Has anyone here on a normal income successfully FIREd?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Those aren't the only options.

You also have some weird ideas about women. Most women work.

[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.

Not every woman hates their husband’s company and looks at him as an ATM that she only wants to spend minimal time with. Sorry you didn’t find someone you love and want to share your life with.

[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.

This is the most “sexually frustrated Potomac/McLean mommy tracking woman that hates their husband” post I’ve seen on this site. “Don’t you dare stop working, how will I afford my next season Prada glasses”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t ask this question on a rich parenting board, the parents here all think you’re downright abusive if you don’t spoil the crap out of your kids or that your kids will somehow become damaged if they have to go without.

Not true, there are many poor families who spend practically nothing outside the bare necessities on their children and most turn out fine. There’s no reason why you need to sacrifice FIRE just because you had 2 kids especially if you front loaded wealth building and already have 7 figures by early 30’s. Private school and travel soccer are a HUGE f***ing waste of money and half those kids end up as useless drug addict trust fund babies by their late 20’s anyway. Just send them to state school, make them take out a bit of student loans, play rec league soccer. They don’t need more.

Many of those families have parents working multiple jobs just to make ends meet. On the other hand, telling your kids that they can’t participate in activities and depriving them of opportunities and educational advantages simply so that you can quit working at 40 and sit around playing guitar is flat out selfish and makes you a bad parent.

Yes, the kids will not have an amazing and fulfilling life like snobby dcum types.

Correct, they will have a working class life, but without the opportunities for scholarship and subsidies that are available to the children of actual working class parents.

Most parents hope to provide their children with a better life than they had…then there are those like op who couldn’t care less.

A better life like having someone else raise your kids and being a slave to the man sounds like a very nurturing environment.

I think a nice quality daycare sounds way better than being raised full-time by a man with a negative attitude, no flexibility, financial delusions, and an unwillingness to pay for anything fun.

A negative attitude means not being a cog in the system for some dirtbag boss who will fire you at the drop of a hat? No flexibility means doing literally whatever you want with the day’s time and not having to ask permission from another man to go on vacation? Financial delusion means thinking $2 million and a paid off condo is will sustain you in life?

Are you speaking about yourself or OP?

No, a negative attitude means thinking that all jobs are bad. Lots of people find jobs they like or are self-employed and are fine with it. Women want a man who, if family needs required it, would get a job and have a good attitude about doing what needs to be done. Not a whiny little baby who is convinced he can't possibly be happy if his preshus autonomy is even slightly limited.

OP is delusional because he thinks $90K per year is enough for a family of four.

Plenty of people live on $90k per year for a family of 4. It is absolutely doable. But it's rare that someone chooses that; the vast majority of the time it is because that's all the income they can access. That is what is so confounding about OP - he intends to thrush his yet to be identified wife, and yet to be born children, into a sub-optimal situation, with little to no backstop or safety net, because he doesn't want to work at ~40 years old, and would rather hike and play guitar.

Selfish isn't a strong enough word to describe this attitude.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+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.

They will need to save for college, they can't cash flow it on $90K for two kids.

Buying health insurance on the private market will cost up to $2000 a month. So there goes $24K-- and that's the best case scenario with no major issues or un-covered needs.

They may not have much income taxes but they will have property taxes. LCOL areas sometimes have high property taxes. Plus everything they have to self-pay that they wouldn't have to in a city.

[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.

Only a man would think this.

There is nothing more irritating to a SAHM than a bored, under socialized man underfoot all day, pestering and micromanaging everything she does.

[Anonymous]

I think 2 SAHP with one kid would be ideal. You could alternate time with the child in the morning say 2 hours on 2 off then maybe do stuff together in the afternoon. I think with two kids it would be harder because you would be inclined to give attention to one of them so it would be harder to have alone time.

I might work until the hospital visits are over. Not sure how the exchange plans work but delivering a baby is a hospital stay and after the insurance negotiated rate it was like $15K and I think we paid $200. Probably better to have employer-provided insurance for that but double check what the exchanges offer.

Final thought is if you're not dating now you should start for a lot of reasons. Meet people, figure out what you want, enjoy the experience. Also, rather than rely on 14 pages of what people here say women want you can meet them and find out for yourself. That may or may not necessitate a shift in your plans but better to have the actual information from actual women than reading about it here. Also, if you're 33 now you might want a little time together without the pressure of having kids immediately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is the most “sexually frustrated Potomac/McLean mommy tracking woman that hates their husband” post I’ve seen on this site. “Don’t you dare stop working, how will I afford my next season Prada glasses”

You seem to be missing the part that op is not only expecting to find a high earning spouse in their own right as well, but one who is also willing to live at home with their parents subsisting on ramen and living a spartan lifestyle so that they can have a million dollars saved by 30 at which point they get to quit work, have children, serve as the primary caregiver and continue to coupon clip while op sits around playing guitar. This isn’t a question of Prada glasses it’s about being able to just do normal things like get a basic hair cut/color a couple times a year, occasionally buy a new outfit or go out to dinner with friends without the pressure of needing to constantly be in the ultra frugal “FIRE” mindset,.

