So we need to talk about the 2% withdrawal rate. I'm all for folks doing what makes them comfortable... but in this case you are taking a heavy toll on your body in order to meet this number.
Let me put it this way: If a 3% SWR fails over the next 60 years... then America has bigger problems and you probably should have invested in ammunition and antibiotics.
Play around with cfiresim and check your assumptions about safety. If you want to be really, really conservative... think about 3.5%. Along with some rational belt tightening during bad years, this will see you through another great depression.
Save your health!
Completely, completely agree with this. 3% is safe. 2% is absurdly conservative and IMO should only be the goal if you sort of like working and you're just not ready to RE. This does not appear to be the case here, as you've got legitimate health reasons which are made worse by continuing to toil away. Since you're already under 3, you also therefore have buffers built in to cover occasional larger emergency-type expenses without blinking.
There's also a bit of data missing in your post: Have you sought medical help for your condition? What's the professional diagnosis and treatment plan? If a doctor tells you that you need a break, then you need a break. Plus: in this case you might be able to get a leave of absence. At the very least you will understand the path toward physical improvement... (surgery? pt? rest? combination?).
Your physical health is more important than your asset sheet, especially given your robust numbers. Continuing to earn money at the expense of treating your wrists is like trying to overfill the gas tank in your car when what it really needs is engine oil. Your tank is full already. Address the real problem or your engine will freeze up.
>>My concern is that I would rather have enough taxable account savings to last to 60
Why exactly? This seems illogical given other available methods of accessing your stash. Do you want/need to be utterly loaded in retirement?
Also consider reading this article on
EEE.
Here's the part most applicable to your situation.
"The first issue is the safety or income factor. First people seek a 4% withdrawal rate to cover their expenses because 4% has been shown to survive worst case scenarios over 30 years. Then they seek 3% just to be safe which is a 33% margin. Then the target changes to 2% just to be a bit safer even though this is actually a 100% improvement compared to the original case which means that in the historically worst case they’d end up with millions of dollars they can’t spend. "