|
Cast_No_Shadow posted:The safe withdrawal figure is also based on the worst events in financial history (great depression, endless stagnation) happening at the worst possible time (right as you retire). With 4%, or any static withdrawal rate, the issue isn't that you get blown out and then failure is obvious. It's that a significant fraction of cases are concerning, but still succeed. Using default cFireSim ~11% of historical cases fail a 4% SWR with a 40 year time horizon, but eyeballing the graph at least triple that are concerning. For another random metric another 10% fail over the next 10 years, time horizon extended to 50 years. Using a static SWR is fine for hand waving, but for people who don't want the backup plan of returning to work they should look at variable withdrawal rates to reduce or eliminate the failure cases. It also has the benefit of aligning with what I would expect most people to try and do, cut expenses when the portfolio isn't performing well.
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2021 21:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 10:19 |
|
|
surc posted:You say things are not leanfire because you don't consider them leanfire, but don't provide any justification for why that is, besides "because that's not what leanfire is". It's real frustrating and hard to continue a real discussion against. No, my justification is that if "LeanFIRE" means "living frugally," then it has pretty much lost any meaning or need for a separate identifier. I made a lot of money when I was working, and I lived frugally. Was I LeanFIRE while I was working? I still don't spend much compared to most people (from what I see) - am I "LeanFIRE" now just because I don't spend much? If I suddenly have a healthcare concern, or one of my kids starts having problems that will require me to spend more money, will I suddenly no longer be "LeanFIRE" even though the amount I have saved didn't change and I'm not really voluntarily spending that money? Looking at that link, it is literally someone talking about having $400,000. That is the definition of low savings for early retirement, as using the "conventions," it will kick off around $12-16,000 per year. I can't see how that displays people talking about having $10 million dollars saved and calling it LeanFIRE. surc posted:I think there's still a terminology disconnect that I'm not gonna be able to argue past just saying no to your points, so I'll put out some examples of what I would consider to be reasonable and viable "leanfire". Would you consider these leanfire? If so, all or which ones? All but the last might reasonably be considered LeanFIRE, because they do not have enough saved to support anything other than a relatively modest standard of living (with the possible exception of the ones who own homes, and then part of the question would be how much the home is going to cost them in maintenance, repairs, taxes, insurance, etc.). The last one would depend on how much more than a million they have saved. Basically, I think all of the scenarios by the last one are going to be kicking off safely, at most, around $30,000 per year, if we're talking U.S. dollars. I don't think anyone would consider that a particular high amount or minimal risk for a lengthy retirement period. People talk about how much more you might have to cut back if you have higher expenditures, but, well, you can cut back. Expenditures are bounded by zero - there's only so much bone you can cut. I'd be much more comfortable retiring with $100,000 in expenses knowing that if I have a health issue that's going to cost me $10,000 a year going forward I can cut expenditure back to $90,000. Meanwhile, if I've LeanFIREd and have $25,000 a year, well, maybe I'll qualify for more social aid programs, but I'm sure not going to find the space to come up with another $10,000 a year. What am I reasonable going to cut from that $25,000 to free up that much? Again, it's pretty much the definition of not leaving enough safety margin.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2021 23:21
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:i plan to work as a volunteer fireman after retiring early So I got that makes me a BaristaFireFIRE?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2021 23:30
|
|
|
I'm going to be doing the FIRE-fighter, meaning I'll retire and increase my withdrawal rate by 4% a year. Ill make it increasingly hard for myself to retire early and eventually will be broke & skill-less at 75 years old and become a Walmart greeter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 04:04
|
|
|
But you don't know how hard it will be to get that job at Walmart. You clearly haven't thought about this enough.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 04:14
|
|
|
