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.
LaramieWind
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2023 12:24 pm

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

Post by LaramieWind »

I was under the impression that S|S calculations are based on a projected income equivalent to that when the calcs were made. Wouldn't that S/S would be less for OP since he stopped working?
randomguy
Posts: 11295
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:00 am

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

Post by randomguy »

LaramieWind wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 3:59 pm I was under the impression that S|S calculations are based on a projected income equivalent to that when the calcs were made. Wouldn't that S/S would be less for OP since he stopped working?
The SS statement you get in the mail makes that assumption. You can run the numbers with zeros. It tends not to be a huge difference once you are past the second break point.
abracadabra11
Posts: 408
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 2:09 pm

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

Post by abracadabra11 »

I think you did a nice job developing a reasonable plan that pushes against the orthodoxy that 25x/4%SWR is untenable for a long retirement (i.e. 30+ years). There's certainly risk in any retirement (let alone one that may span 50 years), but what you presented shows that it may be more manageable than many think. It should come as no surprise that BHs are generally uncomfortable with this kind of risk. I'm sure we'll see posts referencing 2% SWR somewhere in this thread by the times this is over.

I would probably considering discounting the SS benefit rate if I were going to rely on this approach.
lws
Posts: 831
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 6:12 pm

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

Post by lws »

OP,

Go for it.
Things may work out fine for you.
You will be depending on probability but we do everyday.
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 »

bmelikia wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:25 pm
Patzer wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 1:38 pm
TheTimeLord wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 1:32 pm
Patzer wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 1:04 pm Retiring at 46, my social security benefit at 70 will be 35K, which covers 65% of my spending.
Where are you getting this estimate? I ask because as I remember the standard number provided by SS assumes you will continue working until FRA at your current compensation and you need to use one of the calculators for accurate early retirement estimates.
Good point, but I do have it covered.
Social Security's formula is public and I have gotten all my historical earnings from their website.
I built out a social security calculator in excel and it gives me my Soc Sec numbers at any point in the future.
I have compared my calculated results to other 3rd party calculators and my results seem accurate.
What calculator did you use? Please share

I am entertaining the idea of retiring around age 47. . .but didn't know there are calculators out there that will help estimate social security benefits at retirement if you leave the workforce early
SSA.gov allows you to put in expected future income. For more granular estimates, you can use
https://ssa.tools/
and create any income scenario you want.

Wrench
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 »

exodusNH wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:22 pm
Patzer wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:15 pm
Broken Man 1999 wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:05 pm
Not sure I would hope/plan for a successful retirement based on a prediction of what things would look like 35 years in the future. At age 46, many people are looking at another couple of decades of work for funding retirement.

“It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future,” or so a Danish proverb says.

I wish you well.

Broken Man 1999
I get the heart of your point and you aren't wrong, but if one does not attempt to predict and plan for the future, how could anyone ever retire young, no matter how much or little they had?

We have to accept some rules for how we predict things, and some time horizon we are comfortable with or that conclusion could be abstracted all the way to the point of very unrealistic scenarios that wouldn't allow you to retire even at 70, because you might live to 105, violating the 35 year premise.

So, my question to you is... what data would it take to make you comfortable enough to theoretically retire at 46?
The difference is that between 46 and 70, you're in your prime earning years, expenses are dropping as children fledge and your mortgage is paid off.

Long term, housing tends to only outpace inflation by 1% and can lag many years. (E.g., buying my house in 2005, I am still negative real even after the COVID run up.)

I think you're gravely underestimating health costs. If you develop a condition that needs medication, you could easily spend $1000/mo on meds.
Healthcare costs are really hitting my parents. It really hits their budget.

However, if someone wants to retire early, they have to take risks. You can’t know everything.
dad2000
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:04 pm

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

Post by dad2000 »

IMHO, there are far too many future unknowns to rely on this plan. Also, hiking/climbing is not without risks (and possible medical expenses).

I'm in my 50s and have cut myself down to part time work. I'm an endurance athlete and focused on ultra trail-running for the last 12 months, so not dissimilar to what you do. I found plenty of time to work a 60% schedule while competing in 15 races. And that's with a wife and kids.

Working 5 more years part time will vastly increase your margin for error. I plan on doing that til I'm 60.
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 24, 2023 3:17 pm
Broken Man 1999 wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 3:03 pm Good luck in your endeavor. Over saving is a lot less of a risk than under saving.

Broken Man 1999
Thanks for the thoughtful and personal reply BrokenMan.

My biggest passion is Hiking/Climbing which is fairly cheap compared to most hobbies and I fear that I won't get to do enough of it before my body gives up on me.
It's not that I don't want to work, it's that my body probably won't be able to do what I am most passionate about in my 60s and 70s, so giving up years in my 40s and 50s is very expensive to me from that perspective.

In a perfect world I would quit my job today, hike for a decade and then go back to work, but it took a lot of work to get where I am in my career and I doubt I could replicate that in my 50s with a 10 year gap on my resume.
So the best strategy I can think of is to calculate the minimal relatively safe number to retire with and stop once I reach that.
I hike with some people in their 70s. One still does a rim to rim of the Grand Canyon every year. He has good genes. A couple of the hikers in their 60s have had knee work done. It really depends on how well you’re built.

If you really want to stop working and spend time outdoors and get some money, some National Parks hire short term labor. And you could always try your hand at guiding. Most of these hikers are thru hikers.

Maybe find a good doc to run some tests on you to get an idea of your longevity.
User avatar
9-5 Suited
Posts: 1307
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 12:14 pm

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

Post by 9-5 Suited »

junior wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 1:39 pm So you are projecting social security will pay the same 30 years from now as it would today?

Also I don't understand how you can buy a annuity with a reverse mortgage. The reverse mortgage gives a stream of income not a lump sum of money to buy an annuity.
Lump sum distribution is typically one of the options available on a reverse mortgage, in which case I’m not aware of any restriction against buying an annuity with the proceeds. Not sure if that’s actually a favorable option in OPs case versus just taking the actual monthly payout option on the reverse mortgage, though.
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 »

Broken Man 1999 wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 3:03 pm
Patzer wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:15 pm
Broken Man 1999 wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:05 pm
Not sure I would hope/plan for a successful retirement based on a prediction of what things would look like 35 years in the future. At age 46, many people are looking at another couple of decades of work for funding retirement.

“It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future,” or so a Danish proverb says.

I wish you well.

Broken Man 1999
I get the heart of your point and you aren't wrong, but if one does not attempt to predict and plan for the future, how could anyone ever retire young, no matter how much or little they had?

We have to accept some rules for how we predict things, and some time horizon we are comfortable with or that conclusion could be abstracted all the way to the point of very unrealistic scenarios that wouldn't allow you to retire even at 70, because you might live to 105, violating the 35 year premise.

So, my question to you is... what data would it take to make you comfortable enough to theoretically retire at 46?
Large injection of cash from an inheritance, or certainly more than 30X-40X in retirement savings, hopefully no debt or mortgage. One possible plan for our home is also a reverse mortgage, to help fund long-term care if needed.

