I doubt this is a troll. They just landed in the wrong place.
Totally agree. This individual seems to be serious in his questions, but he's directing them to a group that is likely to give him answers he doesn't want to hear.
I'm pretty sure all of us here (in your situation) would get rid of a $3M 3500 sqft house, the "rentals" that are returning a paltry 1.75% (seriously?? you actually own these?), retire yesterday, and buy maybe a 1500-sq ft house in a much lower cost of living area. Then you could re-invest as you wish, but much more carefully and thoughtfully this time around.
Yep, sell the big, mortgaged house RIGHT THIS MINUTE. As a single-income family with such a large debt -- even with savings -- you're putting yourself at risk. If you were to lose your job (or become sick, or whatever else), you'd be in trouble. 5 people do not need 3500 sf, even with frequent entertaining factored into the equation.
If I had a quarter of the assets you list I would be set for life and I feel my family of 4 lives quite comfortably in 2100 square feet with room for one more and room to entertain,
I do have a quarter of the OP's assets (and none of the debt), and I obtained them on a much smaller income. I suspect quite a few people on this board could say the same. I do live in a 2400 sf house (though we have only two children), and we are planning to build a 1900 sf house in the next couple years.
We do want to give our children advantages that we didn't have in life, and that drives a lot of our discretionary spending (education, lessons, experiences). Being a single income family, spouse is full time involved in children's growth and development (and it really is a full time job). We also are trying to use our means to buy "access" to things that may differentiate them from their peers. Perhaps we have a cynical view of the world because spouse and I both grew up in struggling families, but to us there is intrinsic value in being exposed to individuals who are already or who will eventually be influential. Whether that costs an extra x years of work seems quantifiable and therefore makes it easy to decide whether it is "worth" it. I guess 30 years from now I don't want to look back and say I didn't do my best for my family.
I think we differ in our thoughts on "best for my family". You're thinking that "best" means living in an upscale community, meeting the right people and having the right experiences so you can set the kids on a career trajectory to live in an upscale community, hang with the right people and have the right experiences as adults.
You're trying to put them on the right hamster wheel. I hear what you're saying, and I know you believe it wholeheartedly, but I'd ask when was the last time you took your family and the dog out to a state park and spent the afternoon fishing, paddling around in rented canoes, and eating sandwiches from a cooler? I mean an afternoon just hanging out with the family, talking and telling stories? Maybe including a couple friends so you get a glimpse of who your teens choose to spend time with? My youngest is about to head out to college, and those lazy family days are the things I will cherish most from their childhood.
Yes, in addition we've introduced them to people who've helped put them on the right roads towards their professional lives and have provided "extras" in their chosen fields, but those aren't the things that've mattered most. Those aren't the things that've helped make them good people.
I also grew up in a family that could have been called "struggling". We always called it dirt poor. We've been successful -- middle-class successful -- professionally, and we decided early on that we were purposefully going to give our kids LESS than we could afford. Yes, they had summer camp and music lessons and lots of travel, but they did it in second-hand clothes and with the idea of getting value for the dollar. They've grown up to be intelligent, resourceful, grateful kids.