Broke by 62, YES

[Mechanista]

I don't disagree with the premise that saving large sums for old age at the complete expense of your current health and welfare is not useful, but your math and timeline doesn't completely make sense to me.

You seem pretty convinced that after 62 you would have no reason to leave the medicare funded nursing home. My parents are doing just fine traveling the world right now in their 60's (They are in India right now actually). Nothing wrong with simple living but if travel is something you want to enjoy, why limit yourself to just a few years? I'm fine with a larger nest egg that allows me something closer to the 4% rule and will let me continue to travel and enjoy independence well into my golden years. I guess if you want to blow it all now and be content with a nursing home life at such a young age that's your prerogative. Honestly more power to you there.

I think if you look outside the US at other cultures, you may not be quite as sure of those SS and Medicare benefits. I for one don't take them as a given at all. It's very possible that they are drastically reduced or gone. If you asked an auto worker 15 years ago how likely it was that pensions would be gone they probably would have laughed at you....and here we are in an age where pensions are all but dying. Times change in 20-30 years. Worth the gamble? Your call.

Why all or nothing? If you have a good stache, but are burned out...why not a part time low stress job that supports your hobbies and lifestyle. Hell you might even find a job you actually like.

[RetiredAt63]

+1 (with Mechanista) for saying don't think life is over at 62 and that is when you hit the nursing home (unless of course your whole family tends to drop dead by 65).  I am over 62, and I am traveling, doing fun local things, volunteering a lot in my community, and basically enjoying having more than CPP and OAS to do things with, including charitable giving.  If at the end there is money left over, there are lots of good causes you can leave the money to.  I have 6 in my will, and may well think of others down the road.

[Villanelle]

Lots of assumptions in the OP.  It's highly unlikely that my family will fight over money, for example.  DH and I have no children and very little family to whom we are close.  We each have one sibling.  Much of our money will to to charity, if not all of it.  There's little chance of a fight. 

I am also hoping to be healthy and vigorous into my 60s and beyond.  My parents--both over 70--still enjoy travel, though at a slower pace than I might enjoy now. They also enjoy entertaining, drinking great wines, cooking wonderful meals (almost never eating out). They enjoy occasionally splurging, like on the new dining room table they bought when their old one died.  They are still by and large very mustachian, but there are indulgences, about which they have to worry none. 

To me, it's not so much about choosing extra layers of security, it's about not wanting to live in a tiny government funded box during the last couple decades or my life.  If someone is cool with that, then I won't be critical about it.  Different strokes, and all that.  But I think there are other choices that aren't just about worrying too much about a 4% SWR, and there are other situations than family fighting over money and associated unpleasantness. 

[FrugalSaver]

How is living on social security a burden to society. I know I don't plan for it but I paid my damn money into it I'm gonna want it back.

what's sad is we've devolved as a society where politicians such as Chris Christie and many many others are blatantly saying things about how THEY are going to decide if YOU have enough and if THEY decide YOU do, they will not allow you to get the social security you were voluntold to contribute every 2 weeks of your working life.

I know many on here will see it the same as i do and many won't, but in my opinion, that's about as un-American as anything I've ever heard.  "We" decided you have enough so, even though we took YOUR money from you, we're not going to give it to you because you have enough already, we couldn't control our spending and need you to help cover the shortfall on all our government waste.

I'm not seeing anything that will stop it.  I hope it never happens.  I also wouldn't be surprised to see in the next 30-50 years a "Tax" on net assets for the "rich".  Many European countries already do it and we seem to just be 10-20 years behind them in many ways and seemingly trying to catch up fast.

[dude]

How is living on social security a burden to society. I know I don't plan for it but I paid my damn money into it I'm gonna want it back.

what's sad is we've devolved as a society where politicians such as Chris Christie and many many others are blatantly saying things about how THEY are going to decide if YOU have enough and if THEY decide YOU do, they will not allow you to get the social security you were voluntold to contribute every 2 weeks of your working life.

I know many on here will see it the same as i do and many won't, but in my opinion, that's about as un-American as anything I've ever heard.  "We" decided you have enough so, even though we took YOUR money from you, we're not going to give it to you because you have enough already, we couldn't control our spending and need you to help cover the shortfall on all our government waste.

I'm not seeing anything that will stop it.  I hope it never happens.  I also wouldn't be surprised to see in the next 30-50 years a "Tax" on net assets for the "rich".  Many European countries already do it and we seem to just be 10-20 years behind them in many ways and seemingly trying to catch up fast.

Here's the thing -- the extreme right learned years ago that if you keep repeating the same shit refrain over and over again, the mouthbreathing masses will come to take it as gospel.  It started with "the liberal media, the liberal media, the liberal media," and continued with "Iraq has WMDs, Iraq has WMDs, Iraq has WMDs" and "Barack Obama is a non-American born Muslim, . . ." and now, "Social Security won't be around for you, Social Security won't be around for you, Social Security won't be around for you."  This is their straight-up Orwellian propaganda machine, funded by the very richest industrialists among us, and specifically designed to divide and conquer the American middle class (what's left of it anyway).  They are hoping and betting that this mantra will become a self-fulfilling prophecy, and if it works, it will all have been our own (collectively) goddamn fault.  This is what a sustained assault on intellectualism and education gets us.  Ditto for climate change and our utter failure, as a society, to give it the weight and attention it deserves.

