What percent of my salary should I save?
"I am pretty sure you could find a number of financial planners whom you could pay to give you a very accurate number, but the rule of thumb I like best is Save a dime of every dollar.  10% (Savings means save for retirement, not vacations.) Here is a nice article from radio personality Clark Howard with some adjustments based on your age: Saving for retirement later in life?  If you're getting started saving for retirement later in life, the   dime out of every dollar rule won't cut it for you. So for you, The   Baltimore Sun has crunched the following numbers: Jayraj has a particularly good and just as simple bit of math. https://money.stackexchange.com/a/30751/91 Your retirement and financial planning should not end with a flat percentage.  In fact, the chances that any simple math formula is adequate are very low.  My percentages (or Jayraj's simple math) are only starting places.  If you are at the point where you are asking ""where do I start"", starting with this super easy no-brainer approach is great because the key is starting and doing it." "I disagree with the selected answer. There's no one rule of thumb and certainly not simple ones like ""20 cents of every dollar if you're 35"". You've made a good start by making a budget of your expected expenses. If you read the Mr. Money Mustache blogpost titled The Shockingly  Simple Math Behind Early Retirement, you will understand that it is usually a mistake to think of your expenses as a fixed percentage of your income. In most cases, it makes more sense to keep your expenses as low as possible, regardless of your actual income.  In the financial independence community, it is a common principle that one typically needs 25-30 times one's annual spending to have enough money to sustain oneself forever off the investment returns that those savings generate (this is based on the assumption of a 7% average annual return, 4% after inflation). So the real answer to your question is this: UPDATE Keats brought to my attention that this formula doesn't work that well when the savings rates are low (20% range). This is because it assumes that money you save earns no returns for the entire period that you are saving. This is obviously not true; investment returns should also count toward your 25-times annual spending goal. For that reason, it's probably better to refer to the blog post that I linked to in the answer above for precise calculations. That's where I got the ""37 years at 20% savings rate"" figure from. Depending on how large and small x and y are, you could have enough saved up to retire in 7 years (at a 75% savings rate), 17 years (at a 50% savings rate), or 37 years! (at the suggested 20% savings rate for 35-year olds). As you go through life, your expenses may increase (eg. starting a family, starting a new business, unexpected health event etc) or decrease (kid wins full scholarship to college). So could your income. However, in general, you should negotiate the highest salary possible (if you are salaried), use the 25x rule, and consider your life and career goals to decide how much you want to save. And stop thinking of expenses as a percentage of income." A single percentage figure makes little sense here as you are asking for a bunch of different things: "What percent of my salary should I save? is tightly coupled with its companion, What size “nest egg” should my husband and I have, and by what age? Interestingly, Mr.Christer's answer, 10%, is the number that plugs into the equation that I reference. Jay's 25X rule is part of this. We start with the assumption that one's required income at retirement will be 80% of their pre-retirement income. That's high by some observations, low by others. A quick look at the expenses that go away in retirement - The above can total 35-40% It would be great if it ended there, but there are costs that go up. The above extra spending is tough to nail down, after all, you knew what you spent, and what's going away, but the new items? Crapshoot. (For non-native speakers - this refers to a game with dice, meaning a random event) Again, referencing Mr Christer's answer ""financial planners whom you could pay to give you a very accurate number,"" I'm going to disagree with that soundbyte. Consider, when retirement is 30 years away, you don't know much If I can offer an analogy. I once had the pleasure of hearing Jim Lovell (The astronaut played by Tom Hanks in Apollo 13) give a speech. He said that for the first 99% of the trip to the moon, they simply aimed ahead of their target, never directly at the moon. In this manner, I suggest that with so many variables, accuracy is impossible, it's a moving target. Start young, take the 10% MrC offered, and keep saving. Every few years, stop and see if you are on target, if not, bump the number a bit.  