How to use a calculator

From CNN Money, we have Early Retirement: The hurry-up offense.

Ten years ago, Anne and Joe Raspanti said "I do" in Hawaii. Among the things those two words changed for Joe were his plans for how, and where, he'd spend the rest of his working life.

As a deputy security director at a naval weapons station, he had assumed that until he retired at age 62, he would remain in Hawaii, where he'd lived for the past 16 years.

But after Anne's children began having kids, she wanted to return to the mainland to be closer to her family.

So in 2002, the Raspantis headed to South Carolina, taking a $25,000 pay cut to do so. Though their combined income is now down to $122,000, Joe, 50, hopes to retire at the same time as Anne, 56, a registered nurse, who plans to call it quits in just six years.

Starting at age 56, Joe is eligible for a monthly government pension of $2,000, with a $1,000 supplement until age 62. After retirement, he hopes to bring in another $15,000 a year by working part time.

Both Raspantis started saving late, but before they left Hawaii, they had begun funneling $25,000 a year into their retirement accounts. "We were doing great before the move," says Joe.

Recently their yearly retirement contributions have dropped to just $10,500. Still, Joe has $122,000 in his Thrift Savings Plan, the government's version of a 401(k), and Anne's IRA balance tops $90,000.

They each have a $5,500 Roth IRA that is entirely invested in a variable annuity, as well as a third, jointly owned, variable annuity valued at $17,500.

It isn't out of the question for Joe to retire early, say financial planners Jenny Curran and Bill Prewitt of Charleston, S.C. But in order for him to do so, the Raspantis will have to give their finances a serious overhaul.

The couple have just $5,000 to cover unexpected expenses. They need to bring that up to at least $24,000, says Prewitt, which would cover about three months of living expenses.

When the planners asked for a budget, the Raspantis found that they could not account for about $2,000 each month. "They need to write down what they are truly spending," says Curran. "Then they'll know where their cash is disappearing."

The missing money, say the planners, is the key to whether they can retire in six years. To hit that goal, they need to save an additional $1,000 a month.

Given this data, I'll give a dissenting opinion. It is utterly out of the question for them to retire in their time frame.

Here's the analysis:

If three months of living expenses are $24K, they need $8K a month. $2K seems to be "disappearing". Let's assume they scale back the $2K (a very optimistic assumption.) You're still left with $6K a month.

Now, on the assets side, assuming they save most optimistically, you're looking at: 122K + 90K + 5.5K * 2 + 17.5K + 72K (1K a month for 6 years) = 312.5K.

Before taxes, this thing is going to net something like $18K a year. Add in the $36K from his pension, and you're up to $44K. After taxes, you're at roughly $33K or so, which is $2,750 a month.

That's nowhere close to $6K a month that they "need" for living expenses, and if you pull out the difference which is roughly $40K a year, the money will last just under 8 years (and remember, you're going to get less interest each year too! Not to mention the loss of that extra $1K after he turns 62.)

I call bullshit on these "financial advisers".