Has anyone here on a normal income successfully FIREd?

[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.

Yup!

Even if the ambition is for a passion/career that doesn't lead to high pay, most women want a partner with ambition and goals in life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

So encourage your kid to do an AA thru dual enrollment while in HS and then you might only need 2-3 years for your degree. Or use the AP courses to save a year. That is totally fine and many kids do just that.
But why would you want to saddle your kids with massive debt just so you can sit at home and do nothing starting at age 40? Why have kids if you don't want to provide for them? I'm not saying "send to 90K+college, pay for medical school, buy them a new car and 200K towards first home" type of providing. But I do believe if you choose to have kids, you should make every effort to help with college, as the fact remains that the majority of higher earners over their lifetimes have a college degree. Why have kids to say "oops, now you are 18, you are on your own, figure out how to pay $45K/year for in-state school and get your degree. good luck with life, see you at Xmas."

[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.

Yup!

Even if the ambition is for a passion/career that doesn't lead to high pay, most women want a partner with ambition and goals in life.

Dcum translator:

Ambition = $
His $ = our $

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

So encourage your kid to do an AA thru dual enrollment while in HS and then you might only need 2-3 years for your degree. Or use the AP courses to save a year. That is totally fine and many kids do just that.
But why would you want to saddle your kids with massive debt just so you can sit at home and do nothing starting at age 40? Why have kids if you don't want to provide for them? I'm not saying "send to 90K+college, pay for medical school, buy them a new car and 200K towards first home" type of providing. But I do believe if you choose to have kids, you should make every effort to help with college, as the fact remains that the majority of higher earners over their lifetimes have a college degree. Why have kids to say "oops, now you are 18, you are on your own, figure out how to pay $45K/year for in-state school and get your degree. good luck with life, see you at Xmas."

This. Especially after OP's parents were willing to support him after college!

It seems like OP just doesn't want kids. And that's okay! Just don't have them, it's fine.

[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:

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.

So you are likely both gov slackers 12-20 yrs behind OP. But you will both become bums like OP soon enough...too funny

Retiring in their 50s, with pensions over 200K, plus SS and/or SS supplement until they start SS, as well as 3M in 401ks is very different than the OP. I also suspect their kids are within 4-5 years from starting college, if not closer, with instate basically funded.

That's extremely different than 90K/year only. And the fact they have pensions means they likely have healthcare coverage at a decent rate as well

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

So encourage your kid to do an AA thru dual enrollment while in HS and then you might only need 2-3 years for your degree. Or use the AP courses to save a year. That is totally fine and many kids do just that.
But why would you want to saddle your kids with massive debt just so you can sit at home and do nothing starting at age 40? Why have kids if you don't want to provide for them? I'm not saying "send to 90K+college, pay for medical school, buy them a new car and 200K towards first home" type of providing. But I do believe if you choose to have kids, you should make every effort to help with college, as the fact remains that the majority of higher earners over their lifetimes have a college degree. Why have kids to say "oops, now you are 18, you are on your own, figure out how to pay $45K/year for in-state school and get your degree. good luck with life, see you at Xmas."

It's a different lifestyle. Who's to say that your lifestyle is any better?

US mil isn't the route I took but it's certainly an option. And veterans get major preference when it comes to fed jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to figure out what kind of childhood you want your kids to have. HCOL or LCOL, and what are you willing to deny them for the sake of FIRE? You also need to understand that if one of your children has significant special needs, it will be really expensive and any notion of FIRE will vanish immediately. Instead it will be work until 70 to pay for therapies and adult care.

What is your FIRE number assuming your kids will need a 3br home, health insurance, and college? Are you willing to deny them all sports and activities? Are you willing to make them go in-state or to a much less good college just for FIRE? It can be hard to find a woman who's on board with that.

I would really question your assumption that there's no rush to have kids. Plenty of women don't want an older husband or don't want their kids to have an older dad, and that's what you're on track to be if you don't get serious about dating very soon. Yes late-30s men can still date, marry, and have kids, but it becomes more and more of a liability. Especially if they don't earn that much. You don't earn enough to make up for it.

Well, you didn’t answer the question, but you do raise some good points. My FIRE number is just for me, not for a family—my number is $2 million plus a paid-off $500,000 condo. That would provide $60,000 per year (3% withdrawal), which is fine for me.

Obviously, that would not be enough to support a family, But I assume that my future wife will probably have another million dollars and some home equity (after all, given how much I value savings, I don’t see how I could end up with a spouse that has a fundamentally different view in that regard).

So with $3 million and a paid-off house, I figure that’s plenty for a LCOL area. And I’m not opposed to working in the future if needed – I just don’t want it to be a necessity.

Lastly, I guess I just disagree with your assessment that, in a few years, I’ll be too old to date. I’ve never heard of a 33-year-old woman that wouldn’t date a 39-year-old man. In fact, that seems to be more common than not in my experience.

1) Bwahahhaa to the idea that your wife will have a million dollars. By what age are you expecting this? From a woman younger than you? Who takes time out of the workforce to bear children, and who do you think will be the primary parent with the more flexible job? It doesn't sound like you're intending to be that person.

