What Your 65-Year-Old Self Would Tell You About Money
- Kirk Reagan
- Feb 11
- 6 min read
Updated: Feb 12
Most professionals do not fail financially because they lack intelligence or income. They fall short because they underestimate time, overestimate future discipline, and delay structural decisions that would have quietly worked in their favor for decades. If there is one financial principle that consistently separates those who reach retirement with options from those who reach it with constraints, it is the discipline of paying yourself first.
The phrase itself has been repeated often enough that it risks sounding simplistic. Yet behind it sits a structural insight about income, incentives, and human behavior. When savings are treated as whatever remains after spending, they are almost always insufficient. When savings are treated as a fixed obligation that precedes discretionary spending, outcomes change dramatically over long periods of time.
The data on retirement outcomes in the United States illustrates this clearly. Many Americans reach age sixty five with modest net worth relative to their lifetime earnings. Even households that have been solid earners often discover that their accumulated assets generate limited income. A portfolio of three hundred thousand dollars, for example, may only support withdrawals in the range of ten to twelve thousand dollars per year if managed conservatively. When paired with Social Security, that may provide stability, but rarely abundance or flexibility.
The gap between expectation and reality is rarely caused by a single poor decision. It is more often the cumulative result of small delays, incremental lifestyle inflation, and an assumption that higher future income will compensate for lower current savings. In practice, the opposite tends to occur. As income rises, expenses expand, obligations grow, and the opportunity to build meaningful compounding is quietly reduced.
Paying yourself first corrects for this structural drift. It does so not through complexity, but through priority.
Structural Incentives and the Power of Automatic Saving
The reason paying yourself first works is not motivational. It is mechanical. By directing a fixed percentage of income into long term investments before it ever becomes discretionary cash, you eliminate the need for repeated willpower decisions. The system operates independently of mood, market headlines, or temporary financial pressure.
For those serving in the military under the Blended Retirement System, this structural advantage is built directly into the Thrift Savings Plan. The matching formula is particularly instructive. The government contributes one percent automatically. It matches the first three percent of personal contributions at one hundred percent. It then matches the next two percent at fifty percent. The practical result is straightforward: if a service member contributes five percent of base pay, the government contributes five percent as well.
From a purely analytical perspective, this is an immediate and guaranteed return on the employee’s contribution before market performance is even considered. Few financial opportunities offer such a return profile with zero market risk. Declining to capture the full match is not a neutral decision. It is an active forfeiture of compensation.
When examined over a multi decade horizon, the implications become more significant. Consider a simplified projection. Assume a ten percent total contribution rate, consisting of five percent personal savings and five percent employer match. Assume a long term average return of ten percent for illustrative purposes. Assume income grows gradually with promotions and years of service. Further assume that after a twenty year military career, the individual transitions to civilian employment at a comparable salary and continues investing ten percent of income.
Under these conditions, a forty year investment horizon can produce a portfolio exceeding two million dollars. The exact figure will vary based on market performance and career progression, but the structural logic remains. A modest percentage, applied consistently across decades, produces results that appear disproportionate to the annual sacrifice.
What is most important about this projection is not the specific number. It is the demonstration of compounding at scale. The early contributions, though small in absolute terms, have the longest time to grow. The employer match accelerates the base from which returns compound. Promotions increase contribution amounts without requiring lifestyle reductions. The system reinforces itself.
This is not a story about exceptional investing skill. It is a story about disciplined participation.
The Incremental Strategy That Changes Outcomes
Many professionals understand the importance of saving yet struggle to increase contributions over time. The difficulty rarely lies in acknowledging the math. It lies in the friction between present consumption and future benefit.
One practical solution is to tie contribution increases directly to pay raises. When annual compensation adjustments occur, allocating a portion of that increase to retirement savings reduces psychological resistance. If income rises by three or four percent in a given year, increasing retirement contributions by one percent still leaves a net increase in take home pay. Lifestyle continues to advance, but savings advance as well.
