Am in my late 50's. We don't have longterm disability insurance. It's a real gamble. My dad died young, was cared for at home by my mom--no real expense there. My mother just died this past November at age 85--she was at Thanksgiving dinner with us one night, and gone the next. Long term disability? Nope--she was still living independently in her own apartment. Now, note that in her 40's she had a number of health issues--anyone guessing would probably have figured that she'd either have died early, or have been disabled for a long time, and needed a lot of care in later years. Fact is, other than her regular check ups, visits to the podiatrist to care for her feet, and having her cataracts operated on, Mom hadn't had any serious medical treatment for over 20 years when she died. My father-in-law went very quickly, too--at age 82. He was still working as a plumber in November, spent a couple of months in the hospital, then died the beg. of February. I'm not saying you should or shouldn't get the insurance--only you can decide if it's right for you. But to my way of thinking, I don't see all that many people in my life who actually need longterm care. Most seem to either go quickly, or be able to manage their needs anyway. And the insurance companies are banking on the fact that their scare tactics will get lots of people to sign up--many who will never make a claim. For example, I've got an aunt who has had earthquake insurance for many years--no matter to her that we live in an area of the country that has never had a major earthquake in anyone living's memory. But they were more than happy to sell her a policy. I think she also has flood insurance--but she lives on the 6th floor of an apartment building. We also don't get floods of any size around here. That would have to be some departure from the norm for her to collect! And what about the safety of investing in an insurance company? What if the company goes out of business in years to come? Or waht if the funds are mismanaged or depleted by embezzlement. There is a huge scandal in the country right now regarding pre-paid funerals. People paid ahead to make sure their wishes would be taken care of, and many of the funeral homes have stolen those funds and families are having to come up with money to pay the cost of a funeral twice--the second time at a much higher price. Personally (and I'm not telling you what to do)--I prefer to save and control my own money. I'm not a fan of allowing others to take my funds--as in prepaid funerals, extra insurance, IRA's, etc. I do have one small SEP account, but only because I had a year where I needed some serious deductions, and that one was a reasonable way of keeping a few more of my own dollars. It's important to me to have the freedom to invest as I choose, and to move my money from here to there, depending upon what the economy is doing. I've just known too many people who have relied on others to nurture their savings, and lost everything. My sister is a case in point--worked for over 30 years for one company, was up in corporate management when the company was sold and dessimated by a larger one. She had a GOOD pension plan--but the funds were stolen by the new management, and when the company folded, she got a measely, one-time payout of $16,000!

Update on my advice above to actually visit the country(ies) you are thinking of moving to, and our friends' advice that establishing foreign bank accounts BEFORE moving was something they should have done to avoid six months' worth of delays: The IRS is cracking down hard on ALL foreign investments, whether real estate, investment accounts, checking/savings. The penalties are huge, and although you can try to wrangle them down, it is a fact that taxpayers with smaller balance accounts are proportionately paying LARGER penalty fees than multi-millionaires who are deliberately hiding assets. The WSJournal had an article on this issue June 2014, but as it's subscriber only, I'll just post some excerpts: Expatriate Americans Break Up With Uncle Sam to Escape Tax Rules Record Numbers Living Abroad Renounce U.S. Citizenship over IRS Reporting Requirements WSJournal June 2014 U.S. offices abroad reported that 1,001 U.S. citizens and green-card holders had renounced their allegiance in the first three months of the year, according to Andrew Mitchel, a lawyer in Centerbrook, Conn., who analyzes Treasury Department data. That figure puts 2014 on track to top last year's total of 2,999 renunciations, he said, which was the most since the government began disclosing the data. Helping boost the exodus, experts say, is a five-year-old U.S. campaign to hunt for undeclared accounts held by Americans abroad….The tax dragnet has also swept up many middle-income Americans living abroad, prompting some to give up their U.S. citizenship. While people who renounce are NOT freed of taxes due for past years, they don't want to risk sizable taxes and penalties for them and their children in the years ahead, experts say. Nearly 8,000 taxpayers have renounced U.S. citizenship in the past five years, Mr. Mitchel found, compared with fewer than 5,000 in the preceding decade. ….U.S. officials launched their campaign after Swiss banking giant UBS AG admitted in 2009 that it helped wealthy American taxpayers hide money overseas. To avoid criminal charges, the bank paid $780 million to the U.S. and turned over information on more than 4,400 accounts, ending decades of Swiss bank secrecy. In May, Credit Suisse Group pleaded guilty to similar charges and agreed to pay $2.6 billion. Dozens of other Swiss banks are currently negotiating penalties with the U.S. Department of Justice, officials said. Following the UBS revelations, U.S. officials announced they would begin vigorously enforcing both new and long-dormant tax rules. Unlike other developed nations, the U.S. government taxes citizens on income they earn anywhere in the world. … The most common mistakes usually involved Americans failing to submit a form called the Foreign Bank Account Report, or Fbar. Since 1970, U.S. taxpayers have been required to file if they held one or more foreign accounts totaling more than $10,000 over the course of a year. Until the enforcement push, many Americans never filed an Fbar. The law is more than 40 years old, but "no one ever heard of it" before the crackdown, said Edward Kleinbard, a former chief of staff on Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation, and an expert in international tax law at the University of Southern California. Fbar penalties are as steep as 50% of the highest value of the account for each year no report was filed. The IRS fined one taxpayer for Fbar violations in four separate years, and a settlement reached this month in the case yielded $1.7 million in penalties, which was more than the account held at the time. …The typical taxpayer with less than $45,000 in undeclared accounts paid nearly six times the back taxes owed, while the typical taxpayer with more than $7 million in such accounts paid closer to three times their back taxes, Nina Olson, the National Taxpayer Advocate, an IRS ombudsman, found. … Scrutiny of Americans abroad will intensify, however, under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or Fatca, which Congress passed in 2010. The law's main provisions, which take effect in July, will require foreign financial institutions to report income of their U.S. customers to the IRS, much as U.S. banks and brokers file 1099 forms. Middle-class Americans "face overwhelming problems when they try to engage in standard financial practices, such as having a small business, saving for retirement, investing, buying life insurance, and making wills and trusts," because of the laws governing assets abroad, said David Kuenzi, a financial planner with Thun Financial Advisors in Madison, Wis., who works with expatriates. The U.S. tax code, for example, doesn't recognize Australia's version of an individual retirement account, Mr. Kuenzi said. American taxpayers with these accounts must file at least two forms a year declaring the account a "foreign trust," and paying taxes on annual appreciation. The penalty for failing to file can be as much as 35% of both contributions and withdrawals each year, plus 5% of the assets, said Mr. Hodgen, the Pasadena tax lawyer. *********** Hope this info is of use to others.

