POLL - What is your $ amount to be FI according to FIREcalc?

[ikubak]

size 11 men's shoe....not sure what size in women's shoe.

I was surprised at how many need over 2 million to be FI....so many variables. With no mortgage, no debt, simple lifestyle, some defined benefit, I am FI with a good bit less than 1 million.

 

[Alan]

Alan, you're gona wind up in lotsa trouble with all that evil money! Wild women, fast horses, expensive booze........ Next thing you know you'll wake up drunk in the gutter, a floozy by your side and a bottle in your hand with a horse standing over you about to take a d......

Watch yourself.......

You know me well

I didn't start saving for retirement until I was 39 so there is no way I would be in such a good situation without those pensions. I have 3 private pensions and none of those companies now provide DB pension schemes, they are all DC plans.

 

[molly]

This poll really doesn't make much sense without including the following information:

- How much Social Security and/pension income do you have? (You could have asked folks to annuitize the sum and include it in the total). Surely that information greatly effects the investment assets needed.

- At what age are you planning to retire?

 

[nvestysly]

May Not Be Scientific But...

the poll is interesting. I'm surprised by the cumulative number of people that indicate they can manage with something equal or less than one million.

Yes, there are lots of variables not covered in the poll and to a great extent the amount of money (nest egg) depends on the withdrawal rate. Of course the earlier you retire the more money you will likely require.

DW and I don't have any pensions, we pay for our own medical insurance and we choose to live in a city with high taxes. Some of these factors may change with time but for right now we're young and our SWR is planned to be in the 3% range. Consequently, that "pot o' gold" has to be relatively large and last a long time.

 

[haha]

Over $2mm here, and between living in an expensive area, and wanting to retire in my 40's, 2 mil won't give me that lavish of a lifestyle.

I suppose it would depend on one's definition of lavish, but two million won't give a lavish lifestyle anywhere in the developed world. 3% of $2million is $60,000-before taxes. Live it up baby, bubbly every night and a single malt on Friday!

Ha

 

[W2R]

Two million won't give a lavish lifestyle anywhere in the developed world. 3% of $2million is $60,000-before taxes. Live it up baby, bubbly every night and a single malt on Friday!

Ha

Depends on what is considered to be lavish, I guess. . And if one has a paid off house and so on.

 

[Hiredgun]

If you're shooting for retirement at around 45 years old (like I am), you probably want to use a withdrawal rate of 3% max (maybe 2% if you're risk averse like me) and who the heck knows what will be around for SS, so I'm not counting it.

If you take 2% WR of even $3,000,000 that's only $60K, not a lifestyle of the rich and famous. And if you have dependents, it's even less swanky. Hey, if we have an unexpected BOOM in the market, I'll move more over to bonds and adjust accordingly upward in my spending.

Then again, not looking for a lavish lifestyle. Just looking forward to an end to stressful work and the ability to choose how to spend our days.

Better to plan for the worst and be surprised.

 

[rescueme]

I was surprised at how many need over 2 million to be FI....so many variables. With no mortgage, no debt, simple lifestyle, some defined benefit, I am FI with a good bit less than 1 million.

It all depends on your current, plus anticipated future needs.

DW/me are certainly outliers in this sense. We not only have to account for ourselves, but also for our (disabled) adult son, expecting him to live 2+ decades after we both pass.

For the personal care he will need (which we provide now), it will be very expensive to replace with a person paid to perform the same duties, several days a week.

Unfortunately, public resources are grossly inadquate to take care of him and his needs (been there, done that over the last decade), so we decided to take the private care route. Before anybody asks, no - we don't have any family members who will take on this "job". Anyway, since we need to account for possibly five decades of care for him (assuming DW/me die tomorrow), we have no idea of who will be around to take on the responsibility. That's why we chose to have "institutions" handle his trust (three different partners - lawyer, investor, and commercial trust management), each with their own documented responsibility, and "separation of duties".

Expensive? Yes, but that's life. Like the Stones song says, "you don't always get what you want, but if you're lucky you get what you need". Luckly, we feel we can cover both his/our financial obligations many years into the future.

Heck, it's only money...

 

[ERD50]

the poll is interesting. I'm surprised by the cumulative number of people that indicate they can manage with something equal or less than one million.

Yes, there are lots of variables not covered in the poll...

That's an understatement!

Let's look at your under $1M comment. At 4%, that's < $40,000/yr. If someone has a $40,000 COLA'd pension/SS combo, they don't need any portfolio ($ZERO), and they would be equivalent.

I fail to see how anything can be learned from the results. It's as if I said:

X + Y = Z

What number did you use for X to make Z > 1?

The answer could be anything, depending on Y. Nothing could be learned from your value of X.


-ERD50

 

[arebelspy]

I hear ya, ERD50. I almost made a post very similar to your first reply in this thread about how this poll can't tell us anything at all, then decided it wasn't worth the effort.

It's gone on for a few pages though, so apparently some people are having fun with it.

Maybe next time we can annuities pensions and count SS. Or just run some FIRECalc simulations.

What, you didn't think this will come up again?

But just replying to let you know that no, you aren't crazy, I had the same thoughts.

 

[ERD50]

I hear ya, ERD50. ...

But just replying to let you know that no, you aren't crazy, I had the same thoughts.

Thanks, but don't assume I'm not crazy

But yes, my thoughts on this topic are not 'crazy'.

-ERD50

 

[Brdofpray]

So, should the question be reframed to, "What percentage of your annual income comes from your portfolio?"

 

[youbet]

So, should the question be reframed to, "What percentage of your annual income comes from your portfolio?"

We've done the FIRE vs SIRE discussion a number of times and it's always interesting. And I think there's been a poll covering the "what percentage of your annual income comes from your portfolio" question but I can't find it. Maybe one of the mods knows where it is.

 

[nvestysly]

So, should the question be reframed to, "What percentage of your annual income comes from your portfolio?"

For DW and me it's 100%.

If SS is still around for us in 12 - 15 years or so that's great although I'm not counting on it.

Yes, the poll is flawed. But most polls are in some way. Nearly every FI situation is different so it's difficult for me to imagine how a poll would cover all the variations. Brdofpray's "reframed" question does make the matter more much more direct.