<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Review: Your Money Ratios</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2010/03/21/review-your-money-ratios/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2010/03/21/review-your-money-ratios/</link>
	<description>Financial talk for the rest of us</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Feb 2013 01:14:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: AnnJo</title>
		<link>http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2010/03/21/review-your-money-ratios/#comment-889538</link>
		<dc:creator>AnnJo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:43:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thesimpledollar.com/?p=5147#comment-889538</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I don&#039;t pretend to understand everything in the new health insurance reform package - I&#039;m sure no one does - but there are several provisions I&#039;ve read about that could have serious effects on these ratios.  

First, I believe that something like our current Medicare taxes will be imposed on investment income.  I don&#039;t know if that will be the 1.45% that is now assessed on employees&#039; wages, or the 2.9% total, and I don&#039;t know whether it will be imposed on otherwise tax-deferred investment income being earned witin IRAs and 401(k)s.  I also don&#039;t know if it will be imposed on the total distributions from IRAs/401(k)s, but I can&#039;t imagine it would generate enough revenue otherwise.  

Second, even after the housing crash, many homes of people nearing retirement have huge built-in capital gains (mostly inflationary).  And the year you sell your home to move into more suitable retirement housing, you will be one of those &quot;rich&quot; people who is expected to heavily subsidize the health care of the rest of the nation through higher tax rates.   Add that to the sunset next year of the reduced capital gains tax rate and add various state and local new or higher taxes, and people who need to sell a home for retirement (or a business) will take a real hit.

Third, the mandates being added to insurance plans (must cover preventive care, no annual or lifetime caps, must cover &quot;wellness&quot; and substance abuse treatment, etc.) are going to cause health insurance premiums to skyrocket in the previously pretty affordable individual market.  The self-employed are going to face some real sticker shock.  I&#039;m estimating my premiums - currently $305 a month - could rise by 150% or more.  For 32 years, I&#039;ve calculated carefully whether it pays for me to buy coverage for all the &quot;bells and whistles&quot; and learned it does not.  Now, I&#039;ll be forced to regardless - basically a 150%+ tax on my health insurance premium, and a big hit to my retirement budget.

Finally, although I share Trent&#039;s distaste for the &quot;financial apocalypse&quot; books, we do seem to be heading into a perfect storm of unsustainable deficits and debt, growth- and wealth-killing government policies, underfunded public pensions, and nearly worldwide demographic stress (longer old age and fewer replacement workers).   Assuming 8% real investment growth seems pretty optimistic, especially with a conservative asset allocation including 50% bonds, while a more aggressive allocation carries a much higher risk of loss of principal.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t pretend to understand everything in the new health insurance reform package &#8211; I&#8217;m sure no one does &#8211; but there are several provisions I&#8217;ve read about that could have serious effects on these ratios.  </p>
<p>First, I believe that something like our current Medicare taxes will be imposed on investment income.  I don&#8217;t know if that will be the 1.45% that is now assessed on employees&#8217; wages, or the 2.9% total, and I don&#8217;t know whether it will be imposed on otherwise tax-deferred investment income being earned witin IRAs and 401(k)s.  I also don&#8217;t know if it will be imposed on the total distributions from IRAs/401(k)s, but I can&#8217;t imagine it would generate enough revenue otherwise.  </p>
<p>Second, even after the housing crash, many homes of people nearing retirement have huge built-in capital gains (mostly inflationary).  And the year you sell your home to move into more suitable retirement housing, you will be one of those &#8220;rich&#8221; people who is expected to heavily subsidize the health care of the rest of the nation through higher tax rates.   Add that to the sunset next year of the reduced capital gains tax rate and add various state and local new or higher taxes, and people who need to sell a home for retirement (or a business) will take a real hit.</p>
<p>Third, the mandates being added to insurance plans (must cover preventive care, no annual or lifetime caps, must cover &#8220;wellness&#8221; and substance abuse treatment, etc.) are going to cause health insurance premiums to skyrocket in the previously pretty affordable individual market.  The self-employed are going to face some real sticker shock.  I&#8217;m estimating my premiums &#8211; currently $305 a month &#8211; could rise by 150% or more.  For 32 years, I&#8217;ve calculated carefully whether it pays for me to buy coverage for all the &#8220;bells and whistles&#8221; and learned it does not.  Now, I&#8217;ll be forced to regardless &#8211; basically a 150%+ tax on my health insurance premium, and a big hit to my retirement budget.</p>
<p>Finally, although I share Trent&#8217;s distaste for the &#8220;financial apocalypse&#8221; books, we do seem to be heading into a perfect storm of unsustainable deficits and debt, growth- and wealth-killing government policies, underfunded public pensions, and nearly worldwide demographic stress (longer old age and fewer replacement workers).   Assuming 8% real investment growth seems pretty optimistic, especially with a conservative asset allocation including 50% bonds, while a more aggressive allocation carries a much higher risk of loss of principal.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sean</title>
		<link>http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2010/03/21/review-your-money-ratios/#comment-888006</link>
		<dc:creator>Sean</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 2010 20:51:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thesimpledollar.com/?p=5147#comment-888006</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How on earth can this guy say with a straight face that you will earn an 8% return with a 50-50 equity/bond allocation?  And how can he be so conservative on asset allocation, while being so cavalier about total asset base requirements?