I'll be very honest. I became disabled at age 46, but truthfully early retirement never appealed to me. My last year of paid work was 1999; I earned 106,217 according to SS records. I always enjoyed what options money delivered to me and my family. My income provided a very nice standard of living in 1999 for the family, as Florida has no state income tax, and cost of living was very reasonable. Frankly, some early retirement budgets just wouldn't work for me at all, I see an artificially imposed scarcity budget that some revel in as a throwback to the lifestyle that is pretty much familiar when starting our journey in life. Granted, not everything takes a higher income, but I like the lifestyle we were able to enjoy while working, and now as retired.

We paid for three weddings, paid for three undergraduate degrees and two graduate degrees, helped each daughter with a cash gift after they closed on their first home. That was possible because I wasn't interested in a very early retirement.

Now at age 69 I have turned to the four grandchildren and I hope to get them out of wherever they attend college with no debt. I've told the parents I have the cost of attendance covered for a four-year degree at a public university, at the minimum. I could not have made such a commitment (public college route now pretty much funded) if I had retired at 46.

My actual goal for retirement was 55, as my pension would have maxed out after 30 years of service. I started at MegCorp at age 20. So I would have been 55 had I retired with a full pension. As it was I stayed on LTD until age 65, I earned the additional years of service needed for unreduced pension while on LTD, and received my full pension.

Bottom line, the longer I would have worked, the more I could do for my family. And, although I didn't love my work, I didn't hate it either.

Good luck in your endeavor. Over saving is a lot less of a risk than under saving.

Broken Man 1999
OP stated he has no spouse and no kids with no desire for a spouse and kids. OP only financial commitment is the mortgage.
A time to EVALUATE your jitters: | viewtopic.php?p=1139732#p1139732
User avatar
quantAndHold
Posts: 10141
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:39 pm
Location: West Coast

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

Post by quantAndHold »

I think you’re okay, barely. I would be more comfortable if you were doing this on a higher spending amount, because there would be more fat to cut if either the market doesn’t cooperate, inflation is more than expected, or (most likely) medical expenses are more than expected. I’d like to point out that at age 59, I’m suddenly spending about $14k/year on healthcare, after years of perfect health, and I expect that to continue for the rest of my life. Getting cancer does that.

One thing I would point out, though, is that if you’re planning on spending the equity in your house, you’re not actually at 23x. You’re at more like 27x.
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: Fri Mar 24, 2023 5:09 pm
Broken Man 1999 wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 3:03 pm
Patzer wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:15 pm
Broken Man 1999 wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:05 pm
Not sure I would hope/plan for a successful retirement based on a prediction of what things would look like 35 years in the future. At age 46, many people are looking at another couple of decades of work for funding retirement.

“It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future,” or so a Danish proverb says.

I wish you well.

Broken Man 1999
I get the heart of your point and you aren't wrong, but if one does not attempt to predict and plan for the future, how could anyone ever retire young, no matter how much or little they had?

We have to accept some rules for how we predict things, and some time horizon we are comfortable with or that conclusion could be abstracted all the way to the point of very unrealistic scenarios that wouldn't allow you to retire even at 70, because you might live to 105, violating the 35 year premise.

So, my question to you is... what data would it take to make you comfortable enough to theoretically retire at 46?
Large injection of cash from an inheritance, or certainly more than 30X-40X in retirement savings, hopefully no debt or mortgage. One possible plan for our home is also a reverse mortgage, to help fund long-term care if needed.

I'll be very honest. I became disabled at age 46, but truthfully early retirement never appealed to me. My last year of paid work was 1999; I earned 106,217 according to SS records. I always enjoyed what options money delivered to me and my family. My income provided a very nice standard of living in 1999 for the family, as Florida has no state income tax, and cost of living was very reasonable. Frankly, some early retirement budgets just wouldn't work for me at all, I see an artificially imposed scarcity budget that some revel in as a throwback to the lifestyle that is pretty much familiar when starting our journey in life. Granted, not everything takes a higher income, but I like the lifestyle we were able to enjoy while working, and now as retired.

We paid for three weddings, paid for three undergraduate degrees and two graduate degrees, helped each daughter with a cash gift after they closed on their first home. That was possible because I wasn't interested in a very early retirement.

Now at age 69 I have turned to the four grandchildren and I hope to get them out of wherever they attend college with no debt. I've told the parents I have the cost of attendance covered for a four-year degree at a public university, at the minimum. I could not have made such a commitment (public college route now pretty much funded) if I had retired at 46.

My actual goal for retirement was 55, as my pension would have maxed out after 30 years of service. I started at MegCorp at age 20. So I would have been 55 had I retired with a full pension. As it was I stayed on LTD until age 65, I earned the additional years of service needed for unreduced pension while on LTD, and received my full pension.

Bottom line, the longer I would have worked, the more I could do for my family. And, although I didn't love my work, I didn't hate it either.

Good luck in your endeavor. Over saving is a lot less of a risk than under saving.

Broken Man 1999
OP stated he has no spouse and no kids with no desire for a spouse and kids. OP only financial commitment is the mortgage.
The items that will get them is new vehicles, roof, HVAC, and appliances. Stuff doesn’t last forever. I need a new couch and mattress. The couch was refilled about five years ago. It’s pretty much toast now. And the mattress is a little past seven years. These are the items other than medical that don’t really make up usual budgets.
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 »

OP,
The numbers as you described them are sound. You even have a buffer of a few thousand built in.
I personally don't have the intestinal fortitude to completely break free with that math. I need a bit more of a buffer.

I would like to share my experience with you if I may. We are of similar age and I almost retired a few years ago. Instead I decided to go part time and give it a try for a while and here is what I learned:

1) My expenses increased when semi retired. Because I had more free time to do my hobbies I found myself buying better gear. I found myself spending money to learn new skills. I found myself spending money on other hobbies.

2) My passion/hobby is outdoors oriented as well. When we worked full time, my hobby took up a tiny fraction of my time. But once part time, I was out there 2-3 days a week. Eventually, it became less and less exciting to the point where I only go 1-2 times a week. Sometimes I take a week off. My point being. Although you love hiking now, once you do it a whole lot, you will want to find other things to occupy your time. Which refers you back to point 1 above (more money.)

3) All else being equal, more money is better than less money.

To recap, I think your plan is sound as it is written though things may change for you over the years where you may wish you had a bit more spending cash. Personally I would consider finding a way to make money part time and try hiking as much as you could for a year or two. See how that life suites you. You will learn a lot about yourself during that time.

If you do decide to retire soon, or go part time soon, I hope you update this thread over the years and keep us posted on how things are going with your budget and your hobbies.
A time to EVALUATE your jitters: | viewtopic.php?p=1139732#p1139732
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: Fri Mar 24, 2023 5:25 pm
EnjoyIt wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 5:09 pm
Broken Man 1999 wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 3:03 pm
Patzer wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:15 pm
Broken Man 1999 wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:05 pm
Not sure I would hope/plan for a successful retirement based on a prediction of what things would look like 35 years in the future. At age 46, many people are looking at another couple of decades of work for funding retirement.

“It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future,” or so a Danish proverb says.

I wish you well.

Broken Man 1999
I get the heart of your point and you aren't wrong, but if one does not attempt to predict and plan for the future, how could anyone ever retire young, no matter how much or little they had?

We have to accept some rules for how we predict things, and some time horizon we are comfortable with or that conclusion could be abstracted all the way to the point of very unrealistic scenarios that wouldn't allow you to retire even at 70, because you might live to 105, violating the 35 year premise.

