How is your "number" defined?

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 15207
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by willthrill81 » Fri Jan 10, 2020 6:37 pm

HomerJ wrote:
Fri Jan 10, 2020 6:25 pm
Triple digit golfer wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 2:22 pm
What's my number? Wouldn't it be reduced each year?
You have to track your expenses first.

Then, it does indeed matter how old you are.

At 60-65, I'd be happy with 25x expenses.

At 50-60, I'd probably want 30x expenses.

Anything under 50, I'd probably want 33x expenses.

SS does complicate it a bit.

If my expenses in retirement are $60,000 a year, and I'm going to get $30,000 a year from SS, then maybe I make 2 buckets...

One to get me to 67 where I start getting $30,000 a year, and another bucket that will give the extra $30,000 a year from 67 on (25x $30,000 is $750,000)
If you use the time value of money formula, you don't have to create 'buckets'. Instead of setting the terminal value of your portfolio to zero, you simply set it to however much you still want when SS benefits begin. For instance, if you're 50, have $2 million, use 3% as your expected real return, and want to have $1 million left in 20 years, your starting annual withdrawal would be $94,384.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

Scooter57
Posts: 1170
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:20 am

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by Scooter57 » Fri Jan 10, 2020 7:12 pm

Something people can forget is that if those millions you saved are in an IRA or other tax advantaged account you will be having to take huge required distributions in your 70s and later. These big distributions will raise your tax bracket . So taxes will take take a good chunk out of the income generated by your savings.

For example if you had $3 million in your retirement account and were 73 you would have to take $121,457 out of your retirement account that year, which is treated as ordinary income. That income level makes 85% of your social security taxable and if you have a pension or other taxable assets, the additional income will put you into a high tax bracket, which could erode 24% to 30% of your income depending on current tax policy and what state you live in.

And every year the amount of the RMD goes up.

Not realizing the bite taxes will take out of large retirement accounts leads to nasty surprises.

It is one reason why if you expect to have a high-earning career where your earnings are greater as the years pass or expect a significant inhetitanceit might be smarter to pay taxes on your earnings when you are younger and invest them in taxable accounts and Roth IRAs, keeping your tax advantaged accounts to manageable sizes.

User avatar
Stef
Posts: 363
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2019 10:13 am

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by Stef » Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:36 am

willthrill81 wrote:
Fri Jan 10, 2020 6:37 pm
If you use the time value of money formula, you don't have to create 'buckets'. Instead of setting the terminal value of your portfolio to zero, you simply set it to however much you still want when SS benefits begin. For instance, if you're 50, have $2 million, use 3% as your expected real return, and want to have $1 million left in 20 years, your starting annual withdrawal would be $94,384.
Couldn't a 4.7% withdrawal rate get risky for 20 years?

If we take your example and assume this person started with 2 million in 2000. How much would he have in 2009? How much today when SS would start?

User avatar
tennisplyr
Posts: 2401
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 1:53 pm
Location: Sarasota, FL

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by tennisplyr » Sat Jan 11, 2020 7:39 am

willthrill81 wrote:
Fri Jan 10, 2020 4:08 pm
tennisplyr wrote:
Fri Jan 10, 2020 3:57 pm
I'm in the "no number" group. I retired when I got sick of my job (9 years ago) and try to live a balanced life. So far, so good.
How did you know that you could retire and be alright financially?

When I got sick of my job (age 61) I took a look at my portfolio size (not huge) and did some quick calculations vs. expenses. DW was still work and I knew I'd take SS early @ 62. Life moves very quickly, I was not going to waste time worrying about "making it". There are lots of options...part time job, reducing expenses, downsizing to nsfw a few.
Those who move forward with a happy spirit will find that things always work out.

RJC
Posts: 431
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2018 1:40 pm

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by RJC » Sat Jan 11, 2020 8:09 am

Scooter57 wrote:
Fri Jan 10, 2020 7:12 pm
Something people can forget is that if those millions you saved are in an IRA or other tax advantaged account you will be having to take huge required distributions in your 70s and later. These big distributions will raise your tax bracket . So taxes will take take a good chunk out of the income generated by your savings.

For example if you had $3 million in your retirement account and were 73 you would have to take $121,457 out of your retirement account that year, which is treated as ordinary income. That income level makes 85% of your social security taxable and if you have a pension or other taxable assets, the additional income will put you into a high tax bracket, which could erode 24% to 30% of your income depending on current tax policy and what state you live in.

And every year the amount of the RMD goes up.

Not realizing the bite taxes will take out of large retirement accounts leads to nasty surprises.

It is one reason why if you expect to have a high-earning career where your earnings are greater as the years pass or expect a significant inhetitanceit might be smarter to pay taxes on your earnings when you are younger and invest them in taxable accounts and Roth IRAs, keeping your tax advantaged accounts to manageable sizes.
Couldn’t you do Roth Conversions between retirement and SS/RMDs to lesson that tax hit?

