Poll: What is your annual spending?

[Beric01]

The median Mustachian apparently spends 20-30k per person.
...
That's disappointingly high.  :)

I was pretty surprised too. I think people are maybe not all responding as the question asked. Some don't see it's per person. Some may be including mortgage and other loan principal. Some may be including taxes.

Yeah, I think the data in this poll is very suspect.

[arebelspy]

The median Mustachian apparently spends 20-30k per person.
...
That's disappointingly high.  :)

I was pretty surprised too. I think people are maybe not all responding as the question asked. Some don't see it's per person. Some may be including mortgage and other loan principal. Some may be including taxes.

Yeah, I figured some might be putting household, rather than per person, but that just opens up the possibility that a lot of Mustachians are illiterate.  Not much better.  ;)

[Beric01]

The median Mustachian apparently spends 20-30k per person.
...
That's disappointingly high.  :)

I was pretty surprised too. I think people are maybe not all responding as the question asked. Some don't see it's per person. Some may be including mortgage and other loan principal. Some may be including taxes.

Yeah, I figured some might be putting household, rather than per person, but that just opens up the possibility that a lot of Mustachians are illiterate.  Not much better.  ;)

When you look at the 12-16K spike and the 60K+ spike, not reading the original question seems to be the most probable answer. If data like this doesn't fit a nice bell curve (particularly as the lower-end categories are small) there has to be an explanation.

[Ambergris]

I'm single, so household=individual.

My spreadsheet spending for last year (not including income/payroll taxes) was about 21-22k, but that includes mortgage principle, and I'm on a 20 yr. mortgage, so I need to knock 3-4k off that total. So about 18-19k?

[MsRichLife]

The median Mustachian apparently spends 20-30k per person.
...
That's disappointingly high.  :)

I was pretty surprised too. I think people are maybe not all responding as the question asked. Some don't see it's per person. Some may be including mortgage and other loan principal. Some may be including taxes.

We outlay $55K for our household of three at the moment (in disappointingly high territory). Nearly half of that is rent and childcare (and we have REALLY cheap rent for our city). When we're FIRE, our budget will be $35K for the household, so less than $12K per person. One number doesn't really tell much of the story since there are so many variables.

[Emilyngh]

The median Mustachian apparently spends 20-30k per person.
...
That's disappointingly high.  :)

I was pretty surprised too. I think people are maybe not all responding as the question asked. Some don't see it's per person. Some may be including mortgage and other loan principal. Some may be including taxes.

We outlay $55K for our household of three at the moment (in disappointingly high territory). Nearly half of that is rent and childcare (and we have REALLY cheap rent for our city). When we're FIRE, our budget will be $35K for the household, so less than $12K per person. One number doesn't really tell much of the story since there are so many variables.

Ohhh...childcare is a good point that could cause serious differences that I hadn't thought of.   A family with two young children and two working parents can spend $2k a mo in childcare in some areas, adding $24k a year!  This would seriously impact reported spending (eg., ours would almost double from this).   Although, their incomes might more than make up for this spending and still make it very worth it compared to a SAHP.

However, a family with a SAHP could have a much lower spending number, although they may still ultimately save less, but possibly the same need in retirement if they have otherwise similar spending (assuming childcare is no longer in the budget for either).

Similar goes for people living in a high COL to earn more and save more.   They could have much higher spending than someone living rurally, but they may still be able to make enough more to save more, even considering higher rent.   And, if they really move out of such an expensive area before retirement, they might be better off for it.

I guess it just shows that no one number easily can explain our sitch, whether it's our "debt," our spending, our income, our net worth, etc.

[MsRichLife]

I guess it just shows that no one number easily can explain our sitch, whether it's our "debt," our spending, our income, our net worth, etc.

This.

I may appear to spend a lot (and I probably do compared to 'real' mustachians), but our goal is to save at least $100K this year which is equivalent to 3 years worth of post-FIRE budget.

As with all statistics, one needs to be careful regarding their interpretation.

[Spartana]

probably the only true comparison would be in discretionary spending. What do you spend on everything after the needed fixed amount stuff is paid for (like housing, childcare, taxes, insurance, etc...) is paid for? That would leave food, clothing, entertainment, travel, gas for the car, toys, hobbies, and the like.  Probably easier to break it down per person that way too for comparisons purposes.