So, my question to you is... what data would it take to make you comfortable enough to theoretically retire at 46?
Large injection of cash from an inheritance, or certainly more than 30X-40X in retirement savings, hopefully no debt or mortgage. One possible plan for our home is also a reverse mortgage, to help fund long-term care if needed.

I'll be very honest. I became disabled at age 46, but truthfully early retirement never appealed to me. My last year of paid work was 1999; I earned 106,217 according to SS records. I always enjoyed what options money delivered to me and my family. My income provided a very nice standard of living in 1999 for the family, as Florida has no state income tax, and cost of living was very reasonable. Frankly, some early retirement budgets just wouldn't work for me at all, I see an artificially imposed scarcity budget that some revel in as a throwback to the lifestyle that is pretty much familiar when starting our journey in life. Granted, not everything takes a higher income, but I like the lifestyle we were able to enjoy while working, and now as retired.

We paid for three weddings, paid for three undergraduate degrees and two graduate degrees, helped each daughter with a cash gift after they closed on their first home. That was possible because I wasn't interested in a very early retirement.

Now at age 69 I have turned to the four grandchildren and I hope to get them out of wherever they attend college with no debt. I've told the parents I have the cost of attendance covered for a four-year degree at a public university, at the minimum. I could not have made such a commitment (public college route now pretty much funded) if I had retired at 46.

My actual goal for retirement was 55, as my pension would have maxed out after 30 years of service. I started at MegCorp at age 20. So I would have been 55 had I retired with a full pension. As it was I stayed on LTD until age 65, I earned the additional years of service needed for unreduced pension while on LTD, and received my full pension.

Bottom line, the longer I would have worked, the more I could do for my family. And, although I didn't love my work, I didn't hate it either.

Good luck in your endeavor. Over saving is a lot less of a risk than under saving.

Broken Man 1999
OP stated he has no spouse and no kids with no desire for a spouse and kids. OP only financial commitment is the mortgage.
The items that will get them is new vehicles, roof, HVAC, and appliances. Stuff doesn’t last forever. I need a new couch and mattress. The couch was refilled about five years ago. It’s pretty much toast now. And the mattress is a little past seven years. These are the items other than medical that don’t really make up usual budgets.
Rockstar,
OP wrote:
Patzer wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 1:04 pm
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.
I think that should cover a few couches and appliances over the years. It would suck if on the same day that the HVAC goes down the roof needs replacing, but that means no new roof or HVAC for the next decade (hopefully.)
A time to EVALUATE your jitters: | viewtopic.php?p=1139732#p1139732
frugalor
Posts: 533
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:35 am

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

Post by frugalor »

If you stay single and don't spend too much, I don't see any issues retiring.

You can use ACA for insurance. And the government will provide all kinds of help for "low income" folks.

Just focus on health and do the things you enjoy.
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 »

HomeStretch wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 3:42 pm
Patzer wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 1:04 pm … 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).
If you don’t have any assets remaining at age 80, I don’t believe an insurance company will allow you to buy a SPIA with 100% of your reverse mortgage proceeds. You may be limited to 50%. At least that’s what I recall from when I purchased a SPIA for a parent last year.
Never heard of that...
My calculation was at 80 was a reverse mortgage for 51% of the property value rolled completely into a SPIA, which I believe is correct.

If that wasn't possible, I could just sell the house completely, and get a SPIA with it, then rent.
Last edited by Patzer on Fri Mar 24, 2023 7:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
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 »

randomguy wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 3:28 pm Plenty of places will let you take 2-3 months of unpaid leave. Thats a lot of hiking..... Your options might not be retire or work full time. There might very well be some part time variation that gives you the best of both worlds. I know at 20-30 hours/week, I would probably work til I am 70. At 50-60, retiring at 45 was a lot more appealing.
Broken Man 1999 wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 3:31 pm Perhaps you could work 6 months, and hike 6 months. That could continuously rebuild your savings and still allow you to enjoy hiking.

One of my retirement goals was to hike the Appalachian Trail. I had already hiked some of it with my daughters prior to my accident.

Are you interested in climbing the tallest peaks around the world or just something less demanding/costly but still enjoyable?

Broken Man 1999
Unfortunately, I am in a senior leadership position so even taking more than week or two off is considered problematic.
I do think when I hit my 23X, I may give my employer the option of letting me take some longer breaks and come back or of just leaving.

I could also find another job with less responsibility that paid 30-40% less and have a lot more flexibility on hours, but I am naturally reluctant to get paid less per hour, and take longer to get to retirement goals. Once I am at 23X (or whatever the magic number is) I may be more open to that.

The tallest and most popular peaks tend to be ruined by too many people (at least in my eyes), often the second or third tallest peak in an area is actually the best. Less crowd, less trail damage, more time on your own. There was a mountain last year where I didn't see a single person on the way up and only saw two people starting to come up when I was almost down. Amazing day.
Last edited by Patzer on Fri Mar 24, 2023 7:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Cash is King
Posts: 578
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2017 8:04 am

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

Post by Cash is King »

I like your plan. You may or may not hit some road blocks along your journey, but you can never buy back time. I have no regrets leaving my mega corporation in 2018 prior to my 58th birthday. I'm off to run a half marathon in San Diego on Sunday. Best wishes!
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 »

So if you spend 54K/year in retirement at 23x, that is 1.24M. For a 25 year payout from 46 -> 70, tipsladder.com says you can buy 54K of inflation adjusted income for 1.133M. So at age 70, you will have about $110K left. Assuming you are able to obtain a reverse mortgage and purchase an SPIA as you describe, it looks like it might work. But it is cutting it awfully close. No way I would take that chance myself, but I have a spouse and kids so my risk tolerance is different than yours. If you are willing to live that close to the edge, go for it!

Wrench
User avatar
quantAndHold
Posts: 10141
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:39 pm
Location: West Coast

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

Post by quantAndHold »

The problem with cutting it too close is by the time you find out you don’t have enough, you’re often not in a position to do anything about it. A lot of people *can’t* get a job as a Walmart greeter to make ends meet at age 70, because the illness that has caused their medical expenses to balloon out of control has also made them too disabled to work.

It’s hard to imagine that happening when we’re in your 40’s, but increasingly likely to happen as we mature.
Samosa22
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 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 Samosa22 »

Patzer wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 1:41 pm
LeftCoastIV wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 1:26 pm What are your assumptions on health care expenses?

Have you considered a "downside" scenario in which you live the last 10 years of your life in a memory care facility, or other highly expensive scenario?
No, nor would I.
I don't see any value to working additional healthy years to make my care better in a scenario where I don't even remember yesterday.
I have watched someone go through 3 years of LTC facility care and die and every time anyone in the family visited they asked if they could please just go home.
If my memory is gone, I would consider worse care that shortens my life a kindness, not a punishment.
My Man! Live free, die free!
Diversification is protection against ignorance - WB.
rgs92
Posts: 3436
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:00 pm

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

Post by rgs92 »

The irony is that with your active, healthy lifestyle, you could quite possibly live to well over 100 and be be very fit in in both body and mind way into the future, well past your estimates (and need good income for long, long time).
rab
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:20 pm

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

Post by rab »

An earlier poster mentioned using FIRECalc (firecalc.com), which I often use to obtain ballpark numbers, so I decided to try it for the OP's situation.

