Poll: SIRE vs FIRE at ER.org

[dtbach]

My income is over 50% FIRE, so that is how I voted.

However my spending is over 50% SIRE and in fact, this year I probably won't spend more than my SS plus mini-pension.

Same here. I could live off SS/pensions but take more than 50% in investments at 3.5%WR. So I went with FIRE but any given year would be SIRE.

 

[youbet]

Over 50% was the question. If over 50% of your spending/desired spending is met by SS, pensions, annuity, etc., then you pick the first choice.

This is confusing......

Say I'm living off of my personal portfolio.... That would make me FIRE. But I get talked into an annuity by a bag-dragging annunity salespeson and put all my personal portfolio dollars there and live off the annuity payments. Now I'm SIRE. Is that it? Is that how it would work?

 

[Dtail]

More FIRE than SIRE, but if I hold off to 70 for SS, then it gets much closer.

 

[youbet]

[*]FIRE income sources - personal nest egg/portfolio, RMDs, business/rental income, sale of property (e.g. real estate investment property), part time work.
[/LIST]
.

If I'm supporting myself with income from a business and part time work and I have no/few assets, am I FIRE?

Not trying to be critical of your poll Midpack. Just trying to figure out why the definitions seem a bit out of whack with my perceptions. I always thought of "Financially Independent, Retired Early" as meaning you definitely had control of sufficient assets to make working (running a business or part time endeavors) for income unnecessary.

 

[DeborahB]

I get $1500/mo from SS. Whoopie.
Other than that I lump everything together and I manage my investments. I have some inherited money, some I saved, no pensions. Everything is invested, some IRA, some ROTH, some taxable. I took my first RMD this year. I’m going with FIRE. I just wish it had happened sooner. But glad to be free!

 

[Midpack]

If I'm supporting myself with income from a business and part time work and I have no/few assets, am I FIRE?

Not trying to be critical of your poll Midpack. Just trying to figure out why the definitions seem a bit out of whack with my perceptions. I always thought of "Financially Independent, Retired Early" as meaning you definitely had control of sufficient assets to make working (running a business or part time endeavors) for income unnecessary.

What’s the right breakdown in your view - that everyone would agree with?

All I was getting at was the investment philosophy of someone with Soc Sec, pensions and annuity income ONLY would probably be considerably different than someone with ONLY withdrawals from a self directed investment portfolio. Since there’s probably no one strictly one or the other, I used a simple 50% threshold.

And that can change. I’d consider a lump sum part of FIRE, but SIRE if it was used to buy an annuity - one is self directed with X risk/volatility, the other is passive with no risk in theory.

People answer all sorts of questions here where the answer for a mostly SIRE household could be very different than a mostly FIRE household - yet we almost never know that about the person volunteering an answer, or often the person asking. Thought a poll might tell us which is more likely, but that doesn’t look like it’s going to pan out. I would have sworn in an earlier poll, SIRE (specifically pensions) was significantly more common here but maybe I’m mistaken and couldn’t find the old one.

If there’s ever been a perfect poll here that everyone agreed on, I guess I missed it...

 

[youbet]

What’s the right breakdown in your view?

All I was getting at was the investment philosophy of someone with Soc Sec, pensions and annuitie income only would probably be considerably different than someone with nothing but withdrawals from a self directed investment portfolio. Since there’s probably no one strictly one or the other, I used a simple 50% threshold. And yes I’d consider a lump sum part of FIRE, but SIRE if it was used to buy an annuity - one is self directed, the other is passive.

People answer all sorts of questions here where the answer for a mostly SIRE household could be very different than a mostly FIRE household - yet we almost never know that about the person volunteering an answer, or often the person asking. Thought a poll might tell us which is more likely, but that doesn’t look like it’s going to pan out. I would have sworn in an earlier poll, SIRE (specifically pensions) was significantly more common here but maybe I’m mistaken and couldn’t find the old one.

If there’s ever been a perfect poll here that everyone agreed on, I guess I missed it...

I guess the problem is that:

1. Running a business or working part time brings the question of actually being retired or not into play. The question of whether a part-timer is actually retired or not always generates some verbal arm wrestling.

2. I'm guessing most folks here have a foot in both camps to some extent and the comments seem to reflect that. Even someone with just a healthy SS income would no doubt be influenced by that when making investment decisions.

3. The ratio of FIRE to SIRE no doubt changes over time for most of us.

4. Your personal circumstances come into play. You might be living on your portfolio strictly on your own. Or, you might be hitched to a high earning partner who covers all expenses and your portfolio is just for fun money. Etc.

Hey, there are a million stories in the naked city!

I don't have a bit of problem with your poll. It's a tough one and I'm doubting there are many here who are living strictly off of income from a portfolio of investable assets and are sure that will always be the case.

I'm going to check the FIRE box. I've been fully retired (no part time business or employment at all) for 12+ years and although I have some SS and pension income, dollars thrown off by my FIRE portfolio are my chief source of spending money. And I don't see that changing.

