|
|
|
|
|
by firebones
3324 days ago
|
|
The point is that his surviving wife wouldn't have to scrape by on social security, and that he wouldn't have had to have burned through his entire nest egg even if he was buying a house, cars, and spending $100K/yr + 12 years of medical expenses and long-term care. But that's moot--the edit I made was because the $22M was based on a chronology problem in the original post. The ten year difference in retirement date from 1988 to 1998 is a much better explanation of the facts, and fits the OP's premise better. |
|