I couldn't find my post, so I just rewrote it. HTH! ******** An RLT for a married couple who live in a community property state, has certain issues that need to be understood: (A) At the death of one spouse, the estate is now divided into equal halves. All assets are appraised and the value is split equally between the dead spouse and the living spouse. It doesn’t matter to the State or Feds how it’s split up, just that the asset totals be equal. Be sure your Trustee knows where to find the appropriate professionals to appraise the various types of assets your estate holds, whether investments, RE, collectibles, etc. The value is "as of the day of death", and the Trustee needs to have the paperwork stating the value - not what the deceased thought it was worth nor a verbal assessment. It needs to be in writing, even if a personal collection is being appraised by a fellow amateur hobbyist, as a “just in case” measure should there be any dispute about the Trust’s assets. (B) The deceased spouse's assets are now IRREVOCABLE. The Trust document administering these assets can only be changed by a fairly massive legal effort - every single person mentioned in the original RLT, whether primary or secondary or tertiary beneficiaries, must agree in writing to any desired legal change, however minor or major, and a judge must approve the amendment to the trust documents. Our estate attorney said that every time she has to go in front of a judge, it's a minimum of $3,000, even if it takes five minutes. The Trustee of the new Irrevocable Decedent's Trust is usually the surviving spouse and/or the Successor Trustee - but it is dependent upon the language of the original RLT. (C) The Survivor spouse now sets up a new RLT. Often, as my MIL did, one of the children is picked as the new co-Trustee. The Survivor has full control over ONLY the assets in their new RLT. The Survivor is always limited by the terms of the original RLT. (D) Some spouses, especially the 'old school' tradition of the husband taking care of everything, don't give the surviving spouse any authority over the new Decedent's (Irrevocable) Trust's assets. The standard "boilerplate" language in an RLT - remember that these trusts were originally for only the wealthy - states that the Survivor is entitled only to certain income from the Decedent's Trust assets. This is sometimes expressed as a set payment or percentage of the Trust's net worth. More commonly, it gives the Survivor only the "dividends and interest" off the principal, but disallows the Survivor from ever accessing the principal. This "locking up" of assets was intended to prevent a surviving spouse from draining the estate away from future generations (children and grandchildren). But for middle-class couples, it can mean that the Survivor is no longer entitled to access a great majority of what were, before death, jointly held assets. In order for a Survivor to have full control over all assets in the Decedent's Trust, the original RLT has to specifically state that this is allowed. Even our estate attorney was somewhat surprised when we insisted upon placing such language into our RLT. It's more common to limit Survivor access to reimbursement only for "health, maintenance, and education expenses".

Hi cheery one, I'm pleased that you're happy with the "pro"s of your retirement. And somewhat sad that you're feeling that you're not keeping up to the mark of what you'd hoped/planned to do. If you feel the need to beat yourself over the back about that - make sure it's with a wet noodle ... and only five strokes, O.K? As for the "average" retiree, I don't feel that I have too much of a handle on that ... and wonder what level of expertise you may claim in that department? I think that it's important to do things that we can be pleased with ourselves for having done, at the end of the day ... week ... month ... year. Something that I note to have been scarcely mentioned in this thread so far is the need that all of us retirees have to concern ourselves about (as well as people in the workforce) is the erosion of the value of our income (and, for us retirees, our assets) due to inflation, every year for about the last 80. There hasn't been much increase in incomes in recent years, except for the wealthy few ... but the prices keep going up ... and for most of us, those prices of much of the goods and services that we buy have been and are going up faster than the official rate of inflation. When we put money in the bank, or buy bonds, etc. which pay us the same number of dollars after several years that we gave them in the first place, apart from the "rent" on the money, it isn't only taxes and living expenses that much come out of the earnings ("rent on the money"), but an allowance for inflation, as well, in order to keep the purchasing power of those assets equal in ten years to what it is now. Good wishes to you for dealing well with the days ahead: may they be as many as please you, with good health, friends, enough bucks to meet your needs, things to do and a few challenges, here and there. ole joyfuelled