Automatically saving a percentage of your salary can be one of the easiest ways to fund your retirement.

But figuring out how much your contributions will equal in the future can be confusing. If your plan is to get to $1 million, starting younger will go a long way toward keeping the process manageable.

As a rule of thumb, most financial advisors suggest you save 10% to 15% of your annual salary. Saving less is likely to leave you with regrets, while going too much higher than that can put a strain on your budget.

Personal finance website NerdWallet crunched the numbers, and we can tell you exactly how much of your $50,000 you'll need to tuck away to get there.

Just a few things to remember: These numbers assume you have no money in your retirement plan, that you will get a 6% return on your investments and that you will retire at age 65.

The math also does not account for potential pay increases, employer matches, inflation or any curveballs life may throw at you. So plan accordingly.

Now let's dive into the figures. Watch this video to find out how to make it happen.

More from Invest in You: How Walmart and other big companies are trying to recruit more teenage employees Americans are more in debt than ever and experts say 'money disorders' may be to blame How much money do you need to retire? Start with $1.7 million

Disclosure: NBCUniversal and Comcast Ventures are investors in Acorns.

Go here to read the rest:
How much you'll need to save per month to retire with $1 million on a $50,000 salary, broken down by age - CNBC

Less than two weeks into the 2019 NFL season, Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger suffered the most devastating injury of his career. Just before halftime of a game against the Seahawks, Big Ben tore three tendons "off the bone" while trying to throw a pass.

Not only did the injury end Roethlisberger's season, but there was also some speculation that it might end his career. The idea that Big Ben's career might be over after 16 seasons basically boiled down to two things: First, he suffered a devastating injury that no quarterback has ever had to recover from, and two, the Steelers quarterback is 38 years old, which is an age when nearly every NFL player not named Tom Brady sees their productivity come to a screeching halt.

Roethlisberger's wife, Ashley, knew it is was going to be tough for her husband to return to football, so one of the first things she did after the injury was to let him know that it was OK if he wanted to retire.

"I told him that I was only going to say this one time," Ashley said, via ESPN.com. "I wanted him to hear me and mark my words, not going to bring it up again, but if he felt content where he was with the career that he's had and it's on his heart to just be done, I would support him 100% in that. He doesn't have to worry about my feelings in all that. I want what he wants. I was basically just handing him permission to retire if that's where his heart was and I was going to support him in that."

Ashley revealed the details of the conversation during episode oneof a YouTube docu-series the Roethlisbergers are doing together.

After hearing what his wife had to say, Big Ben made it clear that he had no plans to retire, despite the fact that he didn't yet know how difficult it was going to be to recover from the injury.

"He listened, and you could tell he really took it to heart and thought," Ashley said. "And he said, 'Thank you, but I don't feel done. I'm not done.'"

The reason Big Ben came back is that he wants to win a few more Super Bowls, which is something he explained in early August.

"I think any athlete, any competitor, will tell you they want to go out on their own terms," Roethlisberger said. "And it doesn't happen all the time. We don't always get that lucky I think if I had felt that I was closer to the end, it might have been a decision for me to think longer about coming back or not. But I didn't feel that I was close to that. I'm not saying that I have 10 years left in me, but I definitely feel that I have some really good years left in me. That was definitely a motivating factor; coming back and showing that I still have it in the tank. I still have a lot to give this team. I still have a lot to give the fans. And I still want to win Lombardis, and I say that with a plural on the end."

Roethlisberger has continuously said during training camp that he feels really good, but the fact of the matter is that he still hasn't taken any hits. Since there were no preseason games this year, that means Big Ben won't take his first hit until he gets on the field in Week 1 against the Giants. The Steelers opener is being played on Monday night, which means there will be a lot of curious eyes watching when Roethlisberger suits up to play his first game in nearly a year.

See the rest here:
Ben Roethlisberger's wife reveals details of retirement talk she had with Steelers QB after his ugly injury - CBS Sports

In its 2019 Stress in America survey, the American Psychological Association reported that 60% of American adults identified money as a significant source of stress in their lives. Aside from simply trying to make ends meet, saving money for retirement is often reported as folks primary money concern. In fact, only 45% of people feel confident that theyll be able to pay for their retirement dreams.

While financial experts stress starting to save for retirement early, and common wisdom dictates that individuals should be setting aside 10% to 15% of their yearly incomes as early as in their 20s, that doesnt always happen. A variety of factors like the recession, downturns in the stock market, and supporting adult children or elderly parents make it impossible for many to put money aside even though they know they should. As a result, the size of the average nest egg in 2019 was down 7.5% to 8% from 2018s average.

Retirees in the United States would need more than $1 million to retire at age 65. That amount of wealth is unattainable for many, and as a result, those reaching retirement age have started looking for other options. One such option? Retiring overseas. In 2019, it was reported that more than 500,000 people were receiving their retirement benefits overseas, an increase from the 400,000 receiving their benefits overseas in 2000.

In this article, Stacker looks at what it would be like to retire in 50 places around the world. Using independent sources, weve checked key components like the cost of living, safety, health care, ease of obtaining a visa, popular activities, and cultural similarities to give you an idea of what it would be like to start your third act somewhere new.

From sunny Costa Rica to glacial Iceland, read on to get a basic idea of what your golden years would look like spent outside the United States.

You may also like: Best boarding schools in America

See the rest here:
What retirement is like in 50 places around the world Stacker Money - MSN Money

Paying to much in taxes in retirement is for the dogs.

Assuming you still have some form of income, tax planning does not end once you retire. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will always expect you to pay taxes on your retirement income. For those who are well prepared to maintain their standard of living in retirement, many find their tax bills are similar to when they were working full time. Some of you may even find you are paying more in taxes; this is common for retiring business owners.

As the saying goes, nothing is certain except death and taxes. How can you make the most of your retirement investments and keep more of your hard-earned retirement income from getting sucked up by taxes? First, take the time to do the necessary tax planning to avoid the following retirement income tax mistakes that can drastically reduce your financial security as you age.Making tax-smart moves can help you get the absolute maximum enjoyment from your retirement income. Ignoring these retirement tax mistakes could lead to both paying more in taxes and running out of money earlier than necessary.

The Six Retirement Tax Planning Mistakes That Could Kill Financial Security

Tax Planning can help your have a happier retirement.

