Can 29yr old live off $1.5 million w/working?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can my brother live the rest of his life without working? He is 29 years old and inherited a modest house and about $1.5 million. He has no intention to ever work again. He is not a big spender, no lavish vacations or expensive shopping sprees. He does make questionable financial choices sometimes such as paying way too much for something because he didn’t do any research. He is not great at “adulting” like remembering to paying bills and frequently lets his Obama insurance lapse. Overall a functioning person who has no interest in working. He has “done the math” and has determined that he never needs to work again and can live off the money we inherited from our parents. I’m not convinced but he is not open to discussion.

I inherited the same amount of money minus the house. I put it in an investment account. I don’t think it is enough to live on but maybe my life is just very different? I have a wife and a baby. We own a house and want to save for school and college. I did tell my brother that he is going to have a hard time finding a woman with his situation but he always seems to have a new girl he met on Tinder so who knows?

A 29 year old needs a nest egg that can last 61 years by most traditional measures. Negligible social security and pension. Such a person would need to be able to live off an initial withdrawal of 1/61 of available savings, with subsequent withdrawals indexed for inflation. That’s basically $1.5M / 61 = $24,600. Even if we’re talking after-tax money, this is a pretty LMC lifestyle.

Lol, no. 3% is considered a "permanent withdrawal rate" (i.e., you NEVER run out of money). So he can take out $1.5M x 0.03 = $45K the first year and adjust that up for inflation forever. If he sells the house and nets another $500K, he can bump that up to $60K forever. Only on DCUM can people not understand how *one person* can live off that.

Inflation. My kid lives in a MCOL area. Their rent just went up 27% for the next year lease. So did many of the apartments near them. So unless they want to get a roommate or live in a downgraded apartment, they are paying much more next year (and likely after that). And by downgraded apartment, I mean one without AC (think area that it's required), one that has carpet everywhere but the kitchen and bathroom (even the eating area would have carpet), apartment is 40+ yo and not been updated in 20+ years, etc. No inside parking (think upper midwest where it snows a lot), etc.

The safe withdrawal rates are tested for inflation--including periods of intense inflation (e.g. 1970s). You draw down your initial amount + inflation.

Seriously, how realistic do you think it is that this 29 year old, who doesn't want to work, will be able to manage his inheritance in a way that he can make it work? Seems to me that if he had the chops to invest in such a way to make it work, he would work, at the very least to secure Medicare and SS.

I have no idea--I don't know him. I just am noting that the safe withdrawal rate formulas are adjusted for inflation.

Would you at least agree that safe withdrawal rates have not been tested over extended periods of times. Rather, the Trinity study on which this is based was only for a 30-year period?

I guess my point is that if we are going to state things as absolutes, all facts should be included.

Just as an aside--I'm not the same person making all the counterpoints here. I don't go around calling people dolts and the like for instance. The original Trinity study which suggested a 4% SWR was based on a 30 year period, but others have studied it for longer and with different withdrawal rates. And now anyone can basically replicate their study just by punching numbers into firecalc/cfiresim since that's essentially what their study involved (testing over all prior historical periods). (Side note--it is kind of amazing how much financial tools have grown that we can know replicate for free what took a major study to do in the past). If you put in 40, 50, 55, etc. years both your odds and your predicted end number not surprisingly tend to go up--just because time in the market is everything. If you adjust your spend the first 8 or so years to not tap into if it's down, your results go up even more. So having 1.5m when you are 29 is *better* than having it when you are 50 if you can commit to not increasing your spending more than inflation.

I love all the tools. And agree we have so much more access to tools and information than even 5 years ago.

Out of curiosity, I ran Firecalc.

Using a combination of 30 year Treasuries (which had been suggested earlier) and Total Market equities:
55 years: 45K (3% drawdown) 1.5MM initial portfolio
25% equities: 80% chance of success
0% equities: 23% chance of success
60 years: 45K (3% drawdown) 1.5mm initial portfolio
25% equities: 71.3% chance of success
0% equities: 21.3% chance of success

The safewithdrawal portfolio studies are usually based on a balance of 60-70% equities (Total market) and 30-40% (total bond index).