[Emilyngh]

probably the only true comparison would be in discretionary spending. What do you spend on everything after the needed fixed amount stuff is paid for (like housing, childcare, taxes, insurance, etc...) is paid for? That would leave food, clothing, entertainment, travel, gas for the car, toys, hobbies, and the like.  Probably easier to break it down per person that way too for comparisons purposes.

Ahhhh....except then you're just encouraging people to justify an expensive home (with high property taxes) as not being something important to control in the journey to FI, when it might usually be one of the most important things.   While in *some* cases, higher housing costs might be key to keeping super high paying jobs and thus wind up still being worth the cost, in many (most?) others, people just use big houses as the ultimate consumerist sucka product and would be much better off downsizing. 

Savings on housing might be one of the largest ways people can cut costs over their lifetimes.

[Cecil]

Looks like my wife and I clock in at $30,602 for the last 12 months (Sep 1 '13 - Aug 31 '14),  so I answered $12k-$16k. A rough breakdown of our monthly expenses:

600 Mortgage interest, condo fees, insurance, property tax.
550 Groceries
200 Restaurants + Entertainment
250 Car stuff (mostly gas + insurance)
100 Bus pass
250 Phones + Internet + Electric
150 Travel
150 Buying stuff
150 Clothes + Personal + Misc
100 Gifts + Charity

= $2500/month.

[Spartana]

probably the only true comparison would be in discretionary spending. What do you spend on everything after the needed fixed amount stuff is paid for (like housing, childcare, taxes, insurance, etc...) is paid for? That would leave food, clothing, entertainment, travel, gas for the car, toys, hobbies, and the like.  Probably easier to break it down per person that way too for comparisons purposes.

Ahhhh....except then you're just encouraging people to justify an expensive home (with high property taxes) as not being something important to control in the journey to FI, when it might usually be one of the most important things.   While in *some* cases, higher housing costs might be key to keeping super high paying jobs and thus wind up still being worth the cost, in many (most?) others, people just use big houses as the ultimate consumerist sucka product and would be much better off downsizing. 

Savings on housing might be one of the largest ways people can cut costs over their lifetimes.

That's true but sometimes what you're spending on housing isn't a Mcmansion with high property taxes, just a crappy room in a HCOL area. In any case I was trying to figure a way that we could look at spending habits (not income) to get a better idea of what people spend overall per person for things that aren't related to where they live or how many people share housing. Eliminating housing costs and taxes seem the thing that's most variable. One person may spend $1000/month to rent a 150 sf room in an expensive area and someone else in an inexpensive area spends the same on his McMansion but it houses his spouse and 5 kids, then it's hard to get an idea what overall spending costs are per person in a reasonable way.

[fa]

I answered in the $40k-50k range but that is for a family of 4.  Per person would be $11k.

[TurtleMarkets]

10 people under 8K? Geezzz do you people live in a tent in the woods?

[arebelspy]

10 people under 8K? Geezzz do you people live in a tent in the woods?

Aside from the single people I know that spend less than that, the easy way to hit this is to have multiple people.  I could see a family of 4 spending under 32k fairly easily.

The wife and I barely miss that category, we spent about 18k last year (9k/person).  To get under 8 we'd have to shave a few thousand, which would be easily doable as we have lots of luxuries and don't try to keep spending low.

It all depends on how you have your life set up.

[TurtleMarkets]

10 people under 8K? Geezzz do you people live in a tent in the woods?

Aside from the single people I know that spend less than that, the easy way to hit this is to have multiple people.  I could see a family of 4 spending under 32k fairly easily.

The wife and I barely miss that category, we spent about 18k last year (9k/person).  To get under 8 we'd have to shave a few thousand, which would be easily doable as we have lots of luxuries and don't try to keep spending low.

It all depends on how you have your life set up.

Oh see what you mean. I was calculating household spending for families.  When I was young and single I spent less than 8k.

[10dollarsatatime]

I marked 20-30, but.  That includes debt and mortgage.  When that's all paid off, my spending will actually be about $1000/month.  I'm looking forward to that...