Retirement Tax Mistake #1:Assuming Your Taxes Will Be Lower in Retirement

Even if they were able to live tax-free, most Americans are not prepared financially to maintain their standard of living in retirement. Still, many assume their taxes will be lower once they leave the workforce. Those who do end up paying fewer taxes in retirement often do so by simply having a smaller retirement income, which is not likely the dream retirement.

After suffering through nearly four years of the Trump Presidency, we are in the midst of a global pandemic, and the national debt has skyrocketed. Tens of millions of Americans are out of work. Thousands of baby-boomers are reaching retirement age, leaving the workforce, and moving onto rolls of government programs like Social Security and Medicare. We have known for decades that changes will need to be made to keep these expensive government programs solvent. It is hard to see how that will happen without taxes being raised at some point in the future. As a financial planner, I know that cutting benefits would be untenable, politically, and devastating for the millions of retirees who rely on Social Security to meet their basic needs.

On a brighter note,Americans have saved trillions of dollars into tax-deferred retirement accounts like a 401(k) or IRA.Keep in mind that taxes will be due once funds are withdrawn from those accounts. If tax rates increase, you may have similar, or even higher, tax bills in retirement.

Have you ever heard of provisional income? Im guessing most of you said, No. Provisional income is what the IRS uses to determine whether or not yourSocial Security benefitswill be taxed. Yes, Social Security income can be subject to taxation from the IRS.

For those with distributions from retirement accounts like an IRA or 401(k), they count as part of your provisional income. These distributions are added to any 1099 forms you receive from your taxable investments and to one-half of your Social Security benefits for the year. If that income totals more than $34,000 for singles or $44,000 for a married couple, filing jointly, a whopping 85% of your Social Security benefits will become taxable at your highest marginal tax bracket.

Talk to your financial planner to determine whether you will be above those relatively small retirement-income numbers in retirement. There are a variety of ways to strategically minimize the taxes on your Social Security benefits. Lumping IRA withdrawals into one year and diversifying your retirement savings into taxable and non-taxable accounts are a couple of ways. Higher earners (above $200,000 per year) may want to check out theRich Person Roth IRA for even more tax-free income in retirement.

The contribution limit for a Roth IRA is just $6,000, per year, in 2020. For the average American, only saving that amount each year, and only having one type of retirement account, will most likely not be enough savings for retirement. Yes, you read that right. Solely contributing the maximum amount of $6,000 each year into a Roth IRA will not likely grow enough to help you achieve financial independence. Luckily, there is now a Roth 401(k) option with an annual $19,500 contribution limit.However, your employer has to offer this option as part of the employee benefits package.

Many of you reading this will likely make too much money to contribute to a Roth IRA. Married couples making more than $203,000, per year, in 2020 are not eligible to contribute to a Roth IRA at all.

Some of you might be asking, Why is ignoring a Roth IRA a problem? The reason is that having both a Roth IRA account and traditional IRA or 401(k) allows you to diversify some of your tax-rate risk in retirement. If you have a big-income year, or taxes are higher in one year, you can pull more money from the Roth (tax-free withdrawals) and less from the 401(k) (taxable withdrawal).

Retirement Tax Mistake #4:Ignoring Taxes All Together

Have you ever looked at a retirement calculator, or projection, and said, I could live off that amount of retirement income.? Perhaps you did not realize that the retirement income estimate was before taxes? This problem is easy to fix when you are years away from retirement. When you have already left the workforce, it will be much harder to make up the difference. It is essential to point out that for those with large retirement nest eggs, federal taxes can be as high as 37% (current tax rates for 2020).

Additionally, state taxes can also be high. Californias tax rate is 13.3%. States with lofty tax rates often cause people to ask themselves,Should I move from my high-tax state after I retire?

Retirement Tax Mistake #5:No Strategy to Minimize Taxes

For retirees relying solely on Social Security, there is not much tax planning needed. For everyone else with higher retirement incomes, a penny saved is a penny earned, as the saying goes. Be proactive with tax planning. That will help you keep more of your hard-earned money out of Uncle Sams hands. If you need a little push, contact aCertified Financial Plannerwho can help you develop a strategy to minimize taxes.

Retirement Tax Mistake #6: Taking Withdrawals from your retirement accounts in the Wrong Order

Throughout this article, we have been talking about putting off taxes as long as possible and how to minimize taxes in retirement. This often leads people to spend down their post-tax investment accounts first, in retirement. This can lead many to feel like they have more money than they do. Without taxes being due on withdrawals, you will take home more money from a post-tax investment account compared to IRA or 401(k) accounts.

You may see your net worth continues to grow even after withdrawals. That has been especially true over the last few years of the bull market. If that has been the case, you could be sitting on a tax time bomb. Once the post-tax money is gone, all your retirement income will be taxable (assuming funds are held in IRA or 401(k) accounts). You will have little to no options to minimize taxes once that happens.

While it is a bit more complicated, most people will benefit from taking some money from accounts like a 401(k) now. Yes, you would pay taxes when you withdraw the money, but the goal would be to minimize taxes over your entire retirement while paying as little as possible on each withdrawal.

Bottom line - Do not forget about taxes when planning for retirement. A little proactive tax planning will help you earn income in your golden years as efficiently as possible. Also, you want to pay the least amount of taxes as possible so you can keep as much of your hard-earned money as you can.

See the article here:
Tax Mistakes In 2020 That Could Ruin Your Retirement - Forbes

3. You've researched your healthcare costs

Healthcare is the one expense that tends to catch seniors off-guard. Though it's impossible to predict exactly what healthcare will amount to for you, Fidelity estimates that the average 65-year-old woman retiring today can expect to spend $155,000 on it throughout retirement, while the average 65-year-old male can expect to spend $140,000. If your health is terrific, you may find that healthcare costs you a bit less. If your health is poor, you might spend more. But either way, it pays to do your research so you understand how much money to allocate to taking care of your health.

It used to be the case that setting aside 10% of your income in an IRA or 401(k) would be enough to buy you a secure retirement. Not anyone. These days, you're better off socking away 15% to 20% of your earnings (or more) to help ensure that you're able to keep up with inflation and cover all of your eventual needs. If you're currently saving a smaller amount, percentage wise, then it may be time to look at your expenses and find ways to free up more cash for your nest egg.

The knowledge that you're on track for retirement could buy you the peace of mind so many older workers crave. If you don't think you're on track for retirement, take steps to change that so you don't want up disappointed once your time in the workforce eventually comes to a close.

