Retirement Options for Income
"I can think of one major income source you didn't mention, dividends.  Rather than withdrawing from your pension pot, you can roll it over to a SIPP, invest it in quality dividend growth stocks, then (depending on your pension size) withdraw only the dividends to live on. The goal here is that you buy quality dividend growth stocks.   This will mean you rarely have to sell your investments, and can weather the ups and downs of the market in relative comfort, while using the dividends as your income to live off of.   The growth aspect comes into play when considering keeping up with inflation, or simply growing your income.   In effect, companies grow the size of their dividend payments and you use that to beat the effects of inflation. Meanwhile, you do get the benefit of principle growth in the companies you've invested in.   I don't know the history of the UK stock market, but the US market has averaged over 7% total return (including dividends) over the long term. A typical dividend payout is not much better than your annuity option though -- 3% to 4% is probably achievable.   Although, looking at the list of UK Dividend Champion list (companies that have grown their dividend for 25 years continuous), some of them have higher yields than that right now.   Though that might be a warning sign... BTW, given all the legal changes around buy-to-lets recently (increases stamp duty on purchase, reduction in mortgage interest deduction, increased paperwork burden due to ""right to rent"" laws, etc.) you want to check this carefully to make sure you're safe on forecasting your return." If you withdraw all (or most) of your pension 25% is tax free but the rest is treated as income upon which you will pay income tax at the usual UK rates. Withdrawing a lump sum to buy property is therefore unlikely to be 10% per annum as you'll spend years making up lost ground on the initial capital investment. If your pension is a self invested personal pension (a SIPP) you could buy property within the pension wrapper itself which would avoid the income tax hit. if you don't have a SIPP you may be able to convert your pension to a SIPP but you would be wise to seek professional advice about that. The UK government is also introducing an additional 3% stamp duty on properties which are not your first home so this may further impact your returns. This would apply whether you withdraw your pension as cash or buy the property within a SIPP. One other alternative to an annuity in the UK is called drawdown where you keep the money invested in your pension as it is now and withdraw an annual income. This means your tax bill is reduced as you get to use your annual allowance each year and will also pay less higher rate tax. The government provides more details on its website. "I agree that you should CONSIDER a shares based dividend income SIPP, however unless you've done self executed trading before, enough to understand and be comfortable with it and know what you're getting into, I would strongly suggest that as you are now near retirement, you have to appreciate that as well as the usual risks associated with markets and their constituent stocks and shares going down as well as up, there is an additional risk that you will achieve sub optimal performance because you are new to the game. I took up self executed trading in 2008 (oh yes, what a great time to learn) and whilst I might have chosen a better time to get into it, and despite being quite successful over all, I have to say it's the hardest thing I've ever done! The biggest reason it'll be hard is emotionally, because this pension pot is all the money you've got to live off until you die right? So, even though you may choose safe quality stocks, when the world economy goes wrong it goes wrong, and your pension pot will still plummet, somewhat at least. Unless you ""beat the market"", something you should not expect to do if you haven't done it before, taking the rather abysmal FTSE100 as a benchmark (all quality stocks, right? LOL) from last Aprils highs to this months lows, and projecting that performance forwards to the end of March, assuming you get reasonable dividends and draw out £1000 per month, your pot could be worth £164K after one year. Where as with normal / stable / long term market performance (i.e. no horrible devaluation of the market) it could be worth £198K! Going forwards from those 2 hypothetical positions, assuming total market stability for the rest of your life and the same reasonable dividend payouts, this one year of devaluation at the start of your pensions life is enough to reduce the time your pension pot can afford to pay out £1000 per month from 36 years to 24 years. Even if every year after that devaluation is an extra 1% higher return it could still only improve to 30 years. Normally of course, any stocks and shares investment is a long term investment and long term the income should be good, but pensions usually diversify into less and less risky investments as they get close to maturity, holding a certain amount of cash and bonds as well, so in my view a SIPP with stocks and shares should be AT MOST just a part of your strategy, and if you can't watch your pension pot payout term shrink from 26 years to 24 years hold your nerve, then maybe a SIPP with stocks and shares should be a smaller part! When you're dependent on your SIPP for income a market crash could cause you to make bad decisions and lose even more income. All that said now, even with all the new taxes and loss of tax deductible costs, etc, I think your property idea might not be a bad one. It's just