[Gone Fishing]

The median Mustachian apparently spends 20-30k per person.
...
That's disappointingly high.  :)

I was pretty surprised too. I think people are maybe not all responding as the question asked. Some don't see it's per person. Some may be including mortgage and other loan principal. Some may be including taxes.

Yeah, I figured some might be putting household, rather than per person, but that just opens up the possibility that a lot of Mustachians are illiterate.  Not much better.  ;)

Just proves how important design is in getting people to do what you want them to do...

[arebelspy]

The median Mustachian apparently spends 20-30k per person.
...
That's disappointingly high.  :)

I was pretty surprised too. I think people are maybe not all responding as the question asked. Some don't see it's per person. Some may be including mortgage and other loan principal. Some may be including taxes.

Yeah, I figured some might be putting household, rather than per person, but that just opens up the possibility that a lot of Mustachians are illiterate.  Not much better.  ;)

Just proves how important design is in getting people to do what you want them to do...

Exactly.  Two posts above yours someone misread it.  Poll is likely wildly inaccurate, a mix of per person and per household.

[TonyPlush]

Single guy here, no kids. I will end this year having spent about $27,000.

Rent is what's killing me. $980 a month for a 1 bedroom apartment.

My discretionary spending amounts to about $7,000 a year. This includes everything except for rent, utilities, food, and gas. $7,000 really isn't all that mustachian, but still more frugal than almost everyone I know in real life.

[4alpacas]

Are the mustachians with mortgages only considering property taxes and mortgage interest (like Cecil)?  I include my entire mortgage payment in my spending because I don't consider the house as an investment.  I treat my mortgage like I would treat a car payment. 

[TurtleMarkets]

Yep, I was one of the ones too dumb to read the poll HAHAHA

[10dollarsatatime]

Yep, I was one of the ones too dumb to read the poll HAHAHA

Ditto... I've just spent so much time doing the before and after math that I have a hard time not considering the mortgage part of the spending.

[Spartana]

Yep, I was one of the ones too dumb to read the poll HAHAHA

Ditto... I've just spent so much time doing the before and after math that I have a hard time not considering the mortgage part of the spending.

Yeah this dumb blonde missed that too -DOH! My house is paid off so it didn't really matter anyways but at least it would have stopped me from my little "it isn't fair or equal to us singles so you shouldn't count housing costs" rant. Double DOH! But I suppose counting interest, taxes, insurances, etc...  and leaving out the mortgage principal may make renters seem like big spenders compared to homeowners then- especially homeowners who have low rates compared to those single renters who live in HCOL areas and rent 250 sf studio apts.

[forummm]

Yeah this dumb blonde missed that too -DOH! My house is paid off so it didn't really matter anyways but at least it would have stopped me from my little "it isn't fair or equal to us singles so you shouldn't count housing costs" rant. Double DOH! But I suppose counting interest, taxes, insurances, etc...  and leaving out the mortgage principal may make renters seem like big spenders compared to homeowners then- especially homeowners who have low rates compared to those single renters who live in HCOL areas and rent 250 sf studio apts.

The idea with not including mortgage principal is that any principal payment is saving and not spending. If you're a renter, you don't get any of that money back. If you sell your house you generally will get the principal payments back (generally more, sometimes less).

[Dicey]

Okay, I voted, just so I could see the results. As others have pointed out, there are too many variables. For example, my house is paid for, but my property taxes are 10.5k per year. Some people don't pay that much for their whole mortgage including taxes and insurance.

A far more important number is your annual saving, not spending. It's a little bit of a chicken-and-egg thing, but it's what you save that lets you retire early.

[Spartana]

Yeah this dumb blonde missed that too -DOH! My house is paid off so it didn't really matter anyways but at least it would have stopped me from my little "it isn't fair or equal to us singles so you shouldn't count housing costs" rant. Double DOH! But I suppose counting interest, taxes, insurances, etc...  and leaving out the mortgage principal may make renters seem like big spenders compared to homeowners then- especially homeowners who have low rates compared to those single renters who live in HCOL areas and rent 250 sf studio apts.

The idea with not including mortgage principal is that any principal payment is saving and not spending. If you're a renter, you don't get any of that money back. If you sell your house you generally will get the principal payments back (generally more, sometimes less).

