I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
wolf359
Posts: 3207
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2015 8:47 am

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by wolf359 »

Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 3:36 pm
EnjoyIt wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 3:25 pm
I know you realize that 100% success means that you have >$1 when you die.

But let us think about the psychology of success. How do you think you would react if you are retired, the market is down and your portfolio is dwindling. After a few years as it starts to recover another blow comes where equities drop by 50%. You look at your portfolio and you realize that without growth you wont get to SS at current spending levels. That is what happened to the year 2000 retiree who chose to spend at 4%. Turns out after the crash in 2009, equities grew pretty well and the portfolio will likely survive all 30 years. But at that moment in 2012 or 2014 the retiree I think would be scared they may run out of money. I would suspect any rational person may very well start spending significantly less during those times to help preserve their portfolio. I suspect sleepless nights worrying how to survive. To me that is kind of like a portfolio failure.

How do you feel you would react to this type of scenario?

Just to refresh your memory, I am all for early financial independence and buying one's freedom. So I'm not trying to convince you not to retire early. Just looking to see what you consider success and is cutting it so close worth it?
This is such a great point. The 1966-1996 retire survived at just below a 4% SWR, but at age 81ish, in 1981, that retiree would probably have been in some serious dispair.
This is actually a reason that I want to maximize Social Security and why I'm willing to consider a SPIA.

There is research that most people who rely upon the stock market for retirement income will reduce their spending during a market downturn. Most people who rely upon income streams that are not market dependent (such as pensions, annuities, and Social Security) spend a larger proportion of their income stream (that is, they don't feel the need to hedge or worry about it because it is backed by something else.)

I think it's too expensive to use guaranteed income streams for everything, but for fixed essential expenses, it lets me sleep at night.
Topic Author
Patzer
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:56 am

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by Patzer »

wolf359 wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 7:54 pm
Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 3:36 pm
EnjoyIt wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 3:25 pm
I know you realize that 100% success means that you have >$1 when you die.

But let us think about the psychology of success. How do you think you would react if you are retired, the market is down and your portfolio is dwindling. After a few years as it starts to recover another blow comes where equities drop by 50%. You look at your portfolio and you realize that without growth you wont get to SS at current spending levels. That is what happened to the year 2000 retiree who chose to spend at 4%. Turns out after the crash in 2009, equities grew pretty well and the portfolio will likely survive all 30 years. But at that moment in 2012 or 2014 the retiree I think would be scared they may run out of money. I would suspect any rational person may very well start spending significantly less during those times to help preserve their portfolio. I suspect sleepless nights worrying how to survive. To me that is kind of like a portfolio failure.

How do you feel you would react to this type of scenario?

Just to refresh your memory, I am all for early financial independence and buying one's freedom. So I'm not trying to convince you not to retire early. Just looking to see what you consider success and is cutting it so close worth it?
This is such a great point. The 1966-1996 retire survived at just below a 4% SWR, but at age 81ish, in 1981, that retiree would probably have been in some serious dispair.
This is actually a reason that I want to maximize Social Security and why I'm willing to consider a SPIA.

There is research that most people who rely upon the stock market for retirement income will reduce their spending during a market downturn. Most people who rely upon income streams that are not market dependent (such as pensions, annuities, and Social Security) spend a larger proportion of their income stream (that is, they don't feel the need to hedge or worry about it because it is backed by something else.)

I think it's too expensive to use guaranteed income streams for everything, but for fixed essential expenses, it lets me sleep at night.
Some quick quotes on today's SPIA payouts for single males:
Age 60: 6.84%
Age 65: 7.54%
Age 70: 8.52%
Age 75: 10%
Age 80: 12.36%
Age 85: 16.23%
The age 60-70 ones you would definitely have to worry about inflation, but the later you go the less chance that has of mattering.
The 75+ ones are ridiculously good, and almost no brainers, but the question is... is it too late to spend the money and enjoy it to it's maximum value by then.

I have pondered a strategy of buying some percentage of SPIAs at a certain point, and played around with it a lot. I don't know the right answers, as it would depend a lot on rates in the future and how well your portfolio has done, but based at least on today's data, there is a pretty good case for putting at least some money into a SPIA around 60 as a bit of an additional safety net.
As covered in a previous post I view 60-70 as the riskiest/scariest years for an early retirement, so this would be a way to spread some of that risk to later years.

As for social security, I don't think "maxing it" makes sense, because of diminished returns after the second bend, but maxing it to the second bend is a reasonable strategy for many. Not sure it's worth it for me. It would take me 3.5 extra years to hit that and only pay an extra 6.5K/yr at 70+.
User avatar
retireIn2020
Posts: 745
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2020 5:13 pm

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by retireIn2020 »

Patzer wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 8:43 pm As for social security, I don't think "maxing it" makes sense, because of diminished returns after the second bend, but maxing it to the second bend is a reasonable strategy for many. Not sure it's worth it for me. It would take me 3.5 extra years to hit that and only pay an extra 6.5K/yr at 70+.

Maximizing Social Security does make sense! From age 67 to 70 you get an 8% increase in payments each year you delay regardless of bend points or any attempt to confuse SS. That 8% is also inflation protected not only when you start taking it but also each year prior and delayed.

Here's my example of delaying SS which does not include future inflation, so these are "real" dollars. These numbers were provided to me from SS and I'm past the bend points.
62= $2370 mo. or $28,448 yr.
67= $3235 mo. or $38,820 yr.
70= $4079 mo. or $48,949 yr.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abide
thedaybeforetoday
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2022 5:16 am

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by thedaybeforetoday »

Patzer wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 5:03 pm
marcopolo wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 4:34 pm
I agree this has been, and continues to be, a useful discussion.
It is refreshing to see something other than an ever-spiraling lower SWR being duscussed.

I do have a follow-up question. You mentioned in your OP that you have long-term partner who is materially older. Do you live together and share expenses? The budget you put forth is your share of those expenses? Or, do you have completely independent financial lives? If the former, how would your budget change if your partner were to die long before you? I can envision scenarios where your expenses could rise, or fall.
We live together in my house. I don't rely on her financially.
She does rely on me financially, but only for the house, which she is set to inherit in the unlikely event that I die first.

I actually think the biggest risk to my finances is if she dies well ahead of expectations or we split up and I end up meeting someone who's finances are less aligned.
As I sit now, I would not want to fit the bill for someone else's retirement, but I do wonder if an older and perhaps lonelier me might be more open to spending extra money to support a new partner.

Would I work longer now and give up adventures with my current partner to make sure I have extra money for a future partner with undersized savings? That doesn't seem right.
Thanks for posting your situation and bringing up a lower SWR situation and enlightening discussion

Follow up question for clarification:

Above you note that you don't rely on your significant other financially but that she does rely on you financially.
Should we take it that you pay for all housing expenses and she pays none? IE: you don't split the electric bill, cable/internet, insurance, etc...?
Also, do you have any concerns for her financially should you pre-decease your significant other? If so, would you mind sharing that side of your plan?

Thanks for clarifying.
"When I was a kid my parents moved a lot, but I always found them." R. Dangerfield
Topic Author
Patzer
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:56 am

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by Patzer »

retireIn2020 wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 3:42 am
Patzer wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 8:43 pm As for social security, I don't think "maxing it" makes sense, because of diminished returns after the second bend, but maxing it to the second bend is a reasonable strategy for many. Not sure it's worth it for me. It would take me 3.5 extra years to hit that and only pay an extra 6.5K/yr at 70+.

Maximizing Social Security does make sense! From age 67 to 70 you get an 8% increase in payments each year you delay regardless of bend points or any attempt to confuse SS. That 8% is also inflation protected not only when you start taking it but also each year prior and delayed.

Here's my example of delaying SS which does not include future inflation, so these are "real" dollars. These numbers were provided to me from SS and I'm past the bend points.
62= $2370 mo. or $28,448 yr.
67= $3235 mo. or $38,820 yr.
70= $4079 mo. or $48,949 yr.
Yes, I agree completely, I don't plan to take social security until 70.
By maxing, I was replying to another poster that I believe was talking about how many years/dollars you pay into it, not what age to take it.
From that concept, it doesn't make lot of sense to try to get 35 years of peak earnings to get a little bit more, when most of the benefits are before the second bend.
smitcat
Posts: 13300
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:51 am

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by smitcat »

Patzer wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 8:43 pm
wolf359 wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 7:54 pm
Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 3:36 pm
EnjoyIt wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 3:25 pm
I know you realize that 100% success means that you have >$1 when you die.

But let us think about the psychology of success. How do you think you would react if you are retired, the market is down and your portfolio is dwindling. After a few years as it starts to recover another blow comes where equities drop by 50%. You look at your portfolio and you realize that without growth you wont get to SS at current spending levels. That is what happened to the year 2000 retiree who chose to spend at 4%. Turns out after the crash in 2009, equities grew pretty well and the portfolio will likely survive all 30 years. But at that moment in 2012 or 2014 the retiree I think would be scared they may run out of money. I would suspect any rational person may very well start spending significantly less during those times to help preserve their portfolio. I suspect sleepless nights worrying how to survive. To me that is kind of like a portfolio failure.

How do you feel you would react to this type of scenario?

Just to refresh your memory, I am all for early financial independence and buying one's freedom. So I'm not trying to convince you not to retire early. Just looking to see what you consider success and is cutting it so close worth it?
This is such a great point. The 1966-1996 retire survived at just below a 4% SWR, but at age 81ish, in 1981, that retiree would probably have been in some serious dispair.
This is actually a reason that I want to maximize Social Security and why I'm willing to consider a SPIA.

