Is saving/investing actually a crappy way to get rich?

[Anonymous]

I was just running some numbers in an investment calculator and, frankly, they’re a little depressing. I’m in my early 30s, single, and have finally gotten my income to the point that I make $210K, am debt-free, and I’m able to save $100K per year.

Even saving at that level, which seems like a huge amount, I have to work for decades and would still have to live a modest lifestyle if I retire semi-early.

In the calculator, I assumed 8% returns, 3% inflation, and a 15% tax rate on my investments. With those assumptions, $100K per year invested for 20 years becomes $2.36M in today’s dollars (it’s almost $5M in nominal terms, but of course, that means nothing).

Using the 3% rule at that time, that means I can pull out about $70K per year to live on, which is not that much more than I currently spend trying to live a frugal lifestyle and stack my investments heavily. And of course, that assumes that I stay in relatively good health so I can afford my own insurance and medical bills before Medicare. Throw kids into the picture, and thoughts of early retirement would be over.

I don’t know – that seems kind of…underwhelming. I guess I always thought that saving $100K would be a fast track to riches. But now, more and more, it seems like you really need exorbitant incomes or significant risk-taking/entrepreneurship to be able to live a really good life at a relatively young age. Am I out of touch here? Missing something? Thoughts?

[Anonymous]

Wait, you’re saving $100k per year, how many years of that did you put into your calculator?

[Anonymous]

20 years goes by faster than you know (I'm 54 now). I can only dream of having $5M in my savings- that is "riches"!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wait, you’re saving $100k per year, how many years of that did you put into your calculator?

He said 20 years.

[Anonymous]

To answer your question: Yes.

Entrepreneurship is the path to riches.

[Anonymous]

Change that to 30 years? What then? Then 37 years? It's a good way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait, you’re saving $100k per year, how many years of that did you put into your calculator?

He said 20 years.

Why do you think OP is a he?

[Anonymous]

OP did you adjust your $100k number over the 20 years, or just adjust the final # to today’s $?

[Anonymous]

Do you have nothing saved now to add to that number? Did you increase your contributions by inflation or wage growth? Also you will have Social Security for part of your retirement.

Are you applying 15% twice? 2.36*.85*.03*.85 gets close to $70k, but won't it only be taxed once, at least the part in retirement accounts? Is any of it in Roth? Any employer contributions? Also a mortgage, if any, will stay nominal and eventually go away, allowing for a higher standard of living

[Anonymous]

You could retire early and go live abroad until Medicare kicks in, low col and medical in other countries would help

[Anonymous]

How old are you? Most people work more than 20 years. Also, you plan on children but don't plant on a money-earning partner? You also assume zero social security. I see impatience and unusual assumptions.

[Anonymous]

Yes, most wealth comes from entrepreneurship or very high steady incomes. However both of those can also come with stress and anxiety.

You’ve discovered the two different experiences that people can’t understand on DCUM: one group of people think $200K is a lot. The other group thinks it’s not. As you’ve passed from one side to another, you see it’s both hard to attain and seems like a lot to people earning less, and also once attained doesn’t lead to a life that feels wealthy.

Leading a “good”, wealthy life is rare, which is why I think so few people do it. More common is the miserable wealthy life, which I don’t think is worthwhile. Miserable litigators, divorced with miserable kids fighting for a few points of GPA all for a chance at living the same life as their parents.

If you have the ambition and appetite to try for a good, wealthy life go for it. If not, you can still live a good one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Change that to 30 years? What then? Then 37 years? It's a good way.

At 30 years, it's just over $4M in today's dollars. Plus, since I'd be 62, I could probably withdraw 4% so $160K of income. Definitely better, but then that's just usual retirement age. If I'm going to do that, I'm not going to be as frugal since it's basically my entire productive, working life. Just sad that saving $100K per year FOR ONE PERSON doesn't really get you out of the rat race any earlier; you just have a more secure retirement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP did you adjust your $100k number over the 20 years, or just adjust the final # to today’s $?

No adjustments of contributions along the way -- it's a pretty basic calculator -- but I guess that would help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you have nothing saved now to add to that number? Did you increase your contributions by inflation or wage growth? Also you will have Social Security for part of your retirement.

Are you applying 15% twice? 2.36*.85*.03*.85 gets close to $70k, but won't it only be taxed once, at least the part in retirement accounts? Is any of it in Roth? Any employer contributions? Also a mortgage, if any, will stay nominal and eventually go away, allowing for a higher standard of living

Only about $100K saved now -- in cash, no investments. Was in school, then paid off student loans, bought a car, furniture, etc.