First concrete steps for retirement planning when one partner is resistant
"I would suggest you do three things: If you do all three of these, the time will come when ""2 months off to go to Italy this winter and ride bikes through wine country"" is something you both want to do, can afford to do, and have arranged your lives to make it feasible. Or whatever wow-cool thing you might dream of. Buying a vacation property. Renovating an old house. The time may also come when you can take a chance on no income for 6 months to start a business that will give you more flexibility about when and where you work. Or when you can switch from working for a pay cheque to volunteering somewhere all day every day. You (as a couple) will have the freedom to make those kinds of decisions if you have that safety net of long term savings, as long as you also have a strong and happy relationship because you didn't spend 40 years arguing about money and whether or not you can afford things." You can take a queue from any sales opportunity and position it in ways that will still appeal to someone who intends to continue working perpetually. Here are some of the points I would make: 401k matching funds are free money that you will have access to in ~20 years whether you retire or not. Long-term savings that grow in the stock market turn into residual income that will add to your standard of living whether you retire or not. There are tax advantages to deferring income if you are in a high tax bracket now. You will have flexibility to withdraw that money in future years where you might have lower earnings. (For example, in a future year, you could take a sabbatical trip to Europe for a few months without pay and draw on your savings during that time that you are not making money.) Even if you don't invest in a 401k, you and max out HSA accounts if you are eligible, and position that as money for medical expenses. If you never have medical reasons to spend that money, you can still withdraw at retirement age like a 401k or IRA. (Though it gets taxed as income if not used for qualified medical purposes at retirement time.) With an unwilling partner, it's difficult to make a lot of progress, but if you have matching funds from your employer, do make sure that you are getting at least those for yourself. Ultimately if he doesn't want to save for himself, you should for yourself. There are no guarantees in life. If he dies or leaves, you must be prepared to take care of your own needs. To answer your question: As far as what's available in addition to your 401(k) at work (most financial types will say to contribute up to the match first), you may qualify for a Roth IRA (qualification is based on income), if not, then you may have to go with a Traditional IRA.  You and your husband can each have one and contribute up to the limit each year.  After that, you could get just a straight up mutual fund, and/or contribute up to limit on your 401(k). My two cents: This may sound counter-intuitive (and I'm sure some folks will disagree), but instead of contributing to your 401(k) now, take whatever that amount is, and use it to pay extra on the car loan.  Also take the extra being paid on the mortgage and pay it on the car loan too.  Once the car loan is paid off, then set aside 15% of your gross income and use that amount to start your retirement investing.   Any additional money beyond this can then go into the mortgage.  Once it's paid off, then you can take the extra you were paying, plus the mortgage and invest that amount into mutual funds. You may want to check out Chris Hogan's Retire Inspired book or podcast as well. "I can understand your nervousness being 40 and no retirement savings.  Its understandable especially given your parents.   Before going further, I would really recommend the books and seminars on Love and Respect.  The subject matter is Christian based, but it based upon a lot of secular research from the University of Washington and some other colleges.  It sounds like to me, this is more of a relationship issue than a money issue.   For the first step I would focus on the positive.  The biggest benefit you have is:  Your husband is willing to work!  Was he lazy, there would be a whole different set of issues.  You should thank him for this.   More positives are that you don't have any credit card debt, you only have one car payment (not two), and that you are paying additional payments on each.  I'd prefer that you had no car payment.  But your situation is not horrible. So how do you improve your situation? In my opinion getting your husband on board would be the first priority.  Ask him if he would like to get the car paid off as fast as possible, or, building an emergency fund?  Pick one of those to focus on, and do it together.   Having an emergency fund of 3 to 6 months of expense is a necessary precursor to investing, anyway so you from the limited info in your post you are not ready to pour money into your 401K. Have you ever asked what his vision is for his family financially?  Something like:  ""Honey you care for us so wonderfully, what is your vision for me and our children?  Where do you see us in 5, 10 and 20 years?""     I cannot stress enough how this is a relationship issue, not a math issue.  While the problems manifests themselves in your balance sheet they are only a symptom.  Attempting to cure the symptom will likely result in resentment for both of you.  There is only one financial author that focuses on relationships and their effect on finances:  Dave Ramsey.  Pick up a copy of The Total Money Makeover, do something nice for him, and then ask him to read it.  