How much of a buffer did/will you retire with? Please read details closely

[wageslave23]

For this poll, I want to try to standardize the calculation. 

Do not use your actual planned withdrawal rate if you have safety built in or frivolous expenses you could easily cutback.  Use the lowest budget number that you would be perfectly happy living on for the rest of your life.  For example, if you would be dissappointed if your FIRE life didn't include $200/mo to go out to eat, then include it in your calculations.  If you would be just as happy without it, then don't include it.  So this is not lean FIRE or fat FIRE, instead its the number you would be comfortable and happy on, and if you had less then you would not be comfortable and happy.

For rental properties, if you have about $10k a year in rental property income, then subtract that from your annual budget first and then calculate your withdrawal rate excluding the rental property equity from your FIRE stache.

Likewise for any other planned income (pension, part time job, etc) subtract it from your annual expense budget as well before doing the calculation.

Thank you!

[uniwelder]

3%   I'd prefer to be a bit conservative and we have some rental properties so not as much reliance on the fund withdrawal.  We're not FIRE'd yet but will probably transition in the next 2 years.

[vand]

In today's money, I'm working toward:

LeanFIRE: £20k/pa x25 pot
NormalFIRE: £26k/pa x27 pot
FatFIRE: 36k/pa x29 pot

LeanFI target is therefore 48% of FatFIRE target. In reality I will probably pull the plug somewhere between normal & Fat FIRE.

[wageslave23]

3%   I'd prefer to be a bit conservative and we have some rental properties so not as much reliance on the fund withdrawal.  We're not FIRE'd yet but will probably transition in the next 2 years.

I'm in almost the same boat.  3%, Rentals, a bit conservative, hopefully transitioning in the next two to three years.

[Metalcat]

We will definitely have more than we need, and will likely never retire on top of that.

Simply put, we can comfortably live on DH's pension alone, but will also have substantial savings, rental income, and one or both of us will likely do some form of paid work indefinitely.

I doubt that's helpful, since I don't actually have to really think about withdrawal rate. But if you're just asking about buffer, then yes, we have enormous amount of buffer, but that's largely because we both love certain types of work.

Forms of work that are high paying, flexible, and not subject to any ageism, so we can do them on and off indefinitely as we please.

[PhilB]

As a natural pessimist I FIREd mentally prepared for my investments to immediately crash by 50%, so by your definition I'm in the below 2% category!

[ixtap]

What you describe *is* my lean FIRE number, so I am confused. We lived happily on that budget for many years (even considering inflation: I just ran a calculator then multiplied by 1.06 for this year, which I assume isn't in the calculators yet).

The first thing we will do when DH downsizes/quits in a few months is to move back onboard the boat and go back to that cheaper lifestyle. Having a big boat and a land base may be some people's dream, but I prefer only having one set of dishes and one set of chores! But because we have been living the high life, we saved for our actual spend, rather than projected much lower spend.

[ChpBstrd]

I'm aiming for about a 3.7% WR or about $55.5k on a $1.5M liquid NW. No rentals.

[Morning Glory]

4% based on last 4 years data. I'm halfway through a cross country move so I'm not really sure where my spending will shake out, but I'm taking at least a year off. My buffer is that I plan to keep my nursing license up to date for ease of finding part time work if needed.

[vand]

For this poll, I want to try to standardize the calculation. 

Do not use your actual planned withdrawal rate if you have safety built in or frivolous expenses you could easily cutback.  Use the lowest budget number that you would be perfectly happy living on for the rest of your life.  For example, if you would be dissappointed if your FIRE life didn't include $200/mo to go out to eat, then include it in your calculations.  If you would be just as happy without it, then don't include it.  So this is not lean FIRE or fat FIRE, instead its the number you would be comfortable and happy on, and if you had less then you would not be comfortable and happy.

For rental properties, if you have about $10k a year in rental property income, then subtract that from your annual budget first and then calculate your withdrawal rate excluding the rental property equity from your FIRE stache.

Likewise for any other planned income (pension, part time job, etc) subtract it from your annual expense budget as well before doing the calculation.

Thank you!

Is this just a very roundabout way of asking about everyone's baseline SWR? 

Some people may build their safety into their pot multiple, others may build it into their spending plans.  At the end of the day they are kinda joined at the hip, aren't they?

A planned 20k spending on a 3.33% SWR requires the same pot as a planned 30k spending on a 5% SWR.  My personal idea of safety margin is to increase both budget and pot multiple.