diversification at the end of the day, and that's rarely a bad thing. I really DON'T think you should consider it to be a magic bullet though, it's not impossible to get a 10% yield from a property, but usually you won't. I assume you've never done buy to let before, so I would encourage you to set up a spread sheet and model it carefully. If you are realistic then you should find that you have to find really REALLY exceptional properties to get that sort of return, and you won't find them all the time. When you do your spread sheet, make sure you take into account all the one off buying costs, build a ledger effectively, so that you can plot all your costs, income and on going balance, and then see what payouts your model can afford over a reasonable number of years (say 10). Take the sum of those payouts and compare them against the sum you put in to find the whole thing. You must include budget for periodic minor and less frequent larger renovations (your tenants WON'T respect your property like you would, I promise you), land lord insurance (don't omit it unless you maintain capability to access a decent reserve (at least 10-20K say, I mean it, it's happened to me, it cost me 10K once to fix up a place after the damage and negligence of a tenant, and it definitely could have been worse) but I don't really recommend you insuring yourself like this, and taking on the inherent risk), budget for plumber and electrician call out, or for appropriate schemes which include boiler maintenance, etc (basically more insurance). Also consider estate agent fees, which will be either finders fees and/or 10% management fees if you don't manage them yourself. If you manage it yourself, fine, but consider the possibility that at some point someone might have to do that for you... either temporarily or permanently. Budget for a couple of months of vacancy every couple of years is probably prudent. Don't forget you have to pay utilities and council tax when its vacant. For leaseholds don't forget ground rent. You can get a better return on investment by taking out a mortgage (because you make money out of the underlying ROI and the mortgage APR) (this is usually the only way you can approach 10% yield) but don't forget to include the cost of mortgage fees, valuation fees, legal fees, etc, every 2 years (or however long)... and repeat your model to make sure it is viable when interest rates go up a few percent."
"There is a basic difference between saving for voluntary retirement (i.e. choosing to do things other than work even though you could still work) and the need to save for later in life in general. Regardless of how much you like your job, a time will eventually come when you are no longer able to work, and you will need an alternate source of income to live from at that point. Unfortuately, this is also the time when most people generally have the highest medical bills as well, and may need other services such as long-term nursing home care. So even if you plan to work as long as possible, a retirement fund is an excellent way to plan for these needs as it is tax-advantaged and many companies offer matching contributions. I would simply recommend that you see ""retirement accounts"" as a good way to accomplish your goals - you don't have to use them to create a ""typical"" retirement. Once you've taken advantages of the match and tax subsidies, you may also wish to consider saving for an annuity. Fees can be high, so you will need to do your homework (generally, you want to wait and buy an immediate annuity), but this is another way to turn savings into guaranteed income once you need to stop working. Best of luck!" By not saving some of your income you put yourself at risk of the following: If you are comfortable taking on those risks, then continue what you are doing (I'm not being sarcastic here...some people are perfectly comfortable taking on these risks).  I plan on working until I die so I am not as concerned with saving for retirement but I do save some money for temporary job loss situations. Saving money presents its own set of issues (e.g. Where should I put the money?, Should I invest the money?, What type of investments?).  If you have no interest in researching answers to these type of questions then I would suggest what others have already suggested: have part of your paycheck automatically siphoned into an account that can only be accessed by a trusted family member. If you exceed the income limit for deducting a traditional IRA (which is very low if you are covered by a 401(k) ), then your IRA options are basically limited to a Roth IRA. The Cramer person probably meant to compare 401(k) and IRA from the same pre-/post-tax-ness, so i.e. Traditional 401(k) vs. Traditional IRA, or Roth 401(k) vs. Roth IRA. Comparing a Roth investment against a Traditional investment goes into a whole other topic that only confuses what is being discussed here. So if deducting a traditional IRA is ruled out, then I don't think Cramer's advice can be as simply applied regarding a Traditional 401(k). (However, by that logic, and since most people on 401(k) have Traditional 401(k), and if you are covered by a 401(k) then you cannot deduct a Traditional IRA unless you are super low income, that would mean Cramer's advice is not applicable in most situations. So I don't really know what to think here.) Yes, quite easily, in fact.  