Is $100k a year a lot? Is it Fat FIRE? Used to think so but starting to wonder!

[charis]

We average 56k/yr spending now for family of 4 in a somewhat LCOL city.  Our "big" ticket items are already set low - inexpensive house, public schools, older used cars - so we'd really have trouble spending 100k/year. It would definitely be a fatfire.

[JLee]

@jehovasfitness23 - yes. Bay Area

$40k/yr for property taxes? holeeee shit

If their property taxes in Calif are that high then they have a hugely expensive house since Prop 13 sets the tax basis at 1% of the purchase price and it only goes up a relatively small fixed amount each year regardless of increases in value. There are lots of people here in Calif who own homes worth a million plus but only pay a few hundred or a few thousand in prop taxes. I live in coastal SoCal (Orange County) and Fired here with a paid off house and paid less then $2000/year on a house who's value increased greatly inn a few years. Even if my house were to be worth over a million bucks,  I'd still only be paying around $2k/year. So at $40k a year in prop taxes the poster must have spend a couple million or more. Very luxurious even for the Bay area.

I wish NJ would do that...my property tax has gone up nearly 5% in the last couple of years and the tax basis was originally over 3% of purchase price.

[maizefolk]

If their property taxes in Calif are that high then they have a hugely expensive house since Prop 13 sets the tax basis at 1% of the purchase price and it only goes up a relatively small fixed amount each year regardless of increases in value. There are lots of people here in Calif who own homes worth a million plus but only pay a few hundred or a few thousand in prop taxes. I live in coastal SoCal (Orange County) and Fired here with a paid off house and paid less then $2000/year on a house who's value increased greatly inn a few years. Even if my house were to be worth over a million bucks,  I'd still only be paying around $2k/year. So at $40k a year in prop taxes the poster must have spend a couple million or more. Very luxurious even for the Bay area.

I wish NJ would do that...my property tax has gone up nearly 5% in the last couple of years and the tax basis was originally over 3% of purchase price.

I understand the impulse. My property tax bill is already 1/3 larger than it was when I bought my house six years ago.

But at the same time I want to point out that Prop 13 has not been great for the state of California. It shifts more of the tax burden from older individuals and families who bought their houses decades ago and typically more money to young families who pay much higher taxes for the exact same houses while typically having much less money overall. It also creates a disincentive to move in retirement when people are typically otherwise more location independent, which is probably making the housing shortage/housing affordability crisis even worse than it otherwise would be.

[Villanelle]

@jehovasfitness23 - yes. Bay Area

$40k/yr for property taxes? holeeee shit

If their property taxes in Calif are that high then they have a hugely expensive house since Prop 13 sets the tax basis at 1% of the purchase price and it only goes up a relatively small fixed amount each year regardless of increases in value. There are lots of people here in Calif who own homes worth a million plus but only pay a few hundred or a few thousand in prop taxes. I live in coastal SoCal (Orange County) and Fired here with a paid off house and paid less then $2000/year on a house who's value increased greatly inn a few years. Even if my house were to be worth over a million bucks,  I'd still only be paying around $2k/year. So at $40k a year in prop taxes the poster must have spend a couple million or more. Very luxurious even for the Bay area.

My sister and her spouse bought my parent's OC home when they moved to their retirement home.  They had purchased it in 1989.  Prop 13 allows the property tax rate to be kept if a house goes from parent to child.  That meant it was cheaper for my sister to buy my parents' larger, more expensive house than to buy the more modest place that they otherwise would have. I think her basis is way less than 50% of what it would be if purchased today.  Insanity. 

I understand prop 13 and what it intended to do, but I think it goes to far.  (And I say this as someone who owns CA real estate and benefits from it.)   

[tooqk4u22]

If their property taxes in Calif are that high then they have a hugely expensive house since Prop 13 sets the tax basis at 1% of the purchase price and it only goes up a relatively small fixed amount each year regardless of increases in value. There are lots of people here in Calif who own homes worth a million plus but only pay a few hundred or a few thousand in prop taxes. I live in coastal SoCal (Orange County) and Fired here with a paid off house and paid less then $2000/year on a house who's value increased greatly inn a few years. Even if my house were to be worth over a million bucks,  I'd still only be paying around $2k/year. So at $40k a year in prop taxes the poster must have spend a couple million or more. Very luxurious even for the Bay area.

I wish NJ would do that...my property tax has gone up nearly 5% in the last couple of years and the tax basis was originally over 3% of purchase price.

I understand the impulse. My property tax bill is already 1/3 larger than it was when I bought my house six years ago.

But at the same time I want to point out that Prop 13 has not been great for the state of California. It shifts more of the tax burden from older individuals and families who bought their houses decades ago and typically more money to young families who pay much higher taxes for the exact same houses while typically having much less money overall. It also creates a disincentive to move in retirement when people are typically otherwise more location independent, which is probably making the housing shortage/housing affordability crisis even worse than it otherwise would be.

Agree with the location lock, but not so much the younger argument.  The prop was put in place bc people were getting taxed out of their house bc they were going up so fast.   But when a younger person buys a house with said higher taxes they know what they are and what they can afford and benefit similarly knowing that they too won't be taxed out of their house.   

When I first moved to NJ my property taxes doubled in six years from $6k to $12k they have been more modest increases since then with some flat years but if my income wasn't growing fast back then an extra $500/month would have been touch and was for a lot of people. And for nothing gained. 

House affordability is a different issue in CA.

[Villanelle]

It seems what we need to define is whether assisting aging parents or living in Southern California are roughly equivalent to owning two Teslas and a Hum-V, and eating out 3 meals a day, having a second home, or wearing $1000 shoes, when looking at what constitutes "fat" FIRE.

Or wanting to donate well into 5 figures to charity, or having a special-needs child, or whatever. 

Same dollars, differing values.  So are they all the same if we look at whether FIRE is fat?  To me, they are not, but I can respect the argument that they are.  It is a luxury many don't have to be able to support one's special needs child without many compromises or sacrifices.  It is a luxury to continue living in an expensive city where you have a network, once you no longer have a job there.  So if "fat" is "having expensive luxuries", that that's pretty overweight.  But to me, those things are different.  For me, fat FIRE is about extravagance and indulgence, and while those things are luxuries, I don't think they are extravagant.   

[Metalcat]

It seems what we need to define is whether assisting aging parents or living in Southern California are roughly equivalent to owning two Teslas and a Hum-V, and eating out 3 meals a day, having a second home, or wearing $1000 shoes, when looking at what constitutes "fat" FIRE.

Or wanting to donate well into 5 figures to charity, or having a special-needs child, or whatever. 

Same dollars, differing values.  So are they all the same if we look at whether FIRE is fat?  To me, they are not, but I can respect the argument that they are.  It is a luxury many don't have to be able to support one's special needs child without many compromises or sacrifices.  It is a luxury to continue living in an expensive city where you have a network, once you no longer have a job there.  So if "fat" is "having expensive luxuries", that that's pretty overweight.  But to me, those things are different.  For me, fat FIRE is about extravagance and indulgence, and while those things are luxuries, I don't think they are extravagant.

