Has anyone here on a normal income successfully FIREd?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
It's not the law, but OP will have difficulty finding a woman who wants to sign on for this level of denial just for the sake of OP's ultra-early retirement. |
Anonymous
So you are likely both gov slackers 12-20 yrs behind OP. But you will both become bums like OP soon enough...too funny |
Anonymous
Exactly – this post summarizes my view views excellently. I’m the OP – thanks to everyone who has responded. When I talk about a $90,000 income, I mean *actually spending* $90,000 because of the capital gains tax laws and the fact that most of my retirement is in Roth accounts (possibly slightly less than $90,000 depending on what state we land in). That’s not the level of deprivation others have suggested. If anything, this PP understates that point. Let’s say you have two people earning $120,000 per year, for a household income of $240,000. Of that, they pay $60,000 in taxes, $45,000 in mortgage payments, and save $45,000 (which doesn’t even max out two 401(k)s anymore)—that leaves them with…$90,000 per year to spend on everything else! Is that family mistreating their children by denying them opportunities? In fact, $240,000 is a top 15% income nationally. Move it to a LCOL area and that is easily a top 10% lifestyle. Yes, my kid(s) won’t go to private schools nor partake in every possible “enrichment” activity. My main takeaway from this thread is that I need to make sure that my wife and I are on the same page regarding lifestyle. I’m sure that a $400,000 DC lawyer would not be interested in me as a dating prospect if I FIRE, but would she have been interested in me even if I continued working at $150,000? And, frankly, I have never been attracted to hyper-ambitious women (no offense to the $400,000 DC lawyers that I know frequent this board). |
Anonymous
|
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.
[b]Not true, there are many poor families who spend practically nothing outside the bare necessities on their children and most turn out fine.[/b] 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. [/quote] 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.[/quote] Yes, the kids will not have an amazing and fulfilling life like snobby dcum types.[/quote] 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.[/quote] A better life like having someone else raise your kids and being a slave to the man sounds like a very nurturing environment. [/quote] 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.[/quote] 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?[/quote] 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. [/quote] 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. [/quote] $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.[/quote] 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. [/quote] 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. [/quote] 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. [/quote] 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.[/quote] 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.[/quote] I don't think OP is in the market for shallow gold diggers.[/quote] 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.[/quote] Only on DCUM is a relatively young guy with millions considered a bum. Tell us about your great life and man  [/quote]
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.[/quote] So you are likely both gov slackers 12-20 yrs behind OP. But you will both become bums like OP soon enough...too funny[/quote] Except that we’ll have more than 4x as much disposable income as OP (with cola adjustments to hedge against inflation) lifetime health care after retirement, and each will have served 30+ years in federal service (doing jobs that most outside the dcum bubble would consider important to the nation/interesting/rewarding). |
Anonymous
| OP, are you concerned that you are setting a poor example for your child by not working? I have a friend with a very high net worth who still works and sit on boards in large part because that is the adult life he wants to model for his kids. Obviously, he is doing work that he enjoys and he is in control of his time, but he's mentioned more than once that it is important to him to help guide his kids toward a productive, self-actualizing life. But, having kids isn't all it's cracked up to be, frankly. Why not just FIRE at your intended age and live your best life without kids? |
Anonymous
In fairness, there’s probably a *grain* of truth in this post. I am a little bit of a perfectionist, and I’d rather do one thing at 100% than three things at 75%. Getting married, having kids, focusing on career, and everything else at the same time at 25 would’ve been a recipe for a huge amount of stress and unpleasantness for me. The flipside of that is that doing all of that *is* objectively difficult these days. That’s why half the DMV is on antidepressants. Both my parents grew up on streets where they lived with their entire extended families, but in the hyper-individualized society we live now, things are more difficult. And I’d be willing to bet that a lot of the people criticizing me are from the same camp that posts complaints about unequal divisions of household labor and how difficult is the “mental load” of staying on top of everything. Sorry I’m not perfect, but whether these issues are a result of my own shortcomings or broader societal factors, I just acknowledge reality and own my limitations. |
Anonymous
You claim to own your limitations and acknowledge reality but given your posts to date it’s a little difficult to envision you bearing the brunt of the mental load, caregiving, household labor etc. It basically sounds like you just want laze around living your best life playing guitar, hiking and periodically pitching in with the kids when it suits. There’s a reason that most women seek out/are attracted to providers….because they know most men are likely to fall short on the domestic front. Also most people don’t do well with their spouse home with them full time- hence why divorce rates rose during the pandemic. |
Anonymous
Now OP can't have kids because he will be a horrible role model due to being financially independent around age 40. Surely this must be a joke. |
Anonymous
|
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.