You left a lot of numbers out, so lets start with some assumptions. If you are at the median of middle income families in the US that might mean $70,000/year. 15% of that is an investment of $875 per month. If you invest that amount monthly and assume a 6% return, then you will have a million dollars at approximately 57 years old. 6% is a very conservative number, and as Ben Miller points out, the S&P 500 has historically returned closer to 11%. If you assumed an aggressive 9% return, and continued with that $875/month for 40 years until you turn 65, that becomes $4 million. Start with a much more conservative $9/hr for $18,720 per year (40 hours * 52 weeks, no overtime). If that person saved 14% of his/her income or about $219 per month from 25 to 65 years old with the same 9%, they would still achieve $1 million for retirement. Is it much harder for a poor person? Certainly, but hopefully these numbers illustrate that it is better to save and invest even a small amount if that's all that can be done. High income earners have the most to gain if they save and the most to lose if they don't. Let's just assume an even $100,000/year salary and modest 401(k) match of 3%. Even married filing jointly a good portion of that salary is going to be taxed at the 25% rate. If single you'll be hitting the 28% income tax rate.  If you can max out the $18,000 (2017) contribution limit and get an additional $3,000 from an employer match (for a total monthly contribution of $1750) 40 years of contributions would become $8.2 million with the 9% rate of return.  If you withdrew that money at 4% per year you would have a residual income of $300k throughout your retirement. "I'd suggest you avoid the Roth for now and use pretax accounts to get the greatest return. I'd deposit to the 401(k), enough to get as much match as permitted, then use a traditional IRA. You should understand how tax brackets work, and aim to use pre-tax to the extent it helps you avoid the 25% rate. If any incremental deposit would be 15% money, use Roth for that. Most discussions of the pre-tax / post tax decision talk about 2 rates. That at the time of deposit and time of withdrawal. There are decades in between that shouldn't be ignored. If you have any life change, a marriage, child, home purchase, etc, there's a chance your marginal bracket drops back down to 15%. That's the time to convert to Roth, just enough to ""top off"" the 15% bracket.  Last, I wouldn't count on that pension, there's too much time until you retire to count on that income. Few people stay at one job long enough to collect on the promise of a pension that takes 30+ years to earn, and even if you did, there's the real chance the company cancels the plan long before you retire." If your employer offers a 401k retirement plan then you can contribute a portion of your salary to your retirement and that will lower your effective income to remain in the 15% bracket (although as others have pointed out, only the dollars that exceed the 15% bracket will be taxed at the higher rate anyway). AND if your employer offers any kind of 401k matching contribution, that's effectively a pay-raise or 100% return on investment (depending on how you prefer to look at it). "I'll add 2 observations regarding current answers.  Jack nailed it - a 401(k) match beats all. But choose the right flavor account.  You are currently in the 15% bracket (i.e. your marginal tax rate, the rate paid on the last taxed $100, and next taxed $100.) You should focus on Roth. Roth 401(k) (and if any company match, that goes into a traditional pretax 401(k). But if they permit conversions to the Roth side, do it) You have a long time before retirement to earn your way into the next tax bracket, 25%. As your income rises, use the deductible IRA/ 401(k) to take out money pretax that would otherwise be taxed at 25%.  One day, you'll be so far into the 25% bracket, you'll benefit by 100%   traditional. But why waste the opportunity to deposit to Roth money   that's taxed at just 15%? To clarify the above, this is the single rate table for 2015:  For this discussion, I am talking taxable income, the line on the tax return designating this number. If that line is $37,450 or less, you are in the 15% bracket and I recommend Roth. Say it's $40,000. In hindsight on should put $2,550 in a pretax account (Traditional 401(k) or IRA) to bring it down to the $37,450. In other words, try to keep the 15% bracket full, but not push into 25%.  Last, after enough raises, say you at $60,000 taxable. That, to me is ""far into the 25% bracket."" $20,000 or 1/3 of income into the 401(k) and IRA and you're still in the 25% bracket. One can plan to a point, and then use the IRA flavors to get it dead on in April of the following year.  To Ben's point regarding paying off the Student Loan faster - A $33K income for a single person, about to have the new expense of rent, is not a huge income. I'll concede that there's a sleep factor, the long tern benefit of being debt free, and won't argue the long term market return vs the rate on the loan. But here we have the probability that OP is not investing at all. It may take $2000/yr to his 401(k) capture the match (my 401 had a dollar for dollar match up to first 6% of income). This $45K, after killing the card, may be his only source for the extra money to replace what he deposits to his 401(k). And also serve as his emergency fund along the way." Yes, you can have both.  You'll need business income to contribute to a SEP IRA though. "My understanding is that credit card companies are allowed to accept retirement income as part of the income that would qualify you for credit. The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau issued a final rule amendment to Regulation Z (the regulations around Truth in Lending Act) in 2013 in response to some of the tightening of credit that resulted from the Credit CARD Act of 2009.  