FREE NEWSLETTER
Go to main Forum page »
Towards the bottom of Mr. Quinn’s lengthy thread on spreadsheets and budgets I mentioned that I expect to spend a bit under 1% of my portfolio this year. Dick said that he would feel nervous in that situation. I am not currently feeling nervous, but since that percentage will increase over time, maybe I should be. I thought I would ask my fellow contributors what they thought.
Some background: I agree with Dick in seeing my income as just Social Security, with COLA, and a company pension, with no COLA. In fact, the pension was frozen when I reached 30 years service in 2000, and has lost value ever since. I expect my SS to overtake it in a couple of years. It’s true, that at almost 78 I have been taking RMDs for several years, and the IRS considers that to be income, but since, after QCDs, I simply move the funds from my IRA to my brokerage account, I don’t. Equally, the interest and dividends in my brokerage account are on automatic reinvestment.
As I expect my medical costs to increase above the rate of inflation, and the monthly fees for my CCRC will probably do the same, I will need more than 1% from my portfolio in future years. I should mention that the portfolio exists solely to make up for the lack of a COLA on my pension. Leaving a legacy would be nice, but as I have no biological children it is not a priority.
If I take the current value of my portfolio (which has increased since the last time I looked), subtract a guesstimate $50,000 for what will likely be my last car and divide by 22 (years to 100), the result is 11.5% lower than my annual SS plus pension, before taxes. In other words, I believe I could nearly double my gross income without a risk of running out of money.
No doubt Dick would still feel nervous, but should I?
Longtime follower of Jonathon Clements, but rarely contribute. Always enjoy reading ‘mytimetotravel’ posts. I admire how well you have navigated through retirement. It is not particularly relevant to my situation, but I appreciate how you solve problems.
Rick Connor offered an excellent example of his mother-in-law’s finances. Spending $56k per year with savings of $675k or a burn rate of 8.3% per year. He used Excel to solve the problem using real return rates of 1% and 0%, 13 and 12 years respectively. I would simply divide $675 by $56 and get 12 years.
I studied physics in college and worked for 33 years as a geophysicist. In physics, we always make simplifying assumptions to make the math easy, e.g. frictionless surfaces or spherical cows. The trick is to make it as simple as possible, but no simpler. We really have no idea what our return rate or inflation rate will be, but use recent data as estimates. Using a real return rate of 0 makes the problem simple and is possible. The rate of inflation will about equal our investment return rate.
A 1% burn rate should last 100 years, given these assumptions. A 2% burn rate will last 50 years, etc. I think you should take a vacation.
John, I’m with you simplifying assumptions. I built the spreadsheet as a simple way to show the family the impact of real rates of return on portfolio longevity. It also helped answer the question why she had a modest amount of her portfolio in low cost index funds, to try and keep up or beat inflation.
I also ran the scenario through a few retirement planners, like MaxiFi, and a home grown one a colleague had built. Given her family genetics there was a real possibility she could live for many years needing even more expensive care. I know I worried more about her finances than I’ve eve worried about ours.
Absolutely makes sense. In my personal modelling I stress test around -1%, -2% real return over a 30 year horizon but if we believe in equity doing what it has done in the past then 0% or modelling in today’s money is a pretty conservative assumption.
It’s a problem I find with professional financial planners or tools – the inflation/RoI assumptions are obviously so critical and lead to an “impresssive” number of scenarios but the pros have no more actual insight over the time horizon concerned than we do.
Thanks! Love the spherical cows! Some people liken Continuing Care Retirement Communities to land-based cruise ships, so in a way I’m on a permanent vacation.
I saw a show once about a woman who retired on a cruise ship and lived on it permanently. When it was in dry dock, they temporarily moved her to another ship. She had been around the world dozens of times.
I had a few colleagues who did extended cruise trips. One couple did a trip the year after retirement. It was an LA to Australia 100 day cruise. 50 days at sea, 50 on land. They hit every South Seas Island I know of, New Zealand, and Australia. I remember him reviewing the cost with me, and it wasn’t absurd for loading and meals for 2.
Another friend did a semester at sea around the world trip after a layoff due to a plant shut down. He was one of a handful off “non-traditional” students. He loved it, and then came back to work for another 20 years. He was single and childless and he had the time. They sound exotic but I’m not sure I would like the extended time away, especially now with grandsons growing like weeds.