User avatar
Harry Livermore
Posts: 150
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 5:32 am

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by Harry Livermore » Sat Jan 11, 2020 8:53 am

mak1277 wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 2:54 pm
My "number" is based on the following:

investable assets at a level to support a 3% withdrawal rate for annual expenses
+ 3 years of expenses in cash
+ a predetermined amount saved for future college expenses for kid(s)
+ a predetermined amount saved for unanticipated future medical/emergency costs
+ a paid-off home

Now, I'm quite certain the above is radically conservative, but my wife and I are both early-40s and have a child under 5, so working an extra year or two to hit a super-conservative number isn't the end of the world. I absolutely don't plan on working a day past 45 at this point, barring some monumental change in circumstances.
Mak, nice plan. It mirrors my own. Though we are a little older (I'm 53, wife 50) and kids are in/ about to go to college, so that box is basically ticked at this point. I also really enjoy what I do, so I'm not in a particular hurry to stop... even though by the numbers, we are basically FI now. I have been ramping up the cash/ taxable part of our portfolio, and slowing down a little on the profit-share on my LLC. I think tax diversification is worth something to me...
House will be paid off in 8-ish years. One rental property was bought for cash. One has 3-ish years left. Once those milestones are reached, and kids are all out of college, things should ease up quite a bit.
:sharebeer
Cheers

User avatar
Harry Livermore
Posts: 150
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 5:32 am

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by Harry Livermore » Sat Jan 11, 2020 9:02 am

RJC wrote:
Sat Jan 11, 2020 8:09 am
Scooter57 wrote:
Fri Jan 10, 2020 7:12 pm
Something people can forget is that if those millions you saved are in an IRA or other tax advantaged account you will be having to take huge required distributions in your 70s and later. These big distributions will raise your tax bracket . So taxes will take take a good chunk out of the income generated by your savings.

For example if you had $3 million in your retirement account and were 73 you would have to take $121,457 out of your retirement account that year, which is treated as ordinary income. That income level makes 85% of your social security taxable and if you have a pension or other taxable assets, the additional income will put you into a high tax bracket, which could erode 24% to 30% of your income depending on current tax policy and what state you live in.

And every year the amount of the RMD goes up.

Not realizing the bite taxes will take out of large retirement accounts leads to nasty surprises.

It is one reason why if you expect to have a high-earning career where your earnings are greater as the years pass or expect a significant inhetitanceit might be smarter to pay taxes on your earnings when you are younger and invest them in taxable accounts and Roth IRAs, keeping your tax advantaged accounts to manageable sizes.
Couldn’t you do Roth Conversions between retirement and SS/RMDs to lesson that tax hit?
RJC, I think you are correct, and that's standard advice from many of the Really Smart Folks here on BH (of which I am NOT a member)
We are planning on a few years of downshifting in terms of work before really retiring and needing to draw on the IRAs etc. And we are waaaay far away from SS and RMDs. So we are planning on using those "in-between" years to do a bit of Roth conversions. We did one (in 2010? 2011?) when they removed the income limit for conversions; there was a tax year or two where you could spread out the payment of tax due on the conversion over two tax years. We were in an even higher bracket than now, so that may have been a mistake. But at the time, I wanted to get a big chunk of our retirement money out of the "tax deferred" bucket and into the "tax-free" bucket. So minimal regrets.
Cheers

longinvest
Posts: 4092
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:44 am

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by longinvest » Sat Jan 11, 2020 10:02 am

I have no "number".

A retirement number makes no sense, not even an inflation-adjusted one. Someone retiring with a $1,000,000 inflation-adjusted portfolio in 1982 had a much more valuable retirement portfolio than someone retiring with a $1,000,000 inflation-adjusted portfolio in 1966. On the other hand, it was easier to accumulate a bigger inflation-adjusted retirement portfolio for a 1966 retiree than for a 1982 retiree. (See the 4 posts starting here).

That's why, instead of targeting a specific retirement number, I use an adaptive retirement saving process. Every year, I adapt the amount I save for retirement based on my changing age, salary, portfolio balance and asset allocation, target retirement age (or financial independence age), annual pension contribution amounts, and future pension payment amounts.

I do this using the Accumulation Worksheet of our wiki's VPW Accumulation And Retirement Worksheet. It's easy to use. Here's a screenshot:

Image

Future Social Security benefits can be estimated using the Social Security Administration Online Calculator.
Last edited by longinvest on Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bogleheads investment philosophy | One-ETF global balanced index portfolio | VPW

wrongfunds
Posts: 2211
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by wrongfunds » Sat Jan 11, 2020 10:18 am

Scooter57 wrote:
Fri Jan 10, 2020 7:12 pm
Something people can forget is that if those millions you saved are in an IRA or other tax advantaged account you will be having to take huge required distributions in your 70s and later. These big distributions will raise your tax bracket . So taxes will take take a good chunk out of the income generated by your savings.

For example if you had $3 million in your retirement account and were 73 you would have to take $121,457 out of your retirement account that year, which is treated as ordinary income. That income level makes 85% of your social security taxable and if you have a pension or other taxable assets, the additional income will put you into a high tax bracket, which could erode 24% to 30% of your income depending on current tax policy and what state you live in.

And every year the amount of the RMD goes up.

Not realizing the bite taxes will take out of large retirement accounts leads to nasty surprises.

It is one reason why if you expect to have a high-earning career where your earnings are greater as the years pass or expect a significant inhetitanceit might be smarter to pay taxes on your earnings when you are younger and invest them in taxable accounts and Roth IRAs, keeping your tax advantaged accounts to manageable sizes.
I have not done the calculations but supposedly if you had SS+Pension, do you think your *NET* income after reaching RMD age and taking RMD and paying taxes will be *less* than the earlier years when did NOT have to take RMD? Would you have to cut down on your lifestyle because of "horrendous RMD" ?

Would somebody run the numbers and show me how the net income will go *down*?

I am listening.

User avatar
TomatoTomahto
Posts: 9767
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by TomatoTomahto » Sat Jan 11, 2020 10:21 am

I have scanned all of the responses, looking in vain for a cogent description that I could show my wife of how to define the number that is enough. I felt we had that number (i.e., enough) some years ago.

Oh well, foiled again, and I have to fall back on my wife's number: 20% more than we have today, and tomorrow, it will be 20% more than we have tomorrow.
Okay, I get it; I won't be political or controversial. The Earth is flat.

blahblahsunshine
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2018 8:11 pm

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by blahblahsunshine » Sat Jan 11, 2020 10:45 am

TomatoTomahto wrote:
Sat Jan 11, 2020 10:21 am
I have scanned all of the responses, looking in vain for a cogent description that I could show my wife of how to define the number that is enough. I felt we had that number (i.e., enough) some years ago.

