Thanks!
It is pretty fun. It's a lot, like A LOT a lot, at times, but they are so sweet and fun, and keep me young and grounded!
That must be so much fataing work, but I bet there are cute moments beyond words.
Mine are 14 and 15 (she'll be 16 this month). My brain has gone into overdrive over the past couple years scrubbing all the hard parts from my memory and I'm just left with all the cute, silly and fun moments. Triplets?! Wow. Parents of triplets. That'll freaking define you, dude. So neat.
The Following User Says Thank You to Sliver For This Useful Post:
The thing about having multiples as your first or only kids is you don’t know any different. People ask me what it’s like to have twins, but it’s all I know. So ‘normal’? The best thing about it from my POV is it forced me as a guy to get stuck in with hands-on parenting right from day 1. No choice but to take on a full share of feeding, changing, soothing, swaddling, bathing, dressing, etc. I wouldn’t have had it any differently.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
We know what the science says about happiness and what having kids does to it, quick summary starts at 11:20 (and then how you can maybe try to spin it.)
The thing about having multiples as your first or only kids is you don’t know any different. People ask me what it’s like to have twins, but it’s all I know. So ‘normal’? The best thing about it from my POV is it forced me as a guy to get stuck in with hands-on parenting right from day 1. No choice but to take on a full share of feeding, changing, soothing, swaddling, bathing, dressing, etc. I wouldn’t have had it any differently.
Agreed!
Also, the girls have built in best friends: every day is a play day, and every night’s a sleepover!
Especially with COVID, they didn’t miss out on any interactions.
The Following User Says Thank You to IamNotKenKing For This Useful Post:
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.
Good for them if that's the retirement they want. Most people wouldn't be happy with that; I know I wouldn't be. We want to travel lots, help our children (who don't need it but it's welcomed), and be generous with family and friends.
The Following User Says Thank You to MoneyGuy For This Useful Post:
Good for them if that's the retirement they want. Most people wouldn't be happy with that; I know I wouldn't be. We want to travel lots, help our children (who don't need it but it's welcomed), and be generous with family and friends.
Same here. However; the highlighted sentence in your post is completely subjective to your own financial perception of those goals. The question remains: how much after-tax income do you need to do so today. Some posters seem to confuse, or rather directly connect, the amount of savings you need so many years from now (based on individual's age and retirement year objective) with the amount of after-tax income in retirement years. But let's be honest, most people have no clue how much they will need in 20-30-40 years from now to live comfortably, so they do need some form of advice from a financial planner.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
Same here. However; the highlighted sentence in your post is completely subjective to your own financial perception of those goals. The question remains: how much after-tax income do you need to do so today. Some posters seem to confuse, or rather directly connect, the amount of savings you need so many years from now (based on individual's age and retirement year objective) with the amount of after-tax income in retirement years. But let's be honest, most people have no clue how much they will need in 20-30-40 years from now to live comfortably, so they do need some form of advice from a financial planner.
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.
The Following User Says Thank You to MoneyGuy For This Useful Post:
Yeah there’s a lot to read out there. The takeaways are start savings as soon as you can, be consistent, don’t get caught up in todays news, your investments are not a bank, take any and all free money (ie RESP matching, work matching, etc), differentiate wants and needs, someone will always question you and someone will always make more or save more.
The Following User Says Thank You to RichieRich For This Useful Post:
Jesus guys. My single daughter will be 3 months next week, and I swear I'm falling asleep upright half the time. Saints each and every one of you.
Nah, you'll get here. I basically didn't want to live when I had babies. Life was miserable.
My wife always reminds me of a line that has gone down in history in our house:
Two kids under two. Both crying inconsolably in the middle of the night. We tried to calm them down and nothing worked. That's when I said: "Fata 'em both, I'm going back to sleep." And I did. I just went back to sleep with two screaming banshees losing their ####.
Babies are hard AF. I don't understand how people can have such low expectations for their own enjoyment out of life that they actually like having a baby in the house.
