Lifetime income vs. net worth

My liquid net worth is about 1.3x of my lifetime earned income. The earned income includes all wages over FICA limit, and retirement contributions but does not include company 401k matches, investment income, rental income, pension income, or any other unearned income. I don't know exactly when I crossed over but it was in my late 40's or early 50's.
 
My liquid net worth is almost exactly 50% of my lifetime earnings.

Same here. (Speaking as a household.) Also, should mention that we have pensions, and that we had to make contributions of a further ~7% of gross income (each) for this benefit.
 
Last edited:
I fully support this nerdy metric as it is something I always tracked out of curiosity. We are at 120% of take home pay. Still a bit to go to over come the gross number. The trick is to stop working to prevent the paid income from growing. [emoji3]
 
I fully support this nerdy metric as it is something I always tracked out of curiosity. We are at 120% of take home pay. Still a bit to go to over come the gross number. The trick is to stop working to prevent the paid income from growing. [emoji3]

Thank you for your support. :D
I agree with the not working part. Hopefully in another 4-5 years...
 
Anyone else care to share the age when their liquid net worth passed their total lifetime earnings? I just thought this was a neat idea. Feedback will be appreciated but try not to be too mean about it. :( :)

Mine did not when I worked. At retirement my LNW was 47% of our lifetime earnings. Considering the amount of taxes we paid, plus college for multiple kids, it still left us with plenty. Also, I have the benefit of a pension, which did influence our savings/investing.



Since retiring our LNW is now closer to 50% of lifetime earnings at retirement. So maybe it will catch up some day... :LOL:

Another nerdy related calculation I just did: looking at my "quartiles" for earnings before retirement:

25% lifetime earnings by age 41 (LNW 28%)

50% lifetime earnings by age 47 (LNW 27%, the heavy college payment years)

75% lifetime earnings by age 54 (LNW 35%)

100% lifetime earnings by age 60 (LNW 47%)

It might mean something, or nothing at all. If I can do that badly and still FIRE, you will be able to do much better. :)
 
Right now my liquid NW is about 83% of my cumulative earnings at age 46. I bought a townhouse last year with cash that is equal to about 20% of my lifetime earnings. So I was over 1:1 for a brief period before converting to a less liquid real asset (I love the imputed rent now though)! Not sure how useful it is but it is interesting to look. more impressive is knowing that this is looking at gross earnings and not net.. in quite a few years I spent more on taxes than I did on myself.
 
I'm like Jimmy Buffett - "I made enough money to buy Miami, but I pissed it away so fast."

If you don't count the present value of our two COLA'd pensions, when we retired in 2019 our net worth was about 50% of our lifetime earnings.
 
Out of curiosity I went through the numbers, and we are just over 100% of lifetime earnings.

But, adjusted for inflation, it is closer to 50%
 
I fully support this nerdy metric as it is something I always tracked out of curiosity. We are at 120% of take home pay. Still a bit to go to over come the gross number. The trick is to stop working to prevent the paid income from growing. [emoji3]

This. I retired from mega-corp in 2009. Unfortunately (at least in terms of this measurement) I went back to work (at a considerably lesser salary) since then. My measurement on this has been hurt a bit as it has been my motto to spend just about every $ of my new teaching career. :)
 
I'm like Jimmy Buffett - "I made enough money to buy Miami, but I pissed it away so fast."

If you don't count the present value of our two COLA'd pensions, when we retired in 2019 our net worth was about 50% of our lifetime earnings.

Good point.

Hey, another nerdy spreadsheet needed: "When will mega-corp pension payments equal my mega-corp total earnings?" (A secondary question, is it past my life expectancy? :) )

ETA: So, my mega-corp pension payments thus far are about equal to my mega-corp pensionable earnings from the first 16 years of working. The bad news is that the growth will be slower going forward as that is just about when my mega-corp salary started increasing quickly.
 
Last edited:
The pension compared to salary is one I never thought about. Roughly, every two years of pension is a year of the salary, if you average the 26 years out, so fairly unlikely I will live 52 more years to get that metric. But it does put some income thoughts in perspective for myself.
 
