Skip to main content

Retirement Primer

When Retirement Savings Finally Got Real

Disclaimer & Personal Context (2025)

These notes reflect my personal thinking and understanding as of 2025 and are shared for educational and reflective purposes only—not as financial advice. I began saving for retirement at age 23 through a 401(k), but made the mistake of cashing it out when changing jobs, assuming I had plenty of time to restart. In hindsight, that was one of my worst financial decisions.

I opened a new 401(k) at 27 and made a second misstep by misunderstanding asset allocation. Instead of using a target-date fund, I self-managed and allocated roughly 40% to bonds and other lower-risk investments, which significantly reduced long-term growth. By age 30, after finally learning the fundamentals of retirement investing, I shifted fully into a target-date fund to better align with long-term equity returns, closer to historical S&P 500 performance of roughly 10% annually.

Looking back, I effectively lost seven of the most critical compounding years—ages 23 to 30. That realization reshaped my approach. Today, I’m maxing out my 401(k) and intentionally maintaining a higher-growth, higher-volatility allocation aligned with broad market indexes, recognizing that with decades remaining before age 67, time is still my greatest asset.

Table of Contents

  1. Types of Tax Advantaged Accounts
  2. Historical Contribution Limits (401(k) & IRAs)
  3. Benchmark Savings Goals by Age
  4. Average & Median 401(k) Balances
  5. Investment Funds
  6. Rule of 72
  7. Inflation’s Impact
  8. Average Life Expectancy
  9. Balancing Money & Life
  10. My Personal Retirement Journey
  11. Mega Backdoor Roth
  12. Medical Expenses (Medicare)

1. Types of Tax Advantaged Accounts

This isn't an exhaustive list as there are other types of retirement accounts and methods. This is just my personal list of what I understood are the more common types that most people will encounter. For me, I was introduced to retirement planning through a 401(k) and then the Roth IRA.

There are countless strategies on how to utilize these options and also in what sequence to stack them for maximizing benefit. While those are all good, the main point is to start saving and investing then worry about maximizing later; you can't maximize what you don't have.

The main thing to learn is the difference between Pre-Tax like a traditional 401k vs. After-Tax Roth-IRA.  There are many reasons to choose either, one reason are for those who anticipate a higher tax bracket later in their career and rather 'pay now' at their lower tax rate.  This is most useful for those utilizing a Mega Backdoor Roth strategy via a 401k.

Account Type 2025 Contribution Limit Tax Treatment RMD Rules Notes
401(k) $23,500 + catch-up ($7,500 age 50+; $11,250 age 60–63) Pre-tax (Traditional) or After-tax (Roth if offered) RMDs start at age 73 (with exceptions) Employer match doesn’t count toward your limit but does toward total contributions
Traditional IRA $7,000 + $1,000 catch-up Pre-tax (deductible depending on income) RMDs start at age 73 Lower limit but flexible investments
Roth IRA $7,000 + $1,000 catch-up After-tax, tax-free withdrawals No RMDs for original owner Income limits apply
403(b) $23,500 + same catch-ups as 401(k) Similar to 401(k) RMDs apply For nonprofits/education employers
SEP-IRA / SIMPLE IRA SEP: % of comp up to $73,000; SIMPLE: ~$16,500 Pre-tax RMDs apply For small business/self-employed

2. Historical Contribution Limits (401(k) & IRAs)

IRA's started in 1974 and while 401k's started in 1978 it was the 1980s when they formalized it into what we think of a 401k today.  Catch-up contributions began in 2002 which become available at age 50.

For 2026 they created a new higher catch-up limit for those 60-63 allowing $11,250.

For those with higher income limits starting 2026, catch-up contributions may have to be treated as Roth 401k and if it's not offered as an option, no catch-up contributions can be made. 