Here is the original post:
Are You on Track for Retirement? Here's How to Know - Statesville Record & Landmark

The Trump administration is pushing dramatic changes to the American retirement system that will benefit Wall Street but push average citizens into plans that are riskier, less profitable, and loaded with high and hidden fees.

In the past two months, the Trumps Labor Department has introduced two pending changes to deregulate vulturous private equity firms and multi-trillion dollar retirement managers like Vanguard, Fidelity, and BlackRock. A third proposed change would restrict retirement investments with an underlying environmental, social, or governance mission mainly to boost the struggling fossil-fuel industry.

If finalized, the result will be death by a thousand cuts to Americans diminished retirement nest egg, amounting to an all-out Wall Street looting of American retirement.

Pushing this through is Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia son of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia who for many years was one of Wall Streets most prominent litigators, representing corporations like Chevron, Walmart, and Facebook, as well as over a dozen banks and financial firms during his tenure at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, a law firm with a robust corporate lobbying wing.

Secretary Scalia is still working for his former clients, said Barbara Roper, director of Investor Protection at the Consumer Federation of America. This is a multipronged attack on Americans retirement security.

How Wall Street Works Over Workers

For the millennials and zoomers in the crowd, perhaps a quick review of the basics of retirement is helpful. Retirement refers to a period toward the end of a human life during which ordinary people could use money theyd saved and invested combined with Social Security payments to stop working but still live comfortably.

This used to be considered a core part of the American dream. But for reasons having very much to do with the growth of the financial sector, austerity budgets eroding the welfare state, and the decline of union membership (and having absolutely nothing to do with avocado toast), retirement as a concept has become more of a goal than a guarantee.

There are a few things still working in our favor, however, including federal rules aimed at making sure we get the most out of the money we save for retirement. The 1974 Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) gives the Labor Department control over all areas of retirement investing including defined contribution plans like 401(k)s and defined benefit plans like union pensions.

Pensions are a retirement fund where employers guarantee a certain level of payout (a defined benefit) and agree to be on the hook for covering that payout, even if the pension funds investment returns cant cover it. Also, financial professionals manage pensions, thus reducing the likelihood of retirees being confused or swindled by complex financial arrangements. This even allows pensions to take on higher-risk products like private equity funds. But today, only 27.3 percentof retirees, shrinking with nationwide unionization rates, have a pension.

For everyone else, there is a 401(k), where workers and retirees pay in their defined contribution and then get payouts from it based on how well the investments perform. An employers human resources department usually provides the retiree with a menu of 401(k) investment options, but few HR managers are financial professionals so their menu is rarely curated to the workers wants or needs. Originally, 401(k)s were meant to supplement pensions, but today, only 6.8 percent of retirees have both types of plans, and Social Security, as intended.

The federal government, and the Labor Department in particular, have a big role making sure these plans work the way theyre intended, and in (at least in theory) preventing people from getting swindled by investment managers. One of the main guardrails aspiring retirees have is whats known as fiduciary duty, a rule that requires managers of both pensions and 401(k)s to provide the best possible service here, meaning the best quality investments for the lowest possible cost or face liability.

The fiduciary duty combined with workers being on the hook make the 401(k) sector a fertile breeding ground for high-stakes, multiparty lawsuits, where employers fight off accusations by workers and retirees of selecting low-performing and/or high-fee funds for their 401(k)s. An employer may negligently choose a retirement investment manager because they were the most readily available, or they didnt have the resources to find an optimal plan, or they were mistaken of a funds potential. Other times as was alleged against the Massachusetts Institute of Technologys retirement plan last year when the school received a $5 million donation from Fidelity Investments the employer might have an incentive for choosing a certain fund.

For many years, one of the most prominent employer-side litigators was Eugene Scalia himself. None of the prior secretaries of labor, either Democratic or Republican, have been people who have been on the firing line against workers and retirees, said plaintiffs attorney Jerome Schlichter, whose law firm pioneered retirement excessive-fee litigation. Schlichter directly butted heads with Scalia in an ongoing retirement fund suit right up until his secretarial appointment.

Andy Behar, CEO of As You Sow, a nonprofit that rates the financial sector for its ethical standards, said that Scalias three most recent DOL rulemakings suggest a personal vendetta. Hes couldnt win as an attorney, so hes changing the rules, Behar said.

The Private-Equity Exposure

One of the Trump administrations planned changes to retirement rules will open up 401(k) investments to high-risk, high-fee private equity funds. Its a major break with past practices, but it wasnt done through a formal rule process that would allow for scrutiny and public input.

Instead, in early June, the DOL sent a high-profile information letter to Pantheon Ventures, a private equity firm, codifying conditions, such as a 15 percent cap, for a 401(k) to invest in private equity. The letter formalized private equitys entry into the 401(k) marketplace, creating a blueprint for copycats and sending shockwaves throughout both sectors.

Private equity is a type of hedge fund comprising private investors who buy privately held, struggling companies in order to rehabilitate or liquidate them, collecting extremely high fees and enriching shareholders either way. Direct investments in private equity and other types of hedge funds are typically restricted to high-net-worth individuals or institutions. This is because high-net-worth individuals and large institutional investors have extra, discretionary money to handle private equitys huge risks, long-term illiquidity, astronomical fees, and capital calls, investor fundraisers demanded at the drop of a hat. In other words, high-net-worth individuals and huge institutional investors can afford to burn that money if the investment goes south.

The average retirement investor, however, has always been considered uniquely reliant on their savings, which is why ERISAs fiduciary duty requires a very conservative investment strategy. Considering private equitys many risks and costs, the government, until now, and 401(k) plaintiffs attorneys have largely opposed it in retirement plans.

According to Wally Okby, a senior analyst at Aite Group, the pool of available capital from high-net-worth investors for private equity has recently dried up. And considering the shrinking state of pensions, private equity is chomping at the bit to enter the $8.9 trillion 401(k) marketplace. Theyre looking for cash anywhere they can get it, Okby said. Therefore, they go to 401(k)s, where investors typically dont understand what theyre investing into.

In an ensuing press release, Secretary Scalia said the Pantheon letter helps level the playing field for ordinary investors. Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Jay Clayton also praised the letter as improving investor choice.

Investor advocates disagreed. The use of private equity in retirement plans is fraught with peril. It was a vehicle that was created for wealthy, sophisticated investors, not for average people, Schlichter said.

