Poll:How much is too much to walk away from?

[Travelwanted]

I think my situation is rather unique and certainly fortunate.

I was making 7 figures but was stressed and fatigued. Walking away was an option but chose a little time off and then found a PT position.

My numbers say I am FI but given my age and having kids plus still enjoying what I do (now that it is PT) I am still not fully RE'd. The money is just bonus - but great as still making 6 figures.

 

[Badger]

Money was never a driving force in my life. I made in the mid 5 figures working at what was important to me. It was enough to take care of my needs with some left for a few wants. Now I have a modest paid for home, medical is taken care of, and I have enough to see me to the end with some left over. If more money would buy more time and good health to enjoy it then I would reconsider but that isn't going to happen so why accumulate more.

Cheers!

 

[RunningBum]

I wouldn't indefinitely keep working for a lot more money, but I would, and did, work at least a couple extra years at part time as a buffer. The money was too easy to pass up, even though it was under your low end. Part of it was being shaky after the big downturn of 2008. I didn't have kids at home anymore, and it was low stress work with flexible hours. Eventually the decision was made for me and I got a buyout when my job was moved overseas. I only stuck around the last year because I could see this coming and waited out the buyout.

Like the retirement pitfall thread, it's an individual decision. We could all agree on one thing, but it may not be right for you. It's fine to look for different perspectives, but the decision is yours.

 

[RunningBum]

Also I think you might get more relevant results if instead of raw $ amounts, you gave the options "current salary", 20% more, 50% more, 2x, 4x, etc. I put $100K because that applied to me, though only for a couple of years. That's probably very insignificant money to you.

If you meant indefinitely, I'd fall into the "No" category, though I probably would have done another year or two in the $1M+ range to fund first class travel and stuff like that.

 

[donheff]

I started to click on a number that was quite a bit higher than my salary and then remembered that my DW walked away from that amount at age 56. I don't think there is a specific number that matters - it is the work life balance that tips the scales. It sounds like you like your work so you have to decide whether you would be happier ERd. As the balance tips toward ER you need to decide whether a few more years of a still "OK" work life will better insure the security of your ER life. No poll can help with that.

 

[pb4uski]

The other thing to consider is that doubling or quadrupling earnings at the amounts shown in the poll would likely also result in much more pressure and stress.... towards the end of my career I brushed aside a promotion and later downshifted to part-time because money was less important once I was FI... lifestyle and time were more important.

Some of our partners made $1 million a year or more, but there is no way I would have wanted their jobs.... those guys are running 150 mph 24/7/365.... they work hard and give up a lot for those $$$$.

 

[Red Badger]

Money was never a driving force in my life. I made in the mid 5 figures working at what was important to me. It was enough to take care of my needs with some left for a few wants. Now I have a modest paid for home, medical is taken care of, and I have enough to see me to the end with some left over. If more money would buy more time and good health to enjoy it then I would reconsider but that isn't going to happen so why accumulate more.

Cheers!

+1.
I was in Mega-corp middle management and making ~$125 plus bonus. There were opportunities to make the move to senior management. Between the pressures at that level and the multiple relocations that would come with the new role, I asked my SAHM DW, "How much money is enough?" We agreed that additional family sacrifices were not worth another pile of Benjamins. We applied that same mindset when I retired last month. Our time is precious - our assets are just important.

 

[gerntz]

What matters is whether you have what you need for what you want to accomplish going forward. So it's an irrelevant question.

 

[Mdlerth]

4M a year? What am I, nuts?

I clicked on 4 million. It's such a large amount compared to what I ever earned I'd have to take it...

...for a few years. I predict I'd get used to it. Then it wouldn't seem like so much any more and it would take an even bigger number.

 

[HarveyS]

I actually had to answer this question from a different angle a few years after I RE'd. A colleague and I had an idea for a new business that would upend the current paradigm. Without going into details, it was a "start-it, run it for 3-5 years, and sell it" type of business. Between us we had all the contacts, relationships, and financing needed. We estimated what we could make from the sale. Then we concluded that another $X of NW in 3-5 years would not materially change our standard of living and thus have remained gleefully out of the work force. As an earlier post said, another way to look at the poll is to ask what change in NW would compel you to keep working? Time isn't money....it's worth a whole lot more.

 

[Danmar]

I retired from a position paying at the higher end of your poll. I think the important consideration is not gross comp but rather the ratio of increases to net worth due to continued working. When I retired this was in the range of 5-10%. Certainly not insignificant but not so significant that I just had to continue. Earlier in my career this ratio would have been as high as 25% or even higher. To work one more year and increase your net worth by 25% is much different than working one more year to increase it 5%. Sooner or later you just have to put a pin in it.

 

[jabbahop]

For us it comes down to not the amount but what we would do with that additional money vs the value of the freedom.

Reading this forum for a while, it is clear that the answer is different for everyone.

Despite being extremely happy with our decision, I still find myself "what if-ing" if I had stayed. Given doubling of stock/option for the past 2 years, we would have added perhaps 20% to our kitty.

In reality that would have not changed our spending and life at all - would just have left more to our kids. For my wife and I stepping off the promotion track and moving out of Silicon Valley when the kids are young had a much bigger impact financial and we have ZERO regrets about that.

As someone said, when you have two great options you don't have a hard decision, you have an easy one.

 

[exnavynuke]

What matters is whether you have what you need for what you want to accomplish going forward. So it's an irrelevant question.

That was my first thought, and then I had a change of heart in the middle of typing my response. I make just a bit above the low end of the poll now, and could retire comfortably in my current lifestyle tomorrow if handed a million dollars tax free. However, if offered $4M/year for my current job when I turned in that resignation due to someone giving me a million tonight, I'd probably go ahead and work for another 6-12 months so I could afford a "more comfortable" retirement.