Using an annual spend of $54K and a starting portfolio of $1.265M (23.4x) with a 70/30 stock/bond allocation, retiring at age 46 starting in 2024 and living for 55 more years (to age 101), and with $35K per year SS starting in 2048 (age 70), FIRECalc gives a 94.8% success rate (92 out of 97 55-year periods were successful). However, some of the failures were disastrous (-$2.2M ending balance for the worst one), and some of the scenarios fail well before the end of the 55-year period (the earliest failure occurs around age 70). The best case had an ending balance of +$21.8M.

This is without using the reverse mortgage/SPIA, which could be considered a backup plan. However, this backup plan might need to be deployed before age 80 for an early portfolio failure. Of course, there are also always the options of reducing expenses and/or a part-time job to mitigate an early portfolio failure.

FWIW.
Last edited by rab on Sat Mar 25, 2023 8:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Broken Man 1999
Posts: 8626
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:31 am
Location: West coast of Florida, near Champa Bay !

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

Post by Broken Man 1999 »

EnjoyIt wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 5:09 pm
Broken Man 1999 wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 3:03 pm
Patzer wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:15 pm
Broken Man 1999 wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:05 pm
Not sure I would hope/plan for a successful retirement based on a prediction of what things would look like 35 years in the future. At age 46, many people are looking at another couple of decades of work for funding retirement.

“It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future,” or so a Danish proverb says.

I wish you well.

Broken Man 1999
I get the heart of your point and you aren't wrong, but if one does not attempt to predict and plan for the future, how could anyone ever retire young, no matter how much or little they had?

We have to accept some rules for how we predict things, and some time horizon we are comfortable with or that conclusion could be abstracted all the way to the point of very unrealistic scenarios that wouldn't allow you to retire even at 70, because you might live to 105, violating the 35 year premise.

So, my question to you is... what data would it take to make you comfortable enough to theoretically retire at 46?
Large injection of cash from an inheritance, or certainly more than 30X-40X in retirement savings, hopefully no debt or mortgage. One possible plan for our home is also a reverse mortgage, to help fund long-term care if needed.

I'll be very honest. I became disabled at age 46, but truthfully early retirement never appealed to me. My last year of paid work was 1999; I earned 106,217 according to SS records. I always enjoyed what options money delivered to me and my family. My income provided a very nice standard of living in 1999 for the family, as Florida has no state income tax, and cost of living was very reasonable. Frankly, some early retirement budgets just wouldn't work for me at all, I see an artificially imposed scarcity budget that some revel in as a throwback to the lifestyle that is pretty much familiar when starting our journey in life. Granted, not everything takes a higher income, but I like the lifestyle we were able to enjoy while working, and now as retired.

We paid for three weddings, paid for three undergraduate degrees and two graduate degrees, helped each daughter with a cash gift after they closed on their first home. That was possible because I wasn't interested in a very early retirement.

Now at age 69 I have turned to the four grandchildren and I hope to get them out of wherever they attend college with no debt. I've told the parents I have the cost of attendance covered for a four-year degree at a public university, at the minimum. I could not have made such a commitment (public college route now pretty much funded) if I had retired at 46.

My actual goal for retirement was 55, as my pension would have maxed out after 30 years of service. I started at MegCorp at age 20. So I would have been 55 had I retired with a full pension. As it was I stayed on LTD until age 65, I earned the additional years of service needed for unreduced pension while on LTD, and received my full pension.

Bottom line, the longer I would have worked, the more I could do for my family. And, although I didn't love my work, I didn't hate it either.

Good luck in your endeavor. Over saving is a lot less of a risk than under saving.

Broken Man 1999
OP stated he has no spouse and no kids with no desire for a spouse and kids. OP only financial commitment is the mortgage.
Yes, I saw that.
I was responding to his query: "So, my question to you is... what data would it take to make you comfortable enough to theoretically retire at 46?"
“If I cannot drink Bourbon and smoke cigars in Heaven then I shall not go." - Mark Twain
WhyNotUs
Posts: 2610
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 11:38 am

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

Post by WhyNotUs »

People who can keep their cost of living low have more choices and your thesis confirms that. Whether it is early year success or windfall, a person with modest needs can create opportunities.

If you can stay in good health, then even if you are wrong and have modest overhead you can return to the workforce.

My gripe is people leveraging a program set up for the working poor (ACA) to FIRE. You mentioned ethics in one of your posts, that to me would be an ethical problem. The idea of other workers paying taxes to provide my health care so that I can go climbing/hiking would not work for me. YMMV
I own the next hot stock- VTSAX
smitcat
Posts: 13304
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 »

worthit wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 3:21 pm
smitcat wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 1:42 pm
Patzer wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 1:38 pm
TheTimeLord wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 1:32 pm
Patzer wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 1:04 pm Retiring at 46, my social security benefit at 70 will be 35K, which covers 65% of my spending.
Where are you getting this estimate? I ask because as I remember the standard number provided by SS assumes you will continue working until FRA at your current compensation and you need to use one of the calculators for accurate early retirement estimates.
Good point, but I do have it covered.
Social Security's formula is public and I have gotten all my historical earnings from their website.
I built out a social security calculator in excel and it gives me my Soc Sec numbers at any point in the future.
I have compared my calculated results to other 3rd party calculators and my results seem accurate.
Social Security has a calculator on their own site you can use to project out to a specific year and then add zeros after that.
I suggest you do that ....
Can you please provide the link for this particular calculator that allows one to project out the amounts to a specific year?

Thanks.
Sorry , have not used it in years now.
It is on the SS.gov site where they list maybe 4 calculators available for all persons with a description of each one..

Found a link to the calculators at SS.gov....
https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/anypia/index.html
smitcat
Posts: 13304
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: Fri Mar 24, 2023 3:17 pm
Broken Man 1999 wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 3:03 pm Good luck in your endeavor. Over saving is a lot less of a risk than under saving.

Broken Man 1999
Thanks for the thoughtful and personal reply BrokenMan.

My biggest passion is Hiking/Climbing which is fairly cheap compared to most hobbies and I fear that I won't get to do enough of it before my body gives up on me.
It's not that I don't want to work, it's that my body probably won't be able to do what I am most passionate about in my 60s and 70s, so giving up years in my 40s and 50s is very expensive to me from that perspective.

In a perfect world I would quit my job today, hike for a decade and then go back to work, but it took a lot of work to get where I am in my career and I doubt I could replicate that in my 50s with a 10 year gap on my resume.
So the best strategy I can think of is to calculate the minimal relatively safe number to retire with and stop once I reach that.
"My biggest passion is Hiking/Climbing which is fairly cheap compared to most hobbies and I fear that I won't get to do enough of it before my body gives up on me."
That is what you do today at age XX - it is not likely you will be doing that in the same places and the same way in 20 years. It is not likely that you will be interested in pursuing the same hobbies and passions in 20 years. You will grow, you will age, you will learn, you will change - some for the better and maybe a few for the worst.

"In a perfect world I would quit my job today, hike for a decade and then go back to work, but it took a lot of work to get where I am in my career and I doubt I could replicate that in my 50s with a 10 year gap on my resume."
Nothing is perfect but getting close to a perfect life requires balance at all ages.
- do what you want now, do not wait to do what you want, and not save to the extreme.
- do not try and do everything now, and save reasonable funds for tomorrow.