There’s a reason the FIRE movement skews heavily male it’s just not a very attractive vision of life for most women, especially high earners with far better options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is the most “sexually frustrated Potomac/McLean mommy tracking woman that hates their husband” post I’ve seen on this site. “Don’t you dare stop working, how will I afford my next season Prada glasses”

You seem to be missing the part that op is not only expecting to find a high earning spouse in their own right as well, but one who is also willing to live at home with their parents subsisting on ramen and living a spartan lifestyle so that they can have a million dollars saved by 30 at which point they get to quit work, have children, serve as the primary caregiver and continue to coupon clip while op sits around playing guitar. This isn’t a question of Prada glasses it’s about being able to just do normal things like get a basic hair cut/color a couple times a year, occasionally buy a new outfit or go out to dinner with friends without the pressure of needing to constantly be in the ultra frugal “FIRE” mindset,.

There’s a reason the FIRE movement skews heavily male it’s just not a very attractive vision of life for most women, especially high earners with far better options.

^ I agree with this. And let me add, with compassion, that what I thought I wanted at 29 turns out to be different from what I want now that I am in my 50s. I was willing to live in a group house where we shared bathrooms at 29. I didn't spend any money on expensive serums or lotions because I didn't need them. I was fine getting cheap clothes, all used.

In my 50s, I am not fine with all those things. I am still not a profligate spender, but I do not want to be negotiating with my spouse over whether I can get that expensive vitamin c serum that does magical things for my mature skin. What OP wants from life may also change as he matures into real adulthood. What if the person OP falls in love with wants an actual wedding - not a city hall affair? Even if you do it on a tight budget, that gets expensive. Does the FIRE plan allow for throwing a party for a couple dozen people to celebrate with you?

I think the advice to actually start dating is right. See what you like. See WHO you like. Find out what the women you like like about you - and what they don't.

Does your budget allow for going out for dinner OP? What sorts of dates do you plan to go on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is the most “sexually frustrated Potomac/McLean mommy tracking woman that hates their husband” post I’ve seen on this site. “Don’t you dare stop working, how will I afford my next season Prada glasses”

You seem to be missing the part that op is not only expecting to find a high earning spouse in their own right as well, but one who is also willing to live at home with their parents subsisting on ramen and living a spartan lifestyle so that they can have a million dollars saved by 30 at which point they get to quit work, have children, serve as the primary caregiver and continue to coupon clip while op sits around playing guitar. This isn’t a question of Prada glasses it’s about being able to just do normal things like get a basic hair cut/color a couple times a year, occasionally buy a new outfit or go out to dinner with friends without the pressure of needing to constantly be in the ultra frugal “FIRE” mindset,.

There’s a reason the FIRE movement skews heavily male it’s just not a very attractive vision of life for most women, especially high earners with far better options.

^ I agree with this. And let me add, with compassion, that what I thought I wanted at 29 turns out to be different from what I want now that I am in my 50s. I was willing to live in a group house where we shared bathrooms at 29. I didn't spend any money on expensive serums or lotions because I didn't need them. I was fine getting cheap clothes, all used.

In my 50s, I am not fine with all those things. I am still not a profligate spender, but I do not want to be negotiating with my spouse over whether I can get that expensive vitamin c serum that does magical things for my mature skin. What OP wants from life may also change as he matures into real adulthood. What if the person OP falls in love with wants an actual wedding - not a city hall affair? Even if you do it on a tight budget, that gets expensive. Does the FIRE plan allow for throwing a party for a couple dozen people to celebrate with you?

I think the advice to actually start dating is right. See what you like. See WHO you like. Find out what the women you like like about you - and what they don't.

Does your budget allow for going out for dinner OP? What sorts of dates do you plan to go on?

Which serum?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is the most “sexually frustrated Potomac/McLean mommy tracking woman that hates their husband” post I’ve seen on this site. “Don’t you dare stop working, how will I afford my next season Prada glasses”

You seem to be missing the part that op is not only expecting to find a high earning spouse in their own right as well, but one who is also willing to live at home with their parents subsisting on ramen and living a spartan lifestyle so that they can have a million dollars saved by 30 at which point they get to quit work, have children, serve as the primary caregiver and continue to coupon clip while op sits around playing guitar. This isn’t a question of Prada glasses it’s about being able to just do normal things like get a basic hair cut/color a couple times a year, occasionally buy a new outfit or go out to dinner with friends without the pressure of needing to constantly be in the ultra frugal “FIRE” mindset,.