Oh well, foiled again, and I have to fall back on my wife's number: 20% more than we have today, and tomorrow, it will be 20% more than we have tomorrow.
What you describe here about whatever we have today not being enough is a really interesting point, and is really at the core of the issue re:retiring. For most people their income stream is small relative to their wealth and the likelyhood of getting a "big bump" say +25% of net worth is low aside from inheritance (if they are so lucky). As a result there never is a tomorrow that feels very different from today...and if you didn't retire yesterday why would you be retiring today or tomorrow since they are so similar?

So in reality the decision to chart another path in life probably rests on other factors like - they laid me off and I can't get a job, or I dislike my job enough that i am commited to making the math of retirment work, or I found something so interesting and awesome I am going to do that (and it doesn't pay so I guess technically I am retired).

Net net - the % SWR can be reasonably determined and has been by many. For me we are at 2-3%, but it isn't the math that is driving our decision or number, but the calculous of what we want/can do with our lives.

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 15207
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by willthrill81 » Sat Jan 11, 2020 11:07 am

tennisplyr wrote:
Sat Jan 11, 2020 7:39 am
willthrill81 wrote:
Fri Jan 10, 2020 4:08 pm
tennisplyr wrote:
Fri Jan 10, 2020 3:57 pm
I'm in the "no number" group. I retired when I got sick of my job (9 years ago) and try to live a balanced life. So far, so good.
How did you know that you could retire and be alright financially?
When I got sick of my job (age 61) I took a look at my portfolio size (not huge) and did some quick calculations vs. expenses. DW was still work and I knew I'd take SS early @ 62. Life moves very quickly, I was not going to waste time worrying about "making it". There are lots of options...part time job, reducing expenses, downsizing to nsfw a few.
It sounds like you weren't so much 'anti-number' (i.e. "did some quick calculations") as 'anti-padding'. I can completely empathize with that.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 15207
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by willthrill81 » Sat Jan 11, 2020 11:11 am

Stef wrote:
Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:36 am
willthrill81 wrote:
Fri Jan 10, 2020 6:37 pm
If you use the time value of money formula, you don't have to create 'buckets'. Instead of setting the terminal value of your portfolio to zero, you simply set it to however much you still want when SS benefits begin. For instance, if you're 50, have $2 million, use 3% as your expected real return, and want to have $1 million left in 20 years, your starting annual withdrawal would be $94,384.
Couldn't a 4.7% withdrawal rate get risky for 20 years?

If we take your example and assume this person started with 2 million in 2000. How much would he have in 2009? How much today when SS would start?
No, it isn't risky in the sense of portfolio depletion because the withdrawal amount is not fixed but is variable. That is just how much you would have withdrawn at the beginning of year 1. You would run the analysis again before making your next withdrawal. In this way, it is mathematically impossible to prematurely deplete one's portfolio due to withdrawals. The VPW approach was calculated using this approach but makes several assumptions that users can adjust to their liking by using the time value of money formula directly.

I illustrated how this would have worked out for year 2000 retirees in this thread, although the precise numbers were different.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

Scooter57
Posts: 1170
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:20 am

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by Scooter57 » Sat Jan 11, 2020 6:55 pm

RJC wrote:
Sat Jan 11, 2020 8:09 am

Couldn’t you do Roth Conversions between retirement and SS/RMDs to lesson that tax hit?
It would depend on your taxable income at the time and that of your spouse. Over a certain level, you can't.

ClaycordJCA
Posts: 327
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 11:19 pm
Location: SF Bay Area

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by ClaycordJCA » Sat Jan 11, 2020 7:49 pm

We are budgeting $100,000 a year in retirement spending (DW has significant medical expenses), not factoring in social security. We have no pensions. So, the number at age 61 is 30x budgeted expenses, which allows for some latitude and should let me sleep at night.

User avatar
TheTimeLord
Posts: 6467
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:05 pm

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by TheTimeLord » Tue Jan 14, 2020 2:22 pm

TomatoTomahto wrote:
Sat Jan 11, 2020 10:21 am
I have scanned all of the responses, looking in vain for a cogent description that I could show my wife of how to define the number that is enough. I felt we had that number (i.e., enough) some years ago.

Oh well, foiled again, and I have to fall back on my wife's number: 20% more than we have today, and tomorrow, it will be 20% more than we have tomorrow.
Here is one I think you will relate to. When you have enough in SAFE Fixed Income so that the combined with your other projected streams of income (SS, pensions, annuities and the like) you only need a 0% real return rate to pay your planned expenses from today until your projected date of death.
IMHO, Investing should be about living the life you want, not avoiding the life you fear. | Run, You Clever Boy! [9085]

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 15207
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by willthrill81 » Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:27 pm

TomatoTomahto wrote:
Sat Jan 11, 2020 10:21 am
I have scanned all of the responses, looking in vain for a cogent description that I could show my wife of how to define the number that is enough. I felt we had that number (i.e., enough) some years ago.

Oh well, foiled again, and I have to fall back on my wife's number: 20% more than we have today, and tomorrow, it will be 20% more than we have tomorrow.
If you're over 60, then I think that 25x is just fine, especially if you'll have SS benefits and/or a pension on top of that.

If you're under 60, then I think that you need more like 30-33x.

I don't know how it could be much simpler than that.

It sounds like your DW is falling for OMY syndrome. That's a nefarious one.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

User avatar
TheTimeLord
Posts: 6467
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:05 pm

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by TheTimeLord » Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:34 pm

willthrill81 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:27 pm
TomatoTomahto wrote:
Sat Jan 11, 2020 10:21 am
I have scanned all of the responses, looking in vain for a cogent description that I could show my wife of how to define the number that is enough. I felt we had that number (i.e., enough) some years ago.