That &quot;12x&quot; rule is absurd.  You would need to earn 10% to pay expenses and keep up with inflation.  One down year in the market, and you&#039;re totally screwed.

I don&#039;t have a lot of knowledge of insurance, but simply on the basis of that first rule, you should absolutely not be recommending this book for anyone.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How on earth can this guy say with a straight face that you will earn an 8% return with a 50-50 equity/bond allocation?  And how can he be so conservative on asset allocation, while being so cavalier about total asset base requirements?</p>
<p>That &#8220;12x&#8221; rule is absurd.  You would need to earn 10% to pay expenses and keep up with inflation.  One down year in the market, and you&#8217;re totally screwed.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t have a lot of knowledge of insurance, but simply on the basis of that first rule, you should absolutely not be recommending this book for anyone.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SLCCOM</title>
		<link>http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2010/03/21/review-your-money-ratios/#comment-887880</link>
		<dc:creator>SLCCOM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:15:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thesimpledollar.com/?p=5147#comment-887880</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Also to clarify more: just because someone has serious health conditions such as heart disease, kidney disease, etc., it does NOT mean that you can&#039;t still enjoy life. Temporarily able-bodied people seem to make that assumption. Even people who are dependent on a ventilator to breathe can enjoy life, if they can afford to.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Also to clarify more: just because someone has serious health conditions such as heart disease, kidney disease, etc., it does NOT mean that you can&#8217;t still enjoy life. Temporarily able-bodied people seem to make that assumption. Even people who are dependent on a ventilator to breathe can enjoy life, if they can afford to.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SLCCOM</title>
		<link>http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2010/03/21/review-your-money-ratios/#comment-887877</link>
		<dc:creator>SLCCOM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:12:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thesimpledollar.com/?p=5147#comment-887877</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Just to clarify: we are NOT going on expensive vacations and enjoying luxuries... We just WOULD be able to enjoy them!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just to clarify: we are NOT going on expensive vacations and enjoying luxuries&#8230; We just WOULD be able to enjoy them!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SLCCOM</title>
		<link>http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2010/03/21/review-your-money-ratios/#comment-887847</link>
		<dc:creator>SLCCOM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:33:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thesimpledollar.com/?p=5147#comment-887847</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You are sadly underestimating the medical costs, which are going up far more than inflation. With two non-terminal but serious conditions, about 60% of our income is going to prescriptions, copays, supplements(prescribed), hearing aids, glasses, etc. And yes, we certainly are healthy enough to be enjoying going on expensive vacations and luxuries. 

We don&#039;t have teens, we don&#039;t pay Social Security, our cars are near junkers (but run well), and fully paid for. We do still have a mortgage. And most people should plan on paying for two long-term care insurance policies, which we are not. 