I know someone in his sixties who spent months trying to find a part-time job this year after ~10 years of retirement. Age limits your employment options, whether it's due to actual discrimination (can they be a "good culture fit", will they work under a younger manager, will they be able to learn our POS?) or just having more restrictions on your activity (can't stand for a whole shift, need more time off for medical appointments than someone else, can't bend and lift as much). It's not impossible to do, and I'm certain people make it work, but given that the goal of FIRE for a lot of people is to get away from menial work, having to be a greeter to make ends meet is probably going to tax you much more in your 50s than it did in your 20s. While my friend's doing okay now, he's mentioned that he could have just worked an extra 1-2 years and he'd probably have not needed to do this, but right now he estimates he's going to have to work at least 6 years at the hardware store to get back to where he wants to be financially. I get that dude was aggro and really dismissive, but he's not entirely wrong, either. I'm not going to say people shouldn't set leanFIRE as a goal, but I'm also going to say it's got a lot of pitfalls that aren't immediately obvious when you're looking at 20+ years until Social Security kicks in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 08:50
|
|
|
asur posted:With 4%, or any static withdrawal rate, the issue isn't that you get blown out and then failure is obvious. It's that a significant fraction of cases are concerning, but still succeed. Using default cFireSim ~11% of historical cases fail a 4% SWR with a 40 year time horizon, but eyeballing the graph at least triple that are concerning. For another random metric another 10% fail over the next 10 years, time horizon extended to 50 years. Yeah my point was also you need to understand the identifiable point of failure or at least warning signs. Those where the warning/failure point is in the first couple of years are far lower risk (from a not eating dog food point of view) than those that happen on year 30.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 10:29
|
|
|
Sequence of returns risk is the biggest issue facing any retiree, not just early retirees. The nice thing about early retirement is you have more time to fix issues due to SRR. When we talk about "having to go back to work", it's not like you have to find a new job that month, or even that year, or even in 5 years. Early retirees have a whole lot more runway. Anyone thinking of pulling the trigger on retiring early should really read through the early retirement now series on safe withdrawal rates for a detailed understanding of how and when these issues arise. I also like to look on the other side of things with Kitces: https://www.kitces.com/blog/the-problem-with-fireing-at-4-and-the-need-for-flexible-spending-rules/ The nice thing the leanfire crowd has going for them is that it's way, way easier to pick up work if you only need an extra $5-10k a year. You can be extremely part time and sporadic with your income if you don't need a lot to begin with. I've seen early retiree friends making that much just with their hobbies, doing things like music lessons, refurbishing Craigslist furniture, selling their art or garden overproduction (it's pretty amazing how much local honey goes for here), substitute teaching, etc. I personally have gotten more freelancing job offers than ever, just due to my volunteer work. That said, even if I had to work as a Walmart greeter, I would much rather do a poo poo job I hate in my sixties than in my thirties. My dad died at 45, and I am acutely aware that i might go at any time. Because of that, I do discount the costs of potentially having to work in the future simply because there is a probability that future won't be as long as I hope. I'm not going to say everyone should think that way, but it's worth weighing as a factor. If you are in a job you dislike just to get your retirement success probability from 95% to 99%, maybe it's worth taking the risk that you might need to go get a part time job 15 years from now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 13:02
|
|
|
moana posted:The nice thing the leanfire crowd has going for them is that it's way, way easier to pick up work if you only need an extra $5-10k a year. this seems very much a ymmv thing. i took a year off on sabbatical once and had trouble getting back to "work mode". and i think people are underestimating how much harder it is to do work when you're older. i'm pushing 40 and am finding it harder to focus on computer toucher work versus when i was 30. i don't think it's trivial to do service work when you're past 50. quote:If you are in a job you dislike just to get your retirement success probability from 95% to 99%, maybe it's worth taking the risk that you might need to go get a part time job 15 years from now. and that's not a fair assessment of the discussion upthread when people were conflating SWR with an indefinite retirement
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 13:22
|
|
|
Tricky Ed posted:I know someone in his sixties who spent months trying to find a part-time job this year after ~10 years of retirement. In this job market???
