Has anyone here on a normal income successfully FIREd?

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

True, but the ones who come to mind from my generation were aid beneficiaries throughout their childhood. I'm thinking of a soccer player who got free tuition at a young age to our local club, was accepted into a tuition-free academy, was recruited to a great college, and got a nice sales job after soccer. Or the kid of a single mom who is a teacher who got free tuition in various programs along the way, enrichment at home, and a full ride to college because mom's income AND net worth were so low. Both of these kids, though poor, had parents who modeled a strong work ethic at home.

[Anonymous]

We plan to FIRE at 50, when our sole child is through college. It's doable - key is to have fewer kids and manage your expectation that Early is 50, not 38.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We plan to FIRE at 50, when our sole child is through college. It's doable - key is to have fewer kids and manage your expectation that Early is 50, not 38.

+1000

Once you get your kids thru college (or at least into college with a fully funded 529) then it is much more reasonable to be able to FIRE/retire. That is a normal "retire early" plan. Main concerns at that point are health insurance (which would be 15K/year, down from 20-25K for family coverage), home costs (pay off mortgage and all you have is maintenance and Taxes/HOA) and food/utlities/extras you desire. At that point you don't have 1+ not launched kids that you are responsible for. I agree the key is to only have 1-2 kids. Cannot personally imagine college for 3-4+ kids (we make too much to get any aide), even with in-state options that's expensive

Plenty of people retire in their 50s/early once kids are launched (off your payroll). Your expenses go way down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1. Agree.

[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.

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.

Op’s plan is that he and his mythical future spouse will together be netting 90k/year from investments, with said spouse contributing 1/3 of the nest egg so no a net HHI of 90,000k (or the $130k gross equivalent) doesn’t place a couple, much less a family of four anywhere near the top 10% lifestyle.

Moreover being unemployed they’re going to be paying an extra 15-20k in health insurance costs that would otherwise be subsidized by their employer.

I sincerely doubt anyone on this thread is jealous of op with his lack of ambition and resulting plans to live, and force upon his family, a life of scrimping and saving in order to avoid work. Most of us are just skeptical that he will find a high earning woman that will actually fall for his bs and feel sorry his kids if he somehow does.

[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.

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.

Op’s plan is that he and his mythical future spouse will together be netting 90k/year from investments, with said spouse contributing 1/3 of the nest egg so no a net HHI of 90,000k (or the $130k gross equivalent) doesn’t place a couple, much less a family of four anywhere near the top 10% lifestyle.

Moreover being unemployed they’re going to be paying an extra 15-20k in health insurance costs that would otherwise be subsidized by their employer.

I sincerely doubt anyone on this thread is jealous of op with his lack of ambition and resulting plans to live, and force upon his family, a life of scrimping and saving in order to avoid work. Most of us are just skeptical that he will find a high earning woman that will actually fall for his bs and feel sorry his kids if he somehow does.

This. Nobody is jealous of OP, because he has a very poor understanding of the costs of raising a family. Special needs are not that rare, neither are medical problems. Open market health insurance costs far more than OP thinks it does, and it's foolish to think he'll always be as healthy as he is in his early 30s. Owning a small condo does not prepare a person for the cost of owning a family home-- it's way more. It's also delusional to think a woman will happily kick in $1m for the privilege of being a SAHM with no outside help and an unemployed husband who doesn't help with the nitty gritty of parenting.

So go right ahead, OP, on your quest for a unicorn woman who wants to live this way and won't be put off by your meltdown when your math is revealed to be all wrong and you have to get, horror of horrors, a job.

[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.

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.

+1
These old shrews are nothing but haters. They have nothing to offer and hate their life, so they direct their negativity at people who achieved what they couldn't. Seriously, who the hell wants to get up at 5 am, drive on the crappy beltway, and then sit in a damn cubicle for 8 hours staring at a computer screen? That lifestyle sucks and they probably have a lot less money than the OP.

[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:

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.

Op’s plan is that he and his mythical future spouse will together be netting 90k/year from investments, with said spouse contributing 1/3 of the nest egg so no a net HHI of 90,000k (or the $130k gross equivalent) doesn’t place a couple, much less a family of four anywhere near the top 10% lifestyle.

Moreover being unemployed they’re going to be paying an extra 15-20k in health insurance costs that would otherwise be subsidized by their employer.

I sincerely doubt anyone on this thread is jealous of op with his lack of ambition and resulting plans to live, and force upon his family, a life of scrimping and saving in order to avoid work. Most of us are just skeptical that he will find a high earning woman that will actually fall for his bs and feel sorry his kids if he somehow does.

This. Nobody is jealous of OP, because he has a very poor understanding of the costs of raising a family. Special needs are not that rare, neither are medical problems. Open market health insurance costs far more than OP thinks it does, and it's foolish to think he'll always be as healthy as he is in his early 30s. Owning a small condo does not prepare a person for the cost of owning a family home-- it's way more. It's also delusional to think a woman will happily kick in $1m for the privilege of being a SAHM with no outside help and an unemployed husband who doesn't help with the nitty gritty of parenting.