Better to turn 50 and find that after a good decade you've reached your number and can drop your savings to a minimum, perhaps just to capture a 401(k) match, than to turn 50 and realize you've undersaved and need to bump to an unsustainable level. Imagine planning ahead in 1999. You've seen 2 great decades of returns, and even realizing that 18%/yr couldn't continue, you plan for a below average 7%, this would double your 1999 balance in 10 years. Instead you saw zero return. For a decade. In sum, when each variable has an accuracy of +/-50% you are not going to combine them all and get a number with even 10% accuracy (as if MrC were wrong, but the pro would tell you 11% is right for you?). This is as absurd as packaging up a bunch of C rated debt, and thinking that enough of this paper would yield a final product that was AAA." Its been years since I lived there, but I found Seattle to be pretty expensive.  Housing costs seem out of line with expected salaries.  Coming from Puerto Rico you might be shocked how expensive it is to live there, and also how infrequently you see the sun. Your question is highly subjective.  One person would need 100K to cover those things you are talking about, while others would need less then 30K.  Also where you live in the Seattle area makes a difference.  Will you be in Redmond or Bothell?  Housing costs vary considerably. One nice thing about that part of the country is can be very inexpensive to vacation.  A fishing license, a packed lunch, and a bit of gas is all that is necessary to really enjoy that part of the country.   Back in the day I used to ski Steven's Pass during the week, and the lift tickets were a 1/3 of the weekend rate.  Having hiking/camping gear and or a bicycle is also a good way to enjoy life. Bottom line I would make a budget, and go from there.  If you intend on retiring in PR, then you would need a lot less then if you choose to remain in Seattle so even that is subjective. Perfect Example, Marysville, which is way out of town so a commute would be a problem.  However, unlike many parts south of Seattle, it is safe and nice.  ~200K for a 1200 sq ft home.  Holy cow.   Here in Orlando, figure about 130K for the same home with less of a commute.  And you will see the sun more than 5 days per year.
With a 1/4 million you should  be looking at staying fully invested and doing income draw down you can safely take 3 or 4 %   Basing your retirement income 100% on cash investments is very risky I can remember when inflation hit 15% in the UK and it has been at similar levels in the usa around 14% in 79. "I think your very long list of possible assumptions makes a tacit point of your own:  to state ""15%"" as a general value is bogus.  I think, in most cases, the ""15%"" is merely a popular meme.   To give any fixed number or percentage of income saved is insufficient without expanding things in the way you show.  Therefore, a formula, in which at least a handful of variables can be plugged into it, seems like the right approach.  (And this is what is being discussed here with the Monte Carlo method)." "The most important thing is not to tell yourself ""I'll save more later in my career when I have more disposable income,"" because of two factors. 1) You will get raises over your career, but unless you make it big, it will never really feel like you have extra money. You may double or triple your salary over a career, but it usually happens in small increments which your lifestyle tends to adjust upwards to meet even though it doesn't feel like it. 2) Later in your career you may have more money to save, but now the commodity you have is time. Your total savings at retirement are going to be influenced in a massive way by both of these factors. A good strategy is save SOMETHING early in your career even if it feels like an insignificant amount. Then save larger amounts later in your career when you are earning more, but have less time for your investments to grow and less tolerance for high risk/high growth investments." I think rather than take a percentage out, I focus on getting a total amount I consider appropriate for my emergency fund.  Then as for retirement, I do at least what my employer matches, up to the contribution limit.  For example my personal retirement plan in the US has an annual max contribution of $5000. Once I have my 6 to 12 month emergency fund (in a pretty liquid form) and a fully funded retirement, I want to concentrate on building wealth via investments or increasing the quality of my life by spending. Summary answer is:  no percentage for emergency, just get to a total amount you feel comfortable.  Then whatever percentage will allow you to make the most of employer matching and make your retirement fully funded. Answering this question is a great way to gauge how you're doing towards saving for retirement now. But of course what matters more than this snapshot in time is how much you contribute down the line.  It may be wise to try to estimate how much you will want saved by the time you retire. Then try to calculate how much you would need to save in order to hit that mark. The exact percentages depend on many things, not just location. For example, everyone needs food.  If you have a low income, the percentage of your income spent on food would be much higher than for someone that has a high income. Any budgeting guidelines that you find are just a starting point.  