[CheapskateWife]

How is living on social security a burden to society. I know I don't plan for it but I paid my damn money into it I'm gonna want it back.

what's sad is we've devolved as a society where politicians such as Chris Christie and many many others are blatantly saying things about how THEY are going to decide if YOU have enough and if THEY decide YOU do, they will not allow you to get the social security you were voluntold to contribute every 2 weeks of your working life.

I know many on here will see it the same as i do and many won't, but in my opinion, that's about as un-American as anything I've ever heard.  "We" decided you have enough so, even though we took YOUR money from you, we're not going to give it to you because you have enough already, we couldn't control our spending and need you to help cover the shortfall on all our government waste.

I'm not seeing anything that will stop it.  I hope it never happens.  I also wouldn't be surprised to see in the next 30-50 years a "Tax" on net assets for the "rich".  Many European countries already do it and we seem to just be 10-20 years behind them in many ways and seemingly trying to catch up fast.

Here's the thing -- the extreme right learned years ago that if you keep repeating the same shit refrain over and over again, the mouthbreathing masses will come to take it as gospel.  It started with "the liberal media, the liberal media, the liberal media," and continued with "Iraq has WMDs, Iraq has WMDs, Iraq has WMDs" and "Barack Obama is a non-American born Muslim, . . ." and now, "Social Security won't be around for you, Social Security won't be around for you, Social Security won't be around for you."  This is their straight-up Orwellian propaganda machine, funded by the very richest industrialists among us, and specifically designed to divide and conquer the American middle class (what's left of it anyway).  They are hoping and betting that this mantra will become a self-fulfilling prophecy, and if it works, it will all have been our own (collectively) goddamn fault.  This is what a sustained assault on intellectualism and education gets us.  Ditto for climate change and our utter failure, as a society, to give it the weight and attention it deserves.

So I look at the folks representing us in DC, and don't think of them as the "everyman" they would like you to think they are.  They are the richest of the rich, those whose money and influence has helped pave the way to leadership in DC.  I don't see those folks passing laws that hurt the "monied" class.  It would be cutting off their own noses to spite their faces.  For now, I believe we are safe from an asset tax.

[Kaspian]

The couple in the middle of this photograph are my friends, H & L.  They live in Canada and every year I meet them (with a group) somewhere in Europe to hang out for a week.  This year it was Belgium.  They've travelled lots over the years (pre and post-retirement) and are now well over the age of 62 (probably past 70).  If you asked them, I'm 100% sure they'll tell you they're glad they're not broke sitting at home on assistance instead of eating Belgian waffles overseas.

But we're all Mustachians on here, aren't we? I thought our big question is - "how little do I need to retire?" Flexing some Mustachian muscle should mean that we can live very comfortably on the amounts provided by govt assistance and be comfortable. (Is a fancy shmancy European vacation worth extra years of working life?) I know I'm currently focused now on getting my annual spending below the poverty line. and many, many other Mustachians are able to get their spending well below that. That said, I do live in Canada with a bigger safety net, so my risk tolerance is different.

I agree.  My mom lives on CPP and OAS and she is completely happy with her simple life. There is such arrogance to assuming that if one lives simply, they mustn't be happy.  If the OP and his wife are happy living simply, I'm not going to judge that.  In fact, good for them.

This thread is further evidence of the need for tolerance of others' choices.  If someone chooses something you wouldn't choose for yourself, maybe just being happy for them instead of trying to convince them they are wrong is the best option.

My point was that you could reach 62 and still want to do lots of stuff but not have the option because you fucking spent it all and are on social assistance.    The underlying assumption here is, "We'll do everything then we can, then retire in old age with no regrets."  In 30 years you'll have different friends (likely), different tastes, places you missed but still want to see, places you really, really want to go back to.  Some places I've visited didn't get permanently checked off the bucket list--I still want to return to them again, again, and again. 

I'm not poo-pooing the "get out now for an amazing adventure plan", I'm saying "broke by design at 62" is a bad plan.  Why would you build planned obsolescence into your own lifespan?

[Astro Camper]

Someone asked for budget. This is ours once we hit the road. A lot can be trimmed but we don't want to sit in RV and do nothing. This is based on us moving once per month for RV Park monthly rate (daily rates are are crazy high). Live in one town for month, use my Ninja 250 bike (80 mpg) to see anything within 100 mile radius, bicycle, fish, hike, eat, paint than move to the next town 200 miles away till entire USA is covered then head for other countries.

450   RV Parks   
450   Groceries (100 per week)   
50   Utilities   
400   Gasoline   
450   Eating out (100 per week)   
100   Medical   
80   Direct-TV   
45   Phone   
45   RV, TRUCK Insurance   
100   RV+TR Maintenance   
50   Hobbies   
20   Clothing   
10   Pet Care   
20   Motorcycle Maint   
10   Motorcycle Ins   
      
2280   TOTAL per MONTH   
      
      
27360   FULL YEAR   

[Shane]

OP, your budget looks pretty reasonable to me.

All these people keep piling on and criticizing your plan, maybe because of your initial post where you said you didn't care if you were broke at 62 because you could just live off of SS and public assistance then. Apparently being broke at 62 is not your plan, though, right?

The plan you presented above doesn't seem irresponsible to me at all. According to cFIREsim, you have ~81% chance of not running out of money before you're 62, even if you spend ~$28K/year of a $500K stash, increasing that amount every year to account for inflation. cFIREsim says the median ending value of your portfolio (100% stocks) would have been ~$747K.

