Can I/should I take time off

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are lots of ways to tap 401ks and IRAs early without penalty.

In any event, $4 million in investments at 48 is fantastic. You don't need to invest anymore. At 58, you'll conservatively be able to draw over 300k a year without touching the principal. Even now, you could draw 160k a year without touching principal.

That's assuming we don't have a pull back, which will happen at some point.

You mean a down market? No, this assumes down markets. The 4% rule was derived from nearly 100 years of data, which includes lots of down markets. And I project a 7% annual return over the next decades, which is conservative and draws from nearly 100 years of data.

My estimates are conservative and account for downturns.

I understand that. But we could have a downturn soon. And that could leave OP open to greater sequence of return risks. We are staying the course right now to secure a big enough portfolio that can withstand a significant correction and still be able to pay the % we need to live a good life in retirement.

Do whatever you want, but the data support that OP can withstand a significant correction and still retire comfortably at this age.

You are making assumptions on OP's behalf. DW's income could probably cover their basic expenses. Their 529s could probably cover their kids' in-state tuition. I think it's irresponsible to blanket statement say he can afford it without knowing all his specific details.

Bengen's and the Trinity study's 4% rule was born out of research covering 30 years, not 40-45 years. OP should really go to a place like Bogleheads.org and present his expenses, portfolio and get a review. Also use some modeling calculators. Then decide if he is comfortable with the information that he receives on a deeper level.

I'm a Boglehead. The 4% rule has been replicated many times and tested in different scenarios. The failure rate increases only very slightly for longer retirements. OP could draw 3.5%, have close to a zero percent failure rate, and still be fine.

I stand by the fact that it is unclear if he can retire or not--and at 48 in this environment taking time off can equate to having to retire. And, OP is saying "probably" can live on DW's income, "probably" have Kid's in-state tuition paid for. He doesn't know enough about his financial situation to know for sure. He says nothing about this expenses. 4M could be plenty for someone at 48. But not everyone is going to be fine at 4M. What is his mortgage? Has he considered LTC? I mean, there are so many things to consider. I guess I get irritated by those of you who give blanket statements of sure, 4M is plenty, without knowing much about a person's in-depth situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At 48, in a tough job market, voluntarily taking time off to spend time with family sends a different signal than getting laid off, in terms of future prospects. Not a good one. You may indeed never get hired at VP level again. Maybe you would get hired and claw your way back up the ladder, but it will not be easy.

Get therapy, work on mindful balance. Hold out for a layoff and severance lol.

What type of judgmental employer would begrudge a candidate who said "I took a 6 month professional break to explore my next move and spend more time with my family?" Probably the same one who would also view a layoff as a red flag. I think people have to do what is best for them. Some people are just judgmental.

Sure. Then that same person has to be okay with accepting the reality that he might not get hired at his level again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think you should quiet quit. Getting laid off is better than quitting - you'd have an extra $150k!

So - accept that you'll be laid off. Stop worrying about it - it's not a bad scenario for you. Drop the rope on as many things as you can. People undermining you - fine. Don't have enough staff or resources to deliver well for your clients? Okay, you do the best you can reasonably do without a ton of stress, and you let it go. Lower your standards dramatically.

DO stick-up for your staff and try to protect them - not over the top, don't exhaust yourself on this, but if you can reasonably help protect people, do that. That's the one thing I would stay active on. And of course, remain courteous and professional in all your interactions with everyone.

Meanwhile, find three hours a week in your schedule (on or off the clock, whatever makes the most sense) to actively job search and network.

Maybe you get laid off, and you've got your time off to focus on your health and look for a job, but with $150k and a head start on the job search. Maybe you find another job (ideally). And maybe this becomes a reasonable status quo for a while that is at least no longer actively harming you. Feels like the best path at this point.

I would try my hardest to hang on for this plan, and I have, though in a different circumstance. But I would also set a deadline to quit. For me, it was easy as I had an annual bonus, so my deadline was when the next one paid out.

But it's not worth it if you can afford your lifestlye on your spouse's income and your job is making you sick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are lots of ways to tap 401ks and IRAs early without penalty.

In any event, $4 million in investments at 48 is fantastic. You don't need to invest anymore. At 58, you'll conservatively be able to draw over 300k a year without touching the principal. Even now, you could draw 160k a year without touching principal.

That's assuming we don't have a pull back, which will happen at some point.

You mean a down market? No, this assumes down markets. The 4% rule was derived from nearly 100 years of data, which includes lots of down markets. And I project a 7% annual return over the next decades, which is conservative and draws from nearly 100 years of data.

My estimates are conservative and account for downturns.

I understand that. But we could have a downturn soon. And that could leave OP open to greater sequence of return risks. We are staying the course right now to secure a big enough portfolio that can withstand a significant correction and still be able to pay the % we need to live a good life in retirement.

Do whatever you want, but the data support that OP can withstand a significant correction and still retire comfortably at this age.

You are making assumptions on OP's behalf. DW's income could probably cover their basic expenses. Their 529s could probably cover their kids' in-state tuition. I think it's irresponsible to blanket statement say he can afford it without knowing all his specific details.

Bengen's and the Trinity study's 4% rule was born out of research covering 30 years, not 40-45 years. OP should really go to a place like Bogleheads.org and present his expenses, portfolio and get a review. Also use some modeling calculators. Then decide if he is comfortable with the information that he receives on a deeper level.

I'm a Boglehead. The 4% rule has been replicated many times and tested in different scenarios. The failure rate increases only very slightly for longer retirements. OP could draw 3.5%, have close to a zero percent failure rate, and still be fine.