Yeah, that's because none of these terms actually mean anything, and that's a value judgement you are putting on them.

Is it because you find the term fatFIRE to be insulting and have some kind of negative connotation?
Would you feel differently if it was termed cushyFIRE?

The simple fact is that the OP came here saying that they doubt that having enough savings to generate 100K/yr constitutes fatFIRE and that maybe it now has to be 200K. That's just ridiculous. For the vast, overwhelming majority of people, having 100K+inflation to spend every single year while maintaining your nest egg, is BEYOND luxury.

And yes, being able to own a nice home in an expensive area and support you parents and donate generously to charity counts as extreme luxury, of course it does. To claim any differently, just because it aligns with your personal values is nonsense.

I say this as someone who will have a household retirement income of well over 100K, and DH and I marvel constantly and the immense possibilities this affords us. It IS a luxury. It just is.

[charis]

It seems what we need to define is whether assisting aging parents or living in Southern California are roughly equivalent to owning two Teslas and a Hum-V, and eating out 3 meals a day, having a second home, or wearing $1000 shoes, when looking at what constitutes "fat" FIRE.

Or wanting to donate well into 5 figures to charity, or having a special-needs child, or whatever. 

Same dollars, differing values.  So are they all the same if we look at whether FIRE is fat?  To me, they are not, but I can respect the argument that they are.  It is a luxury many don't have to be able to support one's special needs child without many compromises or sacrifices.  It is a luxury to continue living in an expensive city where you have a network, once you no longer have a job there.  So if "fat" is "having expensive luxuries", that that's pretty overweight.  But to me, those things are different.  For me, fat FIRE is about extravagance and indulgence, and while those things are luxuries, I don't think they are extravagant.

That's interesting.  I just thought fat fire was having more $ than you really need to spend on extras (additional or more expensive travel, etc).  So I would agree that supporting family members or living in a HCOL area would fall into the normal expenses category, ie regular FIRE for those people.

[robartsd]

If their property taxes in Calif are that high then they have a hugely expensive house since Prop 13 sets the tax basis at 1% of the purchase price and it only goes up a relatively small fixed amount each year regardless of increases in value. There are lots of people here in Calif who own homes worth a million plus but only pay a few hundred or a few thousand in prop taxes. I live in coastal SoCal (Orange County) and Fired here with a paid off house and paid less then $2000/year on a house who's value increased greatly inn a few years. Even if my house were to be worth over a million bucks,  I'd still only be paying around $2k/year. So at $40k a year in prop taxes the poster must have spend a couple million or more. Very luxurious even for the Bay area.

Prop 13 greatly rewards those who have owned their property the longest, generally at expense of those who purchased more recently. In addition to regular property taxes, there can be special assessment districts which could cause the total bill to be significantly more than 1% of the tax basis for some properties (though this is much more likely the case if the property has a very low basis and is subject to special assessments that are not based on property value). Still, I agree that it would have to be a very expensive property to have a $40k/year bill.

[Metalcat]

It seems what we need to define is whether assisting aging parents or living in Southern California are roughly equivalent to owning two Teslas and a Hum-V, and eating out 3 meals a day, having a second home, or wearing $1000 shoes, when looking at what constitutes "fat" FIRE.

Or wanting to donate well into 5 figures to charity, or having a special-needs child, or whatever. 

Same dollars, differing values.  So are they all the same if we look at whether FIRE is fat?  To me, they are not, but I can respect the argument that they are.  It is a luxury many don't have to be able to support one's special needs child without many compromises or sacrifices.  It is a luxury to continue living in an expensive city where you have a network, once you no longer have a job there.  So if "fat" is "having expensive luxuries", that that's pretty overweight.  But to me, those things are different.  For me, fat FIRE is about extravagance and indulgence, and while those things are luxuries, I don't think they are extravagant.

That's interesting.  I just thought fat fire was having more $ than you really need to spend on extras (additional or more expensive travel, etc).  So I would agree that supporting family members or living in a HCOL area would fall into the normal expenses category, ie regular FIRE for those people.

Yeah, it doesn't really have a definition.

Typically I err on the side of defining fatFIRE being having more than you need, whatever that means relative to what you need. But this thread clearly was talking about absolute amounts.

[honeybbq]

Definitely not in my area. Depending on what link you chose, 81k is the average salary in Seattle so 100k puts you barely above average.
https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Location=Seattle-WA/Salary

Housing is also absurd here, 1+ Mil for a free standing house in Seattle proper with more than 2 bedrooms. So taxes alone are going to be 15k in this region.

That in mind, I'd say 150k draw is more like fatfire to me. 100k is still pretty lean since 30k for income taxes, 15k for property taxes (assuming you own your home outright), leaving barely 50k for spending.

Above average and you don't have to worry about retirement savings anymore...

We spent $50k last year including rent, in a city with a similar COL to Seattle. It really is all in the eye of the beholder.

The question is about FAT fire. Not ability to live and survive and normal FIRE. Are you stating that 50k is FATfire?

[honeybbq]

Definitely not in my area. Depending on what link you chose, 81k is the average salary in Seattle so 100k puts you barely above average.
https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Location=Seattle-WA/Salary

Housing is also absurd here, 1+ Mil for a free standing house in Seattle proper with more than 2 bedrooms. So taxes alone are going to be 15k in this region.

That in mind, I'd say 150k draw is more like fatfire to me. 100k is still pretty lean since 30k for income taxes, 15k for property taxes (assuming you own your home outright), leaving barely 50k for spending.

Again, you confused retirement spending with work salary. If you make $150k a year, you should probably spend less than $75k a year, with 401k saving, FICA taxes, child education, etc..

I didn't. I specifically gave an example of a 150k draw. While a draw and a salary are obviously different, I was benchmarking the COL with the 81k reference. The explanation of income taxes and property taxes on 100k draw was valid. I don't think 50k of spending is FATfire. *shrug*

[ixtap]

Definitely not in my area. Depending on what link you chose, 81k is the average salary in Seattle so 100k puts you barely above average.
https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Location=Seattle-WA/Salary

Housing is also absurd here, 1+ Mil for a free standing house in Seattle proper with more than 2 bedrooms. So taxes alone are going to be 15k in this region.

That in mind, I'd say 150k draw is more like fatfire to me. 100k is still pretty lean since 30k for income taxes, 15k for property taxes (assuming you own your home outright), leaving barely 50k for spending.

Above average and you don't have to worry about retirement savings anymore...

We spent $50k last year including rent, in a city with a similar COL to Seattle. It really is all in the eye of the beholder.

The question is about FAT fire. Not ability to live and survive and normal FIRE. Are you stating that 50k is FATfire?

In response to $50k after taxes and after housing, yes, I am saying that most people would consider that pretty generous vs the pretty lean that you claim it is. It is well above average for post housing spending. Is it FatFIRE? I was the first to argue that depends on the individual.

[partgypsy]

I always assumed fatfire was relative to what the person was spending before, and spending in retirement.
Spending as much or more in retirement (or the ability to spend more than while working = fatfire
fire
needing to keep to a budget, spend less money than would be incline (keep to a strict budget) = leanfire.

