Has anyone here on a normal income successfully FIREd?

[Anonymous]

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

And how many times has that happened since 2000?

:crickets:

There are also years like this year and last year when the S&P is up by around 20%, when than $2M principal will get you $400k a year. Dealing with edge cases doesn’t do anyone any good. Let’s talk about historical average returns of a fund that been around since before most of us were born.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

$90,000 a year with no federal income tax because you’re drawing from capital gains is very different than $90,000 of income. For some reason a lot of PPs who are scolding OP don’t know basic tax policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

$90,000 a year with no federal income tax because you’re drawing from capital gains is very different than $90,000 of income. For some reason a lot of PPs who are scolding OP don’t know basic tax policy.

Why no federal income tax from cap gains? Isn’t it 15%-20%?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

$90,000 a year with no federal income tax because you’re drawing from capital gains is very different than $90,000 of income. For some reason a lot of PPs who are scolding OP don’t know basic tax policy.

Why no federal income tax from cap gains? Isn’t it 15%-20%?

PP is right that if you have no other income there is an exclusion for income from capital gains that goes up pretty high ($89K right now). Most people that have enough money to have capital gains also have an income that pushes them above the threshold but in OP's situation there would be no other income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

$90,000 a year with no federal income tax because you’re drawing from capital gains is very different than $90,000 of income. For some reason a lot of PPs who are scolding OP don’t know basic tax policy.

Why no federal income tax from cap gains? Isn’t it 15%-20%?

PP is right that if you have no other income there is an exclusion for income from capital gains that goes up pretty high ($89K right now). Most people that have enough money to have capital gains also have an income that pushes them above the threshold but in OP's situation there would be no other income.

Interesting…is it only if it all comes from cap gains va cap gains + dividends/interest?

[Anonymous]

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.

Stop over parenting your kids and trying to give them the world before they’re even old enough to work. I grew up LMC and am now making UMC money as an adult, I feel like my very basic childhood allows me to appreciate everything a lot more. Probably really sucks to go from an UMC childhood to being LMC as an adult, and many of those kids got into that position because they have no ambition. Lots of trust fund babies who ended up as duds in this area.

Exactly. So many LMC kids end outperforming the UMC spoiled kids.

[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 live in DCUM on 90K/year. However you have to adjust your lifestyle. You also would definately not be "retired at 40" living off savings. You would be working a full time job and being careful with what you spend on

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Or the SP500 could go down 15%+ for the next 2 years, and the principal lowers and yet they still need to pull out $25K for a new roof and another $10K to paint the house/repair something.

[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.

Of course it is. But probably not to a woman who's saved $1 million by the time she's 30. But there is a lid for every pot!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He said it's in all stocks, not in an index fund

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

$90,000 a year with no federal income tax because you’re drawing from capital gains is very different than $90,000 of income. For some reason a lot of PPs who are scolding OP don’t know basic tax policy.

You do pay federal taxes on Capital gains. They'd be paying 15%.

Fact is FIRE concept/retiring in your 30/40s when you have a family can be challenging. What if a kid has medical issues or learning issues that require major therapies? Do you really want to rely on "public services" or just the school system (hint: they often take forever to get services and do not supply as much as a kid really needs).
Do you really want to restrict your kid's activities, when you could afford more by simply having a job? Healthcare for a family or 3or 4 could be $15-20K per year with another $5-10K max OOP.

Having a job could bring that cost down to $300-400/month with a max $5K OOP.

And even in-State schools will be $60K/year in 20-25 years (when this guys kids would be attending). Cannot imagine denying my kids the opportunities to attend without much debt simply because I don't want to work.

[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.

Of course it is. But probably not to a woman who's saved $1 million by the time she's 30. But there is a lid for every pot!

Yeah it might not be a lot to her, but if a woman has SAVED a million by 30 then she’s probably super frugal and good with money and most likely doesn’t feel the need to live like a Kardashian. It’s the high earning/low NW women you need to be careful of, those are the spenders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

$90,000 a year with no federal income tax because you’re drawing from capital gains is very different than $90,000 of income. For some reason a lot of PPs who are scolding OP don’t know basic tax policy.

You do pay federal taxes on Capital gains. They'd be paying 15%.

Fact is FIRE concept/retiring in your 30/40s when you have a family can be challenging. What if a kid has medical issues or learning issues that require major therapies? Do you really want to rely on "public services" or just the school system (hint: they often take forever to get services and do not supply as much as a kid really needs).
Do you really want to restrict your kid's activities, when you could afford more by simply having a job? Healthcare for a family or 3or 4 could be $15-20K per year with another $5-10K max OOP.

Having a job could bring that cost down to $300-400/month with a max $5K OOP.

And even in-State schools will be $60K/year in 20-25 years (when this guys kids would be attending). Cannot imagine denying my kids the opportunities to attend without much debt simply because I don't want to work.

The bolded part is incorrect. If your income is below $89K you don't pay taxes on capital gains.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

$90,000 a year with no federal income tax because you’re drawing from capital gains is very different than $90,000 of income. For some reason a lot of PPs who are scolding OP don’t know basic tax policy.

Why no federal income tax from cap gains? Isn’t it 15%-20%?

PP is right that if you have no other income there is an exclusion for income from capital gains that goes up pretty high ($89K right now). Most people that have enough money to have capital gains also have an income that pushes them above the threshold but in OP's situation there would be no other income.

Interesting…is it only if it all comes from cap gains va cap gains + dividends/interest?

It includes all income. So, let's say you're retired and both get SS, that will cut into the amount of tax free capital gains you can draw down. Or if you're working your salary counts against that $89K cap.
You would pay regular income taxes on dividends/interest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

$90,000 a year with no federal income tax because you’re drawing from capital gains is very different than $90,000 of income. For some reason a lot of PPs who are scolding OP don’t know basic tax policy.

You do pay federal taxes on Capital gains. They'd be paying 15%.

Fact is FIRE concept/retiring in your 30/40s when you have a family can be challenging. What if a kid has medical issues or learning issues that require major therapies? Do you really want to rely on "public services" or just the school system (hint: they often take forever to get services and do not supply as much as a kid really needs).
Do you really want to restrict your kid's activities, when you could afford more by simply having a job? Healthcare for a family or 3or 4 could be $15-20K per year with another $5-10K max OOP.

Having a job could bring that cost down to $300-400/month with a max $5K OOP.

And even in-State schools will be $60K/year in 20-25 years (when this guys kids would be attending). Cannot imagine denying my kids the opportunities to attend without much debt simply because I don't want to work.

If OP is married there is a $89,250 limit where capital gains withdrawals are taxed at 0% federally for married couples filing jointly. Google is your friend. Stop spreading disinformation. This cap will of course increase over time because if inflation.

As for all of your concerns, OP will be bringing home as much take home income as someone who is making $130,000+ when you factor in that they won’t be paying federal income tax or SS.

Making as much as someone with a 9-5 job where they make $130,000 + a having a paid off mortgage is not slumming it. It is literally having a top 10% lifestyle. It’s weird that you’re lecturing him for not wanting some top 1% lifestyle that no one has outside of DCUM.

Not retiring because of some off chance that OPs kids will have special needs - a statistical improbability - is not rationale. People are just jealous that they don’t have OPs freedom and have to slave away at their 9-5s and are trying to make OP feel bad because he was brave enough and disciplined enough to get out of the rat race. Period.