Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It's not a legal requirement to have home insurance, obviously. But it is stupid not to, unless you have a huge pot of money to replace your house if it burns down. And if you are living on $25,000 per year, you obviously don't have a huge pot of money.

Same with life insurance. There is obviously no requirement that you have it. But if you have a family and do not have a huge pile of savings, it is incredibly irresponsible not to have life insurance.

If the point is that you can life on $25,000 if you shirk important responsibilities to your family, I suppose that is true. But should that the be the point?

If you are sitting on investments that generate more than $25,000 in income every year then you ARE sitting on a pile of savings. If you look back at the first post of this thread, it's not supposed to be about people working hard and only bringing in $25,000 a year. It's supposed to be about people who are choosing to live off their investments.

Expected value on all insurance is negative. It exists almost exclusively for people who are NOT sitting on a pile of money and cannot absorb the costs of a catastrophic event.

The PP who FIREd has investments that throw off something significantly more than $25,000 a year. If he dies tomorrow his investments are not going anywhere, and that income will continue.

There are a lot of situations where having a lot of life insurance doesn't make a whole lot of sense. That's part of the reason that term life insurance exists. If you are working and have people depending on your income, then YES, you should try to have life insurance if at all possible (again, some people get rejected). If you don't have people depending on your job income, then there's really not much reason to have it.

At the standard withdrawal rate of 4%, you need $900,000 to generate $36,000 per year. And yes, that's a pile of money. But for FIRE to work, the principal has to remain untouched, and continually kick off that income. If the replacement cost is $100,000, with no insurance, the $36,000 return all of a sudden is down to $32,000. (And that's not including ancillary expenses, such as rent, replacement of furnishings and personal items, etc. if the house is destroyed.) When your margin for error is so small, that's a big difference.

This just further demonstrates that many of the FIRE people are only "financially independent" by cutting corners, taking significant risks, and relying on the charity of others and the largess of government.

I have a nest egg so very little risk. If I lost my house I could build another one for $150,000. With no debt, I could pay that mortgage from delivering pizza if necessary. I have enough in savings to cover it though. Very little risk invloved

I'm a big fan of FIRE. I would like to retire early myself. But if your nest egg is only a million or so, then I wouldn't call your plan "very little risk" especially if you have kids, no home insurance and no life insurance (and rely on ACA subsidies?).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Get debt free
2. Save a pile of cash
3. Move to a low cost of living area
4. Retire or work when only interested in something you love
5. Profit

Get rid of any recurring payments that aren't necessary and reduce the ones that are necessary. One car, one insurance payment, cheap cell phone plan, no cable TV, cheap internet. $36k buys a lot when you don't owe anyone any money

Sounds fun.

Average day: Get up an go for a run/bike or swim. Come back and cook breakfast for the family. Get the kids off to school. Play a round of golf with my brother. Run any occasional errands. Lunch. Go to the beach with my spouse for the afternoon. Get the kids and have dinner. Sit on the back deck have have a drink with my spouse.
It's an amazin amazing life

Don't forget lots of spare time to post on DCUM! Cause it's so relevant to life in 'Bama.

You don't think money and finances are relevant in Alabama?

Why is some retired guy in Alabama spending so much time on DCUM bragging about how awesome his life is? Just weird.

Are you the cat lady from the relationship forum?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Get debt free
2. Save a pile of cash
3. Move to a low cost of living area
4. Retire or work when only interested in something you love
5. Profit

Get rid of any recurring payments that aren't necessary and reduce the ones that are necessary. One car, one insurance payment, cheap cell phone plan, no cable TV, cheap internet. $36k buys a lot when you don't owe anyone any money

Sounds fun.

Average day: Get up an go for a run/bike or swim. Come back and cook breakfast for the family. Get the kids off to school. Play a round of golf with my brother. Run any occasional errands. Lunch. Go to the beach with my spouse for the afternoon. Get the kids and have dinner. Sit on the back deck have have a drink with my spouse.
It's an amazin amazing life

Don't forget lots of spare time to post on DCUM! Cause it's so relevant to life in 'Bama.