[wageslave23]

For this poll, I want to try to standardize the calculation. 

Do not use your actual planned withdrawal rate if you have safety built in or frivolous expenses you could easily cutback.  Use the lowest budget number that you would be perfectly happy living on for the rest of your life.  For example, if you would be dissappointed if your FIRE life didn't include $200/mo to go out to eat, then include it in your calculations.  If you would be just as happy without it, then don't include it.  So this is not lean FIRE or fat FIRE, instead its the number you would be comfortable and happy on, and if you had less then you would not be comfortable and happy.

For rental properties, if you have about $10k a year in rental property income, then subtract that from your annual budget first and then calculate your withdrawal rate excluding the rental property equity from your FIRE stache.

Likewise for any other planned income (pension, part time job, etc) subtract it from your annual expense budget as well before doing the calculation.

Thank you!

Is this just a very roundabout way of asking about everyone's baseline SWR? 

Some people may build their safety into their pot multiple, others may build it into their spending plans.  At the end of the day they are kinda joined at the hip, aren't they?

A planned 20k spending on a 3.33% SWR requires the same pot as a planned 30k spending on a 5% SWR.  My personal idea of safety margin is to increase both budget and pot multiple.

Correct. There are multiple ways of adding safety but that isn't helpful for a poll, so you need to convert budget safety into pot multiple. 

[wageslave23]

What you describe *is* my lean FIRE number, so I am confused. We lived happily on that budget for many years (even considering inflation: I just ran a calculator then multiplied by 1.06 for this year, which I assume isn't in the calculators yet).

The first thing we will do when DH downsizes/quits in a few months is to move back onboard the boat and go back to that cheaper lifestyle. Having a big boat and a land base may be some people's dream, but I prefer only having one set of dishes and one set of chores! But because we have been living the high life, we saved for our actual spend, rather than projected much lower spend.

Thats great,  then use that number.

[FIRE 20/20]

This year (2021) I actually spent pretty close to this number because we cut out our frivolous but fun travel, didn't go to as many plays or concerts, and hardly ate out.  As a result our annual spending this year divided by our 'stache at the date we FIREd is 2.5%.  The current rate (since our 'stache has grown since FIRE) is 1.75%, the low was 1.71%, and the high this year was 1.95%. 

We did OMY after hitting 4% of our fully budgeted spending, but rising markets and reduced spending due to the pandemic as well as overestimates for things like home repairs have dropped our withdrawal rate substantially.

[DeniseNJ]

I will have a pension and a million bucks probably.  Basically, whatever I have on August 4, 2028, is what I'm living on, bc I'm not working a day later than the soonest I can retire.

[John Doe]

We have a liquid portfolio of about $2.4m which yields about $110k, so our plan (we are recently retired) is to leave the capital alone and live off the income stream (plus a pension of about $40k).  So that is around 4.5% but I never really planned to do the traditional FIRE withdrawal strategy and always aimed to generate a dividend stream that would be sufficient.   The above are before tax figures and should be enough to cover our generous vacation hopes when the world somewhat normalizes. 

So to answer your question, this income stream is the number we are happy with and I view the principal amount on its own to be the safety element as I can’t possibly imagine spending in our lifetimes the amount of principal plus the income it will generate. 

[ca-rn]

I will retire with a large buffer for my mental happiness.  I am CoastFired for healthcare and to keep shoveling money into 401K for my future self.

My personal spending currently is pretty low (minus mortgage which will be paid off before RE) but who knows what the future holds? 

I have rental income but I don't see myself being a landlord in my old age.

I am single with no children and plan to stay that way but then need to make plans for how I'll be taken care of in my old age. CCRC? Those places cost a lot of money.

I have siblings that are not in great financial shape.  They will never be able to retire.  I am planning on needing to help them in their old age.

[lutorm]

I'm having a really hard time answering this because we're planning to move to a different continent and we don't have a good handle on what expenses will look like, or how they will evolve as the kids age and then move out. But if we stayed where we are now, at current expenses, we'd be around 2.5%.

[jsap819]

We have a lean FIRE budget that includes fixed expenses and about 15-20% buffer for discretionary/emergency expenses. We would be happy living this way for however long it would take for us to survive a downturn but not something I'd retire on forever. We can technically FIRE now (4% SWR) with that budget but want to maintain the same lifestyle we have now so we will keep plugging along another ~2-3 years.