What do the numbers look like if you are 100% equity? Seems like a no brainer if you want a decent withdrawal rate over 50 or 60 years.

[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:Can my brother live the rest of his life without working? He is 29 years old and inherited a modest house and about $1.5 million. He has no intention to ever work again. He is not a big spender, no lavish vacations or expensive shopping sprees. He does make questionable financial choices sometimes such as paying way too much for something because he didn’t do any research. He is not great at “adulting” like remembering to paying bills and frequently lets his Obama insurance lapse. Overall a functioning person who has no interest in working. He has “done the math” and has determined that he never needs to work again and can live off the money we inherited from our parents. I’m not convinced but he is not open to discussion.

I inherited the same amount of money minus the house. I put it in an investment account. I don’t think it is enough to live on but maybe my life is just very different? I have a wife and a baby. We own a house and want to save for school and college. I did tell my brother that he is going to have a hard time finding a woman with his situation but he always seems to have a new girl he met on Tinder so who knows?

A 29 year old needs a nest egg that can last 61 years by most traditional measures. Negligible social security and pension. Such a person would need to be able to live off an initial withdrawal of 1/61 of available savings, with subsequent withdrawals indexed for inflation. That’s basically $1.5M / 61 = $24,600. Even if we’re talking after-tax money, this is a pretty LMC lifestyle.

Lol, no. 3% is considered a "permanent withdrawal rate" (i.e., you NEVER run out of money). So he can take out $1.5M x 0.03 = $45K the first year and adjust that up for inflation forever. If he sells the house and nets another $500K, he can bump that up to $60K forever. Only on DCUM can people not understand how *one person* can live off that.

Inflation. My kid lives in a MCOL area. Their rent just went up 27% for the next year lease. So did many of the apartments near them. So unless they want to get a roommate or live in a downgraded apartment, they are paying much more next year (and likely after that). And by downgraded apartment, I mean one without AC (think area that it's required), one that has carpet everywhere but the kitchen and bathroom (even the eating area would have carpet), apartment is 40+ yo and not been updated in 20+ years, etc. No inside parking (think upper midwest where it snows a lot), etc.

The safe withdrawal rates are tested for inflation--including periods of intense inflation (e.g. 1970s). You draw down your initial amount + inflation.

Seriously, how realistic do you think it is that this 29 year old, who doesn't want to work, will be able to manage his inheritance in a way that he can make it work? Seems to me that if he had the chops to invest in such a way to make it work, he would work, at the very least to secure Medicare and SS.

I have no idea--I don't know him. I just am noting that the safe withdrawal rate formulas are adjusted for inflation.

Would you at least agree that safe withdrawal rates have not been tested over extended periods of times. Rather, the Trinity study on which this is based was only for a 30-year period?

I guess my point is that if we are going to state things as absolutes, all facts should be included.

Just as an aside--I'm not the same person making all the counterpoints here. I don't go around calling people dolts and the like for instance. The original Trinity study which suggested a 4% SWR was based on a 30 year period, but others have studied it for longer and with different withdrawal rates. And now anyone can basically replicate their study just by punching numbers into firecalc/cfiresim since that's essentially what their study involved (testing over all prior historical periods). (Side note--it is kind of amazing how much financial tools have grown that we can know replicate for free what took a major study to do in the past). If you put in 40, 50, 55, etc. years both your odds and your predicted end number not surprisingly tend to go up--just because time in the market is everything. If you adjust your spend the first 8 or so years to not tap into if it's down, your results go up even more. So having 1.5m when you are 29 is *better* than having it when you are 50 if you can commit to not increasing your spending more than inflation.

I love all the tools. And agree we have so much more access to tools and information than even 5 years ago.

Out of curiosity, I ran Firecalc.

