What age constitutes retiring early?

[JustCurious]

Is there a consensus on this question?

 

[73ss454]

Well in 12 hours and 26 minutes I'll be retired at 57. So I hope that 57 counts.

 

[crazy connie]

My guess would be at any time you chose it to be, but probably before SS eligibility. For me it was only a few weeks after my 50th B'day.

 

[maddythebeagle]

there was a thread a few weeks back on this.....that was quite good....normal retirement for a government worker with a pension and health care might be 55, and earlier for a police officer...I think it is going earlier than others in your peer group as others have pointed out.

edit: Rew added the link...below thanks.

 

[REWahoo]

Is there a consensus on this question?

http://early-retirement.org/forums/index.php?topic=9945.0

 

[Meadbh]

there was a thread a few weeks back on this.....that was quite good....normal retirement for a government worker with a pension and health care might be 55, and earlier for a police officer...I think it is going earlier than others in your peer group as others have pointed out.

I agree. I am a university prof and "retirement age" is considered to be 65. One can take "early retirement" anytime from 55 on (when I hit 55, I'm outta here!).

 

[Goonie]

I think the youngest early retirement age is whenever one can "Just Do It"

Though for me, the youngest age would be 50.....which is the day I will FIRE!!! Only 126 days to go!!!

I'm participating in an Early Retirement Incentive that allows me to jump out at 50, with FULL DB pension with COLA, and full ins (I have to pay 25% of monthly ins premium...$123 for me)

HOORAY, for RE!!!

 

[Bikerdude]

Hopefully prior to being permanently retired.

 

[Cb]

Earlier than your brother-in-law.

Cb

 

[Corporateburnout]

Earlier than 62. For me between 57 and 59 I hope...........

 

[tryan]

Anyone who retires before YOU!

 

[retire@40]

It's a personal definition, for sure. Although, I think few people would consider 62 or later as early.

When I first thought of early retirement for myself many moons ago, it meant age 50.

Now I get the heebie-jeebies if I think that I will be working at age 50. I currently define early as 40 or younger, although I could stretch that to 42 max in semi-retirement mode.

 

[Martha]

51 seems obscenely early to me--we still have lawyers working fulltime after the age of 70. A few years ago our oldest lawyer died in his late 90s and he was still coming into the office up to a few weeks before he died. Suit and tie and all.

So it depends.

I do have some problem with saying someone very young who is FI and not working is "retired." I think you have to pay a certain amount of dues in the form of work to earn the retired moniker. But I am not quite sure where I would draw the line. But I can't imagine calling anyone in his 20s retired or even someone in their early 30s.

 

[REWahoo]

I think you have to pay a certain amount of dues in the form of work to earn the retired moniker.

Are you saying you must first be "tired" before you can be "retired"?

 

[free4now]

I do have some problem with saying someone very young who is FI and not working is "retired." I think you have to pay a certain amount of dues in the form of work to earn the retired moniker. But I am not quite sure where I would draw the line. But I can't imagine calling anyone in his 20s retired or even someone in their early 30s.

Yep, at 36 years old I'm FIRE but can't really bring myself to say I'm retired. While I did earn my money, I was also quite lucky to have to opportunity, and don't feel like I've "earned" it the old fashioned way.

 

[sgeeeee]

Early schmearly. Who cares?

People don't even agree on what constitutes retirement.

 

[JustCurious]

I must say I am very surpised at how many people so far (22 percent) think that the age of 50 is too old to qualify as early retirement!

Close to half of the voters selected either 55 or 60 so far. This is the age range that I expected to be the most popular answer, but I expected the margin to be greater.

 

[JustCurious]

Early schmearly. Who cares?

If you don't care about early retirement, why do you participate in a board called "the early retirement forum?"

 

[sgeeeee]

If you don't care about early retirement, why do you participate in a board called "the early retirement forum?"

I'm interested in issues related to retirement. I just don't see how placing a label of "early retirement" changes much. You can call it "stock picking monkey retirement" if you want. You still have to source income, pay for insurance, deal with taxes, think about wills and inheritance, answer the questions about what you do all day, . . .

I don't know what "early" is, but I don't really see why it matters.

 

[JustCurious]

I'm interested in issues related to retirement. I just don't see how placing a label of "early retirement" changes much. You can call it "stock picking monkey retirement" if you want. You still have to source income, pay for insurance, deal with taxes, think about wills and inheritance, answer the questions about what you do all day, . . .

I don't know what "early" is, but I don't really see why it matters.