[Bateaux]

Planning to draw 120K on 3.5M
or about 3.5%

Could be reduced to 3.0% at 100K or less.

[FIRE Artist]

None of the above.

I am going to do Variable Percentage Withdrawal, and will pull the plug when the 50% market drop calculation on the spreadsheet gives me 95% of my current disposable after tax income, and that corresponds to about 115% current lifestyle spending without a drop on a 60/40 portfolio.  It is a completely arbitrary target, but it works for me - enough of a cushion to cover a drop in income for a few years during a downturn. 

[Zikoris]

We're in camp "4% + flexibility". Because I've long since decoupled the spending=quality of life fallacy, I don't see spending less some years as a hardship. It would literally just involve doing things like going to places like Cambodia instead of places like Switzerland for a couple of vacations, boom thousands of dollars saved, and we'd have just as good, if not a better time of it. Or, do some sort of very short term work doing something fun or interesting. Etc. If you're naturally frugal and also naturally flexible, it makes everything waaaay easier.

[Fishindude]

We've got a big buffer.   Been retired four years and only drawing 2.5% out of the IRA and really don't need anymore as we have other income sources plus SS we could start taking at any time.
Probably will up the withdrawal rate a bit in 2022 or 2023.   Can't take it with you.

[LightStache]

For rental properties, if you have about $10k a year in rental property income, then subtract that from your annual budget first and then calculate your withdrawal rate excluding the rental property equity from your FIRE stache.

FWIW I use a much more conservative methodology for rental property income. I base my SWR on my NW x 3.5%, where real estate equity is included in NW.

Since real estate can yield 8%, if you subtract out the income from your budget, you're effectively using that 8% yield as the SWR for that portion of your assets, which is much riskier.

If I could safely subtract out real estate income from my budget, I'd shift all of my investments to real estate and FIRE waaayyyy sooner.

[soulpatchmike]

From ER to Social security(12-17yrs) around 5.5%
From Social Security to 70(3-8yrs) around 4% reducing to 2%(assuming sale of rentals)
From 70 on around 2%

[wageslave23]

For rental properties, if you have about $10k a year in rental property income, then subtract that from your annual budget first and then calculate your withdrawal rate excluding the rental property equity from your FIRE stache.

FWIW I use a much more conservative methodology for rental property income. I base my SWR on my NW x 3.5%, where real estate equity is included in NW.

Since real estate can yield 8%, if you subtract out the income from your budget, you're effectively using that 8% yield as the SWR for that portion of your assets, which is much riskier.

If I could safely subtract out real estate income from my budget, I'd shift all of my investments to real estate and FIRE waaayyyy sooner.

True, but the way you are calculating SWR gives you no benefit to having rental properties because you are expecting the SWR to be the same as stocks. You might as well sell all of your rental properties and buy stocks at that point.  I think coming up with a conservative rental income number that includes longterm capital improvements like roof, appliances, flooring, etc and estimated repairs and vacancies is much more reasonable.  Some years might be way better and some years might be worse but you should be able to come up with a reasonable estimate.  Rental rates are pretty stable compared to equities and generally increase a couple % with inflation.

[simonsez]

For this poll, I want to try to standardize the calculation. 

Do not use your actual planned withdrawal rate if you have safety built in or frivolous expenses you could easily cutback.  Use the lowest budget number that you would be perfectly happy living on for the rest of your life.  For example, if you would be dissappointed if your FIRE life didn't include $200/mo to go out to eat, then include it in your calculations.  If you would be just as happy without it, then don't include it.  So this is not lean FIRE or fat FIRE, instead its the number you would be comfortable and happy on, and if you had less then you would not be comfortable and happy.

For rental properties, if you have about $10k a year in rental property income, then subtract that from your annual budget first and then calculate your withdrawal rate excluding the rental property equity from your FIRE stache.

Likewise for any other planned income (pension, part time job, etc) subtract it from your annual expense budget as well before doing the calculation.

Thank you!