Year 401(k) Limit 401(k) Catch-Up (50+) IRA/Roth IRA Limit IRA/Roth Catch-Up
1975$1,500
1976$1,500
1977$1,500
1978$1,500
1979$1,500
1980$1,500
1981$2,000
1982$2,000
1983$2,000
1984$2,000
1985$2,000
1986$2,000
1987$7,000$2,000
1988$7,627$2,000
1989$7,979$2,000
1990$8,475$2,000
1991$8,728$2,000
1992$8,994$2,000
1993$9,240$2,000
1994$9,240$2,000
1995$9,240$2,000
1996$9,500$2,000
1997$9,500$2,000
1998$10,000$2,000
1999$10,000$2,000
2000$10,500$2,000
2001$10,500$2,000
2002$11,000$1,000$3,000$500
2003$12,000$2,000$3,000$500
2004$13,000$3,000$3,000$500
2005$14,000$4,000$4,000$500
2006$15,000$5,000$4,000$1,000
2007$15,500$5,000$4,000$1,000
2008$15,500$5,000$5,000$1,000
2009$16,500$5,500$5,000$1,000
2010$16,500$5,500$5,000$1,000
2011$16,500$5,500$5,000$1,000
2012$17,000$5,500$5,000$1,000
2013$17,500$5,500$5,500$1,000
2014$17,500$5,500$5,500$1,000
2015$18,000$6,000$5,500$1,000
2016$18,000$6,000$5,500$1,000
2017$18,000$6,000$5,500$1,000
2018$18,500$6,000$5,500$1,000
2019$19,000$6,000$6,000$1,000
2020$19,500$6,500$6,000$1,000
2021$19,500$6,500$6,000$1,000
2022$20,500$6,500$6,000$1,000
2023$22,500$7,500$6,500$1,000
2024$23,000$7,500$7,000$1,000
2025$23,500$7,500$7,000$1,000
2026$24,500$8,000$7,500$1,100

3. Benchmark Savings Goals by Age

Using an $80,000 annual salary as a reference point (roughly aligned with U.S. per-capita income of ~$76,000 in 2025), the commonly cited benchmark of 10× salary by age 67 translates to a target retirement balance of about $800,000.

Age Savings Target (× Salary) Target in $ ($80k)
30 $80,000
40 $240,000
50 $480,000
60 $640,000
67 10× $800,000

I’m not yet at the spending phase of retirement, and there are entire books dedicated to withdrawal strategies and longevity planning. For simplicity, assume you want to replace 85% of your final salary in retirement—about $68,000 per year.

Under the widely referenced 4% withdrawal rule, an $800,000 portfolio could generate roughly $32,000 annually. The remainder would be supplemented by Social Security. For someone earning around $80,000 over their career, estimated benefits at full retirement age (67) might reasonably fall in the $2,700–$3,500 per month range. Using a conservative midpoint of $3,000 per month, that’s about $36,000 per year.

Combined, this yields approximately $68,000 annually, or 85% of the original $80,000 salary—a level often considered sufficient to maintain a similar standard of living in retirement.

I’m not yet at the spending phase of retirement, and there are entire books dedicated to withdrawal strategies and longevity planning. For simplicity, assume you want to replace 85% of your final salary in retirement—about $68,000 per year.

Under the widely referenced 4% withdrawal rule, an $800,000 portfolio could generate roughly $32,000 annually. The remainder would be supplemented by Social Security. For someone earning around $80,000 over their career, estimated benefits at full retirement age (67) might reasonably fall in the $2,700–$3,500 per month range. Using a conservative midpoint of $3,000 per month, that’s about $36,000 per year.

Combined, this yields approximately $68,000 annually, or 85% of the original $80,000 salary—a level often considered sufficient to maintain a similar standard of living in retirement.

Income Source Monthly Income Annual Income Notes / Assumptions
401(k) / Retirement Savings $2,667 $32,000 4% withdrawal from $800,000
Social Security $3,000 $36,000 Based on lifetime $80,000 earnings
Total Retirement Income $5,667 $68,000 85% of final $80,000 salary

This table highlights an often-missed point: the 10× salary benchmark does not mean your portfolio alone replaces your income. It assumes Social Security does a significant portion of the work. Without it, the required savings jump dramatically.