Current NW is about 1/2 of Lifetime SS/Medicare earnings. I'm 35. I did realize real estate appreciation at one point and I have been working during a great time to invest. I have no idea how long it will take for the two figures equal since for the net worth to grow, i have to keep working to pay for life. I guess compounded growth will bridge the gap at some point.
 
Aren't those definitions based on current income times an age-based multiplier? Which always had the obvious limitation of what if for the first 29 years you made $20K increasing to $50K/yr and last year you jumped to $150K? What the OP suggests is a more complete way, although perhaps closer to MND's model would be to take average career income instead of current.

Yes, you're right, the ideas are different.

My more general point was that the idea of comparing income to net worth had been thought of before. And that I consider the relationship between expenses and net worth to be more relevant to me.
 
Well, I obviously wasted lots of money.

Lifetime earning - $3,091,660 (ssn lifetime Medicare tax earning)

Net worth Today - around $2.5 million

I don't know how some of you manage to flip that ratio.
 
Well, I obviously wasted lots of money.

Lifetime earning - $3,091,660 (ssn lifetime Medicare tax earning)

Net worth Today - around $2.5 million

I don't know how some of you manage to flip that ratio.

Heck, at least you did a lot better than we did with our ~55% at retirement! :cool:
 
I'm not sure why you wouldn't want to include home value in this exercise. My wife and I paid off our home as fast as we could, which limited the amount we could save in after tax investments. Living in the northeast, our home is a substantial percentage of our net worth. Our last home was purchased in cash, and we have put another $200k into it...also all cash.
 
I'm not sure why you wouldn't want to include home value in this exercise.... Living in the northeast, our home is a substantial percentage of our net worth....

My thought process is that we need to live somewhere and, when we sell, we'll buy another place in the same region with proceeds. Thus, not part of spendable funds. Plus, we have home on acreage in development path; valuation is tricky and I'm not willing to hire an appraiser to narrow the uncertainty.

If I were in your situation, and I planned eventually to move to a low cost of living area (and it is an easy to value house), I might include part, but not all, of the home value in my financial planning.
 
I'm not sure why you wouldn't want to include home value in this exercise. My wife and I paid off our home as fast as we could, which limited the amount we could save in after tax investments. Living in the northeast, our home is a substantial percentage of our net worth. Our last home was purchased in cash, and we have put another $200k into it...also all cash.

For this exercise, yes I would include home equity from the marital residence (fair market value) in net worth. I did not bother with vehicles or other types of personal property.

(In my calculations - since I was only looking at my earnings, I decided to divide by 1/2 - so as to give spouse 1/2 the value.) I paid off the house, but DH paid other bills which allowed me to pay off the house . . DH was the higher earner. Of course, calculations could also been done as a couple.

This exercise - is not part of my financial plan for retirement, which considers investible assets and related income as one component, and puts housing costs in the expense column as there are significant costs involved in maintaining the home. With regard to net worth, for example, if I had purchased dirt cheap what turned out to be a very valuable piece of art that I never intended to sell, that would add to my net worth; but would not be part of my retirement plan (other than for estate purposes).

Edited: I re-read the initial post. I see that OP does not want home value included. Ok, more math. That removes approx. 13% from NW earned by me.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure why you wouldn't want to include home value in this exercise. My wife and I paid off our home as fast as we could, which limited the amount we could save in after tax investments. Living in the northeast, our home is a substantial percentage of our net worth. Our last home was purchased in cash, and we have put another $200k into it...also all cash.

If we sold our home, we could rent a very nice apartment just from the property tax, insurance, utilities, maintenance and upkeep that we would no longer pay (especially the tax). We would not need to touch the sales proceeds. People who don't live around here cannot appreciate how steep the real property taxes are.

I consider our home to be source of funds for our eventual buy-in to a CCRC.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure why you wouldn't want to include home value in this exercise. My wife and I paid off our home as fast as we could, which limited the amount we could save in after tax investments. Living in the northeast, our home is a substantial percentage of our net worth. Our last home was purchased in cash, and we have put another $200k into it...also all cash.