There is research that most people who rely upon the stock market for retirement income will reduce their spending during a market downturn. Most people who rely upon income streams that are not market dependent (such as pensions, annuities, and Social Security) spend a larger proportion of their income stream (that is, they don't feel the need to hedge or worry about it because it is backed by something else.)

I think it's too expensive to use guaranteed income streams for everything, but for fixed essential expenses, it lets me sleep at night.
Some quick quotes on today's SPIA payouts for single males:
Age 60: 6.84%
Age 65: 7.54%
Age 70: 8.52%
Age 75: 10%
Age 80: 12.36%
Age 85: 16.23%
The age 60-70 ones you would definitely have to worry about inflation, but the later you go the less chance that has of mattering.
The 75+ ones are ridiculously good, and almost no brainers, but the question is... is it too late to spend the money and enjoy it to it's maximum value by then.

I have pondered a strategy of buying some percentage of SPIAs at a certain point, and played around with it a lot. I don't know the right answers, as it would depend a lot on rates in the future and how well your portfolio has done, but based at least on today's data, there is a pretty good case for putting at least some money into a SPIA around 60 as a bit of an additional safety net.
As covered in a previous post I view 60-70 as the riskiest/scariest years for an early retirement, so this would be a way to spread some of that risk to later years.

As for social security, I don't think "maxing it" makes sense, because of diminished returns after the second bend, but maxing it to the second bend is a reasonable strategy for many. Not sure it's worth it for me. It would take me 3.5 extra years to hit that and only pay an extra 6.5K/yr at 70+.
"As for social security, I don't think "maxing it" makes sense, because of diminished returns after the second bend, but maxing it to the second bend is a reasonable strategy for many."
This is very accurate.

"Not sure it's worth it for me. It would take me 3.5 extra years to hit that and only pay an extra 6.5K/yr at 70+."
This is not really accurate at all in the big picture, perhaps run some models....
- $6.5K+ at 70
- 3.5 full years not requiring drawdown
- 3.5 years closer to the 70 SS draw
- 3.5 years for portfolio contributions
- 3.5 years for portfolio growth
You will find it makes a huge deal with multiples of expenses after SS and other incomes.
Topic Author
Patzer
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:56 am

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by Patzer »

thedaybeforetoday wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 5:17 am
Patzer wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 5:03 pm
marcopolo wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 4:34 pm
I agree this has been, and continues to be, a useful discussion.
It is refreshing to see something other than an ever-spiraling lower SWR being duscussed.

I do have a follow-up question. You mentioned in your OP that you have long-term partner who is materially older. Do you live together and share expenses? The budget you put forth is your share of those expenses? Or, do you have completely independent financial lives? If the former, how would your budget change if your partner were to die long before you? I can envision scenarios where your expenses could rise, or fall.
We live together in my house. I don't rely on her financially.
She does rely on me financially, but only for the house, which she is set to inherit in the unlikely event that I die first.

I actually think the biggest risk to my finances is if she dies well ahead of expectations or we split up and I end up meeting someone who's finances are less aligned.
As I sit now, I would not want to fit the bill for someone else's retirement, but I do wonder if an older and perhaps lonelier me might be more open to spending extra money to support a new partner.

Would I work longer now and give up adventures with my current partner to make sure I have extra money for a future partner with undersized savings? That doesn't seem right.
Thanks for posting your situation and bringing up a lower SWR situation and enlightening discussion

Follow up question for clarification:

Above you note that you don't rely on your significant other financially but that she does rely on you financially.
Should we take it that you pay for all housing expenses and she pays none? IE: you don't split the electric bill, cable/internet, insurance, etc...?
Also, do you have any concerns for her financially should you pre-decease your significant other? If so, would you mind sharing that side of your plan?

Thanks for clarifying.
My retirement budget assumes she contributes nothing, it's just safer that way. In reality, she does pay about $200 a month towards some shared utilities and streaming services, but since it's not in the budget it doesn't effect my plan if the money stops coming in. I give more than that to her in the form of gifts so it's net neutral.

If I died first, she would need to inherit the house and enough money to bring in an extra 9K/yr to cover my side of shared house expenses. Only 18% of my portfolio would need to have survived for her to have 25X that and with our large age difference if I do die before her my portfolio will be very underspent.

She is also due for some inheritance money that she is not currently counting in her retirement math. The trust isn't being drawn down anymore, because the main beneficiary of it has passed, but there are some time conditions that need to pass before it pays out. So it's basically guaranteed other than investment risk and it's invested a 40% stocks/60% bonds with a 2% Management Fee (uggh!). That would cover about half of her the shortfall if I died before her.
rockstar
Posts: 6326
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:51 pm

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by rockstar »

Patzer wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 8:48 am
thedaybeforetoday wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 5:17 am
Patzer wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 5:03 pm
marcopolo wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 4:34 pm
I agree this has been, and continues to be, a useful discussion.
It is refreshing to see something other than an ever-spiraling lower SWR being duscussed.

I do have a follow-up question. You mentioned in your OP that you have long-term partner who is materially older. Do you live together and share expenses? The budget you put forth is your share of those expenses? Or, do you have completely independent financial lives? If the former, how would your budget change if your partner were to die long before you? I can envision scenarios where your expenses could rise, or fall.
We live together in my house. I don't rely on her financially.
She does rely on me financially, but only for the house, which she is set to inherit in the unlikely event that I die first.

I actually think the biggest risk to my finances is if she dies well ahead of expectations or we split up and I end up meeting someone who's finances are less aligned.
As I sit now, I would not want to fit the bill for someone else's retirement, but I do wonder if an older and perhaps lonelier me might be more open to spending extra money to support a new partner.

Would I work longer now and give up adventures with my current partner to make sure I have extra money for a future partner with undersized savings? That doesn't seem right.
Thanks for posting your situation and bringing up a lower SWR situation and enlightening discussion

Follow up question for clarification:

Above you note that you don't rely on your significant other financially but that she does rely on you financially.
Should we take it that you pay for all housing expenses and she pays none? IE: you don't split the electric bill, cable/internet, insurance, etc...?
Also, do you have any concerns for her financially should you pre-decease your significant other? If so, would you mind sharing that side of your plan?

Thanks for clarifying.
My retirement budget assumes she contributes nothing, it's just safer that way. In reality, she does pay about $200 a month towards some shared utilities and streaming services, but since it's not in the budget it doesn't effect my plan if the money stops coming in. I give more than that to her in the form of gifts so it's net neutral.

If I died first, she would need to inherit the house and enough money to bring in an extra 9K/yr to cover my side of shared house expenses. Only 18% of my portfolio would need to have survived for her to have 25X that and with our large age difference if I do die before her my portfolio will be very underspent.

She is also due for some inheritance money that she is not currently counting in her retirement math. The trust isn't being drawn down anymore, because the main beneficiary of it has passed, but there are some time conditions that need to pass before it pays out. So it's basically guaranteed other than investment risk and it's invested a 40% stocks/60% bonds with a 2% Management Fee (uggh!). That would cover about half of her the shortfall if I died before her.
I’d get married. Makes more sense in early retirement than while you’re working now. It will lower your taxes, allow a smooth housing transition, and also provide survivor benefits, which in this case probably won’t matter. I’d run the math on the tax effects since at your expense rate you could probably get zero capital gains tax on your yearly spend from taxable.
wolf359
Posts: 3207
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2015 8:47 am

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by wolf359 »

Patzer wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 8:18 am
retireIn2020 wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 3:42 am
Patzer wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 8:43 pm As for social security, I don't think "maxing it" makes sense, because of diminished returns after the second bend, but maxing it to the second bend is a reasonable strategy for many. Not sure it's worth it for me. It would take me 3.5 extra years to hit that and only pay an extra 6.5K/yr at 70+.

Maximizing Social Security does make sense! From age 67 to 70 you get an 8% increase in payments each year you delay regardless of bend points or any attempt to confuse SS. That 8% is also inflation protected not only when you start taking it but also each year prior and delayed.

Here's my example of delaying SS which does not include future inflation, so these are "real" dollars. These numbers were provided to me from SS and I'm past the bend points.
62= $2370 mo. or $28,448 yr.
67= $3235 mo. or $38,820 yr.
70= $4079 mo. or $48,949 yr.
Yes, I agree completely, I don't plan to take social security until 70.
By maxing, I was replying to another poster that I believe was talking about how many years/dollars you pay into it, not what age to take it.
From that concept, it doesn't make lot of sense to try to get 35 years of peak earnings to get a little bit more, when most of the benefits are before the second bend.
If you mean our discussion, I was referring to maximizing in terms of delaying claiming age.

SPIAs are longevity insurance, but they're not inflation protected. Social Security is the cheapest SPIA you can obtain, and it IS inflation protected. It makes sense to delay claiming to 70, especially if it has a potential 25% haircut. It is also a contradiction to deliberately pay for a SPIA if you're claiming SS early.