If he does, do something else nice for him and then ask him what he thinks." I'd try to (gently) point out to your husband that what he thinks he wants to do now and what he might want to do in 20 or 30 years are not necessarily the same thing. When I was 40 I was thinking that I would work until I died. Now I'm 58 and have health problems and I'm counting down the days until I can retire. Even if your husband is absolutely certain that he will not change his mind about retiring in the next 20+ years, maybe something will happen that puts things beyond his control. Like medical problems, or simply getting too old to be able to work. Is he sure that he will be able to continue to put in 40 hour weeks when he's 80? 90? 100? Just because you put money away for retirement doesn't mean that you are required to retire. If you put money away, and when the time comes you don't want to retire, great! Now you can collect the profits on your investments in addition to collecting your salary and live very well. Or have a nice nest egg to leave to your children. Putting money away for retirement gives you options. Retirement doesn't necessarily mean sitting around the house doing nothing until you waste away and die of boredom. My parents were busier after they retired then when they were working. They spent a lot of time on charity work, visiting people in the hospital, working with their church, that sort of thing. Some people start businesses. As they have retirement income coming in, they don't have to worry about the business earning enough to provide a living, so they can do something they want to do because they think it's fun or contributes to society or whatever. Etc. Bringing your spouse on board a financial plan is key to success.  The biggest part is to have a shared dream.  Having retirement saving doesn't mean that you can't work. It does mean that you both will have some level of security as you age.   Does your husband really want you to be impoverished when he dies?  I doubt it, he probably just hasn't given it much thought.  A strong nest-egg can help you after his is gone even if you are still working. My wife and I follow Dave Ramsey's baby steps.  It has worked like a champ for us and can help you as well.  You can look up his plan, most of the materials are free.  A few highlights: So in short, don't worry about retirement until you two are out of debt.  Once you two are out of debt then save for your retirement, kids college and pay off your home early. Building a shared dream with your husband is the best way to get him onboard.  Talk about helping the kids, freedom to vacation, your parents struggle, whatever gets him to see the importance of having some savings.
Whatever you choose for a remedy (my first impulse is to suggest bankruptcy) you should protect your retirement plans.  These are immune from most collection actions, the exception being govt debts (e.g. taxes) and student loans.  The sad part is that the student loans won't go away except by paying them off.  Miss one payment and it will hound you for 10 years.  Bankruptcy will stop you from getting a home loan for only two years.  Unless you have the discipline to live like a monk for a decade it sounds like you're headed for a train wreck.  The kids will have to cut back to junior college or some other method of reducing costs and as hard as it sounds, don't cosign for any more student loans. Kids are more resilient than you think and they'll probably come up with their own solutions like scholarships, work study and off campus jobs.  I hate to keep beating the bankruptcy horse but at least that way you could still keep your house and car.  Otherwise you risk losing either or both from missed payments.  I actually hope that you can avoid bankruptcy so I suggest first you talk to a financial adviser or bankruptcy attorney to see if this is in fact right for you. But if it's just the shame of the scarlet letter B then consider that pride doesn't keep a roof over your head or food in your belly. If you look at history, it shows that the more people predict corrections the less was the chance they came. That doesn't prove it stays so, though. 2017 is not any different than other years in the future: Independent of this, with less than ten years remaining until you need to draw from your money, it is a good idea to move away from high risk (and high gain); you will not have enough time to recover if it goes awry. There are different approaches, but you should slowly and continuously migrate your capital to less risky investments. Pick some good days and move 10% or 20% each time to low-risk, so that towards the end of the remaining time 90 or 100% are low or zero risk investments. Many investment banks and retirement funds offer dedicated funds for that, they are called 'Retirement 2020' or 'Retirement 2030'; they do exactly this 'slow and continuous moving over' for you; just pick the right one. Others have made excellent suggestions; one thing I would add - and this cannot be understated - is to assess your risk tolerance.  We tend to think of investing as a purely rational and financial decision, yet myself and so many others, when times get tough, make emotional decisions. Doing a risk tolerance test (as honestly as possible) will help you recognize what you can and can't handle.   On top of that, consider how well you face adversity or celebrations in other areas of life; I've found many similarities in the ways that we handle a gain in our investments to the way we celebrate a raise (same thing with adversity). Once you know this, you can begin the process of elimination on funds. [Added: the point above this, does not consume a lot of time and could end up saving you a great deal of money and emotional agony, so it's well-worth it.] "1 - in most cases, the difference between filing joint or married filing single is close to zero. When there is a difference you're better off filing joint.  