How much to RE today with two young kids and no pension/medical bens?

[Lusitan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FUEGO I assumed a paid off house plus the $20,000 a year in income from your $500k portfolio, so your imputed income from living in the house rent free would push you well over the poverty threshold. Once the kids are out of the house (without you paying for college unfortunately), your income including imputed income from owning a paid off house would place you at roughly 2x the poverty level income. Agreed though, I'd rather work too (which is what I plan on doing). $20k a year would afford us the bare necessities with very little margin of error, limited capital goods replacement, and constrained lifestyle with little dining out, little social entertaining, and no vacations.

I see that the OP amended the rules (last post, first page) so that for this poll, any real estate equity should be lumped into the portfolio value. So I guess if we want to play by the rules we need to consider that the portfolio would need to generate enough to cover housing as well.

500K does seem pretty small under that assumption. Perhaps not impossibly so (with two boys sharing a room you could get by with a small 2 bedroom house somewhere in a low-rent or low property cost state) but tighter than I'd want to cut it.

Also, I see we're also supposed to assume no problematic medical conditions, so we factor that in for the health insurance issue.

Didn't Joe Dominguez from Your Money or Your Life fame live in a multi-family commune or something hippy like that? I know there are people out there still into that stuff. I won't knock 'em if that's the lifestyle they want ... at the end of the day I'm sure some people could get by just fine and be happy with half a million dollars as a FIRE stash for a family of four.

Peace and love, y'all.

[FUEGO]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lusitan I see that the OP amended the rules (last post, first page) so that for this poll, any real estate equity should be lumped into the portfolio value. So I guess if we want to play by the rules we need to consider that the portfolio would need to generate enough to cover housing as well. 500K does seem pretty small under that assumption. Perhaps not impossibly so (with two boys sharing a room you could get by with a small 2 bedroom house somewhere in a low-rent or low property cost state) but tighter than I'd want to cut it.

Ouch - $500k including your house equity?? That would leave me with roughly $350k in the current house, or $450k if I moved the family into the dinky 1 or 2 BR condos down the street (and the wife remained married to me in spite of this). We could maybe squeeze out an existence in the dinky 2 BR condos, but it would require our 2 daughters to share a room. It would work, but at the end of the day, I'd rather just work 4-5 more years to almost double the portfolio and stay in our current house.

Interesting thought experiment though. We will be closing in on the $500k mark fairly soon, and that is the number I assumed we would require at the bare minimum to do a Thailand/Mexico type expat lifestyle with little margin of safety (the first level of FI). An interesting psychological milestone whereby, once reached, you know you COULD be FI if you were to make some serious sacrifices (mainly the DW would be making those sacrifices).

[Lusitan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FUEGO An interesting psychological milestone whereby, once reached, you know you COULD be FI if you were to make some serious sacrifices (mainly the DW would be making those sacrifices).

Yeah - I think that's really an important milestone, knowing that you COULD do it if you wanted to. I think when I reach that point, it will give me a different outlook on my j*b. (I'll get back to you whether I take a more positive attitude, or lose all tolerance for the shenanigans and throw in the towel for an expat bum lifestyle! )

[NW-Bound]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FUEGO We will be closing in on the $500k mark fairly soon, and that is the number I assumed we would require at the bare minimum to do a Thailand/Mexico type expat lifestyle with little margin of safety (the first level of FI).

Pretty darn good for your age! I would hang in there a little longer to get a bit more though, particularly for people with young children. Remember that once you are free, having to come back to work is going to be a LOT tougher for your psyche than the first time.

[FUEGO]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lusitan Yeah - I think that's really an important milestone, knowing that you COULD do it if you wanted to. I think when I reach that point, it will give me a different outlook on my j*b. (I'll get back to you whether I take a more positive attitude, or lose all tolerance for the shenanigans and throw in the towel for an expat bum lifestyle! )

Quote:

Originally Posted by NW-Bound Pretty darn good for your age! I would hang in there a little longer to get a bit more though, particularly for people with young children. Remember that once you are free, having to come back to work is going to be a LOT tougher for your psyche than the first time.

It certainly is a good feeling to have. But we definitely plan on sticking it out another 10 years or so, just to get enough to have a very safe withdrawal rate, plenty extra to cover health insurance unknowns, and plenty extra "just in case" since we have family nearby that may need some help from time to time. And then we have 2 kids under age 5, so there are many unknown kid costs.

We just started saving for college for the kids, and that amount will probably end up being around 10% of our net worth when we ER.