Using a combination of 30 year Treasuries (which had been suggested earlier) and Total Market equities:
55 years: 45K (3% drawdown) 1.5MM initial portfolio
25% equities: 80% chance of success
0% equities: 23% chance of success
60 years: 45K (3% drawdown) 1.5mm initial portfolio
25% equities: 71.3% chance of success
0% equities: 21.3% chance of success

The safewithdrawal portfolio studies are usually based on a balance of 60-70% equities (Total market) and 30-40% (total bond index).

What do the numbers look like if you are 100% equity? Seems like a no brainer if you want a decent withdrawal rate over 50 or 60 years.

DP, but in running the calculators, and even having had them run professionally, the sweet spot is 60/40 or 50/50 once you've retired. Enough growth combined with some safety to get you through down swings. That said, higher allocation of equities gives you a greater chance of ending w a higher balance but that is offset by a greater chance of ending with a lower balance.

It's really dependent on your starting balance and your expenses. High balance and low proportional expenses gives the investor greater flexibility.

[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:Can my brother live the rest of his life without working? He is 29 years old and inherited a modest house and about $1.5 million. He has no intention to ever work again. He is not a big spender, no lavish vacations or expensive shopping sprees. He does make questionable financial choices sometimes such as paying way too much for something because he didn’t do any research. He is not great at “adulting” like remembering to paying bills and frequently lets his Obama insurance lapse. Overall a functioning person who has no interest in working. He has “done the math” and has determined that he never needs to work again and can live off the money we inherited from our parents. I’m not convinced but he is not open to discussion.

I inherited the same amount of money minus the house. I put it in an investment account. I don’t think it is enough to live on but maybe my life is just very different? I have a wife and a baby. We own a house and want to save for school and college. I did tell my brother that he is going to have a hard time finding a woman with his situation but he always seems to have a new girl he met on Tinder so who knows?

A 29 year old needs a nest egg that can last 61 years by most traditional measures. Negligible social security and pension. Such a person would need to be able to live off an initial withdrawal of 1/61 of available savings, with subsequent withdrawals indexed for inflation. That’s basically $1.5M / 61 = $24,600. Even if we’re talking after-tax money, this is a pretty LMC lifestyle.

Lol, no. 3% is considered a "permanent withdrawal rate" (i.e., you NEVER run out of money). So he can take out $1.5M x 0.03 = $45K the first year and adjust that up for inflation forever. If he sells the house and nets another $500K, he can bump that up to $60K forever. Only on DCUM can people not understand how *one person* can live off that.

Inflation. My kid lives in a MCOL area. Their rent just went up 27% for the next year lease. So did many of the apartments near them. So unless they want to get a roommate or live in a downgraded apartment, they are paying much more next year (and likely after that). And by downgraded apartment, I mean one without AC (think area that it's required), one that has carpet everywhere but the kitchen and bathroom (even the eating area would have carpet), apartment is 40+ yo and not been updated in 20+ years, etc. No inside parking (think upper midwest where it snows a lot), etc.

The safe withdrawal rates are tested for inflation--including periods of intense inflation (e.g. 1970s). You draw down your initial amount + inflation.

Seriously, how realistic do you think it is that this 29 year old, who doesn't want to work, will be able to manage his inheritance in a way that he can make it work? Seems to me that if he had the chops to invest in such a way to make it work, he would work, at the very least to secure Medicare and SS.

I have no idea--I don't know him. I just am noting that the safe withdrawal rate formulas are adjusted for inflation.

Would you at least agree that safe withdrawal rates have not been tested over extended periods of times. Rather, the Trinity study on which this is based was only for a 30-year period?

I guess my point is that if we are going to state things as absolutes, all facts should be included.

Just as an aside--I'm not the same person making all the counterpoints here. I don't go around calling people dolts and the like for instance. The original Trinity study which suggested a 4% SWR was based on a 30 year period, but others have studied it for longer and with different withdrawal rates. And now anyone can basically replicate their study just by punching numbers into firecalc/cfiresim since that's essentially what their study involved (testing over all prior historical periods). (Side note--it is kind of amazing how much financial tools have grown that we can know replicate for free what took a major study to do in the past). If you put in 40, 50, 55, etc. years both your odds and your predicted end number not surprisingly tend to go up--just because time in the market is everything. If you adjust your spend the first 8 or so years to not tap into if it's down, your results go up even more. So having 1.5m when you are 29 is *better* than having it when you are 50 if you can commit to not increasing your spending more than inflation.

