How can we determine how much income our savings could generate if we purchase an annuity?
Annuity calculation formulas can be found here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annuity_(finance_theory). In addition, as suggested in the comments, there are many sites that have calculators. Having said that, a simple financial mechanism that is followed by many is to invest a portion of the fund in regular income instruments, for example Govt. or corporate bonds that pay a regular coupon/interest and some in diversified instruments like gold, stock etc. The exact proportion is dependent on may factors, like mortality, inflation, lifestyle, health care requirements, other expenses. The regular income provides the day to day expenses on a monthly/yearly basis, while the other instruments hedge against inflation and provide growth. "Note that it isn't always clear that ""turning it all into an annuity"" is the right answer. Annuities are essentially insurance policies -- you're paying them a share of your income to guarantee a specific payout. If you outlive the actuarial tables, that may be a win. If the market crashes, that may be a win. But I'm increasingly hearing the advice that staying in investments (albeit in a very conservative position) may pay better longer. There are tools which will do monte-carlo modelling based on what the market has done in the past. You give them  your estimate of how much in today's dollars would be needed to ""maintain your lifestyle"", and they'll tell you how much savings you need -- and what form you might want to keep those savings in -- to have good odds of being able to live entirely off the earnings and never touch the capital My employer makes such a tool available to us, and in fact Quicken has a simpler version built into it; it's nice that the two agree."
"A slower approach: keep any discussion of income out of it to begin with. Remaining within discretionary income Z, just go back to the charities your SO has proposed, and say that you would like to set up monthly donations. You would also like to donate a similar amount to charities of your choice. Say what bills your proposed contribution is less than. Once your SO has got used to the idea of charitable giving as a regular expenditure, and has got back the grateful charity newsletters and whatnot, then address the issue of how much you ""should"" give by comparison with income. Whenever you do consider income, your SO doesn't really seem to want anything to do with this. So I'd approach it as seeking agreement. Eric Lippert has a more long-term approach for seeking involvement. So, present the following information however seems best, probably with a pre-amble establishing that you both want to support charities, so the question is how much and how to get it done. ""We earn U. This means we are fortunate enough to be in the top V% of households. Our income breaks down as: This being the case, we can afford to be generous. I would like us to give to the charities that we each care about, to the extent of N. Charitable giving is important to me because ... The amount I suggest we give is less than what we spend annually on ..., and I chose that amount because ... "" Depending on the tax situation, you may then have to explain how N from gross income translates to an actual amount available to give to charity. Or charitable giving might be tax free. If the N you want is greater than Z-A then it might be wise to suggest a smaller amount, but ask that you both make a plan in increase it in a year or whatever. Similarly if N strikes your SO as a scarily large number then I would think the best thing to do is just reduce it so that at least you start somewhere. If Y is low or zero, and your SO suffers from anxiety about financial security, then increasing Y at the same time might be a good way to offset the fear of N. When stating income you might want to exclude any income from savings/investments. Although legally it's income your SO might see it psychologically as capital gains and hence touching it would endanger your savings/investment/pension returns. Even though it's all fungible." "&gt;We should be doing everything we can, as a country, to educate our citizens for these higher level jobs and promote entrepreneurship and growth of new industries to generate jobs. That is how we can get everyone employed.   Not everyone *can* be a computer programmer or a geneticist.  You're talking about ""dead weight"" from a basic income program or ""dead weight"" hiring.  Take your pick." "You're making $100k together per year: you're not in the donut hole, you're in the top 25% of all households, and the top 10% of non-family households (as yours would be).  To be blunt, you're not in the ""rely on assistance"" area: you're in the ""save up for your downpayment"" sector. My suggestion would be to figure out a way to save more than $200-$400 a month for now.  $100k gross income means you have about $8k net income per month; $2k for rent and other necessities means you have $6k per month that you can potentially save.  Even half of that - $3k per month - means you have $24000 saved by the end of this year, and $36000 on an annual basis. As far as marriage or domestic partnership - I wouldn't get into one based on whether it helps you afford a home.  