Not sure I agree 100% about the "harder to come back to work after you leave". I think if I went into an extremely early ER (at age 29 right now), I would know that returning to work would be a potential need at some point. I would probably maintain my licenses for a while at least, and keep in touch with those industry contacts whose company I enjoy. I think after a couple years off to "recharge the batteries" I might actually like* returning to work just for a little challenge. But if I went into an early ER and thought that I was hanging up the spurs for good, I would probably find it psychologically difficult to go back to work.


* as in, they pay me a lot of money

[Lusitan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FUEGO I think if I went into an extremely early ER (at age 29 right now), I would know that returning to work would be a potential need at some point .... I think after a couple years off to "recharge the batteries" I might actually like* returning to work just for a little challenge.

This is exactly how I feel. For me, getting to FI is primarily about jumping off the treadmill, checking out of the rat race, and taking as much time as I want to consider my next move.

There's a chance my next move will be to never do paid w*rk again, but I don't see that being a necessary outcome, especially for someone in their 30s or early 40s. This is why I'm OK with targeting what some would consider an unreasonably low FIRE stash, with a young FIRE age.

Think about it -- although we're a very fortunate and/or hardworking group of people who can entertain thoughts of FIRE that are inconceivable to most people, there are thousands of young people born into wealth who could live material lifestyles far beyond what even the wealthiest among us could ever enjoy. But most of these rich-kids don't "FIRE at 21" with their trust funds, they usually do something and often end up earning money for it. (The ones who don't usually end up unhappy, drug-or-alcohol-addicted basket cases.) I think that's part of the natural human condition, to want to be productive in some way, although being FIRE means you can pick and choose exactly how much and in what ways you want to produce.

So I don't think, if I hang up my spurs at 38 years old, I will be crushed if I decide that I want to earn some more money down the road at some point above and beyond what my SWR is giving me.

[NW-Bound]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FUEGO Not sure I agree 100% about the "harder to come back to work after you leave".

It depends on the type of work. Full-time work after a long hiatus is going to be bad, although if the alternative is hunger then one certainly can find the motivation. Besides getting soft and accustomed to the easy life, the danger is that one may lose the business contacts or fail to keep up-to-date if in certain technologies.

If it is part-time work, then it's not so bad. I have been doing that for the last 6 years, both at home and consulting at megacorps, averaging between 500 to 1000 hrs/yr. The work is sporadic and most of the time is part of larger R&D efforts, meaning longer-term efforts and not in a fire-extinguishing panic mode, so I do have some leeway in being able to take time off. Not everybody's works fit in the above criteria, and I am grateful to have this arrangement. My work has been slow the last couple of months, hence my postings here more often. However, it may be picking up here, and I may be absent again from this forum (I am not a multi-tasker).

I cannot take off for a 6-month trek across the world because of the part-time work, but have found out that I cannot be a perpetual traveler anyway. So, little is lost. And the money helps reduce the WR on the "incredible shrinking portfolio" too.

[FUEGO]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NW-Bound It depends on the type of work. Full-time work after a long hiatus is going to be bad, although if the alternative is hunger then one certainly can find the motivation. Besides getting soft and accustomed to the easy life, the danger is that one may lose the business contacts or fail to keep up-to-date if in certain technologies. .... I cannot take off for a 6-month trek across the world because of the part-time work, but have found out that I cannot be a perpetual traveler anyway. So, little is lost. And the money helps reduce the WR on the "incredible shrinking portfolio" too.

I guess you have to be a smart guy, ready to "reboot" your career, and willing to roll w/ the punches if you want to get back in the game after a long break in employment. But there are certain phases in the economic cycle where I imagine finding employment would be extremely easy (when times are really great, employers can't find any good workers, and "fogging a mirror" constitutes adequate skills and experience).

Unfortunately those good economic times will be inversely correlated to large drops in your portfolio value, so jobs will be least available to those seeking to re-enter the workforce when they need to the most (during difficult economic times).

[jdw_fire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FUEGO I guess you have to be a smart guy, ready to "reboot" your career, and willing to roll w/ the punches if you want to get back in the game after a long break in employment. But there are certain phases in the economic cycle where I imagine finding employment would be extremely easy (when times are really great, employers can't find any good workers, and "fogging a mirror" constitutes adequate skills and experience). Unfortunately those good economic times will be inversely correlated to large drops in your portfolio value, so jobs will be least available to those seeking to re-enter the workforce when they need to the most (during difficult economic times).

so, just thinking off the top of my head about the specific case of handling portfolio shock, then maybe the thing to do is think outside the box and live off your "dwindling" portfolio (even though it makes your portfolio size very uncomfortable) during that down turn and then (cus you have to) return to the work force in the good times (when all you need to do to get a job is "fog a mirror") to fortify your porfolio. like i said, off the top of my head.

