Has anyone here on a normal income successfully FIREd?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^thought balance billing was when you used an in network facility that employed an out of network provider. I.e. surgeon and surgery center are in network but anesthesiologist is not. This is a real PITA issue by the way, I have tried to verify whether certain support functions were in network and they have no way of knowing so no way for a patient to have a meaningful choice.

Yes, that can be a reason for a balance to exist.

It's very hard to control and verify in advance that every single person involved in your procedure is in-network. Especially in a LCOL area where they might have only one provider in staff. It's foolish to think you can stay in-network every year for decades to come without any surprises.

No, it’s not foolish, if you pay for insurance, you should be INSURED. That means that the insurer should take into account and tell you what’s in network so you get provided the care that you’re insured for. As in, it should be all automatically verified before the patient proceeds with a service that won’t bankrupt them. It’s lunacy that you can get “surprised” by this BS. The health care industry is nuts for working this way.

And yet, in this fallen world OP must live, and budget, and convince a woman that his calculations are accurate...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^thought balance billing was when you used an in network facility that employed an out of network provider. I.e. surgeon and surgery center are in network but anesthesiologist is not. This is a real PITA issue by the way, I have tried to verify whether certain support functions were in network and they have no way of knowing so no way for a patient to have a meaningful choice.

If anesthesiologist at the surgery center where you are covered is not in network then they will work this out with you and have you give them whatever insurance pays (they usually give you a check for a portion of the bill if out of network). I've done this more than once. It's disclosed beforehand, insurance billed for out of network, insurance sends a claim to you with crazy charges and a check for whatever they cover. You are only responsible for the portion insurance paid for if out of network professionals have a contract with the in-network facility and your surgeon.

Of course, this is something to discuss beforehand and if they aren't upfront about this, you do have to be vigilant and inquire if every medical professional/service you need for your procedure or treatment are in network and how out of network charges will work. I disagree that it's impossible to find out, there are more obligations and regulations now on price transparency than before. They do know who is in network and who is not. And if they do a last minute substitution to stick you with someone out of network you are under no obligation to pay them more than your insurance would. If they bill you then dispute and they adjust it.

It happened to me many years ago during hospital delivery of my first child when healthcare companies operating there had undergone restructuring and I ended up with huge out of network charges. I disputed this, made multiple calls with my insurance and old/new provider companies and sorted this out. It dragged on for months and I had to made repeated calls, but it's supposed to be better now. I paid nothing extra.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^thought balance billing was when you used an in network facility that employed an out of network provider. I.e. surgeon and surgery center are in network but anesthesiologist is not. This is a real PITA issue by the way, I have tried to verify whether certain support functions were in network and they have no way of knowing so no way for a patient to have a meaningful choice.

If anesthesiologist at the surgery center where you are covered is not in network then they will work this out with you and have you give them whatever insurance pays (they usually give you a check for a portion of the bill if out of network). I've done this more than once. It's disclosed beforehand, insurance billed for out of network, insurance sends a claim to you with crazy charges and a check for whatever they cover. You are only responsible for the portion insurance paid for if out of network professionals have a contract with the in-network facility and your surgeon.

Of course, this is something to discuss beforehand and if they aren't upfront about this, you do have to be vigilant and inquire if every medical professional/service you need for your procedure or treatment are in network and how out of network charges will work. I disagree that it's impossible to find out, there are more obligations and regulations now on price transparency than before. They do know who is in network and who is not. And if they do a last minute substitution to stick you with someone out of network you are under no obligation to pay them more than your insurance would. If they bill you then dispute and they adjust it.

It happened to me many years ago during hospital delivery of my first child when healthcare companies operating there had undergone restructuring and I ended up with huge out of network charges. I disputed this, made multiple calls with my insurance and old/new provider companies and sorted this out. It dragged on for months and I had to made repeated calls, but it's supposed to be better now. I paid nothing extra.

PP here and I don't know what to say, I called the facility and asked if the anesthesiologist was in network for both DW's delivery and for my vasectomy. In both cases they had me speak to the anesthesiology department or practice or whatever. What that place told me was that they contract with a bunch of different people and all of them have different insurances that they accept and they had no way of knowing who was on the schedule for the day I was going to be there or who would be assigned to me that day.

I have FEHB BCBS and it turns out they were in-network on both occasions but I did what I thought was my best to find out, I'm not sure what else I could have done but I was lucky I didn't have to fight an out of network charge. This was five years ago, maybe things are different today.

