Are some expectations here naive/unrealistic?

[ontheway2]

I suppose it all depends what your base is pre-kids.

An example would be, at the end of the day if you rent a room and live in a shared house (4 rooms) in an undesirable part of town (which is fine since you're out 16-18 hours a day) in order to keep rent low and maximise your saving rate through your 20s - say at $500/month, it's really not difficult to imagine a scenario where you ultimately move to a generally safer part of the city, with better public schools, and get something more than a single room.

Running some super simple math:

Pre-kid rent: $6,000pa.
Pre kid Utilities (shared house) = $400pm /4 = $100pm = $1,200pa


Post kid:

Buy House: $250k
Mortgage interest = $625/month = $7,500pa
Mortgage capital (non-optional savings) = $560pm / $6,700pa
Total mortgage = $14,200pa

Property tax (1-2%) = $2,500-5,000pa
Maintenance (~1%) = $2,500pa.
Property tax/maintenance costs = $5,000-7,500

Utilities = $400pm = $4,800pa

So just using the above:

Pre kid = $7,200pa
Post Kid = $24,000 - 26,500pa or $12,000 - 13,250pa if you say 50:50 split between parents.

So best case you could argue that there is a 66% increase in housing costs, but it could be significantly more should the household go to a single income (again by choice). Through that lens, the costs go from $7,200pa pre-kids to a scenario of $26,500pa. You can decide how you want to treat the mortgage capital.

You can obviously nuance the costs with taxes, property price structures etc. but equally on the other side would be furniture costs for a full house etc. (I literally spent $500 on furniture total aged 20 to 30).

You talk about transport costs not doubling, but if you go from having close to zero costs through walking or cycling pre-kids anything other than taking those options is an additional line item or cost. There are obviously examples where people have two kids and no cars... but I'd suggest that's the exception rather than the rule (even among the MMM community) and so you're realistically in for $2-3k per year on there when you take into account car cost ($500-1,000pa), Maintenance ($400), Insurance ($1,000) and fuel ($600). Then add in kids car seats etc. is it safe? What is the opportunity cost in your life if its not reliable?

Again, there are some who will live with no car - your call but I would say the bar to owning a car with kids moves lower.

The key metric of comparison to a degree, and as highlighted above is what is your pre-kid baseline and how does that inflate (or not) post kids? Obviously if the person was renting a $3,000pm apartment downtown with their partner pre-kids then they'll probably be able to find something for a similar cost albeit in a different location. If you had a car (of some sort) pre kids then any differential will be negligible.

There was a poster higher up the thread who talked about our ability to only think one or two bands outside of our situation. And I think that this is a fantastic point. Certainly one I'm sure I'm guilty of. I don't reference poverty line charts as tbh (rightly/or wrongly) they're not a benchmark I want to measure against - that's my choice.

It's also worth noting and contextualizing all of the above in that the buffer and savings rate needs to be taken into account and again returns to that point of "operating bands". if when you take all of the above into account and it moves your savings rate from 70% to 60% then its more debatable than if if it takes your savings rate from 40% to 10%.

When I say more than double from 2 to 4 people, I am using your example of 1 person to 4 costing 6x and not 4x or less.

The housing costs seem inflated as interest would run closer to 6k. More than half of the states have median property taxes of less than 1% and none hit 2%, so that number is inflated.  You can't include principal payments as "non-optional savings" and also reference it as an expense and not savings.

For your 6x to be accurate, a pre-kid PP annual housing cost would have to be ~$2550. This is also assuming there is a need to go from a shared house to a 250k house and not an apartment.

I don't live in an area where one could reasonably live without a car at all, so I did not think about near zero transportation costs. It seems if a person could get by without a car pre kids, they could do it with a kid though. If someone did have a beater pre-kids, the costs of some additional driving would not double the costs when taking into account the fact that liability insurance and registration were already being paid.

The point of referencing poverty line charts is there is a basic shelter need, and increased costs with adding more people do not double when going from one to two or from 2 to 4. I'm not debating whether you would want to line on 12k as a single person or 25k for 4. The same increase holds true when you look at 200% FPL, 400% FPL, etc.

