Would you retire at 30 with $1m?

[Teacher Terry]

I think everyone should do what works best for them individually. Some people would not be able to sleep with that plan.

 

[marko]

A frugal person could retire with $1,000,000 at 30.

Living in a van under a bridge maybe?

But they're missing the main point of the 4% calculation, I think. Doesn't the 4% rule sort of stop working beyond 35-40 years or so?

 

[daylatedollarshort]

I think more people should take the route of extreme early retirement from "career" positions and live life, supplementing along the way, doing lower paid work that is more enjoyable or less stressful, when needed/wanted.

Even with kids. Raise your kids, teach them, be part of your community.

Maybe this is a generational perspective shift but I don't see any particular honor earned or bozo buttons handed out for putting in 30 years at megacorp, having strangers raise your kids, and living life through purchased products and annual vacations at the all-inclusive resorts, while looking at your best years and health fade in the rear view mirror.

Well said. I am the older generation but I wish I had realized to do this years ago, though partly why we couldn't were concerns over health insurance and pre-existing conditions. The ACA has made this kind of life more of a reality.

The traditional American Dream is the dream we have been spoon fed from billions and billions of dollars in marketing our entire lives.

 

[nash031]

I wouldn't have retired w/ $1M at 30. I won't retire with $1M at 40. I may retire with somewhat more than that plus a pension at 42, however!

That kind of money that early would've led me to a different career path, I think. Just like that kind of money at 42 will allow me to do something I want to do rather than finding a "real job" to make ends meet, if I decide to find a job at all.

 

[jim584672]

Living in a van under a bridge maybe?

But they're missing the main point of the 4% calculation, I think. Doesn't the 4% rule sort of stop working beyond 35-40 years or so?

Thinking more like - van down by the river.

 

[rodi]

Living in a van under a bridge maybe?

But they're missing the main point of the 4% calculation, I think. Doesn't the 4% rule sort of stop working beyond 35-40 years or so?

30k is 3% of 1M. Much more sustainable.

Might allow you to live in an RV down by the river. LOL

 

[LARS]

No, but I might change my approach to work: allowing "quality" of a particular job to impact whether to stay or look for greener pastures. But outright retire: no.

 

[eta2020]

If you can manage to accumulate 1 Million in investable assets by 30 you most likely will be in position to retire at 40 with 5 Million.

 

[Totoro]

Ok, then, here's me. I'm right now around $700k at (almost) 35.

Semi-ER. As in, I'm not working and might go do something for pay, yet don't really feel the need financially (intellectually I'm finding out, it's different).

Excluding travel I'm somewhere below 4%, but not by much. Travel is not a must for me, so I keep it separate.

However, I do live in Europe so healthcare is not an issue, I can drop towards 3% simply by moving out of Amsterdam (which I'll do at some point anyway), have no kids and no wife. And there might be (or not) an inheritance some day far away. On the other hand, forget SS or anything similar.

The cases for OP strike me as adventurous but not entirely crazy, except for the healthcare part maybe. The couple for example if things go a bit south, either of them can go to work. A little income can make a big difference.

The mid-20 person is a bit data deficient

 

[FUEGO]

I have a couple of old friends/cow*rkers who sort of did this, although not exactly. In their early 40s they "retired" to the beach in FL with the intention of living off their savings as long as they could, sort of like "retirement is wasted on the old". They lasted a decade or so, partly due to a fairly large payoff at the track. But last I heard they both have had to go back to work, and I don't think retirement is in their future for a long, long time. To each his own, but at 59 and having been retired for 9 years, I would be absolutely miserable going back to work.

Sounds like they gambled it all away. I've never heard a gambler give you an honest P+L statement. It's always P, the big win you hear about. My guess is your 40 something retired friends had gambling problems and lost it all eventually.

 

[FUEGO]

30k is 3% of 1M. Much more sustainable.

Might allow you to live in an RV down by the river. LOL

Or a 4 BR 1800 square foot house in Raleigh and multi-week trips abroad every year. If you roll like we roll. YMMV of course.

 

[FUEGO]

If you can manage to accumulate 1 Million in investable assets by 30 you most likely will be in position to retire at 40 with 5 Million.

Why not call it quits with 15 million at 50? Or 30 million at 60? Eventually you could have enough to have one heck of a nice funeral!

 

[Jamie]

This is exactly the question I've been thinking about lately - my spouse and I are 30, no kids, annual spending is $45k, net worth is $1.1 million. We aren't really happy with out jobs, but I don't think this is enough to retire on, especially with healthcare costs being so uncertain. I hope in 5 years we can switch to part time work.

 

[ETFs_Rule]

Same here. Way too many things can go wrong - serious illness, accident (think falling off a ladder) rampant inflation, and other unknowables.

Wife / family member expensive medical needs, have kids, divorce settlement, lawsuit, hyper-inflation

Here's a site that might help http://www.vanguard.com/nesteggcalculator

Consider getting excess liability insurance (add on to auto / home policy) to protect your nest egg. Only about 230 bucks a year.