For a detail-oriented person, this is very hard to answer and I am getting tripped up on semantics and definitions.  Disappointed is not really the opposite of perfectly happy.  Also, what is frivolous?  If something had no value, a rational person would never spend dollars on it or never plan to in retirement.  I would think that line items in retirement have at least some nonzero amount of value/ability to generate happiness.  Thus I don't really see the difference between planned FIRE spending, fat FIRE, or lowest possible budget number if the goal is to match being "perfectly happy" - they should all be the same.  If spending more money doesn't equate to additional happiness, why the hell am I budgeting for it during retirement?  I get that money is simply a tool and that the money itself isn't causing happiness, it's what it represents and the associated opportunities/experiences and we're all trying to prioritize these opportunities based on our own personal preferences after decades of honing and calibrating to make sure we're as efficient as we can be with the placement of our green soldiers.  The budget I have planned is my best estimation to cover what I want to do and what I need to live the way I want - if I were to drop anything I can't see how I wouldn't be a little disappointed, otherwise what's the point?  I.e. No one has a FIRE budget that contains pre-planned spending for categories that don't add something.

I could easily cut back many things - but that doesn't make them frivolous.  They're just wants instead of needs.  No issue with your wording BTW OP, this is more of a "me being crazy about words" problem than it is anything with your guidelines. 

TL;DR - I think in my mind I'll just replace "perfectly happy" with "good enough".

[wageslave23]

For this poll, I want to try to standardize the calculation. 

Do not use your actual planned withdrawal rate if you have safety built in or frivolous expenses you could easily cutback.  Use the lowest budget number that you would be perfectly happy living on for the rest of your life.  For example, if you would be dissappointed if your FIRE life didn't include $200/mo to go out to eat, then include it in your calculations.  If you would be just as happy without it, then don't include it.  So this is not lean FIRE or fat FIRE, instead its the number you would be comfortable and happy on, and if you had less then you would not be comfortable and happy.

For rental properties, if you have about $10k a year in rental property income, then subtract that from your annual budget first and then calculate your withdrawal rate excluding the rental property equity from your FIRE stache.

Likewise for any other planned income (pension, part time job, etc) subtract it from your annual expense budget as well before doing the calculation.

Thank you!

For a detail-oriented person, this is very hard to answer and I am getting tripped up on semantics and definitions.  Disappointed is not really the opposite of perfectly happy.  Also, what is frivolous?  If something had no value, a rational person would never spend dollars on it or never plan to in retirement.  I would think that line items in retirement have at least some nonzero amount of value/ability to generate happiness.  Thus I don't really see the difference between planned FIRE spending, fat FIRE, or lowest possible budget number if the goal is to match being "perfectly happy" - they should all be the same.  If spending more money doesn't equate to additional happiness, why the hell am I budgeting for it during retirement?  I get that money is simply a tool and that the money itself isn't causing happiness, it's what it represents and the associated opportunities/experiences and we're all trying to prioritize these opportunities based on our own personal preferences after decades of honing and calibrating to make sure we're as efficient as we can be with the placement of our green soldiers.  The budget I have planned is my best estimation to cover what I want to do and what I need to live the way I want - if I were to drop anything I can't see how I wouldn't be a little disappointed, otherwise what's the point?  I.e. No one has a FIRE budget that contains pre-planned spending for categories that don't add something.

I could easily cut back many things - but that doesn't make them frivolous.  They're just wants instead of needs.  No issue with your wording BTW OP, this is more of a "me being crazy about words" problem than it is anything with your guidelines. 

TL;DR - I think in my mind I'll just replace "perfectly happy" with "good enough".

How about "if I foreknew that I would have to cut this out of my retirement budget, I would have worked longer in order to be able to afford it in retirement"?  Most people have some stuff that they would be willing and able to cut out for a few years if they needed to, but would be dissappointed if they had to do that long term.  That's how I developed my retirement budget, but some people here worked longer to other circumstances such as pensions, stock options, medicare, which gave them excess money that they didn't necessarily need but was a happy result.

[DaTrill]

2% or less.  4% rule is an estimate for a 30-year retirement and using this number for a 30+ year retirement is a violation of the relevant range, an extrapolation error.   

[Much Fishing to Do]

Well, according to the instructions from OP I'd say 2% I guess, a successful business definitely had me overshoot my initial target nest egg. 

That said, I will drawing & spending/giving 4% until I see a reason not to...cause why not when I can always just easily adjust downward later and I don't have the family history to suggest I'm living more than another 30 years.  What I'll probably do is just plan to draw no more than 4% of whatever the portfolio is each year, so if it drops I make cuts. Maybe. 

