I found an old copy of a birth certificate, but you’d think a passport would be the gold standard.
@TiggerDad If you have pension income as a teacher in CA, then there will be an “offset” where basically some of your SS benefit is decreased by some fraction because of your pension. I understand that for the years when I was teaching public school, I was paying into CALPERS and not SS, so therefore not earning SS credit, but then other years, I had different jobs and paid into SS, so I still don’t quite get why I can’t get both those benefits in full. It would have worked better for me to have stayed only in one system or the other, I guess. But anyway, I think that is why the SS office wants that info. So they can calculate if some kind of deduction needs to be made for that.
https://www.calpers.ca.gov/page/employers/benefit…/social-security-and-medicare
Jun 6, 2018 - In 1983, Congress passed the WEP to prevent employees who received non-covered (no Social Security taxes paid) pensions from the “windfall” of receiving the higher Social Security benefit calculation typically used for longtime, low-wage earners. … Not all CalPERS members are impacted by the WEP.
Thanks for your helpful comments. I told the SSA guy over the phone that 1) my records of earning during those part-time work in a library was as a student, and 2) those records display my SS taxation with actual $ figures, and he has access those same data. So I don’t understand why he’s having me go through all this hassle? What am I missing here, if at all?
Just an aside: I am very amused that my 18 year old son opened a retirement account for himself this week. Talk about advance planning! I must say I was not thinking about saving for retirement when I was a freshman in college!
Baby kid has texted me that her personal Etrade pile is down 5% since she opened it… a few months ago. She owns cars, drugs, planes, and athletic clothing. Lol. I told her to shelve it and look at it in 30 years. 
In stock investing, you have to be able to endure 50% decrease in value and still function.
I would need 3 mill usd, aside from a nice house and cars all paid off, to retire completely. Ideally, it would be great to have 10 mill before retiring, but I have no desire to trade my health to make that amount of money.
Basically, I would feel comfortable generating $150k with $3 mill, and generating $500k with $10 mil.
A good article on RMDs:
I should also say that my attitude towards money was influenced by my observation that after certain amount, additional money does not increase your happiness level. I can speak from my experience because I met many rich and super rich people, and sometimes a boatload of money caused more or different types of problems. This is also the reason why I give just as much credit to kids from rich families who are motivated in academics and want to prove themselves in other ways. In short, kids from rich families have their own types of problems.
People often only associate poverty with lack of money, but there are rich people who grew up with poverty or lack of love or support from parents, and there are kids who grew up from poor families who are not disadvantaged at all because they had a wealth of love and support around them.
@websensation, I really have never answered the initial question and don’t have an analytically determined answer, but my inner target is $10 MM after tax. That is in fact higher than I need, because it includes my desire to be able to help my kids while I am still around. For example, I’d like to be able to help them with down payments on houses if they live (as seems likely) in expensive neighborhoods (Silicon Valley for one; Bay Area or Boston area for the other).
My parents never had that much, and I have organized it to make sure my mother will outlive her money (she is currently 94 and healthy) but my in-laws had significant assets. My MIL is still alive and in her mid-80s. I have encouraged her several times to gift some of her wealth to her kids – and especially the younger two whose incomes will always be lower than the older two because of their career choices – while it could still affect their key life decisions. She did help with college for all of the kids now of college age or beyond. I assume she is doing so for the younger ones, but don’t know. She has pledged to set aside a meaningful amount per grandkid for weddings held at the family farm (not really a farm but just a lovely property). Not clear if that goes away if she sells the farm or dies. If her kids receive a significant sum in their 60s or 70s, it probably won’t affect things that much (as they have to plan as if it won’t be there). In contrast, gifts now could make a significant difference, especially to those paying for college and preparing to pay for college. But, she is resistant to the idea (frankly, she is generally resistant to advice that isn’t consistent with what she already decided – didn’t Chris Christie say something about that yesterday?). Her current plans would probably give a boost to retirement income, but might largely benefit grandkids.
In the long run, I’d love to establish residence in a state with no estate tax – and I’d like to be resident in a state with no income tax. Massachusetts, where I am currently a resident, has 5.5% income tax but more importantly has an estate tax. I have a pretty sizable 401k plan that includes a rollover from a defined benefit plan. That would be in my estate for the purposes of estate tax. The Massachusetts exemption threshold is only $1 million, much less than the current federal estate taxes. But unlike the federal estate tax, which only taxes the excess over the threshold. In Massachusetts the threshold is a trigger. The majority of estate becomes taxable (starting at $40,000). While the tax rate is less than federal, starting at 0.8 percent and capping off 16 percent, (the federal rate is 40 percent), it is snaring lots of taxpayers at death. California (where we have spent some time and I love) has a whopping 13.3% income tax but no estate tax. If I could convince my wife to spend time in Florida in the winter or Wyoming in the summer, we might be able to become residents there instead, part-year residents with associated income tax liability in California, I guess, and visitors to Massachusetts.
@websensation, the research on happiness is consistent with your observation. I suspect that the threshold the researchers identify probably would be way too low for NY or SF, so the threshold should probably be location-dependent. In addition, my observation is that that higher levels of income (or wealth) above the threshold they identify actually provide security in the case of severe illness, injury, or job loss that probably isn’t accounted for in the study.
@shawbridge Agree with everything you say. I realized on some level you can’t fully protect yourself and loved ones from all potential harms with money or anything. At this point, money has to be viewed within context of your dwindling time on earth. If I think of all potential harms, of course I think additional money is always good. And I definitely want to leave whatever I can to my loved ones to make their lives easier.
I say live where you want. Don’t fret about an extra 16% state tax to heirs someday… it’s a windfall to them, and even a portion of a big chunk of money is still a big chunk of money.
The $3 million to $10 million numbers (beyond a paid for house) that people are mentioning here suggest that people may be accounting for the risk of having to self pay high medical costs based on the possibility that ACA will fail or be repealed (for those under 65 with pre existing conditions) and/or Medicare will be cut back due to huge and growing government budget deficits.
Come to WA! Our estate tax exemption is not huge ($2.3M or so), but there is no state gift tax and no state income tax (yet)… which means you can give it all away for free while you are still alive. And we border Canada and have multiple non-stop flights to SJC daily… Mr. did not mind to commute for a while. And we have houseboats… 
Did Oregon disappear recently?
It is a flyover country according to autocorrect B-)
@shawbridge How do you do that? If you establish residence in a state, you have to pay their income tax, don’t you? Can you establish residence in one state and reside in another?
You could reside in a state which has both no income tax and no estate tax.
Alaska, Florida, Texas and New Hampshire (which is next door to Shawbridge’s current state of residence) all come to mind.
I don’t mind state income tax so much, but I do have a problem with MA estate tax. Federal estate tax is one thing, with a high exclusion, but as Shawbridge states, MA estate tax kicks in way too early and way too high.
But, DW works In Boston, and NH is too long a commute. People do it though.
That’s not what Shawbridge has in mind, it seems. I am thinking about moving from no estate tax/high income tax state to low income tax/ high estate tax. If I could straddle the two states, won’t it be sweet.
@shawbridge some folks in my New England state establish residency in a tax free state …FL and NH both come to mind…by buying a place and living there 51% of the time…but still maintaining a home here. Would,that work for you…or @Iglooo