My definition of LBYM in retirement is that you don't spend principal. Given the dependence on your portfolio to produce income, rather than a job, it seems foolish to eat into it.
This is an empty definition. It's just a slogan that doesn't have any concrete meaning.
What does "principal" mean? If your assets are cash, CDs, bonds, etc. then, sure, it does have a standard meaning. But "principal" is meaningless when applied to stocks & other equity or equity-like assets.
If you retire with $100,000 of BRK and it goes up to $125,000 -- what then? If you withdraw $10,000, does that count as "spending principal"? Or are you only allowed to spend dividends? Which BRK doesn't pay.
If you retire with $100,000 of JNJ, which currently pays 3.2% dividend yield ($2.44 per share) -- what then? I guess you are only allowed to spend $3200 per year. What if JNJ goes up to $125,000? What if it goes down to $75,000?
Stock dividends are just a matter of the company deciding whether to keep cash to grow internally, or to distribute it to shareholders. To the shareholder, there is essentially no difference, it's just a matter of getting cash directly (via dividends) or indirectly (by selling shares).
FWIW -- Right after I started my IRA in the late 1970's I thought about buying Berkshire Hathaway stock. I didn't, because it would have taken my entire IRA ($2000) to buy one share. But if I had, that 1 share would now be worth $150,000. My question is, would "don't spend principal" mean that I'm not allowed to spend any of that $148,000 gain? Some of it? all of it? none of it? In "some", how do you deternine how much?
If you can cover you expenses from SS, rent etc they act as your annuity
Only guaranteed income counts as annuity. Rental income does not, since it's not guaranteed. Same for dividends.