[Rdy2Fire]

I have yet to withdraw but when I do I planned 3% probably could go under 2%. However, depending on certain factors I will not withdraw for at least 3-5 more years and at that time the % could change

[boarder42]

I'm probably down around 2.3% but most of it is due to recent found alternative investments that may or may not pan out. It's also due to my wife's retirement hobby being profitable. I'm more comfortable finding ways to earn more money than to cut lifestyle.

[FireLane]

I've been retired since July, although my wife is still working so I'm not living on withdrawals yet. However, our actual spending is between 2.5% and 3% of our stash.

[vand]

The vast majority of people planning to live off these super conservative 2%, 3% or even 4% SWRs are going to die with a lot more money than they retired with.. which could be seen as its own kind of failure.

[Metalcat]

The vast majority of people planning to live off these super conservative 2%, 3% or even 4% SWRs are going to die with a lot more money than they retired with.. which could be seen as its own kind of failure.

Yep, the question of how you want to use your time is the same as the question of how you want to use your money.

If there's nothing else you would rather do with your time, then by all means, keep working. But if you've saved a certain amount and don't like your job, then at a certain point it becomes enormously wasteful to keep going.

You only get so much money in life, no matter how much you work, there's a limit to what you will earn. And you only get so much time in life, no matter how long you live, there's a limit. So you have to find the balance of how you use both. 

[Ron Scott]

Well under 2%.

Haven’t finalized the gifting and estate plans yet but we want to move $$ to family and are looking at charitable giving options.

[boarder42]

The vast majority of people planning to live off these super conservative 2%, 3% or even 4% SWRs are going to die with a lot more money than they retired with.. which could be seen as its own kind of failure.

Our real withdrawal rate without recent income additions and no 0lanned inheritance is closer to 5%. One thing I think you're also finding here is just how conservative a 4% was for those who retired in the last few years and how the stashes have grown in spite of the market. Also the OPs question said to exclude things you'd be ok cutting which results in much more conservative swrs for most. 

Also as in my case people will probably make some money when they retire and this is not something my wife and I wanted to be dependent upon. Hobbies should be fun first and if they make money cool. The pressure to make money takes the fun out of a hobby. Being forced to give money to charity in my later years doesn't seem like a failure to me. But to each their own.

We hit our 5% swr number in Feb 2021 2 years ahead of plan. The rest of this year was spent deciding what we wanted. Originally my wife wanted to work for 15 years then her work forced them back to the office and she changed quickly. At that point I took 12 weeks off and worked as little as possible to get me to some 6 figure payouts at year end.

Everyone's situation is unique but in general I think most will end up with very low wrs bc that's just how it works.

[ixtap]

One thing I think you're also finding here is just how conservative a 4% was for those who retired in the last few years and how the stashes have grown in spite of the market. Also the OPs question said to exclude things you'd be ok cutting which results in much more conservative swrs for most. 

That isn't despite the market, that is because the market has been soaring for over a decade. That's why things look so rosy.

[uniwelder]

The vast majority of people planning to live off these super conservative 2%, 3% or even 4% SWRs are going to die with a lot more money than they retired with.. which could be seen as its own kind of failure.

I started reading the "stop worrying about the 4% rule" thread when I saw your response to justify the 3% I'm using.  At 120 40 something pages, it'll be a while before I get full grasp on this. 

In my only partially informed opinion, I don't think US performance will continue as it has in the past.  Since the 4% is based on past performance of the US, which was about the best in the world, with a US stock and bond allocation (of which I don't see much safety investing in bonds going forward), I really want to look into various scenarios.  As a quick look, when I plug in a diversified portfolio (about 1/2 US based, 1/2 elsewhere) into portfoliocharts.com, I get a SWR of about 5 if I consider US based living, but I plug in other home countries for inflation purposes and get numbers from 4.5 (Australia, Canada) to 3.2 (Japan), keeping the same allocation. 

The other reason we're not FIRE'd yet is that my wife has only worked in the US for 8 years, so not eligible for social security benefits yet.  Sure, she'd likely pick up the necessary work credits sometime in the next 20 years, but the 2 more that she has planned at her current job helps build up the stash a bit more and cleanly finishes her funding contract.  I quit my job a couple months ago, but keeping busy with house remodeling for a rental.

[Dicey]

We didn't plan it that way, but we're going to get a larger than imagined inheritance. We never considered the possibility in our FIRE planning. It won't change the way we live, but will most definitely lower the needle on our withdrawal rate,

[Roland of Gilead]

Never quite understood these SWR things.  I mean, I know about Firecalc but things are so complicated now, at least in the USA that it seems little better than a loose guesstimate.

