What is your desired Retirement Income compared to Current Wage?

Depends if you have an unencumbered main residence

 

You are correct, there is no correct answer to the question and nobody else would know better than oneself.
It's great you can be happy with a modest lifestyle.
Some people can happily work their whole lives and not care about retiring at all.

Maybe comparing ones current wage to what you want when retiring is irrelevant. There's more to it than just cash flow...

 

Good point. Currently my biggest expenses are property related. My parents were the same. However, when they retired, they restructured so their properties are generating cashflow rather than costing them money.

I would like to remain an active property investor in retirement so I am working towards generating an income stream from property, rather than property being my biggest expense. The extent to which I wish to keep investing in property in retirement impacts on my "want" income stream. I want enough income so I can live comfortably and continue to invest in property.

 

Regardless, that is truly something to be proud of @Ace in the Hole.

 

Desired retirement income is less than current wage as I'll have paid off the ppor freeing up lots of cash. If I can achieve current wage in retirement I'll be living very happily

 

Thanks man.
Keep at it and you'll get there too.
It's hard at first, but it gets easier.
Just got to not be lazy like 99.5% of the general population and do that bit extra when others are relaxing.

 

Hubby retired last year. Current income is much less than his job paid, but we have enough to satisfy our needs. We own our PPOR, and have no debt that is non-deductable. We don't have a lavish lifestyle, and to me forcing him to stay in a job he didn't much like, just for money was not worth it.

These days there's no time for work anyway, we've got so much going on.

Agreed!

 

That's my parents. They are so busy enjoying doing all the things they said they would do when they retired (and a lot more they didn't think of) that they could not possibly fit work into the equation. I am glad they are enjoying life.

 

Definitely agree! I'm early 40's & have done exactly that! I could've chased the rainbow but realised some things are better done now than in 25 yrs time....

Most people fail to differentiate between "salary / wage" & actual disposable income + living expenses. A salary/wage of $100k /yr would leave ~$73k net for the most simple of financial circumstances. (i.e.. no structured deductions etc...)

To have a "net" passive income of $100k would equate to a working salary/wage of ~$145k. Add to that the lack of non-deductible debt in "retirement", tax concessions for seniors/retirees and time to spend wisely, you'd need to compare to a working income of much more than $145k to be fair, as that $100k net in retirement will go a lot further than in your working life.

I'm all for aiming high but I'm also a realist and someone who values my time and the joy of the journey... For example, I'm off backpacking in Asia with my 18 yr old son next week (try doing that when your 70...) & its only one of many overseas trips this year.

Enjoy the journey,

Indi

 

How did they do this exactly Perthguy? Did they sell down?

 

Interesting to see in the poll roughly half indicated they would need less money, a quarter the same money and another quarter that they would need even more than they are earning now.

 

My view is that people would generally need much less money than they are earning now to exist the rat race.

My reasoning:
1. No need to factor in travelling to work
and this can be costly

2. Less eating out at lunch time, less coffees out

3. less work clothing - suits etc

4. Tax savings by structuring the way the income is earnt.

But also your final investment income is not the end of your earning capacity for the rest of your life. If you have invested wisely your income should be increasing faster than inflation.

Having more time on your hands could lead to starting a small business which generates income. You could also work as a 'hobby' - teaching mud wrestling to pensioners for example.

You also might come into some inheritance at some point (but don't count on it).

And then you have your superannuation when you meet a condition of release at around 60 years of age.

And don't forget the pension (but also best to assume you won't get this).

 

I read & answered the poll as want not need. I know I need less but that is why I want the same.... so I can afford to spend my time doing all those things I really want to do.

For example, international airfare costs alone add up fast, especially when you have the time & inclination to travel far more than once or twice a year. I know I do

Enjoy the journey,

Indi

 

That's true!

 

We wouldn't need as much as many on here are. I would need my PPOR paid off, enough money to do 4 cheap SE Asian holidays per year (say 20k max for holidays), 20k for living expenses such as food, petrol and bills and 25k spare for unexpected expenses.
If we had 65k combined income after tax for the two of us we would be really comfortable.

 

That would be enough for me too!

 

I'm sure we could get by on close to half that without holidays

 

You could possibly rent the house out for a year or so and live in SE on way less than you send now - plus get money from rent.

 

You can... $40k net for a couple with no debt is "enough" for a modest lifestyle. After that it's all discretionary spending. This is not merely by belief... it is my experience.

Enjoy the journey,

Indi

 

Keep in mind the pension for a couple is about $300 per week each or about $31,200 per year.