[b]Not true, there are many poor families who spend practically nothing outside the bare necessities on their children and most turn out fine.[/b] 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. [/quote] 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.[/quote] Yes, the kids will not have an amazing and fulfilling life like snobby dcum types.[/quote] 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.[/quote] A better life like having someone else raise your kids and being a slave to the man sounds like a very nurturing environment. [/quote] 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.[/quote] 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?[/quote] 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. [/quote] 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. [/quote] $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.[/quote] 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. [/quote] 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. [/quote] 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. [/quote] 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.[/quote] 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.[/quote] I don't think OP is in the market for shallow gold diggers.[/quote] 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.[/quote] Only on DCUM is a relatively young guy with millions considered a bum. Tell us about your great life and man [/quote]
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.[/quote] So you are likely both gov slackers 12-20 yrs behind OP. But you will both become bums like OP soon enough...too funny[/quote] Except that we’ll have more than 4x as much disposable income as OP (with cola adjustments to hedge against inflation) lifetime health care after retirement, and each will have served 30+ years in federal service (doing jobs that most outside the dcum bubble would consider important to the nation/interesting/rewarding).[/quote] Nobody really cares because you are imposing your narrow minded views on someone else. And ironically you seem to be not that different than OP. |
Anonymous
Not a joke. In my opinion, if he lazes around starting at 40 while his kids are growing up with a net worth of only ~ $2.5m, he would be a horrible role model to his kids. I'm the PP and the person I mentioned above who has chosen to stay engaged in his profession to model a good life for his kids has an 8-figure net worth. I also don't think kids are all they are cracked up to be. If OP's first priority is FIRE, then the path of least resistance is to stay single. Kids are a heavy load, financially, emotionally, physically, and thus are not consistent with the goals of FIRE (specifically, freedom). |
Anonymous
Yeah, I think a lot depends on his lifestyle. Does he want to live like a normal American or does he want to live an uppity DC type lifestyle. The cost difference is huge, and quite frankly, the latter lifestyle is one he can't afford. If he is looking for true freedom, then yeah, staying single is the ticket. Dude could easily travel the world and spend time with women 10x better than he could get in DC. I mean, just look at the nasty comments posted by people who aren't exactly a catch. It's a no brainer. |
Anonymous
+1 Do not understand the desire to "not work" when you really don't have enough $ to retire/not work. I get the save save save and then living with less so that you can enjoy life and not be as stressed. But even a basic stressless job with health insurance bringing in $40-50K/year would be a huge contribution. |
Anonymous
|
So when kid applies to a top-tier school and gets in, you'll be like, sorry no way, you're gonna go to LCOL Community College, because I've refused to work since age 38? How do you think that will go over?
How did man-babying you affect your parents' finances btw? Any desire to pay it forward? |
Anonymous
Agreed. One kid needed Speech therapy for over 10 years, along with intensive tutoring for learning issues, therapy for anxiety and social skills, etc. Also had one health scare that the bills for 48 hours in hospital were over 200K and the subsequent specialist visits (to rule out major medical issues) were over 150K. With great insurance we paid up to our 7K max OOP for the family. With crappy insurance, you could be out 20-30K. And we were lucky, the health issues didn't require any more treatments. This is for a kid who went onto graduate HS with a 3.7/1280 and a T100 college in 4 years. So relatively speaking, "Minor educational and social issues". I met many along the way with unfortunately many more issues. Even my other kid who had no need for tutoring (top student naturally, no learning issues at a T25 university doing well) needed speech therapy for a few years. For many of these therapies, it is impossible to find an in-network specialist. It's just impossible. So we paid OOP 110/week for 2 years for my "kid without issues". So 10K alone for that "easy kid". The other kid was over 100K in tutoring, speech, etc. Those are not like sports that are "optional". If we hadn't done these, my kid would have been on an entire different trajectory in MS/HS and beyond. I might not have a fully launched kid with a great job. So to most parents, providing those services is non-negotiable. We will do whatever we need to provide it. And yes, it's much easier to provide if you already have a job, are not living off your savings as a retired person at 39 with kids. |
Anonymous
So find a job you like. But once you choose to bring kids into this world, you have a responsibility to provide for them. And living off of savings on a tight budget when you are perfectly capable of working is not most people's definitions of "providing". You are just one incident away from financial disaster. Whereas if you work (find a job you like, those do exist, I know plenty of people who like their jobs most of the time), you continue to save and have more opportunities to provide as needed |