I love all the tools. And agree we have so much more access to tools and information than even 5 years ago.

Out of curiosity, I ran Firecalc.

Using a combination of 30 year Treasuries (which had been suggested earlier) and Total Market equities:
55 years: 45K (3% drawdown) 1.5MM initial portfolio
25% equities: 80% chance of success
0% equities: 23% chance of success
60 years: 45K (3% drawdown) 1.5mm initial portfolio
25% equities: 71.3% chance of success
0% equities: 21.3% chance of success

The safewithdrawal portfolio studies are usually based on a balance of 60-70% equities (Total market) and 30-40% (total bond index).

What do the numbers look like if you are 100% equity? Seems like a no brainer if you want a decent withdrawal rate over 50 or 60 years.

Also, here is the calculator I like: firecalc.com. Others prefer cFireism.com I like that firecalc has a lot of knobs and dials to adjust.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he can live on 45K/year, paying for his own health insurance, receive no Medicare and probably receive no SS, for 50 to 60 years, go for it.

And for those saying there are people who live like that, it is rare that it's intentional, plus THEY will get Medicare and SS at a minimum.

I honestly can’t believe any relatively young person with a functioning brain would deliberately INCLUDE social security in their retirement plans! I’m planning as though that program will at a minimum be means tested and therefore I will get nothing. Anything I DO end up getting will be a bonus.

Tl;dr it’s difficult to take financial advice from someone banking on future social security payments seriously…

Social security will almost certainly be there, but benefits will likely be cut. If you want to be conservative assume your benefits are going to be reduced by at least 25% and assume that total benefits will be caped at an inflation adjusted $2,000 per month. This 29 year old brother will not be social security at all if he does not have 10 years of work history and assuming he does not get married.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This board truly has no clue what the lifestyle of the average American is like.

Of course he can retire with 1.5mil and a paid off house! Of course it’s possible to squander it, but it’s also possible to live a nice, quiet, fulfilling life.

Yes, he can retire at 55 or 60 with 1.5M and a paid off house. But this guy wants to retire AT 29! 1.5M is NOT enough to get you through 50+ years of living, including having to pay for healthcare for the next 36 years.

Maybe if you go live in small town (LCOL) and grow your own food and farm your own chickens for eggs and to eat. But it's a risky venture when you are only 29 to quit working with that little saved.

Yes it is, you absolute dolt.

Seriously, what exactly do you think this guy’s expenses will be?

I am not the "dolt" (super rude, btw) but it would be an interesting experiment to run 29 yo's numbers.
45K yearly income with no SS
Expenses:
Federal (maybe state) taxes
Property taxes
Utilities
Healthcare (forever)
Home maintenance
Food

My 90 year old dad has a small, paid off home, has healthcare for life, no travel, no new clothes, no going out, and it still costs him 5K/month. And that is before income taxes. It all adds up.

What is your 90 years old Dad spending 5K per month on? The median American income is 5K per month GROSS. Do you think half of Americans are living under bridges or something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This board truly has no clue what the lifestyle of the average American is like.

Of course he can retire with 1.5mil and a paid off house! Of course it’s possible to squander it, but it’s also possible to live a nice, quiet, fulfilling life.

Yes, he can retire at 55 or 60 with 1.5M and a paid off house. But this guy wants to retire AT 29! 1.5M is NOT enough to get you through 50+ years of living, including having to pay for healthcare for the next 36 years.

Maybe if you go live in small town (LCOL) and grow your own food and farm your own chickens for eggs and to eat. But it's a risky venture when you are only 29 to quit working with that little saved.

Yes it is, you absolute dolt.

Seriously, what exactly do you think this guy’s expenses will be?