It might be a good idea because it helps you handle some of the details arising when you have joint property, perhaps, but not solely for the financial aspect. And as far as how much home is realistic?  $250k is certainly realistic if you can save up enough for a good down payment.  Try to get to the 20-25% range.  If you're already halfway there, another year of renting won't kill you, and it will mean no PMI and much better rates.   Also consider a 15 year mortgage; we're in the same general income category as you and manage a 15 year on a $250k range house quite nicely.  It doesn't add all that much to your monthly payment amount, compared to what you'd expect - particularly since the monthly payment includes property taxes which won't increase based on the length of the mortgage. Now that we have actual numbers from the OP: So, without cutting anything, you have $2k yourself you can be saving.  (This assumes your rent number of $1345 is your portion of rent, and not the 100% amount.)  That's $24000 per year, just by yourself.  On top of that, you've got another $40k or so coming from your partner, at least some of which should be available as well if he/she is going to be co-owning?  But if not, at least you have about $2000 a month you can be saving.  You could also downsize the car, cut cable TV, downsize the phone, and have another $500 or so available - but it doesn't really look like you need to do that, given how much you have available now. I'd look at what you're doing with that ~$2000 per month right now, and see how you can free most of it up.  You haven't mentioned a few things like utilities, not sure if that's just forgetfulness or if your partner is paying them; so perhaps not all of it is available.  But - even $1000 a month is $12000 to add to the $20000 you have now, which makes a big dent in that down payment." FASFA financial aid formulas determine 'expected family contribution'.  For example my alma mater now has a 'list price of over $65k/year.  The average student today actually pays $42k/year after grants.  Students with rich parents pay more than that.  Students with poor parents pay less than that.  Lets say list prices for my kids colleges average $110k/year while they are in school.  If we 'only' make $200k then based on our income alone, EFC would start in the low $50ks per year.  If we have $1M saved in taxable accounts, 529s, rental properties, etc, then we also have to pay 5.64% of the value of those every year for the eight years my kids will be attending - an *extra* $56.4k/year every year for 8 years.  If that $1M is in assets that don't count such as retirement accounts and equity in primary residence, then it doesn't increase the price my kids are billed.  That's a pretty big incentive to put everything I can in home equity, Roth IRA, Spousal Roth IRA, traditional 401k, after-tax 401k, and HSA.  If I could afford to save more I'd switch from traditional to Roth 401k and pre-pay retirement taxes at a higher marginal rate rather than have the savings on the side subjected to the college wealth/income taxes which are effectively a much higher difference between the 25% (now) and 15% (later) federal tax brackets.  Profile and consensus formulas have slightly different percentages and count some home equity if you have an expensive house, but the general idea is the same. "I think your very long list of possible assumptions makes a tacit point of your own:  to state ""15%"" as a general value is bogus.  I think, in most cases, the ""15%"" is merely a popular meme.   To give any fixed number or percentage of income saved is insufficient without expanding things in the way you show.  Therefore, a formula, in which at least a handful of variables can be plugged into it, seems like the right approach.  (And this is what is being discussed here with the Monte Carlo method)." "I don't think you have your head in the right space - you seem to be thinking of these lifecycle funds like they're an annuity or a pension, but they're not. They're an investment. Specifically, they're a mutual fund that will invest in a collection of other mutual funds, which in turn invest in stock and bonds. Stocks go up, and stocks go down. Bonds go up, and bonds go down. How much you'll have in this fund next year is unknowable, much less 32 years from now. What you can know, is that saving regularly over the next 32 years and investing it in a reasonable, and diversified way in a tax sheltered account like that Roth will mean you have a nice chunk of change sitting there when you retire. The lifecycle funds exist to help you with that ""reasonable"" and ""diversified"" bit.They're meant to be one stop shopping for a retirement portfolio. They put your money into a diversified portfolio, then ""age"" the portfolio allocations over time to make it go from a high risk, (potentially) high reward allocation now to a lower risk, lower reward portfolio as you approach retirement. The idea is is that you want to shoot for making lots of money now, but when you're older, you want to focus more on keeping the money you have. Incidentally, kudos for getting into seriously saving for retirement when you're young. One of the biggest positive effects you can have on how much you retire with is simply time. The more time your money can sit there, the better. At 26, if you're putting away 10 percent into a Roth, you're doing just fine. If that 5k is more than 10 percent, you'll do better than fine. (That's a