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 14:12
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:and that's not a fair assessment of the discussion upthread when people were conflating SWR with an indefinite retirement
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 14:13
|
|
|
i honestly think it's a disservice to try to oversell leanfire-like plans with "it's 95% safe and you can always get a job if it doesn't work out"
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 14:19
|
|
|
I personally would never leanfire, too much risk for me to do with kids and I like having the extra leeway to give lots to charity. But I don't think the main risk comes from SRR, but from life plans changing or other external circumstances like health events.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 14:39
|
|
|
I think of leanfire as gently caress you money. Not a plan for complete retirement but it essentially buys you the choice of working on whatever you'd like (but still working). The income you bring in is insurance against the unexpected expenses of life while your leanfire stash is what does 95% of the heavy lifting. I'm sure it's a privilege of having a comfortable income but the older I get the more I think making money can be fun. If I 'retired' I really don't think I would be able to dodge making some type of coin somehow. Also, the labels for these stages are all annoying and too rigid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 15:44
|
|
|
a dingus posted:I'm sure it's a privilege of having a comfortable income but the older I get the more I think making money can be fun. If I 'retired' I really don't think I would be able to dodge making some type of coin somehow. read that last as "doge making some type of coin" and thought you veered horribly into crypto for a sec
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 16:46
|
|
|
What I take from fire is a combination of "you may need less saved up than you think to retire" and "if you spend half as much you more than double your runway". Which makes leanfire redundant. It reminds me of a lovely old web forum (hello) where everyone has their current PC parts list in their signature on every post. As if anybody gives a poo poo what flavour of fire you're engaged with. a dingus posted:I think of leanfire as gently caress you money. Not a plan for complete retirement but it essentially buys you the choice of working on whatever you'd like (but still working). The income you bring in is insurance against the unexpected expenses of life while your leanfire stash is what does 95% of the heavy lifting. As someone who made this mistake a page or two ago, apparently this is baristafire. Aren't these labels useful? I turned your correct and useful post into being "wrong". Wait maybe this the real reason they exist: bullshit gatekeeping!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 17:10
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:i honestly think it's a disservice to try to oversell leanfire-like plans with "it's 95% safe and you can always get a job if it doesn't work out" 65 year old me can loving deal. I'm squirreling away plenty of acorns for his dumb rear end, his comfort doesn't trump everything
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 19:15
|
|
|
pokeyman posted:As someone who made this mistake a page or two ago, apparently this is baristafire. Aren't these labels useful? I turned your correct and useful post into being "wrong". Wait maybe this the real reason they exist: bullshit gatekeeping! If people are being stupid and pedantic about it then yeah, it's just dumb bullshit gatekeeping, but I did find the labels useful for understanding different strategies. Leanfire, fire, and fatfire are specifically about retiring early as soon as you hit your number, the only difference is whether you want to live in a van, a normal house, or a mansion. Coastfire and baristafire are different strategies for people who aren't necessarily interested in retiring as soon as possible, but do want to have more flexibility with their career. Coastfire is where you hit a number that will compound into a comfortable retirement number by the time you hit the age you want to retire, so you stop contributing to retirement and gain the freedom to either reduce your income or increase your standard of living now. Baristafire generally means you're going to quit your current job once you hit your number, but the number can be smaller because the plan is to continue to work somewhere with health insurance so that you don't have to factor that expense in, with starbucks being the prototypical example since you can get health insurance there while working part time. Having "gently caress you money" just means you're financially independent. Each persons individual plan is their own though, so you can follow one of these paths exactly or have your own goals and take bits and pieces of whatever you want and make it work for you. It's not something you really need to get all "WELL ACTUALLY" about, but this is the internet after all. acidx fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Dec 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 20:37
|
|
|
it's dumb min max labeling anyway, decide what you want, then figure out how much money you need to get there, layer in your risk tolerance and go.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 20:46