Oh well, foiled again, and I have to fall back on my wife's number: 20% more than we have today, and tomorrow, it will be 20% more than we have tomorrow.
If you're over 60, then I think that 25x is just fine, especially if you'll have SS benefits and/or a pension on top of that.

If you're under 60, then I think that you need more like 30-33x.

I don't know how it could be much simpler than that.

It sounds like your DW is falling for OMY syndrome. That's a nefarious one.
Why would you need SS and pension on top of that? That would seem to create and incredibly low WR after FRA.
Last edited by TheTimeLord on Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
IMHO, Investing should be about living the life you want, not avoiding the life you fear. | Run, You Clever Boy! [9085]

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 15207
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by willthrill81 » Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:35 pm

TheTimeLord wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:34 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:27 pm
TomatoTomahto wrote:
Sat Jan 11, 2020 10:21 am
I have scanned all of the responses, looking in vain for a cogent description that I could show my wife of how to define the number that is enough. I felt we had that number (i.e., enough) some years ago.

Oh well, foiled again, and I have to fall back on my wife's number: 20% more than we have today, and tomorrow, it will be 20% more than we have tomorrow.
If you're over 60, then I think that 25x is just fine, especially if you'll have SS benefits and/or a pension on top of that.

If you're under 60, then I think that you need more like 30-33x.

I don't know how it could be much simpler than that.

It sounds like your DW is falling for OMY syndrome. That's a nefarious one.
Why would you need SS and pension on top of that? That would seem to create and incredibly low WR after FRA.
You wouldn't need it, of course. But it seems that TomatoTomahto's DW thinks that taking that into account is too difficult.

I heard Paula Pant say in her most recent podcast episode that she "takes comfort in spreadsheets." Not everyone is as nerdy as many of us here, but if you are unwilling or unable to do a little math, you'll never know when you actually have enough, and you start playing the OMY game. I'm not poking fun at TomatoTomahto's DW at all; my own DW doesn't like math either, but at times I walk her through a spreadsheet to explain something that she really needs to understand, and she gets it, even if she doesn't like it.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

ljford7
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 8:15 pm

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by ljford7 » Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:58 pm

TomatoTomahto wrote:
Sat Jan 11, 2020 10:21 am
I have scanned all of the responses, looking in vain for a cogent description that I could show my wife of how to define the number that is enough. I felt we had that number (i.e., enough) some years ago.

Oh well, foiled again, and I have to fall back on my wife's number: 20% more than we have today, and tomorrow, it will be 20% more than we have tomorrow.
I love this! This should be the forums new slogan.

(A lot of people on the forum think you need $10 M and work until you are 80 until you have the right number. :beer )

wrongfunds
Posts: 2211
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by wrongfunds » Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:06 pm

TheTimeLord wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 2:22 pm
TomatoTomahto wrote:
Sat Jan 11, 2020 10:21 am
I have scanned all of the responses, looking in vain for a cogent description that I could show my wife of how to define the number that is enough. I felt we had that number (i.e., enough) some years ago.

Oh well, foiled again, and I have to fall back on my wife's number: 20% more than we have today, and tomorrow, it will be 20% more than we have tomorrow.
Here is one I think you will relate to. When you have enough in SAFE Fixed Income so that the combined with your other projected streams of income (SS, pensions, annuities and the like) you only need a 0% real return rate to pay your planned expenses from today until your projected date of death.
Not really, TT needs significantly more in fixed income such that it will dwarf his wife's annual income before wife will voluntarily retire. And to be frank, I can not find fault in her reasoning. Just increase in total portfolio is NOT enough of a reasoning. I also have sneaking suspicion that mathematically we could prove that it would be very high bar to cross given her current compensation :-)
Last edited by wrongfunds on Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
TheTimeLord
Posts: 6467
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:05 pm

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by TheTimeLord » Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:07 pm

willthrill81 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:35 pm
TheTimeLord wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:34 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:27 pm
TomatoTomahto wrote:
Sat Jan 11, 2020 10:21 am
I have scanned all of the responses, looking in vain for a cogent description that I could show my wife of how to define the number that is enough. I felt we had that number (i.e., enough) some years ago.

Oh well, foiled again, and I have to fall back on my wife's number: 20% more than we have today, and tomorrow, it will be 20% more than we have tomorrow.
If you're over 60, then I think that 25x is just fine, especially if you'll have SS benefits and/or a pension on top of that.

If you're under 60, then I think that you need more like 30-33x.

I don't know how it could be much simpler than that.

It sounds like your DW is falling for OMY syndrome. That's a nefarious one.
Why would you need SS and pension on top of that? That would seem to create and incredibly low WR after FRA.
You wouldn't need it, of course. But it seems that TomatoTomahto's DW thinks that taking that into account is too difficult.

