LBYMers, Could You Spend $300k A Year?

[pimpmyretirement]

For the most part, I've found as the cost of participation goes up, the amount I enjoy the associated people and activity goes down. Give me the local deep dish pizza place over the exclusive hot dining trend every time. I have no interest in local socialites that look down on someone who goes out in sweats and a t-shirt.

Spending all that money (short of giving it away) would just stress me out and make me unhappy.

I could see doubling my current living expenses to get the "deluxe" experience from everything I do today, but it would have limited impact on my quality of life and would still leave me far short of $100k a year. Maybe I'd leave the heat at 72 instead of 65. I could get all my groceries through peapod weekly, instead of local stores monthly. I could do a weekend in the city a few times a year instead of once a year.

If that approach bled into my material goods (vs. experiences) there is a good chance it would make me less happy. It took me a long time to learn "the new shiny object" brings the exact same pleasure as the old one, except for that momentary thrill of getting something new. Chasing the "got something new" feeling becomes both addictive and progressively less satisfying.

Buying away all my responsibility wouldn't be any fun either. Life needs a balance of work and play, or the play brings no pleasure.

No kids, no plan for kids, so I can't comment on that. I do believe that the selection process found at "exclusive" ivy leauge schools has far more to do with the success of the alumni than the schools themselves. A hand selected crop of the most intelligent and well connected high school seniors is going to show great results anywhere.

[Independent]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andre1969 I got into a debate over just this on another forum. I argued that $7.5M would give you about $225K per year at a 3% SWR, or $300K per year at a 4% SWR, and that I really don't consider that wealthy. I guess the reason I don't think it's a lot of money is because my Mom and stepdad combined made about $180-190K per year at their peak (Mom recently retired, and stepdad is burning out and may take an early out). I hardly consider my Mom and stepdad to live what I'd consider a "wealthy" lifestyle, and $225K per year isn't that far ahead of $180-190K, IMO. Now, my Mom and stepdad do have two houses, but neither one is a mansion. One's a 24x48 modular (the type that looks like a real house, not a glammed up double-wide) on about 4.5 acres, and is about 30 years old. The other is a rancher near Orlando, Florida, maybe 1800 square feet. They wanted to retire down there, but having second thoughts now. And it's worth less than what they paid for it, 9 or so years ago. My Mom and stepdad are what I'd call "comfortable", but I just don't call that rich. Now, I should also point out that with that $180-190K per year, they weren't blowing everything they made; that was also funding part of their retirement accounts. They both get pensions...Mom at 80%, but my stepdad will only get around 30% if he quits now. And the houses are on 15 year mortgages, and they put a good amount down. I think both mortgages combined are about $1500/mo. Personally, I don't think I could blow through $300,000 per year. I might be able to do it once or twice, such as if I bought a house or made some other really huge purchase. But I just don't think I could keep it up, year after year. Now, that $300K per year is going to be less than that because of taxes. But I don't think I could even blow through $150K per year on a consistent basis. At $150K I'd probably just pay down the mortgage really quick, or if I bought another house, come up with a big down payment and then accelerate the mortgage...unless the interest rate was too good to be true!

For people who have stated that $300k is so much that they can't imagine spending it, the line I bolded is evidence supporting their view. You're saying your parents weren't even spending their $190k income.

For people (like me) who have always been LBYM'ers but would be happy to have the chance to blow through $300k a year, the two houses is evidence supporting our view. An easy way to spend lots of money is to spend part of the year in one very attractive location and part of the year in a different very attractive location. If they upgraded their locations they could probably get to $300k pretty quickly.

Whether this makes you "rich" is in the eye of the beholder. I checked the IRS statistics, in 2008 about 3% of all returns had AGIs over $200k. That includes single and joint returns, so maybe 5% of joint returns were over $200k. Different people have different views on how far into the tail of the distribution one needs to be in order to be "rich".

[jayc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loop Lawyer Most of the people who work for me earn $300K a year, or more, and many of them have little or no savings outside their IRAs and modest 401Ks.

Maybe raise the employer match for these poor paycheck to paycheck working stiffs or lower the dings they get when they cash their checks at your general store on Friday.