In all these cases it is a relative amount, as other people said, such as 4% withdrawal covering expenses = fire, 1-3% of withdrawals covering expenses = fatfire, and more than 4% withdrawal = lean fire.

Since I've never made more than 70 something K a year my entire life, and live off around 50K while also paying for a house and 2 kids, 100K for myself, especially when housing is paid for, kids are launched would definitely be fatfire! But also not something I would aim for, because it would mean working far longer than I intend to for that additional (and to me unnecessary) cushion.

If you want to talk about averages, the median income in the Us is 33K. so many many people live on far less than 100K (happily or unhappily, who knows). The Pension Rights Center reports that “Half of all Americans age 65 or older have incomes of less than around $25,000 a year". 100K is 4 times that amount. 

 

[nereo]

Definitely not in my area. Depending on what link you chose, 81k is the average salary in Seattle so 100k puts you barely above average.
https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Location=Seattle-WA/Salary

Housing is also absurd here, 1+ Mil for a free standing house in Seattle proper with more than 2 bedrooms. So taxes alone are going to be 15k in this region.

That in mind, I'd say 150k draw is more like fatfire to me. 100k is still pretty lean since 30k for income taxes, 15k for property taxes (assuming you own your home outright), leaving barely 50k for spending.

Again, you confused retirement spending with work salary. If you make $150k a year, you should probably spend less than $75k a year, with 401k saving, FICA taxes, child education, etc..

I didn't. I specifically gave an example of a 150k draw. While a draw and a salary are obviously different, I was benchmarking the COL with the 81k reference. The explanation of income taxes and property taxes on 100k draw was valid. I don't think 50k of spending is FATfire. *shrug*

How on earth do you get $30k for income taxes when one is retired? And if you own your own home outright, you have no mortgage or rent payment, only the aforementioned property taxes. Seems your discretionary income would be substantially higher than the majority’s total take home pay.

[maizefolk]

Yeah, it doesn't really have a definition.

Typically I err on the side of defining fatFIRE being having more than you need, whatever that means relative to what you need. But this thread clearly was talking about absolute amounts.

It is amazing, and a little sad, how many apparently fundamental disagreements actually turn out to simply be cases of the same word meaning different things to different people. In this thread alone the fatFIRE/leanFIRE distinction has been used to variously mean:

1) Excessively cautious vs excessively optimistic withdrawal rates.
2) High vs low planned spending in retirement in dollar values.
3) High vs low planned spending in retirement relative to what people think they themselves or others "need" to spend.
4) High vs low planned spending in retirement relative to the spending of other people in the same neighborhood.

For what it is worth, I will say the reddit community split between leanFIRE vs fatFIRE seems to use primarily definition #2. But why argue about what a word does or doesn't apply to when we don't even agree on what the word means. (And to be clear, I see no point in arguing about which meaning of the word is best either).

[honeybbq]

Definitely not in my area. Depending on what link you chose, 81k is the average salary in Seattle so 100k puts you barely above average.
https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Location=Seattle-WA/Salary

Housing is also absurd here, 1+ Mil for a free standing house in Seattle proper with more than 2 bedrooms. So taxes alone are going to be 15k in this region.

That in mind, I'd say 150k draw is more like fatfire to me. 100k is still pretty lean since 30k for income taxes, 15k for property taxes (assuming you own your home outright), leaving barely 50k for spending.

Again, you confused retirement spending with work salary. If you make $150k a year, you should probably spend less than $75k a year, with 401k saving, FICA taxes, child education, etc..

I didn't. I specifically gave an example of a 150k draw. While a draw and a salary are obviously different, I was benchmarking the COL with the 81k reference. The explanation of income taxes and property taxes on 100k draw was valid. I don't think 50k of spending is FATfire. *shrug*

How on earth do you get $30k for income taxes when one is retired? And if you own your own home outright, you have no mortgage or rent payment, only the aforementioned property taxes. Seems your discretionary income would be substantially higher than the majority’s total take home pay.

If I'm withdrawing 100k from a stash that I have not paid income (federal and state) taxes on...... May be even higher than 30k. Might be lower. It depends on age, place you are withdrawing your money from, any 10% penalties, etc. It was just a guessed number, not from personal experience.

[joemandadman189]

Yeah, it doesn't really have a definition.

Typically I err on the side of defining fatFIRE being having more than you need, whatever that means relative to what you need. But this thread clearly was talking about absolute amounts.

It is amazing, and a little sad, how many apparently fundamental disagreements actually turn out to simply be cases of the same word meaning different things to different people. In this thread alone the fatFIRE/leanFIRE distinction has been used to variously mean:

1) Excessively cautious vs excessively optimistic withdrawal rates.
2) High vs low planned spending in retirement in dollar values.
3) High vs low planned spending in retirement relative to what people think they themselves or others "need" to spend.
4) High vs low planned spending in retirement relative to the spending of other people in the same neighborhood.

For what it is worth, I will say the reddit community split between leanFIRE vs fatFIRE seems to use primarily definition #2. But why argue about what a word does or doesn't apply to when we don't even agree on what the word means. (And to be clear, I see no point in arguing about which meaning of the word is best either).

well said,

if we use definition #2, post tax spending, in today's dollars, $100k seems* like it should be FatFire when considered for purchasing the basic non-luxury things in life when compared to most every median income metric (in the USA)

* YMNV along with personal financial obligations impacting this arbitrary $100k dollar amount,

FWIW my goal retirement spending in todays dollars is ~70-75k post tax with lots of fluff for having fun and a paid off home

[tooqk4u22]

If you want to talk about averages, the median income in the Us is 33K. so many many people live on far less than 100K (happily or unhappily, who knows). The Pension Rights Center reports that “Half of all Americans age 65 or older have incomes of less than around $25,000 a year". 100K is 4 times that amount.

I think that might median per capita, per census.gov per capita was $34.1k and household was $62.8k.  So sure there a lot of households (single, married, families) that live on less I wouldn't call the $32k gap between $100k and the median dramatic to the point of being super rich.

[tooqk4u22]

Definitely not in my area. Depending on what link you chose, 81k is the average salary in Seattle so 100k puts you barely above average.
https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Location=Seattle-WA/Salary

Housing is also absurd here, 1+ Mil for a free standing house in Seattle proper with more than 2 bedrooms. So taxes alone are going to be 15k in this region.

That in mind, I'd say 150k draw is more like fatfire to me. 100k is still pretty lean since 30k for income taxes, 15k for property taxes (assuming you own your home outright), leaving barely 50k for spending.

Again, you confused retirement spending with work salary. If you make $150k a year, you should probably spend less than $75k a year, with 401k saving, FICA taxes, child education, etc..

I didn't. I specifically gave an example of a 150k draw. While a draw and a salary are obviously different, I was benchmarking the COL with the 81k reference. The explanation of income taxes and property taxes on 100k draw was valid. I don't think 50k of spending is FATfire. *shrug*

How on earth do you get $30k for income taxes when one is retired? And if you own your own home outright, you have no mortgage or rent payment, only the aforementioned property taxes. Seems your discretionary income would be substantially higher than the majority’s total take home pay.