[BostonBrit]

I suppose it all depends what your base is pre-kids.

An example would be, at the end of the day if you rent a room and live in a shared house (4 rooms) in an undesirable part of town (which is fine since you're out 16-18 hours a day) in order to keep rent low and maximise your saving rate through your 20s - say at $500/month, it's really not difficult to imagine a scenario where you ultimately move to a generally safer part of the city, with better public schools, and get something more than a single room.

Running some super simple math:

Pre-kid rent: $6,000pa.
Pre kid Utilities (shared house) = $400pm /4 = $100pm = $1,200pa


Post kid:

Buy House: $250k
Mortgage interest = $625/month = $7,500pa
Mortgage capital (non-optional savings) = $560pm / $6,700pa
Total mortgage = $14,200pa

Property tax (1-2%) = $2,500-5,000pa
Maintenance (~1%) = $2,500pa.
Property tax/maintenance costs = $5,000-7,500

Utilities = $400pm = $4,800pa

So just using the above:

Pre kid = $7,200pa
Post Kid = $24,000 - 26,500pa or $12,000 - 13,250pa if you say 50:50 split between parents.

So best case you could argue that there is a 66% increase in housing costs, but it could be significantly more should the household go to a single income (again by choice). Through that lens, the costs go from $7,200pa pre-kids to a scenario of $26,500pa. You can decide how you want to treat the mortgage capital.

You can obviously nuance the costs with taxes, property price structures etc. but equally on the other side would be furniture costs for a full house etc. (I literally spent $500 on furniture total aged 20 to 30).

You talk about transport costs not doubling, but if you go from having close to zero costs through walking or cycling pre-kids anything other than taking those options is an additional line item or cost. There are obviously examples where people have two kids and no cars... but I'd suggest that's the exception rather than the rule (even among the MMM community) and so you're realistically in for $2-3k per year on there when you take into account car cost ($500-1,000pa), Maintenance ($400), Insurance ($1,000) and fuel ($600). Then add in kids car seats etc. is it safe? What is the opportunity cost in your life if its not reliable?

Again, there are some who will live with no car - your call but I would say the bar to owning a car with kids moves lower.

The key metric of comparison to a degree, and as highlighted above is what is your pre-kid baseline and how does that inflate (or not) post kids? Obviously if the person was renting a $3,000pm apartment downtown with their partner pre-kids then they'll probably be able to find something for a similar cost albeit in a different location. If you had a car (of some sort) pre kids then any differential will be negligible.

There was a poster higher up the thread who talked about our ability to only think one or two bands outside of our situation. And I think that this is a fantastic point. Certainly one I'm sure I'm guilty of. I don't reference poverty line charts as tbh (rightly/or wrongly) they're not a benchmark I want to measure against - that's my choice.

It's also worth noting and contextualizing all of the above in that the buffer and savings rate needs to be taken into account and again returns to that point of "operating bands". if when you take all of the above into account and it moves your savings rate from 70% to 60% then its more debatable than if if it takes your savings rate from 40% to 10%.

When I say more than double from 2 to 4 people, I am using your example of 1 person to 4 costing 6x and not 4x or less.

The housing costs seem inflated as interest would run closer to 6k. More than half of the states have median property taxes of less than 1% and none hit 2%, so that number is inflated.  You can't include principal payments as "non-optional savings" and also reference it as an expense and not savings.

For your 6x to be accurate, a pre-kid PP annual housing cost would have to be ~$2550. This is also assuming there is a need to go from a shared house to a 250k house and not an apartment.

I don't live in an area where one could reasonably live without a car at all, so I did not think about near zero transportation costs. It seems if a person could get by without a car pre kids, they could do it with a kid though. If someone did have a beater pre-kids, the costs of some additional driving would not double the costs when taking into account the fact that liability insurance and registration were already being paid.