2) I think plenty of 33 year old women would consider being 39 a liability. It means you'll be an old dad, less energetic, and be an old man before she is ready. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it's not a positive thing for you on the dating market. You're already limiting yourself to the tiny pool of women interested in FIRE parenting. And of those women you only want one with significant savings. And now you're cutting it down further with your off-putting age. Your dating pool is more like a teaspoon. You need to open your eyes to the cost of raising kids, how tiring it is, and how being a decent parent makes it hard to maximize earnings.

Ideally, I FIRE at 38 and then meet a woman who’s 33. No kids yet so she’s been able to save that whole time—it’s reasonable for her to have $1 million by then. I’m 33 now and have saved more than that on a normal salary—and could have substantially more had paying off my condo not been such a priority for me.

But you can't FIRE at 38 if you want kids FFS!

You need to re-run your numbers with realistic childcare and college expenses, and don't forget to account for expensive health problems and lower earnings due to living LCOL.

Childcare costs will be zero as already mentioned. In-state tuition for one or two kids is not going to be that expensive, but as mentioned, I will go back to work if needed to pay for that.

I agree that the one wild card is health, as is always the case with any early retirement (even in one’s 50s). But I am in excellent health now and I’m not willing to waste my life at a boring job on the off-chance someone in my family has health problems young. If that does happen, I have no problem running a small business to earn money or taking a part-time job for health insurance.

IMO, the health risk of early retirement is overstated. And also, to me, it would be totally different working 40 hours a week on my own terms at a small business versus being a W-2 slave like I currently am.

I'm a business owner. Running a business is not easier than being W2. Not even remotely. If you are running a business as a hobby, good luck to you.

I’m sure that running a real business to support oneself is hard. I’m talking about earning an extra $50,000/year to supplement portfolio income in the event of higher than anticipated medical bills or to save for college.

Ah, you think it's easy to make 50K/year as a business? Lol, okie dokie. You seem to have these fantasies about how everything outside of your current experience, including raising children is cheap and easy.

+1

I’m worried about OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

No. He won’t have any problems finding a woman. Most women prefer to stay home and not work when they are married. A FIRE husband is ideal because she won’t feel lonely at home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

No. He won’t have any problems finding a woman. Most women prefer to stay home and not work when they are married. A FIRE husband is ideal because she won’t feel lonely at home.

Most women who do want to stay home with their kids would probably prefer not to have to save a million dollar by 30 so that their husband can similarly not work. They would probably also prefer to be able to occasionally splurge on new clothes, hair/beauty treatments etc as well as things for their children over having their husband home with them all day.

[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:

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.

Yup!

Even if the ambition is for a passion/career that doesn't lead to high pay, most women want a partner with ambition and goals in life.

Dcum translator:

Ambition = $
His $ = our $

It's just not clear what OP is bringing to the table. If he wants to support himself like this, then it's great. He's asking if this seems like a feasible way to have a family. And yes, in a family finances tend to be mixed.

It is not impossible a woman falls in love with OP and decides she's fine with the life he is proposing. It just doesn't seem very realistic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

No. He won’t have any problems finding a woman. Most women prefer to stay home and not work when they are married. A FIRE husband is ideal because she won’t feel lonely at home.

Well then sounds like it's a great plan!

[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

Exactly. “A guy with $2 million in stocks and a paid off $500,000 house is a bum” said hardly any woman ever. Everyone in the world isn’t an uptight, striving Karen. These type of women are actually grossly over represented in the DC area but are much more in the minority in every other city in America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

No. He won’t have any problems finding a woman. Most women prefer to stay home and not work when they are married. A FIRE husband is ideal because she won’t feel lonely at home.

Most women who do want to stay home with their kids would probably prefer not to have to save a million dollar by 30 so that their husband can similarly not work. They would probably also prefer to be able to occasionally splurge on new clothes, hair/beauty treatments etc as well as things for their children over having their husband home with them all day.

No, the women you described are gold diggers. All women are not gold diggers.
Many women would prefer to have a husband who has a modest salary, loves her and is spending most of his time with her, rather than a rich husband who works 12 hours a day and is never home. Only the gold diggers would prefer the latter.

[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:

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.

Horrible idea. Didn’t you know that if you don’t die at your desk and your kid doesn’t do travel sports twice a year and doesn’t attend Harvard without any student aid or grants you’re a loser?

And are you sure you can survive on $100,000 a year? What if flesh eating zombies rise from the graves?! What will you do then?

[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.

+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.

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

FOR THE LAST TIME. OP will be living on $90,000 after taxes and has a paid off $500,000 home. This is equivalent to having a $160,000-$170,000 salary because of taxes and paying a mortgage on a $500,000 house with after tax money. Do you understand that or do you really think that having a family where one parent makes the equivalent of a $160,000-$170,000 salary is a picture of poverty and gives children a bad life? Because if you truly think this you are delusional even by DCUM standards.

On top of this, as OP said, he doesn’t need to save any money like someone with a $160,000-$170,000 salary would, so his disposable income will be incredibly high for someone with $90,000 take home AFTER TAXES.

I’m done with you financially illiterate posters. SMH.