http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/06/pf/expert/...sion=2009100604

I don't think it's possibly to save too much, but like the article I agree you need to enjoy life now too and still save right for the future. I'm reading the book the Automatic millionaire so this is all still fresh in my mind.

You can definitely save too much for retirement and I've seen people doing it (not me though...)

You need to think about your own needs in retirement ... and once those are satisfied, you need to think about whatever person or cause you want to leave money to after death, or gift money to while still alive. IMHO, there's no virtue in dying with a big wad of money lying around that the government will simply grab half of.

Lots of people reach a point where they've already got abundantly enough money in their retirement plans for any reasonable retirement scenario, based on their retirement wants. If that person is still shoveling lots of money each month into their 401k, ignoring any other way to eventually transfer wealth to their kids, ignoring the effect of estate taxes and post-death income taxes (yes dead people have to pay taxes!) that can be a big mistake.

is there some rule of thumb or other way to assess this? between pre and post tax retirement vehicles we are putting about 6K away each month. I know that is a lot. Is it too much?

Good topic, I was wondering about this just today and just gave up on solving. The articles says the 24yr has plenty in his nest egg, but approx $13K elsewhere [lets assume for EF].

How to balance funding liquid EF vs. retirement is my dilemma. I dont think I am putting enough in either accounts.

How to pick which should be a priority and the rule of thumb on funding?

I've been struggling with this too. Part of me leans toward "over weighting" retirement since we did not start retirement savings until we were in our 30s.

Indeed.
I started at 28 [retirement age 67], but not enough is being put away according to my retirement forecast...then I look at my EF, not enough is being put there in case of immediate need or job lost...with a limit to what I can stash in these accounts vs. my current living expenses I am always bumping my head against this issue.

My budget is good, income is good [could always be better]...I know slow & steady wins the race, but how do I train to come out in 1st place?

Universal healthcare is coming, so most retirement models need to be tweaked. Maybe you are doing fine.

I think I'm in good shape for retirement. I work for Uncle Sam, will have a pension, and have been maxing out my TSP (Govt version of a 401k) since I started 15 years ago. I have a couple of accounts outside of that but they won't make me me rich. I'm not going to be living large in retirement, but I will be able to meet all of my needs and some of my wants.

I'm very much a live for today person. My mother keeled over suddenly at the ripe old age of 42 (I am 41) having not done much of what she wanted in life because she figured she could do it when her kids were grown. I feel so sorry that she never got to accomplish her very modest list of goals and that will not be me.

I also don't think it is my responsibility to leave a big old pot of money for my son. He'll get the house and whatever money we have left over.

I agree.
I also pondered this part of my financial portfolio [adding add'l life insurance, will, etc] and being single with no kids, making family members rich if I happen to pass before having a family of my own or finish paying off my debts just didnt merit adding cost to the bottomline. They can have what is in the bank accounts, retirement funds, life/accident insur which equals my mortgage so if they decide to keep my home it can be paid off with those proceeds. Its just having a enough financial support if I happen to live a long properus life that I can not square away.

Sharing tips & ideas would be great right about now.

Can really say I fully understand what the passing of that bill will mean, but will it take the cost of healthcare off my plate? Right now it is a paycheck deduction, will it move to be sort of a added tax instead?

No it will not take the cost of health care off your plate, though it's intended to force many who don't bother to have health care insurance to start having to buy it.

Not that I know much about the bill ... the Congressmen who vote on it don't know much about the bill since they won't have read it ... but if you already have a health care insurance benefit at work I don't believe you'll see any change -- unless to increase your taxes in some form or fashion to pay for the increased gov't spending.

It's not full-on government-provided socialized medicine; more a set of mandates and regulations on existing private suppliers and individuals, with some extra government spending to fill the cracks.

(At least for now!!)

Thanks for clearing that question up Kevin...should have figured the passing of this health bill wasnt intended to lighten anyone's load.

Anyone know how do other countries do it, do they just raise the taxes on it citizens to provide "free" healthcare?

Well wherever governments pay for health care (including here in the US of course for the 50% of US health care already paid for by government) taxes certainly pay for it. So of course it's never free This and other social spending is a big reason for Euro-style VAT taxes in addition to the income taxes.

Not sure how those other countries got where they now are ... if there was some abrupt point where they suddenly instituted government programs and simultaneously raised a tax so that there was a clear correlation. I'd guess it never quite happens that way, surely it's more of a creeping thing.

Also the situations elsewhere often are more complex than we tend to think. Some countries have socialized medicine, some have private medicine with a single (government) payer, some have private insurance instead of or as an alternative to gov't insurance. UK is an example of place where healthcare is similar to our public schools ... everyone pays taxes to support it and is entitled to the National Healthcare System, but many view it as so mediocre that people who can afford to ALSO buy private insurance, and so rely on that and private facilities for their health care despite the taxes they pay for the NHS. Having been to UK many times and browsed job offerings posted in the windows of job-placement firms out of curiosity, I was interested to note jobs bragging of "health care insurance benefits".

Interesting. Thx for that insight.
To use your example...I survived public school just fine, so I would like to think healthcare ran the same way would do the job and all the doom & gloom is an overraction.

My retired parents do not have the same health insurance I have, I am clueless when it comes to this stuff as I have no health issues and probably take my private insurance for granted, but they use a combo of GHI and Medicare and they manage just fine when needing services both emergency & preventive care. If this healthcare bill is expanding that it doesnt seem like we are all doomed to disease & death. Just my .02 cents.

Well you might have misunderstood my analogy . The United Kingdom has a health system like the US's public/private educational system. But the US itself will not. It'll have something altogether different. Good or bad, I don't know, we'll see. Point is, for those of us who have jobs with health care benefits, I don't think there'll much change if any in the near term.

I got it Stinker.
I was making my own point, that having something similiar to the UK or expanded Medicare [which my parents are on] probably wouldnt be as horrible as ppl may think as others survive just fine.

Wish I had this problem. Sigh