The final rule allows for credit issuers to ""consider income and assets to which such consumers have a reasonable expectation of access."" (Page 1)  On page 75, it outlines some examples: Other sources of income include interest or   dividends, retirement benefits, public assistance, alimony, child support, and separate   maintenance payments.... Current or reasonably expected income   also includes income that is being deposited regularly into an account on which the consumer is   an accountholder (e.g., an individual deposit account or joint account). Assets include, for   example, savings accounts and investments. Fannie Mae explicitly mentions IRA distributions in its Documentation Requirements on mortgage applications.  For them, they require that the income be ""expected to continue for at least three years after the date of the mortgage application."" Lenders can reject or lower your credit limit for just about any reason that they want, but it seems appropriate for you to include your retirement distributions in your income for credit applications." I am in the process of writing an article about how to maximize one's Social Security benefits, or at least, how to start the analysis.   This chart, from my friends at the Social Security office shows the advantage of waiting to take your benefit. In your case, you are getting $1525 at age 62.  Now, if you wait 4 years, the benefit jumps to $2033 or $508/mo more. You would get no benefit for 4 years and draw down savings by $73,200, but would get $6,096/yr more from 64 on. Put it off until 70, and you'd have $2684/mo.  At some point, your husband should apply for a spousal benefit (age 66 for him is what I suggest) and collect that for 4 years before moving to his own benefit if it's higher than that.  Keep in mind, your generous pensions are likely to push you into having your social security benefit taxed, and my plan, above will give you time to draw down the 401(k) to help avoid or at least reduce this. You can't get there from here.  This isn't the right data.  Consider the following five-year history:  2%, 16%, 32%, 14%, 1%.  That would give a 13% average annual return.  Now compare to -37%, 26%, 15%, 2%, 16%.  That would give a 4% average annual return.   Notice anything about those numbers?  Two of them are in both series.  This isn't an accident.  The first set of five numbers are actual stock market returns from the last five years while the latter five start three years earlier.  The critical thing is that five years of returns aren't enough.  You'd need to know not just how you can handle a bull market but how you do in a bear market as well.  Because there will be bear markets.   Also consider whether average annual returns are what you want.  Consider what actually happens in the second set of numbers:   But if you had had a steady 4% return, you would have had a total return of 21%, not the 8% that would have really happened.  The point being that calculating from averages gives misleading results.  This gets even worse if you remove money from your principal for living expenses every year.   The usual way to compensate for that is to do a 70% stock/30% bond mix (or 75%/25%) with five years of expenses in cash-equivalent savings.  With cash-equivalents, you won't even keep up with inflation.  The stock/bond mix might give you a 7% return after inflation.  So the five years of expenses are more and more problematic as your nest egg shrinks.  It's better to live off the interest if you can.  You don't know how long you'll live or how the market will do.   From there, it's just about how much risk you want to take.  A current nest egg of twenty times expenses might be enough, but thirty times would be better.  Since the 1970s, the stock market hasn't had a long bad patch relative to inflation.  Maybe you could squeak through with ten.  But if the 2020s are like the 1970s, you'd be in trouble. The 20x number is drawn directly from the assumption that it should be easy to get more than 4% average return on investment. After lots of historical studies,  Monte Carlo simulations, and the like there was a consensus that saving more didn't significantly increase the odds of achieving at least the desired yearly income sustainably. (That's the same calculations the insurance firms use as the starting point for writing annuities.) There are also some assumptions about inflation and its interaction with the market built into this rule-of-thumb. Note that this is 20x what you want as post-retirement income, not necessarily 20x your current income. I have a moderately frugal lifestyle, And my budget confirms that my actual spending -- even in years when I allow myself a splurge -- is well below my current income, with the excess going into the investments. To sustain my lifestyle, I need that lower number plus any taxes that'll be due on it plus whatever I want to allocate as average emergency reserve... and theoretically I should be able to base the 20x on that lower number. When I run estimates (Quicken has a tool for this, so does my credit union, I  presume others are widely available), they tend to confirm this. I'm still using the higher number for planning, though. I don't feel any need to retire early (though I have issues with my current manager), and I have no objection at all to being able to afford better toys on occasion. Or to leaving a legacy to friends, relatives, and/or charity. But it's nice to know exactly when I could punt the day job if I wanted to. "I humbly disagree with #2. the use of Roth or pre-tax IRA depends on your circumstance. With no match in the 401(k), I'd start with an IRA. If you have more than $5k to put in, then some 401(k) would be needed.  