Not everyone will end up in our boat, but many of you will. I strongly suggest that you plan for it!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You are sadly underestimating the medical costs, which are going up far more than inflation. With two non-terminal but serious conditions, about 60% of our income is going to prescriptions, copays, supplements(prescribed), hearing aids, glasses, etc. And yes, we certainly are healthy enough to be enjoying going on expensive vacations and luxuries. </p>
<p>We don&#8217;t have teens, we don&#8217;t pay Social Security, our cars are near junkers (but run well), and fully paid for. We do still have a mortgage. And most people should plan on paying for two long-term care insurance policies, which we are not. </p>
<p>Not everyone will end up in our boat, but many of you will. I strongly suggest that you plan for it!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: getagrip</title>
		<link>http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2010/03/21/review-your-money-ratios/#comment-887659</link>
		<dc:creator>getagrip</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 2010 13:00:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thesimpledollar.com/?p=5147#comment-887659</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you&#039;re already spending 7.65% on Social Security/Medicare and saving 10-15% of your pay for retirement, both of which are expenses you will not have when you retire, equally 17.65-22.65% of your salary, then you don&#039;t have to plan on living on 100% of your pay to maintain your standard of living because you are currently only living on somewhere between 82.35-77.35% (i.e. 80%).  This is where I think most financial folks get the 80% number from, its a defacto 100% of you current salary.

While medical expenses can go up, other expenses, like paying for additional food, electricity, clothing, etc. for your teenagers, typically go away.  Consider if you won&#039;t have a mortgage (maybe 10% of your current income), won&#039;t have to save for college anymore (say 5-8% of current income), may not need two cars (2% of current income), may be able to downsize the house, etc. all of which can seriously reduce what you need when you retire.  Assuming you&#039;re going to spend more than 20% in health care above and beyond what you are currently spending is a lot, especially with many of the other decreases in there and frankly, if you have all the conditions SLCCOM mentioned, you&#039;re not likely spending your money on expensive vacations or other luxuries at that point anyway.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you&#8217;re already spending 7.65% on Social Security/Medicare and saving 10-15% of your pay for retirement, both of which are expenses you will not have when you retire, equally 17.65-22.65% of your salary, then you don&#8217;t have to plan on living on 100% of your pay to maintain your standard of living because you are currently only living on somewhere between 82.35-77.35% (i.e. 80%).  This is where I think most financial folks get the 80% number from, its a defacto 100% of you current salary.</p>
<p>While medical expenses can go up, other expenses, like paying for additional food, electricity, clothing, etc. for your teenagers, typically go away.  Consider if you won&#8217;t have a mortgage (maybe 10% of your current income), won&#8217;t have to save for college anymore (say 5-8% of current income), may not need two cars (2% of current income), may be able to downsize the house, etc. all of which can seriously reduce what you need when you retire.  Assuming you&#8217;re going to spend more than 20% in health care above and beyond what you are currently spending is a lot, especially with many of the other decreases in there and frankly, if you have all the conditions SLCCOM mentioned, you&#8217;re not likely spending your money on expensive vacations or other luxuries at that point anyway.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: getagrip</title>
		<link>http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2010/03/21/review-your-money-ratios/#comment-887656</link>
		<dc:creator>getagrip</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 2010 12:53:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thesimpledollar.com/?p=5147#comment-887656</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you&#039;re already spending 7.65% on Social Security/Medicare and saving 10-15% of your pay for retirement, both of which are expenses you will not have when you retire, equally 17.65-22.65% of your salary, then you don&#039;t have to plan on living on 100% of your pay to maintain your standard of living because you are currently only living on somewhere between 82.35-77.35% (i.e. 80%).

While medical expenses can go up, other expenses, like paying for additional food, electricity, clothing, etc. for your teenagers, typically go away.  Consider if you won&#039;t have a mortgage (maybe 10% of your current income), won&#039;t have to save for college anymore (say 5-8% of current income), may not need two cars (2% of current income), may be able to downsize the house, etc. all of which can seriously reduce what you need when you retire.  Assuming you&#039;re going to spend more than 20% in health care above and beyond what you are currently spending is a lot, especially with many of the other decreases in there and frankly, if you have all the conditions SLCCOM mentioned, you&#039;re not likely spending your money on expensive vacations or other luxuries at that point anyway.