I heard Paula Pant say in her most recent podcast episode that she "takes comfort in spreadsheets." Not everyone is as nerdy as many of us here, but if you are unwilling or unable to do a little math, you'll never know when you actually have enough, and you start playing the OMY game. I'm not poking fun at TomatoTomahto's DW at all; my own DW doesn't like math either, but at times I walk her through a spreadsheet to explain something that she really needs to understand, and she gets it, even if she doesn't like it.
My spouse doesn't have any interest in the spreadsheets or math. She say she trusts me when I tell we have enough then we have enough. So I told her when we had enough and she said "Okay, but I want to work at least another 2 or 3 years" which probably translates in 3 to 5 years. Or put another way, she believes we have enough but that doesn't really impact whether she wants to work or not. Not really OMY, just exercising her freedom to do what she wants now that we are FI.
IMHO, Investing should be about living the life you want, not avoiding the life you fear. | Run, You Clever Boy! [9085]

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 15207
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by willthrill81 » Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:10 pm

TheTimeLord wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:07 pm
My spouse doesn't have any interest in the spreadsheets or math. She say she trusts me when I tell we have enough then we have enough. So I told her when we had enough and she said "Okay, but I want to work at least another 2 or 3 years" which probably translates in 3 to 5 years. Or put another way, she believes we have enough but that doesn't really impact whether she wants to work or not. Not really OMY, just exercising her freedom to do what she wants now that we are FI.
Is she open to you retiring before her?
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

User avatar
TheTimeLord
Posts: 6467
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:05 pm

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by TheTimeLord » Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:11 pm

wrongfunds wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:06 pm
TheTimeLord wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 2:22 pm
TomatoTomahto wrote:
Sat Jan 11, 2020 10:21 am
I have scanned all of the responses, looking in vain for a cogent description that I could show my wife of how to define the number that is enough. I felt we had that number (i.e., enough) some years ago.

Oh well, foiled again, and I have to fall back on my wife's number: 20% more than we have today, and tomorrow, it will be 20% more than we have tomorrow.
Here is one I think you will relate to. When you have enough in SAFE Fixed Income so that the combined with your other projected streams of income (SS, pensions, annuities and the like) you only need a 0% real return rate to pay your planned expenses from today until your projected date of death.
Not really, TT needs significantly more in fixed income such that it will dwarf his wife's annual income before wife will voluntarily retire. And to be frank, I can not find fault in her reasoning.
Who knew 30+ times of their expenses didn't dwarf her annual income. Besides I was commenting on how to define their number, not what action she should take once they reach it.
IMHO, Investing should be about living the life you want, not avoiding the life you fear. | Run, You Clever Boy! [9085]

User avatar
TheTimeLord
Posts: 6467
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:05 pm

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by TheTimeLord » Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:12 pm

willthrill81 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:10 pm
TheTimeLord wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:07 pm
My spouse doesn't have any interest in the spreadsheets or math. She say she trusts me when I tell we have enough then we have enough. So I told her when we had enough and she said "Okay, but I want to work at least another 2 or 3 years" which probably translates in 3 to 5 years. Or put another way, she believes we have enough but that doesn't really impact whether she wants to work or not. Not really OMY, just exercising her freedom to do what she wants now that we are FI.
Is she open to you retiring before her?
She is.
IMHO, Investing should be about living the life you want, not avoiding the life you fear. | Run, You Clever Boy! [9085]

wrongfunds
Posts: 2211
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by wrongfunds » Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:17 pm

TheTimeLord wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:11 pm
wrongfunds wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:06 pm
TheTimeLord wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 2:22 pm
TomatoTomahto wrote:
Sat Jan 11, 2020 10:21 am
I have scanned all of the responses, looking in vain for a cogent description that I could show my wife of how to define the number that is enough. I felt we had that number (i.e., enough) some years ago.

Oh well, foiled again, and I have to fall back on my wife's number: 20% more than we have today, and tomorrow, it will be 20% more than we have tomorrow.
Here is one I think you will relate to. When you have enough in SAFE Fixed Income so that the combined with your other projected streams of income (SS, pensions, annuities and the like) you only need a 0% real return rate to pay your planned expenses from today until your projected date of death.
Not really, TT needs significantly more in fixed income such that it will dwarf his wife's annual income before wife will voluntarily retire. And to be frank, I can not find fault in her reasoning.
Who knew 30+ times of their expenses didn't dwarf her annual income. Besides I was commenting on how to define their number, not what action she should take once they reach it.
I said NOTHING about the expenses.

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 15207
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by willthrill81 » Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:20 pm

TheTimeLord wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:12 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:10 pm
TheTimeLord wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:07 pm
My spouse doesn't have any interest in the spreadsheets or math. She say she trusts me when I tell we have enough then we have enough. So I told her when we had enough and she said "Okay, but I want to work at least another 2 or 3 years" which probably translates in 3 to 5 years. Or put another way, she believes we have enough but that doesn't really impact whether she wants to work or not. Not really OMY, just exercising her freedom to do what she wants now that we are FI.
Is she open to you retiring before her?
She is.
Nice. Then it sounds like you're both in good shape. :beer
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

User avatar
TheTimeLord
Posts: 6467
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:05 pm

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by TheTimeLord » Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:22 pm

wrongfunds wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:17 pm
TheTimeLord wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:11 pm
wrongfunds wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:06 pm
TheTimeLord wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 2:22 pm
TomatoTomahto wrote:
Sat Jan 11, 2020 10:21 am
I have scanned all of the responses, looking in vain for a cogent description that I could show my wife of how to define the number that is enough. I felt we had that number (i.e., enough) some years ago.

Oh well, foiled again, and I have to fall back on my wife's number: 20% more than we have today, and tomorrow, it will be 20% more than we have tomorrow.
Here is one I think you will relate to. When you have enough in SAFE Fixed Income so that the combined with your other projected streams of income (SS, pensions, annuities and the like) you only need a 0% real return rate to pay your planned expenses from today until your projected date of death.
Not really, TT needs significantly more in fixed income such that it will dwarf his wife's annual income before wife will voluntarily retire. And to be frank, I can not find fault in her reasoning.
Who knew 30+ times of their expenses didn't dwarf her annual income. Besides I was commenting on how to define their number, not what action she should take once they reach it.
I said NOTHING about the expenses.
But you replied to a comment that calculated the amount of fixed income by using expenses and implied it wasn't enough.
IMHO, Investing should be about living the life you want, not avoiding the life you fear. | Run, You Clever Boy! [9085]

wrongfunds
Posts: 2211
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by wrongfunds » Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:32 pm

NO;

I was saying that as TT's wife's annual income is NOT dwarfing the SAFE income derived from the portfolio && significant portion of the annual income is plowed back in to the portfolio && the annual income itself is growing because of promotions/options/RSU etc

Why would TT's wife retire today?