[Independent]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loop Lawyer I agree with your second point here, which was actually "my point" if you will re-read what I said, but I don't agree with your first one. None of the expenses that I identified are "wasted" or "blown money," other than the tax expenses -- and those aren't discretionary. (Those who think they get value for their tax dollar will disagree with me, but such people are fewer in number every day. And the dwindling people who disagree with me about that one tend to be on the receiving end of our tax dollars.) My 100K allocation for taxes was rounded but is pretty accurate if the taxpayer is self-employed and lives in a high-tax (city and) state. The amounts for education, which you challenged, are actually low, not high: Freshman-year expenses at my alma mater, where I volunteer (so I know whereof I speak), are about $60K. And you seem to think it's only four years per child when it can be seven, eight or more, for two or more degrees. In addition, I was conservative in estimating only two children. My wife and her three siblings were enrolled in the same elite private university at the same time, and none had any kind of financial aid. In my haste I omitted any expenses for clothing, or dining out, or clubs or toys (other than the cars). I probably omitted other expenses as well. As you can see, in this accounting there is "zero" for savings and investment. There is no complaining in my accounting, and no advocacy, either. I'm just showing you how easily a married couple with UMC attributes, including ambition for their (two) young-adult children, can blow through what "sounds" like a "big" income. Most of the people who work for me earn $300K a year, or more, and many of them have little or no savings outside their IRAs and modest 401Ks. Taxes are the real killer. The way I make this point to my government school-teacher brother is by observing that I spent more on income tax last year than he earned, cumulatively, for the first fifteen years of his career. He doesn't know what my income or expenses are, but I know my conclusion is correct because his income is a matter of public record.

The line that jumps out at me is the one I bolded. No, taxes are not the "real killer". The real killer is the expectation that I "need" things that are completely out of the question for most Americans. 98% of Americans can't get into an "elite" university, but your colleagues think that's a necessity of life. I could probably go through the rest of their budgets and make similar statements on each item.

[ratto]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ1960 You might want to check Larry Ellisons yacht, $13,000,000 just to maintain it each year! This isn't his racing boat. Rising Sun – Larry Ellison’s yacht

Voluntary simplicity is far more than $300k/year can buy and Larry Ellison's yacht is worth.

[MichaelB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Independent The line that jumps out at me is the one I bolded. No, taxes are not the "real killer". The real killer is the expectation that I "need" things that are completely out of the question for most Americans. 98% of Americans can't get into an "elite" university, but your colleagues think that's a necessity of life. I could probably go through the rest of their budgets and make similar statements on each item.

This is too harsh. There was no complaining or whining in Loop Lawyer posts. There's also nothing wrong with earning that kind of money, and certainly not using it to pay for university. People that pay full tuition are actually paying their share and someone else's as well...

[Westernskies]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB This is too harsh. There was no complaining or whining in Loop Lawyer posts. There's also nothing wrong with earning that kind of money, and certainly not using it to pay for university. People that pay full tuition are actually paying their share and someone else's as well...

+1

[Loop Lawyer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Independent No, taxes are not the "real killer". The real killer is the expectation that I "need" things that are completely out of the question for most Americans. 98% of Americans can't get into an "elite" university, but your colleagues think that's a necessity of life. I could probably go through the rest of their budgets and make similar statements on each item.

Someone has to attend the pricey schools. It was not a mistake for me, or my wife, or my children, or my highly-paid employees, and it won't be for their children. If (as you say) 98% can't get in, that only proves the value for those who do and who matriculate.

And, actually, it IS pretty close to being "a necessity of life" -- if you want to make a career in a firm like mine. There are those who "feel" we should be willing to recruit at Slippery Rock State -- but it's our decision to make, and we simply don't go there.

Methinks the quotation marks around the words "need" and "elite" above betray comments by the Green-Eyed Monster. I didn't attend the University of Chicago, but it is indeed an elite school. Using quotation marks around the word "elite" in reference to UC or any of about 12 or 15 other schools would be inappropriate.

Next, I don't know any professional who earns the amounts we're talking about here who hasn't worked very hard to get to that position and doesn't continue to apply himself or herself strenuously. The reason they knock themselves out is not to live like your "98%" but rather to live like the 2%.

Whether or not after-tax income goes to pricey schools and well-maintained suburban lawns, almost everyone in that class thinks that "spending" a third of one's income on income taxes is over the top. (Here, the use of quotation marks IS appropriate, as it's hard to classify involuntary wealth transfer as "spending.") Income taxes are by far the biggest expense in such a household -- whether or not Billy and Muffy are enrolled in tony schools and whether or not dad buys his suits at Brooks Brothers.

[Katsmeow]

When we had income a little over 300k - 3 kids at home -

Federal income tax - Just over 60k (no state, city income taxes). Of course we also had SS and Medicare taxes

Private therapeutic school for our son - 28k

Au Pair to get our son to and from the school (the school was not near us, had zero after school care and we couldn't take off from our jobs to pick him up every day in mid-afternoon. ) -- Total costs about 20k

Child related expenses other than medical and above - 14k - This includes allowance, clothes, personal care, and activities

Auto Fuel, Repairs, Tolls - 17k (the year I picked to look at this we had 5k in repair expenses which was higher than usual)

Food (including dining out) - This is for 6 people - 19k

Medical/Dental (the part not covered by insurance) = 21k (This is higher than most years)

Mortgage - 44k

Household expenses (pool, repairs, utilities, maintenance, furniture, appliances) - 27k

Real Estate Taxes - 8k

Computers/electronics/internet - 5k

Entertainment/cable - 4k

Travel - 7k

Clothing and Personal care - 5k

Gifts - 3k

Pets - 3k
Auto and house insurance - 8k

Retirement and Other Savings - 40k

That totals about over 333k (with all taxes) and doesn't include payroll deductions for health insurance and life insurance.