I am not the "dolt" (super rude, btw) but it would be an interesting experiment to run 29 yo's numbers.
45K yearly income with no SS
Expenses:
Federal (maybe state) taxes
Property taxes
Utilities
Healthcare (forever)
Home maintenance
Food

My 90 year old dad has a small, paid off home, has healthcare for life, no travel, no new clothes, no going out, and it still costs him 5K/month. And that is before income taxes. It all adds up.

Spending 5k/month? Paid off home, no healthcare costs, no travel.
Where is the money being spent?

I’m single, earn 55k, I pay rent, healthcare, clothes, I travel and I still save $800/month.

High property tax state. Older home that keeps needing repairs. Utilities and food. We are working on utilities (just got rid of his landline) to bring them down, but it all adds up. I would guess you are paying less in rent than he is paying in property taxes, home insurance and maintenance.

Being generous food for a single old man is not going to be more than about $500 per month. Let’s say utilities are also 500.

Are you trying to tell us he spends almost 50K per year on property taxes, home insurance, and home “maintenance”? Because it sounds like the “maintenance” is more likely to be “upgrades” with those numbers…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This board truly has no clue what the lifestyle of the average American is like.

Of course he can retire with 1.5mil and a paid off house! Of course it’s possible to squander it, but it’s also possible to live a nice, quiet, fulfilling life.

Yes, he can retire at 55 or 60 with 1.5M and a paid off house. But this guy wants to retire AT 29! 1.5M is NOT enough to get you through 50+ years of living, including having to pay for healthcare for the next 36 years.

Maybe if you go live in small town (LCOL) and grow your own food and farm your own chickens for eggs and to eat. But it's a risky venture when you are only 29 to quit working with that little saved.

Yes it is, you absolute dolt.

Seriously, what exactly do you think this guy’s expenses will be?

I am not the "dolt" (super rude, btw) but it would be an interesting experiment to run 29 yo's numbers.
45K yearly income with no SS
Expenses:
Federal (maybe state) taxes
Property taxes
Utilities
Healthcare (forever)
Home maintenance
Food

My 90 year old dad has a small, paid off home, has healthcare for life, no travel, no new clothes, no going out, and it still costs him 5K/month. And that is before income taxes. It all adds up.

What is your 90 years old Dad spending 5K per month on? The median American income is 5K per month GROSS. Do you think half of Americans are living under bridges or something?

The median individual income is only $39k per year...which is $3,250/month gross.

Yeah, if a 90-year old doesn't have to pay for healthcare (assume prescription drugs are also nearly 100% covered?), doesn't travel, has a paid-off home, doesn't eat out, doesn't buy clothes..assume doesn't pay for an in-home nurse/aide...I don't know what he is spending $5k per month on either.

Food at home and utilities don't add up to that. I hope to God he isn't driving around, though suppose could still own a car and be paying insurance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did the brother get more inheritance? OP you never answered.

This

Clearly the parents knew they raised a dud and favored him.

Give extra to a dud?

[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:Can my brother live the rest of his life without working? He is 29 years old and inherited a modest house and about $1.5 million. He has no intention to ever work again. He is not a big spender, no lavish vacations or expensive shopping sprees. He does make questionable financial choices sometimes such as paying way too much for something because he didn’t do any research. He is not great at “adulting” like remembering to paying bills and frequently lets his Obama insurance lapse. Overall a functioning person who has no interest in working. He has “done the math” and has determined that he never needs to work again and can live off the money we inherited from our parents. I’m not convinced but he is not open to discussion.

I inherited the same amount of money minus the house. I put it in an investment account. I don’t think it is enough to live on but maybe my life is just very different? I have a wife and a baby. We own a house and want to save for school and college. I did tell my brother that he is going to have a hard time finding a woman with his situation but he always seems to have a new girl he met on Tinder so who knows?

A 29 year old needs a nest egg that can last 61 years by most traditional measures. Negligible social security and pension. Such a person would need to be able to live off an initial withdrawal of 1/61 of available savings, with subsequent withdrawals indexed for inflation. That’s basically $1.5M / 61 = $24,600. Even if we’re talking after-tax money, this is a pretty LMC lifestyle.