So, what's everyone worried about? What's up with all of the doom and gloom? Relax! AstroCamper has a solid plan that he's obviously thought through, and he has expressed an ability to be flexible, possibly earning money here and there doing things he and his wife enjoy. My vote is that they're going to do fine.

AC, thanks for the link to the documentary on people living in vans traveling around the U.S. My wife and I talked about it, and we decided when we get ready to tour the U.S., we may be the ones in the Prius. Neither of us likes big, bulky, gas hogging vehicles that much. :)

[Astro Camper]

Like I said, the worse case, we may have to work on a side for some cash if things get tight. I posted some craigslist adds for automotive inspection just to test the water (take me with when buying used car, I will bring tools to check it for you) for $80 (1hr 150 point inspection). I had over 10 emails first day. Took the add down since it was only a test and I'm still having people emailing me. Most sellers do not want their car to be taken to a shop (no plates, no insurance, long drive, long wait) so me showing up with some tool and floor jack solves that problem. Easy money, all cash.

I do not plan on doing anything other than enjoying my early FIRE but there is always a way to make money.

Plus there is always inheritance. My mom has some and my in-laws are sitting on 2mil (in their 70s). Will written for 50/50 for my wife and her sister, plus extra 200K for my wife as she is the executor and has to pay for all funeral costs. Not counting on any of that money but most likely we will get something.

[infogoon]

i wonder if it is a case of hedonistic adaptation applied to healthcare. if you have more, you will spend more on healthcare just because you can. and the stress from doing so ironically makes health worse.

My wife has a retired relative who is always at the doctor's office for a variety of reasons, most of which are imaginary. I think she's just lonely and needs someone to listen to her.

[Astro Camper]

My wife has a retired relative who is always at the doctor's office for a variety of reasons, most of which are imaginary. I think she's just lonely and needs someone to listen to her.

I see this a lot in wealthy folks. Older people sitting around with nothing to do so they run to doctors. They have every condition in medical books. They take handful of pills and another handful of pills just for the side effects after the first batch.

Those on Medicaid, you have to wait 2-3 weeks to see a doctor so they don't go.

Cancer is the worst. Those that have money become victims. There is always experimental drugs at $100k per treatment that MAYBE will beat it. Nobody talks about that but the amount of money Cancer patients blow for nothing is staggering. So many snake oils out there.

[Tyson]

Many of the people in this community value integrity and self-reliance.  While calculating how to live off the hard work of others is a clever as a thought experiment, it doesn't meet the needs of those of us who feel the responsibility to provide for our families and set a good example for our children.

I'd disagree.  Many people in this community gleefully calculate their Obamacare subsidies they will receive when they retire early and fall into a lower income bracket.  How is that any different?  Lot's of people around here plan on milking 20+ years worth of subsidies while they are retired early even though its totally avoidable if they worked a few more years...but OP plans on milking the system pretty much only if he ends up in a nursing home or with an expensive illness at end of life even though working a few more years could boost his nest egg enough to not have to worry about that and he's a bad guy?

If that isn't hypocrisy I don't know what is.

Hahaha, I thought I was the only one that noticed this.  "Hey, here's how to game (cheat) the system half a dozen different ways, but HOW DARE YOU count on social security!!!  What kind of example are you setting for YOUR CHILDREN!!!"

Oh my god I am laughing so hard right now.

[Zamboni]

Cancer is the worst. Those that have money become victims. There is always experimental drugs at $100k per treatment that MAYBE will beat it. Nobody talks about that but the amount of money Cancer patients blow for nothing is staggering. So many snake oils out there.

Having been a cancer researcher, here is my plan for cancer should I end up with it:

1) They are welcome to cut it out if that is possible and if they find it before it becomes metastatic. Once it is metastatic, please just leave me alone and call hospice when the time comes.
2) If there is an approved chemotherapy that they can show me data has a greater than 50% chance of working, then I might consider it for an original tumor (not a metastatic one). But I analyze data for a living, so it better look pretty good because I'll be doing the analysis myself and not relying on conclusions in an abstract.
3) Beyond that, no, thank you. No experimental drugs, period. Please just send pain meds when the time comes.

[pdxbator]

Working in healthcare I see many cash-strapped older people. They live in trailers, have few options to get around maybe with no car, live social security check to check. It really sucks for them. I'm saving so I don't have to be there. When I'm gone to the grave I won't care if people are fighting over my inheritance anyhow.

[BPA]

The couple in the middle of this photograph are my friends, H & L.  They live in Canada and every year I meet them (with a group) somewhere in Europe to hang out for a week.  This year it was Belgium.  They've travelled lots over the years (pre and post-retirement) and are now well over the age of 62 (probably past 70).  If you asked them, I'm 100% sure they'll tell you they're glad they're not broke sitting at home on assistance instead of eating Belgian waffles overseas.

But we're all Mustachians on here, aren't we? I thought our big question is - "how little do I need to retire?" Flexing some Mustachian muscle should mean that we can live very comfortably on the amounts provided by govt assistance and be comfortable. (Is a fancy shmancy European vacation worth extra years of working life?) I know I'm currently focused now on getting my annual spending below the poverty line. and many, many other Mustachians are able to get their spending well below that. That said, I do live in Canada with a bigger safety net, so my risk tolerance is different.

I agree.  My mom lives on CPP and OAS and she is completely happy with her simple life. There is such arrogance to assuming that if one lives simply, they mustn't be happy.  If the OP and his wife are happy living simply, I'm not going to judge that.  In fact, good for them.

