• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

retirement planning

That's always the case between market value and cost.

Location location location, right?

Building materials are getting more and more expensive. Good to have insurance if it is affordable. It also pays for your lodging while your house is being rebuilt.
 
Last edited:
bojangle said:
Yeah, he owns rentals.
Click to expand...

Yes, I should have been clearer.

BTW, this doesn't apply to me but it most CERTAINLY does to anyone who is on a second or third marriage with both having their own kids like my friend does.

If you want to ensure that your IRA goes to your kids should you die before your spouse you need to change your beneficiary in your IRA as not doing so, despite what your Will might say, means that your IRA goes to your spouse who might choose to shut out your kids.

IRA has to be taken by the beneficiaries like your kids over 10 years.

My friend's wife falls under "might cut out his kids" which is sad and pathetic.
 
Last edited:
Well, just to clarify, the insurance only covers the structure, right? Most value today is in the land.

Which made me wonder what happened to those poor people around Ventura a few years ago when the hill they were on just Moved and simply made their houses and property vanish. (Well I guess they still owned the "once flat now hill shaped" property.)

If you want to ensure that your IRA goes to your kids should you die before you pass away you need to change your beneficiary in your IRA as not doing so, despite what your Will might say, means that your IRA goes to your spouse who might choose to shut out your kids.
Click to expand...
Yea IRAs are not part of your estate, they're separate with a bunch of their own rules.

If you have kids, have a Will. Period. Having buried both parents, neither of which had, well, anything planned, it's a real burden on your kids, at a terrible time in their lives. Especially if the loss is sudden.
 
berth said:
If you have kids, have a Will. Period. Having buried both parents, neither of which had, well, anything planned, it's a real burden on your kids, at a terrible time in their lives. Especially if the loss is sudden.
Click to expand...

:thumbup
 
GAJ said:
Yes, I should have been clearer.

BTW, this doesn't apply to me but it most CERTAINLY does to anyone who is on a second or third marriage with both having their own kids like my friend does.

If you want to ensure that your IRA goes to your kids should you die before you pass away you need to change your beneficiary in your IRA as not doing so, despite what your Will might say, means that your IRA goes to your spouse who might choose to shut out your kids.

IRA has to be taken by the beneficiaries like your kids over 10 years.

My friend's wife falls under "might cut out his kids" which is sad and pathetic.
Click to expand...

" . . .should you die before you pass away. . . " er, good trick. Just how is that done?
 
berth said:
Well, just to clarify, the insurance only covers the structure, right? Most value today is in the land.

Which made me wonder what happened to those poor people around Ventura a few years ago when the hill they were on just Moved and simply made their houses and property vanish. (Well I guess they still owned the "once flat now hill shaped" property.)


Yea IRAs are not part of your estate, they're separate with a bunch of their own rules.

If you have kids, have a Will. Period. Having buried both parents, neither of which had, well, anything planned, it's a real burden on your kids, at a terrible time in their lives. Especially if the loss is sudden.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. My lot is worth $180k, my house $500k
 
I retired in Jan last year at 58½. I could have retired at 56 but I was in the middle of a 3yr term. I could have worked another 3yr term which would have netted another $1k to my monthly retirement, $55k to my 401 and $12k to my HSA, not to mention other retirement benefits I was entitled to.

I couldn't be happier with my decision. That being said, I did return to teaching 2 nights a week to keep my hand in the trade. Frankly, the $$ was secondary, the prime motivation for returning was to maintain a connection with the career I had for 30yrs. But I was lucky enough (or smart enough) to be employed by union companies, which meant retirement, 401a&k and HSA contributions were simple & automatic.

You've got to be financially prudent, but mental & physical health must be part of the equation.
 
HeatXfer said:
I retired in Jan last year at 58½. I could have retired at 56 but I was in the middle of a 3yr term. I could have worked another 3yr term which would have netted another $1k to my monthly retirement, $55k to my 401 and $12k to my HSA, not to mention other retirement benefits I was entitled to.

I couldn't be happier with my decision. That being said, I did return to teaching 2 nights a week to keep my hand in the trade. Frankly, the $$ was secondary, the prime motivation for returning was to maintain a connection with the career I had for 30yrs. But I was lucky enough (or smart enough) to be employed by union companies, which meant retirement, 401a&k and HSA contributions were simple & automatic.

You've got to be financially prudent, but mental & physical health must be part of the equation.
Click to expand...

Congratulations. :thumbup
 
HeatXfer said:
I retired in Jan last year at 58½. I could have retired at 56 but I was in the middle of a 3yr term. I could have worked another 3yr term which would have netted another $1k to my monthly retirement, $55k to my 401 and $12k to my HSA, not to mention other retirement benefits I was entitled to.

I couldn't be happier with my decision.
Click to expand...

Congratulations you are a wise man. :cool :afm199
 
afm199 said:
Not necessarily. My lot is worth $180k, my house $500k
Click to expand...

Do you mean your house would sell for the combined value of $680K?

I don't think it would cost $500K to rebuild your house. Wouldn't it be closer to maybe $350K to rebuild?
 
bojangle said:
Do you mean your house would sell for the combined value of $680K?

I don't think it would cost $500K to rebuild your house. Wouldn't it be closer to maybe $350K to rebuild?
Click to expand...

Probably more like $400k, so yeah, the land would be worth $280k or so.

Construction is so expensive in the Bay Area. Thirty years ago, $400 a square foot was pretty high end, and $1000 a square was really high end. Today in SF/Oakland it can cost $400k a square for moderate housing. It's probably half again as much as in other parts of California and twice as much as the rest of the US. My pissy little bungalow is worth enough to buy me ten acres and a McMansion in North Carolina.
 
Last edited:
HappyHighwayman said:
Once I get the earthquake insurance I practically want the house to be leveled. ;)
Click to expand...

a) how much is your deductible? unlike homeowners insurance, it’s usually a percentage (which can be stupid expensive for a total loss).
b) if your home is completely destroyed, it is not unlikely there will be damage to the land it sits on (not covered).
c) in an earthquake that bad, in this area, the total loss of your home may be the least of your worries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top