Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At 55, if we have 5 million+, one of us could retire. The other would work longer purely for the health insurance.

That being said, at 5 million, regardless of our age, I will feel a lot less stress. We could live on it and be fine. We probably would not have all the luxuries we want, but we would have a very comfortable retirement. It is definitely a milestone for me.

I agree with this. We are 54 and 57, with roughly a $5m net worth, not including 529 and home equity. One kid, who will start college in the fall. We could both quit tomorrow and be fine. It wouldn't be the retirement we envisioned, but we wouldn't be homeless, or hungry, and still would be able to leave something to our kid. At this point it is a constant reevaluation - the longer we work, the more we save and the less time we have to rely on our investments. But it's also less time to really enjoy ourselves, with the active things we want to do - ski, hike, travel, second home, etc. The current plan is for each of us to retire at 60.

I have toyed with "retiring" and just getting a placeholder job to cover current expenses, and rely on market increases to get us the rest of the way to full retirement.

Do the math on this. Obviously, past increases don’t mean the future will be the same. But - I thought the same as you and only recently realized that investments are making on average 90k per month. While I make 8k/month through my job. And new money invested isn’t going to grow nearly as much as earlier dollars. I’m still working for now but I don’t think it’s makes as much of a difference as you think, depending on where your assets are now and how old you are.

What precisely do you think the "constant reevaluation" would entail? Vibes?

Seems like vibes are what you’re going with. Otherwise, you would know additional savings close to retirement doesn’t make much of a difference. $100k invested for 5 years will maybe be $150k. 100k invested for 25 years is over a million. If I’m close to retirement with $5mill plus, I’m not going to keep working for the $150k in 5 years. Not worth my time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At 55, if we have 5 million+, one of us could retire. The other would work longer purely for the health insurance.

That being said, at 5 million, regardless of our age, I will feel a lot less stress. We could live on it and be fine. We probably would not have all the luxuries we want, but we would have a very comfortable retirement. It is definitely a milestone for me.

I agree with this. We are 54 and 57, with roughly a $5m net worth, not including 529 and home equity. One kid, who will start college in the fall. We could both quit tomorrow and be fine. It wouldn't be the retirement we envisioned, but we wouldn't be homeless, or hungry, and still would be able to leave something to our kid. At this point it is a constant reevaluation - the longer we work, the more we save and the less time we have to rely on our investments. But it's also less time to really enjoy ourselves, with the active things we want to do - ski, hike, travel, second home, etc. The current plan is for each of us to retire at 60.

I have toyed with "retiring" and just getting a placeholder job to cover current expenses, and rely on market increases to get us the rest of the way to full retirement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At 55, if we have 5 million+, one of us could retire. The other would work longer purely for the health insurance.

That being said, at 5 million, regardless of our age, I will feel a lot less stress. We could live on it and be fine. We probably would not have all the luxuries we want, but we would have a very comfortable retirement. It is definitely a milestone for me.

I agree with this. We are 54 and 57, with roughly a $5m net worth, not including 529 and home equity. One kid, who will start college in the fall. We could both quit tomorrow and be fine. It wouldn't be the retirement we envisioned, but we wouldn't be homeless, or hungry, and still would be able to leave something to our kid. At this point it is a constant reevaluation - the longer we work, the more we save and the less time we have to rely on our investments. But it's also less time to really enjoy ourselves, with the active things we want to do - ski, hike, travel, second home, etc. The current plan is for each of us to retire at 60.

I have toyed with "retiring" and just getting a placeholder job to cover current expenses, and rely on market increases to get us the rest of the way to full retirement.

Do the math on this. Obviously, past increases don’t mean the future will be the same. But - I thought the same as you and only recently realized that investments are making on average 90k per month. While I make 8k/month through my job. And new money invested isn’t going to grow nearly as much as earlier dollars. I’m still working for now but I don’t think it’s makes as much of a difference as you think, depending on where your assets are now and how old you are.

What precisely do you think the "constant reevaluation" would entail? Vibes?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At 55, if we have 5 million+, one of us could retire. The other would work longer purely for the health insurance.

That being said, at 5 million, regardless of our age, I will feel a lot less stress. We could live on it and be fine. We probably would not have all the luxuries we want, but we would have a very comfortable retirement. It is definitely a milestone for me.