This thread is further evidence of the need for tolerance of others' choices.  If someone chooses something you wouldn't choose for yourself, maybe just being happy for them instead of trying to convince them they are wrong is the best option.

My point was that you could reach 62 and still want to do lots of stuff but not have the option because you fucking spent it all and are on social assistance.    The underlying assumption here is, "We'll do everything then we can, then retire in old age with no regrets."  In 30 years you'll have different friends (likely), different tastes, places you missed but still want to see, places you really, really want to go back to.  Some places I've visited didn't get permanently checked off the bucket list--I still want to return to them again, again, and again. 

I'm not poo-pooing the "get out now for an amazing adventure plan", I'm saying "broke by design at 62" is a bad plan.  Why would you build planned obsolescence into your own lifespan?

It's not planned obsolescence.  Your problem is that you can't see that anyone might want to live differently than you do.  That's why you keep shitting on the OP's plan.  You're not the OP.  If you don't want to do this, don't do it, but please respect that others might want to live a life different from yours.

My mother is perfectly happy with her simple life, TYVM, and the OP could be too.  She doesn't sit in her apartment watching daytime tv.  She is out.  She is active.  She works out at the seniors' center.  She attends university.  She has a great life living on government pension money. 

Stop measuring other people by your own yardstick and accept that they might just be happy with a different life than you.  Frankly, with the number and tone of your posts on this thread, you sound like a schoolyard bully who won't be happy until he gets his own way.

[Shane]

My wife has a retired relative who is always at the doctor's office for a variety of reasons, most of which are imaginary. I think she's just lonely and needs someone to listen to her.

I see this a lot in wealthy folks. Older people sitting around with nothing to do so they run to doctors. They have every condition in medical books. They take handful of pills and another handful of pills just for the side effects after the first batch.

Those on Medicaid, you have to wait 2-3 weeks to see a doctor so they don't go.

Cancer is the worst. Those that have money become victims. There is always experimental drugs at $100k per treatment that MAYBE will beat it. Nobody talks about that but the amount of money Cancer patients blow for nothing is staggering. So many snake oils out there.

My dad died recently from lung cancer that had metastasized to his brain. It was already in both lungs by the time they found it (by chance), so none of the surgeons wanted to touch it. The oncologists recommended chemotherapy and radiation. My dad opted to do nothing for two years, and that whole time he was asymptomatic, so he was able to do all of the things he normally did with no restrictions. The only problem was that psychologically he was a mess. All he talked about from the time they diagnosed him was cancer and dying. In hindsight, it seems like it would've been better if he hadn't know that he was sick.

Eventually, when my dad started experiencing some symptoms from the lung cancer he agreed to let the doctors give him radiation treatments to shrink the tumor down. According to the doctors, the radiation was successful, but as far as I'm concerned, that was the beginning of the end. My dad started feeling sick and weak and more anxious than he'd been before. Finally, a year or so later, after the cancer had metastasized to my dad's brain, he let them do radiation treatments on his brain. Again, the doctors said that the radiation had been successful, but from my perspective it seemed like my dad was gone after that. For obvious reasons, he couldn't think clearly after they had radiated his brain. By the time he died, a few months later, he was delusional and barely knew who his own family was...

As far as I'm concerned, if I ever get diagnosed with terminal cancer, unless it's a type of cancer that has been proven to respond well to whatever treatments are available, I'm not going to get any treatment. I'll stick around as long as I don't feel too bad, but before I start to get really sick, I'm going to have a party, invite my friends and family, talk over old times, have fun, drink some cold beers, do a few shots of tequila, smoke a joint, eat a bunch of pain pills and go to sleep for the last time. Fuck waiting around until I die naturally. I don't see the point in suffering when you know you're going to die in a short time anyway.

I'd never let my dog suffer like my dad did when he was dying from cancer, but that seems to be the norm. Of course, we gave him morphine to kill the pain towards the end, but it's hard to tell how much it worked. He couldn't talk anymore, so we don't know for sure if he was still feeling pain, even with the morphine, but he sure didn't look like he was having too much fun. I really don't understand why our society allows humans to die long, slow, painful deaths, when we could easily just put them out of their misery and quickly end their suffering. The problem is, unless you live in Oregon or Switzerland, if a doctor or family member helps a dying patient to die more quickly, we can be arrested and charged with murder... WTF?

[elaine amj]

I'm still not grasping why living at the poverty level is "extreme level hardship" for those of us who follow Mustachianism. Admittedly, I don't know what is the absolute minimum you get in the US from Social Security, welfare, etc. Here in Canada, it is enough to be very comfortable if you know how to live at the Mustachian level. It should even be enough to travel on, etc.

The key thing of course is Mustachianism (or good old-fashioned frugality) in your old age.

[Daisy]

Concerning the cancer discussion above, I can see that argument going both ways on how much to save/how early to retire.

I have a 49 year old friend currently suffering through metastasized cancer. She was planning to retire in her late 50s and said she didn't have enough money now to retire. I hope she can make it through this, but she might not. She is going through chemo treatments and it really affects her in a bad way. She told me the other day she might be willing to go off chemo if she realizes it's not working.

Oh well, a lot of decisions on her part, but the bottom line is you have to balance having enough money and having enough time to enjoy it.

I'm certainly in the camp of not caring if I don't have enough money to travel and go out to eat in my 70s and 80s and be in a forced downshift. I sure hope I have the health and money to still do that at those ages, but it would suck more to continue to work (when I'd rather not be) to have huge buffers in place to then not be able to enjoy it because I don't make it to those ages.