You need to look at your own income and expenses and come up with your own spending plan. Start by listing all of the necessities that you have to spend on.  For example, your basic necessities might be: Fund those categories, and any other fixed expenses that you have.  Whatever you have left is available for other things, such as: and anything else that you can think of to spend money on.  If you can save money on some of the necessities above, it will free up money on the discretionary categories below.   Because your income and priorities are different than everyone else, your budget will be different than everyone else, too.  If you are new to budgeting, you might find that the right budgeting software can make the task much easier.  YNAB, EveryDollar, or Mvelopes are three popular choices. I just want to point out a couple of things, and I do not have enough reputation to comment. Saving 50% is totally possible. I know people saving 65%. For more see here EDIT: Let me repeat that 4% it the maximum you can assume if you want to be sure to have at least that return in the long term. It's not the average, it's the minimum, the value you can expect and plan with. Just to reinforce the claim, I can cite Irrational Exuberance of Robert Schiller, who explicitly says, on page 135 of the 2015 edition, that from January 1966 to January 1992 the real annual return was just 4.1%. Sure, this does not matter so much if you are investing all the way through, but it's still a 26 year period. Take a certain percentage of your income (say, 10%, but more is better if you can) and put it aside with every paycheck. Some employers will even allow you to direct deposit your paycheck into two different accounts and you can specify a certain amount or percentage for the second account. Your savings will go directly into a separate account as if you never had it in the first place. Consider your savings untouchable as spending money. Watch it grow. There's no other secret, you just have to do it! A good general rule is to save 15% of your income for retirement.  As for where you put it: Put as much as it takes to maximize your employer match into your 401(k), but no more.  The employer match is free money, and you can't beat free money If you still haven't put in 15%, put the rest into a Roth IRA.  By historical standards, taxes are pretty low today.  They are almost certainly going to be higher in retirement, especially since you likely won't have the deductions in retirement that you may have now (kids, mortgage, etc). If you've maxed our the allowed contribution for your Roth and still haven't saved 15%, put the rest in a traditional IRA. "My basic rule I tell everyone who will listen is to always live like you're a college student - if you could make it on $20k a year, when you get your first ""real"" job at $40k (eg), put all the rest into savings to start (401(k), IRA, etc). Gradually increase your lifestyle expenses after you hit major savings goals (3+ month emergency fund, house down payment, etc). Any time you get a raise, start by socking it all into your employer's 401(k) or similar. And repeat the above advice." "I argued for a 15% rule of thumb here: Saving for retirement: How much is enough? Though if you'll let me, I'd refine the argument to: use a rule of thumb to set your minimum savings, then use Monte Carlo to stress-test and look at any special circumstances, and make a case to save more. You're right that the rule of thumb bakes in tons of assumptions (great list btw). A typical 15%-works scenario could include: If any of those big assumptions don't apply to you (or you don't want to rely on them) you'd have to re-evaluate. It sounds like you're assuming 4-5% investment returns? As you say that's probably the big difference, 4-5% is lower than most would assume. 6-7% (real return) is maybe a middle-of-the-road assumption and 8% is maybe an unrealistic one. Many of the assumptions you list (such as married/kids, cost of living, spouse's income, paying for college) can maybe be bundled up into one assumption (percentage of income you will spend). Set a percentage budget and as you go along, stay within your means by sacrificing as required. Also smooth out income across layoffs and things by having an emergency fund. By staying on-budget as you go you can remove some of the unpredictability. The reason I think the rule of thumb is still good, despite the assumptions, is that I don't think a ""more accurate"" number based on a lot of unpredictable guesses is really better; and it may even be harmful if you use it to justify saving less, or even if you use it to save far too much. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_bias Many (most?) important assumptions are not predictable: investment returns, health care inflation, personal health, lifestyle creep (changing spending needs/desires), irrational investment behavior. I agree with you that for many scenarios and people, 15% will not be enough, though it's a whole lot more than most save already. In particular, low investment returns over your time horizon will make 15% insufficient, and some argue that low investment returns over the coming 30 years are likely. Without a doubt, 20% or more is safer than 15%. Do consider that ""saving enough"" is not a binary thing. If you save only 15% and it turns out that doesn't completely replace your income, it's not like you're out on the street; you might have to retire a few years later, or downsize your house, or something, but perhaps that isn't a catastrophe. There's a very personal question about how much to sacrifice now for less risk of sacrifice in the future. Maybe I'd better qualify ""not a binary thing"": some savings rates (certainly, anything less than 10%), make major sacrifices pretty likely... so in that sense there is a binary distinction between ""plausible plan"" and ""denial."" Also, precise assumptions and calculations get a lot more useful as you approach retirement age. You can pretty much answer the question ""is it reasonable to retire right now?"" or ""could I retire in 5 years?"" (though with a retirement that could last 30 years, plenty of unknowns will remain even then). I think at age 20 or 30 though, just saving 15% (20% if you're conservative), and not spending too much time on a speculative analysis would be a sound decision. That's why I like the rule of thumb. Analysis paralysis (saving nothing or near-nothing) is the real danger early in one's career. Any plausible percentage is fine as long as you save. As your life unfolds and you see what happens, you can refine and correct, adjusting your savings rate, moving your retirement age around, spending a little less or more. The important thing earlier in life is to just get in the right ballpark." "I'd encourage you to use rules of thumb and back-of-the-envelope. Here are some ideas that could be useful: The problem with any kind of detailed calculations is the number of unknowns: There are some really complex calculators out there, for example see ESPlanner (http://www.esplanner.com/) (caution: horrible user interface, but seemed to work), that will include all kinds of factors and run monte carlo and the whole thing. But in my opinion, it's just as good or better to say save at least 15% of income until you have 25x what you spend, or some other such rule of thumb. Here's my little blog post on savings and investing fwiw: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ Another note, there's sort of an ""ideology of how to live"" embedded in any retirement recommendation, and you might want to take the time to reflect on that and consciously choose. A book on this topic is Your Money or Your Life by Robin & Dominguez, http://www.amazon.com/Your-Money-Life-Transforming-Relationship/dp/0143115766 which is a sort of radical ""you should save everything possible to achieve financial independence as early as possible"" argument. I didn't go for their plan, but I think it's thought-provoking. A newer book that may be more appealing is called The Number  and it's about your question exactly. It's more designed to get you thinking, while Your Money or Your Life has a particular answer in mind. Both have some math and some rules of thumb, though they aren't focused on that. A kind of general takeaway from these books might be: first think about your expenses. What are you trying to accomplish in life, how would you like to spend your time? And then ask how much money you absolutely need to accomplish that, and focus on accomplishing your goals, spending your time (as much as you can) on what you'd like to spend it on. I'm contrasting this with a generic recommendation to save enough to spend 80% of your income in retirement, which embeds this idea that you should spend as much as possible every year, before and after you retire. Lots of people do like that idea, but it's not a law of the universe or something, it's just one popular approach." Though I do think it is important to have a diversified portfolio for your retirement, I also think it's more important to make sure you are at no point touching this money until you retire. Taking money out of your retirement early is a sure fire way to get in a bad habit of spending this money when you need a little help. Here's a tip: If you consider this money gone, you will find another way to figure out your situation.  With that said, I also would rather not put a percentage on this. Start by building your emergency fund. You'll want to treat this like a bill and make a monthly payment to your savings account each month or paycheck. When you have a good nine times your monthly income in here, stop contributing to this fund. Instead start putting the same amount into your IRA instead. At this point you should no longer have to add to your emergency fund unless there is a true emergency and you are replacing that money. Keep in mind that the amount of money in your emergency fund changes significantly in each situation. Sit down with your bills and think about how much money you would need in the event you lost your job. How long would you be out of work? How many bills do you have each month that would need to be covered? "Congratulations. The first savings goal should be an emergency fund.  