At a 4% withdrawal rate:

  • $68,000/year would require $1.7M if fully self-funded
  • $80,000/year would require $2.0M.

4. Average & Median 401(k) Balances vs Per Capita GDP

Vanguard’s data makes one thing clear: most savers are far below commonly cited retirement benchmarks. While average balances may appear respectable, they reflect a relatively small group of high savers and long-tenured workers. The median balances—where half of participants fall below—tell a much more sobering story.

Across every age group, median 401(k) balances fall well short of benchmark targets expressed as multiples of income. This strongly suggests that the majority of workers cannot realistically expect to fund retirement through a 401(k) alone, even by the later stages of their careers.

Framing balances as a percentage of roughly $80,000 in per-capita GDP adds context. By mid-career, median balances are often closer to 1× annual income or less, rather than the 3×–6× benchmarks typically recommended for ages 40–50. Even near retirement, median balances hover around 1.2× income, far below the commonly cited 8×–10× targets.

The implication isn’t that the benchmarks are wrong—but that they assume consistent, long-term, high-rate saving that only a minority of households achieve. For most people, retirement security will depend on a combination of Social Security, personal savings, home equity, and continued flexibility around spending or work—not solely on a tax-advantaged account.

Age Group Avg 401(k) Median 401(k) % of GDP (~$80k)
Under 25 $6,899 $1,948 Avg ~9%; Median ~2%
25–34 $42,640 $16,255 Avg ~53%; Median ~20%
35–44 $103,552 $39,958 Avg ~130%; Median ~50%
45–54 $188,643 $67,796 Avg ~236%; Median ~85%
55–64 $271,320 $95,642 Avg ~339%; Median ~120%
65+ $299,442 $95,425 Avg ~374%; Median ~120%

5. Investment Funds

For long horizons, diversified, low-cost index funds or target-date funds often outperform sporadic stock picking.  Bonds / Cash while generally safer, the returns may lag behind inflation, meaning you are losing money.

Type What It Is Pros / Cons
Target-Date Fund A diversified portfolio that automatically shifts to lower risk as you near retirement Simple, hands-off
Index Funds (e.g., S&P 500) Broad market exposure Low cost, historically strong long-term returns
Active Stock Picking Selecting individual stocks Can outperform, but higher risk & time commitment
Bonds / Cash Fixed income / low volatility Stability & income, but lower growth

6. Rule of 72 & Compounding

The Rule of 72 is a simple way to estimate how long it takes an investment to double: divide 72 by your expected annual return.

  • Example: At a 10% annual return, money doubles approximately every 7 years.

  • Why it matters: Early contributions enjoy many doubling cycles over a lifetime, making even modest savings at a young age extremely powerful.

Personal Lesson: I effectively lost seven critical years of compounding (ages 23–30) due to cashing out my first 401(k) and suboptimal allocation. Consider the impact of a hypothetical $16,000 contribution at age 23 with 10% annual growth over 42 years:

Age Portfolio Value Doubling Cycles
23 $16k 0
30 $32k 1
37 $64k 2
44 $128k 3
51 $256k 4
58 $512k 5
65 $1,028k 6

This illustrates the exponential power of starting early: each doubling cycle magnifies the value, and missing even a few years early in your career can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars by retirement.

Starting early, even with small contributions, is far more impactful than starting late with large contributions.

7. Inflation’s Impact

At a 3% inflation rate, money’s purchasing power halves about every 24 years — meaning nominal balances must grow much faster just to keep pace with cost increases.

This is important to understand its impact on your investments as historical cash saving rates generally lagged behind or below inflation, similarly with higher quality bonds. Anytime your rate of return is equal or below inflation, you are actually losing money. View it as your bailing water out of a leaking boat. If the boat is leaking and taking on 3 gallons of water and you can only remove 2 gallons, eventually the boat sinks.