I wouldn't say "broke by 62" like the OP, but I respect the general attitude of the post.

[Moostache]

Well first of all the average social security benefit in 2015 is around $1330/mo but based on medicare coverage you would lose $105/mo to pay part B premium.  Mustachians might face a lower benefit due to early retirement - especially if planning to retire at 62 since that benefit is about 75% of what you are paid if you wait till full retirement age.

The second thing to consider is that even though your expenses tend to reduce as you age for 'frill' level things medical costs go up.  The final years of life can be quite taxing.

I'm still not grasping why living at the poverty level is "extreme level hardship" for those of us who follow Mustachianism. Admittedly, I don't know what is the absolute minimum you get in the US from Social Security, welfare, etc. Here in Canada, it is enough to be very comfortable if you know how to live at the Mustachian level. It should even be enough to travel on, etc.

The key thing of course is Mustachianism (or good old-fashioned frugality) in your old age.

[Daisy]

The second thing to consider is that even though your expenses tend to reduce as you age for 'frill' level things medical costs go up.  The final years of life can be quite taxing.

Isn't medical spending really a choice one makes? Why do we say these costs HAVE to go up? Even with poor health, you still have a choice on how much medical care to pursue.

In my friend's case with cancer, she was feeling very weak before the cancer was discovered, but she is also very weak with the chemo treatment for cancer now. I'm not sure what her condition would be if she refused chemo. She'd probably be in a lot of pain and very fatigued as before the cancer discovery. Why can't one balance these two options and opt for the less expensive one, even if it leads to a slightly earlier death? My friend was saying certain things they suggest to her "will prolong life by 6 months" and she was openly wondering if it was worth it. Is it going to be painful either way for her? I really don't know the answer...but it is a choice.

I have a cousin that died from cancer about a year ago. She was in her 60s and had a lot of money. She did 3 rounds of chemo, but said she did the last two only for her family's case to see if she could make it. She wishes she wouldn't have done them.

[Shane]

The second thing to consider is that even though your expenses tend to reduce as you age for 'frill' level things medical costs go up.  The final years of life can be quite taxing.

Isn't medical spending really a choice one makes? Why do we say these costs HAVE to go up? Even with poor health, you still have a choice on how much medical care to pursue.

In my friend's case with cancer, she was feeling very weak before the cancer was discovered, but she is also very weak with the chemo treatment for cancer now. I'm not sure what her condition would be if she refused chemo. She'd probably be in a lot of pain and very fatigued as before the cancer discovery. Why can't one balance these two options and opt for the less expensive one, even if it leads to a slightly earlier death? My friend was saying certain things they suggest to her "will prolong life by 6 months" and she was openly wondering if it was worth it. Is it going to be painful either way for her? I really don't know the answer...but it is a choice.

I have a cousin that died from cancer about a year ago. She was in her 60s and had a lot of money. She did 3 rounds of chemo, but said she did the last two only for her family's case to see if she could make it. She wishes she wouldn't have done them.

My understanding is that usually chemotherapy makes patients feel a lot worse, at least temporarily. Some types of cancers respond well to certain types of chemo and some patients are less affected by chemo's side effects, but I'm pretty sure in most cases chemo makes people really, really sick. It's a poison. I'm pretty sure the radiation treatments my dad got made him worse rather than better. Probably he lived a little longer because the radiation shrunk his tumor down a little bit, but there's a big difference between length of life and quality of life. When my dad was sick we researched all different kinds of treatments, and some of the studies I read showed certain treatments, on average, increased patients' lives by 35 days! There's no way I'd take chemo and get really sick, just so I could go on living (in pain and misery) for an extra month.

[jacquespluto]

Social Security, the biggest pyramid scheme out there.  I do see both sides of the argument.  No way it will go away.  But also, at some point radical changes will need to be made or they will just keep pushing out the age when you can start collecting.  It is one of the most frustrating things when you look at your paycheck, and one thing we can all agree on is if there was a way one could opt out of the program from the start and invest that money individually, most if not all of us would.

[Kaspian]

It's not planned obsolescence.  Your problem is that you can't see that anyone might want to live differently than you do.  That's why you keep shitting on the OP's plan.  You're not the OP.  If you don't want to do this, don't do it, but please respect that others might want to live a life different from yours.

Whoa, calm the fuck down.  First of all I wasn't shitting on anything.  Second of all I didn't know I had a "problem".  I thought we were discussing ins and outs of this.  People can do "Broke by 62, YES" however much they damn well want.  I'm still on the opinion is a narf idea for most people and probably not a good strategy to advocate for the majority.

[paddedhat]

Someone asked for budget. This is ours once we hit the road.

Sweet, now you have it dialed in. It's all about having enough to enjoy the experience. Yea, there are thousands who sit in the southwest desert every year and get buy on less than a grand a month. But, staring at mesquite get's old pretty quick, and not having the budget to enjoy yourself also get's old. Good luck.

[Goldielocks]

I'm still not grasping why living at the poverty level is "extreme level hardship" for those of us who follow Mustachianism. Admittedly, I don't know what is the absolute minimum you get in the US from Social Security, welfare, etc. Here in Canada, it is enough to be very comfortable if you know how to live at the Mustachian level. It should even be enough to travel on, etc.

The key thing of course is Mustachianism (or good old-fashioned frugality) in your old age.