You don't think money and finances are relevant in Alabama?

Why is some retired guy in Alabama spending so much time on DCUM bragging about how awesome his life is? Just weird.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Get debt free
2. Save a pile of cash
3. Move to a low cost of living area
4. Retire or work when only interested in something you love
5. Profit

Get rid of any recurring payments that aren't necessary and reduce the ones that are necessary. One car, one insurance payment, cheap cell phone plan, no cable TV, cheap internet. $36k buys a lot when you don't owe anyone any money

Sounds fun.

Average day: Get up an go for a run/bike or swim. Come back and cook breakfast for the family. Get the kids off to school. Play a round of golf with my brother. Run any occasional errands. Lunch. Go to the beach with my spouse for the afternoon. Get the kids and have dinner. Sit on the back deck have have a drink with my spouse.
It's an amazin amazing life

Don't forget lots of spare time to post on DCUM! Cause it's so relevant to life in 'Bama.

That sounds great for 1 month. Maybe two. And then? At what point do you start to decompose?

But, if you like it enjoy. I will say, though, that the thought of spending 30+ years in rural (even coastal) Alabama gives me hives.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Get debt free
2. Save a pile of cash
3. Move to a low cost of living area
4. Retire or work when only interested in something you love
5. Profit

Get rid of any recurring payments that aren't necessary and reduce the ones that are necessary. One car, one insurance payment, cheap cell phone plan, no cable TV, cheap internet. $36k buys a lot when you don't owe anyone any money

Sounds fun.

Average day: Get up an go for a run/bike or swim. Come back and cook breakfast for the family. Get the kids off to school. Play a round of golf with my brother. Run any occasional errands. Lunch. Go to the beach with my spouse for the afternoon. Get the kids and have dinner. Sit on the back deck have have a drink with my spouse.
It's an amazin amazing life

Don't forget lots of spare time to post on DCUM! Cause it's so relevant to life in 'Bama.

You don't think money and finances are relevant in Alabama?

Why is some retired guy in Alabama spending so much time on DCUM bragging about how awesome his life is? Just weird.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Get debt free
2. Save a pile of cash
3. Move to a low cost of living area
4. Retire or work when only interested in something you love
5. Profit

Get rid of any recurring payments that aren't necessary and reduce the ones that are necessary. One car, one insurance payment, cheap cell phone plan, no cable TV, cheap internet. $36k buys a lot when you don't owe anyone any money

Sounds fun.

Average day: Get up an go for a run/bike or swim. Come back and cook breakfast for the family. Get the kids off to school. Play a round of golf with my brother. Run any occasional errands. Lunch. Go to the beach with my spouse for the afternoon. Get the kids and have dinner. Sit on the back deck have have a drink with my spouse.
It's an amazin amazing life

Don't forget lots of spare time to post on DCUM! Cause it's so relevant to life in 'Bama.

You don't think money and finances are relevant in Alabama?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Get debt free
2. Save a pile of cash
3. Move to a low cost of living area
4. Retire or work when only interested in something you love
5. Profit

Get rid of any recurring payments that aren't necessary and reduce the ones that are necessary. One car, one insurance payment, cheap cell phone plan, no cable TV, cheap internet. $36k buys a lot when you don't owe anyone any money

Sounds fun.

Average day: Get up an go for a run/bike or swim. Come back and cook breakfast for the family. Get the kids off to school. Play a round of golf with my brother. Run any occasional errands. Lunch. Go to the beach with my spouse for the afternoon. Get the kids and have dinner. Sit on the back deck have have a drink with my spouse.
It's an amazin amazing life

Don't forget lots of spare time to post on DCUM! Cause it's so relevant to life in 'Bama.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It's not a legal requirement to have home insurance, obviously. But it is stupid not to, unless you have a huge pot of money to replace your house if it burns down. And if you are living on $25,000 per year, you obviously don't have a huge pot of money.