 

[AnIntentionalRoad]

If you can manage to accumulate 1 Million in investable assets by 30 you most likely will be in position to retire at 40 with 5 Million.

+1 very true. Going from 1MM to 5MM is much easier than 0 to 1MM!

Sent from my SM-T237P using Early Retirement Forum mobile app

 

[ESRwannabe]

Over at another FIRE message board, people were discussing this family (two adults in mid-30s and a baby) that were theoretically retiring on $1M at 4%. Another case was a mid-20s shooting to ER at 30 with $600k @ 4%.

I said these folks were crazy for using 4% and thinking these amounts could realistically last the rest of their lives. I got downvoted to oblivion for this opinion. Am I wrong?

Fully retire? No. However I would do ESR (early semi-retirement) without hesitation. I'd continue to work part-time doing something easy that would have some fun aspects to it. One thing I have been considering recently is working at a movie theater part time once I ESR.

I would not need $1 million. Around $500k is plenty. My living expenses are less than $30k. So 3% of $500k is $15k per year, i.e. 50% of living expenses... The other 50% of income would come from working.

That's basically where I am at right now. Dividend income is roughly $13,500 right now. So, I'm close...

 

[Vagabond2020]

I would do it in a heartbeat. I live on 18,000/yr. Retirement to me does not mean making no income ever again. I could do part time consulting and take on cool jobs when I wanted to.

 

[Vagabond2020]

I would slow travel some years and spend way less than 40k as well

 

[Patagonia]

Or a 4 BR 1800 square foot house in Raleigh and multi-week trips abroad every year. If you roll like we roll. YMMV of course.

+1

 

[Music Lover]

30k is 3% of 1M. Much more sustainable.

Might allow you to live in an RV down by the river. LOL

It depends where you live and what you spend. I earned less than $30k gross for the first 18 years of my career, and only exceeded $50k 6 years ago. In spite of that I have managed to pay off my house and live comfortably. It helps that I enjoy DIY and have a hobby that is not only inexpensive, but sometimes even generates a small amount of money (music).

I am retiring next year at 54 with just 3x my salary in savings, but do have a fed pension. I have no worries at all. At my current rate of spending, $1M stuffed under the mattress earning 0% would last more than 40 years.

 

[soupcxan]

I wasn't really calling any specific couple "crazy," just the idea that $1m was enough for two thirty-somethings and a newborn to ER on comfortably at 4% WR. Some people believe 4% WR is safe no matter what your age and I do not. Also, I don't think three people living on $30k/year will be comfortable after decades of inflation. But if you want to live in a van down by the river, maybe it works.

However, there is a couple with an ER blog (they probably have more than $1m, I don't know) and their plan for healthcare for their kid is to get free healthcare from Taiwan (the mother's home). Which is fine, except they live in the US and are a 15 hour flight from Taiwan. Would you fly a severely sick kid across the pacific? Or, what if you had an emergency where US care is required and then you are on the hook for $$$$ out of pocket. That plan is either unrealistic or just plain irresponsible.

 

[karen1972]

Considering I know so many people that make $35k and raise 5 kids and still have money to do fun things with them, I know it is doable. The difference is really where you put your priorities and what lifestyle you deem important. Reality is the person who has $15k in investment income a year is still better off than the person working minimum wage full time as you don't pay taxes and SS on that money. When you have towns where you can buy 3 bedroom houses for $60k and you drive a used minivan for $2.5k, it makes $1M go so much further..its just a lifestyle choice.


If they are ok with that lifestyle, go for it...just know that new cars are not in the future and your not going to get granite countertops or go on fancy vacations...but I hope they also think about what are they going to do for the next 60-70 years. Reality is once the kids grow up a little and don't need their attention, staying home is boring and having hobbies can cost you more money than anything else.

 

[marko]

At my current rate of spending, $1M stuffed under the mattress earning 0% would last more than 40 years.

I hope you factored in that niggling little detail called "inflation" to your current rate of spending calculation.

 

[nash031]

This is exactly the question I've been thinking about lately - my spouse and I are 30, no kids, annual spending is $45k, net worth is $1.1 million. We aren't really happy with out jobs, but I don't think this is enough to retire on, especially with healthcare costs being so uncertain. I hope in 5 years we can switch to part time work.

Well, net worth is kind of (sort of) meaningless (kind of). At 37, I think there are too many variables to retire with that kind of asset balance. Lots of things can and probably will change, some of them may increase your spending quite a bit. JMO.

 

[Andre1969]

Why not call it quits with 15 million at 50? Or 30 million at 60? Eventually you could have enough to have one heck of a nice funeral!

It just depends on where you really feel comfortable, and want to draw the line. While I wouldn't feel comfortable retiring at 30 with $1M, once I had hit that amount I don't think I'd be able to tough it out in the workforce another 10 years to get to $5M. I'd probably call it quits once I hit around $2-3M.