So go right ahead, OP, on your quest for a unicorn woman who wants to live this way and won't be put off by your meltdown when your math is revealed to be all wrong and you have to get, horror of horrors, a job.

Yep, what OP is bringing to the table is basically a promised lifetime salary of 60k/year with no hope for career advancement and the added drawback that he’ll be sitting around the house all day playing guitar. Umm, no thanks.

[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.

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.

+1
These old shrews are nothing but haters. They have nothing to offer and hate their life, so they direct their negativity at people who achieved what they couldn't. Seriously, who the hell wants to get up at 5 am, drive on the crappy beltway, and then sit in a damn cubicle for 8 hours staring at a computer screen? That lifestyle sucks and they probably have a lot less money than the OP.

The red pillers (or maybe just one troll) are out in force!

[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:

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.

Op’s plan is that he and his mythical future spouse will together be netting 90k/year from investments, with said spouse contributing 1/3 of the nest egg so no a net HHI of 90,000k (or the $130k gross equivalent) doesn’t place a couple, much less a family of four anywhere near the top 10% lifestyle.

Moreover being unemployed they’re going to be paying an extra 15-20k in health insurance costs that would otherwise be subsidized by their employer.

I sincerely doubt anyone on this thread is jealous of op with his lack of ambition and resulting plans to live, and force upon his family, a life of scrimping and saving in order to avoid work. Most of us are just skeptical that he will find a high earning woman that will actually fall for his bs and feel sorry his kids if he somehow does.

This. Nobody is jealous of OP, because he has a very poor understanding of the costs of raising a family. Special needs are not that rare, neither are medical problems. Open market health insurance costs far more than OP thinks it does, and it's foolish to think he'll always be as healthy as he is in his early 30s. Owning a small condo does not prepare a person for the cost of owning a family home-- it's way more. It's also delusional to think a woman will happily kick in $1m for the privilege of being a SAHM with no outside help and an unemployed husband who doesn't help with the nitty gritty of parenting.

So go right ahead, OP, on your quest for a unicorn woman who wants to live this way and won't be put off by your meltdown when your math is revealed to be all wrong and you have to get, horror of horrors, a job.

Yep, what OP is bringing to the table is basically a promised lifetime salary of 60k/year with no hope for career advancement and the added drawback that he’ll be sitting around the house all day playing guitar. Umm, no thanks.

I don't think OP is in the market for shallow gold diggers.

[Anonymous]

Good luck finding a woman who shares this goal on short notice! I might start trying to date a little sooner than you think you need to.

[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:

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.

Op’s plan is that he and his mythical future spouse will together be netting 90k/year from investments, with said spouse contributing 1/3 of the nest egg so no a net HHI of 90,000k (or the $130k gross equivalent) doesn’t place a couple, much less a family of four anywhere near the top 10% lifestyle.

Moreover being unemployed they’re going to be paying an extra 15-20k in health insurance costs that would otherwise be subsidized by their employer.

I sincerely doubt anyone on this thread is jealous of op with his lack of ambition and resulting plans to live, and force upon his family, a life of scrimping and saving in order to avoid work. Most of us are just skeptical that he will find a high earning woman that will actually fall for his bs and feel sorry his kids if he somehow does.

This. Nobody is jealous of OP, because he has a very poor understanding of the costs of raising a family. Special needs are not that rare, neither are medical problems. Open market health insurance costs far more than OP thinks it does, and it's foolish to think he'll always be as healthy as he is in his early 30s. Owning a small condo does not prepare a person for the cost of owning a family home-- it's way more. It's also delusional to think a woman will happily kick in $1m for the privilege of being a SAHM with no outside help and an unemployed husband who doesn't help with the nitty gritty of parenting.

So go right ahead, OP, on your quest for a unicorn woman who wants to live this way and won't be put off by your meltdown when your math is revealed to be all wrong and you have to get, horror of horrors, a job.

Yep, what OP is bringing to the table is basically a promised lifetime salary of 60k/year with no hope for career advancement and the added drawback that he’ll be sitting around the house all day playing guitar. Umm, no thanks.

I don't think OP is in the market for shallow gold diggers.

Nor are most quality women on the market for an unemployed bum.

Regardless of net-worth, ambition is usually an important quality in a potential spouse for most.

[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:

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.

Op’s plan is that he and his mythical future spouse will together be netting 90k/year from investments, with said spouse contributing 1/3 of the nest egg so no a net HHI of 90,000k (or the $130k gross equivalent) doesn’t place a couple, much less a family of four anywhere near the top 10% lifestyle.

Moreover being unemployed they’re going to be paying an extra 15-20k in health insurance costs that would otherwise be subsidized by their employer.