[Anonymous]

OP - there's a dating website for FIRE-minded people: www.firedating.me

You can connect with a woman that is already onboard with this type of lifestyle and is likely a saver herself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I were a single woman, I would not want to date a “retired” 35 yr old, I’d want someone working a decently paying job

This. A man hanging around the house or doing hobbies all day is going to be incredibly annoying. And most men make terrible SAHDs and homemakers.

I think it's FIRE or kids, but not both. With kids the best you can do is *maybe* coast FIRE when you're like 55, assuming all goes well with your and the kids' health.

The more human beings in the family, the greater the likelihood of a serious health problem or expensive condition.

So agree with this. My spouse got cancer and semi-retired 15 years ago. Long story short, we have one child, after his cancer got pretty much cured. My spouse was basically stay home dad, he was eligible for his early government pension. I am working full time. Our household income was relatively low for a long time and it was incredibly annoying to not able to travel, dining out, buying nicer clothes because of our limited income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The point is, OP, even if your math is right (which I doubt), the number of women who would sign on for this parenting and this lifestyle and a man your age is a very small percentage of the population. Women who want children tend not to FIRE this aggressively, if at all. Early-retired (aka unemployed) low-income men are not appealing to women-- you'll be hanging around all day wanting attention, and you don't make enough money for a fun travel lifestyle. So just sit at home and be on a tight budget in a blah area is your plan, make the kids be left out of everything they want to do, and rely on your wife for the social interaction and engagement that most people get from working. It's really unappealing! Women don't like this! Telling your family they can't have a nice house or travel, and telling your kids they can't do activities or go to a good college because you just don't wanna have a job, is not a recipe for family happiness.

It seems like you haven't had a lot of dating experience. Almost like for you, FIRE is an excuse to avoid dating, so you've constructed this incredibly improbable imaginable future wife instead. It's unlikely you'll be able to go straight from zero to successful marriage at 38 with no experience. Most people date and work on their relationship skills in preparation for marriage. It can be a good learning experience for both.

As a woman, I 100% agree with this statement. I don't want a man sitting at home doing nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP - there's a dating website for FIRE-minded people: www.firedating.me

You can connect with a woman that is already onboard with this type of lifestyle and is likely a saver herself.

And this is an excellent way for OP to discover he's boxed himself out of the dating pool entirely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point is, OP, even if your math is right (which I doubt), the number of women who would sign on for this parenting and this lifestyle and a man your age is a very small percentage of the population. Women who want children tend not to FIRE this aggressively, if at all. Early-retired (aka unemployed) low-income men are not appealing to women-- you'll be hanging around all day wanting attention, and you don't make enough money for a fun travel lifestyle. So just sit at home and be on a tight budget in a blah area is your plan, make the kids be left out of everything they want to do, and rely on your wife for the social interaction and engagement that most people get from working. It's really unappealing! Women don't like this! Telling your family they can't have a nice house or travel, and telling your kids they can't do activities or go to a good college because you just don't wanna have a job, is not a recipe for family happiness.

It seems like you haven't had a lot of dating experience. Almost like for you, FIRE is an excuse to avoid dating, so you've constructed this incredibly improbable imaginable future wife instead. It's unlikely you'll be able to go straight from zero to successful marriage at 38 with no experience. Most people date and work on their relationship skills in preparation for marriage. It can be a good learning experience for both.

As a woman, I 100% agree with this statement. I don't want a man sitting at home doing nothing.

You might want to let in on your secret all the women who spend their 20s with underemployed losers, which incidentally, is apparently exactly the same as marrying and having a kid with someone who doesn't work because they have a couple million dollars in the bank.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point is, OP, even if your math is right (which I doubt), the number of women who would sign on for this parenting and this lifestyle and a man your age is a very small percentage of the population. Women who want children tend not to FIRE this aggressively, if at all. Early-retired (aka unemployed) low-income men are not appealing to women-- you'll be hanging around all day wanting attention, and you don't make enough money for a fun travel lifestyle. So just sit at home and be on a tight budget in a blah area is your plan, make the kids be left out of everything they want to do, and rely on your wife for the social interaction and engagement that most people get from working. It's really unappealing! Women don't like this! Telling your family they can't have a nice house or travel, and telling your kids they can't do activities or go to a good college because you just don't wanna have a job, is not a recipe for family happiness.

It seems like you haven't had a lot of dating experience. Almost like for you, FIRE is an excuse to avoid dating, so you've constructed this incredibly improbable imaginable future wife instead. It's unlikely you'll be able to go straight from zero to successful marriage at 38 with no experience. Most people date and work on their relationship skills in preparation for marriage. It can be a good learning experience for both.

As a woman, I 100% agree with this statement. I don't want a man sitting at home doing nothing.

