A retirement planning & investment channel dedicated to helping you: Reduce Taxes | Make Work Optional | Maximize Retirement Income | Invest Confidently | Optimize Stock Compensation | Support Future Generations
The goal is to take complex financial subjects and make them simple and easy to understand. Additional topics to include tax savings strategies, IRAs, Roth IRAs, 401(k)s, 403(b)s, retirement income strategies, pensions, social security, and more...
Scott Sierens Sierens Financial Group, Inc.
All videos are for informational purposes only. None of the content, comments, responses, information or any other item on this channel constitutes financial advice or recommendations. Public comments on videos are not controlled by, reviewed by, or reflect the views of Sierens Financial Group, Inc.
Investment advisory services offered only by duly registered individuals through AE Wealth Management, LLC (AEWM). AEWM and Sierens Financial Group, Inc. are not affiliated companies.
Meanwhile, jim never used electricity or fueled his car, leaving his fortune to his ungrateful kids who quickly headed to the nearest casino.....dont be jim!
Never hurt your assets. Your assets have to grow. If they lose money in 1 or 2 years you do not touch the asset unless it has grown larger than before and is greater than 4%. Also the asset must retain at least 4% growth each year. If you made 10% you can take no more than 6% that year.
Jim doesn’t need to wait to get ss benefits. Get the social security at 62. And supplement with his investments in case he dies nobody could inherit social security however his family can inherit his investments … not worth to wait specially with that kind of savings
Hi Sieren, could you help me understand what happens if this is the situation for Mistake #1. I make 285k a year. My company matches up to 10%. I cannot contribute 10% because that would be over the limit. So there's no way for me to get the benefit of my company's 10% right?
Regarding whether the couple should be contributing to Roth Ira’s, I’ve found that for fed taxes it’s a wash with doing Roth conversions. On Illinois state income taxes, however, Roth conversions are considered retirement income and are not taxed. So what I did was contribute to a traditional 401k which reduces your taxable income for both fed and state taxes and then do a Roth conversion for a portion of my IRA, thus avoiding paying taxes on that amt for state taxes.
Isn’t it best to try not to have to tap investments particularly stock investments. If that means taking social security at age 62 then that’s fine with me. I think I will need the money and it may allow me not to have to what I have in stocks which may grow very quickly over the next decade
Like we don't give enough through payroll taxes, annual taxes and everything else. Retirement is not an option for the middle class. Money is a living hell.
I'm 54 and my wife and I are VERY worried about our future, gas and food prices rising daily. We have had our savings dwindle with the cost of living into the stratosphere, and we are finding it impossible to replace them. We can get by, but can't seem to get ahead. My condolences to anyone retiring in this crisis, 30 years nonstop just for a crooked system to take all you worked for...
National Center for Health Statistics for male life expectancy is 74.8 years. Why wait to claim SS if you have a good sequence of withdrawal strategy and enjoy life while you're alive and functional.
DYK that States that Fully Tax Roth IRA Distributions Fully tax Roth IRA distributions, meaning that the entire distribution is subject to state income tax. These states include: Alabama Arkansas California Delaware District of Columbia
You have to take your personal health into account and push the pencil a bit to discover the break even point. Wife and I both took it at 62 while we still worked but kept our income under the penalty point. For both of us the break even age is 78. Lol we will that age in one year. Even though we will pass (hopefully) the breakeven point there will be no regrets as we made good use of that money doing things that at our age now we really dont want to.
Not sure how Jim could possibly run out of money if he takes ss early at 62. If he earns just 5% on his 1.5 million per year , that’s 6250/month and couple that with his the 2030/month in ss he will get 8250/ month. You stated he needs 7225/month until age 65 and 6225 until age 75. Seems like he will have 1000/month extra. Even if he only manages to make 4% he breaks even until 65 and then at 65 he’s back with a 1000/month surplus. Not sure what kind of return your factoring in on his 1.5 million saved.
This is totally wrong. Majority of people are much better with pretax accounts because when you convert them to Roth, you pay marginal tax rates (in this example, 22%) whereas, after retirement, you only look at effective tax rates, which will be only 12%. Even when tax rates go up, still your effective tax rates will be only 15%. And even when your spouse dies first, still your effective tax rates won’t be higher (SS income cut by a half). Watch other videos (like the one below ) to find why most of people are better off with pretax accounts. Even $3 millions in your pretax accounts are still not taxed more. Don’t convert them. You will regret badly after retirement. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-MHLzMXOg7Pk.htmlsi=6RqsftXdwytmX2Ls
Taking social security at age 66. Assume he retires at 62 and he takes $80,000 x 4 years and he gets a 5% return on his portfolio. After 4 years of 80k per year withdrawals he will have $1,461,208 nest egg. Next scenario He retires 62 and takes social security $24,000 per year and takes $56,000 from nest egg After four years his nest egg will be $1,565,000 Or $104,000 more than the other scenario. My conclusion take at age 62 the earnings on nest egg will offset over delaying. Plus you have the money to pass on if you die before age 95 in podcast scenario. Also if the social security benefit does ever get cut you have the nest egg to fall back on.
If he takes social at 62 it allows him to hang onto more of his nest egg. Where at in video do you discuss the amount his portfolio would have grown too (I did not see where you discussed this). Would the increased amount in his portfolio then offset the fact of the reduced benefit?
The difference between the COLA rates really does not affect the decision on taking SS early or not, as the COLAs are based on the inflation rate, so if it's higher, you really wouldn't see that as extra money to spend or leave to your estate, rather it is calculated to match (wait for it)... The increased cost of living you have from inflation. Realistically, with the SS Trust Fund now projected to run short starting in 2035, there is also the very strong potential of no COLAs or diet COLAs whenever congress faces up to reality, meaning 2034 in all likelihood. This is extra reason to take SS early, but even with reduced payments, waiting until 67 or 70 might still make sense. The break even point would likely move far out to the right.
A lot of these a financial planners are completely flawed when they start talking about inflation and COLAs. They don't understand math, so are clueless. Fact is the breakeven point between 62 and 70 does not ever change based on the COLA rate. That's because the COLA adjusts for the lost in purchasing power. When doing financial planning, you should NEVER factor in inflation. The only exception to that is health care inflation, which historically outpaces general inflation. The correct place to make the adjustment is on the investment side, where the revenue should be expressed in inflation adjusted returns. And no, it's not the same thing just expressed differently because the human brain can't comprehend far future inflation in real terms. We're stuck understanding only today's prices and budgets.
I have over $3 million (IRAs and taxable investment account). I think it is more common then you think to have over 1 million at retirement. I am 68 recently retired and still thinking through when to take SS. Lots to consider.
I am 61 with 1.2 million (1 mil in a Roth, 200k in ira), I also have a pension of $77k with a 3% cola. My SS at 62 (April 2025) is $2696. I’m leaning towards taking it.
@@micheleyoungblood I do, and I am the high earner so that would give her more cash flow if I die before her. She has around $875k saved and will probably inherit 1.5-2 mil in the next few years (her mom is 88) so it’s probably won’t make a difference.
Excuse me, I always find these a bit diengenuinous. Average life expectancy is 74-79 years old. I see using 85, but 95? Average is only about 30% who are now 65 live till 95 who are very healthy etc. Using 95 which I have seen no one use is very over the top. Using 85+- 5 years comes up very different $
At birth, average life expectancy is about 78. At 65, on average, you'll have 20 more years - to age 85. But that's the average. Half of 65 year olds will live beyond age 85.
Why did you NOT define the growth assumptions on $1.5M nest egg, while retired? Just this nebulous "good vs. poor" markets. What is good? What is poor?