I agree with this. We are 54 and 57, with roughly a $5m net worth, not including 529 and home equity. One kid, who will start college in the fall. We could both quit tomorrow and be fine. It wouldn't be the retirement we envisioned, but we wouldn't be homeless, or hungry, and still would be able to leave something to our kid. At this point it is a constant reevaluation - the longer we work, the more we save and the less time we have to rely on our investments. But it's also less time to really enjoy ourselves, with the active things we want to do - ski, hike, travel, second home, etc. The current plan is for each of us to retire at 60.

I have toyed with "retiring" and just getting a placeholder job to cover current expenses, and rely on market increases to get us the rest of the way to full retirement.

Do the math on this. Obviously, past increases don’t mean the future will be the same. But - I thought the same as you and only recently realized that investments are making on average 90k per month. While I make 8k/month through my job. And new money invested isn’t going to grow nearly as much as earlier dollars. I’m still working for now but I don’t think it’s makes as much of a difference as you think, depending on where your assets are now and how old you are.

What precisely do you think the "constant reevaluation" would entail? Vibes?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At 55, if we have 5 million+, one of us could retire. The other would work longer purely for the health insurance.

That being said, at 5 million, regardless of our age, I will feel a lot less stress. We could live on it and be fine. We probably would not have all the luxuries we want, but we would have a very comfortable retirement. It is definitely a milestone for me.

I agree with this. We are 54 and 57, with roughly a $5m net worth, not including 529 and home equity. One kid, who will start college in the fall. We could both quit tomorrow and be fine. It wouldn't be the retirement we envisioned, but we wouldn't be homeless, or hungry, and still would be able to leave something to our kid. At this point it is a constant reevaluation - the longer we work, the more we save and the less time we have to rely on our investments. But it's also less time to really enjoy ourselves, with the active things we want to do - ski, hike, travel, second home, etc. The current plan is for each of us to retire at 60.

I have toyed with "retiring" and just getting a placeholder job to cover current expenses, and rely on market increases to get us the rest of the way to full retirement.

Do the math on this. Obviously, past increases don’t mean the future will be the same. But - I thought the same as you and only recently realized that investments are making on average 90k per month. While I make 8k/month through my job. And new money invested isn’t going to grow nearly as much as earlier dollars. I’m still working for now but I don’t think it’s makes as much of a difference as you think, depending on where your assets are now and how old you are.

Anonymous wrote:If your household net worth is at least $5M, what are the reasons that you continue working? Do you and your spouse both work or just one of you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At 55, if we have 5 million+, one of us could retire. The other would work longer purely for the health insurance.

That being said, at 5 million, regardless of our age, I will feel a lot less stress. We could live on it and be fine. We probably would not have all the luxuries we want, but we would have a very comfortable retirement. It is definitely a milestone for me.

I agree with this. We are 54 and 57, with roughly a $5m net worth, not including 529 and home equity. One kid, who will start college in the fall. We could both quit tomorrow and be fine. It wouldn't be the retirement we envisioned, but we wouldn't be homeless, or hungry, and still would be able to leave something to our kid. At this point it is a constant reevaluation - the longer we work, the more we save and the less time we have to rely on our investments. But it's also less time to really enjoy ourselves, with the active things we want to do - ski, hike, travel, second home, etc. The current plan is for each of us to retire at 60.

I have toyed with "retiring" and just getting a placeholder job to cover current expenses, and rely on market increases to get us the rest of the way to full retirement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I quit my teaching job when we hit $5m. I just couldn't put in another 5 years. We pay out of pocket for insurance for 3, while my DH is on Medicare.

Your DH is old enough for medicare and you still have TWO kids on your health insurance?? Wow.

Can't kids be on health insurance until 26 or something? When can you get Medicare? 62? 65? It doesn't seem that bad to me.

65. And yes, 26. So youngest age is 39 to become that parent.

It's not too bad for a man, but is a pretty bad idea for a woman.

whatever. i had my kid at 47. it's fine. happier to have had them late than not at all. we're only at $3M liquid net, so will probably work for another decade or so.