The discussion was about retiring at 46, so I assumed the context wasn't having 35 years of income at peak earnings. What the heck was 11 year old you earning? :happy

Personally, I'm planning on funding the SPIA by simply holding back some of the funds in a traditional IRA. When I get to the age of claiming RMDs, I can use it to fund a QLAC SPIA. The main difference between that and a regular SPIA is that it doesn't count towards RMDs. It is also part of my mitigation strategy for the SS haircut.
EnjoyIt
Posts: 8272
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 7:06 pm

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by EnjoyIt »

Patzer wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 8:48 am
Patzer,
I think you have a very level headed and thought out plan. I think many of us have given you somethings to consider that you did not think about when originating this plan. At the same time this thread gave some here insight into a possible reality of early retirement that they can integrate into their own planning.

From what I understand you are not yet 46 years old and not yet at 23.44x which means you have time to figure things out even further. Your plan may adjust a little once you start getting closer to your goals. I know ours has.

How far are you from your goal?
A time to EVALUATE your jitters: | viewtopic.php?p=1139732#p1139732
Topic Author
Patzer
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:56 am

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by Patzer »

wolf359 wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 10:11 am
Patzer wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 8:18 am
Yes, I agree completely, I don't plan to take social security until 70.
By maxing, I was replying to another poster that I believe was talking about how many years/dollars you pay into it, not what age to take it.
From that concept, it doesn't make lot of sense to try to get 35 years of peak earnings to get a little bit more, when most of the benefits are before the second bend.
If you mean our discussion, I was referring to maximizing in terms of delaying claiming age.

SPIAs are longevity insurance, but they're not inflation protected. Social Security is the cheapest SPIA you can obtain, and it IS inflation protected. It makes sense to delay claiming to 70, especially if it has a potential 25% haircut. It is also a contradiction to deliberately pay for a SPIA if you're claiming SS early.

The discussion was about retiring at 46, so I assumed the context wasn't having 35 years of income at peak earnings. What the heck was 11 year old you earning? :happy

Personally, I'm planning on funding the SPIA by simply holding back some of the funds in a traditional IRA. When I get to the age of claiming RMDs, I can use it to fund a QLAC SPIA. The main difference between that and a regular SPIA is that it doesn't count towards RMDs. It is also part of my mitigation strategy for the SS haircut.
I apologize, I misunderstood you. I thought you were telling me to work until I had 35 years of earnings, which would have been many more years of work, because I don't think I paid any social security on that $10 bucks I got for helping my grandpa with his garden when I was 11. :D

I am 100% on board for waiting until 70 to collect social security.
Topic Author
Patzer
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:56 am

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by Patzer »

EnjoyIt wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 10:20 am
Patzer wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 8:48 am
Patzer,
I think you have a very level headed and thought out plan. I think many of us have given you somethings to consider that you did not think about when originating this plan. At the same time this thread gave some here insight into a possible reality of early retirement that they can integrate into their own planning.

From what I understand you are not yet 46 years old and not yet at 23.44x which means you have time to figure things out even further. Your plan may adjust a little once you start getting closer to your goals. I know ours has.

How far are you from your goal?
Thanks.

I am 4 years and 2 months out from 23.44X based on my current savings rate, a 3% annual raise, and a 3% inflation adjusted portfolio return.
I will probably get an extra .75X on the tail end, from a severance package to stay longer to transition projects, but I wouldn't risk playing that card until I was at my target in case they decided not to offer it.

Things could go better or worse and move the goal posts, but the nice thing about an early retirement target is that even if things go slower than expected, retiring at 47 or 48 is still pretty great.
SunRainSnow
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2020 2:03 pm

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by SunRainSnow »

Patzer wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 4:13 pm
EnjoyIt wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 3:25 pm I know you realize that 100% success means that you have >$1 when you die.

But let us think about the psychology of success. How do you think you would react if you are retired, the market is down and your portfolio is dwindling. After a few years as it starts to recover another blow comes where equities drop by 50%. You look at your portfolio and you realize that without growth you wont get to SS at current spending levels. That is what happened to the year 2000 retiree who chose to spend at 4%. Turns out after the crash in 2009, equities grew pretty well and the portfolio will likely survive all 30 years. But at that moment in 2012 or 2014 the retiree I think would be scared they may run out of money. I would suspect any rational person may very well start spending significantly less during those times to help preserve their portfolio. I suspect sleepless nights worrying how to survive. To me that is kind of like a portfolio failure.

How do you feel you would react to this type of scenario?

Just to refresh your memory, I am all for early financial independence and buying one's freedom. So I'm not trying to convince you not to retire early. Just looking to see what you consider success and is cutting it so close worth it?
It's a reasonable point.
If you remember, the really scary year was 2011 from a purely psychological standpoint, lots of news sources were saying there was going to be another recession and another leg down.

I think my emotional response would be very different by age.

46-50 Won't be scary no matter what happens. My math survives the great depression and I do think I could shrug my shoulders at it, or easily get another job paying near my peak salary if I couldn't.

50-55 Very few scenarios that would make me worry, but if one did, I could still get a job for at least half my current comp in a lower position, and that would still be 6 figures, so that fixes any holes fast. Doubt I would feel much pressure to do anything but ride it out.

55-60 Same as 50-55, but getting a job gets harder; it's a longer search and I might have to spend some time retraining. Starting to feel the pressure, but it's not overwhelming.

60-70 This is the only truly scary phase. I am no longer marketable in my industry. If things were going horribly wrong, I would have to choose between 1) Trusting the math, 2) cutting expenses, and 3) doing some pretty low paying work to make up the difference. I probably cut expenses and have to give up on a few of my dreams. Hopefully, I got most of them done between 46-60, since most of them are very physical and it's just the easy stuff I save for later, like touring the Vatican. It helps a lot that I don't need a lot of money to be happy, so I could probably juice things a little bit with some side gigs if I had to, but it's a pretty low ROI to take on a $15-30/hr job when I could have made $125/hr at my prime and worked a few months longer. I am not blind to this risk, it just doesn't seem extremely high in probability.
Do I take a 100% chance of giving up prime years to work extra, to reduce a 2% chance of feeling fearful later in life? It's a tough question.

70-80 won't be that scary, because I will have social security, a full paid for house, and worst comes to worst, I cut my budget. My mobility is in decline and I am probably okay doing local hikes, playing tennis, and watching Netflix, which can all be done on a budget.

80+ I have will social security and a SPIA, and just not care what the market does as it will be such a small part of the picture.
I've been following this thread while on vacation and now I'm home I've time to reply. I retired last year at 49 with a younger spouse.

I think your plan is solid, you have thought this through and you have flexibility. You have a plan for things if they go bad. If I'd have been single I'd be comfortable in your position given your flexibility. BH typically leans conservative when FIRE is bought up, I was told to keep working when I posted my situation too.

Now you have to ask........how much am I willing to pay/lose for the extra year of freedom from work.

Retried a year ago and loving it, it's truly wonderful, truly.

Good luck and have faith in yourself!

SRS
Kal1981
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2021 11:36 am
Location: Berkeley, CA

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by Kal1981 »

Patzer wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 1:04 pm I may retire as early as 46.
Many would say I have to worry about living 50-60 years, but I don't really need to worry past 80, because at 70 I can take social security and at 80 I can take a reverse mortgage and buy a SPIA with it, which sets me up with income for life as shown below.

My Income needs from age 46 to 100:
Image

From 2014-2021, I spent an average of 22,726 per year.
From 2022 until I retire I gave myself a raise and plan to spend an average of 37K/yr.
In retirement, I plan to spend 48.6K/yr with a surplus of 5.4K/yr (to cover unexpected expenses) for a total of 54K/yr.

Retiring at 46, my social security benefit at 70 will be 35K, which covers 65% of my spending.

At 80, I could get a reverse mortgage, buy a SPIA (Single Premium Immediate Annuity) with the proceeds. That SPIA would pay 14.7K/yr, for a total of 49.7K/yr with Social Security. Most likely, I will still have investments to cover the remaining 4.3K, but even if I don't that won't matter, because I will easily be able to live on 49.7K/yr (Inflation Adjusted).

This is for a modest 234K house. For someone with a more expensive house this would be an even bigger supplemental income.

Below is the combined proceeds from Social Security and a SPIA for me, and 80 is about the point where it starts to make sense, but if my investments are doing well, I could/would delay it further.
Reverse Mortgage/SPIA + Soc Sec at different ages:
70: 43.8K/yr (Too early)
80: 49.7K/yr (About right)
81: 51K/yr
82: 52.3K/yr
83: 53.6K/yr
84: 55K/yr (More than I can spend)

For those of us with moderate spending, who had short careers with strong earnings, which would be the case for many early retirees, it can be quite easy to hedge against longevity with social security and a SPIA derived from earnings a reverse mortgage on our homes in old age.

Even with a simple Asset Allocation of 70% Stocks / 30% 10 year Treasuries, 24.5X worked all the way to age 100 even if you were unlucky enough to retire in Sept 1929, if you had the Social Security and Reverse Mortgage/SPIA amounts that I am referencing.
If your luck was just a bit better and you retired just 3 months earlier or later then 21.5X and 19.4X would have worked.

I will use a more diversified asset allocation that would have survived with 22.4X in Sept 1929 and 19.8X and 17.7X if I retired 3 months earlier or later.
So, even retiring with just 23X at 46, I don't have to worry about how long I live.