These choices are not like throwing a lever where you either 'work and save', or 'not work and spend".
Balance along the journey is much more fulfilling at any age.
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 »

worthit wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 3:21 pm
smitcat wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 1:42 pm
Patzer wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 1:38 pm
TheTimeLord wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 1:32 pm
Patzer wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 1:04 pm Retiring at 46, my social security benefit at 70 will be 35K, which covers 65% of my spending.
Where are you getting this estimate? I ask because as I remember the standard number provided by SS assumes you will continue working until FRA at your current compensation and you need to use one of the calculators for accurate early retirement estimates.
Good point, but I do have it covered.
Social Security's formula is public and I have gotten all my historical earnings from their website.
I built out a social security calculator in excel and it gives me my Soc Sec numbers at any point in the future.
I have compared my calculated results to other 3rd party calculators and my results seem accurate.
Social Security has a calculator on their own site you can use to project out to a specific year and then add zeros after that.
I suggest you do that ....
Can you please provide the link for this particular calculator that allows one to project out the amounts to a specific year?

Thanks.
SSA.tools is the website you are looking for.
Just cut and paste the data from SSA.gov. The instructions are pretty easy to follow.
A time to EVALUATE your jitters: | viewtopic.php?p=1139732#p1139732
brian91480
Posts: 683
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2021 6:44 pm
Location: Minnesota

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

Post by brian91480 »

This is a refreshing thread, because it makes it seem possible to retire early without having to accumulate a HUGE amount of X... which is the general idea on so many threads on this forum.

The OP has things individualized for him: Not married, older S.O., no heirs, etc.

But this same plan is relatable to all of us, if we individualize things for own specific situation:

1. Do you have a younger S.O.? Add 1-2 X.

2. Do you want to leave money for heirs? Add another 2 - 3 X.

But if we are starting at 23 X with this model... the odds of you needing 35X or more to retire does seem extreme. Especially if it's at the expense of using up your prime years to get there... just so you can sit in your kitchen chair, and look out the window every day because your health is now deteriorated.

So instead of having an opinion of "this post is right!" or "this post is wrong!"... the true answer is:

How can I apply this model for my own situation? If I do this... what number X could I retire young with?

Good post by the author - Patzer. :sharebeer

--- Brian
User avatar
9-5 Suited
Posts: 1307
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 12:14 pm

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

Post by 9-5 Suited »

Wrench wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 7:53 pm So if you spend 54K/year in retirement at 23x, that is 1.24M. For a 25 year payout from 46 -> 70, tipsladder.com says you can buy 54K of inflation adjusted income for 1.133M. So at age 70, you will have about $110K left. Assuming you are able to obtain a reverse mortgage and purchase an SPIA as you describe, it looks like it might work. But it is cutting it awfully close. No way I would take that chance myself, but I have a spouse and kids so my risk tolerance is different than yours. If you are willing to live that close to the edge, go for it!

Wrench
Very good framing, and what that method of calculation will really underscore is value of not bringing income to $0. If instead of thinking about age 46-70 as $0 income years, the OP were able to earn say $1,500 a month doing something enjoyable and part-time, the calculation you ran would be changed significantly.
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 »

9-5 Suited wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 9:58 am
Wrench wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 7:53 pm So if you spend 54K/year in retirement at 23x, that is 1.24M. For a 25 year payout from 46 -> 70, tipsladder.com says you can buy 54K of inflation adjusted income for 1.133M. So at age 70, you will have about $110K left. Assuming you are able to obtain a reverse mortgage and purchase an SPIA as you describe, it looks like it might work. But it is cutting it awfully close. No way I would take that chance myself, but I have a spouse and kids so my risk tolerance is different than yours. If you are willing to live that close to the edge, go for it!

Wrench
Very good framing, and what that method of calculation will really underscore is value of not bringing income to $0. If instead of thinking about age 46-70 as $0 income years, the OP were able to earn say $1,500 a month doing something enjoyable and part-time, the calculation you ran would be changed significantly.
I do wonder regarding all those people who retire early. How many of them make $0 for the rest of their lives? Let us just ignore all those bloggers. I would love to hear from anyone who has retired young if they made any income over the years?

As for making an extra $1,500 a month, it may not be that easy. $1500 a month for someone who retired could be maybe 16 hours of work a week or 2 days a week of work. There are 4.3 weeks in a month. Doing the math, one would have to make (1500 / (16 * 4.3) = $21.8/hr.) I don't think it is that easy to find a job making $21.8/hr unless it is in their field of work and not all types of careers allow for part time employment.
A time to EVALUATE your jitters: | viewtopic.php?p=1139732#p1139732
funxional
Posts: 290
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2022 4:29 pm

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

Post by funxional »

afan wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 3:30 pm Life CAN become more expensive with age. It depends on how much discretionary spending one does while younger. Those who consume large amounts of discretionary spending may find their costs go down as they cut back on travel, for example, as they age. People who already lead less indulgent lives may not have that large discretionary component to cut back. For them, again for example, they never spent much on travel, so there is no savings from cutting back. On the other hand, expenses like assisted living can become mandatory, not discretionary. Same if you have to pay for in-home help or modifications to your house.
I think this is the most important point for the people that want to figure out their minimum 'to retire' number. If you are already minimizing your expenses you are removing any buffer and doing it with the most uncertainty (long retirement age).

In particular, being aware of realistic healthcare expenses as you age is difficult when you are younger, healthier, and getting health insurance from work.

I am working on and close to an early retirement and I have been grilling my parents and aunts/uncles to understand what their actual health insurance costs are and make sure that I'm being realistic about it. I'm also planning a base budget that includes enough discretionary spending to adjust if necessary.
ThankYouJack
Posts: 5704
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:27 pm

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

Post by ThankYouJack »

I think the key phrase for the OP is "I don't have to worry". Other people can worry about what-if financial disasters, but I find threads like this refreshing. At some point the bigger worry should be running out of time.
randomguy wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 3:25 pm
MoonOrb wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:09 pm This relies on a lot of assumptions I wouldn't be comfortable making for such a significant decision because the failure mode of this decision is really unpleasant.
Failure mode here is going to work at McDonalds for 10 years at 56. I will let you decide how unpleasant that is.
I highly doubt the McDonalds part. I've never met a former millionaire who's investments went to near nothing and is forced to work at near minimum wage for 10 years. I read a blog post once about someone FIRE'ing and had to go back to work, but if I recall correctly got a software engineering job -- not a job at McDonalds.
User avatar
9-5 Suited
Posts: 1307
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 12:14 pm

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

Post by 9-5 Suited »

EnjoyIt wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:14 am As for making an extra $1,500 a month, it may not be that easy. $1500 a month for someone who retired could be maybe 16 hours of work a week or 2 days a week of work. There are 4.3 weeks in a month. Doing the math, one would have to make (1500 / (16 * 4.3) = $21.8/hr.) I don't think it is that easy to find a job making $21.8/hr unless it is in their field of work and not all types of careers allow for part time employment.
It is definitely easier for some than others, but I look at those same figures you calculated and don’t think it should be especially hard to do for a lot of people. Depending on your skills and interests, there could be a list hundreds of jobs long with $20/hr potential (or more) and less-than-full-time commitment. But the point would be it has to be something you enjoy around people you enjoy, or else it’s not worth it.
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 Mar 25, 2023 10:14 am
9-5 Suited wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 9:58 am
Wrench wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 7:53 pm So if you spend 54K/year in retirement at 23x, that is 1.24M. For a 25 year payout from 46 -> 70, tipsladder.com says you can buy 54K of inflation adjusted income for 1.133M. So at age 70, you will have about $110K left. Assuming you are able to obtain a reverse mortgage and purchase an SPIA as you describe, it looks like it might work. But it is cutting it awfully close. No way I would take that chance myself, but I have a spouse and kids so my risk tolerance is different than yours. If you are willing to live that close to the edge, go for it!