2 - The way the W4 works is based on how many allowances you claim. Unfortunately, even in the day of computers, it does not allow for a simple ""well my deduction are $xxx, don't tax that money."" Each allowance is equal to one exemption, same as you get for being you, same as the wife gets, same as each kid. 3 people X $3800 = $11,400 you are telling the employer to take off the top before calculating your tax. She does this by using Circular E and is able to calculate your tax as you request. If one is in the 15% bracket, one more exemption changes the tax withheld by $570. So if you were going to owe $400 in April, one few exemption will have you overpay $170. i.e. in this 15% bracket, each exemption changes annual withholding by that $570.  For most people, running the W4 numbers will get them very close, and only if they are getting back or owing over $500, will they even think of adjusting.  3 - My recently published Last Minute Tax Moves offers a number of interesting ideas to address this. The concept of grouping deductions in odd years is worth noting.  4 - I'm not sure what this means, 2 accounts each worth $5000 should grow at the same rate if invested the same. The time it makes sense to load one person's account first is if they have better matching. You say you are not sure what percent your wife's company matches. You need to change this. For both of your retirement plans you need to know every detail, exact way to maximize matching, expense ratios for the investments you choose, any other fees, etc. Knowledge is power, and all that. In What is an appropriate level of 401k fees or expenses in a typical plan? I go on to preach about how fees can wipe out any tax benefit over time. For any new investor, my first warning is always to understand what you are getting into. If you can't explain it to a friend, you shouldn't be in it.  Edit - you first need to understand what choices are within the accounts. The 4% and 6% are in hindsight, right? These are not fixed returns. You should look at the choices and more heavily fund the account with the better selection. Deposit to her account at least to grab the match.  As far as the longer term goals, see how the house purchase goes. Life has a way of sending you two kids and forcing you to tighten the budget. You may have other ideas in three years. (I have no P2P lending experience, by the way.)  Last - many advise that separate finances are a bad path for a couple. It depends. Jane and I have separate check books, and every paycheck just keep enough to write small checks without worry, most of the money goes to the house account. Whatever works for you is what you should do. We've been happily married for most of the 17 years we've been married." If you were married the 250K protection can be expanded by the use of joint and individual accounts. A separate limit also exists for IRA accounts.  With out those options you will have to put some additional money into another banking institution. This could be a bank or credit union. You have to be careful to make sure that any additional accounts have FDIC or NCUA (for Credit Unions) coverage. Some banking institutions try and turn customers to non-covered accounts that are either investment accounts or use a 3rd party to protect them. You could also use it to invest in US government bonds through Treasury direct. Though for just the few months that you will be in the excess position it probably isn't worth the hassle of treasury direct. I vote for Plan B: PLAN B: Put into 401 K whatever I have   in April (will be less than max) and   just pay the extra tax. This is path   of least resistance and easy but   expensive. This plan is the simplest and has the least moving parts.   It will be over in April, is easily understood, and does not add extra risk to your life. That being said, the real plan is for next year: save for taxes along the way instead of getting hit with a big bang. So I did some queries on Google Scholar, and the term of art academics seem to use is target date fund. I notice divided opinions among academics on the matter. W. Pfau gave a nice set of citations of papers with which he disagrees, so I'll start with them. In 1969, Paul Sameulson published the paper Lifetime Portfolio Selection By Dynamic Stochaistic Programming, which found that there's no mathematical foundation for an age based risk tolerance. There seems to be a fundamental quibble relating to present value of future wages; if they are stable and uncorrelated with the market, one analysis suggests the optimal lifecycle investment should start at roughly 300 percent of your portfolio in stocks (via crazy borrowing). Other people point out that if your wages are correlated with stock returns, allocations to stock as low as 20 percent might be optimal. So theory isn't helping much. Perhaps with the advent of computers we can find some kind of empirical data. Robert Shiller authored a study on lifecycle funds when they were proposed for personal Social Security accounts. Lifecycle strategies fare poorly in his historical simulation: Moreover, with these life cycle portfolios, relatively little is contributed when the allocation to stocks is high, since earnings are relatively low in the younger years. Workers contribute only a little to stocks, and do not enjoy a strong effect of   compounding, since the proceeds of the early investments are taken out of the stock   market as time goes on. Basu and Drew follow up on that assertion with a set of lifecycle strategies and their contrarian counterparts: whereas a the lifecycle plan starts high stock exposure and trails off