|
|
|
acidx posted:Leanfire, fire, and fatfire are specifically about retiring early as soon as you hit your number, So, it's probably just the internet organically creating these things, but if I were a shadow cabal of rich string pullers trying to keep those below from gaining too much power, this is the type of viral meme idea I would develop and release.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 21:15
|
|
|
SlyFrog posted:No, my justification is that if "LeanFIRE" means "living frugally," then it has pretty much lost any meaning or need for a separate identifier. I made a lot of money when I was working, and I lived frugally. Was I LeanFIRE while I was working? I still don't spend much compared to most people (from what I see) - am I "LeanFIRE" now just because I don't spend much? If I suddenly have a healthcare concern, or one of my kids starts having problems that will require me to spend more money, will I suddenly no longer be "LeanFIRE" even though the amount I have saved didn't change and I'm not really voluntarily spending that money? All of FIRE is just new labels for existing things people were doing, plus I guess maybe more focus on mechanically how to achieve it. It didn't spring into existence the day the first blog about it happened. leanfire is just "what if FIRE concepts but spending less money?" that's all. It is a meaningless distinction unless you're somebody that finds it useful and/or wants to talk about FIRE in a space that isn't dominated by people having discussions that aren't as relevant to your situation. I would totally consider you leanfire while working if you had 25x your annual budget saved. Then somebody would go off about retirement so it would become leanFI. On the reddit link I posted, I meant the discussion in which a bunch of people answer the op's question with a range of numbers, many of which are significantly higher. The underlying point was intended to be that it's not about how much they have saved regardless. quote:All but the last might reasonably be considered LeanFIRE, because they do not have enough saved to support anything other than a relatively modest standard of living (with the possible exception of the ones who own homes, and then part of the question would be how much the home is going to cost them in maintenance, repairs, taxes, insurance, etc.). The last one would depend on how much more than a million they have saved. I'm unsure if you're saying $30,000 a year isn't enough to live on, or an overall savings of 25x $30,000 isn't enough to survive a large market downturn. If not enough to live on, I do that, so I disagree. If survive a downturn, then I think we just have different thoughts on people being willing to take on more risk. Like, if somebody goes out and does their calculations and looks a their budget and they have a 55 or 60% historical success rate and goes "I'm gonna risk it", that doesn't seem inherently stupid, just like they're willing to take more financial risk for some reason. Also it's not leanfire specific because people make risky decisions with investments everywhere all the time pokeyman posted:As someone who made this mistake a page or two ago, apparently this is baristafire. Aren't these labels useful? I turned your correct and useful post into being "wrong". Wait maybe this the real reason they exist: bullshit gatekeeping! A lot of the of the focus on adhering to the specific rules of someFIRE make me think of the buddhist quote about finger pointing at the moon. The Buddha, probably posted:imagine someone is trying to show you how to no longer have to work by showing you FIRE. FIRE is what guides you to no longer having to work. Without FIRE, you might not notice the possibility of not having to work. But FIRE isn't what matters most. It only matters because it helps you see the ability to no longer have to work for yourself. surc fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Dec 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 23:32
|
|
|
surc posted:I'm unsure if you're saying $30,000 a year isn't enough to live on, or an overall savings of 25x $30,000 isn't enough to survive a large market downturn. If not enough to live on, I do that, so I disagree. Not everyone's expense are the same. Not everyone is willing to live in a place and situation where that's even possible. Crazy I know, but true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 23:52
|
|
|
Yes that's literally what I'm arguing E: the first part. I don't really know what your point is with the second part, but I don't disagree? surc fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Dec 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 23:58
|
|
|
A few questions for the thread... I am doing a few extra 401k contributions for the year. Roth 401k is maxed, now doing After Tax contributions. Apparently my plan allows for inplan After Tax -> Roth conversions. How do I calculate the tax cost of doing this kind of conversion? I am trying to get a rough estimate as to how much this will cost. Different but related question. Is there any advantaged to a Traditional 401k/IRA over a Roth? I remember there was some graph chart somewhere where someone made some comparisons... And somehow they were able to come up with a way where Traditional beats a Roth. However, a Roth does not require minimum distributions, while a Traditional 401k/IRA does require it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 05:33