User avatar
TheTimeLord
Posts: 6467
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:05 pm

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by TheTimeLord » Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:35 pm

willthrill81 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:20 pm
TheTimeLord wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:12 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:10 pm
TheTimeLord wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:07 pm
My spouse doesn't have any interest in the spreadsheets or math. She say she trusts me when I tell we have enough then we have enough. So I told her when we had enough and she said "Okay, but I want to work at least another 2 or 3 years" which probably translates in 3 to 5 years. Or put another way, she believes we have enough but that doesn't really impact whether she wants to work or not. Not really OMY, just exercising her freedom to do what she wants now that we are FI.
Is she open to you retiring before her?
She is.
Nice. Then it sounds like you're both in good shape. :beer
We are. For awhile I pushed her to retire then one day I tried to picture what she would do if she was retired and I couldn't. I haven't brought her retirement up since and I basically have put mine on hold too for a similar reason. Add to that thanks to 2019 we are past our number enough to where it has got me wondering what happens if we just keep going. What difference could it make to us, our family and friends or causes we are passionate about if instead of just letting our human capital expire worthless we kept utilizing it as long as we still enjoyed the daily grind. Figure that is a question worth pondering a while before I call it a day. But everyone has their own path.
IMHO, Investing should be about living the life you want, not avoiding the life you fear. | Run, You Clever Boy! [9085]

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 15207
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by willthrill81 » Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:41 pm

TheTimeLord wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:35 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:20 pm
TheTimeLord wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:12 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:10 pm
TheTimeLord wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:07 pm
My spouse doesn't have any interest in the spreadsheets or math. She say she trusts me when I tell we have enough then we have enough. So I told her when we had enough and she said "Okay, but I want to work at least another 2 or 3 years" which probably translates in 3 to 5 years. Or put another way, she believes we have enough but that doesn't really impact whether she wants to work or not. Not really OMY, just exercising her freedom to do what she wants now that we are FI.
Is she open to you retiring before her?
She is.
Nice. Then it sounds like you're both in good shape. :beer
We are. For awhile I pushed her to retire then one day I tried to picture what she would do if she was retired and I couldn't. I haven't brought her retirement up since and I basically have put mine on hold too for a similar reason. Add to that thanks to 2019 we are past our number enough to where it has got me wondering what happens if we just keep going. What difference could it make to us, our family and friends or causes we are passionate about if instead of just letting our human capital expire worthless we kept utilizing it as long as we still enjoyed the daily grind. Figure that is a question worth pondering a while before I call it a day. But everyone has their own path.
We've had similar thoughts as well. It's looking like I might be able to retire when our daughter is still in high school, but since we wouldn't be able to travel while school is in session, and we can already travel as much as we want during our summers, I'll probably wait until she graduates to pull the plug. But it does mean that we would likely be leaving a lot of money on the table that could be used for some very worthy causes. So we'll see.

First world problems and no complaints! :D
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

User avatar
TheTimeLord
Posts: 6467
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:05 pm

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by TheTimeLord » Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:45 pm

wrongfunds wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:32 pm
NO;

I was saying that as TT's wife's annual income is NOT dwarfing the SAFE income derived from the portfolio && significant portion of the annual income is plowed back in to the portfolio && the annual income itself is growing because of promotions/options/RSU etc

Why would TT's wife retire today?
You are talking to the wrong person since I don't really view retirement as the natural consequence of having enough. Financial Independence just gives you the freedom to make certain choices. Yes, retirement is one of them, but so is continuing to work at your current job or changing careers. Retirement to me is a personal decision with a financial component and should not be made on purely by the fact someone can afford to.
IMHO, Investing should be about living the life you want, not avoiding the life you fear. | Run, You Clever Boy! [9085]

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 15207
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by willthrill81 » Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:47 pm

TheTimeLord wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:45 pm
wrongfunds wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:32 pm
NO;

I was saying that as TT's wife's annual income is NOT dwarfing the SAFE income derived from the portfolio && significant portion of the annual income is plowed back in to the portfolio && the annual income itself is growing because of promotions/options/RSU etc

Why would TT's wife retire today?
You are talking to the wrong person since I don't really view retirement as the natural consequence of having enough. Financial Independence just gives you the freedom to make certain choices. Yes, retirement is one of them, but so is continuing to work at your current job or changing careers. Retirement to me is a personal decision with a financial component and should not be made on purely by the fact someone can afford to.
:sharebeer 100% agree.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

User avatar
TheTimeLord
Posts: 6467
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:05 pm

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by TheTimeLord » Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:51 pm

willthrill81 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:41 pm
TheTimeLord wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:35 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:20 pm
TheTimeLord wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:12 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:10 pm


Is she open to you retiring before her?
She is.
Nice. Then it sounds like you're both in good shape. :beer
We are. For awhile I pushed her to retire then one day I tried to picture what she would do if she was retired and I couldn't. I haven't brought her retirement up since and I basically have put mine on hold too for a similar reason. Add to that thanks to 2019 we are past our number enough to where it has got me wondering what happens if we just keep going. What difference could it make to us, our family and friends or causes we are passionate about if instead of just letting our human capital expire worthless we kept utilizing it as long as we still enjoyed the daily grind. Figure that is a question worth pondering a while before I call it a day. But everyone has their own path.
We've had similar thoughts as well. It's looking like I might be able to retire when our daughter is still in high school, but since we wouldn't be able to travel while school is in session, and we can already travel as much as we want during our summers, I'll probably wait until she graduates to pull the plug. But it does mean that we would likely be leaving a lot of money on the table that could be used for some very worthy causes. So we'll see.