near retirement, the contrarian ones will invest in bonds and cash early in life and move to stocks after a few years. They show that contrarian strategies have higher average returns, even at the low 25th percentile of returns. It's only at the bottom 5 or 10 percent where this is reversed. One problem with these empirical studies is isolating the effect of the glide path from rebalancing. It could be that a simple fixed allocation works plenty fine, and that selling winners and doubling down on losers is the fundamental driver of returns. Schleef and Eisinger compare lifecycle strategy with a number of fixed asset allocation schemes in Monte Carlo simulations and conclude that a 70% equity, 30% long term corp bonds does as well as all of the lifecycle funds. Finally, the earlier W Pfau paper offers a Monte Carlo simulation similar to Schleef and Eisinger, and runs final portfolio values through a utility function designed to calculate diminishing returns to more money. This seems like a good point, as the risk of your portfolio isn't all or nothing, but your first dollar is more valuable than your millionth. Pfau finds that for some risk-aversion coefficients, lifecycles offer greater utility than portfolios with fixed allocations. And Pfau does note that applying their strategies to the historical record makes a strong recommendation for 100 percent stocks in all but 5 years from 1940-2011. So maybe the best retirement allocation is good old low cost S&P index funds! You are thinking about this very well.  With option one, you need to think about the 5 D's in the contract.  What happens when one partner becomes disinterested, divorced (break up), does drugs (something illegal), dies or does not agree with decisions. One complication if you buy jointly, and decide to break up/move, on will the other partner be able to refinance?  If not the leaving person will probably not be able to finance a new home as the banks are rarely willing to assume multiple mortgage risks for one person.  (High income/large down payment not with standing.) I prefer the one person rents option to option one.  The trouble with that is that it sounds like you are in better position to be the owner, and she has a higher emotional need to own.    If she is really interested in building equity I would recommend a 15 year or shorter mortgage.  Building equity in a 30 year is not realistic. "This sounds like an accounting nightmare to be 100% precise.  With each payment you're going to have to track: If you can account for those, then the fair thing to do is for one person to stop paying after they have paid the amount of principal they had at the beginning of the process, or possibly after they have paid an amount equivalent to the total principal and accrued interest they would have paid if they paid their loans individually.   The problem is, one of you is likely going to pay more interest than you would have under the individual plan.  In the example you gave, if your brother pays off any of your loans, he is going to be paying more in interest than if he paid on his 5% loans. If you pay the highest rate loans first, whoever has the lower total balance is going to pay more interest since they'll be paying on the higher rates until they've paid their ""fair share"".   I don't see a clean way for you to divvy up the interest savings appropriately unless you trueup at the very end of the process.   Math aside, these types of agreements can be dangerous to relationships. What if one of you decides that they don't want to participate anymore? What if one of you gets all of their loans paid off much earlier - they get the joy of being debt free while the other still has all of the debt left? What if they then don't feel obligates to pay the other's remaining debt? Are you both equally committed to cutting lifestyle in order to attack these debts? In my opinion, the complexity and risk to the relationship don't justify the interest savings." "Get everything in writing. That includes ownership %, money in, money out, who is allowed to use the place, how much they need to pay the other partners, who pays for repairs, whether to provide 'friends and family' discounts, who is allowed to sell, what happens if someone dies, how is the mortgage set up, what to do if one of you becomes delinquent, etc. etc. etc. Money and friends don't mix. And that's mostly because people have different ideas in their head about what 'fair' means. Anything you don't have in writing, if it comes up in a disagreement, could cause a friendship-ending fight. Even if you are able to agree on every term and condition under the sun, there's still a problem - what if 5 years from now, someone decides that a certain clause isn't fair? Imagine one of you needs to move into the condo because your primary residence was pulled out from under you. They crash at the condo because they have no where else to go. You try to demand payment, but they lost their job. The agreement might say ""you must pay the partnership if you use the condo personally, at the standard monthly rate * # of days"". But what is the penalty clause - is everything under penalty of eviction, and forced sale of the condo and distribution of profits? Following through on such a penalty means the friendship would be over. You would feel guilty about doing it, and also about not doing it [at the same time, your other partner loses their job, and can't make 1/3rd of the mortgage payments anymore! They need the rent or the bank will foreclose on their house!] etc etc etc Even things like maintenance - are the 3 of you going to do it yourselves? Labour distributed how? Will anyone get a management fee? What about a referral fee for a new renter? Once you've thought of