preferred retirement savings and all that seems like it would be the same married or single and no kids just means less expenses during your working years, it doesn't really change retirement planning.  Unless your plan is moving in with your kids I guess!

[dannylion]

May 15, 2023 18:59:02 GMT -5 Opti said:

May 15, 2023 17:19:07 GMT -5 Tiny said:

Yes. this. I wasn't financially savvy enough at 40 to think/act along these lines. I also didn't have enough income to max my 401K, roth, and eventually an HSA.

I can see where someone with enough income and a desire to "retire" early might get to the point of buying EE and I-Bonds as part of their "retirement" plan.

At 40, I was still assuming that all financial advice was applicable to my situation - when most of it was aimed at Married (with kids) people.    And I was single no kids.    I am not the brightest bulb.

There needs to be more financial advice for single no kids people, especially those over 40 yrs old. 

There are also people who cash EE bonds after their parent or loved one dies. Not always the original owner that cashes out the bonds. Also might be a good reason to co-own some bonds, so the wife or the daughter of who bought the bonds can cash them easily instead of through the estate or however they would do that.

I think Savings Bonds are probably best thought of as a very long-term investment since their real value is in the power of compound interest, which ramps up a lot more the closer they get to maturity.  

My parents learned their financial lessons growing up during the Depression, so they were very risk-averse.  They had a small business that did fairly well, so they stashed their retirement money in CDs and savings bonds at a time when the maximum limit for savings bond purchases was 30k per person per year, though they certainly didn't invest 60k every year.  The records are in the basement, and my back hurts too much right now to go fetch them, but my recollection is that their total SB investment over several decades was somewhere in the 300k range.  As it turned out, their CDs saw them through a comfortable retirement, so I inherited the SBs.  They had reached a total value of 1MM and change by the time the first tranche matured.  The last batch was purchased in 2005, so I will be cashing in SBs until 2035.  Most of them had decent interest rates, though there were periods where the rate was below current bank interest rates, and I'm considering cashing those in and reinvesting the money in CDs, even though they have not matured yet.  When my Dad passed away, they were worth about 500k, it took maybe 5 years after that for them to reach 1MM (again, I don't have the records to check right now, so that could have been a little less).  

So, in deciding whether or how much of one's retirement funds to invest in SB, I think it probably depends on the interest rate and how long one plans to keep them since the biggest gains come as they approach their 30-year maturity date.  

Most of the bonds were in both parents' names.  The last tranche was half in Mom's name with me as POD beneficiary and the other half in Dad's name with me as POD beneficiary.  The bonds in both parents' names have to be retitled in my name before I can cash them, which requires filling out some forms and getting a medallion signature from a bank then mailing the form and the bonds to the Treasury Department with death certificates and the documentation that names me executor of the estate.  It's sort of a pain in the butt, but it is not difficult.  When I cash a batch of bonds, I let my accountant know, and she sends me the forms to pay the tax (which has to be paid during the quarter they are cashed), which can be paid online, so at least that's easy.  I'm leery of sending all of the bonds to be retitled all at once, so I've only been sending them as they mature.  I should probably just send all the bonds to be retitled and have them deposited digitally in my Treasury Direct account, which I might think about doing in the near future.  

I think the main benefit of bonds might be that they are a safe way to preserve capital while benefiting from a certain amount of growth, some purchase periods being better than others in that respect.  Other investments will yield better returns but with varying degrees of risk.  Savings Bonds represent safety, which is certainly something to take into account in building a collection of retirement assets.  

[Rukh O'Rorke]

May 15, 2023 16:53:56 GMT -5 Tiny said:

May 15, 2023 15:00:18 GMT -5 minnesotapaintlady said:

Right.  So why would it be gone after 20 years?

I was thinking it would be gone 20 years AFTER you retire and stop buying more and redeeming your oldest ones (as they turn 20 years old).   

If you start the ladder at age 40 - you'd buy your last ee or I bonds at age 60, and start redeeming at 61 thru 81... after that you wouldn't have any left to redeem. 

oh! yes it would....

[jerseygirl]

How wonderful dannylion that your cautious and thrift parents lived fine in retirement and left you an amazing amount. Great role models!!