If I'm withdrawing 100k from a stash that I have not paid income (federal and state) taxes on...... May be even higher than 30k. Might be lower. It depends on age, place you are withdrawing your money from, any 10% penalties, etc. It was just a guessed number, not from personal experience.

A single person drawing $100k from ira or 401k would owe about $15k and in my state another $6k to them so $21k total. Diversity of tax type accounts can help with this.  Then drop another IDK $10-20k on Healthcare and $100k WR isn't looking as great.

On the other hand a family of 4 would owe just $1k so filing status/dependents matter.  Also something to think about as you and your kids (if applicable) age out of being dependents.  So if one was fire with a family and had tax advantaged accounts you should Def do roth conversion now and don't touch taxable.

[Villanelle]

It seems what we need to define is whether assisting aging parents or living in Southern California are roughly equivalent to owning two Teslas and a Hum-V, and eating out 3 meals a day, having a second home, or wearing $1000 shoes, when looking at what constitutes "fat" FIRE.

Or wanting to donate well into 5 figures to charity, or having a special-needs child, or whatever. 

Same dollars, differing values.  So are they all the same if we look at whether FIRE is fat?  To me, they are not, but I can respect the argument that they are.  It is a luxury many don't have to be able to support one's special needs child without many compromises or sacrifices.  It is a luxury to continue living in an expensive city where you have a network, once you no longer have a job there.  So if "fat" is "having expensive luxuries", that that's pretty overweight.  But to me, those things are different.  For me, fat FIRE is about extravagance and indulgence, and while those things are luxuries, I don't think they are extravagant.

Yeah, that's because none of these terms actually mean anything, and that's a value judgement you are putting on them.

Is it because you find the term fatFIRE to be insulting and have some kind of negative connotation?
Would you feel differently if it was termed cushyFIRE?

The simple fact is that the OP came here saying that they doubt that having enough savings to generate 100K/yr constitutes fatFIRE and that maybe it now has to be 200K. That's just ridiculous. For the vast, overwhelming majority of people, having 100K+inflation to spend every single year while maintaining your nest egg, is BEYOND luxury.

And yes, being able to own a nice home in an expensive area and support you parents and donate generously to charity counts as extreme luxury, of course it does. To claim any differently, just because it aligns with your personal values is nonsense.

I say this as someone who will have a household retirement income of well over 100K, and DH and I marvel constantly and the immense possibilities this affords us. It IS a luxury. It just is.

No, I don't find it insulting or pejorative.  It just implies a certain level of extravagance *to me*.  Of course we are all going to see it a little different, which is what I was trying to get at with my post.

Regarding the bolded, that's exactly why I said it was a luxury.  In my mind, those things are generally not extravagant (though even that word, like the phrase fat FIRE, is going to have different connotations for different people).  And for me fat FIRE is not just having some major luxuries; it's have significant extravagances.  YMMV, and as I also said, I can respect those who see all this a bit differently. 

[nereo]

Definitely not in my area. Depending on what link you chose, 81k is the average salary in Seattle so 100k puts you barely above average.
https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Location=Seattle-WA/Salary

Housing is also absurd here, 1+ Mil for a free standing house in Seattle proper with more than 2 bedrooms. So taxes alone are going to be 15k in this region.

That in mind, I'd say 150k draw is more like fatfire to me. 100k is still pretty lean since 30k for income taxes, 15k for property taxes (assuming you own your home outright), leaving barely 50k for spending.

Again, you confused retirement spending with work salary. If you make $150k a year, you should probably spend less than $75k a year, with 401k saving, FICA taxes, child education, etc..

I didn't. I specifically gave an example of a 150k draw. While a draw and a salary are obviously different, I was benchmarking the COL with the 81k reference. The explanation of income taxes and property taxes on 100k draw was valid. I don't think 50k of spending is FATfire. *shrug*

How on earth do you get $30k for income taxes when one is retired? And if you own your own home outright, you have no mortgage or rent payment, only the aforementioned property taxes. Seems your discretionary income would be substantially higher than the majority’s total take home pay.

If I'm withdrawing 100k from a stash that I have not paid income (federal and state) taxes on...... May be even higher than 30k. Might be lower. It depends on age, place you are withdrawing your money from, any 10% penalties, etc. It was just a guessed number, not from personal experience.

A single person drawing $100k from ira or 401k would owe about $15k and in my state another $6k to them so $21k total. Diversity of tax type accounts can help with this.  Then drop another IDK $10-20k on Healthcare and $100k WR isn't looking as great.

On the other hand a family of 4 would owe just $1k so filing status/dependents matter.  Also something to think about as you and your kids (if applicable) age out of being dependents.  So if one was fire with a family and had tax advantaged accounts you should Def do roth conversion now and don't touch taxable.

Here’s a good example of how drawing from savings in retirement receives favorable tax treatment compare and to earned income, and is a source of confusion in this thread.

LTCG are taxed at 0, 15% and 20% - and those rates are graduated (much as income tax brackets are).  Those rates are also only applicable to gains, not principle (i.e. ‘basis’)
So let’s look at someone who files as ‘Single’ and has only taxable investment accounts to draw from. If we take the most extreme (and exceedingly unlikely) scenario where 100% of withdrawals were capital gains, the federal tax rate would be $6,800.  State rates vary wildly, from very high states like NY and CA (est. $5,900) to states with no LTCG tax (e.g. FL, TX, AK, WA, NH and others...).  In all cases you’d be well below the threshold for paying an additional 3.8% Medicare tax

So in this ‘extreme’ example there would be a range from $6,800 to $12,900 depending on what state you live in.

More likely, a portion of a retiree’s withdrawal will not be capital gains (the gains have to come from somewhere), and may include tax-advantaged buckets like Roths or HSAs.  More typical on $100k would be about $65k in LTCG with the remainder being principle.  That drops the federal taxable burden to just $1,700

Married (filling jointly)?  There would be no federal tax on LTCG at a $100k withdrawal rate.   

Ironically moderate levels of STCG would actually improve the situation, as they would be offset by the standard deduction.`

[American GenX]

Guess I am asking, what level do you consider Fat FIRE and do you think the amounts have or are shifting hire to be Fat FIRE?

There is no single figure.  What it is for a family still paying down a mortgage in a HCOL area would be expected to be much greater than it is for a single person living in a LCOL area with a paid off home, for example.

I could get by on $22K/yr in early FIRE including taxes and sinking funds just by staying in my home - that's just getting the bills paid, not FAT fire.  But, $50K/yr would be pretty FAT from my perspective if I stayed put, and my stash and retirement income will allow about 50% more than that.  I also realize there are others here that would consider $50K/yr a hardship.

[tooqk4u22]

Guess I am asking, what level do you consider Fat FIRE and do you think the amounts have or are shifting hire to be Fat FIRE?

There is no single figure.  What it is for a family still paying down a mortgage in a HCOL area would be expected to be much greater than it is for a single person living in a LCOL area with a paid off home, for example.

I could get by on $22K/yr in early FIRE including taxes and sinking funds just by staying in my home - that's just getting the bills paid, not FAT fire.  But, $50K/yr would be pretty FAT from my perspective if I stayed put, and my stash and retirement income will allow about 50% more than that.  I also realize there are others here that would consider $50K/yr a hardship.