If you qualify for SSN (especially if you have at least 20 working years), just assume SS in the USA is almost double that of CPP + OAS in Canada. 
But -- if you were self employed and did not pay into it for many years reliably, you may not qualify. 

At least we have OAS in Canada, which helps those seniors (e.g., widows or others) who never worked, and is topped up by GIS (Welfare for the elderly) to a minimum amount of about $1200/month.

[Telecaster]

Social Security, the biggest pyramid scheme out there.  I do see both sides of the argument.  No way it will go away.  But also, at some point radical changes will need to be made or they will just keep pushing out the age when you can start collecting.  It is one of the most frustrating things when you look at your paycheck, and one thing we can all agree on is if there was a way one could opt out of the program from the start and invest that money individually, most if not all of us would.

1)  It is a not a pyramid scheme.  It just isn't.

2)  It will require some minor, not radical,  changes to be made in order to remain solvent.  Demographics have changed a lot over the last 80 years.   It is reasonable the system get tweaked from time to time to reflect those changes. 

[boarder42]

It's not a pyramid scheme but it is the largest ponzi scheme in the history of the world. It's practically the definition of that.

[Conjou]

Obviously hit a nerve with this post, given the number and tenor of the replies, but for what it is worth, I think your plan is like the flipside of the fear of FIRE-ing mentioned elsewhere on the forum. I have been wondering if anyone is going really minimalist with this strategy and not keeping on keeping on just because it builds a little more cushion. We don't know how long we have or what health will be like. Seen too many croak before they back the mobile home out of the driveway in their golden years, so called anyway. Good for you and your wife for launching the plan. Lots can happen between now and 62 anyway, but rolling the dice on using your good years for doing what you love is pretty awesome.

[Shane]

Hey OP,

In case you haven't heard of them before, helpx.com and WWOOF.net are two sites you might want to check out. Both connect travelers and people who need help all over the world.

The WWOOF site is for people who want to volunteer on organic farms. My wife and I did it in New England about 20 years ago, and it was an awesome experience. You get to live temporarily in some of the most beautiful places in the world, and you get to learn about stuff you never thought you'd ever learn. Some farms grow vegetables, others have livestock, some produce and sell raw milk, artisanal cheeses, bacon, wine, etc. You get to learn about where your food comes from, help people out who are really appreciative, and you get to meet new, interesting people. WWOOFers usually volunteer 2-4 hours/day, 5 days or so a week in exchange for free room and board.

Helpx is a site I found recently, so I haven't tried it yet, but I've heard good things about it. It looks similar to WWOOF, except it isn't exclusively farms. There are families who need help painting their house, people who are looking for pet sitters, people who run hostels, restaurants, small hotels, etc., and are looking for temporary help during peak season.

Through either of those sites you may be able to find some places that look interesting to you and your wife, and then you just call them up or email or text or whatever, and try to work out an arrangement where you guys could maybe park your truck and trailer on the hosts' property and do a work exchange. The farms we stayed on in NE had big, family-style meals, 3 times a day, and the food was GREAT!

We're looking forward to becoming WWOOFers again or maybe Helpxers in FIRE as a way to meet interesting people, stay for free in amazing places and learn new skills. For example, I'd love to spend a full season (spring to fall) volunteering on a small, family farm in Japan, where I could learn how to grow rice. It would also be cool to spend some time helping out at a vineyard, maybe in Europe or South America, so we could learn more about wine. The possibilities are endless...

[MoonShadow]

Hey OP,

In case you haven't heard of them before, helpx.com and WWOOF.net are two sites you might want to check out. Both connect travelers and people who need help all over the world.

Well, those sites are just cool.  I'll have to show these to my teenagers.

[jacquespluto]

Sorry, meant ponzi scheme, typed pyramid. SS is by definition a ponzi scheme.

[arebelspy]

Sorry, meant ponzi scheme, typed pyramid. SS is by definition a ponzi scheme.

...

I mean... yesss?  In the same way all taxes that fund benefits to people are?

It's not an unsustainable one, which is the only relevant consideration.

I feel like when people use that phrase, they mean it negatively to mean something that it doesn't.

So what exactly do you mean by that, or what's your point?

[boarder42]

Sorry, meant ponzi scheme, typed pyramid. SS is by definition a ponzi scheme.

...

I mean... yesss?  In the same way all taxes that fund benefits to people are?

It's not an unsustainable one, which is the only relevant consideration.

I feel like when people use that phrase, they mean it negatively to mean something that it doesn't.

So what exactly do you mean by that, or what's your point?

So the first people who received social security benefits paid nothing in.  They were being paid by the people paying in on the back end.  So lets just assume it wasnt a bureaucartic mess and say every dollar that went in came out to the people ....

IF birth rates decrease and people continue to live longer, even if there was no politicians dipping their hands in this system would run out of money.  no way around it.  UNLESS you cut back what you paid people, when you started to pay them and how long you paid them.

SOO... its a giant system that is fundamentally flawed from the start and will break at somepoint.  is that point likely in my lifetime ... NO... but it IS a ponzi Scheme and it is just as bad as what Bernie did if not worse b/c alot of americans are counting on it for retirement and it doesnt cover 1/3 of what most people waste annually. 

I dont live in fear i wont get anything out of it b/c whats the point in living in fear. 

[arebelspy]

If your point is perhaps at some future point benefits may have to decrease slighty.. okay, sure.  I agree.

Just say that then, instead of the loaded "ponzi scheme" term.

[MoonShadow]

Just say that then, instead of the loaded "ponzi scheme" term.