Lol, no. 3% is considered a "permanent withdrawal rate" (i.e., you NEVER run out of money). So he can take out $1.5M x 0.03 = $45K the first year and adjust that up for inflation forever. If he sells the house and nets another $500K, he can bump that up to $60K forever. Only on DCUM can people not understand how *one person* can live off that.

Inflation. My kid lives in a MCOL area. Their rent just went up 27% for the next year lease. So did many of the apartments near them. So unless they want to get a roommate or live in a downgraded apartment, they are paying much more next year (and likely after that). And by downgraded apartment, I mean one without AC (think area that it's required), one that has carpet everywhere but the kitchen and bathroom (even the eating area would have carpet), apartment is 40+ yo and not been updated in 20+ years, etc. No inside parking (think upper midwest where it snows a lot), etc.

The safe withdrawal rates are tested for inflation--including periods of intense inflation (e.g. 1970s). You draw down your initial amount + inflation.

Seriously, how realistic do you think it is that this 29 year old, who doesn't want to work, will be able to manage his inheritance in a way that he can make it work? Seems to me that if he had the chops to invest in such a way to make it work, he would work, at the very least to secure Medicare and SS.

I have no idea--I don't know him. I just am noting that the safe withdrawal rate formulas are adjusted for inflation.

Would you at least agree that safe withdrawal rates have not been tested over extended periods of times. Rather, the Trinity study on which this is based was only for a 30-year period?

I guess my point is that if we are going to state things as absolutes, all facts should be included.

Just as an aside--I'm not the same person making all the counterpoints here. I don't go around calling people dolts and the like for instance. The original Trinity study which suggested a 4% SWR was based on a 30 year period, but others have studied it for longer and with different withdrawal rates. And now anyone can basically replicate their study just by punching numbers into firecalc/cfiresim since that's essentially what their study involved (testing over all prior historical periods). (Side note--it is kind of amazing how much financial tools have grown that we can know replicate for free what took a major study to do in the past). If you put in 40, 50, 55, etc. years both your odds and your predicted end number not surprisingly tend to go up--just because time in the market is everything. If you adjust your spend the first 8 or so years to not tap into if it's down, your results go up even more. So having 1.5m when you are 29 is *better* than having it when you are 50 if you can commit to not increasing your spending more than inflation.

I love all the tools. And agree we have so much more access to tools and information than even 5 years ago.

Out of curiosity, I ran Firecalc.

Using a combination of 30 year Treasuries (which had been suggested earlier) and Total Market equities:
55 years: 45K (3% drawdown) 1.5MM initial portfolio
25% equities: 80% chance of success
0% equities: 23% chance of success
60 years: 45K (3% drawdown) 1.5mm initial portfolio
25% equities: 71.3% chance of success
0% equities: 21.3% chance of success

The safewithdrawal portfolio studies are usually based on a balance of 60-70% equities (Total market) and 30-40% (total bond index).

What do the numbers look like if you are 100% equity? Seems like a no brainer if you want a decent withdrawal rate over 50 or 60 years.

Average end result is higher, but failure rate is also higher and happens sooner. It would be a no-brainer if you just vowed to work during the years when equities are down instead of withdrawing.

[Anonymous]

Your parents liked your brother better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did the brother get more inheritance? OP you never answered.

This

Clearly the parents knew they raised a dud and favored him.

Give extra to a dud?

The brother got a house in addition to 1.5MM. OP just got 1.5MM. They knew brother would never amount to anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did the brother get more inheritance? OP you never answered.

This

Clearly the parents knew they raised a dud and favored him.

Give extra to a dud?

Sounds like it.

Crazy way of thinking.

[Anonymous]

The brother can't be that bad if the parents gave him more.

[Anonymous]

It really depends on the state. I have a sibling who lives in California and has figured out that they get more not working. Free health care, food stamps, etc. What state does your sibling live in?

[Anonymous]

I think this whole discussion is moot anyway. The margin would definitely be tight long term. But even if it were feasible, there's no way someone who just announces they're quitting working at 29 has the self-discipline to pull it off. It'll be gone in single digit years.