If your income falls below certain breakpoints, things kick in like ACA subsidies, lower tax on SS benefits, etc. that modify the effect the lower nest egg has on your SWR.   Roths and such also complicate the matter, as retiring with $3,000,000 in a traditional 401K with a 4% SWR would have a much different spend than retiring with a $3,000,000 Roth with the same 4% SWR.

[boarder42]

One thing I think you're also finding here is just how conservative a 4% was for those who retired in the last few years and how the stashes have grown in spite of the market. Also the OPs question said to exclude things you'd be ok cutting which results in much more conservative swrs for most. 

That isn't despite the market, that is because the market has been soaring for over a decade. That's why things look so rosy.

Correct it should be because of. I'm well known for my excellent grasp of the English language

[Metalcat]

Never quite understood these SWR things.  I mean, I know about Firecalc but things are so complicated now, at least in the USA that it seems little better than a loose guesstimate.

If your income falls below certain breakpoints, things kick in like ACA subsidies, lower tax on SS benefits, etc. that modify the effect the lower nest egg has on your SWR.   Roths and such also complicate the matter, as retiring with $3,000,000 in a traditional 401K with a 4% SWR would have a much different spend than retiring with a $3,000,000 Roth with the same 4% SWR.

I don't think it's ever *not* been just a loose estimate.

[Villanelle]

Is *anyone* planning on retiring without some frivilous expenses or a buffer?  Sure, there are probably a few outliers, but my impression is that that is most people's plan.   And if an expense is so frivilous that someone would be fine without it for the rest of their retirement, why on earth would it be in the budget at all?

I don't even know how to answer the poll.  Flexibility is a massive part of our plan.  I'm fine skipping a vacation one or two years (or scaling them waaay back), and deferring the purchase of a new sofa for a year.   But I'm not fine never vacationing and never buying a new (or very gently used) sofa.  So I can't say those types of expenses are things I'd be happy without forever, and numbers that made it look like it wold be forever would cause us to go back to work in some form.   

Also, there is every likelihood that we will receive a very large inheritance that will drastically affect our numbers.  But I'm not quite comfortable counting on that. But most likely, it will cut our SWR nearly in half unless something crazy happens.  The only way I'm comfortable accounting for it in our plans though is just as another [massive] buffer.  Similarly, I have not accounted at all for social security, even though it's nearly impossible for me to imagine getting *nothing*.

Then there are even factors like whether we land in a state that doesn't tax military pensions, and what % of DH's pension ends up being tax free (due to a disability rating).  The higher the pension, the lower the withdraw rate.

So what will our SWR be?  Likely anywhere from 1.5-5%, depending on the year, the market conditions, and a lot of other factors.  And that's a close enough estimate to make me feel quite secure with where we will be.  If we are on the top end of that range at some point in time, we might postpone an expense or two until the market recovers, and I might slightly scale up the side hustle I hope to have (because I enjoy it, I'll keep doing it, but it probably takes up 2-4 hours a month, so it's pretty low effort, but also somewhat scalable). If we are at the bottom, we will likely toss a bit extra in the DAF we will have set up. 

[boarder42]

Is *anyone* planning on retiring without some frivilous expenses or a buffer?  Sure, there are probably a few outliers, but my impression is that that is most people's plan.   And if an expense is so frivilous that someone would be fine without it for the rest of their retirement, why on earth would it be in the budget at all?

I don't even know how to answer the poll.  Flexibility is a massive part of our plan.  I'm fine skipping a vacation one or two years (or scaling them waaay back), and deferring the purchase of a new sofa for a year.   But I'm not fine never vacationing and never buying a new (or very gently used) sofa.  So I can't say those types of expenses are things I'd be happy without forever, and numbers that made it look like it wold be forever would cause us to go back to work in some form.   

Also, there is every likelihood that we will receive a very large inheritance that will drastically affect our numbers.  But I'm not quite comfortable counting on that. But most likely, it will cut our SWR nearly in half unless something crazy happens.  The only way I'm comfortable accounting for it in our plans though is just as another [massive] buffer.  Similarly, I have not accounted at all for social security, even though it's nearly impossible for me to imagine getting *nothing*.

