The fire movement’s champions hidden realities..

I'm not sure how old you are kg..but Medicare is not free and in fact a couple with a good supplement and Plan D plus drugs costs can spend a lot of money per year...

Yes, how true! For us:

X2

Medicare = $1380/year each
Sup Plan = $2400/year each
Part D (drug plan) = $250/year each
Part D deductible = $360/year each

=$4390 per year (each)

Then there are OOP drug costs that Part D doesn't cover and those could be $thousands$ more (and are for DW).

This year, DW's OOP drug costs were roughy $3500.
 
With two adults and a child and expenses of $25,000 net of health care, a typical young FIRE-ee is going to get the full subsidy for insurance. These folks are very good at controlling taxable income to qualify for the subsidies. With higher income and expenses than the $25k, Fuego's kids ended up on Medicaid. IIRC, the adult premiums were under $100 a month as well.

The ACA system is designed so higher earners carry much of the cost of lower earners. That's why your premium is so high. Meanwhile, Fuego is off on a cruise (purchased at a substantial discount) because he managed his income to get the maximum subsidy.

You made different choices about how to live your life and you pay the price. The FIRE folks would rather manage their income, have a low COL, and have the freedom not to work.

Well, I've been back from the cruise for a few days but yes, I do take a lot of very attractively priced cruises! :)

As for medical care, I think somebody downtown figured out I'm wealthy. I received a notice from the healthcare.gov folks that said my 3 kids were denied medicaid (even though I applied using literally the exact same household stats and income as last year!). I submitted my 2017 tax form to the medicaid office and maybe that tipped "the system" off. I'm okay with that since I'm far from poor :)

Still waiting on the notice from NC Medicaid folks to make it official official.

I can't figure out how all this stuff works and I consider myself to have above median intelligence. My takeaway is that it sucks to be poor and unable to navigate the complicated systems we have for health care.

As I understand it, my $30 per month ACA premium will remain $30/mo when I add my 3 kids. The only slight downside is medicaid covered EVERYTHING and we never paid a penny to any service providers. Now we'll pay a little something for doc visits and dental visits. Though children's dental is still covered through our ACA plan. At least preventative. It's mostly rounding error in my financial situation anyway.

As for MMM's status, I don't think it's fair to analyze his pro forma income and expenses by including $30k in HI premiums AND saying there's no way he could fund that $30k/yr extra HI expense because he only had $800k saved at the time of retirement.

If he was actually living on the income stream from his portfolio, his income would be well below the ACA threshold and he would pay very little for HI after ACA subsidies. It's only because he makes $400k and therefore qualifies for no ACA subsidies that his premium is so high.

Moral of the story: if you retire (or "retire" for those that view it that way) and end up making a bunch of money, then your HI costs go up. But your income also goes up, so you're okay.
 
Well, I've been back from the cruise for a few days but yes, I do take a lot of very attractively priced cruises! :)

As for medical care, I think somebody downtown figured out I'm wealthy. I received a notice from the healthcare.gov folks that said my 3 kids were denied medicaid (even though I applied using literally the exact same household stats and income as last year!). I submitted my 2017 tax form to the medicaid office and maybe that tipped "the system" off. I'm okay with that since I'm far from poor :)

Still waiting on the notice from NC Medicaid folks to make it official official.

I can't figure out how all this stuff works and I consider myself to have above median intelligence. My takeaway is that it sucks to be poor and unable to navigate the complicated systems we have for health care.

As I understand it, my $30 per month ACA premium will remain $30/mo when I add my 3 kids. The only slight downside is medicaid covered EVERYTHING and we never paid a penny to any service providers. Now we'll pay a little something for doc visits and dental visits. Though children's dental is still covered through our ACA plan. At least preventative. It's mostly rounding error in my financial situation anyway.

As for MMM's status, I don't think it's fair to analyze his pro forma income and expenses by including $30k in HI premiums AND saying there's no way he could fund that $30k/yr extra HI expense because he only had $800k saved at the time of retirement.

If he was actually living on the income stream from his portfolio, his income would be well below the ACA threshold and he would pay very little for HI after ACA subsidies. It's only because he makes $400k and therefore qualifies for no ACA subsidies that his premium is so high.

Moral of the story: if you retire (or "retire" for those that view it that way) and end up making a bunch of money, then your HI costs go up. But your income also goes up, so you're okay.

Fuego - What are your thoughts on dental for you and your wife? I feel like the biggest rip off is dental coverage in the U.S. I'm about to FIRE this year, and manage to keep my income to make sure I receive a ACA subsidy, however dental is only covered for my daughter and not the wifey and I. I was thinking to just go on vacation every 2 years to say Mexico or China (Where we live now and where my wife is from) and at the same time take care of our dentist appt needs.
 