Think of this not as an investment, but as insurance against life's woes.  They happen and having this kind of money earmarked allows one to invest without needing to withdraw at an inopportune time.   This should go into a ""high interest"" savings account or money market account.  Figure three to six months of expenses. The next goal should be retirement savings.  In the US this is typically done through 401K or if your company does not offer one, either a ROTH IRA or Traditional IRA.  The goal should be about 15% of your income.  You should favor a 401k match over just about anything else, and then a ROTH over that.   The key to transforming from a broke college student into a person with a real job, and disposable income, is a budget.  Otherwise you might just end up as a broke person with a real job (not fun).  Part of your budget should include savings, spending, and giving.  All three areas are the key to building wealth.   Once you have all of those taking care of the real fun begins.  That is you have an emergency fund, you are putting 15% to retirement, you are spending some on yourself, and giving to a charity of your choice.  Then you can dream some with any money left over (after expenses of course).   Do you want to retire early?  Invest more for retirement.  Looking to buy a home or own a bunch of rental property?  Start educating yourself and invest for that.   Are you passionate about a certain charity?  Give more and save some money to take time off in order to volunteer for that charity. All that and more can be yours.  Budgeting is a key concept, and the younger you start the easier it gets.   While the financiers will disagree with me, you cannot really invest if you are borrowing money.  Keep debt to zero or just on a primary residence.  I can tell you from personal experience that I did not started building wealth until I made a firm commitment to being out of debt. Buy cars for cash and never pay credit card interest.  Pay off student loans as soon as possible. For some reason the idea of giving to charity invokes rancor.  A cursory study of millionaires will indicate some surprising facts:  most of them are self made, most of them behave differently than pop culture, and among other things most of them are generous givers.  Building wealth is about behavior.  Giving to charity is part of that behavior.  Its my own theory that giving does almost no good for the recipient, but a great amount of good for the giver.   This may seem difficult to believe, but I ask that you try it." On average, you should be saving at least 10-15% of your income in order to be financially secure when you retire.  Different people will tell you different things, but really this can be split between short term savings (cash), long term savings (401ks, IRAs, stocks & bonds), and paying down debt. That $5k is a good start on an emergency fund, but you probably want a little more.  As justkt said, 6 months' worth is what you want to aim for.  Put this in a Money Market account, where you'll earn a little more interest but won't be penalized from withdrawing it when its needed (you may have to live off it, after all). Beyond that, I would split things up; if possible, have payroll deductions going to a broker (sharebuilder is a good one to start with if you can't spare much change), as well as an IRA at a bank. Set up a separate checking account just for rent and utilities, put a month's worth of cash in there, and have another payroll deduction that covers your living expenses + maybe 5% put in there automatically.  Then, set up automatic bill payments, so you don't even have to think about it.  Check it once a month to make sure there aren't any surprises. Pay off your credit cards every month.  These are, by far, the most expensive forms of credit that most people have.  You shouldn't be financing large purchases with them (you'll get better rates by taking a personal loan from a bank). Set specific goals for savings, and set up automatic payroll deductions to work towards them.  Especially for buying a house; most responsible lenders will ask for 20% down.  In today's market, that means you need to write a check for $40k or $50k.  While it's tempting to finance up to 100% of the property value, it's also risky considering how volatile markets can be.  You don't want to end up owing more on the property than it's worth two years down the road. If you find yourself at the end of the month with an extra $50 or so, consider your savings goals or your current debt instead of blowing it on a toy.  Especially if you have long term debt (high balance credit cards, vehicle or property loans), applying that money directly to principal can save you months (or years) paying it back, and hundreds or thousands of dollars of interest (all depending on the details of the loan, of course). Above all, have fun with it :)  Think of your personal net worth as you do your Gamer score on the XBox, and look for ways to maximize it with a minimum of effort or investment on your part!  Investing in yourself and your future can be incredibly rewarding emotionally :)