----------
About me:
No heirs, no plans to have heirs. Not married, won't get married.
I do have a long-term romantic partner, but her financials are completely separate from mine and she is materially older than me, so no inheritance worries past me being 80.
Uh, have you seen the SSA’s annual report? The trust fund will be depleted by 2033. Whatever you thinking you’re getting at 70, probably should cut it by 25%.
EnjoyIt
Posts: 8272
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 7:06 pm

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by EnjoyIt »

Kal1981 wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 10:59 pm
Patzer wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 1:04 pm I may retire as early as 46.
Many would say I have to worry about living 50-60 years, but I don't really need to worry past 80, because at 70 I can take social security and at 80 I can take a reverse mortgage and buy a SPIA with it, which sets me up with income for life as shown below.

My Income needs from age 46 to 100:
Image

From 2014-2021, I spent an average of 22,726 per year.
From 2022 until I retire I gave myself a raise and plan to spend an average of 37K/yr.
In retirement, I plan to spend 48.6K/yr with a surplus of 5.4K/yr (to cover unexpected expenses) for a total of 54K/yr.

Retiring at 46, my social security benefit at 70 will be 35K, which covers 65% of my spending.

At 80, I could get a reverse mortgage, buy a SPIA (Single Premium Immediate Annuity) with the proceeds. That SPIA would pay 14.7K/yr, for a total of 49.7K/yr with Social Security. Most likely, I will still have investments to cover the remaining 4.3K, but even if I don't that won't matter, because I will easily be able to live on 49.7K/yr (Inflation Adjusted).

This is for a modest 234K house. For someone with a more expensive house this would be an even bigger supplemental income.

Below is the combined proceeds from Social Security and a SPIA for me, and 80 is about the point where it starts to make sense, but if my investments are doing well, I could/would delay it further.
Reverse Mortgage/SPIA + Soc Sec at different ages:
70: 43.8K/yr (Too early)
80: 49.7K/yr (About right)
81: 51K/yr
82: 52.3K/yr
83: 53.6K/yr
84: 55K/yr (More than I can spend)

For those of us with moderate spending, who had short careers with strong earnings, which would be the case for many early retirees, it can be quite easy to hedge against longevity with social security and a SPIA derived from earnings a reverse mortgage on our homes in old age.

Even with a simple Asset Allocation of 70% Stocks / 30% 10 year Treasuries, 24.5X worked all the way to age 100 even if you were unlucky enough to retire in Sept 1929, if you had the Social Security and Reverse Mortgage/SPIA amounts that I am referencing.
If your luck was just a bit better and you retired just 3 months earlier or later then 21.5X and 19.4X would have worked.

I will use a more diversified asset allocation that would have survived with 22.4X in Sept 1929 and 19.8X and 17.7X if I retired 3 months earlier or later.
So, even retiring with just 23X at 46, I don't have to worry about how long I live.

----------
About me:
No heirs, no plans to have heirs. Not married, won't get married.
I do have a long-term romantic partner, but her financials are completely separate from mine and she is materially older than me, so no inheritance worries past me being 80.
Uh, have you seen the SSA’s annual report? The trust fund will be depleted by 2033. Whatever you thinking you’re getting at 70, probably should cut it by 25%.
You don’t think something will be done to rectify this problem? A lot of voting people out there collecting SS. I highly doubt they will be voting for someone who fights against saving it.
A time to EVALUATE your jitters: | viewtopic.php?p=1139732#p1139732
Wannaretireearly
Posts: 4880
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:39 pm

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by Wannaretireearly »

Patzer wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 11:51 am
EnjoyIt wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 10:20 am
Patzer wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 8:48 am
Patzer,
I think you have a very level headed and thought out plan. I think many of us have given you somethings to consider that you did not think about when originating this plan. At the same time this thread gave some here insight into a possible reality of early retirement that they can integrate into their own planning.

From what I understand you are not yet 46 years old and not yet at 23.44x which means you have time to figure things out even further. Your plan may adjust a little once you start getting closer to your goals. I know ours has.

How far are you from your goal?
Thanks.

I am 4 years and 2 months out from 23.44X based on my current savings rate, a 3% annual raise, and a 3% inflation adjusted portfolio return.
I will probably get an extra .75X on the tail end, from a severance package to stay longer to transition projects, but I wouldn't risk playing that card until I was at my target in case they decided not to offer it.

Things could go better or worse and move the goal posts, but the nice thing about an early retirement target is that even if things go slower than expected, retiring at 47 or 48 is still pretty great.
Excellent. Great to have a plan. I’m not too far off from your age, or time left to target (5 years). My target liquid nw is 30X. It will take a lot for me to continue with the grind after that milestone (I think I’m at roughly 22X now). One of the biggest challenges is getting DW on the same page with the plan. A work in progress…

What do you plan to do for the first year or two of retirement?
“At some point you are trading time you will never get back for money you will never spend.“ | “How do you want to spend the best remaining year of your life?“
Wrench
Posts: 1055
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2019 10:21 am

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by Wrench »

EnjoyIt wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 9:35 am
Kal1981 wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 10:59 pm
Patzer wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 1:04 pm I may retire as early as 46.
Many would say I have to worry about living 50-60 years, but I don't really need to worry past 80, because at 70 I can take social security and at 80 I can take a reverse mortgage and buy a SPIA with it, which sets me up with income for life as shown below.

My Income needs from age 46 to 100:
Image

From 2014-2021, I spent an average of 22,726 per year.
From 2022 until I retire I gave myself a raise and plan to spend an average of 37K/yr.
In retirement, I plan to spend 48.6K/yr with a surplus of 5.4K/yr (to cover unexpected expenses) for a total of 54K/yr.

Retiring at 46, my social security benefit at 70 will be 35K, which covers 65% of my spending.

At 80, I could get a reverse mortgage, buy a SPIA (Single Premium Immediate Annuity) with the proceeds. That SPIA would pay 14.7K/yr, for a total of 49.7K/yr with Social Security. Most likely, I will still have investments to cover the remaining 4.3K, but even if I don't that won't matter, because I will easily be able to live on 49.7K/yr (Inflation Adjusted).

This is for a modest 234K house. For someone with a more expensive house this would be an even bigger supplemental income.

Below is the combined proceeds from Social Security and a SPIA for me, and 80 is about the point where it starts to make sense, but if my investments are doing well, I could/would delay it further.
Reverse Mortgage/SPIA + Soc Sec at different ages:
70: 43.8K/yr (Too early)
80: 49.7K/yr (About right)
81: 51K/yr
82: 52.3K/yr
83: 53.6K/yr
84: 55K/yr (More than I can spend)

For those of us with moderate spending, who had short careers with strong earnings, which would be the case for many early retirees, it can be quite easy to hedge against longevity with social security and a SPIA derived from earnings a reverse mortgage on our homes in old age.

Even with a simple Asset Allocation of 70% Stocks / 30% 10 year Treasuries, 24.5X worked all the way to age 100 even if you were unlucky enough to retire in Sept 1929, if you had the Social Security and Reverse Mortgage/SPIA amounts that I am referencing.
If your luck was just a bit better and you retired just 3 months earlier or later then 21.5X and 19.4X would have worked.

I will use a more diversified asset allocation that would have survived with 22.4X in Sept 1929 and 19.8X and 17.7X if I retired 3 months earlier or later.
So, even retiring with just 23X at 46, I don't have to worry about how long I live.

----------
About me:
No heirs, no plans to have heirs. Not married, won't get married.
I do have a long-term romantic partner, but her financials are completely separate from mine and she is materially older than me, so no inheritance worries past me being 80.
Uh, have you seen the SSA’s annual report? The trust fund will be depleted by 2033. Whatever you thinking you’re getting at 70, probably should cut it by 25%.
You don’t think something will be done to rectify this problem? A lot of voting people out there collecting SS. I highly doubt they will be voting for someone who fights against saving it.
We are not allowed in this forum to discuss political topics. But in a completely non-political, factual statement, I quote from the Congressional Research Service Report entitled "Social Security: What Would Happen If the Trust Funds Ran Out?" updated September 28, 2022:
"If a trust fund became depleted and current receipts were insufficient to cover current expenditures, there would be a conflict between two federal laws. Under the Social Security Act, beneficiaries would still be legally entitled to their full scheduled benefits. However, the Antideficiency Act prohibits government spending in excess of available funds, so the Social Security Administration (SSA) would not have legal authority to pay full Social Security benefits on time.
It is unclear what specific actions SSA would take if a trust fund were insolvent. After depletion, the trust funds would continue to receive tax revenues, from which a majority of scheduled benefits could be paid. One option would be to pay full benefits on a delayed schedule; another would be to make timely but reduced payments. Social Security beneficiaries would remain legally entitled to full, timely benefits and could take legal action to claim the balance of their benefits."

Wrench
EnjoyIt
Posts: 8272
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 7:06 pm

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by EnjoyIt »

Wrench wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 10:10 am
EnjoyIt wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 9:35 am
Kal1981 wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 10:59 pm
Patzer wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 1:04 pm I may retire as early as 46.
Many would say I have to worry about living 50-60 years, but I don't really need to worry past 80, because at 70 I can take social security and at 80 I can take a reverse mortgage and buy a SPIA with it, which sets me up with income for life as shown below.

My Income needs from age 46 to 100:
Image

From 2014-2021, I spent an average of 22,726 per year.
From 2022 until I retire I gave myself a raise and plan to spend an average of 37K/yr.
In retirement, I plan to spend 48.6K/yr with a surplus of 5.4K/yr (to cover unexpected expenses) for a total of 54K/yr.

Retiring at 46, my social security benefit at 70 will be 35K, which covers 65% of my spending.