The point of referencing poverty line charts is there is a basic shelter need, and increased costs with adding more people do not double when going from one to two or from 2 to 4. I'm not debating whether you would want to line on 12k as a single person or 25k for 4. The same increase holds true when you look at 200% FPL, 400% FPL, etc.

Mate, I was purely just trying to through around some broad illustrative figures (e.g. using a 3% interest rate on the mortgage, using the full $250k to take out a structuring debate). My personal circumstances are drastically different to this but that's irrelevant.

The key point I was trying to stress, is that in my opinion, most peoples ability to make sacrifice and compromise decreases with the introduction of kids. In my eyes the friction and debate goes hand-in-hand with the core ethos of MMM and equally the challenge of going along with traditional convention and keeping up with the Jones'.

This doesn't mean that sacrifices can't be made but certainly the threshold for sacrifice/compromise/inconvenience is higher in what I'm willing to tolerate for myself, vs what I would ask of my wife and even more so of my kids.

This is not to say there's a blank check and budgets get thrown out of the window... its simply a case of responsibility, trying to generate the best outcome, and minimize the potential for negative outcomes.

Others will make different choices and have a different view; that's totally fine.

I think there are a plethora of examples through the forum that show people willing to move across the country/globally for higher incomes and this was certainly a path that I chose. With a partner and then increasingly so with kids, the ability and desire to make these type of moves decreases. That's because I believe that there is a value to stability and not moving kids around. Its why I carry a larger emergency fund in order to reduce volatility day-to-day.... the FIRE spreadsheet doesn't like these decisions and of course they need to be kept in check and a reasonableness and materiality applied. And heck to be clear, of course there is a figure we would move across the world for... but that figure is measurably higher once kids are in the school systems and settled etc. and perhaps you have to pass on those opportunities.

Again, we will all prioritize, apply materiality and chose the path that we think best for our family units. The weighting of these priorities moves around depending on where you and your family are in holistic terms in life too.

[Car Jack]

With kids:  What are your college thoughts?  Or is the plan to boot the little F'ers out when they turn 18 to fend for themselves?

What about your parents and your spouse's parents?  As they age, if they need some financial help, would you help?  Or maybe the plan is "F you, you didn't save so maybe you just need to find a nice Maytag box".

And remember the the magical 4% is not for eternity.  It's for 30 years. 

I think there are some here who do plan carefully and others who hand pick their "facts" and think "whoo hoo...I can retire and live like a hobo hipster on $3 a day forever".

Okey dokey.

[Cassie]

Our house or cars didn't change when we had kids. Yes as teens the 3 boys ate a lot. We also wanted to provide them with some experiences so they each had a sport that they played and there are costs for equipment, travel, etc.   They all took swim lessons because to me that is a basic safety issue.  It was easier to be frugal when they were small and during the teen years a good haircut and new clothes were important to them.  I don't mean designer clothes either.   In there teens they had part time jobs to pay for some of the extras they wanted.  But since my kids range from 38-46 many of the things that we have now that cost money were not available back then.  So I think there is a middle ground between kids are super expensive and they don't really cost much.

[Zikoris]

With kids:  What are your college thoughts?  Or is the plan to boot the little F'ers out when they turn 18 to fend for themselves?

What about your parents and your spouse's parents?  As they age, if they need some financial help, would you help?  Or maybe the plan is "F you, you didn't save so maybe you just need to find a nice Maytag box".

And remember the the magical 4% is not for eternity.  It's for 30 years. 

I think there are some here who do plan carefully and others who hand pick their "facts" and think "whoo hoo...I can retire and live like a hobo hipster on $3 a day forever".

Okey dokey.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with expecting your kids to take care of themselves once they're legal adults, provided you raised them that way - i.e. they have basic life skills, work experience/references obtained during high school, and grew up aware that they would not receive financial support forever. It's shitty to spring it on them at the last minute without the advance preparation though, or introduce surprise strings at the last minute (my boyfriend's parents did this to him - it turns out his education fund was limited to specific parent-approved study, which he didn't know ahead of time).