The year my son moved from a therapeutic school to a "regular" private school our costs went down about 30k as we didn't need the au pair (they had afterschool care) and tuition was lower.

Note that during all this we had 2 other kids who were in public school (they didn't need the school our other child needed).

[BigNick]

While reading this and scoffing at the people making "astronomical" amounts like $300K, I suddenly realised, that allowing for taxes and the current Euro/$ exchange rate - which isn't, perhaps, a good indication of purchasing power parity - DW and I probably make the equivalent of $300K/year.

Of our 14K Euros net/month, we save a minimum of 5,500 by direct deduction - and most months, it's more like 6,500(*). Another 1,200/month goes to putting our two kids through college (topped off by what our employer contributes to that as part of our expat status). Rent and utilities is 2,000/month. So we spend 4,300/month on other stuff.

Quite a bit of that goes in the vacation fund, which is more about quantity than luxury (we have European-length vacation allowances). Some goes on DW's monthly visits to see her parents in another country. We eat out once or twice a week and have cheap hobbies.

Once the kids are off the payroll, our target income is 5,000/month after rent (or we might buy somewhere) and utilities. When that can be assured from the portfolio's SWR plus pensions, we're outta here.

(*) Despite this, the portfolio is down 30K this year. I want my money back, please...

[Major Tom]

Loop Lawyer mentioned that most of the people who work for him have little or no savings outside of their IRA's and modest 401(k)'s which illustrates the fact that many folk, regardless of income level, tend not to save a great deal.

Instead of fixating on specific dollar amounts, it's educational to realize that whether you're making 500K, 250K, 100K, 50K or less, many (perhaps most) people adjust their spending to closely match their income and leave little over for saving. This forum is a good reminder to it's readers that they can achieve ER by spending less than they earn, and saving/investing the rest, regardless of actual income level.

We need the high earners, just as we need the low and middle earners. There's room for everybody. Just not the whiners

[Loop Lawyer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Major Tom . . . [W]hether you're making 500K, 250K, 100K, 50K or less, many (perhaps most) people adjust their spending to closely match their income and leave little over for saving. This forum is a good reminder to it's readers that they can achieve ER by spending less than they earn, and saving/investing the rest, regardless of actual income level.

Agreed. It was much harder for me to save when I was first building my career and had children on the payroll, to boot. It was important nevertheless to save "something" even in the very-high-expense years, so I could see "progress." I don't "understand" (or, frankly, "approve" of) people who earn a lot and save nothing or -- gasping as I say this! -- spend more than they earn.... To my way of thinking, that is both demoralizing and immoral.

I am constantly amazed and gladdened to see low earners acquire prodigious amounts of wealth. It encourages me to do better, in fact.

[NW-Bound]

With some types of work, one has to be in a large city and the living expenses can be quite a bit higher.

I just remembered I started a thread on an article that described how a young professional couple struggled to keep their head above the water in Manhattan, with a combined income of $400K.

http://www.early-retirement.org/foru...nyc-43566.html

My wife told me once a coworker of her got a voucher for 1 free night in a posh hotel in Manhattan. Coming to their restaurant for lunch, he knew he was "in trouble" when he saw that their menu had no prices. So, to be safe, he ordered what should be the lowest priced item on their list: a BLT sandwich.

His bill still came out to $75, if I remember correctly. And this was more than 10 years ago!

[pimpmyretirement]

I do think the person earning 300k that reduces expenses to 30k a year, just isn't going to fit in at work. People want to be around others who are like them and validate their life choices. The relationship damage could very well cost more than what is saved by spending less.

I've found spending 1/3 of my salary is the minimum needed to be able to peer with my coworkers. That level of spending also makes it difficult to peer with management. I just can't relate to their ski trip or an annual visit to family in Europe.

The price of admission for that big salary is long hours, expensive social activities, and spending your play time with business associates. That's a steep cost to pay, IMO. Throw the excessive tax burden on top of all that, and I can understand high income earners not feeling rich.

[Andre1969]

I also imagine that with a lot of those really high-paying jobs, there are some expenses that simply go with the territory. I just get this mental image of something like Darren Stephens on "Bewitched". He was constantly entertaining clients, and in marketing his skills, he had to market himself, and make himself look successful.