At 80, I could get a reverse mortgage, buy a SPIA (Single Premium Immediate Annuity) with the proceeds. That SPIA would pay 14.7K/yr, for a total of 49.7K/yr with Social Security. Most likely, I will still have investments to cover the remaining 4.3K, but even if I don't that won't matter, because I will easily be able to live on 49.7K/yr (Inflation Adjusted).

This is for a modest 234K house. For someone with a more expensive house this would be an even bigger supplemental income.

Below is the combined proceeds from Social Security and a SPIA for me, and 80 is about the point where it starts to make sense, but if my investments are doing well, I could/would delay it further.
Reverse Mortgage/SPIA + Soc Sec at different ages:
70: 43.8K/yr (Too early)
80: 49.7K/yr (About right)
81: 51K/yr
82: 52.3K/yr
83: 53.6K/yr
84: 55K/yr (More than I can spend)

For those of us with moderate spending, who had short careers with strong earnings, which would be the case for many early retirees, it can be quite easy to hedge against longevity with social security and a SPIA derived from earnings a reverse mortgage on our homes in old age.

Even with a simple Asset Allocation of 70% Stocks / 30% 10 year Treasuries, 24.5X worked all the way to age 100 even if you were unlucky enough to retire in Sept 1929, if you had the Social Security and Reverse Mortgage/SPIA amounts that I am referencing.
If your luck was just a bit better and you retired just 3 months earlier or later then 21.5X and 19.4X would have worked.

I will use a more diversified asset allocation that would have survived with 22.4X in Sept 1929 and 19.8X and 17.7X if I retired 3 months earlier or later.
So, even retiring with just 23X at 46, I don't have to worry about how long I live.

----------
About me:
No heirs, no plans to have heirs. Not married, won't get married.
I do have a long-term romantic partner, but her financials are completely separate from mine and she is materially older than me, so no inheritance worries past me being 80.
Uh, have you seen the SSA’s annual report? The trust fund will be depleted by 2033. Whatever you thinking you’re getting at 70, probably should cut it by 25%.
You don’t think something will be done to rectify this problem? A lot of voting people out there collecting SS. I highly doubt they will be voting for someone who fights against saving it.
We are not allowed in this forum to discuss political topics. But in a completely non-political, factual statement, I quote from the Congressional Research Service Report entitled "Social Security: What Would Happen If the Trust Funds Ran Out?" updated September 28, 2022:
"If a trust fund became depleted and current receipts were insufficient to cover current expenditures, there would be a conflict between two federal laws. Under the Social Security Act, beneficiaries would still be legally entitled to their full scheduled benefits. However, the Antideficiency Act prohibits government spending in excess of available funds, so the Social Security Administration (SSA) would not have legal authority to pay full Social Security benefits on time.
It is unclear what specific actions SSA would take if a trust fund were insolvent. After depletion, the trust funds would continue to receive tax revenues, from which a majority of scheduled benefits could be paid. One option would be to pay full benefits on a delayed schedule; another would be to make timely but reduced payments. Social Security beneficiaries would remain legally entitled to full, timely benefits and could take legal action to claim the balance of their benefits."

Wrench
Thanks for the explanation above.

I keep seeing fear mongering regarding SS on this forum from people looking for more and more reason to keep working or to have a lower withdrawal rate. SS isn't going anywhere.
A time to EVALUATE your jitters: | viewtopic.php?p=1139732#p1139732
rockstar
Posts: 6326
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:51 pm

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by rockstar »

EnjoyIt wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 10:23 am
Wrench wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 10:10 am
EnjoyIt wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 9:35 am
Kal1981 wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 10:59 pm
Patzer wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 1:04 pm I may retire as early as 46.
Many would say I have to worry about living 50-60 years, but I don't really need to worry past 80, because at 70 I can take social security and at 80 I can take a reverse mortgage and buy a SPIA with it, which sets me up with income for life as shown below.

My Income needs from age 46 to 100:
Image

From 2014-2021, I spent an average of 22,726 per year.
From 2022 until I retire I gave myself a raise and plan to spend an average of 37K/yr.
In retirement, I plan to spend 48.6K/yr with a surplus of 5.4K/yr (to cover unexpected expenses) for a total of 54K/yr.

Retiring at 46, my social security benefit at 70 will be 35K, which covers 65% of my spending.

At 80, I could get a reverse mortgage, buy a SPIA (Single Premium Immediate Annuity) with the proceeds. That SPIA would pay 14.7K/yr, for a total of 49.7K/yr with Social Security. Most likely, I will still have investments to cover the remaining 4.3K, but even if I don't that won't matter, because I will easily be able to live on 49.7K/yr (Inflation Adjusted).

This is for a modest 234K house. For someone with a more expensive house this would be an even bigger supplemental income.

Below is the combined proceeds from Social Security and a SPIA for me, and 80 is about the point where it starts to make sense, but if my investments are doing well, I could/would delay it further.
Reverse Mortgage/SPIA + Soc Sec at different ages:
70: 43.8K/yr (Too early)
80: 49.7K/yr (About right)
81: 51K/yr
82: 52.3K/yr
83: 53.6K/yr
84: 55K/yr (More than I can spend)

For those of us with moderate spending, who had short careers with strong earnings, which would be the case for many early retirees, it can be quite easy to hedge against longevity with social security and a SPIA derived from earnings a reverse mortgage on our homes in old age.

Even with a simple Asset Allocation of 70% Stocks / 30% 10 year Treasuries, 24.5X worked all the way to age 100 even if you were unlucky enough to retire in Sept 1929, if you had the Social Security and Reverse Mortgage/SPIA amounts that I am referencing.
If your luck was just a bit better and you retired just 3 months earlier or later then 21.5X and 19.4X would have worked.

I will use a more diversified asset allocation that would have survived with 22.4X in Sept 1929 and 19.8X and 17.7X if I retired 3 months earlier or later.
So, even retiring with just 23X at 46, I don't have to worry about how long I live.

----------
About me:
No heirs, no plans to have heirs. Not married, won't get married.
I do have a long-term romantic partner, but her financials are completely separate from mine and she is materially older than me, so no inheritance worries past me being 80.
Uh, have you seen the SSA’s annual report? The trust fund will be depleted by 2033. Whatever you thinking you’re getting at 70, probably should cut it by 25%.
You don’t think something will be done to rectify this problem? A lot of voting people out there collecting SS. I highly doubt they will be voting for someone who fights against saving it.
We are not allowed in this forum to discuss political topics. But in a completely non-political, factual statement, I quote from the Congressional Research Service Report entitled "Social Security: What Would Happen If the Trust Funds Ran Out?" updated September 28, 2022:
"If a trust fund became depleted and current receipts were insufficient to cover current expenditures, there would be a conflict between two federal laws. Under the Social Security Act, beneficiaries would still be legally entitled to their full scheduled benefits. However, the Antideficiency Act prohibits government spending in excess of available funds, so the Social Security Administration (SSA) would not have legal authority to pay full Social Security benefits on time.
It is unclear what specific actions SSA would take if a trust fund were insolvent. After depletion, the trust funds would continue to receive tax revenues, from which a majority of scheduled benefits could be paid. One option would be to pay full benefits on a delayed schedule; another would be to make timely but reduced payments. Social Security beneficiaries would remain legally entitled to full, timely benefits and could take legal action to claim the balance of their benefits."

Wrench
Thanks for the explanation above.

I keep seeing fear mongering regarding SS on this forum from people looking for more and more reason to keep working or to have a lower withdrawal rate. SS isn't going anywhere.
The bigger risk is ACA going away. It's the only way to bridge medical insurance to Medicare if you retire early. Having it available is an incentive to not work. Thus, it's at risk. The whole idea of employer paid health insurance is why a lot of people keep working even though they have enough to retire.
wadesh
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 10:32 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by wadesh »

I just contacted a home healthcare company to provide care for my 82 YO mother. 24/7 care comes to nearly $6,000 a week. This would completely wipe out her portfolio in 6 months.

I think many younger people completely underestimate the cost of HC, particularly later in life. It's easy to do when you are young and healthy. Definitely go talk to some old people, take a tour around a care facility nearby, and talk to a social worker about costs. It's eye-opening.

I have a solid HSA and sizeable brokerage account but I still worry if it will be enough 20+ years from now.
marcopolo
Posts: 8445
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 9:22 am

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by marcopolo »

rockstar wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 12:46 pm
EnjoyIt wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 10:23 am
Wrench wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 10:10 am
EnjoyIt wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 9:35 am
Kal1981 wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 10:59 pm

Uh, have you seen the SSA’s annual report? The trust fund will be depleted by 2033. Whatever you thinking you’re getting at 70, probably should cut it by 25%.
You don’t think something will be done to rectify this problem? A lot of voting people out there collecting SS. I highly doubt they will be voting for someone who fights against saving it.
We are not allowed in this forum to discuss political topics. But in a completely non-political, factual statement, I quote from the Congressional Research Service Report entitled "Social Security: What Would Happen If the Trust Funds Ran Out?" updated September 28, 2022:
"If a trust fund became depleted and current receipts were insufficient to cover current expenditures, there would be a conflict between two federal laws. Under the Social Security Act, beneficiaries would still be legally entitled to their full scheduled benefits. However, the Antideficiency Act prohibits government spending in excess of available funds, so the Social Security Administration (SSA) would not have legal authority to pay full Social Security benefits on time.
It is unclear what specific actions SSA would take if a trust fund were insolvent. After depletion, the trust funds would continue to receive tax revenues, from which a majority of scheduled benefits could be paid. One option would be to pay full benefits on a delayed schedule; another would be to make timely but reduced payments. Social Security beneficiaries would remain legally entitled to full, timely benefits and could take legal action to claim the balance of their benefits."