I get that and it's something I personally am trying, unsuccessfully, to reconcile.   Family of five with teens and a tween in probably peak expense as far as kids go (food, clothing, activities, travel, fun money, car insurance, etc) and aside from college many of these costs will go away, but in the moment they feel permanent.   Asking myself if I have too much, enough or not enough....things I didn't think about leading up to fire.   

[jpdx]

If you think you need $100k or more in retirement, you may be missing the entire point of this blog.

[2sk22]

LTCG are taxed at 0, 15% and 20% - and those rates are graduated (much as income tax brackets are).  Those rates are also only applicable to gains, not principle (i.e. ‘basis’)
So let’s look at someone who files as ‘Single’ and has only taxable investment accounts to draw from. If we take the most extreme (and exceedingly unlikely) scenario where 100% of withdrawals were capital gains, the federal tax rate would be $6,800.  State rates vary wildly, from very high states like NY and CA (est. $5,900) to states with no LTCG tax (e.g. FL, TX, AK, WA, NH and others...).  In all cases you’d be well below the threshold for paying an additional 3.8% Medicare tax

So in this ‘extreme’ example there would be a range from $6,800 to $12,900 depending on what state you live in.

More likely, a portion of a retiree’s withdrawal will not be capital gains (the gains have to come from somewhere), and may include tax-advantaged buckets like Roths or HSAs.  More typical on $100k would be about $65k in LTCG with the remainder being principle.  That drops the federal taxable burden to just $1,700

Married (filling jointly)?  There would be no federal tax on LTCG at a $100k withdrawal rate.   

Ironically moderate levels of STCG would actually improve the situation, as they would be offset by the standard deduction.`

In our household, we are fortunate to have enough for retirement in after-tax savings (at a 4% WR). I should note that we also have a substantial amount in tax advantaged buckets. Even though we live in NJ, a high tax state, the burden is not going to be big, precisely for the reasons you describe. I will only have to pay tax on dividends, interest and capital gains (most of which is long term). I hope to delay withdrawing from our tax advantaged accounts until forced to do so by RMDs - which is a long time away.

[DadJokes]

I think people spend too much time trying to define different types of FIRE. Why can't it just be FIRE?

[maizefolk]

I think people spend too much time trying to define different types of FIRE. Why can't it just be FIRE?

Human nature: many of us enjoy saying "you're doing that wrong" and few of us enjoy hearing "you're doing that wrong."

More seriously I think the only reason these two terms entered the early retirement community's lexicon is that the people on reddit split out into subreddits defined using those terms. And if you read the rules on the fatFIRE subreddit, this one jumps out as the likely motivation for creating a separate community:

Comments which criticize someone simply for living a “FatFIRE” lifestyle or making a high income will be removed, and users will be muted or banned at the moderator’s discretion.

Then there's the leanFIRE subreddit, which has their explicit definition of who does and does not qualify as leanFIRE right on their own sidebar:

If you want to retire before 60 with less than $40k in planned yearly household expenses ($20k individual), this is the place to discuss it!

[iris lily]

$100,000 is fat fire in flyover country. We have an income of about $80,000 and that buys a nice lifestyle. We have no mortgage. We have multiple properties.

This annual income doesnt cover new automobiles or trips to Europe, those come out of our stash.

[Maverick1]

Due to inflation $100k is not what it used to be. It remains a significant amount of income on which one can lead a great life and retire early assuming you don’t live in a HCOL area like New York City or San Francisco.

[mathlete]

$100K is a lot of money. It's 60% more than the median household income.

That said, I think the PF space should move away from the concept of "lean fire". At least in the US. The ACA has been a big help, but even with the ACA, the OOPM can get up to $17K. The idea that people think they can retire at 40 on something like $30K a year and live for the next 50 years with no major medical incidents or any other major life changes that might require more money is silly IMO.

You can blow out your knee tomorrow. That's the surgery + physical therapy. And then maybe all of the sudden, your compact non-"clown car" kills your knee to get in and out of, or even to drive in for extended periods of time. There are taxes. Often times, they go up. If you own property and you're not a senior citizen, in a lot of cases, your property taxes go up faster than inflation.

We're all (hopefully) going to live a long time. Things will change. Likely for the more expensive. And unless you're all secretly FIRE bloggers who get income off of affiliate links, 4% of a modest next egg might not cut it.

By all means, don't keep up with the Jones's. But don't keep down with them either. Unless your job is truly standing between you and happiness, I say stick it out a little longer and accumulate. Worst case scenario is you die rich and make some charitable cause very happy.

[Metalcat]

Due to inflation $100k is not what it used to be. It remains a significant amount of income on which one can lead a great life and retire early assuming you don’t live in a HCOL area like New York City or San Francisco.

Again, no one is talking about 100K work income, we're talking about 100K in retirement income, *after* all of the savings has been done, and likely when there's either a paid off house, or a ton of untouched equity in that house. 

Plus, if the person is retired, then there's no work obligation keeping them in an HCOL area, so choosing to stay there is a luxury decision, which is thankfully affordable on a generous 100K retirement income.

100K in retirement income is a lot. No one is saying it's too much, no one is saying it's an unreasonable goal, but also no one can safely argue that it's not a lot of retirement income.

And that's what OP said, that they used to think it was a lot, and now they are unsure. Well no, it's still a lot. It's still a hefty amount to be able to spend year over year, plus inflation, indefinitely in retirement.

[tooqk4u22]

Due to inflation $100k is not what it used to be. It remains a significant amount of income on which one can lead a great life and retire early assuming you don’t live in a HCOL area like New York City or San Francisco.

Again, no one is talking about 100K work income, we're talking about 100K in retirement income, *after* all of the savings has been done, and likely when there's either a paid off house, or a ton of untouched equity in that house. 

Plus, if the person is retired, then there's no work obligation keeping them in an HCOL area, so choosing to stay there is a luxury decision, which is thankfully affordable on a generous 100K retirement income.

100K in retirement income is a lot. No one is saying it's too much, no one is saying it's an unreasonable goal, but also no one can safely argue that it's not a lot of retirement income.

And that's what OP said, that they used to think it was a lot, and now they are unsure. Well no, it's still a lot. It's still a hefty amount to be able to spend year over year, plus inflation, indefinitely in retirement.

As the OP I want to correct you I mean saying I was unsure if it was a lot, I said I still think it is a lot.  But I questioned whether or not it would still be Fat FIRE (again whatever that is).  Based on the thread the consistency is that it means different amounts to different people on different areas. 

Also, your counter to other posters in a lot of your responses is basically "Its a luxury" implying that they are stupidly fat fire and spendy. And that may in fact be the case but that is not the question.   Shit, even lean FIRE is a luxury.  Just living in the U.S. is a luxury (even with a feed up health system).   Typing this on a phone is huge luxury.   

Anyway, $100k in my mind is a lot of money but I am still not sure it is a level that is hugely fat especially when location is factored in.  Sure I could move to rural Alabama probably be stupidly fat but that's not happening.

[dougules]

It seems what we need to define is whether assisting aging parents or living in Southern California are roughly equivalent to owning two Teslas and a Hum-V, and eating out 3 meals a day, having a second home, or wearing $1000 shoes, when looking at what constitutes "fat" FIRE.