The letter is part of a broader private-equity lobbying, pressure campaign, and creation of complicated fund structures designed to prey on more of Americans hard-earned savings. Clayton and other lawmakers have made several moves to lower barriers for private fund access to Main Street investors. On July 28th, one senior SEC director at a conference openly solicited the financial-industry attendants on what SEC rules should be changed to open up working peoples money to hedge funds and private equity.

The letter also comes in light of a recent SEC warning that some retail fund managers have been receiving undisclosed kickbacks from private-equity investments.

The industry has supported the letter on the disputed belief that private-equity investments outperform the stock market at large. George Gerstein, an attorney for the financial industry and co-chief of fiduciary governance at Stradley Ronon, believes that increased private-equity exposure will increase performance of retirement plans, especially as a counterweight to other economic headwinds. But a recent study at Oxford University found that, after fees, top private-equity funds have performed no better for pension funds over 15 years than if the money were passively indexed to the stock market.

Further, private-equity disclosures lack any standard date or metrics, so its disclosed performance data is inherently misleading, Roper argued.

A 401(k) was designed to allow a worker to select different investments in the employer-provided menu to suite their wants and needs: shorter-term or longer-term growth funds, high or lower risk, smaller- or larger-sized company exposure. But in reality, workers overwhelmingly do not make any changes to their 401(k) investment lineup, Roper said. That means that even if private equity did disclose its risks, most people probably wouldnt change anything. Plus, any disclosure could be found on the 40th page of dense legalese. Maybe because the typical worker isnt a financial analyst, Roper understated.

Undoing the Fiduciary Duty

On June 29th, 2020, the Department of Labor unveiled its second major shift, a proposed update to the breadth and depth of the retirement professionals fiduciary duty money managers requirement to provide the best possible service or face liability.

The proposed rule would reduce the fiduciary duty to cover fewer transactions and parties, opening up enormous loopholes wherein a retirement professional has to uphold their fiduciary duty.

Shockingly, it would also allow any retirement professional to receive third-party payments for their recommendations, so long as they adhered to an undefined best interest standard and didnt materially mislead investors. This part of the rule is perhaps akin to a doctor being allowed to take kickbacks in exchange for prescribing certain pharmaceuticals. Scalia said his rule expanded investor choice.

Once again, investor advocates disagreed. [T]he proposal is designed to preserve financial firms ability to place their own interests ahead of their customers interests and profit unfairly at their expense, argued a public letter co-signed by several investor advocate groups.

That Scalia is the one proposing the rule is, to many, an inverted justice. When Scalia was a Wall Street attorney, in one of his most notorious cases, he led litigation for Wall Street groups in successfully overturning an Obama DOL rule that enhanced the scope of a financial professionals fiduciary duty to retirees.

Given Scalias role in the prior rulemaking, both Schlichter and Roper believe Scalias role in its replacement was conflicted, and that many believe he should have recused himself from fiduciary rulemaking. Gerstein disagreed with both assertions.

A spokesperson for the Department of Labor noted that Scalia sought advice from the DOLs career ethics attorneys, who also consulted the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, and they determined that neither relevant ethics rules nor the Trump administrations Ethics Pledge required his recusal from the rulemaking.

A Fossil-Fueled 401(k)

The investment world has recently been choosing to invest heavily in renewable energy, diverse workplaces, and companies with fair-labor practices. So-called environmental social governance (ESG) investing has become incredibly popular, with US SIF estimating that today one-quarter of all U.S. dollars invested have some form of an ESG mandate, an 18-fold increase between 1995 and 2018. Financial firms have been working doggedly to create new funds and products that meet customers growing demand.

And its popular not just because of some charitable spirit. Performance data shows that not only does ESG investing outperform traditional investments in a good economy, but it also loses less in a downturn, though there is some disagreement. Most ESG-sector growth has remained outside of retirement due to retirements need for perceived low-risk investments, but given ESGs growth, it was inevitable that it would eventually enter retirement investing.

Or at least, it was inevitable, until mid-June, when the DOL unveiled its third monumental retirement rule proposal, this time from authority from a Trump executive order promoting fossil fuels. The Labor Departments slash-and-burn rule will subject all ESG in retirement plans to the stigma of heightened scrutiny. While on its face, the rule clarifies what is already the law that retirement investments must meet fiduciary-level scrutiny it also forbids retirement plans from having investments that promote some non-pecuniary purpose, such as not destroying the planet, no matter retirees wishes.

Private employer-sponsored retirement plans are not vehicles for furthering social goals or policy objectives that are not in the financial interest of the plan, Scalia said in a press release.

The consensus in the financial sector is that this rule will have a chilling effect on ESG and benefit the Trump-allied fossil-fuel sector.

Basically the rule that they proposed is deeply internally conflicted. On the one hand, you have to make decisions on financial returns, and yet if you did that, youd have to exclude fossil fuels, Behar from As You Sow said. Why is the DOL saying that fiduciaries should steer clear of less risk, steer clear of outperformance?

Like the other regulatory shifts, the DOL is not acting alone. The SEC has scrutinized and criticized ESG, alongside the New York branch of the DOL and the White House itself. Despite this antagonism to ESG, European regulators, Democratic lawmakers, investor advocates, and even the investment industry itself support expanding and standardizing the ESG sector.

The ESG rule is just straight political, Roper said.

Foxes Guarding the Retirement Coop

Together, the Trump administrations plans contribute to a remaking of a retirement system that gives financial firms new opportunities to cash in at the expense of greater risk to workers, while making it harder for us to use our money to build the kind of world wed like to retire into.

The most perplexing aspect of these rules is their open contradictions. The Labor Departments justifications for the private equity letter and the standard of conduct rule were to expand investor choice. While the rule on environmentally and socially conscious investing effectively shuts out investor choice. The rules allow a retiree to choose a high-risk, high-fee investment, or to choose a retirement adviser who gets a kickback for their imprudent recommendations. But retirees may not choose an investment that promotes the idea that cutting carbon emissions or increasing diversity are in and of themselves good investments.

You could understand if they took alaissez faire approach to both. or if they took a restrictive approach to both, Roper said. This is about picking winners and losers. And the losers are going to be retirement savers.

They just dont like transparency; they want to put us in the most risky, nontransparent vehicles they can find, Behar said. I guess that kind of squares with this administration.