[FUEGO]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdw_fire so, just thinking off the top of my head about the specific case of handling portfolio shock, then maybe the thing to do is think outside the box and live off your "dwindling" portfolio (even though it makes your portfolio size very uncomfortable) during that down turn and then (cus you have to) return to the work force in the good times (when all you need to do to get a job is "fog a mirror") to fortify your porfolio. like i said, off the top of my head.

Yes, I think this is the clear solution. Make sure you have enough to at least weather a steep economic downturn (like the one today). Then when things pick up in a few years (maybe 5 or 10), get back in the saddle and make some more money. I almost think you could get hired on during the beginning of the boom cycles and take an early buyout package during economic declines and play the economic cycles with your earned income.

[Independent]

Good discussion on the risks of going back to work. I picked $3 million because I figure that sometime during the next 35 years the market will tank. I wouldn't be "comfortable" if I were retired and saw may investments drop below $2 million. Similarly, I'm not "comfortable" assuming that I could find a job when that happens, or waiting for the economy to recover. I'm also figuring $20,000/year for health care, and $100k each for kids college -- I wouldn't tell my kids that I'm rich enough to retire at 40, but not rich enough for an average 4-year private college.

But I can see that the $3m is pretty risk-averse. It's not surprising the fat part of the curve is a little lower.

[Leonidas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Independent - I wouldn't tell my kids that I'm rich enough to retire at 40, but not rich enough for an average 4-year private college.

Okay, that made me chuckle, imagining that conversation. I never thought of it that way before, but yeah, I'm not sure I could keep a straight face long enough to try and sell that one.

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Independent I wouldn't tell my kids that I'm rich enough to retire at 40, but not rich enough for an average 4-year private college.

I guess that gets back into the "who pays how much for which college" parents vs kids debate.

I noticed early on that our kid was discarding some college options because she thought we couldn't afford them. We explained a bit about financial aid & scholarships and then said that she should pick the college and let us deal with the money.

Now that she's older, and exceedingly generous with our money in almost all regards, we point out that today's college splurges (e.g., Macbooks & iPhones) affect her tomorrow's first cars, grad schools, and maybe even the down payment for that first home.

Financially, unlike ER, that $100K/four years has to be funded "right now" with not much time for market recovery. And although I'm glad that our years of savings can afford today's tuitions, I'd always put my ER ahead of the kid's difference between public & private.

I'd tell the kid that anything beyond our financial support of the public school is her scholarship challenge. I think that's a lot more easily accomplished than asking all of those funding sources to support my ER. I don't think our kids want us to kill ourselves working to send them to a better school.

[Leonidas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nords Now that she's older, and exceedingly generous with our money in almost all regards...

Thank goodness, I thought it was just mine. Isn't it amazing how cheap they can be when it's their money though?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nords I guess that gets back into the "who pays how much for which college" parents vs kids debate... And although I'm glad that our years of savings can afford today's tuitions, I'd always put my ER ahead of the kid's difference between public & private... I'd tell the kid that anything beyond our financial support of the public school is her scholarship challenge. I think that's a lot more easily accomplished than asking all of those funding sources to support my ER. I don't think our kids want us to kill ourselves working to send them to a better school.

I agree with the principle you're expressing, and my disagreement only comes from my own personal situation as being FI'ed earlier in life. Long before I had the benefit of reading this forum I decided early in my kids' lives to set a course regarding education and their financial liberation from my pockets. "You are going to complete college and after that you will be responsible for your own financial needs. I'll pay for the college that accepts you within my means and within reason."

Years later, when retirement became a looming possibility early in life, I stuck by my earlier statements and just included college expenses as a budgetary item under the "must be able to do" category.

I understand that this is more than just a financial situation for many people. At the time I made my commitment the kids were young (and so was I), money was good and retirement was some kind of mythical beast. I recall that at the time (early 90's) college loan debt was being much discussed and the numbers were just shocking. Looking at my financial picture, and having a vague notion about retirement, I decided it wasn't right to limit the kids' choices (or saddle them with huge debts) if I had the money - to do something that I was making mandatory (you will graduate...!).

Now, that doesn't mean if my financial world goes to hell that I'm paying for Harvard out of my pocket, but if it came down to not being able to pay for in-state public school, well, I think I could suck it up and go back and do the W word thing if I had to. If I was not capable, then we would have a conversation like one of those commercials I've been seeing where the dad tells the kid, "things have changed and times are difficult." They've got all kinds of loans and grants out there for education, but I'm not aware of any for retirement.