So that included the nice house in a good neighborhood, a brand-new car every year (okay, so that was the sponsor's idea ), nice furnishings in the house, good taste in clothes (i.e., kinda expensive), money spent on grooming for that nice, successful-looking haircut, a golf course membership, fancy dinners and such to wine and dine the client, and so on. And I'm sure putting in a LOT more than 40 hours per week.

Now if $300K per year just fell into my lap, I probably WOULD feel like I was set for life. But, where I live, there simply aren't that many $300K per year jobs. And if you go where those jobs are, your expenses are going to increase.

For some reason, that line Cary Grant said in "North By Northwest" popped into my mind. Something along the lines of "I've got a job, a secretary, a mother, two ex-wives and several bartenders that depend upon me!"

[Hamlet]

"The Millionaire Next Door" talked a little about this. There were some professions that saved more on average than other people with their incomes did and some professions that saved less.

If your a teacher or an engineer, no one is really expecting you to "look rich", while if you are a lawyer, there is an expectation that you drive a nicer car and dress well.

So from a wealth-generating aspect, a lawyer's salary is really worth less than it looks like on paper, because they must spend a fair amount of money on "useless" stuff to maintain that salary.

The real winner is the guy who owns the local garbage company :>

Quote:

Originally Posted by pimpmyretirement I do think the person earning 300k that reduces expenses to 30k a year, just isn't going to fit in at work. People want to be around others who are like them and validate their life choices. The relationship damage could very well cost more than what is saved by spending less. I've found spending 1/3 of my salary is the minimum needed to be able to peer with my coworkers. That level of spending also makes it difficult to peer with management. I just can't relate to their ski trip or an annual visit to family in Europe. The price of admission for that big salary is long hours, expensive social activities, and spending your play time with business associates. That's a steep cost to pay, IMO. Throw the excessive tax burden on top of all that, and I can understand high income earners not feeling rich.

[Major Tom]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hamlet The real winner is the guy who owns the local garbage company :>

You mean Tony Soprano?

[jayc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loop Lawyer There are those who "feel" we should be willing to recruit at Slippery Rock State -- but it's our decision to make, and we simply don't go there.

Maybe you should recruit a couple of the top students from SR state. They could show some of your 300K boys how to get by in life without over-paying for everything, getting by on less, chasing status and maybe end up with a few bucks in savings at the end of the year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loop Lawyer Using quotation marks around the word "elite" in reference to UC or any of about 12 or 15 other schools would be inappropriate.

Besides any school you or your family attends, does this also apply to your neighborhood, gym, country club, church, clothing store, and circle of friends. Just wondering when it would be appropriate for me to use.

[jdw_fire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loop Lawyer Taxes are the real killer. The way I make this point to my government school-teacher brother is by observing that I spent more on income tax last year than he earned, cumulatively, for the first fifteen years of his career. He doesn't know what my income or expenses are, but I know my conclusion is correct because his income is a matter of public record.

there is another point that can be made using your numbers. using your tax numbers to get an overall tax rate (not a marginal 1) of 33% and using your example of your income tax paid last year relative to your brother's 1st 15 years of income (the way you describe this it is a gross income number), it can also be said that last year your gross income was over 3 times what your brother grossed cumulatively the 1st 15 yrs of his career. your after tax income last year was over twice his 1st 15 yr cumulative gross (before taxes) income. and yet you think that taxes are a "real killer"? get a grip! you should be paying all those taxes (and probably even more). sounds to me like you are complaining (even though in the para before you state you arent). i dont know you or your brother but do you really think that last year you worked 3 times as hard/much as your brother did the whole 1st 15 yrs of his career (which using a simplified math would mean comparing his average year of amount and difficulty of his work to your last year, you worked 45 times as hard/much)?

i am sure that now you will tell me how hard you worked to get to the position you are in today and how smart you were to make the right decisions to get to the position you are in today. dont get me wrong, i am sure you earned it but you couldnt have done any of that if you werent in a country that provided the envirnment to allow you to capitalize on all your hard work and smart decisions. so since you have prospered so in said country it is up to you to pay some amount of that prosperity back to keep that country running. i am also sure you think that you pay a very large amout in taxes but look at how much you have left after paying said taxes (if necessary, reread above para)

[jdw_fire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loop Lawyer Someone has to attend the pricey schools. It was not a mistake for me, or my wife, or my children, or my highly-paid employees, and it won't be for their children. If (as you say) 98% can't get in, that only proves the value for those who do and who matriculate. And, actually, it IS pretty close to being "a necessity of life" -- if you want to make a career in a firm like mine.

i think you have lost touch with what really is a necessity of life when you can call a degree from a school that 98% of people cant get into "pretty close to being "a necessity of life" ". in fact in that very sentance you show that it isnt when you say "if you want to make a career in a firm like mine", the operative word being "want". you yourself state that it is a want, a desire, which is not a "necessity of life". again i say, get a grip.