I sincerely doubt anyone on this thread is jealous of op with his lack of ambition and resulting plans to live, and force upon his family, a life of scrimping and saving in order to avoid work. Most of us are just skeptical that he will find a high earning woman that will actually fall for his bs and feel sorry his kids if he somehow does.

This. Nobody is jealous of OP, because he has a very poor understanding of the costs of raising a family. Special needs are not that rare, neither are medical problems. Open market health insurance costs far more than OP thinks it does, and it's foolish to think he'll always be as healthy as he is in his early 30s. Owning a small condo does not prepare a person for the cost of owning a family home-- it's way more. It's also delusional to think a woman will happily kick in $1m for the privilege of being a SAHM with no outside help and an unemployed husband who doesn't help with the nitty gritty of parenting.

So go right ahead, OP, on your quest for a unicorn woman who wants to live this way and won't be put off by your meltdown when your math is revealed to be all wrong and you have to get, horror of horrors, a job.

Yep, what OP is bringing to the table is basically a promised lifetime salary of 60k/year with no hope for career advancement and the added drawback that he’ll be sitting around the house all day playing guitar. Umm, no thanks.

I don't think OP is in the market for shallow gold diggers.

Nor are most quality women on the market for an unemployed bum.

Regardless of net-worth, ambition is usually an important quality in a potential spouse for most.

Only on DCUM is a relatively young guy with millions considered a bum.

Tell us about your great life and man

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We plan to FIRE at 50, when our sole child is through college. It's doable - key is to have fewer kids and manage your expectation that Early is 50, not 38.

+1000

Once you get your kids thru college (or at least into college with a fully funded 529) then it is much more reasonable to be able to FIRE/retire. That is a normal "retire early" plan. Main concerns at that point are health insurance (which would be 15K/year, down from 20-25K for family coverage), home costs (pay off mortgage and all you have is maintenance and Taxes/HOA) and food/utlities/extras you desire. At that point you don't have 1+ not launched kids that you are responsible for. I agree the key is to only have 1-2 kids. Cannot personally imagine college for 3-4+ kids (we make too much to get any aide), even with in-state options that's expensive

Plenty of people retire in their 50s/early once kids are launched (off your payroll). Your expenses go way down

Who said it's a law that you have to put your kids through traditional 4 year college and pay for everything? Majority of people don't even have this option. Guess what? Their kids still go to college. They take grants/loans and they also attend community college for 2 years saving tons of money. College courses are only specialized for 2 years. I don't get it, you push your kids to take AP classes and all that stuff that's supposed to transfer to college credits and they still need 4 years to get a degree in one major?

[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:

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.

Op’s plan is that he and his mythical future spouse will together be netting 90k/year from investments, with said spouse contributing 1/3 of the nest egg so no a net HHI of 90,000k (or the $130k gross equivalent) doesn’t place a couple, much less a family of four anywhere near the top 10% lifestyle.

Moreover being unemployed they’re going to be paying an extra 15-20k in health insurance costs that would otherwise be subsidized by their employer.

I sincerely doubt anyone on this thread is jealous of op with his lack of ambition and resulting plans to live, and force upon his family, a life of scrimping and saving in order to avoid work. Most of us are just skeptical that he will find a high earning woman that will actually fall for his bs and feel sorry his kids if he somehow does.

This. Nobody is jealous of OP, because he has a very poor understanding of the costs of raising a family. Special needs are not that rare, neither are medical problems. Open market health insurance costs far more than OP thinks it does, and it's foolish to think he'll always be as healthy as he is in his early 30s. Owning a small condo does not prepare a person for the cost of owning a family home-- it's way more. It's also delusional to think a woman will happily kick in $1m for the privilege of being a SAHM with no outside help and an unemployed husband who doesn't help with the nitty gritty of parenting.

So go right ahead, OP, on your quest for a unicorn woman who wants to live this way and won't be put off by your meltdown when your math is revealed to be all wrong and you have to get, horror of horrors, a job.

Yep, what OP is bringing to the table is basically a promised lifetime salary of 60k/year with no hope for career advancement and the added drawback that he’ll be sitting around the house all day playing guitar. Umm, no thanks.

I don't think OP is in the market for shallow gold diggers.

Nor are most quality women on the market for an unemployed bum.

Regardless of net-worth, ambition is usually an important quality in a potential spouse for most.

Only on DCUM is a relatively young guy with millions considered a bum.

Tell us about your great life and man

Sure, we’re by no means top 1% but I’m quite happy with my life. I will retire in five years at 50 with a cola-adjusted pension of 85k/year, a supplement of ~24k/year until eligible for social security at 62, a 401k on track for 1.6 million (assuming 7% growth), a paid off home currently assessed at 1.3 million and 350-400k in 529s for our 2 kids. (No parental help).

My DH will retire at around 56-57 with slightly higher pension and 401k figures than mine. Both of us had generally enjoyable (though of course with some frustrations) and rewarding careers, with some great opportunities to travel and live overseas, and a decent work life balance and I’m happy we were able to model that for our children.