What was your "safe" number?

[old woman]

My safe number was 250K when I was younger. I could have stayed in my little house and not gone anywhere but I was not thinking right. I wasn't thinking much of inflation and interest rates were really high so living on interest would have been easy. As I aged and got a bigger house I was thinking 400K, I could draw out 4% and collect SS so be fine. Then when I got 400K we had a recession and I lost 170K so i was thinking 800K so I could lose half and be ok. But when I got close my mom died and left me 170 and my investments made 150K in a year so I jumped to a million almost before I knew it. Now down to 960K and it feels like enough, retired and spending like a normal person. If I get down to 500K I might worry but really want to stay over 800K.

 

[Travelwanted]

Not much like WR - but EXACTLY like WR.

?x annual spending is the inverse of WR - they are directly correlated.

4% WR = 25 x spending.
3.5% WR = 28 x spending
3% WR = 33 1/3 x spending.
2.9% WR = 35 x spending

Generally agree with you, Rodi. Difference to me is that is the safe number to trigger FIRE for me. Yes it translates to 2.99% WR. However, I look at WR at a work in progress. Some years will go up during retirement and others down depending on market conditions. But, yes, it is more or less the same.

 

[bob boag]

My idea of being as rich as I could possibly want is to have enough $$$ that I could fly first-class anywhere without giving a damn about the cost. Maybe 8M - 10M. I'm 58.

 

[mjs111]

I'm currently sitting between $2-3 million which I feel as safe, though I remember that around $400k to $500k I started feeling like odds were getting low I'd never run into a situation where I couldn't afford a basic roof over my head or food in my belly, regardless of whether or not I had a job.

Mike

 

[sengsational]

"Safe", has a lot of meanings

Too bad there is no tidy measure of earnings potential between age 37 and whenever you want to walk away from paid employment. But I think I see what you mean about "safe". It's your "I'm still going to work, but if I keep my lifestyle the same, by the time I retire, I'll not need to worry" number.

Life tends to throw you curve balls, though. You "aquire" dependents. Your tastes change. I'd say if you keep those changes out of your life, then your 1/2 mil is perfectly fine (matches your definition of 'safe'). And, as others have said, congratulations! I wish I had that much when I was 37!

 

[dallas27]

though I remember that around $400k to $500k I started feeling like odds were getting low I'd never run into a situation where I couldn't afford a basic roof over my head or food in my belly, regardless of whether or not I had a job.

Mike

I think Mike articulated well the idea/feeling/Psychology I had intended with the title of the thread. Thank you mike. Wish I could have done the same up front.

 

[TimSF]

My safe number was $2MM in investable assets. I've heard it defined as the number where one could tell people (the boss) to "scr*w you" if one wanted and not worry about how it might affect one's security.

I figured at that number, even with a long retirement, I could live in reasonable comfort. It was a number that was important to me in my career--a real motivator.

Ditto.

 

[dallas27]

Small correction to OP, i'm 36 not 37. I always round up for retirement planning, and apparently cant remember my real age anymore.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

 

[RobLJ]

Out of curiosity, I went back 10 years to my mid-40s and the smallness of the amount shocked me. Congrats to the poster.
10 years later the amount is up almost exactly 5x, which demonstrates the power of luck, compounding, and considerable saving, particularly the last 5-6 years since our youngest was halfway through college and we felt that back monkey was about to be gone.

 

[Mulligan]

Our pension is such that after 30 years, your take home pension pay is equivalent to working take home pay so the safe number can be zero and many people I have known has done that or even have negative net worth and are fine. Of course nothing is 100% fail safe as you are dependent on variables outside of your control with a pension and SS is not backstop either.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[NW-Bound]

Is the pension COLA'ed?

 

[Mulligan]

Is the pension COLA'ed?

It is 2% per year unless inflation is over 5%, then it's 5%. They add up though. My take home pay is $400 a month higher than when I retired 4 years ago, and my monthly costs have not increased anywhere near that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Jackanory]

When I moved to America, back in '79, I knew that if I saved up just £100K, I could move back to England and live off the interest; such were my spending habits. When I achieved that number, my spending habits had changed, inflation had occurred, and I'd learned to accept my role in the land of cubicles. It was only last year that I realized that with a $2M net and readily available health care, that it was time to take a new plunge at the beginning of this year! So I vote for $2M!

 

[timo2]

Mine is getting lower all the time, as the BS bucket becomes more full. It turns out they are nearly in-sync with each other

But I felt like I was over the hump when I realized the value of my retirement accounts at my target date in 2018, along with my FERS pension, would allow about $7K per month gross income. That would allow me to delay SS at 70, and DW would have a decent SS income if I pass first.