Edit - to add detail on Roth decision. I was invited to write a guest article ""Roth IRAs and your retirement income"" some time ago. In it, I discuss the large amount of pretax savings it takes to generate the income to put you in a high bracket in retirement. This analysis leads me to believe the risk of paying tax now only to find tHat you are in a lower bracket upon retiring is far greater than the opposite. I think if there were any generalization (I hate rules of thumb, they are utterly pick-apartable) to be made, it's that if you are in the 15% bracket or lower, go Roth. As your income puts you into 25%, go pretax. I believe this would apply to the bulk of investors, 80%+." I'm concerned about your extreme focus on Roth. In today's dollars it would take nearly $2 million to produce enough of an annual withdrawal to fill the 15% bracket. If you are able to fund both 401(k)s and 2 IRAs (total $43K) you're clearly in the 25% bracket or higher. If you retire 100% with Roth savings, and little to no pretax money, you miss the opportunity to receive withdrawals at zero(1), 10, and 15% brackets. Missing this isn't much better than having too much pretax and being in a higher bracket at retirement.  One factor often overlooked is that few people manage a working life with no gaps. During times when income is lower for whatever reason, it's a great time to convert a bit to Roth.  (1)by zero bracket, I mean the combined standard deduction and exemptions. For two people this is currently (for 2017) $20,800 total. And it goes up a bit most years. "You don't state a long term goal for your finances in your message, but I'm going to assume you want to retire early, and retire well. :-) any other ideas I'm missing out on? A fairly common way to reach financial independence is to build one or more passive income streams.  The money returned by stock investing (capital gains and dividends) is just one such type of stream.  Some others include owning rental properties, being a passive owner of a business, and producing goods that earn long-term royalties instead of just an immediate exchange of time & effort for cash.    Of these, rental property is probably one of the most well-known and easiest to learn about, so I'd suggest you start with that as a second type of investment if you feel you need to diversify from stock ownership.  Especially given your association with the military, it is likely there is a nearby supply of private housing that isn't too expensive (so easier to get started with) and has a high rental demand (so less risk in many ways.)   Also, with our continued current low rate environment, now is the time to lock-in long term mortgage rates.  Doing so will reap huge benefits as rates and rents will presumably rise from here (though that isn't guaranteed.) Regarding the idea of being a passive business owner, keep in mind that this doesn't necessarily mean starting a business yourself.  Instead, you might look to become a partner by investing money with an existing or startup business, or even buying an existing business or franchise.  Sometimes, perfectly good business can be transferred for surprisingly little down with the right deal structure. If you're creative in any way, producing goods to earn long-term royalties might be a useful path to go down.  Writing books, articles, etc. is just one example of this.  There are other opportunities depending on your interests and skill, but remember, the focus ought to be on passive royalties rather than trading time and effort for immediate money.  You only have so many hours in a year.  Would you rather spend 100 hours to earn $100 every year for 20 years, or have to spend 100 hours per year for 20 years to earn that same $100 every year? .... All that being said, while you're way ahead of the game for the average person of your age ($30k cash, $20k stocks, unknown TSP balance, low expenses,) I'm not sure I'd recommend trying to diversify quite yet. For one thing, I think you need to keep some amount of your $30k as cash to cover emergency situations.  Typically people would say 6 months living expenses for covering employment gaps, but as you are in the military I don't think it's as likely you'll lose your job!  So instead, I'd approach it as ""How much of this cash do I need over the next 5 years?""  That is, sum up $X for the car, $Y for fun & travel, $Z for emergencies, etc.  Keep that amount as cash for now. Beyond that, I'd put the balance in your brokerage and get it working hard for you now.  (I don't think an average of a 3% div yield is too hard to achieve even when picking a safe, conservative portfolio.  Though you do run the risk of capital losses if invested.)  Once your total portfolio (TSP + brokerage) is $100k* or more, then consider pulling the trigger on a second passive income stream by splitting off some of your brokerage balance.  Until then, keep learning what you can about stock investing and also start the learning process on additional streams.  Always keep an eye out for any opportunistic ways to kick additional streams off early if you can find a low cost entry.   (*) The $100k number is admittedly a rough guess pulled from the air.  I just think splitting your efforts and money prior to this will limit your opportunities to get a good start on any additional streams.  Yes, you could do it earlier, but probably only with increased risk (lower capital means less opportunities to pick from, lower knowledge levels -- both stock investing and property rental) also increase risk of making bad choices."