30 days was enough for me. I want to do an Atlantic crossing and return, but Connie is not keen on the idea.
You can still do that. Personally, I think I would hate an actual cruise ship, but my land-based one is working out just fine.
I can see some benefits, decumulation of stuff, rotation of a cast of people to meet and get to know.
I can’t conceive of a whole life like that though – the only escape being a day at a time in fleeting ports of call. 3-6 months maybe even a year possibly (if the personal tax prize was high enough to compensate for the “imprisonment”) but permanently?
I enjoyed reading the comments on this topic as my wife and I are both 72, have pensions, SS and investments. We also have children, one of whom is disabled so do have a need to leave a legacy which adds some complexity. Since the author does not have any children, why not consider a charitable gift annuity for part of the portfolio? I checked a few and at age 78 they pay between 7-8 percent. If she can wait until age 80, they pay even more. This tactic would solve several problems. The money annuitized would be removed from the IRA, reducing minimum distributions. The lifetime income would be partially tax free due to the charitable contribution and the monthly income would reduce or eliminate the need to hit the remaining portfolio for expense needs. I look forward to hearing from the community on this idea.
That is a very interesting suggestion. I am wary of annuities because of the lack of inflation protection, but that is a high payout. I might need to clear it with my CCRC, to make sure it would not be a disqualifying gift (see comments below), but I would probably make the CCRC’s benevolent fund one of the beneficiaries.
I’m curious if the CCRC has provisions about gifting large amounts, such that they will provide care in the future.
Kathy, you seem to have saved splendidly and responsibly. I think you should rest easy that you have managed so well. I wouldn’t be nervous about the 1%, but would about learning the controls of that new car!
As discussed near the bottom of the thread, my CCRC promises to keep residents if they run out of money “through no fault of their own “. Large gifts to family would be disqualifying, just as they would for Medicaid. I’d have to check on this.
Update: after reading the comments about interest and dividends I checked. Last year’s interest and dividends were a bit more than 1% of the total portfolio’s year end balance, minus the theoretical cost of a new car. So, if I counted them as income, I am still living within my income.
Kathy, it’s interesting that you mention your portfolio exists solely to make up for the lack of COLA on your pension. Since the early 90s, both large organizations I worked for (federal government and megacorp), discussed the “3-legged retirement stool”-SS, pensions AND retirement accounts. The principle was that SS was never designed to cover all retirement needs and many current pensions do not cover the difference, hence the focus on retirement contributions, matching contributions and well-considered retirement investments. There was no discussion of lack of pension COLAs, it was simply an accepted fact. Current retirement search by experts like Wade Pfau, particularly for those without pensions, discuss annuitizing a portion of savings and dedicating a good bit to stocks, which is similar to your approach. My wife and I seem to have a similar mindset to yours in that we like a safety-first approach and guaranteed/low risk income. Even with 2 delayed SS’, 3 small pensions (one with a diet COLA-the fed government one) and conservatively invested deferred comp we project not to have sufficient income to cover all of our expenses in some years, although we could pull a lever and cut back travel/fun if needed. We will likely spend some of our RMDs but these are all “pre paid” by our 10 year rolling TIPs ladders-it’s closest thing we can do to a personalized annuity with COLA while retaining liquidity. We also both have QLACs starting 77-83 which enable increased spending prior to starting payout and prove some longevity protection. An ongoing relationship with a safety first retirement fee based planner provides assurance/peace of mind and some optimization. I don’t know the % we are withdrawing or will, although I think would be comfortable with at least 5% considering current research but I doubt I could say that without our advisor’s regular reports/support and our safety-first approach. Anyway, I also think you will be fine but suggest it would be useful to get some assurance. Good luck.
There are (or were) two problems with the three-legged stool. With no COLA on the pension, that leg will get shorter and shorter over time. The third leg relies on people saving and investing. Many people with low wage jobs are likely to find the saving difficulty, and still more may have trouble with the investing. Now, with only two legs for most people, the whole thing is unstable.
I should point out, again, that I when I joined the megacorp in the UK, my pension had a COLA. After I moved to the US and transferred to the US payroll it was some time before I realized my US pension did not have a COLA.
I currently have a CD ladder, plus a fair sized piece of my IRA is in a TIPs fund, but am starting to think about a TIPs ladder.
I’ve thought a bit lately about a TIPS ladder as well. And recently had someone run the numbers on an immediate annuity, and was pleasantly surprised at what we could get for our money.