The term "ponzi scheme" is only loaded because of it's history of failure.  The core definition of a "ponzi scheme", named after Charles Ponzi, is system of investment risk reduction (can we say, "diversification"?) that depended upon a pattern of continued investment in order to pay out promised gains to prior investors.  A typical company pension plan worked in very much a similar manner, with the exception that the the promises of the pension plan was ultimately backed up by the parent company.  Likewise, SS is ultimately backed up by the 'full faith & credit' of the US government.  However, there is a traditional distinction between a ponzi scheme & a company pension plan; that the pension plan's capital funds are actually invested in the meantime, whereas the ponzi scheme's capital funds are generally required to pay out to beneficiaries in the near term.  Since SS funds are not invested, but either paid out directly to current pensioners or spent in the current year's government budget; by definition, SS is a ponzi scheme backed up by the government's ability to raise taxes on the working class.

[arebelspy]

All of that is factually correct.

The first sentence was the important one though, which agreed with what I posted.

Might as well say what you mean, when talking about SS, instead of using a loaded term.

[partgypsy]

Just say that then, instead of the loaded "ponzi scheme" term.

The term "ponzi scheme" is only loaded because of it's history of failure.  The core definition of a "ponzi scheme", named after Charles Ponzi, is system of investment risk reduction (can we say, "diversification"?) that depended upon a pattern of continued investment in order to pay out promised gains to prior investors.  A typical company pension plan worked in very much a similar manner, with the exception that the the promises of the pension plan was ultimately backed up by the parent company.  Likewise, SS is ultimately backed up by the 'full faith & credit' of the US government.  However, there is a traditional distinction between a ponzi scheme & a company pension plan; that the pension plan's capital funds are actually invested in the meantime, whereas the ponzi scheme's capital funds are generally required to pay out to beneficiaries in the near term.  Since SS funds are not invested, but either paid out directly to current pensioners or spent in the current year's government budget; by definition, SS is a ponzi scheme backed up by the government's ability to raise taxes on the working class.

Overall I agree with what you said, except that but SS funds are invested, in "non-marketable securities issued by the federal government, earning a market rate of interest (currently 3.6%). The problem as you pointed out, is that the government borrows from that fund to pay other obligations. People will continue to be able to collect social security, as long as the government pays back the obligation, money keeps coming in (no big population drop) and most likely some adjustments are made regarding eligible retirement and/or amount of payout. But, I don't think social security will "go away". If anything can be considered a sacred cow in the Federal budget, it is social security. NASA, EPA, foodstamps, Medicaid will go away before social security.

[Bellatrix]

I would be really stressed out if I had to depend on someone else or the government to take care of me.  I've seen patients from nursing homes receive really poor care (covered in poop, essentially dead, cold at like 85 degrees which I don't even know how that is possible when you are in a warm nursing home, and so on).  I have no intention of ever going to a nursing home and want to have enough money to pay for in home care.  I also think that your choices are limited when you are on Medicaid.  Where I live, not all surgeons/specialists accept medicaid, and GOd forbid they have to pay out of pocket for anything. I don't like my options being limited. I likely would decline invasive or costly procedures, but I still want to have the choice. 

I don't trust that I will get any social security, so I don't take it into account when calculating how much I need.  I'm sure SS will eventually be means tested and I will be too "rich" to get anything. Gotta save SS for the people who didn't work and didn't save. 

I couldn't care less if people want to fight over my money.  The joke will be on them. Nobody is getting anything, with the exception of one family member. The majority of my money will be divided up among my favorite animal rescue groups!

[Daisy]

I used to be a Social Security worrier. I've accepted that it will be there. If SS implodes,  there are bigger issues going on in our country that would make any financial plan worthless, in my opinion. As someone said above,  it's a sacred cow and other things will be cut before SS is.

I'm totally relying on it and use the SS income when estimating risk with cFireSim.

[Shane]

I used to be a Social Security worrier. I've accepted that it will be there. If SS implodes,  there are bigger issues going on in our country that would make any financial plan worthless, in my opinion. As someone said above,  it's a sacred cow and other things will be cut before SS is.

I'm totally relying on it and use the SS income when estimating risk with cFireSim.

+1

[Money Badger]

@Astro Camper,  I didn't read every post, but didn't see mention of your kids or nieces or nephews.   I just spent 25 years of my life dealing with a similar viewpoint from my father.   Unfortunately, he spent an inheritance earned at right around 58 by the time he was 63.   Then proceeded to have major medical issues before Medicare kicked in, then required home health for 3 years, then nursing care for another 3 years.   Just visit a nursing facility for the Medicaid and indigent care sometime, because I had to visit several to find a place that would take my dad.   Cattle at a slaughterhouse have a better life because at least someone puts them out of their misery.   And the emotional toll on your loved ones is awful the whole time...

Enjoying the prime of your life is all good.   But relying on Social Security and the "safety nets" of society is a devastating impact to the next generation.   And it won't be fun for you or your spouse especially if you lose control of your faculties.   Call me Debbie Downer if you like, but for anyone reading this thread who thinks spending it all by 62 could work, think about the last act of the show, not just the ones until 62.

[boarder42]

He has no children.

[Matumba]

Indentured4now, 

Could you describe the Medicaid senior facilities in more detail? What exactly didn't you like?

How many people are there in each room?

What state is it if you don't mind me asking? Do you think it's similar in other states too?

[Tyson]

Just say that then, instead of the loaded "ponzi scheme" term.