Nobody is getting financial aid from us, ever. I would help someone make a budget and research programs they qualify for, and give them unlimited frugal advice for reducing any expense they had.

[Cassie]

I think it's unrealistic to expect your kids to be self supporting at 18.   Jobs do not pay well without an education which was very different when I was young. My kids could live at home and attend college, go to a technical school or get a job and live at home to save up money, etc.  My 3 boys boomeranged for a while before finally launching.

[Zikoris]

I think it's unrealistic to expect your kids to be self supporting at 18.   Jobs do not pay well without an education which was very different when I was young. My kids could live at home and attend college, go to a technical school or get a job and live at home to save up money, etc.  My 3 boys boomeranged for a while before finally launching.

It's not some horrible fate to not have a great paying job immediately. Learn to budget, get  some roommates, and cook your meals. It can be a great learning experience and teach you all kinds of kick-ass self-reliance skills that serve you well throughout your entire life.

This is another funny example of something being called  "unrealistic" when I've literally done it myself (and not like 30 years ago or whatever).

[Imma]

Well, it's easy for me to say this as I don't have kids, but if we had, I would consider helping them out with a part of their tuition/books if we could afford it, but if we couldn't, it's not something to feel guilty about.

Our parents didn't help us much after 18 - in fact my partner significantly supported his mother throughout highschool - and we turned out fine, and what we missed most of all was guidance, not money. We learned pretty quickly where and how to get money.

 I have to say I'm from a European country where college costs are maybe $4k + living expenses so (but from this forum I know there are many ways to get an affordable education in the US). I would allow a college student child to live at home rent-free for as long as they studied. I lived at home the first two years of college and paid my parents €50/week in rent, which is fair.

I am not planning to ever financially support my parents. They will all get social security + some pensions, none of them will be in poverty. Some are planning ahead more than others but I don't think any of my parents/in-laws expect financial help from us.

[bgstache]

New to FI mentality/strategy, new to forum - very happy to be here!

Keeping with original theme 'are some expectations here naive/unrealistic' I did want to pose the following question to the group.  Let's assume we are comfortable with the 4% rule for simplicity, let's assume early retiree requires $24,000 inflation/adjusted dollars to live on in perpetuity for remainder of their life - a 'stache' of $600,000.   Let's break-down this theoretical $600,000 as far as investment types (similar to what I've seen in many case studies).  Again, for simplicity sake, let's say this early retiree rents (ie no real estate factored into net worth).  Now this early retiree has $100,000 in Roth, $300,000 401k, with $48,000 cash (to rideout a recession, probably excessive for many on this forum but let's just go with it) and the remaining $152,000 in post-tax index funds.  This early retiree wants to start their FIRE journey at 35 years old.

My understanding was that the order of operations is to withdraw from your non-tax advantaged accounts (ie the $200,000 between cash and index funds) until retirement age to avoid the penalties of early withdrawals.  Forgive my admittedly ignorant financial knowledge at this time, but are there strategies to avoid these penalties and access 4% of the $600,000 immediately for FIRE in perpetuity?  Or is the financial bridge to retirement age not long enough to get this individual there?  Ie to get $24,000 out of $200,000 is a 12% withdrawal, which based on market history and modeling simulators would not last the 20+ years needed for this individual to get to retirement age.

I wonder if this, in part, is what prompted this original question?  Thank for the feedback!

[bgstache]

Thanks lhamo - will look into this!  This may/very likely impact my own strategy!

[BicycleB]

@bgstache, Roth ladder can also be tweaked to ensure that ACA works in your favor. I do something similar to this.

ACA = Affordable Care Act. In the scenario you describe, the retiree/ FI person might get their health insurance through the federal exchange created by ACA, just like I do. The income level you give would keep premiums affordable. Each state has some minimum income to qualify for ACA. In my state it's the federal poverty level, currently $12,800 for a year. The amount of taxable assets you describe (48k cash, 152 index funds) probably produce less than $12,800 income. For example's sake, let's say $1k interest and $3k dividends for a total of $4,000 income. Yet Medicaid disqualifies you for having assets and private insurance is costly.

