Has anyone here on a normal income successfully FIREd?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm perplexed that OP thinks a paid off house means you don't spend on your house. There's still insurance, property taxes, and maintenance. Maintenance can be a lot-- like a new roof, repointing if brick, painting if not, etc. These things are not just cosmetic, they protect the home. You can't say you'll live on $90K forever and not take account of these infrequent yet 100% predictable expenses.

OP has a paid off condo. Keep up.

That a bunch of people are aghast that someone can live off of $2 million in savings with a paid off $500,000 condo is bizarre. You’re telling on yourselves and how out of touch you are. $2 million is a fortune for 99.99% of the world.

I'm keeping up fine, thanks. OP has a condo and plans on having a paid off house, which he thinks he can pay for and maintain on $90K total per year. Including, possibly, things that condo owners don't have to self-pay such as a roof or building exterior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t ask this question on a rich parenting board, the parents here all think you’re downright abusive if you don’t spoil the crap out of your kids or that your kids will somehow become damaged if they have to go without.

Not true, there are many poor families who spend practically nothing outside the bare necessities on their children and most turn out fine. There’s no reason why you need to sacrifice FIRE just because you had 2 kids especially if you front loaded wealth building and already have 7 figures by early 30’s. Private school and travel soccer are a HUGE f***ing waste of money and half those kids end up as useless drug addict trust fund babies by their late 20’s anyway. Just send them to state school, make them take out a bit of student loans, play rec league soccer. They don’t need more.

Many of those families have parents working multiple jobs just to make ends meet. On the other hand, telling your kids that they can’t participate in activities and depriving them of opportunities and educational advantages simply so that you can quit working at 40 and sit around playing guitar is flat out selfish and makes you a bad parent.

Yes, the kids will not have an amazing and fulfilling life like snobby dcum types.

Correct, they will have a working class life, but without the opportunities for scholarship and subsidies that are available to the children of actual working class parents.

Most parents hope to provide their children with a better life than they had…then there are those like op who couldn’t care less.

A better life like having someone else raise your kids and being a slave to the man sounds like a very nurturing environment.

I think a nice quality daycare sounds way better than being raised full-time by a man with a negative attitude, no flexibility, financial delusions, and an unwillingness to pay for anything fun.

A negative attitude means not being a cog in the system for some dirtbag boss who will fire you at the drop of a hat? No flexibility means doing literally whatever you want with the day’s time and not having to ask permission from another man to go on vacation? Financial delusion means thinking $2 million and a paid off condo is will sustain you in life?

Are you speaking about yourself or OP?

No, a negative attitude means thinking that all jobs are bad. Lots of people find jobs they like or are self-employed and are fine with it. Women want a man who, if family needs required it, would get a job and have a good attitude about doing what needs to be done. Not a whiny little baby who is convinced he can't possibly be happy if his preshus autonomy is even slightly limited.

OP is delusional because he thinks $90K per year is enough for a family of four.

[Anonymous]

I think this is one of those situations where FIRE becomes an excuse to avoid things that a person is uncomfortable with or lacks the skills for. Note the pattern-- after college, has job and lives with parents, avoiding the responsibility of managing his own household. After some time, OP levels up to managing a home, but still isn't ready to date. It's too hard to contemplate working, managing a home, and dating, so OP plans to date only after FIRE is reached. It's too hard to contemplate hands-on parenting while also being married, even with no job, so kids only after retirement of BOTH parents so that OP doesn't have to do too much parenting. FIRE is an excuse to make choices to avoid and delay taking on what feels overwhelming, and FIRE feels virtuous and prudent, but it can mask a tremendous amount of anxiety and adult skills that are not developing as they should.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to figure out what kind of childhood you want your kids to have. HCOL or LCOL, and what are you willing to deny them for the sake of FIRE? You also need to understand that if one of your children has significant special needs, it will be really expensive and any notion of FIRE will vanish immediately. Instead it will be work until 70 to pay for therapies and adult care.

What is your FIRE number assuming your kids will need a 3br home, health insurance, and college? Are you willing to deny them all sports and activities? Are you willing to make them go in-state or to a much less good college just for FIRE? It can be hard to find a woman who's on board with that.

I would really question your assumption that there's no rush to have kids. Plenty of women don't want an older husband or don't want their kids to have an older dad, and that's what you're on track to be if you don't get serious about dating very soon. Yes late-30s men can still date, marry, and have kids, but it becomes more and more of a liability. Especially if they don't earn that much. You don't earn enough to make up for it.