rule of thumb, but it's based on a lot of things I've read where people have gamed out various scenarios, as well as my own, cruder calculations I've done in the past)" The Trinity study looked at 'safe' withdrawal rates from retirement portfolios. They found it was safe to withdraw 4% of a portfolio consisting of stocks and bonds. I cannot immediately find exactly what specific investment allocations they used, but note that they found a portfolio consisting largely of stocks would allow for the withdrawal of 3% - 4% and still keep up with inflation. In this case, if you are able to fund $30,000, the study claims it would be safe to withdraw $900 - $1200 a year (that is, pay out as scholarships) while allowing the scholarship to grow sufficiently to cover inflation, and that this should work in perpetuity. My guess is that they invest such scholarship funds in a fairly aggressive portfolio. Most likely, they choose something along these lines: 70 - 80% stocks and 20 - 30% bonds. This is probably more risky than you'd want to take, but should give higher returns than a more conservative portfolio of perhaps 50 - 60% stocks, 40 - 50% bonds, over the long term. Just a regular, interest-bearing savings account isn't going to be enough. They almost never even keep up with inflation. Yes, if the stock market or the bond market takes a hit, the investment will suffer. But over the long term, it should more than recover the lost capital. Such scholarships care far more about the very long term and can weather a few years of bad returns. This is roughly similar to retirement planning. If you expect to be retired for, say, 10 years, you won't worry too much about pulling out your retirement funds. But it's quite possible to retire early (say, at 40) and plan for an infinite retirement. You just need a lot more money to do so. $3 million, invested appropriately, should allow you to pull out approximately $90,000 a year (adjusted upward for inflation) forever. I leave the specifics of how to come up with $3 million as an exercise for the reader. :) As an aside, there's a Memorial and Traffic Safety Fund which (kindly and gently) solicited a $10,000 donation after my wife was killed in a motor vehicle accident. That would have provided annual donations in her name, in perpetuity. This shows you don't need $30,000 to set up a scholarship or a fund. I chose to go another way, but it was an option I seriously considered. Edit: The Trinity study actually only looked at a 30 year withdrawal period. So long as the investment wasn't exhausted within 30 years, it was considered a success. The Trinity study has also been criticised when it comes to retirement. Nevertheless, there's some withdrawal rate at which point your investment is expected to last forever. It just may be slightly smaller than 3-4% per year. "The standard interpretation of ""can I afford to retire"" is ""can I live on just the income from my savings, never touching the principal."" To estimate that, you need to make reasonable guesses about the return you expect, the rate of inflation, your real costs -- remember to allow for medical emergencies, major house repairs, and the like when determining you average needs, not to mention taxes if this isn't all tax-sheltered! -- and then build in a safety factor. You said liquid assets, and that's correct; you don't want to be forced into a reverse mortgage by anything short of a disaster. An old rule of thumb was that -- properly invested -- you could expect about 4% real return after subtracting inflation. That may or may not still be correct, but it makes an easy starting point. If we take your number of $50k/year (today's dollars) and assume you've included all the tax and contingency amounts, that means your nest egg needs to be 50k/.04, or $1,250,000. (I'm figuring I need at least $1.8M liquid assets to retire.) The $1.5M you gave would, under this set of assumptions, allow drawing up to $60k/year, which gives you some hope that your holdings would mot just maintain themselves but grow, giving you additional buffer against emergencies later. Having said that: some folks have suggested that, given what the market is currently doing, it might be wiser to assume smaller average returns. Or you may make different assumptions about inflation, or want a larger emergency buffer. That's all judgement calls, based on your best guesses about the economy in general and your investments in particular.  A good financial advisor (not a broker) will have access to better tools for exploring this, using techniques like monte-carlo simulation to try to estimate both best and worst cases, and can thus give you a somewhat more reliable answer than this rule-of-thumb approach. But that's still probabilities, not promises. Another way to test it: Find out how much an insurance company would want as the price of an open-ended inflation-adjusted $50k-a-year annuity. Making these estimates is their business; if they can't make a good guess, nobody can. Admittedly they're also factoring the odds of your dying early into the mix, but on the other hand they're also planning on making a profit from the deal, so their number might be a reasonable one for ""self-insuring"" too. Or might not. Or you might decide that it's worth buying an annuity for part or all of this, paying them to absorb the risk. In the end, ""ya pays yer money and takes yer cherce."""