-
Investing 35% in retirement stopped saving for a house down payment before the husband retired by 7 years.
-
Reducing retirement contributions from $2,800 to $1,500 a month frees up $1,300 in salary savings over 2 years.
-
Maximizing retirement contributions can delay homeownership when timelines before retirement are limited.
-
Investors rethink ‘hands off’ investing and decide to start making real money
A 57-year-old woman and her 68-year-old husband were doing everything right by traditional standards—investing 35% of their take-home pay into retirement accounts. But this aggressive retirement strategy created an unexpected problem: They couldn’t save enough for a down payment on their first home. On a January 2026 episode of The Dave Ramsey Show, a couple received counterintuitive advice that challenged standard financial wisdom.
The couple takes home $8,000 a month and invests $2,800 in retirement. If the spouse plans to retire in seven years at age 75, their current approach will delay home ownership until that retirement date – leaving them without housing security at a critical stage in life. The math was straightforward but problematic: insufficient cash flow for the down payment while maintaining their retirement contributions.
Ramsey’s team calculated that reducing retirement contributions from $2,800 to $1,500 a month would free up $1,300 for home savings. Combined with other savings, this approach will accumulate a down payment over two years while maintaining a 15% retirement investment. “That’s 36 grand a year. You get your down payment in two years when you invest,” confirmed Ramsey.
The 15% retirement contribution guideline exists for good reason—it provides substantial long-term growth without sacrificing current financial stability. With the total U.S. stock market returning 13.78% over the past year and 76.1% over five years, continued retirement investing remains powerful. But timing is important.
At current rates, the 15-year mortgage costs 5.49%, down 10.3% from a year ago. With a median home price of $410,800 (down 2.9% year-over-year), the couple faces a relatively favorable housing market. The hosts insisted on an affordability calculation based on 25% of take-home pay with a 15-year mortgage term – critical since the wife needs to pay for the house during her working years.
This scenario shows that strict adherence to financial regulations can backfire. The couple wouldn’t have gone wrong with a 35% retirement contribution in isolation, but they were creating a seven-year delay that pushed home ownership dangerously close to retirement. Cutting back to 15% isn’t giving up retirement planning—it’s balancing competing priorities with limited timelines.