Well, you didn’t answer the question, but you do raise some good points. My FIRE number is just for me, not for a family—my number is $2 million plus a paid-off $500,000 condo. That would provide $60,000 per year (3% withdrawal), which is fine for me.

Obviously, that would not be enough to support a family, But I assume that my future wife will probably have another million dollars and some home equity (after all, given how much I value savings, I don’t see how I could end up with a spouse that has a fundamentally different view in that regard).

So with $3 million and a paid-off house, I figure that’s plenty for a LCOL area. And I’m not opposed to working in the future if needed – I just don’t want it to be a necessity.

Lastly, I guess I just disagree with your assessment that, in a few years, I’ll be too old to date. I’ve never heard of a 33-year-old woman that wouldn’t date a 39-year-old man. In fact, that seems to be more common than not in my experience.

A 30 year old woman won't have $1,000,000 not even close. If she's 35+ like you, then you'll be paying roughly 60K in IVF costs per kid. Maybe only one, but still. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. 40K per year in daycare, 150K per year for college...like I said, good luck!

$150,000 a year for college?! Where? And daycare for me is $1800/month. Everyone doesn’t need to send their kid to GW and a $3,500/month daycare. A lot of people in this thread are rich snobs who are just jealous someone figured out how to not slave away at a thankless job to keep up with joneses until they have a heart attack from stress at 65.

In 20+ years 150K per year sounds about right

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think this is one of those situations where FIRE becomes an excuse to avoid things that a person is uncomfortable with or lacks the skills for. Note the pattern-- after college, has job and lives with parents, avoiding the responsibility of managing his own household. After some time, OP levels up to managing a home, but still isn't ready to date. It's too hard to contemplate working, managing a home, and dating, so OP plans to date only after FIRE is reached. It's too hard to contemplate hands-on parenting while also being married, even with no job, so kids only after retirement of BOTH parents so that OP doesn't have to do too much parenting. FIRE is an excuse to make choices to avoid and delay taking on what feels overwhelming, and FIRE feels virtuous and prudent, but it can mask a tremendous amount of anxiety and adult skills that are not developing as they should.

Boom, truth bomb dropped

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think this is one of those situations where FIRE becomes an excuse to avoid things that a person is uncomfortable with or lacks the skills for. Note the pattern-- after college, has job and lives with parents, avoiding the responsibility of managing his own household. After some time, OP levels up to managing a home, but still isn't ready to date. It's too hard to contemplate working, managing a home, and dating, so OP plans to date only after FIRE is reached. It's too hard to contemplate hands-on parenting while also being married, even with no job, so kids only after retirement of BOTH parents so that OP doesn't have to do too much parenting. FIRE is an excuse to make choices to avoid and delay taking on what feels overwhelming, and FIRE feels virtuous and prudent, but it can mask a tremendous amount of anxiety and adult skills that are not developing as they should.

Boom! Old goat is jealous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to figure out what kind of childhood you want your kids to have. HCOL or LCOL, and what are you willing to deny them for the sake of FIRE? You also need to understand that if one of your children has significant special needs, it will be really expensive and any notion of FIRE will vanish immediately. Instead it will be work until 70 to pay for therapies and adult care.

What is your FIRE number assuming your kids will need a 3br home, health insurance, and college? Are you willing to deny them all sports and activities? Are you willing to make them go in-state or to a much less good college just for FIRE? It can be hard to find a woman who's on board with that.

I would really question your assumption that there's no rush to have kids. Plenty of women don't want an older husband or don't want their kids to have an older dad, and that's what you're on track to be if you don't get serious about dating very soon. Yes late-30s men can still date, marry, and have kids, but it becomes more and more of a liability. Especially if they don't earn that much. You don't earn enough to make up for it.

Well, you didn’t answer the question, but you do raise some good points. My FIRE number is just for me, not for a family—my number is $2 million plus a paid-off $500,000 condo. That would provide $60,000 per year (3% withdrawal), which is fine for me.

Obviously, that would not be enough to support a family, But I assume that my future wife will probably have another million dollars and some home equity (after all, given how much I value savings, I don’t see how I could end up with a spouse that has a fundamentally different view in that regard).

So with $3 million and a paid-off house, I figure that’s plenty for a LCOL area. And I’m not opposed to working in the future if needed – I just don’t want it to be a necessity.