Then there are even factors like whether we land in a state that doesn't tax military pensions, and what % of DH's pension ends up being tax free (due to a disability rating).  The higher the pension, the lower the withdraw rate.

So what will our SWR be?  Likely anywhere from 1.5-5%, depending on the year, the market conditions, and a lot of other factors.  And that's a close enough estimate to make me feel quite secure with where we will be.  If we are on the top end of that range at some point in time, we might postpone an expense or two until the market recovers, and I might slightly scale up the side hustle I hope to have (because I enjoy it, I'll keep doing it, but it probably takes up 2-4 hours a month, so it's pretty low effort, but also somewhat scalable). If we are at the bottom, we will likely toss a bit extra in the DAF we will have set up.

And more reasons why this poll trends way lower end on the swr. Not sure the OPs goal with it but it will lead to very low wrs even when most people saved enough that their plans had them at 3.5-5% barring all the things we've been asked to remove from our spending totals.

[vand]

The vast majority of people planning to live off these super conservative 2%, 3% or even 4% SWRs are going to die with a lot more money than they retired with.. which could be seen as its own kind of failure.

I started reading the "stop worrying about the 4% rule" thread when I saw your response to justify the 3% I'm using.  At 120 something pages, it'll be a while before I get full grasp on this. 

In my only partially informed opinion, I don't think US performance will continue as it has in the past.  Since the 4% is based on past performance of the US, which was about the best in the world, with a US stock and bond allocation (of which I don't see much safety investing in bonds going forward), I really want to look into various scenarios.  As a quick look, when I plug in a diversified portfolio (about 1/2 US based, 1/2 elsewhere) into portfoliocharts.com, I get a SWR of about 5 if I consider US based living, but I plug in other home countries for inflation purposes and get numbers from 4.5 (Australia, Canada) to 3.2 (Japan), keeping the same allocation. 

The other reason we're not FIRE'd yet is that my wife has only worked in the US for 8 years, so not eligible for social security benefits yet.  Sure, she'd likely pick up the necessary work credits sometime in the next 20 years, but the 2 more that she has planned at her current job helps build up the stash a bit more and cleanly finishes her funding contract.  I quit my job a couple months ago, but keeping busy with house remodeling for a rental.

I agree that growth is probably not going to be as strong in the foreseeable future. However from the point of view of the implications for SWRs that may not be an issue.

Most people kinda intuitively understand the SORR problem. They know the the ordering of the returns matters the most in the earliest of years of retirement. But even so they don't fully grasp just how important this is. How important is it? It's EVERYTHING.  If I told you that we were about to enter the best 30yr period in history you might assume that even if the first few years are bumpy then the overall growth during this period would eventually bail you out and afford you a higher SWR than the historically accepted 4%.  And conversely if I told you that we were about to enter the worst 30 year period in history then it would be natural to assume that there is no way that you are going to be able to sustain a SWR much better than 4% even if the first few years aren't terrible.

However, statistically, the 30yr return is absolutely, totally, completely useless in determining the SWR sustainable during this period, because it tells us nothing about the ordering of those returns, even if there are more good years or more bad years.

Some of the highest SWRs have been sustained during 30 yr periods of lowest overall growth, and some of the highest 30yr periods of overall growth have only been able to sustain the lowest SWRs.

Here is the statistical proof:


https://www.kitces.com/blog/url-upside-potential-sequence-of-return-risk-in-retirement-median-final-wealth/


What does this mean? Don't worry about lower growth having an impact on your SWR. Whilst we know that current valuation can explain about 40-50% of total return 10 yrs out, we also know that valuation is not predictive at all in determining short term returns, and its the short term returns that almost wholly determine what SWR your portfolio is going to be able to sustain for the 30 or 40 years after that. So, unless you have connection to a higher power and are able to predict what the market is going to do in the next 1, 2, 3 years or so, you just don't know what SWR your portfolio is going to be able to ultimately sustain, regardless of what you think the overall long term growth prospects are.

[Dicey]

One thing I think you're also finding here is just how conservative a 4% was for those who retired in the last few years and how the stashes have grown in spite of the market. Also the OPs question said to exclude things you'd be ok cutting which results in much more conservative swrs for most. 

That isn't despite the market, that is because the market has been soaring for over a decade. That's why things look so rosy.

Correct it should be because of. I'm well known for my excellent grasp of the English language

Hahaha, nothing wrong with your language skills, but I can usually tell if the response came from your phone or a keyboard.