If what you say is true, then this forum would be called the "retirement forum." But it's not. It's called the "early retirement forum." The word "early" must have some significance, otherwise it is simply superfluous, and I don't think it is. A significant amount of the discussions on this forum relate to the "early" part, at least as much as the "retirement" part.

 

[Martha]

Early matters because there are specific issues of importance to early retirees. For example:

--potentially a very long period where assets must last
--reduced SS benefits
--insurance issues
--issues resulting from going against the norm

But nevertheless, early or not, retired or not, a wide variety of people can get a lot out of this forum.

 

[youbet]

Early matters because there are specific issues of importance to early retirees. For example:

--potentially a very long period where assets must last
--reduced SS benefits
--insurance issues
--issues resulting from going against the norm

But nevertheless, early or not, retired or not, a wide variety of people can get a lot out of this forum.

Very much agree. For me, the most interesting scenarios to read about and follow on the forum are those involving folks who are retiring pre-50, will have no pension, no employee health benefits and no future life rings such as inheritances, etc. Even though I didn't make ER until my late 50's, I share some of their issues and benefit from discussions regarding the solutions.

 

[sgeeeee]

Early matters because there are specific issues of importance to early retirees. For example:

--potentially a very long period where assets must last
--reduced SS benefits
--insurance issues
--issues resulting from going against the norm

But nevertheless, early or not, retired or not, a wide variety of people can get a lot out of this forum.

Each of these issues is only part of a larger, general retirement issue.

Potentially very long retirement period - Beyond about 40 years it makes no difference. SWRs are approximately fixed for retirements this long or longer. If this is the gate, then anything prior to about age 70 should be considered early retirement.

Reduced SS benefits - This is simply part of the overall cash flow planning for any retiree. Many retirees have reduced or no social security benefits for various reasons other than their age at retirement. Amassing enough net worth and/or retirement cash flow to last for 30+ years is different for everyone. Some have pensions that cover it all. Some expect no annuity style benefits in retirement and do it all with investments. Everyone is unique regardless of age. . .

Insurance issues - We all have those. They are different for everyone but there are similarities that can help us make decisions. In some cases, later retirement can make this problem less difficult, but not for everyone.

Issues resulting from going against the norm - Surely nobody on this board would fall into that category. Actually, this is the one area that may be the most unique for "early" retirees. Although I imagine that anyone who looks younger than mid-60's or is still physically and mentally vital probably faces the same attitudes regardless of their actual age.

I really didn't mean to be critical of the poll or of any particular answer. And I didn't mean to offend anyone. I use smilies ( ) in virtually every post so that no one will feel the need to take me seriously. It doesn't always work.

This does seem to me to be a relatively unimportant question and one that has no set answer. I know that we have had retirees (who retired at age 65+) post very useful information on this board. I would hate for them to feel shunned because of their age at retirement.

I "mostly" retired at age 49 and tapered down from 25% time to virtually nothing over the next couple of years. I also wrote one book and compiled and edited another in that timeframe. I may continue to write and edit. I still go to 3 or 4 professional conferences a year wearing a company's name on my badge in exchange for expenses and one day of debriefing in their offices. My DW and I will be in Munich next week as part of this deal. So maybe I'm still not retired. Or maybe it's not "early" since I am already over 50.

Some folks on this board retired but have a working spouse. DW and I did this for awhile and found that a working spouse implied certain constraints and responsibilities for the non-working spouse too. It's not a bad lifestyle, but it's also not nearly as much freedom as when we both stopped working. So maybe these people aren't retired either. And some of them are in their 60's. So maybe they are too old to be "early retirees".

We've had some posters who retired pre-50 and did not like it. They returned to full- or part-time work in order to amuse themselves. Some of them changed careers in the process. Maybe they are not retired or are not "early".

 

[kcowan]

I tend to think of ER as a lifestyle choice. Leaving by choice rather than when someone boots you out with the gold watch. Both father and FIL worked until 65 and then retired because that was the way it was. Neither had much financial savvy. And neither really needed much.

I can still work and make big dollars but I choose to enjoy a prolonged retirement.

 

[JustCurious]

This does seem to me to be a relatively unimportant question and one that has no set answer.

I disagree, and I think you will find that most members of this board also disagree with this statement. The primary theme and focus of discussion on this board is "early" retirement, as opposed to what most people do... work till they can't hardly work no more, and then retire out of necessity. You are correct that "early" retirement, and "normal" retirement do have a lot of issues in common. But, early retirement also involves issues that are distinct and merit discussion. Thus, the name of the forum is "early retirement forum."