With the unknowns of tariffs etc, I’m not sure what to make of any changes in the risk of insurers being good on their annuities. Maybe there is no impact, I just don’t know.
Americans never relied on COLAs so being responsible for the third leg is nothing new.
The reality is for approximately 40% of retirees, Social Security payments account for at least half of their income.
A considerable number of retirees rely on Social Security for most or all of their income. For about 12% of men and 15% of women, Social Security makes up 90% or more of their income.
For over 40% of Americans aged 65 and older, it serves as their sole source of retirement income.
For most Americans the leg that is truly missing is the employer leg.
The lowest income have social programs to assist (for now) which supplements income.
There are two possibilities. Somehow get people to save and invest as needed – unlikely. OR, enhance social security to at least 50% income replacement for the bottom 50% of income earners – and pay the taxes necessary to fund it – currently unlikely too.
I like your math and NO…I would not be nervous.
I am going to be 75 in October (Bride is going to be 71 in September.) We are currently taking 4% from our investment portfolio IAW our IPS. However, in any year that the market decreases from the previous year, we will be decreasing our withdrawals accordingly, or even eliminating it altogether.
Our Social Security and Annuity income provides us with @$45,000 disposable income, after taxes and retirement expenses. The funds from our portfolio are not really needed to enjoy a comfortable retirement. Currently, those dollars are going towards travel and gifts to children.
You sound like you have a solid plan!
So the $45,000 is for discretionary expenses? Sounds great.
Kathy, in the discussion below you’ve already gotten some great answers. After reading all I reach the same conclusion I did after just reading your post, which is that in my view you have nothing to worry about. I’ll be thrilled to have a burn rate of 1% at 78.
Thanks, Michael. I feel fortunate, especially as I didn’t start saving seriously until my late 30s (amazing to think that that was 40 years ago!). It helps to be frugal.
Hello Kathy. With the numbers you provide it would seem you will not run out of money.
You stated that you expect your medical costs and CRCC fees to increase above the rate of inflation. I don’t know what annual increase you are using. For planning purposes some use 5%. Using a higher number could be a useful way to stress-test your plan. A friend told me recently that her CRCC had a zero increase this year. So, it is difficult to project these things.
As noted you can suspend QCDs if necessary. You probably have additional wiggle room in your budget.
In the face of uncertainty I find it challenging to manage that “having enough” internal conversation.
A zero percent increase is remarkable. This year it was 4.5% and that was down from the previous two years. It used to be more like 2.5%, will be interested to see next year’s. My QCDs are only 4% of my RMD, so not that significant. I could save a good bit by switching from Medigap to Medicare Advantage, but I hope to avoid doing so.
So when you refer to medical costs, it’s premiums? For planning I would assume 6% increases as that is closer to medical inflation. PwC is projecting an 8% year-on-year medical cost trend in 2025 for the Group market and 7.5% for the Individual market, driven by inflationary pressure, prescription drug spending, and behavioral health utilization
I would never switch to Medicare Advantage. You would trade one financial concern for other concerns more important like access to care.
Insurance premiums, including IRMAA, plus drug costs (now capped).
First things first.
So without asking for the details I’m saying you’re not actually in portfolio burn yet, it just feels like it because something changed. The thing that changed was your designated fixed income finally fell short of current capital needs.
HOWEVER, designated income, is not your total income. And on top you’ve built in some discretionary spending that you could halt. I think you have close to zero to worry about.
Ask your fee-based advisor, what’s my worst case spend down situation. Build me a model that stipulates higher inflation and a negative 1% real return for a decade. (like a replay of 2000-2010 plus inflation, so nearly impossible, but lets go nuts with a doomsday stagflation scenario). How many years till I zero out? That should give you a professional and mathematically appropriate picture of the worst case. I think you’ll find it comforting, but I’m just guessing.
Good idea about the fee-based advisor. It’s been four years since the last time I consulted one. I also think planning to live to 100 is conservative.
100 is very conservative (but I plan till like 96 so I didn’t think the wrong approach).
I really couldn’t come up with a mainstream situation to put you at risk. Even with inflation I couldn’t see the burn rate hitting 4% that quickly.
I am going to assume that your taxable account is invested with a reasonable allocation to equities. That being the case, it seems likely that your taxable account produces dividends and interest of between 1 and 2% of assets each year. Therefore your 1% of assets is very conservative and, over time your taxable account should continue grow. You will have substantial funds when you eventually die, to go to entities named in your will.
