What is the minimum age for early retirement
You can withdraw from CPP as early as 60. However, by doing so, you will permanently reduce the payments. The reduction is calculated based on average life expectancies. If you live for an average amount of time, that means you'll receive approximately the same total amount (after inflation adjustments) whether you start pulling from CPP at 60, 65, or even delay your pension later. People may have pensions through systems other than CPP. This is often true for big business or government work. They may work differently. People who retire at 55 with a pension are not getting their pension through CPP. A person retiring at 55 would need to wait at least five years to draw from the CPP, and ten years before he or she was eligible for a full pension through CPP. Canada also offers Old Age Security (OAS). This is only available once you are 65 years old or older, though this is changing. Starting in 2023, this will gradually change to 67 years or older. See this page for more details. As always, it's worth pointing out that the CPP and OAS will almost certainly not cover your full retirement expenses and you will need supplementary funds.
easier access to your money That can be a disadvantage for some people. Based on the number of people who tap their 401K for non-retirement reasons, or just cash it in when they change jobs; making it painful to use before retirement age does keep some people from spending it too early. They need to be able to compartmentalize the funds in order to understand the difference between funds spending, saving and investing for retirement. Roth 401K One advantage that the 401K may have is  that you can in many plans invest the funds in a Roth 401K. This allows you to go beyond the Roth IRA limits. You are currently investing the maximum amount in your Roth IRA, so this could be a big advantage. At your age, I don't think its a bad idea to invest entirely in stocks. The concern with stocks is their volatility, and at 40+ years from retirement, volatility does not concern you. Just remember that if you ever want to call upon your 401(k) for anything other than retirement, such as a down payment on a home (which is a qualified distribution that is not subject to early distribution penalties), then you should reconsider your retirement allocations. I would not invest 100% into stocks if I knew I were going to buy a house in five years and needed that money for a down payment. If your truly saving strictly for a retirement that could occur forty years in the future, first good for you, and second, put it all in an index fund. An S&P index has a ridiculously low expense ratio, and with so many years away from retirement, it gives you an immense amount of flexibility to choose what to do with those funds as your retirement date approaches closer every year. he general advice I get is that the younger you are the more higher risk investments you should include in your portfolio. I will be frank. This is a rule of thumb given out by many lay people and low-level financial advisors, but not by true experts in finance.  It is little more than an old wive's tale and does not come from solid theory nor empirical work.  Finance theory says the following: the riskiness of your portfolio should (inversely) correspond to your risk aversion.  Period. It says nothing about your age.  Some people become more risk-averse as they get older, but not everyone.  In fact, for many people it probably makes sense to increase the riskiness of their portfolio as they age because the uncertainty about both wealth (social security, the value of your house, the value of your human capital) and costs (how many kids you will have, the rate of inflation, where you will live) go down as you age so your overall level of risk falls over time without a corresponding mechanical increase in risk aversion. In fact, if you start from the assumption that people's aversion is to not having enough money at retirement, you get the result that people should invest in relatively safe securities until the probability of not having enough to cover their minimum needs gets small, then they invest in highly risky securities with any money above this threshold. This latter result sounds reasonable in your case.  At this point it appears unlikely that you will be unable to meet your minimum needs--I'm assuming here that you are able to appreciate the warnings about underfunded pensions in other answers and still feel comfortable.  With any money above and beyond what you consider to be prudent preparation for retirement, you should hold a risky (but still fully diversified) portfolio.  Don't reduce the risk of that portion of your portfolio as you age unless you find your personal risk aversion increasing. "It's also not really anything new.   For a several decades, a huge percentage of the population has been essentially living paycheck-to-paycheck, and with essentially zero cash savings to cover emergencies.  It's possible that it is slightly worse now in the sense that -- with the pervasive use of credit &amp; debit cards, etc -- few people deal in cash or change very often ... and so they don't even have the old proverbial ""piggy banks"" (or jars/bottles filled with end-of-day pocket-change) that they can raid for $50 or $100.  *Oh, and THAT really has nothing to do with ""bubbles"".