8. Average Life Expectancy

In the United States, average life expectancy at birth is about 76 years for men and 81 years for women. However, these figures include everyone from birth onward. 

For those who reach age 67, life expectancy is significantly higher—approximately 84 years for men and 87 years for women. This means that once you reach 67, you should plan for at least another 17 years of life to support financially.

Group Men (Years) Women (Years) Planning Implication
Life Expectancy at Birth 76 81 Includes entire population from birth
Life Expectancy at Age 67 84 87 Plan for ~17+ additional years

9. Balancing Money & Life

Retirement planning isn’t only about maximizing numbers. You are essentially exchange time today (saving, working) for more optional time later (financial freedom). But since life stages offer different experiences, spending every moment deferring life can undermine the very lifestyle you are saving for.

Ultimately, how much you are willing to sacrifice in your younger years is a deeply personal decision. There is no one-size-fits-all answer. Some experiences carry more weight for certain people than others, and a good plan acknowledges both financial security and the value of living well along the way.

For some the benchmark of 15% of gross wages is one rule of thumb; especially if you start this earlier in life.  Factoring many also participate in Social Security 12.4%, collectively you already could be putting away 27.4% of your gross income into retirement.

10. My Personal Retirement Journey

I understood investing at a basic level from a young age, but I didn’t really learn retirement planning until my first job introduced me to a traditional 401(k). I contributed up to the company match—free money—but made my most expensive mistake at 27 by cashing it out, thinking I had plenty of time to restart.

At my next job, I increased my contributions beyond the match but made another common error: misunderstanding target-date funds. I mixed my own conservative allocations with a target fund, not realizing the fund already handled diversification, which limited my growth.

By age 30, I realized I had wasted my first seven-year doubling. Since then, I’ve corrected course—maxing out my 401(k) and begun slowly increasing beyond that using a Mega Backdoor Roth, aiming for 5× by age 40, $1M by 45, and about $9.4M by 65.

That early mistake still matters. Missing the first doubling put every milestone about seven years behind. I could have reached $1M in my early 30s and nearly $20M by retirement. Inflation only sharpens the lesson: $9.4M at 65 may feel closer to $3.8M in today’s dollars. Starting early—even with small amounts—makes all the difference.

11. Mega Backdoor Roth

The Mega Backdoor Roth is an advanced retirement strategy that allows saving far beyond the standard 401(k) contribution limits. As of 2025, employee contributions to a 401(k) are capped at $23,500, but the total annual 401(k) limit—which includes employee contributions, employer match, and after-tax contributions—is $70,000.

Not all 401(k) plans support this strategy. For those with access, the Mega Backdoor Roth becomes especially valuable after maxing out normal 401(k) contributions and either fully funding a Roth IRA or exceeding Roth income limits.

The core idea is simple: once your regular pre-tax 401(k) and employer match are accounted for, any remaining space up to the $70,000 limit can be filled with after-tax contributions. Those after-tax dollars are then converted to Roth—where future growth becomes tax-free.

Example: 2025 Mega Backdoor Roth Contribution Breakdown

Contribution Type Tax Treatment Amount Counts Toward $70,000 Limit
Employee 401(k) Contribution Pre-tax $23,500 Yes
Employer Match Pre-tax $4,000 Yes
After-Tax 401(k) Contribution After-tax $42,500 Yes
Total 401(k) Contributions $70,000 Max Allowed

12. Medical Expenses (Medicare)

I won’t get too detailed into medical costs here, but this is an important area to understand as you approach retirement. The most common form of coverage for retirees is Medicare; however, it does not function like a typical employer-sponsored health plan. Notably, Medicare generally does not cover dental, vision, hearing care, or—most importantly—long-term care, which can become a major expense later in life.

It’s important to understand the various components of Medicare, including Parts A, B, C, and D, as well as optional Medigap coverage. You'll have to choose between 'Original Medicare' Part A and B, then add-on drug benefit Part D or go with Medicare Advantage 'Part C'.  Original Medicare offers greater access to more doctors, but is more expensive and most get Medigap to hedge future expenses.