Same with life insurance. There is obviously no requirement that you have it. But if you have a family and do not have a huge pile of savings, it is incredibly irresponsible not to have life insurance.

If the point is that you can life on $25,000 if you shirk important responsibilities to your family, I suppose that is true. But should that the be the point?

If you are sitting on investments that generate more than $25,000 in income every year then you ARE sitting on a pile of savings. If you look back at the first post of this thread, it's not supposed to be about people working hard and only bringing in $25,000 a year. It's supposed to be about people who are choosing to live off their investments.

Expected value on all insurance is negative. It exists almost exclusively for people who are NOT sitting on a pile of money and cannot absorb the costs of a catastrophic event.

The PP who FIREd has investments that throw off something significantly more than $25,000 a year. If he dies tomorrow his investments are not going anywhere, and that income will continue.

There are a lot of situations where having a lot of life insurance doesn't make a whole lot of sense. That's part of the reason that term life insurance exists. If you are working and have people depending on your income, then YES, you should try to have life insurance if at all possible (again, some people get rejected). If you don't have people depending on your job income, then there's really not much reason to have it.

At the standard withdrawal rate of 4%, you need $900,000 to generate $36,000 per year. And yes, that's a pile of money. But for FIRE to work, the principal has to remain untouched, and continually kick off that income. If the replacement cost is $100,000, with no insurance, the $36,000 return all of a sudden is down to $32,000. (And that's not including ancillary expenses, such as rent, replacement of furnishings and personal items, etc. if the house is destroyed.) When your margin for error is so small, that's a big difference.

This just further demonstrates that many of the FIRE people are only "financially independent" by cutting corners, taking significant risks, and relying on the charity of others and the largess of government.

I have a nest egg so very little risk. If I lost my house I could build another one for $150,000. With no debt, I could pay that mortgage from delivering pizza if necessary. I have enough in savings to cover it though. Very little risk invloved

Are you sure about that? Maybe ballpark, sure. But it might also be more like $200k.
Also, you would have to replace your belongings. All of them.
Also, you would have to live somewhere while your house is being built. That wouldn't be free either.
Could you get a mortgage without a job? Maybe you could, but that would be a drag against your nest egg. 4% rate wouldn't be safe anymore.
Also, if you live as close to the beach as you brag, hurricanes roll in every year, with a direct hit every 3 or 4 years. You need insurance. Unless you are counting on government aid but that isn't a given. (I'm not judging, but risky in this political environment).

I grew up in Alabama. I don't know a single person that lost a house to a hurricane unless they had beachfront property. My brother lives up the street and he is single and would have no problem letting us live with him while we rebuild. I could easily build a house with $150,000. It's not even a concern. I started with a nest egg of $1 million 4 years ago. Look at the stock market since then and figure out how much I have now. I have $50k in an emergency fund. I have very little risk in my life. I planned it that way, there was a lot of planning that went into this.

Go talk to some folks in Mississippi and ask how they fared during Katrina. Heck my ILs are an hour inland and still and a lot of damage. But you do you, I think you're just taking more risks then you realize.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It's not a legal requirement to have home insurance, obviously. But it is stupid not to, unless you have a huge pot of money to replace your house if it burns down. And if you are living on $25,000 per year, you obviously don't have a huge pot of money.

Same with life insurance. There is obviously no requirement that you have it. But if you have a family and do not have a huge pile of savings, it is incredibly irresponsible not to have life insurance.

If the point is that you can life on $25,000 if you shirk important responsibilities to your family, I suppose that is true. But should that the be the point?

If you are sitting on investments that generate more than $25,000 in income every year then you ARE sitting on a pile of savings. If you look back at the first post of this thread, it's not supposed to be about people working hard and only bringing in $25,000 a year. It's supposed to be about people who are choosing to live off their investments.