I can see, for some who live in HCOL areas (God help me, I've started using abbreviations) that their home value could be a big part of their net worth. But referring back to The Millionaire Next Door, one of their 'rules' is:
"If you're not yet wealthy, but want to be someday, never purchase a home that requires a mortgage that is more than twice your household's total annual realized income." You mentioned being able to use cash for your home and all the improvements but not everybody can say that.
We bought our home 11 years ago for $42K. We put $12K down and took out a mortgage for $30K since our previous home hadn't sold yet and we didn't want to completely drain our emergency funds. We paid it off in 10 years. With the $20K of improvements we put into it we might get $70K if we want to sell it and live somewhere else after we retire. It's not a big part of our net worth.
So that's why I didn't include it in my comparison. But if someone has a paid-off home worth seven figures, and plans on retiring in my neck of the woods where they could find a place to live for under six figures, then by all means they could and should include it in their retirement planning. Like someone else on this site likes to say, "YMMV". (ah! another abbreviation!) :facepalm:
 
If we sold our home, we could rent a very nice apartment just from the property tax, insurance, utilities, maintenance and upkeep that we would no longer pay (especially the tax). We would not need to touch the sales proceeds. People who don't live around here cannot appreciate how steep the real property taxes are.

I consider our home to be source of funds for our eventual buy-in to a CCRC.

I agree that the owning vs renting expenses can almost be a wash. Our property taxes are over $16k per year, and if you add utilities, insurance, landscaping and maintenance over the years, this can add up to a lot of money. Owning is nice since you control your environment and can do what you want to the property.

We expect to move to a lower cost of living area when we retire in a few years, so these costs should go down quite a bit depending on where we move. The option to sell the house and rent in a new area for a bit might also have benefits, where we're not necessarily locked into a large purchase if we find the area or lifestyle isn't what we expected. This large asset definitely comes into our calculations when considering retirement and investing options.
 
If I followed the no mortgage more than twice your yearly income rule, I sure as $hit wouldn’t be retired already! Did anyone here actually follow that advice? My first home purchase, in 1985 at age 26, carried an almost 4 times my income mortgage & the rates back then were horrible! Plus I had too much consumer debt on top of that. My initial down payment back then was only $10k and I carried PMI as well. I used the equity and appreciation from that and every subsequent house (6) to upscale in size & cost, and never paid PMI again. Even today I carry a mortgage that is $100k more than twice my yearly income. But my equity in the house is more than 3 times what the total cost of my first house was and 3 times larger square footage and I never once had to come up with more cash to purchase the next home. They essentially paid for themselves. (Of course, there was the occasional short term transfers amongst accounts until the previous home sold if needed. And on the last home I went for a 15 year mortgage at the last refi that was maybe 7 years mature.) By keeping more invested, I can easily pay off this place anytime, & with no tax consequences either. Of course, I did always purchase homes requiring sweat equity to appreciate like they did, until this one, and always bought & remodeled with resale in mind, and always in predictably great selling areas. After my first home, none were on the market for more than 3 weeks, and most sold in days for more than asking. Some luck was involved but really how much since I followed the same formula for 35 years.
 
Last edited:
I've kept track of lifetime W2 earnings, and it looks like, as of the end of 2019, my investible assets are at 1.28x W2 earnings.

Not too shabby, I guess. My first year of W2 earnings is 1986, so 2020 will be my 35th year...no more years with zeroes in the calculations! So, 2021 will replace one of those crap early years. Although, ironically, 2021 is when I'm going to retire, if I get my way.
 
If I followed the no mortgage more than twice your yearly income rule, I sure as $hit wouldn’t be retired already! Did anyone here actually follow that advice? ...

We've only ever had this one house, but the initial mortgage was just twice our income at the time we bought it. We thought that was prudent. Although we refinanced 5 times for better rates, we never took any cash out. We also paid it down aggressively over the years and were mortgage free 23 years after we started. In retrospect, given that our home has probably increased in value at little over the rate of inflation, I think it was wise. We were never 'house poor" and we had plenty of money to invest in equities, which usually did better over that period.
 
If I followed the no mortgage more than twice your yearly income rule, I sure as $hit wouldn’t be retired already! Did anyone here actually follow that advice?


We did but mostly by coincidence.
1st house in 1990 was just under 2x our household income and 2nd and last house (which we built) was only about 1.5x.
 
Back
Top Bottom