I'm "technically" FI right now (as I could afford my residence, food, basic entertainment, etc). However, I'm still working because I "want" to be able to afford "at least" my current lifestyle. Thus, I don't consider myself FI because I haven't reached that point. With adequate incentive, and assuming no huge drawback, I'd likely decide that being able to fly first class instead of coach for decades would be worth working a a few months longer at $4m/year which would mean working a few more months, but not at $50k/year which would mean working for years longer (or taking more vacations or having more toys etc etc.).

 

[Car-Guy]

I broke through the triple digits salary figure at least 15 years before I retired. By the time I did retire, I had about tripled that. When I got to the point of deciding to retire, it was "really" no longer about making money. When I first told my boss I was retiring they asked me what would make me stay. I really didn't want to stay and didn't need more money so I told them 40 hour work weeks (down from 60+) and being allowed to work from home. They said okay. I hung on about 2 more years honoring my end of the bargain. I still end up working more than 40 hour work weeks (work ethic I guess) but working from home was a lot better than working out of the office. They promoted me again and the big annual salary increases kept coming.

Then after a couple of more years, I told my boss I had enough and I was retiring. Again the question was, what do you want to stay on? My answer that time was "nothing could make me stay". They they asked about working part time. I knew they was no such thing as "part time" in my job, unless you consider 40+ hours part time.

At that time, I "may" have stayed on for another year for a 1/2 million bonus since I was programmed to think "money, money, money", but I didn't ask, and they didn't offer that.

Looking back now, I'm glad they didn't offer me a lot more money since I now realize how important time is.

If I could "buy back" quality time, I would. The older I get, the more I'd pay!

 

[Which Roger]

If somebody offered me a million a year, I think I'd work for a couple years and donate a big chunk of my earnings to my favorite charities and feel really good about what I was doing.

 

[kcowan]

Since DW and I were pulling in $450k between us at the time (2002), I answered $1.6 million. But it is theoretical because we were ready to go and had enough. That amount after paying the tax on it would have probably advanced our purchase of a snowbird residence.

But family dependencies would have kept us close to home.

 

[Sojourner]

I voted for $400k in the poll, but my real number is probably a bit higher. I think I'd go back for one year at $500k if a job offer like that magically fell into my lap. After all, that's over $40,000 per month.

I'm not yet 50, and I think a situation like that could make for an interesting year and would certainly pad my FI numbers. They don't really need any padding, but it would be kind of tough to turn down so much money for a relatively modest amount of time and effort. And... I could always walk away if I ended up hating it or feeling restless, etc.

 

[bradaz2488]

Did not vote.. If I assume that I felt the same way about my w*rk life and it's effects on my physical and mental health I would still walk away no matter how much I made a year. The key is reaching FI and if the numbers work to allow you to ER with the lifestyle you want to live then you are FIRE'd. Any more money just make you greedy IMHO. Having more stuff with not make you happier and you can not take it with you....

Edit: Okay, I voted.. Did not see they added the last option ...

 

[CRLLS]

When I was in the middle of my career, I prostituted myself for $. I gave them my mind, my body and most of my awake hours in exchange for a paycheck. Once I had enough to be FI, I continued to work. not for the paycheck but for the challenge and fun. At that time, I told myself that no amount of $ would get me back to being "used". I can't be bought (anymore).

 

[Silver]

For me it would depend upon the job. If I loved it and was satisfied with the money, I would stay. If I hated it and was making crazy lots of money but was FI...I would leave.

How I spend my time is more important that the money, so no survey answer seems to fit.

 

[Blue Collar Guy]

Im a bit confused here, the people that chose a number, all said I picked $x amount of money and I would stay a few more months ,years etc. If thats your number, then you would stay forever. Because then its really not your number to walk away from.

 

[Aerides]

It's all relative to the "number" you need for FI, your age, and personal circumstances (children, illnesses, family, goals, current income).

I stayed when I got wind of a coming layoff. For me, between the extra 10 months, the package of severance, etc., that meant about 2.5x my annual income/bonus, and it meant 10+14 months of continued MC health insurance. So that was a good deal.

So no number is "enough" if it just means continuing to cash the same paycheck, IMO. But if it means a significant step up, then that might do it, all depends what you can see doing with that extra.

 

[Sojourner]

Im a bit confused here, the people that chose a number, all said I picked $x amount of money and I would stay a few more months ,years etc. If thats your number, then you would stay forever. Because then its really not your number to walk away from.

I chose $400k (but really it would have to be $500k), because that's what it would take to get me back into a Mon-Fri 9-6 situation for one year. I would be willing to put up with a fairly high stress, demanding job for that long in return for $40,000 per month. I think that's a reasonable trade-off, but it would be for a limited time only -- not indefinite. Just one year to pad my FI numbers and give me a bit more breathing room for more extravagances, more travel, more healthcare and LTC certainty, etc. And after being out of the rat race and daily grind for about 4 years now, I think it might make for an interesting experiment to see how it feels to jump back in for a little while... especially if I'm getting paid $40,000/month to participate in the experiment.

 

[MichaelB]

How much annual income would make you think twice about walking away from work?

"Too much to walk away" is not an amount, it's an attitude. Walking away is not about the money, it's about life, understanding that there is a balance, and money is just one element of that.

 

[Dawg52]

I answered $400K. I make just over $100K. I don't make $400K and never have.

a $400K salary might make me stay.

Similar here. Even $400k wouldn't make me stay forever. But instead of retiring at 52, I may have stayed another 3-5 years.