Expected value on all insurance is negative. It exists almost exclusively for people who are NOT sitting on a pile of money and cannot absorb the costs of a catastrophic event.

The PP who FIREd has investments that throw off something significantly more than $25,000 a year. If he dies tomorrow his investments are not going anywhere, and that income will continue.

There are a lot of situations where having a lot of life insurance doesn't make a whole lot of sense. That's part of the reason that term life insurance exists. If you are working and have people depending on your income, then YES, you should try to have life insurance if at all possible (again, some people get rejected). If you don't have people depending on your job income, then there's really not much reason to have it.

At the standard withdrawal rate of 4%, you need $900,000 to generate $36,000 per year. And yes, that's a pile of money. But for FIRE to work, the principal has to remain untouched, and continually kick off that income. If the replacement cost is $100,000, with no insurance, the $36,000 return all of a sudden is down to $32,000. (And that's not including ancillary expenses, such as rent, replacement of furnishings and personal items, etc. if the house is destroyed.) When your margin for error is so small, that's a big difference.

This just further demonstrates that many of the FIRE people are only "financially independent" by cutting corners, taking significant risks, and relying on the charity of others and the largess of government.

I have a nest egg so very little risk. If I lost my house I could build another one for $150,000. With no debt, I could pay that mortgage from delivering pizza if necessary. I have enough in savings to cover it though. Very little risk invloved

Are you sure about that? Maybe ballpark, sure. But it might also be more like $200k.
Also, you would have to replace your belongings. All of them.
Also, you would have to live somewhere while your house is being built. That wouldn't be free either.
Could you get a mortgage without a job? Maybe you could, but that would be a drag against your nest egg. 4% rate wouldn't be safe anymore.
Also, if you live as close to the beach as you brag, hurricanes roll in every year, with a direct hit every 3 or 4 years. You need insurance. Unless you are counting on government aid but that isn't a given. (I'm not judging, but risky in this political environment).

I grew up in Alabama. I don't know a single person that lost a house to a hurricane unless they had beachfront property. My brother lives up the street and he is single and would have no problem letting us live with him while we rebuild. I could easily build a house with $150,000. It's not even a concern. I started with a nest egg of $1 million 4 years ago. Look at the stock market since then and figure out how much I have now. I have $50k in an emergency fund. I have very little risk in my life. I planned it that way, there was a lot of planning that went into this.

It sounds like you have alot in stocks, which is a risk itself. The 4% withdrawal rate study was done on a balanced portfolio, by the way.

I grew up in Alabama too and I live there now. We have significant roof damage every 3-5 years from hail. You don't have to have your house blown away in order to need home insurance.

I would say that we are in a similar financial boat (but a little behind you)- no mortage and low expenses, sufficient 529 savings for in-state schools and we expect to have 1 million in additional investments in 2 years. But there is no way, I would retire in 2 years. It sounds like your family will be just fine as long as everything in your life goes right. I love my family too much to bet their security on good weather, low inflation, high stock market returns and health for all. (That being said there is a risk to working your life away and I completely get that and factor that into my decision making as well.)

I love mine too much to spend all my time and effort working. I put that time and energy back into the family. Different strokes...

You mean playing golf and going to the beach while kids are in school.....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Get debt free
2. Save a pile of cash
3. Move to a low cost of living area
4. Retire or work when only interested in something you love
5. Profit

Get rid of any recurring payments that aren't necessary and reduce the ones that are necessary. One car, one insurance payment, cheap cell phone plan, no cable TV, cheap internet. $36k buys a lot when you don't owe anyone any money

Sounds fun.