all possible circumstances and rules, and drafted it in writing, go talk to a lawyer, and maybe an accountant. There will be many things you won't have considered yet, and paying a few grand today will save you money and friends in the future." With a Roth IRA, you can withdraw the contributions at any time without penalty as long as you don't withdraw the earnings/interest. There are some circumstances where you can withdraw the earnings such as disability (and maybe first home). Also, the Roth IRA doesn't need to go through your employer and I wouldn't do it through your employer. I have mine setup through Fidelity though I'm not sure if they have any guaranteed 3% return unless it was a CD. All of mine is in stocks. Your wife could also setup a Roth IRA so over 2 years, you could contribute $20,000. If I was you, I would just max out any 403-b matches (which you surely are at 25% of gross income) and then save my down payment money in a normal money market/savings account. You are doing good contributing almost 25% to the 403-b. There are also some income limitations on Roth IRAs. I believe for a married couple, it is $160k. "Making these difficult portfolio decisions for you is the point of Target-Date Retirement Funds.  You pick a date at which you're going to start needing to withdraw the money, and the company managing the fund slowly turns down the aggressiveness of the fund as the target date approaches.  Typically you would pick the target date to be around, say, your 65th birthday.  Many mutual fund companies offer a variety of funds to suit your needs. Your desire to never ""have to recover"" indicates that you have not yet done quite enough reading on the subject of investing.  (Or possibly that your sources have been misleading you.)  A basic understanding of investing includes the knowledge that markets go up and down, and that no portfolio will always go up.  Some ""recovery"" will always be necessary; having a less aggressive portfolio will never shield you completely from losing money, it just makes loss less likely. The important thing is to only invest money that you can afford to lose in the short-term (with the understanding that you'll make it back in the long term).  Money that you'll need in the short-term should be kept in the absolute safest investment vehicles, such as a savings account, a money market account, short-term certificates of deposit, or short-term US government bonds." "The thing about the glide path is that the closer you're to the retirement age, the less risk you should be taking with your investments. All investments carry risk, but if you invest in a volatile stock market at the age of 20 and lose all your retirement money - it will not have the same effect on your retirement as if you'd invest in a volatile stock market at the age of 65 and then lose all your retirement money. Static allocation throughout your life without changing the risk factor, will lead you to a very conservative investment path, which would mean you're not likely to lose your investments, but you're not likely to gain much either. The point of the glide path is to allow you taking more risks early with more chances of higher gains, but to limit your risks down the road, also limiting your potential gains. That is why it is always suggested to start your retirement funds early in your life, to make sure you have enough time to invest in potentially high return stocks (with high risk), but when you get close to your retirement age, it is advised to do exactly the opposite. The date-targeted funds do that for you, but you can do it on your own as well. As to the academic research - you don't need to go that far. Just look at the graphs to see that over long period investments in stocks give much better return than ""conservative"" bonds and treasuries (especially when averaging the investments, as it usually is with the retirement funds), but over a given short period, investments in stocks are much more likely to significantly lose in value." While the 55 exception noted by Joe and JB makes this less of a worry, it's worth noting that to retire early most people would need additional investments beyond a maxed out 401(k).  As most people make more money later in life it is generally worth putting what you can in a 401(k) now and later when your savings would max out a 401(k) then you can start adding money to accounts that are not tax-advantaged.  These additional funds can be used during the bridge period. Run the numbers yourself as these assumptions won't be true for all individuals, but this may be the piece you are missing. Well this is not the best situation.  Sorry to your friend. First off ROTHs are out, you need earned income.  Secondly, I don't think the focus should be on retirement planning until there is again an earned income.  Thirdly, this person is just in a bad spot. Lets assume that you can find some really good mutual funds, that consistently return 10% per year.  At best this person can only pull out 10K per year without touching principle.  At that income level, taxes are not much of a concern; not as much as surviving.  If this person knows anything about investing, they know funds don't work like this.  They could be down 5%, down 5%, up ~40% in three years to give an average of 10% return.  Which of course further complicates matters.     This person (IMO) should seek to start a different career.  One that can cater to any long term issues this person has with pain/disability.  The money could be used toward training/education in order to get money flowing again.  That is not to say the full amount should be used for a BA in Russian Folk Literature, but some minimum training to get a career that starts earning real money.