Or wanting to donate well into 5 figures to charity, or having a special-needs child, or whatever. 

Same dollars, differing values.  So are they all the same if we look at whether FIRE is fat?  To me, they are not, but I can respect the argument that they are.  It is a luxury many don't have to be able to support one's special needs child without many compromises or sacrifices.  It is a luxury to continue living in an expensive city where you have a network, once you no longer have a job there.  So if "fat" is "having expensive luxuries", that that's pretty overweight.  But to me, those things are different.  For me, fat FIRE is about extravagance and indulgence, and while those things are luxuries, I don't think they are extravagant.

Yeah, that's because none of these terms actually mean anything, and that's a value judgement you are putting on them.

Is it because you find the term fatFIRE to be insulting and have some kind of negative connotation?
Would you feel differently if it was termed cushyFIRE?

The simple fact is that the OP came here saying that they doubt that having enough savings to generate 100K/yr constitutes fatFIRE and that maybe it now has to be 200K. That's just ridiculous. For the vast, overwhelming majority of people, having 100K+inflation to spend every single year while maintaining your nest egg, is BEYOND luxury.

And yes, being able to own a nice home in an expensive area and support you parents and donate generously to charity counts as extreme luxury, of course it does. To claim any differently, just because it aligns with your personal values is nonsense.

I say this as someone who will have a household retirement income of well over 100K, and DH and I marvel constantly and the immense possibilities this affords us. It IS a luxury. It just is.

No, I don't find it insulting or pejorative.  It just implies a certain level of extravagance *to me*.  Of course we are all going to see it a little different, which is what I was trying to get at with my post.

Regarding the bolded, that's exactly why I said it was a luxury.  In my mind, those things are generally not extravagant (though even that word, like the phrase fat FIRE, is going to have different connotations for different people).  And for me fat FIRE is not just having some major luxuries; it's have significant extravagances.  YMMV, and as I also said, I can respect those who see all this a bit differently.

What do people with below average income do when they confront situations like parents needing help or a special-needs kid?  (Honest question.  So far I'm lucky enough not to have needed to know.)

It is amazing, and a little sad, how many apparently fundamental disagreements actually turn out to simply be cases of the same word meaning different things to different people. In this thread alone the fatFIRE/leanFIRE distinction has been used to variously mean:

1) Excessively cautious vs excessively optimistic withdrawal rates.
2) High vs low planned spending in retirement in dollar values.
3) High vs low planned spending in retirement relative to what people think they themselves or others "need" to spend.
4) High vs low planned spending in retirement relative to the spending of other people in the same neighborhood.

For what it is worth, I will say the reddit community split between leanFIRE vs fatFIRE seems to use primarily definition #2. But why argue about what a word does or doesn't apply to when we don't even agree on what the word means. (And to be clear, I see no point in arguing about which meaning of the word is best either).

I'd say whatever you call Fat FIRE, it's purely about spending and not about withdrawal rates.  That's a whole other subject.

[FIREandMONEY]

What do people with below average income do when they confront situations like parents needing help or a special-needs kid?  (Honest question.  So far I'm lucky enough not to have needed to know.)

They make do.  In some cases a three bedroom house might have the grandparents in one bedroom, the disabled kid in another, the mom and dad in the master bedroom, and two non-handicapped kids sleeping on the couches in the den.  I've seen very similar living arrangements from family and friends.

You can rely on food pantries and sometimes some charity/community sharing from the churches for other necessities.  It's not a great life, but you just make do.

[Metalcat]

Due to inflation $100k is not what it used to be. It remains a significant amount of income on which one can lead a great life and retire early assuming you don’t live in a HCOL area like New York City or San Francisco.

Again, no one is talking about 100K work income, we're talking about 100K in retirement income, *after* all of the savings has been done, and likely when there's either a paid off house, or a ton of untouched equity in that house. 

Plus, if the person is retired, then there's no work obligation keeping them in an HCOL area, so choosing to stay there is a luxury decision, which is thankfully affordable on a generous 100K retirement income.

100K in retirement income is a lot. No one is saying it's too much, no one is saying it's an unreasonable goal, but also no one can safely argue that it's not a lot of retirement income.

And that's what OP said, that they used to think it was a lot, and now they are unsure. Well no, it's still a lot. It's still a hefty amount to be able to spend year over year, plus inflation, indefinitely in retirement.

As the OP I want to correct you I mean saying I was unsure if it was a lot, I said I still think it is a lot.  But I questioned whether or not it would still be Fat FIRE (again whatever that is).  Based on the thread the consistency is that it means different amounts to different people on different areas. 

Also, your counter to other posters in a lot of your responses is basically "Its a luxury" implying that they are stupidly fat fire and spendy. And that may in fact be the case but that is not the question.   Shit, even lean FIRE is a luxury.  Just living in the U.S. is a luxury (even with a feed up health system).   Typing this on a phone is huge luxury.   

Anyway, $100k in my mind is a lot of money but I am still not sure it is a level that is hugely fat especially when location is factored in.  Sure I could move to rural Alabama probably be stupidly fat but that's not happening.

You're the one implying that it's implying that being able to afford a luxury implies a stupid level of spending.

I never ever said or implied that and clearly stated the opposite multiple times.

fatFIRE doesn't have to connote a negative implication. I see nothing wrong with having 100K of retirement income I think I already mentioned that I expect more than that from my own stash. I'm simply recognizing that it is an extreme level of luxury, the amount of options that will be available to me with that level of retirement income.

I could choose to help my parents financially, there isn't a city I couldn't afford to live in, I have zero concerns about medical costs, etc, etc. My level of savings will provide me a profound level of retirement luxury that most can never have. That's a fact. Not an insult.

What I find really weird is that people seem to only want to call FIRE "fat" if they're spending on things they personally think are excessive and unnecessary. So spending 6 figures a year is not fat if there's no handbags or luxury cars? It's only luxury if it's something you wouldn't buy for yourself?

Seems unnecessarily judgemental and arbitrary to me.

[Villanelle]

Due to inflation $100k is not what it used to be. It remains a significant amount of income on which one can lead a great life and retire early assuming you don’t live in a HCOL area like New York City or San Francisco.

Again, no one is talking about 100K work income, we're talking about 100K in retirement income, *after* all of the savings has been done, and likely when there's either a paid off house, or a ton of untouched equity in that house. 

Plus, if the person is retired, then there's no work obligation keeping them in an HCOL area, so choosing to stay there is a luxury decision, which is thankfully affordable on a generous 100K retirement income.

100K in retirement income is a lot. No one is saying it's too much, no one is saying it's an unreasonable goal, but also no one can safely argue that it's not a lot of retirement income.

And that's what OP said, that they used to think it was a lot, and now they are unsure. Well no, it's still a lot. It's still a hefty amount to be able to spend year over year, plus inflation, indefinitely in retirement.

As the OP I want to correct you I mean saying I was unsure if it was a lot, I said I still think it is a lot.  But I questioned whether or not it would still be Fat FIRE (again whatever that is).  Based on the thread the consistency is that it means different amounts to different people on different areas. 