Roth ladder to the rescue! From the 401k, our thoughtful hero transfers $8,800 into the Roth account. That $8,800 thereby becomes taxable ordinary income. Combine with the existing $4,000 and voila, the hero's income is $12,800. Like a responsible citizen, he can now buy insurance and keep himself healthy.

I keep my income around $14k to ensure I don't accidentally go under the limit. My net premiums have ranged from $11 per month to $56 per month, changing year by year as the market's prices change.

In the scenario you describe, the 401k-to-Roth conversion serves two purposes. In addition to qualifying for healthcare by having enough income, the transfers increase the amount of Roth available to use before reaching age 59 1/2. Five years after a dollar is put into the Roth, it can be taken out penalty free, though any gains is produced have to stay in the account until 59 1/2. The withdrawals from Roth can supplement the $200,000 and the income from the $200,000 in order to ensure that the FI person can actually pay their expenses.

[bacchi]

With regards to getting ACA in FIRE, is there a way to know which insurance companies in your state are available on it?  I tried fiddling around on the healthcare.gov site, but it seemed to want me to submit a completed application to get more information, and I am not actually quitting my job imminently.

https://www.healthcare.gov/see-plans/

Enter your zip code and skip the questions to see who offers plans.

Answer the questions (age, family status, income, etc.) to see real plan prices without actually applying.

[BicycleB]

Great questions!

I don't know all the answers, but I do know that the federal health care exchange is surprisingly responsive if you telephone them. It's true that their focus is answers for current questions, not prospective ones, but from a few experiences, there's about a 50% chance that the representative will think of a way you can investigate a scenario.

A person will qualify for ACA as soon as they have a qualifying event, so I think you could just say you're worried about losing your job, and want to find out if Kaiser is available in your area. They might either answer the question, or point you to a resource, or both.

1-800-318-2596 according to current internet search. Available 24/7...how about that!

ETA: I see @bacchi sent a better, faster answer. Now you have options. :)

[Malum Prohibitum]

I think it's unrealistic to expect your kids to be self supporting at 18.   Jobs do not pay well without an education which was very different when I was young. My kids could live at home and attend college, go to a technical school or get a job and live at home to save up money, etc.  My 3 boys boomeranged for a while before finally launching.

My oldest is 18 and self supporting by working at a restaurant full time and sharing a house with room mates.

I was self sufficient at 17.  I went to college later and worked full time and went to school full time and took out no debt for college.

Nothing unrealistic about it at all, other than your own expectations as a parent.

I think it's unrealistic to expect your kids to be self supporting at 18.   Jobs do not pay well without an education which was very different when I was young. My kids could live at home and attend college, go to a technical school or get a job and live at home to save up money, etc.  My 3 boys boomeranged for a while before finally launching.

It's not some horrible fate to not have a great paying job immediately. Learn to budget, get  some roommates, and cook your meals. It can be a great learning experience and teach you all kinds of kick-ass self-reliance skills that serve you well throughout your entire life.

This is another funny example of something being called  "unrealistic" when I've literally done it myself (and not like 30 years ago or whatever).

Saw your post only after I posted.  LOL!

[Cassie]

I was self supporting at 18 also but that was 47 years ago. Much more difficult now. 

[2Birds1Stone]

Moved out at 18 as well, and have been self supporting since. Retiring at 32/33, I see a correlation here :)

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[chairman5]

This is a crucial point.  It's tough to compare nest eggs when one person's includes a paid off residence another person's does not.  Folks who own their homes outright probably need to add the value of their homes to their retirement savings to do a valid comparison.  My guess is that you wouldn't see too many people retiring with a net worth (including the value of their real estate) of $500k.

People have a hard time imagining life either up/down a few levels of spending from where they are.