*  ---  EDIT: Plus another thought... just the other day there was an article crowing about how Millennials are ""saving for retirement"" in higher amounts and at earlier ages than prior generations -- if that is true, then a likely corollary would be that they are NOT engaged in plain old ""savings"" at the same rate -- i.e. what money they are ""stashing away"" is all heading to Wall Street, and is difficult to access in an emergency (and if they did access 401k savings, it would likely be as a ""loan"" -- rather than paying the early-withdrawal penalties &amp; taxes)." I am a firm believer in the idea of limiting debt as much as possible.  I would not recommend borrowing money for anything other than a reasonably sized mortgage.  As a result, my recommendations are going to be geared toward that goal. The top priorities for me, then, would be to make sure, first, that we don't have to go further into debt, and second, that we eliminate the debt that we already have as soon as possible. Here is how I would rate your list: A small emergency fund, perhaps $1000 USD, is going to ensure that, while you are funding other things, you don't end up so cash poor that, if something unexpected and urgent comes up, you are forced to add to your credit card debt.  Make this small fund your top priority, and it shouldn't take much more than a month or two to do it. Getting out of debt is important, but if your employer hands out free money, you have to take it.  It is just too good of a deal. Get rid of this debt as fast as possible.  When you are done, you'll have more income available to you than you've ever had before. Now that you have just gotten done eliminating your debt as fast as possible, don't stop there.  Take the income you had been throwing at your debt, and build up your emergency fund to a few months' worth of your expenses.  Finishing this fund up will enable you to withstand a small crisis without borrowing anything. You are now in a very strong position financially, and can confidently invest.  Deciding which type of retirement account is best for you depends on the details of your situation. Once you are contributing a healthy amount to your retirement funds, you may want to consider paying off your mortgage early. As I said before, I recommend getting down to the last step as quickly as possible.  Depending on how much debt you actually have, if you sacrifice for a year or two you could be debt free and in a position to keep all of your investment gains.  If you take your time paying off debt, like many people do, you could find yourself 10 years from now still making payments on your loans, still making car payments, and still needlessly sending interest to the banks, eating away at the gains you are making in your investments. If you aren't committed to eliminating your debt quickly, and plan on having payments for a long time, then skip this advice and put retirement savings at the top. There are three numbers that matter in that calculation: 1) How much do you expect per month from in pension/social security/or other retirement programs? 2) At what age will each of you retire? 3) How long will each of you live? 4) What will your annual expenses be when you retire? Unfortunately #3 is the most important of the three and the hardest to know with any certainty. Yes you can't simply withdraw your super until you are aged 60 (and that may go up slightly on Budget night 13/05/14). But you can roll it over into a SMSF where you decide where you invest your super funds. However, I would advise against you starting a SMSF at this early age with a very small super fund account. The Admin. and audit fees would eat your super account up in one year. It is recommended that you have at least $300,000 to $400,000 in super fund assets before starting a SMSF to make the fees competitive and efficient. Now if you are with a partner and start a SMSF together, then it is your combined funds that need to be over the $300K mark (a SMSF can have between 1 to 4 members). The cheapest fund I could find was First State Super. The fees are $52 + 0.64% per year (for the High Growth option). So for a balance of $1000 you would pay $58.40 or 5.84% per year. The High Growth Investment Option has returned 18.4% over the last year, 12.7% pa over the last 5 years, and 8.2% pa over the last 10 years (which includes the period covering the GFC). So even with a small balance of $1000 your super investment will still continue to grow. If you could slowly grow your super account to $2000 your fees would be $64.80 or 3.24%, and at $3000 balance your fees would be $71.20 or 2.37%. The great thing about super is the tax advantages. You may be complaining now about fees on a small balance, and yes you should try to minimise these fees, not only when you have a small balance but also when your balance is larger, but the tax advantages available through superannuation will really come into play when you are on a high income paying the tax at or near the highest marginal tax rate. Compare the top marginal tax rate (plus Medicare Levy) at 46.5% compared to the tax rate of 15% on super contributions and investment returns. And it gets better, when you retire and take a pension or lump sum from your super after age 60 you pay zero tax on the income stream or lump sum. and you also pay zero tax on any ongoing investment returns in your super. The benefits of superannuation are numerous, and the best way to reduce your fees for now is to find a fund with lowest fees, try to increase your balance so your percentage fees go down, and try to consolidate all your super funds into the one with the lowest fees, if you have more than one super fund. 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.