Discouragingly, the rules seem likely to go forward. The private-equity letter effectively lets the horse out of the barn. And while the two formal rules havent been finalized, theres little to stand in their way, as legal challenges seem unlikely after a related SEC decision was upheld in June.

In theory, individuals could sue their retirement-investment managers on a case-by-case basis if they felt the money was being mismanaged, but thats no substitute for a system that works to protect them in the first place something Scalia seems hell-bent on trying to dismantle.

Then again, Scalias only calling the shots so long as Trump is in the White House.

Read more:
Wall Street Is Looting the American Retirement System. The Trump Administration Is Helping - Rolling Stone

Retiring is a huge life event, and it isnt one that comes with many do-overs. You have to get it ... [+] right the first time.

Retiring is a huge life event, and it isnt one that comes with many do-overs. You have to get it right the first time.

Luckily, there are ways to prepare for retirementand even practice itto help ensure youre ready when the day comes.

What to do first

A few years before you plan to retire, have a practice run. If you have a retirement plan that gives you a clear picture of how much money youll have to live on annually, spend a full year to two years living only on that amount. If you dont, your first step is to meet with a financial advisor to get sense of your retirement income estimate.

If you can live comfortably on the decided amount, thats great. If not, its better to know that now rather than later, and its time to devise a plan to increase your future income.

Have a timeline for your decisions

Do you know when you must make certain retirement-related decisions? Do you even know what decisions youll need to make? Having a clear idea of these decisions and a timeline to make them will reduce your stress and make retirement a smoother event.

Pre-retirement decisions

Before you retire, youll need to determine if you have any debts that need to be refinanced. Its hard to refinance mortgages or other loans when you dont have demonstrable income, so do this long before you give notice at work.

Youll also need to decide how youll handle long-term care expenses and if you want to use long term care insurance for some of those potential costs. Applying for this insurance should ideally be done ten years prior to retiring, and three to five years before is basically the last chance for it to be affordable.

Retirement day decisions

Retiring likely means losing your employer-sponsored benefits, so youll need to make decisions about health insurance. If youre retiring at or after age 65, then you can seamlessly transition into Medicare. Make sure you remember to enroll in Medicare Part A 60 to 90 days before your 65th birthday whether youre planning to retire or not. For Part B, you can wait to enroll until after your retirement as long as youre at least 65 years old. You can learn more about Medicare in this episode of my podcast.

If youre retiring after age 63 , you can use COBRA provisions to continue your employer health plan for up to 18 months until youre eligible for Medicare. However, if youre retiring earlier than that, youll either need to join your spouses health plan or to use the health insurance exchange in your home state.

If youre one of the fortunate few people who will still be receiving a pension, youll need to decide how youd like to receive your benefit. You will likely be given the option to maximize your benefit as a single personmeaning it expires after your deathor a few options on how youd like a spouse to receive income from your pension should he or she outlive you.

Post-retirement decisions

Social Security is a very complex benefit, and timing your benefit claim is an important decision youll need to make. You and your spouse must determine whether to claim immediately at age 62 or to wait until full retirement age or even age 70 to begin receiving benefits. The decisions you and your spouse make can greatly impact how much money youre eligible to receive during your lifetimes and during a period of widowhood for either of you. While I could go on and on about this, Ill let those interested read more in this article I published on the topic.

Youll also want to review your current insurance coverages to see where you can save money. Since youre no longer commuting to work, you may be able to lower your car insurance premium. If youre paying for disability insurance, youll no longer need it and can let it expire. Lastly, if you have term life insurance, you may no longer need the extra death benefits and can consider discontinuing the coverage after claiming your Social Security and pension income.

The most important step

The most important thing to do before you retire is make sure you have a substantial nest egg youve built up over the years.

You dont know what the future will hold, and having access to capitalespecially funds not subject to market volatilityis vital to a successful retirement.

The lesson

Theres a lot to consider when youre thinking about retiring. Starting to make decisions and prepare for the life change early will help you be successful in your retirement.

Retirement is the one thing you cannot borrow money to accomplish, so make sure youre able to live off the income youll have. Returning to work out of necessity after youve started your retirement is not only the opposite of what youll want to do, but it can also be incredibly difficult to do so.

The rest is here:
How To Know If Youre Ready To Retire - Forbes

Pinned as the Dean of SEC Coaches for 43 years as the leader of LSU Gymnastics, D-D Breaux announced her retirement earlier this month amid the uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Many words can be used to describe Breaux and her impact on LSU through four-plus decades of service in Baton Rouge, but one feels mostappropriate: legend.

Widely-known as one of the most decorated coaches in collegiate gymnastics, recording more than 800 wins, producing 15 individual national titles and 44 SEC titles under her tutelage, her impact was felt far beyond the gym. Thats what made her a Louisiana icon, and much more than just a coach. She was an ambassador for LSU, and that role will remain firm post-retirement.

Her energy is contagious. Her smile is infectious. And that wont change a bit by stepping away. In fact, she has agreed to remain a key part of the LSU athletic department as a fund raiser and speaker.

Breauxs announcement does mean that co-head coach Jay Clark will take over as just the third head gymnastics coach in program history. For her, passing the torch to Clark is a decision she feels more than at peace with for the future of the nationally-recognized program she leaves behind.

Before our 2019 season, I asked that Jay Clark be named co-head coach in anticipation of this moment, Breaux said in a farewell letter. Jay is a great recruiter and his coaching philosophy is demanding and produces excellence. I have confidence in my decision because the torch is being passed on to Jay.

Deciding to retire during an unprecedented time in sports is no coincidence, either. While its true Breaux has thought about this day more frequently in recent years, the unpredictability that COVID-19 brings made it easier for her to ultimately pull the trigger. It just felt like the right time.

This silent but deadly pandemic we are facing will necessitate change in how we do everything, at least this next season, so I believe it is the best time to make a personal life decision, Breaux said. I have never walked away from a challenge; and not doing so now, I am moving forward with this one, just in a different role.

The interest in LSU Gymnastics as a whole has skyrocketed under Breaux. The environment inside the Pete Maravich Assembly Center for a gym meet is as lively and electric as any athletic event on campus, but that took time and effort to build. Low attendance and free tickets transformed into standing room only and sold-out crowds, all thanks to the unparalleled commitment and passion that Breaux brought every day.