OK that makes sense and I understand now. I feel the dumbness slowly  leaving my blondness :-)!

[Spartana]

A far more important number is your annual saving, not spending. 

Unless you are already retired and not saving anymore. In that case spending is more important because, well, if you spend to much you may just have to go back to work again (Horrors!)

[arebelspy]

A far more important number is your annual saving, not spending. 

Unless you are already retired and not saving anymore. In that case spending is more important because, well, if you spend to much you may just have to go back to work again (Horrors!)

And even that isn't the key variable. What if yo put you're saving 100,000/yr.?  Seems good, right?  Should be able to ER?

Not if you're making 2MM and spending 1.9MM. Now your savings rate is only 5%. You won't be ERing anytime soon.

Your savings rate is the ultimate determinant.  Of course it's much easier to have a higher savings rate with a higher income, but that can't really be helped.

Either way, percentages are more informative than absolute numbers if you're looking to compare people in a variety of situations.

[falcondisruptor]

I must admit that I one of those who answered after just reading the title.  I'm glad there was an option to withdraw my original vote!

We have a  toddler who adds very little to our costs right now, so we easily got into the $8-$12 range. 

[Dicey]

A far more important number is your annual saving, not spending. 

Your savings rate is the ultimate determinant.  Of course it's much easier to have a higher savings rate with a higher income, but that can't really be helped.

Either way, percentages are more informative than absolute numbers if you're looking to compare people in a variety of situations.

I agree that percentages are a fine measuring tool, but they don't buy anything. It's the actual dollars that count. In real life, it's the total number of little green soldiers you have, not the percentage you saved that really matters.

When I was a sales rep, my boss and I would have this conversation on a regular basis. Ex. #1. My well-established territory pulls in 2M per year. I work my ass off to attain a 10% increase, adding 200k to the company's coffers, but only get base level bonus. Ex #2. They hire a FNG to grow an underperforming 300k territory. He has a whopping 50% increase, maxes out his bonus and gets named Salesperson of the Year. All he's added to the company's gross sales is 150k.

Now, this job was 100% commission, so I actually pulled in way more dollars regardless of the bonus, but Junior looked like a hero at the annual sales meeting. I had to content myself with my growing behind-the-scenes army.

[CCCA]

Our family of four has spending about $100k/yr so that puts us in the $25k/yr category (which is decidely un-badass).  Part of the reason it is so high is our housing costs, which is around $9K/person/yr, which is as much as some people spend on their entire spending.  This is very high by Mustachian standards, though not so much in our area, since we do live in one of the most expensive housing markets in the country (SF Bay Area).

We also pay nearly $20k/yr in childcare costs, but that should hopefully only last a few more years until both kids are in public school. 

While housing is one of our highest expenses, we have also benefited from a hot market.  We  got a great deal on an undervalued house and bought at a low point in housing costs (in 2010), so we now have almost 60% equity in our house (according to the zillow value), even though we've haven't been actively paying down the mortgage.   We are currently around 40yo and the high housing expense has probably added a few more years of work but we feel it's a decent tradeoff given that we like our house and our town and plan to live here for 40-50 years during our still lengthy retirement.

Partway through our retirement our mortgage payment will go away and kids will finish college so our total costs should go down significantly, but still maybe averaging around $25K/yr per person since we will be jettisoning the two kids. 

[CCCA]

A far more important number is your annual saving, not spending. 

Unless you are already retired and not saving anymore. In that case spending is more important because, well, if you spend to much you may just have to go back to work again (Horrors!)

And even that isn't the key variable. What if yo put you're saving 100,000/yr.?  Seems good, right?  Should be able to ER?

Not if you're making 2MM and spending 1.9MM. Now your savings rate is only 5%. You won't be ERing anytime soon.

Your savings rate is the ultimate determinant.  Of course it's much easier to have a higher savings rate with a higher income, but that can't really be helped.

Either way, percentages are more informative than absolute numbers if you're looking to compare people in a variety of situations.