Wrench
Thanks for the explanation above.

I keep seeing fear mongering regarding SS on this forum from people looking for more and more reason to keep working or to have a lower withdrawal rate. SS isn't going anywhere.
The bigger risk is ACA going away. It's the only way to bridge medical insurance to Medicare if you retire early. Having it available is an incentive to not work. Thus, it's at risk. The whole idea of employer paid health insurance is why a lot of people keep working even though they have enough to retire.
There is never a shortage of things to worry about.
Life is a constant balancing of various risks.
That is why there will never be complete agreement on what/when it is "safe enough" to retire.

I don't get the sense that the OP is unaware of these risks, but rather they are less risk averse than many on this forum, thus so much push back.
Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
wolf359
Posts: 3207
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2015 8:47 am

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by wolf359 »

EnjoyIt wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 9:35 am
Kal1981 wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 10:59 pm
Patzer wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 1:04 pm I may retire as early as 46.
Many would say I have to worry about living 50-60 years, but I don't really need to worry past 80, because at 70 I can take social security and at 80 I can take a reverse mortgage and buy a SPIA with it, which sets me up with income for life as shown below.

My Income needs from age 46 to 100:
Image

From 2014-2021, I spent an average of 22,726 per year.
From 2022 until I retire I gave myself a raise and plan to spend an average of 37K/yr.
In retirement, I plan to spend 48.6K/yr with a surplus of 5.4K/yr (to cover unexpected expenses) for a total of 54K/yr.

Retiring at 46, my social security benefit at 70 will be 35K, which covers 65% of my spending.

At 80, I could get a reverse mortgage, buy a SPIA (Single Premium Immediate Annuity) with the proceeds. That SPIA would pay 14.7K/yr, for a total of 49.7K/yr with Social Security. Most likely, I will still have investments to cover the remaining 4.3K, but even if I don't that won't matter, because I will easily be able to live on 49.7K/yr (Inflation Adjusted).

This is for a modest 234K house. For someone with a more expensive house this would be an even bigger supplemental income.

Below is the combined proceeds from Social Security and a SPIA for me, and 80 is about the point where it starts to make sense, but if my investments are doing well, I could/would delay it further.
Reverse Mortgage/SPIA + Soc Sec at different ages:
70: 43.8K/yr (Too early)
80: 49.7K/yr (About right)
81: 51K/yr
82: 52.3K/yr
83: 53.6K/yr
84: 55K/yr (More than I can spend)

For those of us with moderate spending, who had short careers with strong earnings, which would be the case for many early retirees, it can be quite easy to hedge against longevity with social security and a SPIA derived from earnings a reverse mortgage on our homes in old age.

Even with a simple Asset Allocation of 70% Stocks / 30% 10 year Treasuries, 24.5X worked all the way to age 100 even if you were unlucky enough to retire in Sept 1929, if you had the Social Security and Reverse Mortgage/SPIA amounts that I am referencing.
If your luck was just a bit better and you retired just 3 months earlier or later then 21.5X and 19.4X would have worked.

I will use a more diversified asset allocation that would have survived with 22.4X in Sept 1929 and 19.8X and 17.7X if I retired 3 months earlier or later.
So, even retiring with just 23X at 46, I don't have to worry about how long I live.

----------
About me:
No heirs, no plans to have heirs. Not married, won't get married.
I do have a long-term romantic partner, but her financials are completely separate from mine and she is materially older than me, so no inheritance worries past me being 80.
Uh, have you seen the SSA’s annual report? The trust fund will be depleted by 2033. Whatever you thinking you’re getting at 70, probably should cut it by 25%.
You don’t think something will be done to rectify this problem? A lot of voting people out there collecting SS. I highly doubt they will be voting for someone who fights against saving it.
To sidestep a discussion on politics, let's just say this -- if all the politicians thought it ought to be fixed, it'd be fixed already. The fact that it isn't is an indication that there's more to the issue than it appears.

The most recent news reduced the time to depletion by a year.

Any current retirement plan should allow for a 25% reduction in Social Security because that's what will happen under current law if the projected shortfall occurs. One should also review the current proposals on both sides of the aisle and be ready for those as well (but there you need to exercise judgement as to what is likely to happen.)
EnjoyIt
Posts: 8272
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 7:06 pm

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by EnjoyIt »

rockstar wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 12:46 pm
EnjoyIt wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 10:23 am
Wrench wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 10:10 am
EnjoyIt wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 9:35 am
Kal1981 wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 10:59 pm

Uh, have you seen the SSA’s annual report? The trust fund will be depleted by 2033. Whatever you thinking you’re getting at 70, probably should cut it by 25%.
You don’t think something will be done to rectify this problem? A lot of voting people out there collecting SS. I highly doubt they will be voting for someone who fights against saving it.
We are not allowed in this forum to discuss political topics. But in a completely non-political, factual statement, I quote from the Congressional Research Service Report entitled "Social Security: What Would Happen If the Trust Funds Ran Out?" updated September 28, 2022:
"If a trust fund became depleted and current receipts were insufficient to cover current expenditures, there would be a conflict between two federal laws. Under the Social Security Act, beneficiaries would still be legally entitled to their full scheduled benefits. However, the Antideficiency Act prohibits government spending in excess of available funds, so the Social Security Administration (SSA) would not have legal authority to pay full Social Security benefits on time.
It is unclear what specific actions SSA would take if a trust fund were insolvent. After depletion, the trust funds would continue to receive tax revenues, from which a majority of scheduled benefits could be paid. One option would be to pay full benefits on a delayed schedule; another would be to make timely but reduced payments. Social Security beneficiaries would remain legally entitled to full, timely benefits and could take legal action to claim the balance of their benefits."

Wrench
Thanks for the explanation above.

I keep seeing fear mongering regarding SS on this forum from people looking for more and more reason to keep working or to have a lower withdrawal rate. SS isn't going anywhere.
The bigger risk is ACA going away. It's the only way to bridge medical insurance to Medicare if you retire early. Having it available is an incentive to not work. Thus, it's at risk. The whole idea of employer paid health insurance is why a lot of people keep working even though they have enough to retire.
On the one hand I wish ACA would go away. Prior to ACA our insurance was A LOT cheaper. We have paid for health insurance out of pocket for years and never received subsidies. So yeah please ACA go away, but leave behind the pre-existing condition clause.
A time to EVALUATE your jitters: | viewtopic.php?p=1139732#p1139732
marcopolo
Posts: 8445
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 9:22 am

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by marcopolo »

EnjoyIt wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 3:39 pm
rockstar wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 12:46 pm
EnjoyIt wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 10:23 am
Wrench wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 10:10 am
EnjoyIt wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 9:35 am

You don’t think something will be done to rectify this problem? A lot of voting people out there collecting SS. I highly doubt they will be voting for someone who fights against saving it.
We are not allowed in this forum to discuss political topics. But in a completely non-political, factual statement, I quote from the Congressional Research Service Report entitled "Social Security: What Would Happen If the Trust Funds Ran Out?" updated September 28, 2022:
"If a trust fund became depleted and current receipts were insufficient to cover current expenditures, there would be a conflict between two federal laws. Under the Social Security Act, beneficiaries would still be legally entitled to their full scheduled benefits. However, the Antideficiency Act prohibits government spending in excess of available funds, so the Social Security Administration (SSA) would not have legal authority to pay full Social Security benefits on time.
It is unclear what specific actions SSA would take if a trust fund were insolvent. After depletion, the trust funds would continue to receive tax revenues, from which a majority of scheduled benefits could be paid. One option would be to pay full benefits on a delayed schedule; another would be to make timely but reduced payments. Social Security beneficiaries would remain legally entitled to full, timely benefits and could take legal action to claim the balance of their benefits."

Wrench
Thanks for the explanation above.

I keep seeing fear mongering regarding SS on this forum from people looking for more and more reason to keep working or to have a lower withdrawal rate. SS isn't going anywhere.
The bigger risk is ACA going away. It's the only way to bridge medical insurance to Medicare if you retire early. Having it available is an incentive to not work. Thus, it's at risk. The whole idea of employer paid health insurance is why a lot of people keep working even though they have enough to retire.
On the one hand I wish ACA would go away. Prior to ACA our insurance was A LOT cheaper. We have paid for health insurance out of pocket for years and never received subsidies. So yeah please ACA go away, but leave behind the pre-existing condition clause.
Surely, you are aware of the problem of adverse selection.
The reason your insurance was A LOT cheaper prior to the ACA is precisely because insurance companies could cherry pick healthy people to insure.
If you left in the pre-existing conditions clause without ensuring mechanisms for wide-scale participation, premiums would sky-rocket.