You might want to let in on your secret all the women who spend their 20s with underemployed losers, which incidentally, is apparently exactly the same as marrying and having a kid with someone who doesn't work because they have a couple million dollars in the bank.

You're missing the point. Nobody wants a man around underfoot all day. It would take way more than $2m to make that not annoying.

The kind of woman who can save $1m by 33 is not dating an underemployed loser anyway so that doesn't matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point is, OP, even if your math is right (which I doubt), the number of women who would sign on for this parenting and this lifestyle and a man your age is a very small percentage of the population. Women who want children tend not to FIRE this aggressively, if at all. Early-retired (aka unemployed) low-income men are not appealing to women-- you'll be hanging around all day wanting attention, and you don't make enough money for a fun travel lifestyle. So just sit at home and be on a tight budget in a blah area is your plan, make the kids be left out of everything they want to do, and rely on your wife for the social interaction and engagement that most people get from working. It's really unappealing! Women don't like this! Telling your family they can't have a nice house or travel, and telling your kids they can't do activities or go to a good college because you just don't wanna have a job, is not a recipe for family happiness.

It seems like you haven't had a lot of dating experience. Almost like for you, FIRE is an excuse to avoid dating, so you've constructed this incredibly improbable imaginable future wife instead. It's unlikely you'll be able to go straight from zero to successful marriage at 38 with no experience. Most people date and work on their relationship skills in preparation for marriage. It can be a good learning experience for both.

As a woman, I 100% agree with this statement. I don't want a man sitting at home doing nothing.

You might want to let in on your secret all the women who spend their 20s with underemployed losers, which incidentally, is apparently exactly the same as marrying and having a kid with someone who doesn't work because they have a couple million dollars in the bank.

You're missing the point. Nobody wants a man around underfoot all day. It would take way more than $2m to make that not annoying.

The kind of woman who can save $1m by 33 is not dating an underemployed loser anyway so that doesn't matter.

This angry old goat has nothing better to do than rip on some guy with a couple mil who is just on here looking for advice. If you have a man, I feel sorry for him

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP - there's a dating website for FIRE-minded people: www.firedating.me

You can connect with a woman that is already onboard with this type of lifestyle and is likely a saver herself.

And this is an excellent way for OP to discover he's boxed himself out of the dating pool entirely.

To the prior PP, thanks for posting that site - I didn't know such a site existed and will look into it!

And to everyone saying that expecting a woman with $1M at 33 will limit my dating pool, I already said I will adjust if needed. Assuming 10% growth and $100K in new contributions annually (which we can easily do on two incomes before kids), my own $2M would become $3M in three years--so even if she has $0 when we meet, we'd be fine. My main point was that given how important FIRE is to me, any potential spouse would have to also be a saver.

If she had a bunch of student loans to pay off, didn't come from a family where she got any financial help, etc.--and only had $200K saved at 33 despite having a good job and being naturally frugal--that would be totally OK! Dealbreakers would be prioritizing staying at the Four Seasons, as an earlier poster suggested was important to her, or similar spending habits.

[Anonymous]

OP, since you're back, why don't you fill us in on precisely how much baby and toddler parenting you're planning to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP - there's a dating website for FIRE-minded people: www.firedating.me

You can connect with a woman that is already onboard with this type of lifestyle and is likely a saver herself.

And this is an excellent way for OP to discover he's boxed himself out of the dating pool entirely.

To the prior PP, thanks for posting that site - I didn't know such a site existed and will look into it!

And to everyone saying that expecting a woman with $1M at 33 will limit my dating pool, I already said I will adjust if needed. Assuming 10% growth and $100K in new contributions annually (which we can easily do on two incomes before kids), my own $2M would become $3M in three years--so even if she has $0 when we meet, we'd be fine. My main point was that given how important FIRE is to me, any potential spouse would have to also be a saver.

If she had a bunch of student loans to pay off, didn't come from a family where she got any financial help, etc.--and only had $200K saved at 33 despite having a good job and being naturally frugal--that would be totally OK! Dealbreakers would be prioritizing staying at the Four Seasons, as an earlier poster suggested was important to her, or similar spending habits.

Ok, but it's really more your future plan to laze around underfoot for the rest of your life and not pay for the kids to do anything ever.

[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:

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.

Yes PP. The average woman out there will most certainly be unimpressed with a guy who has $2M in stocks and a paid off half a million dollar condo.

What kind of bizarre, privileged world to you live in?

[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:

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.

Yes PP. The average woman out there will most certainly be unimpressed with a guy who has $2M in stocks and a paid off half a million dollar condo.

What kind of bizarre, privileged world to you live in?

He's not looking for an average woman. This isn't that impressive in the FIRE dating pool.