I stand by the fact that it is unclear if he can retire or not--and at 48 in this environment taking time off can equate to having to retire. And, OP is saying "probably" can live on DW's income, "probably" have Kid's in-state tuition paid for. He doesn't know enough about his financial situation to know for sure. He says nothing about this expenses. 4M could be plenty for someone at 48. But not everyone is going to be fine at 4M. What is his mortgage? Has he considered LTC? I mean, there are so many things to consider. I guess I get irritated by those of you who give blanket statements of sure, 4M is plenty, without knowing much about a person's in-depth situation.

OP has gained 20 lbs and developed chronic disease. That's not cheap either. This is not a sustainable situation.

[Anonymous]

OP, I had posted a similar question last. Ages, investments were similar, though I was thinking about what to do after a potential job loss. We decided to live off of one income and save my income completely, plus some of mine. I did end up losing my job and because of burnout, I was not motivated to look for anything. I am slowly starting to look for something to fill my time now. I was initially very stressed about the money but as we continued to save last year, it has felt ok. I am fine finding something that doesn’t pay what I made before. If you’re ok with that, I think you’re totally fine. If you’re worried about that or the prestige of your job when people ask what you do, then think on it more. You may not get something as high up as you had before. What are your contacts like? Could they help you get a job when you’re ready?

Also, your spouse definitely needs to be on board. You need to step it up if she’s working full time and you’re not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I had posted a similar question last. Ages, investments were similar, though I was thinking about what to do after a potential job loss. We decided to live off of one income and save my income completely, plus some of mine. I did end up losing my job and because of burnout, I was not motivated to look for anything. I am slowly starting to look for something to fill my time now. I was initially very stressed about the money but as we continued to save last year, it has felt ok. I am fine finding something that doesn’t pay what I made before. If you’re ok with that, I think you’re totally fine. If you’re worried about that or the prestige of your job when people ask what you do, then think on it more. You may not get something as high up as you had before. What are your contacts like? Could they help you get a job when you’re ready?

Also, your spouse definitely needs to be on board. You need to step it up if she’s working full time and you’re not.

Very smart!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can afford to take time off, but you can't afford to never work again, which is a possibility you'd be setting yourself up for.

Are you looking for another job now or are you too depressed? The rational move is to look while you're employed and hope you get laid off with severance. The lack of sleep and headaches may make that impossible.

Why not see a mental health professional about depression and take FMLA for a month, get your head together and work on your resume?

This. Which OP doesn’t address in his post, which is telling he’s enamored with the idea of “taking time off” but has said nothing about how he plans to return to work, in what field, or where.

[Anonymous]

my DH was in your similar position and I told him for MONTHS to quit. he finally did. we are also a 2 income household and have structured our lives around only one income and invested the other. it has given us extreme flexibility so we don’t have to put up with toxic environments. For me i didn’t want a dead husband. He landed a new job in 3.5 months and it was the best decision every for our family, marriage and his health:

[Anonymous]

The obvious path is 1) to save a year's worth of expenses before you quit/get laid off and see if you can live off of your spouse's salary alone, and 2) look for a new job. Quit when you have accomplished one or the other and not before.

In the meantime, take the vacation days to which you are entitled, and start yoga/meditation/therapy to manage stress, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are lots of ways to tap 401ks and IRAs early without penalty.

In any event, $4 million in investments at 48 is fantastic. You don't need to invest anymore. At 58, you'll conservatively be able to draw over 300k a year without touching the principal. Even now, you could draw 160k a year without touching principal.

That's assuming we don't have a pull back, which will happen at some point.

You mean a down market? No, this assumes down markets. The 4% rule was derived from nearly 100 years of data, which includes lots of down markets. And I project a 7% annual return over the next decades, which is conservative and draws from nearly 100 years of data.

My estimates are conservative and account for downturns.

I understand that. But we could have a downturn soon. And that could leave OP open to greater sequence of return risks. We are staying the course right now to secure a big enough portfolio that can withstand a significant correction and still be able to pay the % we need to live a good life in retirement.

Do whatever you want, but the data support that OP can withstand a significant correction and still retire comfortably at this age.

You are making assumptions on OP's behalf. DW's income could probably cover their basic expenses. Their 529s could probably cover their kids' in-state tuition. I think it's irresponsible to blanket statement say he can afford it without knowing all his specific details.

Bengen's and the Trinity study's 4% rule was born out of research covering 30 years, not 40-45 years. OP should really go to a place like Bogleheads.org and present his expenses, portfolio and get a review. Also use some modeling calculators. Then decide if he is comfortable with the information that he receives on a deeper level.

I'm a Boglehead. The 4% rule has been replicated many times and tested in different scenarios. The failure rate increases only very slightly for longer retirements. OP could draw 3.5%, have close to a zero percent failure rate, and still be fine.

I stand by the fact that it is unclear if he can retire or not--and at 48 in this environment taking time off can equate to having to retire. And, OP is saying "probably" can live on DW's income, "probably" have Kid's in-state tuition paid for. He doesn't know enough about his financial situation to know for sure. He says nothing about this expenses. 4M could be plenty for someone at 48. But not everyone is going to be fine at 4M. What is his mortgage? Has he considered LTC? I mean, there are so many things to consider. I guess I get irritated by those of you who give blanket statements of sure, 4M is plenty, without knowing much about a person's in-depth situation.

OP has gained 20 lbs and developed chronic disease. That's not cheap either. This is not a sustainable situation.

I agree.

[Anonymous]

I would have done it long time ago. Your salary would have allowed me to invest and retire long ago.
Not to late for you though. Take a break, cut your expenses and then go get $80k job.