There’s a reason the FIRE movement skews heavily male it’s just not a very attractive vision of life for most women, especially high earners with far better options.

^ I agree with this. And let me add, with compassion, that what I thought I wanted at 29 turns out to be different from what I want now that I am in my 50s. I was willing to live in a group house where we shared bathrooms at 29. I didn't spend any money on expensive serums or lotions because I didn't need them. I was fine getting cheap clothes, all used.

In my 50s, I am not fine with all those things. I am still not a profligate spender, but I do not want to be negotiating with my spouse over whether I can get that expensive vitamin c serum that does magical things for my mature skin. What OP wants from life may also change as he matures into real adulthood. What if the person OP falls in love with wants an actual wedding - not a city hall affair? Even if you do it on a tight budget, that gets expensive. Does the FIRE plan allow for throwing a party for a couple dozen people to celebrate with you?

I think the advice to actually start dating is right. See what you like. See WHO you like. Find out what the women you like like about you - and what they don't.

Does your budget allow for going out for dinner OP? What sorts of dates do you plan to go on?

Which serum?

https://www.dermstore.com/skinceuticals-c-e-ferulic-with-15-l-ascorbic-acid-vitamin-c-serum-30ml/11289609.html?affil=thgppc&kwds=&thg_ppc_campaign=71700000115451640&adtype=pla&product_id=11289609&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwg8qzBhAoEiwAWagLrCBGKgitszHOR0AIxTTxAzKmgqX6yDs1Tr16uoYtzdAp9jK32pELbxoCoc0QAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

It costs an absolute fortune but the bottles last 3 or 4 months, and nothing has been better for my skin than this.

[Anonymous]

$90K... Ok

$25K for health insurance (monthly, co-pays, things not covered). Remember, having babies means tons of appointments! And little kids injure themselves-- sprains and breaks, broken teeth, and all the random ear infections and rashes and fevers other stuff that necessitates an appointment. Don't forget your wife's medical care-- pregnancy complications, C-section care, mastitis, all kinds of stuff.

3K for property taxes plus assessments. LCOL areas love to claim low tax rates but slap homeowners with "assessments" when funds are needed.

Home maintenance... Gonna say $1K per year for basics, assuming a lot of DIY, plus every so often a major expense in the $5K-$25K range (roof, boiler, exterior paint). Let's set aside $4K a year for that. Total of $5K.

$2K a year for utilities and phones, maybe $3-5K if it's a cold climate. Heat uses more in a single family home than a condo.

5K for gas and car maintenance. Probably two cars, since LCOLs tend to be less dense, you'll be driving a lot. Also, set aside $1K per year to replace the cars as they depreciate. Snow tires if it's cold.

$5K a year in college savings, to contribute to SOME of the cost of an in-state education. Mr. My Parents Supported Me After College needs to do the right thing here.

$5K for travel to his and her family. Remember, if you fly, that's 4 plane tickets.

See how fast that goes? We've spent more than half the $90K already, and nobody's eaten any food or worn any clothes, and nothing bad has happened yet. But it will!

[Anonymous]

OP, I've follow a blog by a guy who successfully FIREd at 33 with kids in North Carolina. https://rootofgood.com/about/
Their families' net worth is under $3m. They've raised 3 kids and they travel more than I do using credit card points. It can be done. I follow them because I think their alternative way of life is fascinating, but I've got a higher net worth than they do, my spouse is a high earner, and I'm still working. I do it so our kids can do competitive sports, music, and other enriching activities and we can fully fund their education (my parents paid for undergrad and law school, so I was able to save much of my big law salary out law school - hoping to pay it forward to the next generation). Having a high net worth is nice outside of FIRE because it gives you the confidence to set boundaries and make demands at work, or to go out on your own and build a business or practice on your terms. There is a middle ground between quitting and part time.

[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

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.

+1
This guy is unlikely to find a decent partner in this area. Definitely a lot more likely in other parts of the US. And going to Asia or South America would be like shooting fish in a barrel.

Honestly, OP needs to be less rigid when it comes to a future lifestyle. An idea or goal is great in theory, but it ultimately doesn't make you happy. You need to kind of figure out what makes you content and that is a process.

[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

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.

A 38 year old guy with two million dollars in stock who plans to never work another day in his life but wants children/a family is going to be viewed as a bum by most 30 year old women who have already managed to save a million dollars (ie the specific category op is self purportedly seeking to attract.)

[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

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.

A 38 year old guy with two million dollars in stock who plans to never work another day in his life but wants children/a family is going to be viewed as a bum by most 30 year old women who have already managed to save a million dollars (ie the specific category op is self purportedly seeking to attract.)

It doesn't matter how much you saved if you do nothing all day. You're still a bum. And p.s. a large part of that $2 million is due to his parents supporting him for years after college. Not impressive.