But, i am sure you already know this. You work in healthcare, if i recall correctly?
Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
EnjoyIt
Posts: 8272
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 7:06 pm

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by EnjoyIt »

marcopolo wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 3:46 pm
EnjoyIt wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 3:39 pm
rockstar wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 12:46 pm
EnjoyIt wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 10:23 am
Wrench wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 10:10 am
We are not allowed in this forum to discuss political topics. But in a completely non-political, factual statement, I quote from the Congressional Research Service Report entitled "Social Security: What Would Happen If the Trust Funds Ran Out?" updated September 28, 2022:
"If a trust fund became depleted and current receipts were insufficient to cover current expenditures, there would be a conflict between two federal laws. Under the Social Security Act, beneficiaries would still be legally entitled to their full scheduled benefits. However, the Antideficiency Act prohibits government spending in excess of available funds, so the Social Security Administration (SSA) would not have legal authority to pay full Social Security benefits on time.
It is unclear what specific actions SSA would take if a trust fund were insolvent. After depletion, the trust funds would continue to receive tax revenues, from which a majority of scheduled benefits could be paid. One option would be to pay full benefits on a delayed schedule; another would be to make timely but reduced payments. Social Security beneficiaries would remain legally entitled to full, timely benefits and could take legal action to claim the balance of their benefits."

Wrench
Thanks for the explanation above.

I keep seeing fear mongering regarding SS on this forum from people looking for more and more reason to keep working or to have a lower withdrawal rate. SS isn't going anywhere.
The bigger risk is ACA going away. It's the only way to bridge medical insurance to Medicare if you retire early. Having it available is an incentive to not work. Thus, it's at risk. The whole idea of employer paid health insurance is why a lot of people keep working even though they have enough to retire.
On the one hand I wish ACA would go away. Prior to ACA our insurance was A LOT cheaper. We have paid for health insurance out of pocket for years and never received subsidies. So yeah please ACA go away, but leave behind the pre-existing condition clause.
Surely, you are aware of the problem of adverse selection.
The reason your insurance was A LOT cheaper prior to the ACA is precisely because insurance companies could cherry pick healthy people to insure.
If you left in the pre-existing conditions clause without ensuring mechanisms for wide-scale participation, premiums would sky-rocket.

But, i am sure you already know this. You work in healthcare, if i recall correctly?
There is a bit more to it than just pre-existing conditions that make it cost so much more compared to pre-ACA.

This isn't politics and its not medical advice, but for some reason I suspect deep discussions into health insurance and how I think it should run in this country where costs are much better contained is probably not allowed here. I will just say that it is in the insurance industry's interest to keep increasing the cost of healthcare delivery. They can only take 20% in profit based on the ACA law. Increasing costs equals increased premiums and 20% of a bigger number is more money for the insurance industry.

Edit to add: The above is just one example of why it costs more. There are others.
A time to EVALUATE your jitters: | viewtopic.php?p=1139732#p1139732
marcopolo
Posts: 8445
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 9:22 am

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by marcopolo »

EnjoyIt wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 4:00 pm
marcopolo wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 3:46 pm
EnjoyIt wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 3:39 pm
rockstar wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 12:46 pm
EnjoyIt wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 10:23 am

Thanks for the explanation above.

I keep seeing fear mongering regarding SS on this forum from people looking for more and more reason to keep working or to have a lower withdrawal rate. SS isn't going anywhere.
The bigger risk is ACA going away. It's the only way to bridge medical insurance to Medicare if you retire early. Having it available is an incentive to not work. Thus, it's at risk. The whole idea of employer paid health insurance is why a lot of people keep working even though they have enough to retire.
On the one hand I wish ACA would go away. Prior to ACA our insurance was A LOT cheaper. We have paid for health insurance out of pocket for years and never received subsidies. So yeah please ACA go away, but leave behind the pre-existing condition clause.
Surely, you are aware of the problem of adverse selection.
The reason your insurance was A LOT cheaper prior to the ACA is precisely because insurance companies could cherry pick healthy people to insure.
If you left in the pre-existing conditions clause without ensuring mechanisms for wide-scale participation, premiums would sky-rocket.

But, i am sure you already know this. You work in healthcare, if i recall correctly?
There is a bit more to it than just pre-existing conditions that make it cost so much more compared to pre-ACA.

This isn't politics and its not medical advice, but for some reason I suspect deep discussions into health insurance and how I think it should run in this country where costs are much better contained is probably not allowed here. I will just say that it is in the insurance industry's interest to keep increasing the cost of healthcare delivery. They can only take 20% in profit based on the ACA law. Increasing costs equals increased premiums and 20% of a bigger number is more money for the insurance industry.
Sure, unless you are ready to do away with for-profit heathcare, that is true through the entire delivery chain, including hospitals, and dare i say the providers themselves.
Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
EnjoyIt
Posts: 8272
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 7:06 pm

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by EnjoyIt »

marcopolo wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 4:06 pm
EnjoyIt wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 4:00 pm
marcopolo wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 3:46 pm
EnjoyIt wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 3:39 pm
rockstar wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 12:46 pm

The bigger risk is ACA going away. It's the only way to bridge medical insurance to Medicare if you retire early. Having it available is an incentive to not work. Thus, it's at risk. The whole idea of employer paid health insurance is why a lot of people keep working even though they have enough to retire.
On the one hand I wish ACA would go away. Prior to ACA our insurance was A LOT cheaper. We have paid for health insurance out of pocket for years and never received subsidies. So yeah please ACA go away, but leave behind the pre-existing condition clause.
Surely, you are aware of the problem of adverse selection.
The reason your insurance was A LOT cheaper prior to the ACA is precisely because insurance companies could cherry pick healthy people to insure.
If you left in the pre-existing conditions clause without ensuring mechanisms for wide-scale participation, premiums would sky-rocket.

But, i am sure you already know this. You work in healthcare, if i recall correctly?
There is a bit more to it than just pre-existing conditions that make it cost so much more compared to pre-ACA.

This isn't politics and its not medical advice, but for some reason I suspect deep discussions into health insurance and how I think it should run in this country where costs are much better contained is probably not allowed here. I will just say that it is in the insurance industry's interest to keep increasing the cost of healthcare delivery. They can only take 20% in profit based on the ACA law. Increasing costs equals increased premiums and 20% of a bigger number is more money for the insurance industry.
Sure, unless you are ready to do away with for-profit heathcare, that is true through the entire delivery chain, including hospitals, and dare i say the providers themselves.
Can we divert this discussion in private messages as it will be off topic to this thread and again, probably not allowed here. I will send you a message with a response.
A time to EVALUATE your jitters: | viewtopic.php?p=1139732#p1139732
Topic Author
Patzer
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:56 am

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by Patzer »

Wannaretireearly wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 10:09 am
Patzer wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 11:51 am
Thanks.

I am 4 years and 2 months out from 23.44X based on my current savings rate, a 3% annual raise, and a 3% inflation adjusted portfolio return.
I will probably get an extra .75X on the tail end, from a severance package to stay longer to transition projects, but I wouldn't risk playing that card until I was at my target in case they decided not to offer it.

Things could go better or worse and move the goal posts, but the nice thing about an early retirement target is that even if things go slower than expected, retiring at 47 or 48 is still pretty great.
Excellent. Great to have a plan. I’m not too far off from your age, or time left to target (5 years). My target liquid nw is 30X. It will take a lot for me to continue with the grind after that milestone (I think I’m at roughly 22X now). One of the biggest challenges is getting DW on the same page with the plan. A work in progress…

What do you plan to do for the first year or two of retirement?
Hiking, travelling, and camping. Especially long road trips.

Learn new skills either online or with local community center classes.

Volunteer cleaning up parks, teaching a class at my community center, and/or giving resume/interview coaching to underserved groups.

Host more board game/poker/dinner nights with friends, since I won't be burnt out from the day as my peers that are still working.

Play more tennis and chess at my local clubs.

And some days... just sleep in until 11AM, grill a burger, and pour myself an ice cold beer on a weekday. :sharebeer
smitcat
Posts: 13300
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:51 am

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by smitcat »

Patzer wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 10:52 pm
Wannaretireearly wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 10:09 am
Patzer wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 11:51 am
Thanks.

I am 4 years and 2 months out from 23.44X based on my current savings rate, a 3% annual raise, and a 3% inflation adjusted portfolio return.
I will probably get an extra .75X on the tail end, from a severance package to stay longer to transition projects, but I wouldn't risk playing that card until I was at my target in case they decided not to offer it.

Things could go better or worse and move the goal posts, but the nice thing about an early retirement target is that even if things go slower than expected, retiring at 47 or 48 is still pretty great.
Excellent. Great to have a plan. I’m not too far off from your age, or time left to target (5 years). My target liquid nw is 30X. It will take a lot for me to continue with the grind after that milestone (I think I’m at roughly 22X now). One of the biggest challenges is getting DW on the same page with the plan. A work in progress…

What do you plan to do for the first year or two of retirement?
Hiking, travelling, and camping. Especially long road trips.

Learn new skills either online or with local community center classes.

Volunteer cleaning up parks, teaching a class at my community center, and/or giving resume/interview coaching to underserved groups.

Host more board game/poker/dinner nights with friends, since I won't be burnt out from the day as my peers that are still working.

Play more tennis and chess at my local clubs.

And some days... just sleep in until 11AM, grill a burger, and pour myself an ice cold beer on a weekday. :sharebeer
"Hiking, travelling, and camping. Especially long road trips.
Learn new skills either online or with local community center classes.
Volunteer cleaning up parks, teaching a class at my community center, and/or giving resume/interview coaching to underserved groups.
Host more board game/poker/dinner nights with friends, since I won't be burnt out from the day as my peers that are still working."

These remain extraordinarily similar to my brother's goals from a dozen years back.
EnjoyIt
Posts: 8272
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 7:06 pm

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by EnjoyIt »

Patzer wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 10:52 pm
Wannaretireearly wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 10:09 am
Patzer wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 11:51 am
Thanks.