I knew I would have been better off leaving out that last sentence - the one about retiring on $500k.  That's what everyone focused on, and I'm not saying it can't be done.  It absolutely can be accomplished, but the point I was trying to make was that in order to do valid comparisons we need to account for the value of paid off residences.  Some people have them, and some people don't.  If a person says "I'm retiring with a $450k nest egg" but that person also has a paid off $350k house, then that's not nearly as badass as someone who's retiring with a net worth of $500k.

^All true.

I think most of us aren't as far as the numbers appear at first. I woke up thinking about this for some reason, and concluded that my situation is close to OP Chairman5's even though he has $3 million more than I do.

One person's view here, but factors that produce similar safety results with a different net worth number include:
1. Number of people in household
2. HCOL area vs LCOL area
3. Amount of educational spending parents choose
4. Whether the above cause significant tax expenses, especially in retirement
5. Consumer spending
6. Emotional need for safety

OP's original focus in raising his case in other threads was to ask safety questions and express worry about retiring, implying item 6 as his focus. Many of the responses suggested resolving 6 by cutting item 5. To my eye, most of the difference between me (FIREd on 500k or 560k, depending on how you count) and OP (working and worried at $3.5 million net worth) is from 1 through 4.

Roughly, here's how the step ups look to me:
1. OP has spouse and at least 2 kids, so 4 people vs 1. Perhaps 4x more costs.
2. Not sure how much impact from HCOL, but let's guess 40%. Running total, 5.6x net worth needed.
3. Let's say kids cost less than parents because they're small and temporary, but OP chooses substantial education spending, so a wash.
4. At OP's level, taxes have impact. Let's say 25% extra; now 7x is needed.
5. Maybe 15% higher spending on the consumer side...some categories much higher than others, but not all. I waste 15%; OP could be argued to waste 30%, but I think half of that is rational or near-rational purchasing of valuable items. In any case, proportionally no more than a 15% bump. Now we're at 8x.
6. Barring emotional need for safety, it seems to me that OP needs about 8x. His comfort level wants a little more safety, but is financially same. Let's say 12.5% more.

Final result? To achieve the same level of emotional and financial safety I have, OP's choices require about 9x as much net worth. That doesn't mean they're all bad choices. The biggest difference is simply more people in the family, which is a wonderful human thing. But each of the other choices adds to it, so that the outcome requires a hugely different dollar amount. Valuing my stash at 560k (to include fair value of tiny pension account), OP would need about $5 million to achieve my level of safety. Yet he only has $3.5 million! It's no wonder he's hesitant about retiring.

We can discuss details endlessly on how to optimize and what to do. OP or other very high dollar forum members can run the analysis in the other direction, calculating step downs to imagine what 500k FI would be like. But I think that the financial safety and comfort level of posters at very different wealth levels can be much closer than a mere dollar amount would suggest.

Wow - you sir or madam are very very good.  I think you quantified in monetary terms what is a very emotional subject for me. Raising a family in a HCOL area and enjoying the benefits of the cultural influences, as well as feeling responsible to provide my kids with a solid education (save and pay for their college) were all important choices for me.  However, it made is very difficult for me to imagine life in a more rural setting, which may be much less cost of living, and giving up some of the traditional HCOL amenities of live.  Well done!  One of the better intuitive posts I have ever read on this site.

[BTDretire]

 I have lightly criticized this skinny retirement idea also, especially for younger people, so I sympathize  with your position. Not $3.5M worth though :-)
 My wife and live what I (that's the rub) consider a fairly frugal lifestyle. But our basic living expenses before food is a little over $30k, consisting of Health ins, Electricity, Internet, water/sewer, House/vehicle Insurance, cell phone and CC bill.
  Admittedly, I have a couple of college kids that are still on my health insurance and phone bill.
We are just finishing our first full year of retirement and don't have a good feel for our retirement costs yet, but $50,000 would probably be on the low side.
  I haven't got a good number yet because I still have high tuition bills and rent for my kids. Luckily the stock market gains have been spectacular and the gains have been almost double all our spending, but we aren't lean FIRE!

[frugal_c]

Haven't read the whole thread so bear with me.