Also, your counter to other posters in a lot of your responses is basically "Its a luxury" implying that they are stupidly fat fire and spendy. And that may in fact be the case but that is not the question.   Shit, even lean FIRE is a luxury.  Just living in the U.S. is a luxury (even with a feed up health system).   Typing this on a phone is huge luxury.   

Anyway, $100k in my mind is a lot of money but I am still not sure it is a level that is hugely fat especially when location is factored in.  Sure I could move to rural Alabama probably be stupidly fat but that's not happening.

You're the one implying that it's implying that being able to afford a luxury implies a stupid level of spending.

I never ever said or implied that and clearly stated the opposite multiple times.

fatFIRE doesn't have to connote a negative implication. I see nothing wrong with having 100K of retirement income I think I already mentioned that I expect more than that from my own stash. I'm simply recognizing that it is an extreme level of luxury, the amount of options that will be available to me with that level of retirement income.

I could choose to help my parents financially, there isn't a city I couldn't afford to live in, I have zero concerns about medical costs, etc, etc. My level of savings will provide me a profound level of retirement luxury that most can never have. That's a fact. Not an insult.

What I find really weird is that people seem to only want to call FIRE "fat" if they're spending on things they personally think are excessive and unnecessary. So spending 6 figures a year is not fat if there's no handbags or luxury cars? It's only luxury if it's something you wouldn't buy for yourself?

Seems unnecessarily judgmental and arbitrary to me.

The entire concept of "fat FIRE" is arbitrary.  So i'm not sure how it is any more arbitrary to say that certain things feed into that and others don't.  And you yourself keep harping on the fact that it isn't a negative term, so how is it then judgmental to apply it to certain behaviors and not others.  Because yes, I think someone who has adopted the 7 children of their deceased sibling and is raising them in SoCal so they can remain close to the deceased father's family to maintain that connect, is not living what *I personally* consider a fat FIRE lifestyle.  Someone traveling frequently (as I plan to do) is probably fat FIRE by my definition, even if they spend the same amount.  (So yes, I consider my FIRE plans and budget to be either fat, or at least chubby, and no, I don't consider that to be a negative thing.)

[mathlete]

In the same way that $100K in income is different than $100K in retirement income, retirement income pre and post 65 are also very different. Our society is built around supporting an age 65 retirement. Medicare Part A/B/D, social security, freezing property tax increases for seniors, etc. A senior citizen's idea of a good time also changes less rapidly or isn't as expensive as what a FIREd 40 year old wants out of life.

I encourage everyone to imagine how much more expensive their life could get, above and beyond their planned FIRE spend. Your favorite blogger will 100% write a blog post in the future (if they have not already) rationalizing why they compromised on their low spend. Unforeseen medical circumstances. Missed the dynamic city life. Priorities changed. etc.

This is gonna happen to all of us too. It's best to plan on it IMO and not get hung up on "fat" or "lean".

[Metalcat]

Due to inflation $100k is not what it used to be. It remains a significant amount of income on which one can lead a great life and retire early assuming you don’t live in a HCOL area like New York City or San Francisco.

Again, no one is talking about 100K work income, we're talking about 100K in retirement income, *after* all of the savings has been done, and likely when there's either a paid off house, or a ton of untouched equity in that house. 

Plus, if the person is retired, then there's no work obligation keeping them in an HCOL area, so choosing to stay there is a luxury decision, which is thankfully affordable on a generous 100K retirement income.

100K in retirement income is a lot. No one is saying it's too much, no one is saying it's an unreasonable goal, but also no one can safely argue that it's not a lot of retirement income.

And that's what OP said, that they used to think it was a lot, and now they are unsure. Well no, it's still a lot. It's still a hefty amount to be able to spend year over year, plus inflation, indefinitely in retirement.

As the OP I want to correct you I mean saying I was unsure if it was a lot, I said I still think it is a lot.  But I questioned whether or not it would still be Fat FIRE (again whatever that is).  Based on the thread the consistency is that it means different amounts to different people on different areas. 

Also, your counter to other posters in a lot of your responses is basically "Its a luxury" implying that they are stupidly fat fire and spendy. And that may in fact be the case but that is not the question.   Shit, even lean FIRE is a luxury.  Just living in the U.S. is a luxury (even with a feed up health system).   Typing this on a phone is huge luxury.   

Anyway, $100k in my mind is a lot of money but I am still not sure it is a level that is hugely fat especially when location is factored in.  Sure I could move to rural Alabama probably be stupidly fat but that's not happening.

You're the one implying that it's implying that being able to afford a luxury implies a stupid level of spending.

I never ever said or implied that and clearly stated the opposite multiple times.

fatFIRE doesn't have to connote a negative implication. I see nothing wrong with having 100K of retirement income I think I already mentioned that I expect more than that from my own stash. I'm simply recognizing that it is an extreme level of luxury, the amount of options that will be available to me with that level of retirement income.

I could choose to help my parents financially, there isn't a city I couldn't afford to live in, I have zero concerns about medical costs, etc, etc. My level of savings will provide me a profound level of retirement luxury that most can never have. That's a fact. Not an insult.

What I find really weird is that people seem to only want to call FIRE "fat" if they're spending on things they personally think are excessive and unnecessary. So spending 6 figures a year is not fat if there's no handbags or luxury cars? It's only luxury if it's something you wouldn't buy for yourself?

Seems unnecessarily judgmental and arbitrary to me.

The entire concept of "fat FIRE" is arbitrary.  So i'm not sure how it is any more arbitrary to say that certain things feed into that and others don't.  And you yourself keep harping on the fact that it isn't a negative term, so how is it then judgmental to apply it to certain behaviors and not others.  Because yes, I think someone who has adopted the 7 children of their deceased sibling and is raising them in SoCal so they can remain close to the deceased father's family to maintain that connect, is not living what *I personally* consider a fat FIRE lifestyle.  Someone traveling frequently (as I plan to do) is probably fat FIRE by my definition, even if they spend the same amount.  (So yes, I consider my FIRE plans and budget to be either fat, or at least chubby, and no, I don't consider that to be a negative thing.)

Yes, there is no definition, so why apply arbitrary metrics to be judgemental. I don't understand.

[tooqk4u22]

What I find really weird is that people seem to only want to call FIRE "fat" if they're spending on things they personally think are excessive and unnecessary. So spending 6 figures a year is not fat if there's no handbags or luxury cars? It's only luxury if it's something you wouldn't buy for yourself?

Seems unnecessarily judgemental and arbitrary to me.

Yeah I get that.  I think of fat fire as being able to solve a big issue (replace a car, major house repair/update, medical), major family trip (not camping), help out a family member, etc......one of such things but not all of these things in any given year over and above normal lifestyle expenses.   

I think $100k does this but all I am saying that it isn't as clear to me as it was in the past. And I don't necessarily see that as a luxury bc it did take a lot of time, hard work, planning, discipline, luck to some extent, risk to get to that point.   

[Metalcat]

What I find really weird is that people seem to only want to call FIRE "fat" if they're spending on things they personally think are excessive and unnecessary. So spending 6 figures a year is not fat if there's no handbags or luxury cars? It's only luxury if it's something you wouldn't buy for yourself?