Average day: Get up an go for a run/bike or swim. Come back and cook breakfast for the family. Get the kids off to school. Play a round of golf with my brother. Run any occasional errands. Lunch. Go to the beach with my spouse for the afternoon. Get the kids and have dinner. Sit on the back deck have have a drink with my spouse.
It's an amazin amazing life

Don't forget lots of spare time to post on DCUM! Cause it's so relevant to life in 'Bama.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It's not a legal requirement to have home insurance, obviously. But it is stupid not to, unless you have a huge pot of money to replace your house if it burns down. And if you are living on $25,000 per year, you obviously don't have a huge pot of money.

Same with life insurance. There is obviously no requirement that you have it. But if you have a family and do not have a huge pile of savings, it is incredibly irresponsible not to have life insurance.

If the point is that you can life on $25,000 if you shirk important responsibilities to your family, I suppose that is true. But should that the be the point?

If you are sitting on investments that generate more than $25,000 in income every year then you ARE sitting on a pile of savings. If you look back at the first post of this thread, it's not supposed to be about people working hard and only bringing in $25,000 a year. It's supposed to be about people who are choosing to live off their investments.

Expected value on all insurance is negative. It exists almost exclusively for people who are NOT sitting on a pile of money and cannot absorb the costs of a catastrophic event.

The PP who FIREd has investments that throw off something significantly more than $25,000 a year. If he dies tomorrow his investments are not going anywhere, and that income will continue.

There are a lot of situations where having a lot of life insurance doesn't make a whole lot of sense. That's part of the reason that term life insurance exists. If you are working and have people depending on your income, then YES, you should try to have life insurance if at all possible (again, some people get rejected). If you don't have people depending on your job income, then there's really not much reason to have it.

At the standard withdrawal rate of 4%, you need $900,000 to generate $36,000 per year. And yes, that's a pile of money. But for FIRE to work, the principal has to remain untouched, and continually kick off that income. If the replacement cost is $100,000, with no insurance, the $36,000 return all of a sudden is down to $32,000. (And that's not including ancillary expenses, such as rent, replacement of furnishings and personal items, etc. if the house is destroyed.) When your margin for error is so small, that's a big difference.

This just further demonstrates that many of the FIRE people are only "financially independent" by cutting corners, taking significant risks, and relying on the charity of others and the largess of government.

I have a nest egg so very little risk. If I lost my house I could build another one for $150,000. With no debt, I could pay that mortgage from delivering pizza if necessary. I have enough in savings to cover it though. Very little risk invloved

Are you sure about that? Maybe ballpark, sure. But it might also be more like $200k.
Also, you would have to replace your belongings. All of them.
Also, you would have to live somewhere while your house is being built. That wouldn't be free either.
Could you get a mortgage without a job? Maybe you could, but that would be a drag against your nest egg. 4% rate wouldn't be safe anymore.
Also, if you live as close to the beach as you brag, hurricanes roll in every year, with a direct hit every 3 or 4 years. You need insurance. Unless you are counting on government aid but that isn't a given. (I'm not judging, but risky in this political environment).

I grew up in Alabama. I don't know a single person that lost a house to a hurricane unless they had beachfront property. My brother lives up the street and he is single and would have no problem letting us live with him while we rebuild. I could easily build a house with $150,000. It's not even a concern. I started with a nest egg of $1 million 4 years ago. Look at the stock market since then and figure out how much I have now. I have $50k in an emergency fund. I have very little risk in my life. I planned it that way, there was a lot of planning that went into this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It's not a legal requirement to have home insurance, obviously. But it is stupid not to, unless you have a huge pot of money to replace your house if it burns down. And if you are living on $25,000 per year, you obviously don't have a huge pot of money.

Same with life insurance. There is obviously no requirement that you have it. But if you have a family and do not have a huge pile of savings, it is incredibly irresponsible not to have life insurance.

If the point is that you can life on $25,000 if you shirk important responsibilities to your family, I suppose that is true. But should that the be the point?

If you are sitting on investments that generate more than $25,000 in income every year then you ARE sitting on a pile of savings. If you look back at the first post of this thread, it's not supposed to be about people working hard and only bringing in $25,000 a year. It's supposed to be about people who are choosing to live off their investments.