First world problems and no complaints! :D
Sort of pondering that fact I feel people have a responsibility if they have a lot of money but do they also have a responsibility if they have the potential/ability to earn a lot of money also. Over the years I have sort of evolved from an early retirement person to sort of an anti-FIRE, get off my financial lawn kind of guy. <Removed because discussion taking an unintended political direction>
Last edited by TheTimeLord on Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
IMHO, Investing should be about living the life you want, not avoiding the life you fear. | Run, You Clever Boy! [9085]

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 15207
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by willthrill81 » Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:54 pm

TheTimeLord wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:51 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:41 pm
TheTimeLord wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:35 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:20 pm
TheTimeLord wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:12 pm


She is.
Nice. Then it sounds like you're both in good shape. :beer
We are. For awhile I pushed her to retire then one day I tried to picture what she would do if she was retired and I couldn't. I haven't brought her retirement up since and I basically have put mine on hold too for a similar reason. Add to that thanks to 2019 we are past our number enough to where it has got me wondering what happens if we just keep going. What difference could it make to us, our family and friends or causes we are passionate about if instead of just letting our human capital expire worthless we kept utilizing it as long as we still enjoyed the daily grind. Figure that is a question worth pondering a while before I call it a day. But everyone has their own path.
We've had similar thoughts as well. It's looking like I might be able to retire when our daughter is still in high school, but since we wouldn't be able to travel while school is in session, and we can already travel as much as we want during our summers, I'll probably wait until she graduates to pull the plug. But it does mean that we would likely be leaving a lot of money on the table that could be used for some very worthy causes. So we'll see.

First world problems and no complaints! :D
Sort of pondering that fact I feel people have a responsibility if they have a lot of money but do they also have a responsibility if they have the potential/ability to earn a lot of money also. Over the years I have sort of evolved from an early retirement person to sort of an anti-FIRE, get off my financial lawn kind of guy. Seriously, how would society work if the best and brightest only contribute from say 21 to 40?
There are definite ethical/philosophical/religious issues at work in the decision.

If I do retire in my early 50s, both my DW and I would like to do more charity work than we are currently able to. We might view that as an acceptable trade-off to me continuing to sell my time for money. But that's still a solid decade away.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

mak1277
Posts: 1210
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2015 4:26 pm

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by mak1277 » Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:56 pm

TheTimeLord wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:51 pm

Sort of pondering that fact I feel people have a responsibility if they have a lot of money but do they also have a responsibility if they have the potential/ability to earn a lot of money also. Over the years I have sort of evolved from an early retirement person to sort of an anti-FIRE, get off my financial lawn kind of guy. Seriously, how would society work if the best and brightest only contribute from say 21 to 40?
That's pretty conceited, methinks. I suspect that the vast majority of people who can retire early are not contributing in roles that are critical to the continued function of society. There aren't very many people who have jobs that important.

User avatar
TomatoTomahto
Posts: 9767
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by TomatoTomahto » Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:59 pm

willthrill81 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:35 pm
TheTimeLord wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:34 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:27 pm
TomatoTomahto wrote:
Sat Jan 11, 2020 10:21 am
I have scanned all of the responses, looking in vain for a cogent description that I could show my wife of how to define the number that is enough. I felt we had that number (i.e., enough) some years ago.

Oh well, foiled again, and I have to fall back on my wife's number: 20% more than we have today, and tomorrow, it will be 20% more than we have tomorrow.
If you're over 60, then I think that 25x is just fine, especially if you'll have SS benefits and/or a pension on top of that.

If you're under 60, then I think that you need more like 30-33x.

I don't know how it could be much simpler than that.

It sounds like your DW is falling for OMY syndrome. That's a nefarious one.
Why would you need SS and pension on top of that? That would seem to create and incredibly low WR after FRA.
You wouldn't need it, of course. But it seems that TomatoTomahto's DW thinks that taking that into account is too difficult.

I heard Paula Pant say in her most recent podcast episode that she "takes comfort in spreadsheets." Not everyone is as nerdy as many of us here, but if you are unwilling or unable to do a little math, you'll never know when you actually have enough, and you start playing the OMY game. I'm not poking fun at TomatoTomahto's DW at all; my own DW doesn't like math either, but at times I walk her through a spreadsheet to explain something that she really needs to understand, and she gets it, even if she doesn't like it.
DW is known, professionally, for always knowing her numbers. She doesn’t mind spreadsheets. 😁.

The bad news: she’s not at OMY. The good news: she used to say “5 more years,” and I heard her recently wonder about a 3 year horizon at her current job. I’m not putting it in my calendar though 😁🤣

It is a running joke with us, but honestly, as much as I would like her around more, and as little as we need additional money, I understand her desire to keep working now that she is finally getting some of what she deserved decades ago. Cross reference tech females in financial services 20 years ago.
Okay, I get it; I won't be political or controversial. The Earth is flat.

sailaway
Posts: 953
Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 1:11 pm

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by sailaway » Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:01 pm

mak1277 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:56 pm
TheTimeLord wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:51 pm

Sort of pondering that fact I feel people have a responsibility if they have a lot of money but do they also have a responsibility if they have the potential/ability to earn a lot of money also. Over the years I have sort of evolved from an early retirement person to sort of an anti-FIRE, get off my financial lawn kind of guy. Seriously, how would society work if the best and brightest only contribute from say 21 to 40?
That's pretty conceited, methinks. I suspect that the vast majority of people who can retire early are not contributing in roles that are critical to the continued function of society. There aren't very many people who have jobs that important.
It also implies that we actually pay the important people well. Teachers, firefighters, police, social workers, farm workers, the volunteers running homeless shelters, etc. might disagree.