Equally important is recognizing Medicare’s cost structure. Original Medicare does not have an annual out-of-pocket maximum, meaning costs can accumulate without supplemental coverage. In addition, long-term care expenses—such as assisted living or nursing home care—are largely excluded and require separate planning and can reach $100,000 per year.

Medicare PartWhat It IsDetails
AHospital InsuranceHospital care, short term nursing home, hospice and home health care.  This doesn't cover long-term care.
BMedical InsuranceDoctors, health care providers, outpatient care, medical equipment, wellness services.  There is no max limit on deductible.
CMedicare AdvantageAlternative to 'Original Medicare' from a private company.  It can provide more benefits like Dental, vision, hearing, etc.
DDrug coveragePrescription drugs.

Finally, Medicare premiums are income-based. Premiums for Parts B and D are determined by your Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) from prior years, and higher income levels can trigger IRMAA (Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amount) surcharges. For higher-income retirees, these surcharges can significantly increase monthly premiums, making income and tax planning an important part of managing healthcare costs in retirement.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sony MDR-ZX100 vs ZX-110 vs ZX-310 Series Headphones

Sony ZX Series Headphones Review: A Budget-Friendly Sound Choice If you’re on the hunt for budget-friendly headphones with decent quality, the Sony ZX Series is definitely worth considering. I happen to own several models from the lineup: ZX-100 ZX-110 ZX-310 Let’s dive into how they compare in terms of build quality, cost, specs, sound, and overall value. Build Quality: ZX-310 Takes the Lead The Sony ZX series headphones primarily feature a durable plastic construction. My ZX-100 has lasted over 2½ years, enduring countless tosses into my backpack and car without any issues. However, the lower-end ZX-100 and ZX-110 models have a significant downside: poor-quality earpads. Over time, these earpads disintegrate, leaving vinyl flakes that stick to your hair and ears. The ZX-310, on the other hand, comes with upgraded earpads that don’t suffer from this problem, making them a clear winner in the build department. Cost Comparison: ZX-100/110 Wins for Affordability While the ZX-310 model co...

Casio G-Shock 5600 vs 6900 vs 9000

G-Shock Preferences and Favorites After trying out several G-Shock models, I've developed a better sense of the specific features and design elements I appreciate most. While features are always a plus, my main priority is size . Here's how some of the models I've tried stack up. Size Preference: 5600 Series For overall size, the 5600 series stands out as a favorite due to its compact, comfortable form. It’s slim, lightweight, and fits well on my wrist without being too bulky. Although the 6900 series provides the benefit of a well-placed front illumination button, the 5600 remains the ideal size for everyday wear. Best Compromise: 9000 Mudman Series If I had to choose a balanced option between size, comfort, and functionality, the G9000 Mudman series would be it. The buttons are slightly tough to press, but the layout and form factor resonate with what I prefer in a G-Shock. Despite having different module versions (GLX, G, and DW), I find that these models offer the r...

Casio MTD 1010 the $30 Submariner Homage

Casio MTD-1010: The Best Budget Submariner Homage If you’re on the hunt for an affordable watch that channels the classic diver aesthetic of the Submariner, look no further than the Casio MTD-1010 . Priced at around $30 on eBay , this model offers incredible value for anyone who loves a good deal. Affordable Elegance The MTD-1010 strikes a balance between style and practicality. While it features a quartz movement , it captures the essence of the iconic Submariner without being a direct replica or knockoff. This watch embodies the classic diver look with its bold dial, rotating bezel, and luminous hands, making it a fantastic choice for both everyday wear and special occasions. Function Over Frills What sets the MTD-1010 apart is its straightforward functionality. Casio focuses on delivering a reliable timepiece that doesn't get bogged down by unnecessary high-end features. This approach ensures that the watch is both accessible and functional, making it ideal for those who appreci...