Expected value on all insurance is negative. It exists almost exclusively for people who are NOT sitting on a pile of money and cannot absorb the costs of a catastrophic event.

The PP who FIREd has investments that throw off something significantly more than $25,000 a year. If he dies tomorrow his investments are not going anywhere, and that income will continue.

There are a lot of situations where having a lot of life insurance doesn't make a whole lot of sense. That's part of the reason that term life insurance exists. If you are working and have people depending on your income, then YES, you should try to have life insurance if at all possible (again, some people get rejected). If you don't have people depending on your job income, then there's really not much reason to have it.

At the standard withdrawal rate of 4%, you need $900,000 to generate $36,000 per year. And yes, that's a pile of money. But for FIRE to work, the principal has to remain untouched, and continually kick off that income. If the replacement cost is $100,000, with no insurance, the $36,000 return all of a sudden is down to $32,000. (And that's not including ancillary expenses, such as rent, replacement of furnishings and personal items, etc. if the house is destroyed.) When your margin for error is so small, that's a big difference.

This just further demonstrates that many of the FIRE people are only "financially independent" by cutting corners, taking significant risks, and relying on the charity of others and the largess of government.

I have a nest egg so very little risk. If I lost my house I could build another one for $150,000. With no debt, I could pay that mortgage from delivering pizza if necessary. I have enough in savings to cover it though. Very little risk invloved

Are you sure about that? Maybe ballpark, sure. But it might also be more like $200k.
Also, you would have to replace your belongings. All of them.
Also, you would have to live somewhere while your house is being built. That wouldn't be free either.
Could you get a mortgage without a job? Maybe you could, but that would be a drag against your nest egg. 4% rate wouldn't be safe anymore.
Also, if you live as close to the beach as you brag, hurricanes roll in every year, with a direct hit every 3 or 4 years. You need insurance. Unless you are counting on government aid but that isn't a given. (I'm not judging, but risky in this political environment).

I grew up in Alabama. I don't know a single person that lost a house to a hurricane unless they had beachfront property. My brother lives up the street and he is single and would have no problem letting us live with him while we rebuild. I could easily build a house with $150,000. It's not even a concern. I started with a nest egg of $1 million 4 years ago. Look at the stock market since then and figure out how much I have now. I have $50k in an emergency fund. I have very little risk in my life. I planned it that way, there was a lot of planning that went into this.

It sounds like you have alot in stocks, which is a risk itself. The 4% withdrawal rate study was done on a balanced portfolio, by the way.

I grew up in Alabama too and I live there now. We have significant roof damage every 3-5 years from hail. You don't have to have your house blown away in order to need home insurance.

I would say that we are in a similar financial boat (but a little behind you)- no mortage and low expenses, sufficient 529 savings for in-state schools and we expect to have 1 million in additional investments in 2 years. But there is no way, I would retire in 2 years. It sounds like your family will be just fine as long as everything in your life goes right. I love my family too much to bet their security on good weather, low inflation, high stock market returns and health for all. (That being said there is a risk to working your life away and I completely get that and factor that into my decision making as well.)

I love mine too much to spend all my time and effort working. I put that time and energy back into the family. Different strokes...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Get debt free
2. Save a pile of cash
3. Move to a low cost of living area
4. Retire or work when only interested in something you love
5. Profit

Get rid of any recurring payments that aren't necessary and reduce the ones that are necessary. One car, one insurance payment, cheap cell phone plan, no cable TV, cheap internet. $36k buys a lot when you don't owe anyone any money

Sounds fun.

Average day: Get up an go for a run/bike or swim. Come back and cook breakfast for the family. Get the kids off to school. Play a round of golf with my brother. Run any occasional errands. Lunch. Go to the beach with my spouse for the afternoon. Get the kids and have dinner. Sit on the back deck have have a drink with my spouse.
It's an amazin amazing life