Wrench
Very good framing, and what that method of calculation will really underscore is value of not bringing income to $0. If instead of thinking about age 46-70 as $0 income years, the OP were able to earn say $1,500 a month doing something enjoyable and part-time, the calculation you ran would be changed significantly.
I do wonder regarding all those people who retire early. How many of them make $0 for the rest of their lives? Let us just ignore all those bloggers. I would love to hear from anyone who has retired young if they made any income over the years?

As for making an extra $1,500 a month, it may not be that easy. $1500 a month for someone who retired could be maybe 16 hours of work a week or 2 days a week of work. There are 4.3 weeks in a month. Doing the math, one would have to make (1500 / (16 * 4.3) = $21.8/hr.) I don't think it is that easy to find a job making $21.8/hr unless it is in their field of work and not all types of careers allow for part time employment.
Not sure what you consider "retired young".
I retired at age 51. Did a few months of light consulting to help my former employer with the transition (part of a very generous exit agreement). That was a little over 5 years ago. Have not had any earned income since then. I have no plans to seek any earned income in the future.

Different people have different perspectives.
if I knew ahead of time I would have to keep working part-time at a low-wage job in order to retire, I would have kept working full-time in a high-paying career until that need was eliminated.

Now, if things go really south, and I am forced to generate some income in the future, that is a different situation, and of course I would do that.
Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
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: Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:14 am
9-5 Suited wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 9:58 am
Wrench wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 7:53 pm So if you spend 54K/year in retirement at 23x, that is 1.24M. For a 25 year payout from 46 -> 70, tipsladder.com says you can buy 54K of inflation adjusted income for 1.133M. So at age 70, you will have about $110K left. Assuming you are able to obtain a reverse mortgage and purchase an SPIA as you describe, it looks like it might work. But it is cutting it awfully close. No way I would take that chance myself, but I have a spouse and kids so my risk tolerance is different than yours. If you are willing to live that close to the edge, go for it!

Wrench
Very good framing, and what that method of calculation will really underscore is value of not bringing income to $0. If instead of thinking about age 46-70 as $0 income years, the OP were able to earn say $1,500 a month doing something enjoyable and part-time, the calculation you ran would be changed significantly.
I do wonder regarding all those people who retire early. How many of them make $0 for the rest of their lives? Let us just ignore all those bloggers. I would love to hear from anyone who has retired young if they made any income over the years?

As for making an extra $1,500 a month, it may not be that easy. $1500 a month for someone who retired could be maybe 16 hours of work a week or 2 days a week of work. There are 4.3 weeks in a month. Doing the math, one would have to make (1500 / (16 * 4.3) = $21.8/hr.) I don't think it is that easy to find a job making $21.8/hr unless it is in their field of work and not all types of careers allow for part time employment.
I am not retired yet, but I am sure I will make some money in retirement, but definitely not 1.5K/month.

Even now, I make $1000-1500 a year on credit card and other signup bonuses and another $1000 from helping friends/neighbors out with stuff.

That's 2-2.5K/yr without even thinking about it.
If I was retired with a lot more free time I suspect more stuff like that would come up and if I needed money I could certainly be more deliberate and pull in another 5K a year, without doing anything I didn't want to do.

The biggest gift of retirement is the choice of how to spend time, so I don't want to have to rely on those extra income sources even though they will exist, because then it's no longer a choice.
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 Mar 25, 2023 11:45 am
EnjoyIt wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:14 am
9-5 Suited wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 9:58 am
Wrench wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 7:53 pm So if you spend 54K/year in retirement at 23x, that is 1.24M. For a 25 year payout from 46 -> 70, tipsladder.com says you can buy 54K of inflation adjusted income for 1.133M. So at age 70, you will have about $110K left. Assuming you are able to obtain a reverse mortgage and purchase an SPIA as you describe, it looks like it might work. But it is cutting it awfully close. No way I would take that chance myself, but I have a spouse and kids so my risk tolerance is different than yours. If you are willing to live that close to the edge, go for it!

Wrench
Very good framing, and what that method of calculation will really underscore is value of not bringing income to $0. If instead of thinking about age 46-70 as $0 income years, the OP were able to earn say $1,500 a month doing something enjoyable and part-time, the calculation you ran would be changed significantly.
I do wonder regarding all those people who retire early. How many of them make $0 for the rest of their lives? Let us just ignore all those bloggers. I would love to hear from anyone who has retired young if they made any income over the years?

As for making an extra $1,500 a month, it may not be that easy. $1500 a month for someone who retired could be maybe 16 hours of work a week or 2 days a week of work. There are 4.3 weeks in a month. Doing the math, one would have to make (1500 / (16 * 4.3) = $21.8/hr.) I don't think it is that easy to find a job making $21.8/hr unless it is in their field of work and not all types of careers allow for part time employment.
Not sure what you consider "retired young".
I retired at age 51. Did a few months of light consulting to help my former employer with the transition (part of a very generous exit agreement). That was a little over 5 years ago. Have not had any earned income since then. I have no plans to seek any earned income in the future.

Different people have different perspectives.
if I knew ahead of time I would have to keep working part-time at a low-wage job in order to retire, I would have kept working full-time in a high-paying career until that need was eliminated.

Now, if things go really south, and I am forced to generate some income in the future, that is a different situation, and of course I would do that.
51 is young cause I'm not that far from you :)

I guess what you really did was semi-retire, helped your former employer for a few years and then fully retired.
I agree I too would not have semi-retired if I knew I had to work making $20/hr for a few years.

The historical math says I could have retired a few years ago, but semi-retiring has been perfect...for now. My hourly rate is well above $20/hr. I can't think of a $20/hr job I would be willing to do, even if it involves a hobby I like. For example, I enjoy skiing but I wouldn't want to work on the mountain. I enjoy biking, but I would not want to work in a bike shop. Lucky for me, my job is scalable. Work as much or as little as I want as long as I can keep doing it well enough.
A time to EVALUATE your jitters: | viewtopic.php?p=1139732#p1139732
smitcat
Posts: 13304
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 »

brian91480 wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 9:42 am This is a refreshing thread, because it makes it seem possible to retire early without having to accumulate a HUGE amount of X... which is the general idea on so many threads on this forum.

The OP has things individualized for him: Not married, older S.O., no heirs, etc.

But this same plan is relatable to all of us, if we individualize things for own specific situation:

1. Do you have a younger S.O.? Add 1-2 X.

2. Do you want to leave money for heirs? Add another 2 - 3 X.

But if we are starting at 23 X with this model... the odds of you needing 35X or more to retire does seem extreme. Especially if it's at the expense of using up your prime years to get there... just so you can sit in your kitchen chair, and look out the window every day because your health is now deteriorated.

So instead of having an opinion of "this post is right!" or "this post is wrong!"... the true answer is:

How can I apply this model for my own situation? If I do this... what number X could I retire young with?