|
|
|
SA-Anon posted:Apparently my plan allows for inplan After Tax -> Roth conversions. I'm a bit confused but.....you're contributing already taxed funds to a roth 401(k) and converting to a roth IRA? If so......you've already been taxed. This is the mega backroor roth. There are no further tax implications.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 05:41
|
|
|
SA-Anon posted:A few questions for the thread... Trad vs Roth is a bet on current marginal tax rate vs. your best guess at your expected future marginal tax rate at time of distribution. All of the below assumes no major changes going forward (note that there's some legislation that might make major changes). For IRAs - Trad tax benefits only apply up to a certain amount of income. That income level is (I think) a relatively low marginal tax bracket. If you're not near the high end of this, you likely will fare better doing a Roth IRA. If you ARE near the high end of this and expect your income to shoot up past the point where you might need to do the standard backdoor Roth, you might just do Roth anyway to avoid future pro rata rules. - Roth IRAs have an income limit (higher than the trad limit) for contributing directly. If you're above that limit you need to do a standard backdoor Roth. So the general idea for IRAs is "It's almost always likely going to be better to do the Roth, unless you're in a narrow income range. And even then, it might still be better to do the Roth." For 401(k)s it's tougher: What's your best guess at your marginal tax rate when you are going to be using this money? - If you're going to retire early (at least pre RMDs) AND have some way of sustaining yourself with other funds (taxable account, Roth IRA contributions, etc) AND you won't have some sort of pension or material other income AND your current marginal tax rate is "relatively high" AND the rules don't change (see above for the note re: legislation) AND your company doesn't have a really silly employer contribution scheme THEN you have a good chance of being able to do a Roth conversion ladder and so getting the trad tax break seems good. If one or more of those things aren't true, then it's harder to tell. Oh, key point. If tax rates are the same, then there's no difference between trad and Roth.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 06:39
|
|
|
SA-Anon posted:A few questions for the thread... It's generally negligible in taxes. You only need to pay taxes if the contribution appreciates in the After Tax bucket before it's converted to Roth so it depends on how often the plan converts and if the money is invested while it's in the After Tax bucket which you can control.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 17:28
|
|
|
How does a plan for early retirement affect how a portfolio should be allocated? That's a vague question, so here's what I mean: My wife and I can probably retire in 15 years, possibly fewer, but we're around 30 years from traditional retirement age. Once we retire, I imagine we'll live off our taxable account until later in life when we can more easily withdraw from our 401(k)s and Roth IRAs. Because of this, and because it was the easiest way to start, I set up our accounts as effectively two different portfolios: All retirement accounts are in Vanguard Target 2050 (55/35/10), and the taxable account is in a more conservative three fund portfolio (50/30/20). The intent for the latter is to increase the bond allocation over time, as the Target 2050 fund automatically does. Doing it that way kind of made sense to me given the very different time horizons of the accounts, but obviously a major downside is inefficient placement: there's a big chunk of dividend-paying bonds in the taxable account. While yields are low right now, I'm still pretty tempted to change things around and at least put all bonds in the 401(k)s. Without getting into the merits of actually holding bonds at all right now, how do people typically determine their allocation in this situation? Should I just leave everything alone, or maybe split the difference and go with something like 55/30/15 across the board? And if so, how can the target allocation be maintained once retirement begins?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2021 02:59
|
|
|
runawayturtles posted:How does a plan for early retirement affect how a portfolio should be allocated? That's a vague question, so here's what I mean: International in Brokerage, then US in Tax free, then bonds in Tax deferred. I plan on following this guide to access stuff before retirement age: https://www.madfientist.com/how-to-access-retirement-funds-early/
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2021 03:25
|
|
|
dexter6 posted:I allocate based on tax efficiency. Why international in the brokerage?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2021 18:17
|
|
|
defmacro posted:Why international in the brokerage? A lot of countries tax foreign investments before you see the gains in a way you can't avoid in a tax advantaged account, but you get a US tax credit for that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2021 18:29
|
|
|
Also international stocks never grow so why waste the tax advantage* *Comment may not be accurate in the future
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2021 18:34
|
|
|