[Tiny]

May 15, 2023 20:19:51 GMT -5 minnesotapaintlady said:

May 15, 2023 18:59:02 GMT -5 Opti said:

There needs to be more financial advice for single no kids people, especially those over 40 yrs old.

Wouldn't it basically be the same though?  I mean, I can see if you're married health insurance options and how you plan for LTC in retirement might be different, but budgeting, and utilizing tax-preferred retirement savings and all that seems like it would be the same married or single and no kids just means less expenses during your working years, it doesn't really change retirement planning.  Unless your plan is moving in with your kids I guess!

Kind of - but I think there's a "timing" issue - a married couple (or someone with adult kids) will most likely have a built in "extra set of hands" during some of the years of decline - so they won't need to spend as much money on daily stuff or health care.  

I'm single, no kids -   so if I wind up with a minor injury in my mid 60's (arm in a cast or foot in a cast) -  I'm alone at home.   Making a meal becomes difficult.  maybe doing laundry is harder (the machines are in the basement), maybe I can drive to appointments.       If I have a bad bout of the flu (or pneumonia or bronchitis) I don't have anyone at home to help me out for the days when I am at my sickest.    I also don't have a family member (a kid) to call on.    

Basically a married (with kids) couple  MIGHT be able to put off some expenses  because they have someone available to help with the little things.   

I don't think I need LTC at 66 if I break a bone in my foot or arm.   but I will need some kind of help.     And I'm guessing I will need to pay for that.  

There's also that idea that double income families (even if they have had the expense of kids) may have MORE money in retirement than I will.  They will go into retirement in a nicer house, a nicer community, have nicer vacations, etc...    

I strongly suspect this because as a life long single (with a good income)  I cannot keep up with the lifestyles of my double income friends and relatives (even if they have kids).      My single income doesn't equal their combined income (or if it does - they still that extra set of hands and skills  to help make some parts of life more cost efficient.  And I do not have access to that.) 

I'm not really saying that right.    There are expenses that single people have that married with or without kids don't have.  And there are financial advantages that Married with or without kids have that singles do not.   

And generally the available advice or "rules of thumbs" are geared for married (with or without kids).      Pretty much up until I was mid thirties -  retirement advice seemed to be geared towards the assumption that I would be married and have access to a spouses SS/pension...   It's like I was working towards/making decisions based on a getting to a place I would never be.    It's subtle but it's there.     I'd liken it to how a singleton might live with the assumption that if they followed all the advice - they'd meet their "soul mate", have kids and a house with a white picket fence....  but what happens when that doesn't happen?  They had been making decisions based on achieving that goal but then it doesn't happen. 

[minnesotapaintlady]

I'm just thinking out loud here and not arguing.  Mainly because I've been single then married then single then married and finally single again.   About the only major thing I can think of that changed in my planning was my youngster husband was supposed to cover my health insurance when I retired at 59 when he was still just 52 with lots of working years left.

The "extra hands" thing I can see with a couple, but it can also work against you big time and and instead of having more help, you end up spending your retirement being a caretaker for your spouse...who I guess could be considered the "winner" in that one.  Kids are a complete crap shoot.  I'm near my mom, not my dad, but most of my cousins don't live anywhere near their parents that are now in their 70's and 80's. I don't expect my oldest will stick around in fact he's been trying to figure out how to get into Canada under the Skilled Worker Program after he graduates.

Expenses are going to be less per person with a married household but more overall.  A couple making 100K can do more than two single people making 50K each, mainly due to shared housing.  But if you frame it as household expenses when retirement planning it really doesn't matter if the pre-retirement income is coming from one source or two.   It's "I/we need X dollars per month, what do I/we need to do to get that?"

Married does potentially have access to twice as much tax-preferred retirement savings space and also will pull in two social security checks so single would need to replace more of the income with savings than married...but married should still plan on that too because one spouse is inevitably going to go before the other and it might be long before the other or even prior to retirement leaving the survivor with just the one SS check.

[CCL]

Also, dont assume every married couple has 2 incomes.

[bean29]

Yeah, and my Mid-life hubby earns good money, but he has also been buying expensive toys.