I am 4 years and 2 months out from 23.44X based on my current savings rate, a 3% annual raise, and a 3% inflation adjusted portfolio return.
I will probably get an extra .75X on the tail end, from a severance package to stay longer to transition projects, but I wouldn't risk playing that card until I was at my target in case they decided not to offer it.

Things could go better or worse and move the goal posts, but the nice thing about an early retirement target is that even if things go slower than expected, retiring at 47 or 48 is still pretty great.
Excellent. Great to have a plan. I’m not too far off from your age, or time left to target (5 years). My target liquid nw is 30X. It will take a lot for me to continue with the grind after that milestone (I think I’m at roughly 22X now). One of the biggest challenges is getting DW on the same page with the plan. A work in progress…

What do you plan to do for the first year or two of retirement?
Hiking, travelling, and camping. Especially long road trips.

Learn new skills either online or with local community center classes.

Volunteer cleaning up parks, teaching a class at my community center, and/or giving resume/interview coaching to underserved groups.

Host more board game/poker/dinner nights with friends, since I won't be burnt out from the day as my peers that are still working.

Play more tennis and chess at my local clubs.

And some days... just sleep in until 11AM, grill a burger, and pour myself an ice cold beer on a weekday. :sharebeer
I have to tell you. Being off on a Tuesday when everyone is at work is magical. I love being off on weekdays.
A time to EVALUATE your jitters: | viewtopic.php?p=1139732#p1139732
rockstar
Posts: 6326
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:51 pm

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by rockstar »

smitcat wrote: Sun Apr 02, 2023 8:51 am
Patzer wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 10:52 pm
Wannaretireearly wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 10:09 am
Patzer wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 11:51 am
Thanks.

I am 4 years and 2 months out from 23.44X based on my current savings rate, a 3% annual raise, and a 3% inflation adjusted portfolio return.
I will probably get an extra .75X on the tail end, from a severance package to stay longer to transition projects, but I wouldn't risk playing that card until I was at my target in case they decided not to offer it.

Things could go better or worse and move the goal posts, but the nice thing about an early retirement target is that even if things go slower than expected, retiring at 47 or 48 is still pretty great.
Excellent. Great to have a plan. I’m not too far off from your age, or time left to target (5 years). My target liquid nw is 30X. It will take a lot for me to continue with the grind after that milestone (I think I’m at roughly 22X now). One of the biggest challenges is getting DW on the same page with the plan. A work in progress…

What do you plan to do for the first year or two of retirement?
Hiking, travelling, and camping. Especially long road trips.

Learn new skills either online or with local community center classes.

Volunteer cleaning up parks, teaching a class at my community center, and/or giving resume/interview coaching to underserved groups.

Host more board game/poker/dinner nights with friends, since I won't be burnt out from the day as my peers that are still working.

Play more tennis and chess at my local clubs.

And some days... just sleep in until 11AM, grill a burger, and pour myself an ice cold beer on a weekday. :sharebeer
"Hiking, travelling, and camping. Especially long road trips.
Learn new skills either online or with local community center classes.
Volunteer cleaning up parks, teaching a class at my community center, and/or giving resume/interview coaching to underserved groups.
Host more board game/poker/dinner nights with friends, since I won't be burnt out from the day as my peers that are still working."

These remain extraordinarily similar to my brother's goals from a dozen years back.
Weekly Battletech is great. However, after a long day of work, I can tell you that I play much better on the weekend. It's a great game if you haven't played it. A Kickstarter is ongoing for it now.

One of my friends does trail clean up. Check that out.

As for camping, my older friends have switched to cots from pads.
Wannaretireearly
Posts: 4880
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:39 pm

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by Wannaretireearly »

Patzer wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 10:52 pm
Wannaretireearly wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 10:09 am
Patzer wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 11:51 am
Thanks.

I am 4 years and 2 months out from 23.44X based on my current savings rate, a 3% annual raise, and a 3% inflation adjusted portfolio return.
I will probably get an extra .75X on the tail end, from a severance package to stay longer to transition projects, but I wouldn't risk playing that card until I was at my target in case they decided not to offer it.

Things could go better or worse and move the goal posts, but the nice thing about an early retirement target is that even if things go slower than expected, retiring at 47 or 48 is still pretty great.
Excellent. Great to have a plan. I’m not too far off from your age, or time left to target (5 years). My target liquid nw is 30X. It will take a lot for me to continue with the grind after that milestone (I think I’m at roughly 22X now). One of the biggest challenges is getting DW on the same page with the plan. A work in progress…

What do you plan to do for the first year or two of retirement?
Hiking, travelling, and camping. Especially long road trips.

Learn new skills either online or with local community center classes.

Volunteer cleaning up parks, teaching a class at my community center, and/or giving resume/interview coaching to underserved groups.

Host more board game/poker/dinner nights with friends, since I won't be burnt out from the day as my peers that are still working.

Play more tennis and chess at my local clubs.

And some days... just sleep in until 11AM, grill a burger, and pour myself an ice cold beer on a weekday. :sharebeer
Did you write this, or did I ;)

You have described my dreams, perhaps missing some slow travel abroad (starting with Italy, Portugal, Vietnam, Thailand).

Thanks much for sharing. Let’s move from theory to execution :)
“At some point you are trading time you will never get back for money you will never spend.“ | “How do you want to spend the best remaining year of your life?“
marcopolo
Posts: 8445
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 9:22 am

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by marcopolo »

Patzer wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 10:52 pm
Wannaretireearly wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 10:09 am
Patzer wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 11:51 am
Thanks.

I am 4 years and 2 months out from 23.44X based on my current savings rate, a 3% annual raise, and a 3% inflation adjusted portfolio return.
I will probably get an extra .75X on the tail end, from a severance package to stay longer to transition projects, but I wouldn't risk playing that card until I was at my target in case they decided not to offer it.

Things could go better or worse and move the goal posts, but the nice thing about an early retirement target is that even if things go slower than expected, retiring at 47 or 48 is still pretty great.
Excellent. Great to have a plan. I’m not too far off from your age, or time left to target (5 years). My target liquid nw is 30X. It will take a lot for me to continue with the grind after that milestone (I think I’m at roughly 22X now). One of the biggest challenges is getting DW on the same page with the plan. A work in progress…

What do you plan to do for the first year or two of retirement?
Hiking, travelling, and camping. Especially long road trips.

Learn new skills either online or with local community center classes.

Volunteer cleaning up parks, teaching a class at my community center, and/or giving resume/interview coaching to underserved groups.

Host more board game/poker/dinner nights with friends, since I won't be burnt out from the day as my peers that are still working.

Play more tennis and chess at my local clubs.

And some days... just sleep in until 11AM, grill a burger, and pour myself an ice cold beer on a weekday. :sharebeer
Sounds great.
I am having a cold beer on a beach on a Tuesday morning right now. :sharebeer

Now I await all the "your life can't be meaningful without getting paid to do something productive" naysayers....
Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
ncbill
Posts: 2053
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: Western NC

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by ncbill »

Patzer wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 10:52 pm
Wannaretireearly wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 10:09 am
Patzer wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 11:51 am
Thanks.

I am 4 years and 2 months out from 23.44X based on my current savings rate, a 3% annual raise, and a 3% inflation adjusted portfolio return.
I will probably get an extra .75X on the tail end, from a severance package to stay longer to transition projects, but I wouldn't risk playing that card until I was at my target in case they decided not to offer it.

Things could go better or worse and move the goal posts, but the nice thing about an early retirement target is that even if things go slower than expected, retiring at 47 or 48 is still pretty great.
Excellent. Great to have a plan. I’m not too far off from your age, or time left to target (5 years). My target liquid nw is 30X. It will take a lot for me to continue with the grind after that milestone (I think I’m at roughly 22X now). One of the biggest challenges is getting DW on the same page with the plan. A work in progress…

What do you plan to do for the first year or two of retirement?
Hiking, travelling, and camping. Especially long road trips.

Learn new skills either online or with local community center classes.

Volunteer cleaning up parks, teaching a class at my community center, and/or giving resume/interview coaching to underserved groups.

Host more board game/poker/dinner nights with friends, since I won't be burnt out from the day as my peers that are still working.

Play more tennis and chess at my local clubs.

And some days... just sleep in until 11AM, grill a burger, and pour myself an ice cold beer on a weekday. :sharebeer
Go for it, and get your world traveling done before you're too old to do anything but sit in a bus seat & look out the window.

Many posters here mistakenly think they can wait until 70 or later to retire without facing such physical limitations.

I wish I could have retired in my 40s instead of a decade later.
michaelscott
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2022 9:33 pm

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by michaelscott »

I expect that OP, and perhaps some others, have read the book “Die with Zero.” I highly recommend it. The author espouses a similar philosophy that balances $$$ with the utility of those dollars - which diminishes dramatically as we age.
Wannaretireearly
Posts: 4880
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:39 pm

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by Wannaretireearly »

michaelscott wrote: Tue Apr 18, 2023 7:32 pm I expect that OP, and perhaps some others, have read the book “Die with Zero.” I highly recommend it. The author espouses a similar philosophy that balances $$$ with the utility of those dollars - which diminishes dramatically as we age.
+1
“At some point you are trading time you will never get back for money you will never spend.“ | “How do you want to spend the best remaining year of your life?“
Post Reply