You have filled the PMAC on many occasions and you helped us grow from double-digit season ticket holders to nearly 7,000 because of your love for LSU Gymnastics, Breaux said, speaking directly to LSU fans. Your faithfulness to our program and our amazing, young student-athletes will never go unnoticed.

While she never won that national championship most hoped she would, her rsum and list of accolades is as impressive as any in history. Named SEC Coach of the Year on nine separate occasions, Breauxs Tigers have finished in the top-10 nationally 31 of her 43 seasons. She was also inducted into the Louisiana Sports Hall of Fame in 2017.

LSU athletic director Scott Woodward, Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards and SEC commissioner Greg Sankey were just a handful of many public figures to come out and recognize Breaux on social media for her legendary career and the icon shes become.

"Coach D-D Breaux set a standard of excellence for her athletes on and off of the mat and her 43-year career with LSU is unparalleled, Edwards said. On behalf of the state and of all of us who had the pleasure of witnessing her talented teams take to the floor on Friday nights in a packed PMAC, I thank her for her tenacity, for her commitment to her gymnasts and the University and for her leadership in prioritizing academics and community service alongside athletic achievement. Coach Breaux is truly a legend, and we wish her well in the future."

Throughout her illustrious tenure as head coach of the Fighting Tigers, Breaux drilled three words into her players heads: Purpose, pride and passion. She personified all three.

Shes as passionate about her job as anyone on campus. She has incredible pride about how hard her team works. And, most importantly, her team comes into the gym with purpose every day.

We have mantras that [the team] says everyday, Breaux said. "The last one that we say is Win Today. Its just such an important part of the team culture. Theres a lot of emotions.

Read the original here:
D-D Breaux to remain active at LSU following retirement, legendary coaching career - The Reveille, LSU's student newspaper

Americans have traditionally saved for retirement through their employers, whether it was via traditional defined benefit pensions or todays more common 401(k) retirement accounts. But how is Americas employer-based retirement savings system faring? Some have grave doubts, but the data show clearly that, via employer-sponsored retirement plans, more Americans are saving more for retirement than ever before.

My friend and fellow Forbes contributor Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor of economics at the New School for Social Research in New York City, argues in a recent Forbes article that this relationship was always miscast. Prof. Ghilarducci writes that Retirement plan coverage situation has been falling for 20 years, even before the COVID 19 recession. Even when the economy was doing well at the end of 2019; only 36% of workers age 25-64 had a retirement plan at work (a fall in coverage rates from 41% in 2015.

Ghilarducci seemingly has the data to back up her claims: figures from the federal governments Current Population Survey indeed indicate that declining shares of U.S. workers are saving for retirement at work. According to CPS data, the share of U.S. workers participating in a retirement plan has dropped by nearly one-third since 1999.

But heres something that ordinary readers wouldnt consider but which retirement policy analysts are familiar with: the Current Population Survey data Prof. Ghilarducci relies on are almost certainly wrong. More reliable data sources tell a very different story on Americans retirement savings.

There are three basic ways to figure out how many Americans participate in a workplace retirement plan. We can simply ask people, as the Current Population Survey does. Or we can ask employers whether they offer their employees a retirement plan. The Bureau of Labor Statistics National Compensation Survey does that. Or, we can use tax data which indicate whether a given taxpayer participates in a retirement plan. The IRSs Statistics of Income data take this approach.

In theory, all these approaches should yield the same answer. But they dont. A 2011 Social Security Administration study compared how Americans answered a survey question asking about retirement plan participation versus what their tax returns showed. The SSA researchers concluded that the participation rate in [defined contribution] plans is about 11 percentage-points higher when using W-2 tax records rather than survey reports. The best explanation is simply that, when asked, people sometimes get the answer wrong.

And we dont need to look far for proof. Consider full-time state and local government employees, where the BLSs National Compensation Survey finds 99 percent retirement plan coverage and 90 percent participation. (Or, if you dont believe the NCS survey, see if you can find a state or local government that doesnt offer full-time employees a retirement plan.)

But only 71 percent of full-time state and local government employees tell the CPS theyre offered a retirement plan at work. And only 64 percent said they actually participate. The same holds for federal employees, 100 percent of whom are automatically enrolled in both a defined benefit and a defined contribution retirement plan. But only 63 percent of full-time federal workers tell the CPS theyre participating in a retirement plan. The Current Population Survey data simply arent credible on this front.

Retirement coverage and participation among full-time state and local government employees, 2019.

On top of these basic reporting errors, in 2014 the federal government redesigned the CPSs retirement plan questions. That survey redesign reduced reported retirement plan participation by about six percentage points in a single year, and since then the CPSs participation rate has fallen even further. The Employee Benefit Research Institute has repeatedly drawn attention to this issue, warning that relying on [the CPS] to understand trends in [retirement plan] coverage is dangerous and misleading at best.

So what do these other data sources show regarding retirement plan participation in the U.S.? Pretty much the opposite of what Prof. Ghilarducci claims. The chart below denotes Ghilarduccis Current Population Survey-based figures in blue, showing, as she notes, a decline in retirement plan participation among workers aged 25 to 64. The rapid decline beginning in 2014, which no one has explained other than by reference to the CPS survey redesign, is evident.

Percent of employees participating in employer-sponsored retirement plan.

The orange line running from 1999 through 2019 shows the employer-based National Compensation Surveys figures for all private sector employees (not, as in Ghilarduccis CPS-based figures, both public and private sector workers aged 25 to 64). The NCS data show a distinctly different pattern from Ghilarduccis figures: rather than a decline in participation from 2014 onward, retirement plan participation actually increases to the highest level on record!

The yellow line beginning in 2010 is NCS data on both public and private sector workers. Even in 2010 the NCS shows a participation rate of 55 percent, eight percentage points higher than Ghilarduccis figures. By 2019 the NCS data again shows record high retirement plan participation, with the NCSs 56 percent participation rate a full 20 percentage points higher than the CPS figures that Ghilarducci touts.

And then theres IRS data, shown in grey, which cover all taxpayers with wage income aged 25 to 64. The IRS data show that in 2017, 58 percent of workers aged 25 to 64 participated in a retirement plan, versus Ghilarduccis claimed rate of only 38 percent.

Even the CPS itself now contradicts Prof. Ghilarduccis argument: the CPS also asks individuals whether they received any income from a retirement account, such as interest on savings. As EBRIs Craig Copeland put it, if workers earned income in a retirement account, it is safe to assume that they had a retirement account, meaning they were participating in a retirement plan. By this approach, Copeland finds that 62 percent of full-time employees in 2018 participated in a retirement plan, a massive increase compared to the levels Ghilarducci reports.