Lastly, I guess I just disagree with your assessment that, in a few years, I’ll be too old to date. I’ve never heard of a 33-year-old woman that wouldn’t date a 39-year-old man. In fact, that seems to be more common than not in my experience.

A 30 year old woman won't have $1,000,000 not even close. If she's 35+ like you, then you'll be paying roughly 60K in IVF costs per kid. Maybe only one, but still. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. 40K per year in daycare, 150K per year for college...like I said, good luck!

$150,000 a year for college?! Where? And daycare for me is $1800/month. Everyone doesn’t need to send their kid to GW and a $3,500/month daycare. A lot of people in this thread are rich snobs who are just jealous someone figured out how to not slave away at a thankless job to keep up with joneses until they have a heart attack from stress at 65.

In 20+ years 150K per year sounds about right

College being obsolete because of AI and online learning is more likely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t ask this question on a rich parenting board, the parents here all think you’re downright abusive if you don’t spoil the crap out of your kids or that your kids will somehow become damaged if they have to go without.

Not true, there are many poor families who spend practically nothing outside the bare necessities on their children and most turn out fine. There’s no reason why you need to sacrifice FIRE just because you had 2 kids especially if you front loaded wealth building and already have 7 figures by early 30’s. Private school and travel soccer are a HUGE f***ing waste of money and half those kids end up as useless drug addict trust fund babies by their late 20’s anyway. Just send them to state school, make them take out a bit of student loans, play rec league soccer. They don’t need more.

Many of those families have parents working multiple jobs just to make ends meet. On the other hand, telling your kids that they can’t participate in activities and depriving them of opportunities and educational advantages simply so that you can quit working at 40 and sit around playing guitar is flat out selfish and makes you a bad parent.

Yes, the kids will not have an amazing and fulfilling life like snobby dcum types.

Correct, they will have a working class life, but without the opportunities for scholarship and subsidies that are available to the children of actual working class parents.

Most parents hope to provide their children with a better life than they had…then there are those like op who couldn’t care less.

A better life like having someone else raise your kids and being a slave to the man sounds like a very nurturing environment.

I think a nice quality daycare sounds way better than being raised full-time by a man with a negative attitude, no flexibility, financial delusions, and an unwillingness to pay for anything fun.

A negative attitude means not being a cog in the system for some dirtbag boss who will fire you at the drop of a hat? No flexibility means doing literally whatever you want with the day’s time and not having to ask permission from another man to go on vacation? Financial delusion means thinking $2 million and a paid off condo is will sustain you in life?

Are you speaking about yourself or OP?

No, a negative attitude means thinking that all jobs are bad. Lots of people find jobs they like or are self-employed and are fine with it. Women want a man who, if family needs required it, would get a job and have a good attitude about doing what needs to be done. Not a whiny little baby who is convinced he can't possibly be happy if his preshus autonomy is even slightly limited.

OP is delusional because he thinks $90K per year is enough for a family of four.

$90,000 a year is conservative if OP has $2 million and a paid off home. The S&P historically averages more than 10% a year in returns. You could take more than $90,000 if you weren’t so conservative.

Also, and most importantly, married people can take up to $89,250 in long term capital gains without paying any federal tax per year. Meaning if OP’s wife had a child they would be taking home $7437/month and only have to pay a small state tax. If you can’t live off of $7,437 and a free home you need to budget more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm perplexed that OP thinks a paid off house means you don't spend on your house. There's still insurance, property taxes, and maintenance. Maintenance can be a lot-- like a new roof, repointing if brick, painting if not, etc. These things are not just cosmetic, they protect the home. You can't say you'll live on $90K forever and not take account of these infrequent yet 100% predictable expenses.

OP has a paid off condo. Keep up.

That a bunch of people are aghast that someone can live off of $2 million in savings with a paid off $500,000 condo is bizarre. You’re telling on yourselves and how out of touch you are. $2 million is a fortune for 99.99% of the world.

I'm keeping up fine, thanks. OP has a condo and plans on having a paid off house, which he thinks he can pay for and maintain on $90K total per year. Including, possibly, things that condo owners don't have to self-pay such as a roof or building exterior.

You do understand that OP’s $2M principal is in the S&P 500, which increases at 10% a year historically, and with OP withdrawing less than 5% of the principal a year the principal will grow at at average of more than $100,000 a year. OP could just wait 5 years and take their excess capital gains of $100,000 x 5 + $500,000+ equity in condo and buy a million dollar home in cash.

