I can't believe Mr. Bogle would disagree with common thinking on these boards, but I guess he did.
The dividend investor newsletter on Morningstar recently celebrated its 10th anniversary. Looking at its performance it has crushed the S&P 500, but I only mention that because total return is so important to many in the total return vs dividend discussions. So with the TR out of the way,sample size and all that, this is what was really interesting about the dividend side of TR in the newsletters portfolio. The newsletter has a portfolio in real $ that began with $200,000 ten years ago. The portfolio focused on equities that pay dividends which 1. maintain a safe payout ratio, 2. have a solid sustainable growth rate (or in simple language the company's fundamentals maintain a sound growth rate) and 3. grow their dividends at a reasonable rate based on #2.
The punchline is that 10 years ago with 200k and income of ~$8000 per year and not adding any funds, that today the income is over $17,500 per year. Too good to be true right? Not really if you re-read 1 through 3 above. The average blue chip dividend grower raises it's dividend around 8% annually, much higher than average inflation. Ah, but how much is that 200k now worth you ask? It isn't relevant, but the portfolio value is just over $440,000.
So if you look at how much your retirement portfolio is or how much you expect it to be, and how much of your allocation is in LC and put that into dividend growth blue chips, you don't really need $30,000.000 to retire on dividends or do you have to go to 100% equities or any of that to make it work. Plus you can put the rest into index funds and capture the market...