Moreover, the 401(k) contribution limits are high enough that most married couples could save adequately even if only one spouse had access to a workplace plan. IRS data show that in 2017, 81.4 percent of two-earner households had at least one spouse contributing to a workplace retirement plan. If we assume that 90 percent of married couples with access to a plan had one or both spouses participate, this implies that 91 percent of married couples were offered at retirement plan at work. This isnt a massive coverage problem.

None of this is a trade secret. Researchers are well aware of how the CPSs figure are inconsistent with other data sources. Why would a researcher ignore what seems to be better data pointing to better outcomes?

Im not a mind-reader, but a comment in Prof. Ghilarduccis article may provide insights: We should have never expected dynamic, mostly nonunion, American employers to be reliable sponsors of what workers need. Regardless of whether this perspective is correct overall, in a specific case it can lead a person to believe data that supports their prior views and reject data that contradict it.

With open minds we can see a very different retirement landscape. Even as labor unions and traditional defined benefit pensions have declined, Americans are saving more than ever for retirement. Department of Labor data shows that contributions to private sector retirement plans rose from 5.8 percent of employee wages in 1975 when traditional pensions, usually in unionized industries, were at their peak to 9.6 percent of wages in 2017, a two-thirds increase in the amounts Americans are saving for retirement. Retirement savings rose both because 401(k)s are more widespread than traditional pensions ever were and because 401(k)s have two contributors both employer and employee while only employers contributed to defined benefit pensions.

Employer and Employee Contributions to Private Sector Retirement Plans, as Percent of Private ... [+] Industry Wages and Salaries.

Prof. Ghilarducci laments that employers arent contributing enough to their employees retirements: If every worker had an employer that contributed 3% of their salary in a retirement plan at work it would cost employers $192 billion a year. Right now employers spend only $73 billion per year for retirement contributions. In fact, data from the National Income and Product Account figures show that in 2019 private sector employers contributed $291 billion to retirement plans, equal to 3.1 percent of private sector wages and salaries.

The data are clear: Americans are saving more than ever before for retirement, and it came not from government edicts or labor union pressures, but by making retirement plans more readily available, less burdensome on employers and funded by both employers and employees. Americas private sector retirement system has never been stronger than it is today. We should be willing to follow the facts rather than our preconceptions.

The rest is here:
Follow The Facts: Employer-Based Retirement Savings Are Stronger Than Ever - Forbes

Michael B. Sauter, 24/7 Wall Street Published 7:00 a.m. ET Aug. 17, 2020

Its a great time to check up on your retirement plan. This is how you do it. Buzz60

One of the reasons that many Americans get up and go to work every day is to put some money away for retirement. While Social Security payments can be a helpful financial foundation in retirement, it is often not enough to cover anything but the most basic expenditures, especially in the uncertain financial times wrought by the coronavirus pandemic.

Based on average annual spending for American seniors and the national average life expectancy at age 65 of 19.4 years, the average American will spend about $987,000 from retirement age on. And those hoping for a more comfortable and financially secure retirement should plan on saving a little more.

Of course, both cost of living and life expectancy vary considerably by state and so, too, does the cost of retirement. Using the average annual spending of Americans 65 and older adjusted at the state level for cost of living and life expectancy 24/7 Wall St. calculated what it will cost to retire comfortably in each state. All data used in the ranking came from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, an independent global health research center at the University of Washington.

Investing for retirement?: From a diverse portfolio to automating investments, here are 5 tips to prepare

Retirement savers: Worried about stock market bubble? You might not have to do anything

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

One of the best ways to prepare financially is through retirement-specific accounts, such as IRAs or 401(k)s. These types of funds offer special tax benefits and often come with employer matches. Those who fail to save enough and take advantage of options like these or draw from them before they hit retirement age may have to work past age 65 in order to pay the bills. Here is what you can do if COVID-19 is threatening your retirement.

Just how much one needs to save to comfortably meet expected spending from age 65 on depends on a number of factors. Many who work in the public sector, for example, may benefit in retirement from regular pension payments, in addition to Social Security. The amount of these pension payments vary by state and employer. Even in some of the most expensive places to retire, state subsidies can help finance the cost of retirement. These are the states spending the most to fund their residents' retirement.

Alabama.(Photo: Sean Pavone / Getty Images)

1. Alabama

Est. total retirement spending: $894,461 (3rd least)

Avg. cost of living: 13.6% less than avg. (3rd lowest)

Avg. monthly homeownership cost for senior citizens: $357 (6th lowest)

Pop. 65 and older: 17.0% (18th highest)

In Alabama, residents need an average of about $894,000 to live out their retirement years in relative comfort below the national average of about $1.1 million. Retirees in Alabama need less retirement savings because of both lower average life expectancy and lower cost of living.

Life expectancy at age 65 in the state is 17.7 years, nearly two years below the national average. Additionally, goods and services are about 14% less expensive on average in Alabama than they are nationwide.

2. Alaska

Est. total retirement spending: $1,170,763 (13th most)

Avg. cost of living: +4.8% more than avg. (10th highest)

Avg. monthly homeownership cost for senior citizens: $504 (19th highest)

Pop. 65 and older: 11.9% (2nd lowest)

Retirees need to save an estimated average of nearly $1.2 million to live out their years in comfort in Alaska. The estimated need for retirement savings in the state is higher than in most states due in large part to the high cost of living in the state. Goods and services are 4.8% more expensive across Alaska on average than they are nationwide. Even without a mortgage, home ownership costs an average of $504 a month among the retirement age population, more than in all but a handful of states.

3. Arizona

Est. total retirement spending: $1,134,482 (18th most)

Avg. cost of living: 3.5% less than avg. (25th highest)

Avg. monthly homeownership cost for senior citizens: $410 (15th lowest)

Pop. 65 and older: 17.6% (11th highest)

With a warm climate and a relatively low cost of living, Arizona is an ideal state for many Americans to retire. Of the state's population, 17.6% of residents are 65 or older, compared to 16.0% of the total U.S. population.

The estimated average savings necessary for a comfortable retirement in Arizona is $1.1 million, more than in most states. This is due in large part to the high life expectancy in the state. Those who are 65 years old in Arizona are expected to live an additional 20 years on average, almost a year longer than the national average.