I don't read MMM (I live a much less than frugal lifestyle.) But the opening post on this thread said that MMM spends $30k on health care which rang very high in my mind. So I just checked his blog and found this link:

Exposed! The MMM Family’s 2016 Spending!

Unless he's lying, he spent a total of $10,868 on health care in 2016 including doctor visits and premiums. His total spend for the year was $30,193.
 
If I remember right, MMM was touting the same low expense living before the ACA was passed into law. We were FIREd then with kids. I think the year prior to the ACA our costs were around $50K for health care for the year. I don't remember the exact breakdown but it was something like $25K for premiums since there wasn't any subsidy, $15K family out of pocket, plus some out of network and travel costs to see a specialist.
 
When asked how much he spends each year, he said it usually ends up being around $25,000 -the interviewer adds plus “health insurance in the low thirties.”

I haven't watched the video, but might this not mean that health insurance bumps his total annual spending into the low 30's? A comma after "insurance" would give it that meaning.

(With Obamacare no one making $25k should be paying $2k+/mo for health insurance.)

BTW, Bengen's 4% rule isn't outdated.
 
Fuego - What are your thoughts on dental for you and your wife? I feel like the biggest rip off is dental coverage in the U.S. I'm about to FIRE this year, and manage to keep my income to make sure I receive a ACA subsidy, however dental is only covered for my daughter and not the wifey and I. I was thinking to just go on vacation every 2 years to say Mexico or China (Where we live now and where my wife is from) and at the same time take care of our dentist appt needs.

We pay cash for the adults. I keep looking at dental insurance and it rarely seems to be a good bet for our particular situation.

Cleanings are $99 each for me and I go twice per year. I have a cavity filled once every 3-5 years it seems and those are about $125-175 depending on complexity and location. So far I'm root canal/crown free however my dentist mentioned I may need one at some indefinite point in the future based on a potential issue on one tooth.

My wife gets periodontal maintenance 3x/yr which is slightly more than $99/visit. Similar record on cavities. I think she had a crown/root canal done since we retired and it was $1000-ish??

On average we don't spend a ton on dental so it's not worth jumping through too many hoops to squeeze the costs way down low. We have a low cost but reliable local dentist. I'm sure overseas dental can work out well but we do okay at home.

In your case, China might be great for dental. Being a local (or at least knowing the language) is a good head start. I'd probably go local if I ever needed treatment during our 2-3 month vacations.
 
I don't read MMM (I live a much less than frugal lifestyle.) But the opening post on this thread said that MMM spends $30k on health care which rang very high in my mind. So I just checked his blog and found this link:

Exposed! The MMM Family’s 2016 Spending!

Unless he's lying, he spent a total of $10,868 on health care in 2016 including doctor visits and premiums. His total spend for the year was $30,193.

Kudo's to you for looking it up, I pointed this out early in the thread and got shot down. But it kind of negates the entire point of the original post.
 
Before the ACA MM just had catastrophic insurance. He omitted his travel expenses saying that they are business expenses.
 
Never fear! MMM isn't *really* retired....

From his latest blog on the divorce (which is actually a pretty good read, and I am *not* a M3 fan)

Because I enjoy moderate living for its own sake, my own cost of living will go way down. And because I continue to enjoy writing and working, my income may continue to stay high through this next stage of my life. I’ll continue to use the surplus for projects...

https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2018/12/31/divorce/
 
Never fear! MMM isn't *really* retired....

From his latest blog on the divorce (which is actually a pretty good read, and I am *not* a M3 fan)



https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2018/12/31/divorce/

What don't you like about him , I'm neutral on him myself and don't really get why people would dislike them...he's found something he is passionate about, can make money and doesn't feel like work to him, so what's the downside?
 
What don't you like about him , I'm neutral on him myself and don't really get why people would dislike them...he's found something he is passionate about, can make money and doesn't feel like work to him, so what's the downside?

It's the "holy than thou" attitude he exudes on his website. His "followers" are even worse...at least the very little I have seen on his forum. I have zero issues if others want to like him/follow him/live like him...it's just not *my* style.
 
If anybody should get the title of father of the FIRE movement it would be John Greany (Intercst) who popularized the Trinty study, and even came up with the acronym on Motley Fool Retire Early forum and published a ton of data on the The Retire Early Home Page.

I'd say this forum is another potential father. MMM blog posts alone aren't nearly enough information to actually make a successful early retirement.
But between FireCalc and the forum, there is more than enough info here.

You are 100% about John Greaney/intercst!!! I found his Retire Early Home Page the very first time I searched for "early retirement" back when I was using Netscape, not Google. (1998? 1999?) Shortly thereafter, he moved his discussion board to TMF. It was a great resource until it morphed into political rants. I credit him with being the person who first helped me to focus on FIRE. (I retired at 58; am now 73.)