The biggest risk you face comes from your CCRC. Personal care services cannot be automated. Their costs will increase faster than the CPI. (Baumol’s Law) You should anticipate that monthly CCRC fees and the charges for assisted living and their nursing home services will do so as well.
Despite this, I think you have a comfortable margin, and even if your needs mean that your total assets begin to decline when you get into your late 80s or 90s, you won’t ever hit zero.
The only time I notice the interest and dividends is when Vanguard makes my tax forms available. I have no idea what percentage they are. The total portfolio is 50% in stock funds. Besides the money market fund and CD ladder, I have a fair amount in Vanguard’s intermediate muni fund in taxable.
The CCRC fee increases used to run about 2.5% a year, but have been higher the last few years. This year it’s 4.5% across the board. My Medicare supplement plan is also going up significantly next year.
I recall several posts you have made alluding to running out of money but that the CCRC would not kick you out in any case. That seemed to indicate if not worried, you are a bit concerned.
If my monthly expenses exceeded my regular income, I would be nervous even though I would have no real reason. I just don’t like feeling like I’m going backwards. But that’s just me.
If you estimate using 1% of your portfolio, is that in addition to just using interest and dividends that are generated?
We are in a similar place. My pension is the same as it was in 2008 when I started to collect- no COLA. That plus SS is our income which is gradually being eroded, but still in excess of our monthly needs.
Our property taxes and HOA fee go up each years similar to your fee.
I watch closely the monthly income in interest and dividends from a brokerage account that is now reinvested. I plan at some point as needed to gradually start using that as income
You mention that if you move to different levels of care the fee goes up. I am not an expert on CCRCs but I have looked at a few and never found that. The monthly fee could increase, but not based on care level. I thought that was the whole point of the entrance fee.
In North Jersey at least, entrance fees in nice CCRCs are several hundred thousand dollars. One near us was $700,000 several years ago and the monthly fee for two was $7,000, but for a small house, not apartment.
They use your entrance money and you are guaranteed to get 90% returned with zero interest when you leave.
Of course, I would feel more secure if my pension had a COLA, I still find it astounding that US company pensions don’t have them. However, I think that I am in good shape provided no black swan event shows up. I am no more nervous drawing 1% than I was drawing nothing.
As I wrote, interest and dividends are reinvested. I am drawing from my fairly large money market account. I also have a five year CD ladder, as yet untouched. I will probably move some part of my RMDs to the money market account in future, and/or turn off reinvestment.
Different CCRCs have different financial models. My entry fee (considerably lower than the one you quote) is not refundable. I could have paid a higher fee for 50%, and still higher for 90%, refundable, but remember, legacy is not a priority for me. This HD article describes the four CCRC types. Type A charges the same fee for all levels of care. Mine is a modified Type B, and charges more for higher levels, although below market rates. I could have moved to a Type A, but I hope to spend longer in Independent Living.
I assume mytimetotravel knows what her rules of CCRC are and the cost of entry is irrelevant here as that’s a sunk cost with any repayment presumably only paying into her estate.
On the dividends and interest point is it really relevant if we are going to be analytical rather than emotional about things?
Say we have a dividend paying stock. It starts at 100 and at the end of the year it is 110. The company then declares a dividend of 5. As soon as it goes ex div the value drops to 105. If you trouser the div you have withdrawn 4.5% of that portfolio value at end of year.
In reality at a gross level that’s no different to selling 4.5% of a stock that performs identically but doesn’t pay divs. Possible income tax arbitrages acknowledged.
But people seem to feel more comfortable with the idea of natural yield being not a drawdown although money is ultimately fungible.
That’s not to say income paying stocks and interest bearing instruments don’t have a place in a portfolio, they do different things at different times to growth stocks.
You have got to be an engineer.
we are talking generating income. Who cares the dividends temporarily lower the stock price, the cash is now in your pocket to spend as needed.
I think it is very different than selling the stock.
Nope. Just numerate. Not different at all other than potential tax treatment and possibly trading costs. The latter is why getting a dividend is probably desirable if you need the cashflow. If you don’t you have a trading cost to put it back into a stock.
I think I’m beginning to understand you though now – you were probably very much a words rather than numbers HR guy. Hence your addiction to the concept of income and what ends up in a bank account rather than total value of a portfolio.