I can see the ops point. Personally my perspective is that I could live on tiny amounts, maybe $500k for a couple with a paid off house but I really wouldn't want to. For me I want well above that and I will reduce down as needed.   I actually mostly live on a tiny amount but then I throw in travel which is pricey.  We aren't retired but I think wouldn't change much.  I would like $1.3m minimum. That would provide 50k and I don't have to worry too much.  If there is a crash maybe we figure out how to live on something substantially less.

[happy]

Just dropping in to mention that as someone who now has kids in their 20s, it IS true that they do not need to cost a fortune. Australian data also shows that they  get more expensive with time, and annual household expenditure is at its highest whilst there are young adults still living in the household. Once the kids leave expenditure more than halves. American data may be slightly different because of the"going away to college" phenomenon.

I haven't tracked for a few years now but when I last did, I had managed to get our annual spend for 3 of us ( myself and 2 kids) down to $AUD 45,000. COL in Australia for essentials like food, clothing and gas, are higher than the US and Aussie former some years back determined that it roughly cost Aussies 1.5X as much as US citizens for the same standard. So that's about 30k in US terms ( ignoring the weaker AUD, which might arguably bring it down further if converted to USD). We live a very comfortable middle class life on that and want for nothing. Did I get tired of my kids coming home from school saying "X got a Velostar for their 17th Birthday", why yes! But really I was never going to buy my kid a car.

If you are not naturally frugal, sorting out needs from wants is an essential skill to be learned and it can be learned if you wish to. Its natural to want to do your best by your children and there are a lot of preconceived notions about what is essential to do that emerge as a parent. Much more deep seated and intense than just dealing with yourself. However its amazing how you can work through such things with a little persistence and creative thinking. I also developed my "rule of halves" : if I really wanted to do/have something ( or my kids) that couldn't be done free, then I bought or did said thing half as often, or spent half as much if it was a single spend.  If they really wanted something that I thought was nonessential I would say, yes you can have that but you need to buy it out of your own money. So often, the pleas of desperation would immediately evaporate.

As far as activities goes, I put a strict limit on that - 1 sport based and 1 other each. Sure they're now adults and can't play 2 or 3 different musical instruments, as well as 3 different sorts of dancing etc etc but that seems less and less relevant to adult life. There were families who's kids had scheduled stuff on every afternoon, and more than one activity. My kids said to me one day that they really liked that they had time to just hang out and relax at home and that we weren't rushing from one thing to another all the time like lots of their friends.

My best reward for LBYM was in the last recession. My kids came home from school anxious as there must have been a lot of talk about folk losing jobs, houses etc. They asked me if we would lose our house because of it. I was able to say - goodness no! We may look like we don't have as much money as a lot of your other school mates but we're fine because I don't spend all our money on stuff, the bank won't be able take away our house. The look of relief on their faces was priceless. And their sense of social self-esteem rose quite a few notches.

So I'm here to say that its quite possible to raise a family on under AUD 50k..equiv roughly to 30-35k in the the US. You can circumlocute and justify spending more all you like but its really not necessary. If you want to spend more I really don't care,  thats your prerogative. In the meantime I'm happy and retired.

[BicycleB]

...
(detailed guesswork connecting a 500k retirement and Chairman5's possible 3.5M one)

...the financial safety and comfort level of posters at very different wealth levels can be much closer than a mere dollar amount would suggest.

Wow - you sir or madam are very very good.  I think you quantified in monetary terms what is a very emotional subject for me. Raising a family in a HCOL area and enjoying the benefits of the cultural influences, as well as feeling responsible to provide my kids with a solid education (save and pay for their college) were all important choices for me.  However, it made is very difficult for me to imagine life in a more rural setting, which may be much less cost of living, and giving up some of the traditional HCOL amenities of live.  Well done!  One of the better intuitive posts I have ever read on this site.

Thanks, @chairman5!

(A sir, fwiw. Cisgender male, with due respect to the many gender fluid out there)

Best wishes in your decisions and adventures for the upcoming decade.