I have no opinion in the MMM controversy. I looked at his site once but found it irrelevant to my situation so never went back.
 
+1 on John Greaney - his page was my intro to the concept as well. There's always been people who have done this and written about it, the internet just let it become a lot more discoverable. I mean, Your Money or Your Life is significantly older, and as much as I admire Joe and Vicky, I'm sure they weren't the first either.* :D

Even on the MMM forums there's been a lot of discussions about the Trinity Study, Bengen's work, etc., that all obviously pre-dates MMM. Scott Burns, William Bernstein, Burton Malkiel, they all come up frequently. Or maybe it's just me repeatedly yelling to read The Four Pillars of Investing, A Random Walk Down Wall Street, and get off of my lawn! :wiseone:


*Oh yeah, Paul Terhorst too!
 
You are 100% about John Greaney/intercst!!! I found his Retire Early Home Page the very first time I searched for "early retirement" back when I was using Netscape, not Google. (1998? 1999?) Shortly thereafter, he moved his discussion board to TMF. It was a great resource until it morphed into political rants. I credit him with being the person who first helped me to focus on FIRE. (I retired at 58; am now 73.)

I was on that Motley Fool forum in 1998 for sure, not sure about 1997... Let's not forget Dory36, who doesn't post here anymore, was there too, and put FireCalc together from their spreadsheet.
 
I lightly participated in the Motley Fool forum, until they wanted to charge for it.
 
But wait a minute, William Bergen’s 1994, 4% rule is dated, ignores current Health Care realties. It concluded no one would run out of money before 33 years if the withdrew 4%. MMM is 44 years old if we take 44 + 33 = 77. The average life expectancy in America today is 80 for males 84 for females. MMM suggestion might leave you broke.

In a Reddit Ask Me Anything session, Bengen indicated he updated his 4% rule to 4.5% rule as illustrated in a recent book.

"The "4% rule" is actually the "4.5% rule"- I modified it some years ago on the basis of new research. The 4.5% is the percentage you could "safely" withdraw from a tax-advantaged portfolio (like an IRA, Roth IRA, or 401(k)) the first year of retirement, with the expectation you would live for 30 years in retirement. After the first year, you "throw away" the 4.5% rule and just increase the dollar amount of your withdrawals each year by the prior year's inflation rate. Example: $100,000 in an IRA at retirement. First year withdrawal $4,500. Inflation first year is 10%, so second-year withdrawal would be $4,950. Now, on to your specific question. I find that the state of the "economy" had little bearing on safe withdrawal rates. Two things count: if you encounter a major bear market early in retirement, and/or if you experience high inflation during retirement. Both factors drive the safe withdrawal rate down. My research is based on data about investments and inflation going back to 1926. I test the withdrawal rates for retirement dates beginning on the first day of each quarter, beginning with January 1, 1926. The average safe withdrawal rate for all those 200+ retirees is, believe it or not, 7%! However, if you experience a major bear market early in retirement, as in 1937 or 2000, that drops to 5.25%. Add in heavy inflation, as occurred in the 1970's, and it takes you down to 4.5%. So far, I have not seen any indication that the 4.5% rule will be violated. Both the 2000 and 2007 retirees, who experienced big bear markets early in retirement, appear to be doing OK with 4.5%. However, if we were to encounter a decade or more of high inflation, that might change things. In my opinion, inflation is the retiree's worst enemy. As your "time horizon" increases beyond 30 years, as you might expect, the safe withdrawal rate decreases. For example for 35 years, I calculated 4.3%; for 40 years, 4.2%; and for 45 years, 4.1%. I have a chart listing all these in a book I wrote in 2006, but I know Reddit frowns on self-promotion, so that is the last I will have to say about that. If you plan to live forever, 4% should do it."
 
I was on that Motley Fool forum in 1998 for sure, not sure about 1997... Let's not forget Dory36, who doesn't post here anymore, was there too, and put FireCalc together from their spreadsheet.

Yes, I was going to mention Dory36 in my earlier post but I was called to dinner so I wrapped the post up before the food got cold.

And kudos to those who called out others like the Terhorsts and YMOYL.
 
Well, even "recent" proponents of ER like Ernie Zelinski (2003) and Bob Clyatt (2005) were more influential to me than MMM. Of course they operated in meatspace... With this ancient technology called books...
 
I'm not sure all this speculation about MMM's healthcare costs make any sense. As far back as 2016, he was making $400K/year from his blog and his income has only gone up since then. Personally, I think his financial position makes him pretty far removed from his readership. All that his frugality means is that he has more money left over to invest and build even greater wealth. He's pretty well protected from financial disaster.
A lot of his readers don't have that kind of extra income to grow.

https://personalfinancenews.com/mr-money-mustache-earns-400000-a-year-on-his-blog/
 
Back
Top Bottom