We will probably be fine with 2 SS checks + our savings, but one SS check + our savings ??  I have to admit, we have a good amount saved, but many here are doing much better than us, and I am paniced that we don't have enough.  DH on the other hand, has no concerns in that regard.

[Rukh O'Rorke]

May 16, 2023 10:44:52 GMT -5 Tiny said:

May 15, 2023 20:19:51 GMT -5 minnesotapaintlady said:

Wouldn't it basically be the same though?  I mean, I can see if you're married health insurance options and how you plan for LTC in retirement might be different, but budgeting, and utilizing tax-preferred retirement savings and all that seems like it would be the same married or single and no kids just means less expenses during your working years, it doesn't really change retirement planning.  Unless your plan is moving in with your kids I guess!

Kind of - but I think there's a "timing" issue - a married couple (or someone with adult kids) will most likely have a built in "extra set of hands" during some of the years of decline - so they won't need to spend as much money on daily stuff or health care.  

I'm single, no kids -   so if I wind up with a minor injury in my mid 60's (arm in a cast or foot in a cast) -  I'm alone at home.   Making a meal becomes difficult.  maybe doing laundry is harder (the machines are in the basement), maybe I can drive to appointments.       If I have a bad bout of the flu (or pneumonia or bronchitis) I don't have anyone at home to help me out for the days when I am at my sickest.    I also don't have a family member (a kid) to call on.    

Basically a married (with kids) couple  MIGHT be able to put off some expenses  because they have someone available to help with the little things.   

I don't think I need LTC at 66 if I break a bone in my foot or arm.   but I will need some kind of help.     And I'm guessing I will need to pay for that.  

There's also that idea that double income families (even if they have had the expense of kids) may have MORE money in retirement than I will.  They will go into retirement in a nicer house, a nicer community, have nicer vacations, etc...    

I strongly suspect this because as a life long single (with a good income)  I cannot keep up with the lifestyles of my double income friends and relatives (even if they have kids).      My single income doesn't equal their combined income (or if it does - they still that extra set of hands and skills  to help make some parts of life more cost efficient.  And I do not have access to that.) 

I'm not really saying that right.    There are expenses that single people have that married with or without kids don't have.  And there are financial advantages that Married with or without kids have that singles do not.   

And generally the available advice or "rules of thumbs" are geared for married (with or without kids).      Pretty much up until I was mid thirties -  retirement advice seemed to be geared towards the assumption that I would be married and have access to a spouses SS/pension...   It's like I was working towards/making decisions based on a getting to a place I would never be.    It's subtle but it's there.     I'd liken it to how a singleton might live with the assumption that if they followed all the advice - they'd meet their "soul mate", have kids and a house with a white picket fence....  but what happens when that doesn't happen?  They had been making decisions based on achieving that goal but then it doesn't happen. 

honestly - I think you are conflating societal expectations with financial advice. My first foray into financial advice was suze orman, and there was no messaage to wait for a man.

The Nine Steps To Financial Freedom: Practical and Spiritual Steps So You Can Stop Worrying (1997)[

This book came out when I was 33, and I started down the pathway. Sure - I was a little older but I don't think I could have done much witht he financial advise before hand either. I do remember wanting to buy in stocks when I much younger, about 1980's, but it was difficult, getting info was difficult, and it was expensive I think 25 or more per transaction expensive. Times have changed!

Now as an example - my mother did not get married in her 20's through late 30's and my grandmother was on her about it. After she gave up on my mother marrying, she strongly encouraged her to join a convent, because how else would my mother be cared for in older age. Then my mother married at 39 unexpectly....

But calling that financial advise is really pushing it. It was an expectation of my grandmother's - you either got married or became a nun so I guess advise? but more one person's opinion.....

[Rukh O'Rorke]

May 16, 2023 12:05:11 GMT -5 minnesotapaintlady said:

I'm just thinking out loud here and not arguing.  Mainly because I've been single then married then single then married and finally single again.   About the only major thing I can think of that changed in my planning was my youngster husband was supposed to cover my health insurance when I retired at 59 when he was still just 52 with lots of working years left.