So far it's working out for us. Check back with me around 2015 or so and I'll give you a post-action debrief.

As for my reaction to Independent's comment, the vision I had in my head was me just back from a month's trip someplace, nice tan, practicing my putting in the backyard before I take the wife out to grab a steak and lobster, looking at the kid and saying: "Well, can't you afford the junior college tuition? I'd love to help, but this retirement stuff is just getting to be really expensive. Don't you know how expensive airfare has become?"

[Zoocat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tryan A grand/month healthcare isn't gonna cut it today for a family of 4. Starting in Oct our BC/BS monthly premium is $1085 with a 3k/yr family deductible. Add to this the lousy precription coverage, co-pays, and no dental coverage; you're looking at $1500/month minimum (if you're HEALTHY!). FWIW we have no preexisting conditions (yet).

If you have never tried to get individual health insurance for your family on the open market, you are in for a quite an experience. There are exclusions that will make your head spin. Some health problems in childhood will leave your kid uninsurable on the open market (like allergies and having ever taken an anti-depressant).

Health insurance is such a big question mark for a young ER'd family of four that I voted $5million and even that isn't enough.

[FUEGO]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Independent I'm also figuring $20,000/year for health care, and $100k each for kids college -- I wouldn't tell my kids that I'm rich enough to retire at 40, but not rich enough for an average 4-year private college.

Interesting way to look at the college funding decision!

We have recently come around to deciding to basically fund expected tuition costs for each kid for four years at the local public universities plus a little bit more for fees, books, some living costs etc. That works out to roughly $100,000 a kid in 2023-2028 dollars.

I wouldn't have a problem telling them that if they want the luxury of a private college, then best of luck funding the costs beyond what we have saved for them. Of course that is against the backdrop of having two excellent public uni's here in town.

I probably would have a problem telling them, via videoconference from some exotic location on the other side of the world, that we can't afford to help them at all with college costs, so go get a minimum wage job at McDonald's and good luck. I would make sacrifices on spending or get some kinda j*b to make sure they can get through college.

I don't have a problem putting some of the costs on the kids since that will provide a cost savings incentive AND not get them used to living above their means on daddy's dime (like others I saw during college and grad school). And student loans/grants/scholarships are cheap or free money. Interest subsidies and tax subsidies are out there for student loans, and parents can always assist with repayment should the graduate hit hard times.

[FUEGO]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oldbabe If you have never tried to get individual health insurance for your family on the open market, you are in for a quite an experience. There are exclusions that will make your head spin. Some health problems in childhood will leave your kid uninsurable on the open market (like allergies and having ever taken an anti-depressant). Health insurance is such a big question mark for a young ER'd family of four that I voted $5million and even that isn't enough.

We have a fairly liberal children's health insurance program in our state for those families earning less than a few times the poverty level. The insurance is basically free for kids with almost no copay. My guess is that income from a $1.5-2 million portfolio would be low enough to qualify you for the "low income" health insurance for the kids. It is comparable to private insurance in most regards from what I have heard from some on it. No test for assets either, so the portfolio size wouldn't defeat your eligibility - straight income test based on family size. It is somehow provided through medicaid, and I'm sure YMMV state to state.

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leonidas So far it's working out for us. Check back with me around 2015 or so and I'll give you a post-action debrief.

Same here...

I think the trick is to launch them from the nest on a high-enough trajectory and with sufficient initial velocity that they don't hangfire, lose too much altitude, or bounce back from the nearest tree branch.

By the time they get their flight parameters under control and look back, we'll be gone!

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oldbabe Health insurance is such a big question mark for a young ER'd family of four that I voted $5million and even that isn't enough.

A LOT will depend on what comes out of health care reform and, to the extent there is public funding for it, what that funding mechanism is. Don't intend to debate the merits or the politics in this thread, but it is something people need to be very aware of in their planning. How they implement this will dictate things like what age I can pull the plug on w*rk and how much income I will need annually.

[Lusitan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FUEGO We have recently come around to deciding to basically fund expected tuition costs for each kid for four years at the local public universities plus a little bit more for fees, books, some living costs etc.

Right now, that's our tentative plan as well (although we're still in the toddler-rearing phase).

I think a free-ride at a good public university or a substantial piece of financial assistance at a more expensive private university is a good compromise between wanting to help out but also wanting to instill a sense of responsibility and ownership in their university education.

I'll have no problems telling my kids that's all they're getting even if I FIRE at 40; it's way more help than I received from my parents (and yet still reached FIRE at a young age).