4. Arkansas

Est. total retirement spending: $893,051 (2nd least)

Avg. cost of living: 14.7% less than avg. (the lowest)

Avg. monthly homeownership cost for senior citizens: $355 (4th lowest)

Pop. 65 and older: 16.8% (22nd highest)

Arkansas is one of only 13 states where residents can retire and live comfortably while spending less than $1 million. This is due to the state's low cost of living and low life expectancy. Goods and services in Arkansas are 14.7% less expensive than they are nationwide, on average, and those who are 65 can expect to live to 82.9, on average, below the 84.4 year national average life expectancy at 65.

5. California

Est. total retirement spending: $1,397,174 (3rd most)

Avg. cost of living: +15.4% more than avg. (3rd highest)

Avg. monthly homeownership cost for senior citizens: $567 (11th highest)

Pop. 65 and older: 14.3% (6th lowest)

California has one of the highest costs of living of any state in the country as well as one of the highest life expectancies. Goods and services are 15.4% more expensive in California on average than they are nationwide, and average life expectancy at age 65 in the state is 85.7 years, nearly a year and a half longer than national average.

As a result, for a comfortable retirement in the state, residents would need an average of about $1.4 million in savings, more than in every other state apart from Hawaii and New York.

6. Colorado

Est. total retirement spending: $1,192,006 (11th most)

Avg. cost of living: +1.9% more than avg. (13th highest)

Avg. monthly homeownership cost for senior citizens: $459 (23rd lowest)

Pop. 65 and older: 14.2% (5th lowest)

The average Colorado retiree would need about $1.2 million in savings to live comfortably, which is higher than in 39 states. The relatively high cost of living in the state may help explain why so many Colorado senior citizens continue to work after the traditional retirement age. Among the state's senior households, 41.5% have wage earnings, compared to the national share of 38.0% of senior households.

7. Connecticut

Est. total retirement spending: $1,265,959 (6th most)

Avg. cost of living: +6.1% more than avg. (8th highest)

Avg. monthly homeownership cost for senior citizens: $870 (2nd highest)

Pop. 65 and older: 17.2% (15th highest)

Housing costs are high for senior citizens living in Connecticut. The average monthly cost of homeownership among the 65 and older population is $870 without a mortgage and $1,481 with the second and 13th highest costs, respectively, among states.

Partially as a result, retirement is more expensive in Connecticut than in most other states. Living comfortably for the 20.4 years Connecticut residents live, on average, after age 65, costs an estimated $1.3 million average, more than in all but five other states.

8. Delaware

Est. total retirement spending: $1,121,070 (19th most)

Avg. cost of living: 1.2% less than avg. (18th highest)

Avg. monthly homeownership cost for senior citizens: $451 (20th lowest)

Pop. 65 and older: 18.7% (6th highest)

For those who reach age 65 in Delaware, the average life expectancy is 84.4 years. Living out those years in relative comfort will cost an estimated $1.1 million on average roughly in line with the national average cost of retirement.

9. Florida

Est. total retirement spending: $1,194,451 (9th most)

Avg. cost of living: +0.6% more than avg. (15th highest)

Avg. monthly homeownership cost for senior citizens: $494 (21st highest)

Pop. 65 and older: 20.5% (2nd highest)

Florida's warm climate makes it an ideal location for many Americans to retire. In fact, more than one in every five residents of the Sunshine State are 65 or older, the second largest share of any state in the country. Residents who are 65 in the state are expected to live to an average of just over 85, about a year longer than the national average.

Due in part to the higher life expectancy, the estimated retirement costs in Florida are $1,194,451, greater than the $1,134,687 national average.

Coronavirus pandemic peak: Most states haven't hit the peak. Here's projected dates for every state

States reopening: Face masks, social distancing are among the rules as businesses reopen

Georgia.(Photo: SeanPavonePhoto / Getty Images)

10. Georgia

Est. total retirement spending: $1,006,303 (15th least)

Avg. cost of living: 7.0% less than avg. (24th lowest)

Avg. monthly homeownership cost for senior citizens: $400 (12th lowest)

Pop. 65 and older: 13.8% (4th lowest)

The average life expectancy for Georgia residents at age 65 is 83.5 years, about a year shy of the national average. Additionally, goods and services are 7.0% less expensive in Georgia than they are nationwide. As a result, the average estimated cost of a comfortable retirement in the state is just over $1 million slightly below the $1.1 million average nationwide.

11. Hawaii

Est. total retirement spending: $1,485,123 (the most)

Avg. cost of living: +18.1% more than avg. (the highest)

Avg. monthly homeownership cost for senior citizens: $518 (16th highest)

Pop. 65 and older: 18.4% (7th highest)

While Hawaii's warm climate may make it an ideal state for many Americans to retire in, it is also the most expensive state in the country in which to retire. Goods and services in Hawaii are 18.1% more expensive than they are nationwide, on average. Life expectancy at 65 is also longer than average in Hawaii. As a result, retirees in the state can expect to need about $1.5 million to live out their golden years in comfort, well above the $1.1 million national average.

12. Idaho

Est. total retirement spending: $1,049,585 (23rd least)

Avg. cost of living: 7.5% less than avg. (22nd lowest)

Avg. monthly homeownership cost for senior citizens: $364 (7th lowest)

Pop. 65 and older: 15.9% (20th lowest)

Those who retire in Idaho can expect to spend less to live comfortably than those who retire in most other states. Due in part to Idaho's lower than average cost of living particularly the state's low housing costs retirees will spend an estimated average of $1,049,585 to live comfortably. That is about $85,000 less than the national average, even though life expectancy at age 65 in Idaho is the same as it is nationwide.

13. Illinois

Est. total retirement spending: $1,118,865 (20th most)

Avg. cost of living: 1.9% less than avg. (19th highest)

Avg. monthly homeownership cost for senior citizens: $609 (9th highest)

Pop. 65 and older: 15.6% (12th lowest)

Retiring comfortably in Illinois today would require an estimated $1.1 million, in line with the national average. Though the overall cost of living across the state is less than average, housing costs are relatively high. The average monthly cost of homeownership for state residents of retirement age is $609 without a mortgage and $1,458 with a mortgage, ninth highest and 14th highest among states, respectively.

14. Indiana

Read the rest here:
Retirement living: Here's what it costs to retire comfortably in every state - USA TODAY