The "extra hands" thing I can see with a couple, but it can also work against you big time and and instead of having more help, you end up spending your retirement being a caretaker for your spouse...who I guess could be considered the "winner" in that one.  Kids are a complete crap shoot.  I'm near my mom, not my dad, but most of my cousins don't live anywhere near their parents that are now in their 70's and 80's. I don't expect my oldest will stick around in fact he's been trying to figure out how to get into Canada under the Skilled Worker Program after he graduates.

Expenses are going to be less per person with a married household but more overall.  A couple making 100K can do more than two single people making 50K each, mainly due to shared housing.  But if you frame it as household expenses when retirement planning it really doesn't matter if the pre-retirement income is coming from one source or two.   It's "I/we need X dollars per month, what do I/we need to do to get that?"

Married does potentially have access to twice as much tax-preferred retirement savings space and also will pull in two social security checks so single would need to replace more of the income with savings than married...but married should still plan on that too because one spouse is inevitably going to go before the other and it might be long before the other or even prior to retirement leaving the survivor with just the one SS check.

I totally agree. Counting on kids to help in old age is 1- no guarantee, and 2- a pretty crappy thing to do to your kids......I don't see see it being realistic to expect someone to move from 1000 miles away for 6 weeks because I broke an arm or something. Like people don't have other committements? Work, spouse, kids, pets, etc. I would never ask that. I would insist against it actually.....If someone is locale and they can stop over or do a few errands here and there, sure, seems reasonable. But then they get a job in another state and so what's your plan?

Being single is going to cost more, and you'll have less to work with. Even a SAHS is going to get a soc sec check off spouse's record while the single person just has their own.


So - live below your means, save at least 10%, do minnesotapaintlady proirity list.
figure out insurance needs, including ltc - might prioritize that if no close family/friends to step in
save until you have (expenses-retirement income/s)*25 and use a 4% withdrawal rate for a 30 year retirement

IMO the functions don't change single to married, just a few of the inputs.

And as MPL noted, spouses can be a net drain rather than a bonus. If they get sick and require your care that can be draining - but that care can also suck up all the joint assets and leave the healthier spouse with nothing but a home in disrepair after years of neglect and 1 soc sec check after the ill spouse passes.

I think the sadess things I ever read was someone writing to an advice columist about how they waited decades to divorce their abusive spouse - who then just as they had everything ready spouse had a stroke and required care and now they were trapped because never told about the abuse and everyone would think they were awful for filing for divorce now spouse was helpless. She wasn't trying to figure a way out iirc, but just how to make peace with it.

[Rukh O'Rorke]

thinking about the EE bonds again today....aside from setting up a ladder to act like a 10 or 20 year spia to help manage volatility in the first decade or so of retirement, which too late for me, still pondering their usefulness for my plans.....

But going to put off any purchase decision until Nov to see if the interest rate goes up a bit. If it goes down, definitely a nogo, but if it were to be 3-3.5% I might start in with them.

I'm trying to build up cash equivalents, and while I bought some TIPS and notes and bills last year - I don't love that the interest is taxable every year. And the tips step up in value is also taxable!! Since I am paying 22% fed for any interest, it seems that about 3% would be roughly equivalent to 4% in other vehicles, and 3.5% would be a bonus.

I doubt that I would be able to hold on to these for 20 years to get the guarantee doubling...and not sur ehow much I can even put into them while still maxing other priorities

Looking at MPLs list....

1. 401K to the match
2. Max HSA
3. Max Roth IRA (plus catch-up)
4. Max 401K (plus catch-up)
5. 529s (contributing to 4 of them)
6. I bonds
7. Taxable account

I cant roth and no more 529s, thanks goodness....

although - if student loan payments are back in the fall.....may not even be possible . I remember really struggling when I started paying on the student loans, and now I have a car payment to add in.

[Rukh O'Rorke]

well - this is a development...I've figured out how to buy treasuries at auction through my 401k rollover. So that eliminates the taxation angel every year, although coming out through the 401k it will be subject to state income taxes.

the other attractive thing about the EE (same as I) is that you have a good chunk of the money that is post tax, so if you have 15k from I or EE bonds you bought 10 or more years ago, then you pay taxes on the 5k but the original 10k was just savings. So in that respect really great when you need extra money for a roof or car purchase, and it won't mess up your taxes so much.....I'm still figuring things out! I'm getting there!