[Cassie]

I didn’t vote as I live on my pension and SS. My savings are for big items such as travel, home repairs, car replacement, etc.

[FIRE 20/20]

The vast majority of people planning to live off these super conservative 2%, 3% or even 4% SWRs are going to die with a lot more money than they retired with.. which could be seen as its own kind of failure.

Not how I understand the poll.  There are probably plenty of people who are reporting very low numbers because they have a lot of buffer, and that's what this poll is getting at.  If someone is planning for or spending 4+% but 1/4 of their spending could be cut, then to correctly answer this poll they should list 3%.  That's not a case of working too long, it's a case of this poll telling people to cut their spending as much as is comfortable and then calculate their WDR.  My minimum comfortable spend is probably 60% of my planned budget.  I have a lot in travel budget, music lessons, sports, and other things that this poll asks me to remove. 

There are probably other people who might be answering with their withdrawal rate now, but since they retired sometime after the 2008/2009 crash their 'stache has increase substantially while their spending hasn't.  My first year's spending was closer to 4%, but my 'stache has grown a ton since I FIREd while my spending has dropped due to COVID.  I don't think that's what this poll is asking, but I imagine some people are posting that %.  Most years, if someone blindly follows the 4% rule they'll spend progressively less than 4% of their 'stache - that's what gives it so much safety. 

I suspect there are others (I definitely fall into this camp) of not hearing about FIRE until I was well along the path, and realized I could FIRE soon but I had very little (proportionally) saved outside of my 401(k) and home equity.  I decided to work a little longer to save the 5 years of spending I would need because the 72t rule doesn't work very well for my situation.  So I'm spending close to the maximum amount I can to make it to 59 1/2 without using 72t or paying the 10% extra tax.  I will do one of those things if I need to, but I'd rather just do a normal Roth ladder.

I believe that many people are in situations similar to mine - generally use the 4% rule, but with investment growth, lower spending due to COVID, taking out other expenses this poll asks, and other factors, their response is well below 4%.  That's not necessarily related to working any longer than necessary to fund what this poll asks for plus the extras this poll asks us to exclude. 

[FIRE 20/20]

And there are probably people here outside the U.S.  The 4% rule doesn't work as well (historically) in many other parts of the world. 

[Villanelle]

The vast majority of people planning to live off these super conservative 2%, 3% or even 4% SWRs are going to die with a lot more money than they retired with.. which could be seen as its own kind of failure.

Not how I understand the poll.  There are probably plenty of people who are reporting very low numbers because they have a lot of buffer, and that's what this poll is getting at.  If someone is planning for or spending 4+% but 1/4 of their spending could be cut, then to correctly answer this poll they should list 3%.  That's not a case of working too long, it's a case of this poll telling people to cut their spending as much as is comfortable and then calculate their WDR.  My minimum comfortable spend is probably 60% of my planned budget.  I have a lot in travel budget, music lessons, sports, and other things that this poll asks me to remove. 

There are probably other people who might be answering with their withdrawal rate now, but since they retired sometime after the 2008/2009 crash their 'stache has increase substantially while their spending hasn't.  My first year's spending was closer to 4%, but my 'stache has grown a ton since I FIREd while my spending has dropped due to COVID.  I don't think that's what this poll is asking, but I imagine some people are posting that %.  Most years, if someone blindly follows the 4% rule they'll spend progressively less than 4% of their 'stache - that's what gives it so much safety. 

I suspect there are others (I definitely fall into this camp) of not hearing about FIRE until I was well along the path, and realized I could FIRE soon but I had very little (proportionally) saved outside of my 401(k) and home equity.  I decided to work a little longer to save the 5 years of spending I would need because the 72t rule doesn't work very well for my situation.  So I'm spending close to the maximum amount I can to make it to 59 1/2 without using 72t or paying the 10% extra tax.  I will do one of those things if I need to, but I'd rather just do a normal Roth ladder.

I believe that many people are in situations similar to mine - generally use the 4% rule, but with investment growth, lower spending due to COVID, taking out other expenses this poll asks, and other factors, their response is well below 4%.  That's not necessarily related to working any longer than necessary to fund what this poll asks for plus the extras this poll asks us to exclude.

But it only asks you to remove them if you would be perfectly happy living without them forever.  And if you are perfectly happy living without them forever, why would you be budgeting or planning for them?