The term "ponzi scheme" is only loaded because of it's history of failure.  The core definition of a "ponzi scheme", named after Charles Ponzi, is system of investment risk reduction (can we say, "diversification"?) that depended upon a pattern of continued investment in order to pay out promised gains to prior investors.  A typical company pension plan worked in very much a similar manner, with the exception that the the promises of the pension plan was ultimately backed up by the parent company.  Likewise, SS is ultimately backed up by the 'full faith & credit' of the US government.  However, there is a traditional distinction between a ponzi scheme & a company pension plan; that the pension plan's capital funds are actually invested in the meantime, whereas the ponzi scheme's capital funds are generally required to pay out to beneficiaries in the near term.  Since SS funds are not invested, but either paid out directly to current pensioners or spent in the current year's government budget; by definition, SS is a ponzi scheme backed up by the government's ability to raise taxes on the working class.

Overall I agree with what you said, except that but SS funds are invested, in "non-marketable securities issued by the federal government, earning a market rate of interest (currently 3.6%). The problem as you pointed out, is that the government borrows from that fund to pay other obligations. People will continue to be able to collect social security, as long as the government pays back the obligation, money keeps coming in (no big population drop) and most likely some adjustments are made regarding eligible retirement and/or amount of payout. But, I don't think social security will "go away". If anything can be considered a sacred cow in the Federal budget, it is social security. NASA, EPA, foodstamps, Medicaid will go away before social security.

Looks like we don't have to worry about a population drop, Millennials now officially outnumber baby boomers, 87 million to 78 million.  And the boomer population is about to start dropping precipitously (because of dying):

http://money.cnn.com/interactive/economy/diversity-millennials-boomers/

[Money Badger]

Indentured4now, 

Could you describe the Medicaid senior facilities in more detail? What exactly didn't you like?

How many people are there in each room?

What state is it if you don't mind me asking? Do you think it's similar in other states too?

Matumba, The latter stages of senior care are tiered nationally.    Assisted Living was first phase till we were kicked out of the "pretty" places due to his needs...    For Medicaid level of monthly fees, I then called a dozen places then visited 3 different "skilled nursing & memory care" homes in Georgia of 2 major national chains plus a religious affiliated facility.   Men are often excluded from admission due to the burden on female caregivers to lift, bathe, etc so beware!   The 2 "for profit" ones ran bathing  and meals like conveyor belts in glass walled rooms so staff (and everyone else) could see the entire process.   No dignity and 3 people to a room unless we kicked in $500 a month for semiprivate 2 in a room.   They avoid solo rooms to reduce costs and to keep residents interactive with others to extend their payout IMO.   The church based facility was better but wouldn't take my Dad because the caregivers couldnt lift him.    Anyhoo, back on topic of why you dont spend it all...   We liquidated all assets and I chipped in the difference and paid $7K per month total the last 3 years at a good "heavy" assisted living that paid for enough staff and allowed hospice nursing to cover the medical work load.    My kids (or other family of last resort) wont have that financial burden.   Meanwhile, "carpe diem"!!

[TheFrugalFox]

Would it not be possible to move the money into high yield div stocks and ETF's? Looks like 5% would be fairly easy to do and with trimming the budget moderately, living on $25K should be easy. Dividends normally grow quicker than inflation so you should have a bit more to play with as you get older.

of course, some of these are BS - and would have thought 1/3 or so should be in REITS

http://www.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-scandiv.html

[boarder42]

Dividend stocks historically come out with lower return than just investing in the total stock market. You're just filling yourself. A stock can pay a 3% dividend or can go up 3% and you sell shares. It's the same thing except dividend tax implications are worse.

[jrhampt]

I suppose if you have no debt, a plan for healthcare (including dental), and a place to live at 62, this might be an okay plan.  My parents are 62, on social security and broke and living with my brother.  They are still healthy and mobile and perfectly capable of doing more than sitting and watching tv, but they don't have the money for their own place to live, let alone to travel or for small luxuries, or for a reliable car, even.  My brother isn't too thrilled about their living arrangement either.  I would rather plan for a different retirement. 

I think you might be underestimating how nice money is to have as you get older, because as the body breaks down, money can pay for comforts that help to compensate (heat, air conditioning, someone to do your landscaping/snow shoveling or home maintenance tasks, a comfortable mattress, an animal companion, a car that's easy to get in and out of, dental work - not covered by Medicare, etc.).  I know that my in-laws in their seventies are very happy to have the money to pay for veterinarian bills and dental work and home repairs and steak dinners without having to worry about it.

[kite]

Yes, I'm sure about the numbers. It was based on my wife already not working and me stopping in June. I thought they would drop us to minimum but because I maxed out SS payments for the last 11 years, I will still receive $1200 in today's dollars. Wife will get $700

When the higher earner wins the Medicaid lottery and gets a comfy bed  and 3 square meals at a state run nursing home, the lower earner gets to live on $700 per month.  Whoo hoo!

In between having foster kids occupy our empty bedrooms, we've housed homeless women; who scrape by on that $700/month worth of benefits.  Two of these ladies had slept in cars for the months before finding me.  I also  have 2 SIL'S on SSI who live in subsidized housing and will the rest of their lives.  Silly me for not realizing those bag ladies are actually care-free and happy since they don't worry about property taxes, their portfolio taking a hit during a downtown and offspring fighting over an inheritance.  I should take all I've got and spend it on hookers & blow next week so I can live just like them!