User avatar
TheTimeLord
Posts: 6467
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:05 pm

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by TheTimeLord » Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:07 pm

sailaway wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:01 pm
mak1277 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:56 pm
TheTimeLord wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:51 pm

Sort of pondering that fact I feel people have a responsibility if they have a lot of money but do they also have a responsibility if they have the potential/ability to earn a lot of money also. Over the years I have sort of evolved from an early retirement person to sort of an anti-FIRE, get off my financial lawn kind of guy.<removed>
<removed>
<removed>
I think this is taking a political turn and we should voluntarily shut this line of discussion down.
IMHO, Investing should be about living the life you want, not avoiding the life you fear. | Run, You Clever Boy! [9085]

mak1277
Posts: 1210
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2015 4:26 pm

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by mak1277 » Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:11 pm

TheTimeLord wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:07 pm
sailaway wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:01 pm
mak1277 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:56 pm
TheTimeLord wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:51 pm

Sort of pondering that fact I feel people have a responsibility if they have a lot of money but do they also have a responsibility if they have the potential/ability to earn a lot of money also. Over the years I have sort of evolved from an early retirement person to sort of an anti-FIRE, get off my financial lawn kind of guy.<removed>
<removed>
<removed>
I think this is taking a political turn and we should voluntarily shut this line of discussion down.
My comment wasn't the slightest bit political. It was aimed at people who think they're more important than they really are (which is nearly everyone).

marcopolo
Posts: 2787
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:22 am

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by marcopolo » Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:21 pm

TheTimeLord wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:45 pm
You are talking to the wrong person since I don't really view retirement as the natural consequence of having enough. Financial Independence just gives you the freedom to make certain choices. Yes, retirement is one of them, but so is continuing to work at your current job or changing careers. Retirement to me is a personal decision with a financial component and should not be made on purely by the fact someone can afford to.
TheTimeLord wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:51 pm

Sort of pondering that fact I feel people have a responsibility if they have a lot of money but do they also have a responsibility if they have the potential/ability to earn a lot of money also. Over the years I have sort of evolved from an early retirement person to sort of an anti-FIRE, get off my financial lawn kind of guy. <Removed because discussion taking an unintended political direction>
Wow, you went from "retirement is personal choice" to "people have a responsibility to keep working" in six minutes?
Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

KlangFool
Posts: 14716
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by KlangFool » Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:30 pm

sailaway wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:01 pm

It also implies that we actually pay the important people well. Teachers, firefighters, police, social workers, farm workers, the volunteers running homeless shelters, etc. might disagree.
sailaway,

Just an example.

The most famous and influential ancestor of my family spoken words that are taught to hundreds of millions of people over thousands of years. He died of abject poverty.

KlangFool

User avatar
TheTimeLord
Posts: 6467
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:05 pm

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by TheTimeLord » Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:43 pm

marcopolo wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:21 pm
TheTimeLord wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:45 pm
You are talking to the wrong person since I don't really view retirement as the natural consequence of having enough. Financial Independence just gives you the freedom to make certain choices. Yes, retirement is one of them, but so is continuing to work at your current job or changing careers. Retirement to me is a personal decision with a financial component and should not be made on purely by the fact someone can afford to.
TheTimeLord wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:51 pm

Sort of pondering that fact I feel people have a responsibility if they have a lot of money but do they also have a responsibility if they have the potential/ability to earn a lot of money also. Over the years I have sort of evolved from an early retirement person to sort of an anti-FIRE, get off my financial lawn kind of guy. <Removed because discussion taking an unintended political direction>
Wow, you went from "retirement is personal choice" to "people have a responsibility to keep working" in six minutes?
I take it you right headlines for a living. I said I believe retirement is a personal decision with a financial component. Then I posed something I am pondering, if I believe if people who have the potential/ability to earn a lot of money actually have a responsibility to do so. If I do come to the conclusion that they do have that responsibility would be input to my personal decision. Again this is a personal/individual decision.
IMHO, Investing should be about living the life you want, not avoiding the life you fear. | Run, You Clever Boy! [9085]

marcopolo
Posts: 2787
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:22 am

Re: How is your "number" defined?

Post by marcopolo » Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:00 pm

TheTimeLord wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:43 pm
marcopolo wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:21 pm
TheTimeLord wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:45 pm
You are talking to the wrong person since I don't really view retirement as the natural consequence of having enough. Financial Independence just gives you the freedom to make certain choices. Yes, retirement is one of them, but so is continuing to work at your current job or changing careers. Retirement to me is a personal decision with a financial component and should not be made on purely by the fact someone can afford to.
TheTimeLord wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:51 pm

Sort of pondering that fact I feel people have a responsibility if they have a lot of money but do they also have a responsibility if they have the potential/ability to earn a lot of money also. Over the years I have sort of evolved from an early retirement person to sort of an anti-FIRE, get off my financial lawn kind of guy. <Removed because discussion taking an unintended political direction>
Wow, you went from "retirement is personal choice" to "people have a responsibility to keep working" in six minutes?

I take it you right headlines for a living.
I said I believe retirement is a personal decision with a financial component. Then I posed something I am pondering, if I believe if people who have the potential/ability to earn a lot of money actually have a responsibility to do so. If I do come to the conclusion that they do have that responsibility would be input to my personal decision. Again this is a personal/individual decision.
No, I am one of those irresponsible people that retired early. :beer
I believe you did the same, but did not like it, that is fine, like you said: personal choice.

This pondering seems to be an attempt to justify that change of heart. Not sure why you feel you need to start judging other people's choices to justify your own. If you feel you have that responsibility, that is great. Say "people have that responsibility" seems a bit beyond a personal decision. Maybe I am mis-reading what you are trying to say, if so, my apologies.
Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

Post Reply