Shockingly, it's worth it as they grow up, but it took many years to get to the point where I was able to say that honestly.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Sliver For This Useful Post:
Nah, you'll get here. I basically didn't want to live when I had babies. Life was miserable.
My wife always reminds me of a line that has gone down in history in our house:
Two kids under two. Both crying inconsolably in the middle of the night. We tried to calm them down and nothing worked. That's when I said: "Fata 'em both, I'm going back to sleep." And I did. I just went back to sleep with two screaming banshees losing their ####.
Babies are hard AF. I don't understand how people can have such low expectations for their own enjoyment out of life that they actually like having a baby in the house.
Shockingly, it's worth it as they grow up, but it took many years to get to the point where I was able to say that honestly.
Lol, well depending on your parenting perspective, that's exactly how it should be handled with screaming babies in the middle of the night.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Slava For This Useful Post:
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.
Have any of your projections materially changed due to inflation, cost of living projects, and expected investment returns since COVID started? I assume you being an advisor you run this type of analysis periodically?
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.
Quote:
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...)
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Last edited by DoubleF; 03-09-2022 at 05:05 PM.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to DoubleF For This Useful Post:
Have any of your projections materially changed due to inflation, cost of living projects, and expected investment returns since COVID started? I assume you being an advisor you run this type of analysis periodically?
The other thing is that YEAR TO YEAR it always seems like "this time it's different"... when really, at a fundamental level, things really have not been so different. The details/microscopic yes but not the big picture stuff. By this I mean you can somewhat look at long-term trends, add your own flavour, and go from there.
example:
"Start here" tab... enter $50k annual spending, portfolio starts at $350k, for 30yrs
"Other income" tab... put you & spouse, each getting CPP/OAS of $15k/yr ($30k/yr total) starting in 2035.
"Not retired?" tab... retire in 2032, annual savings until then of $10k.
Click SUBMIT on "not retired".
Statistical result shows 100% success (ie not running out of money given historical 30year time periods, which cover huge periods of global chance/unrest) over that 30yrs.
Play with the other tabs to run sensitivity modelling for your rates of return, inflation, monies added and when, flexibility on withdrawals, etc...
It's worth going down this rabbit hole and doing a few examples for yourself. You may surprise or scare the cr@p outa yourself.
The Following User Says Thank You to RichieRich For This Useful Post:
For context, it’s worth keeping mind that the average Canadian has $184,000 saved at retirement, and those numbers are skewed by the high end. 30 per cent of middle-aged Canadians have no savings and 20 per cent have less than $50k saved.
The median after-tax income in Canada for households headed by an individual over 65 years old is $61k. Single individuals over age 65 have a median after-tax income of $27,500.
If you plan to have $750k saved at retirement, you’ll be doing very well compared to most other retirees.
I just ran the FireCalc site based on $200k at retirement, $40k/yr spending, 30yr time period, immediate retirement, 2 persons each getting $15k/yr, and on the 4th tab a 90% level downside versus prior year spending... and the overall result is 100% chance of not running out of money.
So the point here is that yes $200k is a lot of money, however if you start early and contribute regularly and don't be excessively risk averse, AND have CPP/OAS then you can manage ok. Lots of FIRE'd couples out there living on less than $40k/yr who do a ton of global travel hacking and live in low cost of living areas that do just fine.
I just ran the FireCalc site based on $200k at retirement, $40k/yr spending, 30yr time period, immediate retirement, 2 persons each getting $15k/yr, and on the 4th tab a 90% level downside versus prior year spending... and the overall result is 100% chance of not running out of money.
So the point here is that yes $200k is a lot of money, however if you start early and contribute regularly and don't be excessively risk averse, AND have CPP/OAS then you can manage ok. Lots of FIRE'd couples out there living on less than $40k/yr who do a ton of global travel hacking and live in low cost of living areas that do just fine.
$40k, after tax and factoring in inflation, and that $200k portfolio is not surviving. I haven't run the numbers, but it's not sensible to me unless you're using a return rate that's high.
The Following User Says Thank You to Slava For This Useful Post:
