By which I mean: A house should not be a priority above funding your retirement
Look, I used to own a house. I miss it. I really miss having a garden -- especially the free and tasty raspberries and plums. But even after we pay off the debt, I refuse to sacrifice our retirement savings for a house.
And it seems like I may be one of the only ones who thinks this.
Over and over, I hear about houses. How people are saving up for one. How they're putting other items on hold.
Folks, they are nice, but they are not a necessity. Not even when you have kids. They are a luxury. In the midst of all these subprime loans, we seem to have forgotten that.
**People talk about how they are stretched thin so that they could afford a house. Well, then clearly you can't afford a house.**
People talk about how hard it was to find a place so that the kids could have separate bedrooms, so they ended up with a tiny house they don't like. Since when do kids have to have separate bedrooms?
(Yes, I understand puberty may eventually force this issue if you have a boy and a girl. But I don't think that's the main reason most folks decide their kids each need a bedroom.)
**People talk about how they have to put retirement savings on hold for awhile, so that they can get a house. Or they put money toward a down payment while they still have interest-bearing debt. Folks: Do some math and reassess your priorities.
First, you're losing money by keeping the interest-bearing debt -- at least, when you look at the savings rate for that down-payment account. I can sort of understand some people's rationalization about saving for an emergency fund while still paying down debt
. I get that, to an an extent.
But I cannot, for the life of me, understand why you'd continue to ding yourself for longer than was absolutely necessary. Don't forget: Your debt-to-credit ratio (and debt vs income) are taken into account when you apply for a loan. So you're making things harder on yourself -- as if the new, saner mortgage guidelines weren't enough of a hurdle for most people.
**Finally, people talk about putting retirement on hold to get a downpayment. Since when is it financially sound to put off future security for more immediate gratification?
Because "immediate gratification" is exactly what you're doing. I'm sorry if you folks don't want to hear it. But once again, a house is not a necessity. So ranking a luxury (house) over a necessity (retirement funds) is pretty much the antithesis of all PF advice.
Sure, back when house prices were going up, up, up -- and real estate was disappearing days after being listed -- PF experts advised us to make the leap. But that was then. How many experts are still saying you should make it a priority? And of those, how many are simply catering to what they know the audience wants? (You can only force so many unpleasant truths down people's throats. And if you're taking away their lattes, you may have to concede that a house is important.)
Just remember, you might own a house. But the house owns you, right back. It's the same reason that I don't want to get a car before we pay off our debt: Both create a new drain on your finances. (And now you can't even argue that houses will definitely appreciate, at least in the short-term.) There will be repair costs, property taxes, homeowner's insurance and all sorts of other unexpected liabilities.
And, when you're figuring out your maximum mortgage, can you guarantee that you'll remember to factor in the retirement contributions
you want to restart? I doubt I would. I'd figure out how to make it all work. Then I'd realize that I needed an extra couple hundred each month to go toward retirement. That'd pinch the budget even further.
This whole subject arose over on Sense to Save, when Kacie asked her readers what they thought about postponing retirement savings in order to save for a downpayment
. She was taking a page out of the oh-so-hallowed Dave Ramsey book. (Sorry to all the Ramsey followers for the sarcasm. He has some good ideas, but it scares me how blindly folks sometimes follow him.) He suggests that it makes sense to put it off -- though for no longer tahn 18-24 months.
To give props to Kacie, she and her husband will apparently take the middle road: Save for both. It won't get them to a house as quickly as they would like, but it also won't leave their retirement accounts destitute.
So why am I so violently against saving for a downpayment rather than retirement? Oh, where to begin...
First, if you put money in your 401(k), you do have the option of borrowing it for a downpayment at a later date. (Don't forget, this whole thing could also be avoided simply by contributing to a Roth IRA, which allows you to take any invested funds back out penalty-free.)Of course, this comes with caveats.
You want to be in a much more stable economy than we currently are. There are very strict repayment rules, and if you become unemployed (through your own volition or not) you are expected to pay it back pretty much immediately. Still, by putting money into your 401(k) you are keeping your housing option open, while still securing your future.
And, yes, I know that naysayers will insist that it's not that simple. You could put money in and your 401(k) could lose value. That's money you could have been putting in something secure like a savings account or CD. This is a valid point to consider. But also a valid point: If you invest carefully and/or conservatively, your stocks will be lower risk. And, technically, your "losses" are not real until you sell the stock. So if you buy shares, which lose value in the short-term, you still have the chance to make money in the long-term by holding on to them. History has shown that the market does inevitably rebound. While we may not see the heydays of the last decade or so, I feel confident that we will, in fact, see people make money on stocks again. (And not through short selling.)
Arguably, a dropping value does it make it harder to borrow from your 401(k), but then again dropping house price can be a huge problem as well, if circumstances change and you need to sell. Nothing right now is a certain investment.Speaking of selling your house
, what if circumstances force a move? And what if that move is to an area with substantially higher housing costs? Did you put off your retirement savings for nothing? Will you have to do it again to amass enough for another downpayment? How long are you willing to stave off investing in your future?
Finally, I have to use my favorite example from Deal With Your Debt by Liz Pulliam Weston:
A woman starts investing in retirement at age 22 and stops at age 32. Each of those years, she contributes $3,000. After this, she never puts in another dime.
Her twin, however, contributes starting at age 32 and continuing through age 62. She, too, contributes an annual $3,000.
At retirement, the first twin will have around $200,000 more in her retirement fund, despite having contributed 1/3 the amount of her late-to-the-game sister.
Naturally, this example is based on average returns that may no longer be applicable. But I do feel certain that the market will, in time, inch back up to something approaching bearable. (No pun intended.) And, either way, these twins would have withstood mostly the same market forces. So while the difference might be smaller in today's conditions, it would still exist and be notable.
I love this example because it truly drives home the fact that compound interest is completely undervalued by most Americans. I was certainly shocked to read this example. It seems so impossible that a 10 year head start (especially compared to an extra 2 decades' contributions) would lead to such a marked difference in funds.
So, given how powerful compound interest can be, I don't understand how anyone could rationalize saving for a house over paying into a retirement fund. You're getting what you want now, but at the expense of your future security.
I know no one wants to hear it, but here's the thing: A house is not a necessity. No matter how badly you want it; no matter how much it pains you not to have it. It is never a necessity. It is a wonderful luxury that I hope everyone gets to experience (with financially prudent saving). But it is simply not indispensable. Funds for retirement, however, are absolutely integral. Take it from someone who receives $883 each month from the government. In a city where 1 BR apartments are $700.
Even assuming phenomenal changes are made and Social Security stands for our retirement (and I know plenty of you doubt that will happen), could you live on $1,500 a month in retirement?
If you said yes, remember:
- Inflation for cost of living, but not necessarily reflected in SSA payments.
- Medicare coverage is not free. Part B (non-hospitalized medical care) is $96.40 a month.
- If you want better coverage, that will cost you, too.
- Want decent precription drug coverage (Part D)? More money.
- You still have the "donut hole" to worry about. Once your Part D coverage company has paid $2,700 (your deductible, oddly, is included in that amount, despite sometimes being more than $200) you are responsible for 100% of the costs for the next $4,350. Then, your coverage kicks in again -- at a higher rate than before. (Isn't that sweet?)
- You can get a supplemental plan that avoids the donut hole (technically called the coverage gap) but it'll cost you. Surprise, surprise.
Of course, if you're pretty broke, Medicaid will take pity on you and help you pay some of the premiums and will lower your co-pays. But that's only in specific cases.
Still think retirement can be put off for awhile?
Labels: 401(k), house, retirement