Different folks, different strokes. But I do think you’d be advised when trying to portray your expertise in matters of managing money in retirement to recognise and reflect on your particular numeracy hangups. You’d probably have been a really tough nut to crack for an independent financial adviser.
You got it, words, concepts, big picture, not numbers or a lot of detail and yet I managed a $200 million budget.
I claim no expertise at all. I’m pretty sure I acknowledged that before, I do claim considerable experience and a modicum of knowledge.
I do like all the facts and the full story though and that we rarely get. Working with thousands of employees and their problems and complaints taught me to be wary. Many a time I would listen to a complaint and later have the recorded call pulled and listen to it. The truth was revealed.
The other thing forming my views is that what I espouse has worked for us for 56 years. That’s not saying it could not have been better, but there isn’t more that we need or want or deserve.
Keep it simple, try and cover the bases, never give up. And be grateful for good fortune.
Dick, can you explain how you managed a $200M budget without numbers or details? I’m assuming someone in your organization knew the numbers and detail. At least I hope so, since PSE&G is a regulated utility. I’d hate to think out utility bills were based on concepts and big pictures.
Yes, others did the detail budgeting.
Let’s say we had $200,000 for communications. I just spent it, but did not look at each item as long as the total was accurate.
When we negotiated labor contracts we had broad guidelines on the limits we had to adhere to, but how was our discretion for the most part.
Once we were trying to eliminate a cap on employer contributions for retiree medical. I got approval to do so as long as the cost was covered.
I had several possible ways to offset the cost itemized.
The I gave the list to all the unions in a combined meeting and told hem they could decide how to meet the goal and left the room. When they decided the combination they called me in and it was a done detail.
I don’t think we differ on that, nor probably that much in how we’ve gone about building up our financial security.
Just that the level of simplicity has changed from your generation to the next so a different skill set is needed to adapt and try to manage for both risk and efficiency.
An absolute drive to simple might give you lower risk but also ultimately lower lifestyle.
I don’t know, you may be right, but it seems to me if the level of simplicity has changed it is mostly because all the tools and technology enable more analysis, projections, use of many assumptions, etc. not necessarily better outcomes.
I’m sure we’ve had the debate before but the disappearance of DB pensions has changed the landscape.
Everyone has to plan more and make more consequential and active decisions and the simple “Just buy an annuity” is not particularly simple.
Yes, but keep in mind in the private sector only around 50% of workers ever had a pension and it’s about 19% today.
You see the decision’s analytically, I would see buying an annuity as here is what income I want, how much cash do I need? Compare different offers. And other than checking ratings of the insurance company, that’s it. I would not analyze it as an investment.
Sorry just to round this out. And what happened to the other 50% – they had to work until they could draw SS or they needed their own investment and drawdown strategy like today.
That latter is what you reject as too complicated or worrying because you never had to do it. And that’s why you cling to the idea of an annuity because it is closest to your comfort zone of guaranteed income.
Annuities are not per se bad or good but they do have an opportunity cost which is why people need to consider them carefully including the reason that want or need them and the loss of principal forever.
Not just opportunity cost. Also inflation risk.
Kathy, I think you are well-fixed financially. The premise of your article illustrates the emotional nature of personal finance.
Thanks, Edmund. I’m won’t start worrying until I get to 3%, and maybe not then depending on how old I am.
Kathy, your post reminded me of a similar analysis I did for my mother-in-law in January, 2015. She had moved to a newer, nicer, but more expensive assisted living facility with memory care in 2014. My wife was POA and I was handling her finances. I wanted to get a conservative projection of how long her finances would last. She had just turned 88, and here mother lived to 97.
I went back and reviewed the spreadsheet. She had a small $6,300 per year pension, $21,000 in yearly SS benefits, and $18,700 in interest and dividends – a little over $46,000 in income. She had a simple portfolio with about $675K in assets: about 10% in cash, 50% in index stock funds, and 40% in bond funds. .
Her expenses were well defined – her facility charges, medical insurance, and some other items were a little over $8K per month. Her annual deficit that needed to be funded by her portfolio amounted to about $56K per year
I decided to do a simple calculation using Excel’s NPER function, which would calculate the number of years the portfolio would last given the original portfolio value, $56,000 annual drawdown, and an assumed rate of return. I used 2015 dollars for the calculation. I assumed a 1% real return (return above inflation). It showed that her portfolio would last almost 13 years, getting her to 100. If her portfolio just kept up with inflation (0% real return) it would last 12 years.
