[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Yeah, my parents do that (but in the US). You just need to make sure you spend enough time in your home province each year (normally 6 months) to maintain medical coverage. If you are repeatedly out of the province/country for longer than the maximum they can deem you a non-resident and you'd no longer have coverage in Canada.

The Sojourner rule is hopefully all that these types of individuals need to adhere to. It seems simple enough to do.

Originally Posted by I_H8_Crawford

You are a man amongst men.

I struggle with 2 kids 3 years apart - couldn't image 3 babies at once.

One of my fears with pregnancy was the "its twins (or more)"

You took the words out of my mouth.

I have two that are younger than yours and I am going through a complex work transition/promotion situation with two companies I am currently associated with. I can't imagine what life would be like with even less time. I already feel guilty enough that my brain is mush when I try and play or do crafts with the kids. (And yet, here I am on CP...)

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

This is true. My in-laws have retired about 15 years ago with practically no savings. Sold their house in 2007 on the high, bought a small duplex villa in a condo complex with the difference going into their only retirement nest egg. Live on $3,000 in total income from CPP, OAS and senior's benefit. No travel, no discretionary expenses whatsoever. But at the same time, they can afford food, small car, utility bills and condo fees, a dog. So, yeah, you don't need a million to survive in retirement.

Yeah, I think many forget that they can end up with the equivalent of around $15-20K in CPP/OAS benefits at retirement (inclusive of something like the age amount). Add in another $10-15K in pensions and passive income, you're probably sitting in a situation where your taxes owing are around $3-4K for $30K of taxable income. There's also low income subsidies that someone could tap in at that income range. A couple with that would essentially have approx $50K to live off of per year. It's a wee bit below minimum wage equivalent for non-retirees, but $4,200 per month for a retired couple isn't the lap of luxury, but I don't believe it's poverty line either. A retired couple doesn't have the same level of spending as a working couple.

Not to mention this is income and does not include post income funds you can tap into without triggering tax (cash, TFSA etc.) and subsidies you can tap into as you age.

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Agreed, and it goes to my belief that everyone has different retirement goals. If you're happy with just the basics (basic housing, food, utilities, one car, mostly staying home), that's fine. Most people want more. Travel is high on our list and now that things are opening up (fingers crossed) we're planning two major trips this year. We like being able to do whatever we want without worrying about money. People need to project costs and financial resources decades out. That's where an advisor (I used to be one) can help.

Absolutely. But again, the answer is always, "It depends." There's a thousand ways to do things and everyone is different.

Everyone conservatively wants more rather than less for retirement, but I've run into so many individuals who have more money than they know what to do with in retirement at net worths over 1.5 million. There's also quite a few with net worths over that who think they don't have enough in retirement and they refuse to accept this even when it's pointed out their net worth is still growing during retirement.

Some people cannot understand that at the age of 70, assuming you live till 100, a net worth of 1.5 million means that you have $50,000 to spend per year without factoring income you may earn on that net worth or growth in value of assets. This also isn't including yearly CPP/OAS/GIS safety net if you dip below $50,000 in income (not money required)... and these people have net worths of like 6 million and live like they have a $60-600K net worth). First, you're probably statistically long dead by 100. Second, $50K a year is enough to get into a pretty darn good "all inclusive" retirement home. The inflation calculation is silly as well. It essentially assumes someone basically has cash in a mattress. If you have a house or some reasonable form of lower risk investment, you'd very likely easily keep up with inflation or out pace it. No one is going from caviar to cat food because of inflation, even in situations like this pandemic. You'd also easily qualify for something like a low income subsidy for meals on wheels or individuals will just give you groceries for free long before you hit cat food range. This is Canada social netting and support we are talking about, not the USA social netting and support. A yearly bus pass is like nothing. You get government subsidies for all sorts of things (assuming you don't exceed income thresholds that basically say you don't need it anyways). The cost of living might increase incrementally, but the cost of many hobbies has dropped drastically which essentially (but not entirely) off sets it. (ie: Look at the cost of a computer or camera or cell phone vs 20 years ago vs now).

IMO in retirement, people should also not completely evaluate it in income means and instead evaluate it in cash flow means. Net worth is a blend of taxable items (lop off a percent for taxes) and post tax items (full value). Cash savings/TFSA/principal place of residence retirement net worth is not the same as a non-registered account/crypto/rental property retirement net worth.

Cash flow requirements for retired individuals are usually exponential. You'll spend more of your money up front while you are still healthy, able to travel, able to eat opulently (health reasons) etc. You'll spend far less once you have less time to travel, eat healthier and spend more time at home. The average person doesn't really travel a lot/as much or have as physically demanding hobbies after around 75-85. Furthermore, the vast majority of hobbies probably follow a pareto principle type of rule. You'll probably spend 80% of the cost to set it up, then maybe 20% a year upkeep/adding to the hobby. A $15K trip isn't necessarily $15K because your day to day costs drop when you're not at home.

I find that ballpark retirement calculations are just as bad as the rent vs own calculations on a home. Most of these ball park calculations are so poor with their assumptions that I find they are barely applicable to the average person. I've never seen any retiree self proclaiming squalor actually living in squalor, even if they basically have a nominal net worth. For those with a net worth over $500K, most have more money than they know what to do with (based on their unique requirements). People worry too much. Don't worry. Be aware, not afraid.