 

[Red Badger]

SIRE due to Mil Reserve pension and a smaller Corp Pension. They are about 40% of our stream. The rest coming from our egg.
SIRE(+) when we add SS 2019 or later. We'll also reduce egg harvesting to 2-3 percent (present burn rate considerably higher - as planned).

 

[DeborahB]

FIRE
It would be nice to have a pension but fewer and fewer non-government employers are providing them. I think that’s whats going on. I had a tiny one but I cashed it out and put the money in my IRA. I consolidated a lot of my investments in one place. All of my invested assets are in self-directed accounts.

 

[NW-Bound]

... I would have sworn in an earlier poll, SIRE (specifically pensions) was significantly more common here but maybe I’m mistaken and couldn’t find the old one...

While I do recall the old poll, frankly I do not remember the result.

But you could be right. It may be just that some geezers with pension are, ahem, no longer with us.

 

[RunningBum]

The other possible difference between SIRE and FIRE besides risk taking is WR. I see people talking about 1-2% WR, but if they are SIRE, it's not as big of a deal as someone who is FIRE.

 

[Alan]

This first 7 years our income has been more than 50% FIRE but I voted SIRE because it is only because of discretionary sales of equities as we spent heavily in these early years. Our pensions already comfortably cover our essential expenses and over the next few years we have another 4 secure incomes that will come in because we will each get US and UK SS. (In the UK you are allowed to make voluntary contributions to maintain the UK SS while you are overseas or simply not having earned income).

 

[swakyaby]

Of the 3-legged stool of retirement assets, I have a pogo stick of personal savings, so I fall into the FIRE category.

 

[Walt34]

We're definitely SIRE - mostly COLA'd pension and SS, some dividends and interest income but it's very minor. We haven't touched the IRA or TSP yet and probably won't until we have to.

 

[38Chevy454]

Right now I am FIRE, but after I start taking SS I will be SIRE. Assuming I can manage the IRA withdrawals before 70, hope to avoid too much RMD issues and maintain SIRE status.

 

[racy]

Over 50% of our spending will come from SIRE sources (SS).
Over 50% of our income (dividends, interest, RMDs) will come from FIRE sources.

 

[HFWR]

Based on this year’s “income” from SS, a non-COLA pension, and IRA withdrawal, SIRE at 41/15/44. Even more if heavily-subsidized REHI was included...

 

[Just_Steve]

I am a SIRE and will always be a SIRE.

 

[youbet]

Over 50% of our income (dividends, interest, RMDs) will come from FIRE sources.

Why do you call your RMD "income?" An RMD is money you already own that you move from a tax deferred account to a taxable account and send a chunk of it to Uncle Sam as a tax. I always think of my annual RMD as an expense.

Do you call it income because you have to show it as income (in order to calculate the tax) when you file your fed taxes? This despite the fact you wind up with less money than your had before the RMD.

 

[Amethyst]

In good conscience, I cannot pick a choice that conflates, or equates, pension with inheritance. We earned and paid into our pensions. One doesn't earn or pay into an inheritance. Nothing against bequests, just saying they are completely different and probably deserve their own category.

 

[NoiseBoy]

I would have sworn in an earlier poll, SIRE (specifically pensions) was significantly more common here but maybe I’m mistaken and couldn’t find the old one.

Is this the poll you were thinking of:

Early Retirement & Financial Independence Community - View Poll Results

If you add the Soc Sec category to the Defined Benefits category, the poll from 2011 shows about 46% of ER.org was living primarily on something other than their own investments.

Edit to add: You posted the following in a thread from September of last year, "46% have a pension that provides 25% or more of income, 24% have a pension but less than 25% of income and 30% have no pension." I am not sure how compiled those results, but they align with the 2011 poll results pretty well.

Edit #2: I voted SIRE because once I turn 62, the sum of my two modest pensions (one has COLA) and the ability, if needed, to start Soc Sec will provide me with a comfortable income. I do plan to retire before 62 and I will have to start spending more than the dividends from my portfolio (yikes!) until 62. Once I start my second pension, my withdrawal rate may not need to be more than 2% - 2.5%.

 

[Midpack]

Nope.

Looked further back and found the earlier poll and it’s precursor from 2010. That poll excluded Soc Sec. And that poll showed pension/annuity was the primary source of income. Along with Soc Sec which most everyone has, I thought it was very safe to assume that SIRE was a majority here.

Today’s poll strongly suggests otherwise - not sure how that could be despite 8 years.

http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f28/poll-primary-retirement-income-source-53502-2.html

http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f28/pre-poll-retirement-income-53495.html

 

[scrabbler1]

I am living on a large, one-legged FIRE stool and have been for the last 10 years. There are two more legs sitting in a time-activated, locked closet waiting for me to open it starting in about 4 years. The one labeled "IRS" is first, followed a few years later by the "SS" and "Pension" ones.

 

[MarieIG]

It will be a combination. I "guessed" without crunching the numbers. When we first retire, we won't have SS yet; but should have DH's pension and access to annuities and IRAs/ 401(k)s.

 

[RobbieB]

Even when I claim my SS at FRA it will less than 25% of income.

No pension, no annuity.