[Anonymous]

The problem is those pesky years where the S&P 500 drops by 50%.

[Anonymous]

AI won’t eliminate jobs for new college majors in the 2030s and 2040s as the degrees will change to reflect AI impact on jobs

[Anonymous]

Except I actually enjoy my job. And the 401k is really turbocharged once you hit 50 and with new secure act 60-63 starting 2025 you can put in more.

Next year the limit is something like $35,000 for a 60-63 year old in a 401k. If peak of career making 400k with a 6 perceive match that is another 24k. So $59k a year in 40k in one year.

50-67 if one did max 401k with catch up it is crazy.

And with hybrid work is a joke. I worked a grinding leave work 7 am and come home 7 pm 5 days a week in my 40s and early 50s and never expected to be at work in 60s.

Now with hybrid, dress down, Flex Time it feels like a 300k part time job

[Anonymous]

DH and I are in our early 40s with 2 kids and net worth of a bit over 3M including a paid off house. We have always saved pretty aggressively by living below our means because we do want to retire early. We have no debt anymore and kids are in public schools.

DH thinks we can retire now if we move to a LCOL, but it’s just not practical in my opinion. For one health insurance will be very expensive because we both now have health conditions which only recently came to light. Also kids love the area we live in and their friends so it would be selfish to uproot them. Additionally our parents are getting old and require more and more help, so we would be abandoning them if we moved.

So there you have it, while theoretically we could retire, I don’t see it happening for another 10 years. I do think we could work part time or in less stressful jobs though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t ask this question on a rich parenting board, the parents here all think you’re downright abusive if you don’t spoil the crap out of your kids or that your kids will somehow become damaged if they have to go without.

Not true, there are many poor families who spend practically nothing outside the bare necessities on their children and most turn out fine. There’s no reason why you need to sacrifice FIRE just because you had 2 kids especially if you front loaded wealth building and already have 7 figures by early 30’s. Private school and travel soccer are a HUGE f***ing waste of money and half those kids end up as useless drug addict trust fund babies by their late 20’s anyway. Just send them to state school, make them take out a bit of student loans, play rec league soccer. They don’t need more.

Many of those families have parents working multiple jobs just to make ends meet. On the other hand, telling your kids that they can’t participate in activities and depriving them of opportunities and educational advantages simply so that you can quit working at 40 and sit around playing guitar is flat out selfish and makes you a bad parent.

Yes, the kids will not have an amazing and fulfilling life like snobby dcum types.

Correct, they will have a working class life, but without the opportunities for scholarship and subsidies that are available to the children of actual working class parents.

Most parents hope to provide their children with a better life than they had…then there are those like op who couldn’t care less.

A better life like having someone else raise your kids and being a slave to the man sounds like a very nurturing environment.

I think a nice quality daycare sounds way better than being raised full-time by a man with a negative attitude, no flexibility, financial delusions, and an unwillingness to pay for anything fun.

A negative attitude means not being a cog in the system for some dirtbag boss who will fire you at the drop of a hat? No flexibility means doing literally whatever you want with the day’s time and not having to ask permission from another man to go on vacation? Financial delusion means thinking $2 million and a paid off condo is will sustain you in life?

Are you speaking about yourself or OP?

No, a negative attitude means thinking that all jobs are bad. Lots of people find jobs they like or are self-employed and are fine with it. Women want a man who, if family needs required it, would get a job and have a good attitude about doing what needs to be done. Not a whiny little baby who is convinced he can't possibly be happy if his preshus autonomy is even slightly limited.

OP is delusional because he thinks $90K per year is enough for a family of four.

Plenty of people live on $90k per year for a family of 4. It is absolutely doable. But it's rare that someone chooses that; the vast majority of the time it is because that's all the income they can access. That is what is so confounding about OP - he intends to thrush his yet to be identified wife, and yet to be born children, into a sub-optimal situation, with little to no backstop or safety net, because he doesn't want to work at ~40 years old, and would rather hike and play guitar.

Selfish isn't a strong enough word to describe this attitude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:AI won’t eliminate jobs for new college majors in the 2030s and 2040s as the degrees will change to reflect AI impact on jobs

You are hopelessly naive. Read what everyone in the space has to say and then come back to this thread. OP is much better off sending his son / daughter to trade school than college.