The only thing I would slightly disagree with you about is that if expenses will change significantly during the next few decades.  If someone is spending much of their budget paying their mortgage as we are (it's over 1/3 of the cost for us), then their current spending may not be indicative of their spending needs during retirement.  The same is true of childcare expenses or any other short- to medium-term expenses that may go away in the future. 

So the key point is that expected future costs and current savings rates are the key to understanding when someone will be able to retire.

[arebelspy]

A far more important number is your annual saving, not spending. 

Unless you are already retired and not saving anymore. In that case spending is more important because, well, if you spend to much you may just have to go back to work again (Horrors!)

And even that isn't the key variable. What if yo put you're saving 100,000/yr.?  Seems good, right?  Should be able to ER?

Not if you're making 2MM and spending 1.9MM. Now your savings rate is only 5%. You won't be ERing anytime soon.

Your savings rate is the ultimate determinant.  Of course it's much easier to have a higher savings rate with a higher income, but that can't really be helped.

Either way, percentages are more informative than absolute numbers if you're looking to compare people in a variety of situations.

The only thing I would slightly disagree with you about is that if expenses will change significantly during the next few decades.  If someone is spending much of their budget paying their mortgage as we are (it's over 1/3 of the cost for us), then their current spending may not be indicative of their spending needs during retirement.  The same is true of childcare expenses or any other short- to medium-term expenses that may go away in the future. 

So the key point is that expected future costs and current savings rates are the key to understanding when someone will be able to retire.

Absolutely. My spending will be 2-3X higher in FIRE.  So the percentage of WHAT matters, for sure.  :)

[fartface]

Biggest expense: $3000 per month in savings/retirement/Roth's/529/brokerage accounts

$2175 for housing, however, $1465 goes towards principal, $175 interest + $535 property taxes & HOA dues.

I have three cell phones for my family: $100/month
Cable and Internet: $100/month
Utilities: $150/month
Insurance: $100/month
Groceries: $550 for a family of five
Gasoline: $250/month
Healthcare: $250/month
Misc: $300/month which includes restaurants/beer/haircuts/clothing/school fees/kids' activities/and other random BS

[Emilyngh]

So the key point is that expected future costs and current savings rates are the key to understanding when someone will be able to retire.

Although, even with this there are exceptions.   Our current savings rate is 25%, but we should be able to retire in 10-15 years.   Just looking at our savings rate, we would not seem as far along to retirement as we are, but b/c of circumstances, we saved more in the past, and probably should be able to save more again in the future (hence the five year range).   

There really is no one number that can be used for everyone.

[geekette]

Some have high property taxes; some, like us, spend 5 figures on health care, so that bumps us up to about $20k pp. 

<insert crying emoticon here>

[Gin1984]

The median Mustachian apparently spends 20-30k per person.
...
That's disappointingly high.  :)

I was pretty surprised too. I think people are maybe not all responding as the question asked. Some don't see it's per person. Some may be including mortgage and other loan principal. Some may be including taxes.

We outlay $55K for our household of three at the moment (in disappointingly high territory). Nearly half of that is rent and childcare (and we have REALLY cheap rent for our city). When we're FIRE, our budget will be $35K for the household, so less than $12K per person. One number doesn't really tell much of the story since there are so many variables.

Ohhh...childcare is a good point that could cause serious differences that I hadn't thought of.   A family with two young children and two working parents can spend $2k a mo in childcare in some areas, adding $24k a year!  This would seriously impact reported spending (eg., ours would almost double from this).   Although, their incomes might more than make up for this spending and still make it very worth it compared to a SAHP.

However, a family with a SAHP could have a much lower spending number, although they may still ultimately save less, but possibly the same need in retirement if they have otherwise similar spending (assuming childcare is no longer in the budget for either).

Similar goes for people living in a high COL to earn more and save more.   They could have much higher spending than someone living rurally, but they may still be able to make enough more to save more, even considering higher rent.   And, if they really move out of such an expensive area before retirement, they might be better off for it.

I guess it just shows that no one number easily can explain our sitch, whether it's our "debt," our spending, our income, our net worth, etc.

In certain area, it can be $2000/month/child.  We have nixed areas solely based on daycare costs.

[Zikoris]

We spent $26,377 last year for two people, or a little over $13K each. A big chunk of that was travel - we spend about 9K each per year for everything that's not travel.