Good post by the author - Patzer. :sharebeer

--- Brian
The general guideline was always 25X after any other incomes such as SS, pensions, P/T work, inheritance, real estate incomes, etc.
That could very well mean that some folks need zero X to retire and/or retire quite early.
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 Mar 25, 2023 12:08 pm
marcopolo wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 11:45 am
EnjoyIt wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:14 am
9-5 Suited wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 9:58 am
Wrench wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 7:53 pm So if you spend 54K/year in retirement at 23x, that is 1.24M. For a 25 year payout from 46 -> 70, tipsladder.com says you can buy 54K of inflation adjusted income for 1.133M. So at age 70, you will have about $110K left. Assuming you are able to obtain a reverse mortgage and purchase an SPIA as you describe, it looks like it might work. But it is cutting it awfully close. No way I would take that chance myself, but I have a spouse and kids so my risk tolerance is different than yours. If you are willing to live that close to the edge, go for it!

Wrench
Very good framing, and what that method of calculation will really underscore is value of not bringing income to $0. If instead of thinking about age 46-70 as $0 income years, the OP were able to earn say $1,500 a month doing something enjoyable and part-time, the calculation you ran would be changed significantly.
I do wonder regarding all those people who retire early. How many of them make $0 for the rest of their lives? Let us just ignore all those bloggers. I would love to hear from anyone who has retired young if they made any income over the years?

As for making an extra $1,500 a month, it may not be that easy. $1500 a month for someone who retired could be maybe 16 hours of work a week or 2 days a week of work. There are 4.3 weeks in a month. Doing the math, one would have to make (1500 / (16 * 4.3) = $21.8/hr.) I don't think it is that easy to find a job making $21.8/hr unless it is in their field of work and not all types of careers allow for part time employment.
Not sure what you consider "retired young".
I retired at age 51. Did a few months of light consulting to help my former employer with the transition (part of a very generous exit agreement). That was a little over 5 years ago. Have not had any earned income since then. I have no plans to seek any earned income in the future.

Different people have different perspectives.
if I knew ahead of time I would have to keep working part-time at a low-wage job in order to retire, I would have kept working full-time in a high-paying career until that need was eliminated.

Now, if things go really south, and I am forced to generate some income in the future, that is a different situation, and of course I would do that.
51 is young cause I'm not that far from you :)

I guess what you really did was semi-retire, helped your former employer for a few years and then fully retired.
I agree I too would not have semi-retired if I knew I had to work making $20/hr for a few years.

The historical math says I could have retired a few years ago, but semi-retiring has been perfect...for now. My hourly rate is well above $20/hr. I can't think of a $20/hr job I would be willing to do, even if it involves a hobby I like. For example, I enjoy skiing but I wouldn't want to work on the mountain. I enjoy biking, but I would not want to work in a bike shop. Lucky for me, my job is scalable. Work as much or as little as I want as long as I can keep doing it well enough.
The semi-retirement was only for a few months, not few years. I probably would not have agreed to a few years.
I agree, the work $20/hr job doing something you like has no appeal to me.
If started doing it for the money, I suspect i would start enjoying those activities a lot less.
Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
brian91480
Posts: 683
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2021 6:44 pm
Location: Minnesota

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

Post by brian91480 »

smitcat wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 12:38 pm
brian91480 wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 9:42 am This is a refreshing thread, because it makes it seem possible to retire early without having to accumulate a HUGE amount of X... which is the general idea on so many threads on this forum.

The OP has things individualized for him: Not married, older S.O., no heirs, etc.

But this same plan is relatable to all of us, if we individualize things for own specific situation:

1. Do you have a younger S.O.? Add 1-2 X.

2. Do you want to leave money for heirs? Add another 2 - 3 X.

But if we are starting at 23 X with this model... the odds of you needing 35X or more to retire does seem extreme. Especially if it's at the expense of using up your prime years to get there... just so you can sit in your kitchen chair, and look out the window every day because your health is now deteriorated.

So instead of having an opinion of "this post is right!" or "this post is wrong!"... the true answer is:

How can I apply this model for my own situation? If I do this... what number X could I retire young with?

Good post by the author - Patzer. :sharebeer

--- Brian
The general guideline was always 25X after any other incomes such as SS, pensions, P/T work, inheritance, real estate incomes, etc.
That could very well mean that some folks need zero X to retire and/or retire quite early.
We must read different posts on this forum. From what I've read for the past few years... a lot of people here would have a heart attack at the thought of retiring early with 25X... let alone 23X.

--- Brian
randomguy
Posts: 11295
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:00 am

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

Post by randomguy »

ThankYouJack wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 11:02 am I think the key phrase for the OP is "I don't have to worry". Other people can worry about what-if financial disasters, but I find threads like this refreshing. At some point the bigger worry should be running out of time.
randomguy wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 3:25 pm
MoonOrb wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:09 pm This relies on a lot of assumptions I wouldn't be comfortable making for such a significant decision because the failure mode of this decision is really unpleasant.
Failure mode here is going to work at McDonalds for 10 years at 56. I will let you decide how unpleasant that is.
I highly doubt the McDonalds part. I've never met a former millionaire who's investments went to near nothing and is forced to work at near minimum wage for 10 years. I read a blog post once about someone FIRE'ing and had to go back to work, but if I recall correctly got a software engineering job -- not a job at McDonalds.
How many people who are 55+, who haven't worked in a decade, have you ever heard of going out and getting a professional level job at remotely the level of pay of their prior one? I don't think that is realistic. It is one thing for a 35 year old to take 3 years off and go get a job again. Especially in a high demand field. Go ask the 55+ programmers how easy it is to get a job. Go ask any professional with a 10 year break (lots of SAHM in this group) who easy it was to get right back where they left off... Some times failure shows up quickly (1929, 2000). Sometimes it creeps up on you (1966 wasn't horrible til 73).
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 »

randomguy wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 11:15 pm
ThankYouJack wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 11:02 am I think the key phrase for the OP is "I don't have to worry". Other people can worry about what-if financial disasters, but I find threads like this refreshing. At some point the bigger worry should be running out of time.
randomguy wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 3:25 pm
MoonOrb wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:09 pm This relies on a lot of assumptions I wouldn't be comfortable making for such a significant decision because the failure mode of this decision is really unpleasant.
Failure mode here is going to work at McDonalds for 10 years at 56. I will let you decide how unpleasant that is.
I highly doubt the McDonalds part. I've never met a former millionaire who's investments went to near nothing and is forced to work at near minimum wage for 10 years. I read a blog post once about someone FIRE'ing and had to go back to work, but if I recall correctly got a software engineering job -- not a job at McDonalds.
How many people who are 55+, who haven't worked in a decade, have you ever heard of going out and getting a professional level job at remotely the level of pay of their prior one? I don't think that is realistic. It is one thing for a 35 year old to take 3 years off and go get a job again. Especially in a high demand field. Go ask the 55+ programmers how easy it is to get a job. Go ask any professional with a 10 year break (lots of SAHM in this group) who easy it was to get right back where they left off... Some times failure shows up quickly (1929, 2000). Sometimes it creeps up on you (1966 wasn't horrible til 73).
For early retirees that presumably had fairly high paying jobs, surely there is room somewhere between "right back where they left off" and working at a McDonald's, no?
Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
User avatar
JoMoney
Posts: 16260
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:31 am