Over a ten year period, a consistent one percent annual increase meaningfully changes the long term savings rate. An individual who begins at five percent personal contributions and increases by one percent each year will reach fifteen percent personal savings within a decade. When combined with employer matching, the effective savings rate may approach twenty percent of income.
At that level, retirement timing becomes more flexible. Financial independence may arrive earlier than traditional benchmarks suggest. Importantly, this transition occurs without abrupt austerity. It emerges from incremental, structured adjustments.
There is a secondary benefit to this approach. By anchoring increases to pay raises rather than promotions, the strategy becomes predictable. Promotions can then be enjoyed as true improvements in lifestyle or quality of life. The discipline applies to recurring income growth, not extraordinary events.
This method reflects a broader principle in financial design. Systems outperform sporadic effort. When savings increases are automated and predictable, they require minimal ongoing deliberation. Over decades, that consistency compounds into significant capital.
Tax Positioning and the Case for Roth Early in a Career
Another dimension of paying yourself first involves tax structure. Early career professionals, particularly enlisted service members or junior officers, often occupy lower tax brackets relative to their likely future earnings. This creates an asymmetry that can be used strategically.
Choosing a Roth contribution option means paying taxes today at a lower rate in exchange for tax free withdrawals in retirement. If future income, tax rates, or both are higher during retirement years, this structure can be advantageous. The decision is not universal and should be evaluated in the context of household income, spousal earnings, and anticipated career trajectory. However, for many early career individuals whose income is primarily base pay, the Roth option aligns logically with long term expectations.
The underlying principle is straightforward. Taxes should be paid when rates are lowest. Deferral has value when current rates are high and future rates are expected to decline. Contribution structure should reflect that comparison rather than habit.
This is not a call for rigid adherence to one option. It is a call for deliberate analysis. The decision about contribution type, like the decision about contribution rate, should be grounded in structural thinking rather than default behavior.
The Cost of Inaction Over a Career
Perhaps the most underestimated financial risk is not market volatility. It is delay. Each year of postponed contributions shortens the compounding window. The difference between starting at age twenty two and starting at age thirty two is not merely ten years of contributions. It is ten years of exponential growth on every early dollar invested.
Professionals often assume they will compensate for early inaction with higher contributions later. In practice, that compensation requires significantly higher savings rates to achieve the same endpoint. The mathematics of compounding are unforgiving in this respect.
If the objective is an on time retirement with financial autonomy, a total savings rate in the range of fifteen percent of income is often cited as a reasonable benchmark. Achieving that rate gradually through structured increases is far easier than attempting to leap from minimal savings to aggressive contributions later in life.
The military context adds an additional layer of opportunity. The presence of a defined benefit pension after twenty years provides a foundational income stream. When paired with disciplined contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan, the combined effect can produce retirement income well in excess of base pay during active service. The pension becomes a stabilizing floor, while the investment portfolio provides flexibility and optionality.
None of this requires extraordinary income. It requires intentional allocation.
A Rational Framework for Long Term Financial Stability
Paying yourself first is not a slogan. It is a framework. It acknowledges that income, if left unstructured, will be consumed. It recognizes that employer matching represents deferred compensation. It respects the mathematics of compounding and the asymmetry of time.
For professionals early in their careers, the decision to contribute five percent of income may feel modest. Over decades, it becomes decisive. For those further along, incremental increases tied to raises can recalibrate trajectory without destabilizing current obligations.
Financial independence rarely arrives through dramatic breakthroughs. It emerges from systems that operate consistently across long periods. The discipline to allocate income toward future stability before present consumption is one of those systems.
If there is advice that an experienced sixty five year old professional might offer to a younger counterpart, it would likely be less about finding superior investments and more about establishing non negotiable habits. Markets fluctuate. Careers evolve. Tax policy shifts. The structure of saving, once in place, continues to operate.
The difference between retiring with options and retiring with constraints often traces back to decisions that seemed minor at the time. Five percent. One percent increases. Choosing a contribution type deliberately. Capturing an employer match without fail. These are not dramatic moves. They are rational ones. Over a forty year horizon, rational consistency is extraordinarily powerful.
Comments