Finally, these are just guidelines to get you started.  You need to adjust for your future and your wants, and you&#039;ll adjust along the way.  Just don&#039;t be freaked out and do nothing.  Start small, start early, build and adjust it as you go.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you&#8217;re already spending 7.65% on Social Security/Medicare and saving 10-15% of your pay for retirement, both of which are expenses you will not have when you retire, equally 17.65-22.65% of your salary, then you don&#8217;t have to plan on living on 100% of your pay to maintain your standard of living because you are currently only living on somewhere between 82.35-77.35% (i.e. 80%).</p>
<p>While medical expenses can go up, other expenses, like paying for additional food, electricity, clothing, etc. for your teenagers, typically go away.  Consider if you won&#8217;t have a mortgage (maybe 10% of your current income), won&#8217;t have to save for college anymore (say 5-8% of current income), may not need two cars (2% of current income), may be able to downsize the house, etc. all of which can seriously reduce what you need when you retire.  Assuming you&#8217;re going to spend more than 20% in health care above and beyond what you are currently spending is a lot, especially with many of the other decreases in there and frankly, if you have all the conditions SLCCOM mentioned, you&#8217;re not likely spending your money on expensive vacations or other luxuries at that point anyway.</p>
<p>Finally, these are just guidelines to get you started.  You need to adjust for your future and your wants, and you&#8217;ll adjust along the way.  Just don&#8217;t be freaked out and do nothing.  Start small, start early, build and adjust it as you go.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SLCCOM</title>
		<link>http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2010/03/21/review-your-money-ratios/#comment-887075</link>
		<dc:creator>SLCCOM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:13:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thesimpledollar.com/?p=5147#comment-887075</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yes, you should have at least 100% of your current income in retirement. You WILL be spending a lot more on health care as you get older, no matter how you eat and exercise. Your hearing will fail and you will need hearing aids. Ditto your vision. You&#039;ll likely develop cataracts,and possibly macular degeneration. You&#039;ll be getting arthritis, your cancer risk increases, your heart will get weaker, your kidneys will not be what they once were. You might well be seriously injured and survive with disabilities -- and they are ALL expensive. We are designed to die, and not all the magical thinking in the world will prevent that. So plan for it!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, you should have at least 100% of your current income in retirement. You WILL be spending a lot more on health care as you get older, no matter how you eat and exercise. Your hearing will fail and you will need hearing aids. Ditto your vision. You&#8217;ll likely develop cataracts,and possibly macular degeneration. You&#8217;ll be getting arthritis, your cancer risk increases, your heart will get weaker, your kidneys will not be what they once were. You might well be seriously injured and survive with disabilities &#8212; and they are ALL expensive. We are designed to die, and not all the magical thinking in the world will prevent that. So plan for it!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David/yourfinances101</title>
		<link>http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2010/03/21/review-your-money-ratios/#comment-886880</link>
		<dc:creator>David/yourfinances101</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 08:24:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thesimpledollar.com/?p=5147#comment-886880</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This article gives you some great benchmarks to go by.  Its so hard to know how much is enough in a lot of these areas.  And you can&#039;t really rely on the people selling you these products, because they&#039;ll usually try to sell you too much]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This article gives you some great benchmarks to go by.  Its so hard to know how much is enough in a lot of these areas.  And you can&#8217;t really rely on the people selling you these products, because they&#8217;ll usually try to sell you too much</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: moom</title>
		<link>http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2010/03/21/review-your-money-ratios/#comment-886724</link>
		<dc:creator>moom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 00:07:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thesimpledollar.com/?p=5147#comment-886724</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The usually accepted number is that you shouldn&#039;t withdraw more than 4% a year from a portfolio if you want to be sure you won&#039;t run out of money. So you need a 25 times ratio. Of course, that ratio should relative to your consumption not your income. So deduct mortgage payments, retirement, and other savings from your income and then multiply by 25. Of course if you are planning on getting US style Social Security (in Australia for example it is means tested - if you have more than about $1 million you&#039;ll get zero from the government) or a company pension you should deduct those amounts too before multiplying by 25.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The usually accepted number is that you shouldn&#8217;t withdraw more than 4% a year from a portfolio if you want to be sure you won&#8217;t run out of money. So you need a 25 times ratio. Of course, that ratio should relative to your consumption not your income. So deduct mortgage payments, retirement, and other savings from your income and then multiply by 25. Of course if you are planning on getting US style Social Security (in Australia for example it is means tested &#8211; if you have more than about $1 million you&#8217;ll get zero from the government) or a company pension you should deduct those amounts too before multiplying by 25.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Moby Homemaker</title>
		<link>http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2010/03/21/review-your-money-ratios/#comment-886721</link>
		<dc:creator>Moby Homemaker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 23:57:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thesimpledollar.com/?p=5147#comment-886721</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Social security???  Yeah, right.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Social security???  Yeah, right.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: George</title>
		<link>http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2010/03/21/review-your-money-ratios/#comment-886685</link>
		<dc:creator>George</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 22:24:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thesimpledollar.com/?p=5147#comment-886685</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Agreed with #2... If you&#039;re currently saving 25+% of your income, there&#039;s absolutely no need to replace 80% of your income at retirement as you&#039;re not even using that much!