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

Post by JoMoney »

Patzer wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 1:04 pm... but I don't really need to worry past 80, because at 70 I can take social security...
I worry about the Social Security retirement insurance benefits I paid for being as promised when I retire. I don't necessarily want to worry about it, but the people running it say I should be.
"To achieve satisfactory investment results is easier than most people realize; to achieve superior results is harder than it looks." - Benjamin Graham
User avatar
quantAndHold
Posts: 10141
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:39 pm
Location: West Coast

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

Post by quantAndHold »

randomguy wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 11:15 pm
ThankYouJack wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 11:02 am I think the key phrase for the OP is "I don't have to worry". Other people can worry about what-if financial disasters, but I find threads like this refreshing. At some point the bigger worry should be running out of time.
randomguy wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 3:25 pm
MoonOrb wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:09 pm This relies on a lot of assumptions I wouldn't be comfortable making for such a significant decision because the failure mode of this decision is really unpleasant.
Failure mode here is going to work at McDonalds for 10 years at 56. I will let you decide how unpleasant that is.
I highly doubt the McDonalds part. I've never met a former millionaire who's investments went to near nothing and is forced to work at near minimum wage for 10 years. I read a blog post once about someone FIRE'ing and had to go back to work, but if I recall correctly got a software engineering job -- not a job at McDonalds.
How many people who are 55+, who haven't worked in a decade, have you ever heard of going out and getting a professional level job at remotely the level of pay of their prior one? I don't think that is realistic. It is one thing for a 35 year old to take 3 years off and go get a job again. Especially in a high demand field. Go ask the 55+ programmers how easy it is to get a job. Go ask any professional with a 10 year break (lots of SAHM in this group) who easy it was to get right back where they left off... Some times failure shows up quickly (1929, 2000). Sometimes it creeps up on you (1966 wasn't horrible til 73).
I know people who’ve done that. I knew several after 2008, and several more who got offers they couldn’t refuse and decided to go back for a few years. It’s more common than you think in tech. The biggest issue is that as we mature and our health changes, it may not be possible to go back to work for other reasons. I know several people *that* happened to as well.
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 »

exodusNH wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:22 pm
Patzer wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:15 pm
Broken Man 1999 wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:05 pm
Not sure I would hope/plan for a successful retirement based on a prediction of what things would look like 35 years in the future. At age 46, many people are looking at another couple of decades of work for funding retirement.

“It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future,” or so a Danish proverb says.

I wish you well.

Broken Man 1999
I get the heart of your point and you aren't wrong, but if one does not attempt to predict and plan for the future, how could anyone ever retire young, no matter how much or little they had?

We have to accept some rules for how we predict things, and some time horizon we are comfortable with or that conclusion could be abstracted all the way to the point of very unrealistic scenarios that wouldn't allow you to retire even at 70, because you might live to 105, violating the 35 year premise.

So, my question to you is... what data would it take to make you comfortable enough to theoretically retire at 46?
The difference is that between 46 and 70, you're in your prime earning years, expenses are dropping as children fledge and your mortgage is paid off.

Long term, housing tends to only outpace inflation by 1% and can lag many years. (E.g., buying my house in 2005, I am still negative real even after the COVID run up.)

I think you're gravely underestimating health costs. If you develop a condition that needs medication, you could easily spend $1000/mo on meds.
Nah, 46 to 70 are prime golden years. spend them on your bosses grind list or actually own your own time?
(See my signature for some thoughts)

Agree on the healthcare costs…
“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?“
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 »

Quality/healthy Time is the currency here.
Put it in terms of months. Say I’ll live 50 more years, 600 months.

What does the quality (y axis) curve look like? This will be different for everyone and not predictable. Based on family history, in about 150 months time (roughly 12 years, age 60 ish) my health will decline to a point some activities will be very hard to do (long flights, adventurous travel etc). So then the remaining 450 months will be gradually or fast declining quality scale (y axis).

When you quantify life like this, it forces decisions like I need to get X, Y, Z done before my health declines (only true thing for everyone is health will decline and we die). Without quantifying everyone (including myself) gets a false sense of security based on todays state of the world (some kind of bias? Name escapes me…).

So, I have 150 good months - not all will be free, May be working for the next 60 months. 90 remaining. 90 good months to go? Wow, so many things I want to do! I cannot do them back to back ( or would want to). Down to 45 months of actual healthy months where you control 100% of your time? (Not controlled by boss, spouse, family, kids, sick parents etc).

45 months. That scares me. Enough to keep me on a path to start utilizing those months the way I want (I cannot now).

Bottom line: The window is very short where you control your own time 100% AND you are in 100% good health. Doesn’t this scare others? Losing my dad before 60 made this very real for me….
“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?“
dknightd
Posts: 3727
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2018 10:57 am

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

Post by dknightd »

The OP's plan will probably work for them. They say they have 23X, but really they have more than that, since they are explicitly including the value of their home in their retirement spending plan. If the house is worth 6X, they can probably get about 3X from a reverse mortgage. So now they have 26X. And since they will have just bought an annuity with that money, X will also go down (perhaps to near 0 as they project).

I do not include the value of my house in my planned spending, but, I do include it as backup in case one of needs long term care.

I think a big unknown is X. How you define X is not simple! Is X just enough to be comfortable? Or does it include some discretionary spending? Does X allow you to replenish your "emergency fund" ? (as unanticipated costs will no doubt occur.) Or, is X just barely enough to live on . . .
Retired 2019. So far, so good. I want to wake up every morning. But I want to die in my sleep. Just another conundrum. I think the solution might be afternoon naps ;)
Leesbro63
Posts: 10639
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:36 pm

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

Post by Leesbro63 »

The biggest financial plus that the original poster has in his favor is that he isn't married with or without kids. He can be totally flexible and even become a austere miser, if need be, without consequence to anyone else.
User avatar
mrmass
Posts: 1523
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2018 6:35 pm
Location: MA

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

Post by mrmass »

Leesbro63 wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 6:55 am The biggest financial plus that the original poster has in his favor is that he isn't married with or without kids. He can be totally flexible and even become a austere miser, if need be, without consequence to anyone else.
So true. If nobody depends on you you can do whatever you want.
dknightd
Posts: 3727
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2018 10:57 am

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

Post by dknightd »

Wannaretireearly wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 3:57 am Quality/healthy Time is the currency here.

Hard to argue with that.
Wannaretireearly wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 3:57 am ... snip ...

45 months. That scares me. Enough to keep me on a path to start utilizing those months the way I want (I cannot now).
One option would be to start taking longer vacations now. That is what I did in the years leading up to my eventual full retirement. Take all your paid vacation days. Then take additional non-paid vacation days. If your job allows. My last year working I actually worked only 9 months
Wannaretireearly wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 3:57 am
Bottom line: The window is very short where you control your own time 100% AND you are in 100% good health. Doesn’t this scare others? Losing my dad before 60 made this very real for me….
I've pretty much decided I will NEVER control 100% of my time. I consider myself in pretty good health. But not as strong as I was between 20 and 40. Those were perhaps my prime years. And I spent them raising a young family - no regrets. We had many fun adventures together ;)
Retired 2019. So far, so good. I want to wake up every morning. But I want to die in my sleep. Just another conundrum. I think the solution might be afternoon naps ;)
Post Reply