Except having a kid at age 47 means a significantly higher chance of health issues for the kid. Anything over 35 means an increased risk, but over 40 is much higher. So yeah, it's not really the best idea to have a kid at 40+

Can you imagine saying this to someone in real life? That they shouldn’t have had their already-born children so late?

I have said something similar to friends in real life. A good friend was trying for her first in her 40s. We talked about how difficult it would be to raise that child and how not getting pregnant may be a blessing. She did get pregnant and baby and she are healthy. And she is also aware of the potential struggles that younger moms dont face. Her parents were older and both passed when she was in college, so its surprising to me that she made this choice knowing she will likely die before they reach full adult age.

You see posts on here all the time about women who are exhausted, suffering health issues, having marital problems, having life problems and then it comes out that they are 49 and have a 3 year old and its like, well yeah, duh. Your life stage is not compatible to being a mother of young kids. With lots of money you can alleviate the struggle. But it should be discussed and explained. Women in their 40s should generally not be encouraged to give birth.

I know this is off topic, sorry OP!

What? You think your friend is likely to die by age 60? I think you don't know any older moms IRL.

Anonymous wrote:We’re at $4M right now and it feels nowhere near enough.

Anonymous wrote:At 55, if we have 5 million+, one of us could retire. The other would work longer purely for the health insurance.

That being said, at 5 million, regardless of our age, I will feel a lot less stress. We could live on it and be fine. We probably would not have all the luxuries we want, but we would have a very comfortable retirement. It is definitely a milestone for me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because we want $10m to retire.

Why? Give us an outline of your retirement plans and why you need that much to achieve them, then explain why those plans are so important and desirable that they're worth giving up more of your prime years working to achieve them. I'm genuinely curious. After all, time is limited--for all of us.

Np. Working is not “giving up” one’s prime years just because I have $5M invested. It’s a choice about how we want to spend our time, and some of our years. There’s a sense of fulfillment from that, and it’s no less valuable than puttering around in a vegetable garden.

Oh, please. I retired with less than that and we have a gardener. Your "sense of fulfillment" is more likely from deriving your self-worth and identity from your job title and paycheck. And let's face it, most high paying jobs don't contribute jack shit to society. It's not like you're a fire fighter or something.

What's wrong with working to derive self worth and identity from job title and paycheck?

Nothing. If you're insecure and superficial. Everything if you're not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:catching up on this long rambling thread.

$5MM in a HCOL area is not enough for a youngish couple to retire.

Retiring at 50 or even 55 means you need to play for 35-40 years of living. Assuming a $1MM home, is $4MM going to cut it - that's 150k max withrawal a year.

of course you could move to a LCOL, buy a smaller house and live okay for 40 years. but that's tough for lots of people to do.

You forget that the 4 million will also be compounding over the next 30+ years. So they are going to have a lot more than 4 million to retire on over the years. Their investable assets can double every 7 to 10 years. (Also, OP was meaning 5 million in investable assets excluding the home).

Will it be compounding even if they are withdrawing? EL15 please.

Yes it will continue compounding.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:catching up on this long rambling thread.

$5MM in a HCOL area is not enough for a youngish couple to retire.

Retiring at 50 or even 55 means you need to play for 35-40 years of living. Assuming a $1MM home, is $4MM going to cut it - that's 150k max withrawal a year.

of course you could move to a LCOL, buy a smaller house and live okay for 40 years. but that's tough for lots of people to do.

You forget that the 4 million will also be compounding over the next 30+ years. So they are going to have a lot more than 4 million to retire on over the years. Their investable assets can double every 7 to 10 years. (Also, OP was meaning 5 million in investable assets excluding the home).

Will it be compounding even if they are withdrawing? EL15 please.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:catching up on this long rambling thread.

$5MM in a HCOL area is not enough for a youngish couple to retire.

Retiring at 50 or even 55 means you need to play for 35-40 years of living. Assuming a $1MM home, is $4MM going to cut it - that's 150k max withrawal a year.

of course you could move to a LCOL, buy a smaller house and live okay for 40 years. but that's tough for lots of people to do.

You forget that the 4 million will also be compounding over the next 30+ years. So they are going to have a lot more than 4 million to retire on over the years. Their investable assets can double every 7 to 10 years. (Also, OP was meaning 5 million in investable assets excluding the home).