This book is focused on the consumer segement of the population rather than savers.  It does nothing for the people striving to retire early and offers average advice for the normal path to retirement.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Agreed with #2&#8230; If you&#8217;re currently saving 25+% of your income, there&#8217;s absolutely no need to replace 80% of your income at retirement as you&#8217;re not even using that much!</p>
<p>This book is focused on the consumer segement of the population rather than savers.  It does nothing for the people striving to retire early and offers average advice for the normal path to retirement.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: George</title>
		<link>http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2010/03/21/review-your-money-ratios/#comment-886684</link>
		<dc:creator>George</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 22:21:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thesimpledollar.com/?p=5147#comment-886684</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Agreed with #2... If you&#039;re currently saving 25+% of your income, there&#039;s absolutely no need to replace 80% of your income at retirement as you&#039;re not even using that much!

This book is focused on a very narrow segment of the population: those that consume rather than save.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Agreed with #2&#8230; If you&#8217;re currently saving 25+% of your income, there&#8217;s absolutely no need to replace 80% of your income at retirement as you&#8217;re not even using that much!</p>
<p>This book is focused on a very narrow segment of the population: those that consume rather than save.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: over the cubicle wall</title>
		<link>http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2010/03/21/review-your-money-ratios/#comment-886665</link>
		<dc:creator>over the cubicle wall</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 21:07:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thesimpledollar.com/?p=5147#comment-886665</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why aim for replacing 80% of one&#039;s income?  It seems much more realistic to replace 100% of one&#039;s expenses.  If you can live on 20 to 40% of your income, it is less a hurdle.  If, on the other hand, you live on 90 to 110% of your income, you are in a lot of trouble.  Just one more reason to live frugal.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why aim for replacing 80% of one&#8217;s income?  It seems much more realistic to replace 100% of one&#8217;s expenses.  If you can live on 20 to 40% of your income, it is less a hurdle.  If, on the other hand, you live on 90 to 110% of your income, you are in a lot of trouble.  Just one more reason to live frugal.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JoeTaxpayer</title>
		<link>http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2010/03/21/review-your-money-ratios/#comment-886643</link>
		<dc:creator>JoeTaxpayer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 20:22:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thesimpledollar.com/?p=5147#comment-886643</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On the capital ratio - he assumes a 5% withdrawal, a bit more than the 4% I suggest.
5% of that 12X is 60%, the other 20% from SS. 

The book lays out a process, a way of approaching the issue. I think it a good starting point, but one needs to adjust for their own comfort. Me, I&#039;ll ignore Social Security, and assume 4%. So I need 20X to replace my income at 80%.

Joe]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On the capital ratio &#8211; he assumes a 5% withdrawal, a bit more than the 4% I suggest.<br />
5% of that 12X is 60%, the other 20% from SS. </p>
<p>The book lays out a process, a way of approaching the issue. I think it a good starting point, but one needs to adjust for their own comfort. Me, I&#8217;ll ignore Social Security, and assume 4%. So I need 20X to replace my income at 80%.</p>
<p>Joe</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