I presented this analysis to my wife and her 4 siblings and their spouses. I explained that after her portfolio ran out, the 5 of us would have to make up the difference, but it would likely not be for a decade. They were all OK with the plan, and I committed to quarterly updates and reviews.
Sadly she died a few months later. Looking back a decade later, I’m really glad I was able to help someone who gave so much to me and my family.
Good for you, she was lucky to have you. I’m sorry for your loss. I’m afraid my calculation was much simpler than yours. I hope it wasn’t too simple!
I wouldn’t be worried in the slightest. I think it’s a slightly immature way to look at the purpose of saving if it always has to be there in full forever to feel “safe”.
In fact I’d probably be looking the other way. Could I find ways to enjoyably spend another 2-3% of the pot? No point in being King Tut. You don’t win life by dying with the most treasure.
I take your point, I just see problems with the solution unless I start traveling again. I hate shopping, especially for clothes, and am living quite comfortably as it is. I did buy some new furniture and a new TV when I moved, and I need a new computer this year, but that’s not going to make much of a dent.
I’m sure you could travel in some capacity even if it were not quite as independent and self-organised as you were used to. I get the impression that you’re not really one to be herded on and off tourbuses ad infinitum but there seem to be many tiers of offering.
I used to say that I was saving cruises for when I got too decrepit. I’m not in especially bad shape, now my rheumatoid arthritis is back in remission, but I find I have much less enthusiasm and energy for travel. Some of the places I loved are now overrun with tourists, and the few at the top of the list that I didn’t get to are somewhat challenging – Iran, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, Tunisia.
Viewing these scenic relaxation videos on youtube is the only traveling I get to do nowadays.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=scenic+relaxation
Ah yes the Stans are loosely on my intention list. Some folk I know have done some interesting stuff there.
I tend not to worry too much about (other) tourists – the trick is to think like they do and then do a different thing.
All five were on my list for years. I finally made it to Uzbekistan in 2016. Highly recommended. (I was in Pakistan in 2001, and am not considering Afghanistan.)
Kathy, correct me if I’m wrong. By virtue of living at the CCRC you have potential long term care expenses covered. Most medical costs are covered by Medicare and a supplement. I don’t think money will be an issue for you, but if necessary you could always cut back on your QCDs. Seems to me that you should be sleeping pretty well at night; I know I would.
A question. Does your CCRC look back on your gifting like Medicaid does?
I asked management about this. In Skilled Nursing you are expected to apply for Medicaid. In Independent and Assisted Living they do look back, starting with the financial statements you provided to qualify for entry, and considering length of residency. Large gifts would be disqualifying.
Dan: If a resident runs out of money, a CCRC may look back at gifting. CCRCs, with their promise not to throw you out, could find themselves on the financial hook if residents deliberately impoverished themselves by making gifts to family.
Raises the question if someone did do that and did run out of money, what would the CCRC actually do, put the 80 year old on the street? I’m guessing they tried to estimate that risk when setting entrance fee.
No, they vet your finances (and your health status) before you can move in.
I know of one case where a resident was indeed forced to move out — and the family members who had been receiving her large financial gifts were left to care for her.
My monthly fee will increase if I move to Assisted Living (in three stages), and again if I move to Skilled Nursing. It will be less than market rate, but still higher than the cost of Independent Living. Worst case, the CCRC promises not to throw people out if they run out of money “through no fault of their own”, and has kept that promise for over 30 years. My QCDs are not that high.
Does your CCRC provision “through no fault of their own” have clarification that any charitable contributions you make either directly or through QCDs is not an event that could result in you being forced to move out in the highly unlikely event that you run out of money?
From what you have written my impression is you have planned well and it seems unlikely you have will outlive your financial resources. We have considered a QLAC but my wife and I have decided our worries about inflation are greater than our worries about an a really long life and therefor we will not invest in an annuity that has no inflation protection.
Best, Bill
I checked. A 10% tithe would be considered reasonable.
I have been considering starting a thread on QLACs…
Does Medicare kick some in if you get to the skilled nursing stage?
Depends on why you are there. It does not pay for long term care – see here. It would pay for a limited stay to recover from surgery, for instance. Some Medicare Advantage plans may have better coverage.
Medicaid does provide coverage, but you have to have minimal resources to qualify.