Owen`

Quoting from several (Wow, you guys post while the US sleeps! We must be slackers!) Yup. Taxes matter. I don't know how the UK does this, but in the US taxes can come in multiple forms. Federal is unavoidable. All sorts of variables will be on this for different guys. Different income sources are taxed differently and I won't go into detail. Another thing Americans face is state tax. The US is 50 states and in addition to federal tax each state has to fund its operations. about 42 of the 50 do this with an income tax of . . . oh an average of 5%. I think you Brits call "state

I'll wing a guess at this, but beware I'm an American and Brit annuity arrangements could be a lot different in the UK. You're going for 24K pounds in the first year. That translates to 600K pounds saved for the 4% number (which may be overly conservative, the difference between 4 and 5% is huge in terms of what assets have to be saved up, at 5% you need only 480K pounds). Annuities usually don't kick in with income until a later age. Sounds like 65 in your case. There is probably a tax break on it too, but what you want to know is why does it need 700K vs 600K. Here's my guess, an

Generic storage facilities anywhere in the US would be less than $100/month. The exact price will depend on the amount of "stuff". Multiple residences . . . well, I've looked into it. One ties up money in real estate equity that won't earn interest or dividends, and given the bubble might itself be at substantial risk. A more subtle obstacle is insurance. Most insurers won't insure a vacant property for more than a few months (while it is being sold). Being gone 6 months runs a big risk of the insurer pointing at that clause in your policy and refusing to pay if the place burns down.

Good data. Important point. $40K is the extraction for the first year. It gets a 3ish% upward bump each year in the Trinity study presumptions. So it's $41,200 in year 2, etc. That approach gets you a 99% probability of not running your $1 million to zero in 30 years. That 99% number has market crashes built in, cyclical interest rates built in, everything that happens good and bad over 30 yrs. I won't presume to talk for other guys, but I . . . and I suspect others who self make themselves 1 million dollars in net assets . . . don't think I will be happy trolling around daily for

Several comments as the posts just keep on coming: 1) Government pensions are not sure things. Their magnitude can be cut. They won't go to zero, but they can be cut. In fact, this is pretty easy to do -- even politically. You just change the annual inflation adjustment so that it starts falling behind. The checks get bigger, but not by enough to keep up with life. I completely agree that there is no question at all govt pensions are safer than most and a recipient should probably not lose any sleep at night worrying, but I GUARANTEE you if part of the fix of Social Security turns ou

An unpleasant thought for those relying on pensions rather than personal portfolio . . . have a look at what is happening to US airlines. Those employees, pilots, flight attendants, mechanics, whatever . . . they thought their pensions were sure things. They aren't. And there is no goal line to cross. Even those already retired are not going to get their full pension checks. Pensions are NOT sure things. Thinking in terms of "if I stay 5 more years then my pension is $XXX" should be phrased "if I stay 5 more years and I'm lucky maybe I'll see pension payments of $XXX for a few

Understood. I'm not surprised. Everyone has their own individual situation. In my case I spent a few decades in jobs that did not pay into SS so my total year count was not high to begin with. Add that to early retirement and the monthly pension payout does plummet. Your mileage may, and probably will, vary. I'm trying to think of other things I've considered and researched that may prove important to others and therefore be worth mentioning. Here's one: Mail drops. I mentioned above that state or residency matters for tax purposes of your interest and dividends. If you own

This is indeed good stuff. Let me offer some items additional to the stuff above. The Trinity Study was American, but the concept of 4-5% withdrawl rate has to apply to other countries too. The study was statistical. Money is split between stocks and bonds and inflation adjusted. The US Standards and Poors 500 index was used as the definition of "stocks", but I would suspect near identical results would have been obtained if the FTSE in the UK had been used. Some more American points: Having additional years in Social Security counts a lot less than you might think. There is

You are correct, sir. The Trinity study did presume guys were on autopilot and yanked that money out at that rate regardless of what kind of year they were having in the market. And as you say, if that amount is simply the minimum someone can live on, then the numbers do make sense. We're into this really deeply here, and probably for good reason given the interest folks have for retiring to Pattaya. FYI to all, these topics are hit really hard on the discussion forum Investing In Retirement of www.morningstar.com. It's free. I'm not shilling for the website. Also FYI, my unders

The matter is very complex. The 4-5% reality does indeed presume 3% inflation, and a poster above quoted 5% for Thailand, which is very good input into the calculation and tightens all projections. The Trinity study looked at all 30 year periods from 1890 to present and found that 85% of such periods saw a retiree not run out of money if he withdrew 5% from his assets the first year and bumped that withdraw up 3% each year (with 50/50 bonds and stocks in his portfolio). It found 99% of such 30 yr periods saw the retiree still have money after 30 years if he withdrew only 4% of assets the fi

Folks, I've been to Pattaya once and am returning in November. I happen to know something about the retirement money issues. The bottom line on it all is 4-5% as magic numbers. This is from a study at Trinity University in the US. To survive 30 yrs on a lump sum of money with that money allocated 50% equities and 50% bonds, you may not extract more than 4-5% the first year (with an inflationary bump of 3% per year on the extracted amount each year). So if you have 200K, and you want to live on it 30 yrs (you don't, you have other money coming in), you should not try to remove