Is there any reason to access retirement funds before retirement age if our taxable account will dwarf our retirement accounts? I was planning on just living off the taxable for as long as possible. I guess my main question really is... assuming tax efficient placement, how do you determine risk tolerance and the associated bond allocation when planning on such a long retirement? My wife and I lean slightly conservative and had planned on reaching roughly 40% bonds upon retirement, but when retirement lasts something like 45 years, that starts to make less sense to me. Maybe it's as simple as being slightly more aggressive and I'm just thinking about it in a convoluted way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2021 18:59
|
|
|
runawayturtles posted:Is there any reason to access retirement funds before retirement age if our taxable account will dwarf our retirement accounts? I was planning on just living off the taxable for as long as possible. In Canada RRSPs must be converted to RIFs before age 71 with automatic drawdowns. It may be advantageous for you to control the rate of draw rather than go with the enforced minimums.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2021 19:38
|
|
|
runawayturtles posted:Is there any reason to access retirement funds before retirement age if our taxable account will dwarf our retirement accounts? I was planning on just living off the taxable for as long as possible. If your income is low, even if living off taxable, Roth conversions might be worthwhile from a lifetime tax perspective. Read a bunch of the posts on EarlyRetirementNow (safe withdrawal rate series) for details on longer-term retirements for various asset allocations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2021 21:28
|
|
|
CubicalSucrose posted:If your income is low, even if living off taxable, Roth conversions might be worthwhile from a lifetime tax perspective. Yeah, definitely aware of Roth conversions and plan to make full use of them if they're still legal by then. And holy poo poo, the amount of info on that site is staggering. I looked at a few articles and my brain is already exploding. Mantle posted:In Canada RRSPs must be converted to RIFs before age 71 with automatic drawdowns. It may be advantageous for you to control the rate of draw rather than go with the enforced minimums. Good point, I noticed this in one of the articles on the above site, seems like with sizable enough retirement accounts it's definitely worth taking distributions before required in order to smooth out tax rates over time, and avoid jumping up several brackets at once. Hadn't considered that. Still probably wouldn't be withdrawing from them before retirement age, but before RMD age at least seems likely. Anyway, I did a bunch of math to figure out the feasibility of reallocating for efficiency, and it seems like for now it would be pretty easy to do. I have some fears that in a few years the taxable will become too comparatively large to properly maintain the desired allocation with the retirement accounts, but perhaps it's worth taking the plunge and dealing with that once it actually becomes an issue (this potential problem brought to you by my wife accidentally setting her 401k contributions to 0% instead of 100% for years  ).
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2022 06:12
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:A lot of countries tax foreign investments before you see the gains in a way you can't avoid in a tax advantaged account, but you get a US tax credit for that. Good to know, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2022 15:48
|
|
|
Thanks to a new job which allows me to invest more and gives me a pension and health benefits after retirement, I'm now planning for the possibility that I'll be financially independent and in a position to retire in my early 50's. Does anyone have links to a good book or other resources for holistic long-term planning for FIRE? A lot of what I can find online seems to mainly be about determining your number and appropriate SWR, and tips for thrifty living, but I'm more interested in getting a very wide few of potential problems and challenges. For example, I have access to both a 401k and 457b, and I initially started maxing the 401k because I thought the more generous catchup provisions offered by the 457b would offer me more tax advantaged space later on. Then I realized that not having to pay the 10% early withdrawal penalty on the 457b would be infinitely more useful if I am eventually able to retire before 59 1/2. It was something I hadn't considered because I had previously always planned to retire in my mid-60's. So, anything that goes over all those kinds of considerations and decisions I should be making now would be much appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 04:56
|
|
|
How many years until your 50s and potential retirement? Spouse/dependents? Do you already have an HSA?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 06:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 10:19 |
|
|
I'm in my early 30's, so 20 years away from when I would be eligible to start drawing on my pension and some cost sharing on retirement healthcare costs. No spouse or dependents. I have an HSA, but my new employer doesn't offer a HDHP, so I no longer make contributions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 06:23
|
|