Seems unnecessarily judgemental and arbitrary to me.

Yeah I get that.  I think of fat fire as being able to solve a big issue (replace a car, major house repair/update, medical), major family trip (not camping), help out a family member, etc......one of such things but not all of these things in any given year over and above normal lifestyle expenses.   

I think $100k does this but all I am saying that it isn't as clear to me as it was in the past. And I don't necessarily see that as a luxury bc it did take a lot of time, hard work, planning, discipline, luck to some extent, risk to get to that point.

You don't consider consider something a luxury if it's earned?

I earned my lifestyle and I consider it very luxurious.

[Villanelle]

Due to inflation $100k is not what it used to be. It remains a significant amount of income on which one can lead a great life and retire early assuming you don’t live in a HCOL area like New York City or San Francisco.

Again, no one is talking about 100K work income, we're talking about 100K in retirement income, *after* all of the savings has been done, and likely when there's either a paid off house, or a ton of untouched equity in that house. 

Plus, if the person is retired, then there's no work obligation keeping them in an HCOL area, so choosing to stay there is a luxury decision, which is thankfully affordable on a generous 100K retirement income.

100K in retirement income is a lot. No one is saying it's too much, no one is saying it's an unreasonable goal, but also no one can safely argue that it's not a lot of retirement income.

And that's what OP said, that they used to think it was a lot, and now they are unsure. Well no, it's still a lot. It's still a hefty amount to be able to spend year over year, plus inflation, indefinitely in retirement.

As the OP I want to correct you I mean saying I was unsure if it was a lot, I said I still think it is a lot.  But I questioned whether or not it would still be Fat FIRE (again whatever that is).  Based on the thread the consistency is that it means different amounts to different people on different areas. 

Also, your counter to other posters in a lot of your responses is basically "Its a luxury" implying that they are stupidly fat fire and spendy. And that may in fact be the case but that is not the question.   Shit, even lean FIRE is a luxury.  Just living in the U.S. is a luxury (even with a feed up health system).   Typing this on a phone is huge luxury.   

Anyway, $100k in my mind is a lot of money but I am still not sure it is a level that is hugely fat especially when location is factored in.  Sure I could move to rural Alabama probably be stupidly fat but that's not happening.

You're the one implying that it's implying that being able to afford a luxury implies a stupid level of spending.

I never ever said or implied that and clearly stated the opposite multiple times.

fatFIRE doesn't have to connote a negative implication. I see nothing wrong with having 100K of retirement income I think I already mentioned that I expect more than that from my own stash. I'm simply recognizing that it is an extreme level of luxury, the amount of options that will be available to me with that level of retirement income.

I could choose to help my parents financially, there isn't a city I couldn't afford to live in, I have zero concerns about medical costs, etc, etc. My level of savings will provide me a profound level of retirement luxury that most can never have. That's a fact. Not an insult.

What I find really weird is that people seem to only want to call FIRE "fat" if they're spending on things they personally think are excessive and unnecessary. So spending 6 figures a year is not fat if there's no handbags or luxury cars? It's only luxury if it's something you wouldn't buy for yourself?

Seems unnecessarily judgmental and arbitrary to me.

The entire concept of "fat FIRE" is arbitrary.  So i'm not sure how it is any more arbitrary to say that certain things feed into that and others don't.  And you yourself keep harping on the fact that it isn't a negative term, so how is it then judgmental to apply it to certain behaviors and not others.  Because yes, I think someone who has adopted the 7 children of their deceased sibling and is raising them in SoCal so they can remain close to the deceased father's family to maintain that connect, is not living what *I personally* consider a fat FIRE lifestyle.  Someone traveling frequently (as I plan to do) is probably fat FIRE by my definition, even if they spend the same amount.  (So yes, I consider my FIRE plans and budget to be either fat, or at least chubby, and no, I don't consider that to be a negative thing.)

Yes, there is no definition, so why apply arbitrary metrics to be judgmental. I don't understand.

Because I'm not being judgmental, assuming your definition of "judgmental" means placing a negative value on something.  I'm not being judgmental when I say X is fat FIRE and Y isn't, because fat FIRE isn't a negative term for me.  You strongly imply it isn't negative to you either, but then you claim that using it in some cases is applying "judgement", which certainly makes it sound like you think it's negative, or being applied negative, and you balk at it being applied in some case and not others.  When I say that 'this apple is large and that one is not', there is no judgement (in any negative sense), even though "large apple vs not large apple" is an arbitrary and nebulous concept and people will disagree with exactly where the line is between large and not large.  .  So how is "fat FIRE vs not fat FIRE" judgmental (again, assuming you are applying a negative connotation to "judgmental").

You say you don't think it's negative, but it seems maybe you do, at least a bit, where as I truly don't.   

Also, are there some versions of FIRE you'd consider fat, and others you wouldn't, or do you just reject the term entirely.  It seems like you are fine with the term, you just object to my definition.  So you there are things you would say are fat FIRE and things you would say are not fat FIRE, then you too are making a "judgement".  it's just got different criteria then I'm using. 

[FIRE 20/20]

That said, I think the PF space should move away from the concept of "lean fire". At least in the US. The ACA has been a big help, but even with the ACA, the OOPM can get up to $17K. The idea that people think they can retire at 40 on something like $30K a year and live for the next 50 years with no major medical incidents or any other major life changes that might require more money is silly IMO.

You can blow out your knee tomorrow. That's the surgery + physical therapy. And then maybe all of the sudden, your compact non-"clown car" kills your knee to get in and out of, or even to drive in for extended periods of time. There are taxes. Often times, they go up. If you own property and you're not a senior citizen, in a lot of cases, your property taxes go up faster than inflation.

Except that someone who is FIREing on something like $30k  / year won't have an ACA plan that has an OOPM of $17k.  Someone FIREd living on $30k almost has ways to get their taxable income down to the level where Cost Sharing Reductions reduce OOPM to a few thousand, and preimums, deductibles, and co-insurance costs are much lower than normal as well.   

The question is about FAT fire. Not ability to live and survive and normal FIRE. Are you stating that 50k is FATfire?

I'm not the person you were referring to, but I would think that $50k would be the range I would start to see as fatFIRE.  In that case, I'm assuming a single individual or a couple and a paid off house.  It's not all that hard to do that very comfortably on something like $40k/year so $50k adds an extra $10k of fat to spend.  Certainly for a family or people with other extra costs might need more for FatFIRE, but to me the discussion about whatever FatFIRE means starts around $50k.  It's very hard for me to imagine any universe where spending that's WAY OVER the median household income (talking $100k here) is not FatFIRE.  With a paid off house that means that you're spending more money than the median, but you don't have to save anything more for retirement and you don't have a mortgage to pay.  More income than most but leaving out 2 major expenses?  Not calling that FatFIRE just seems insane to me. 

[Metalcat]

Due to inflation $100k is not what it used to be. It remains a significant amount of income on which one can lead a great life and retire early assuming you don’t live in a HCOL area like New York City or San Francisco.

Again, no one is talking about 100K work income, we're talking about 100K in retirement income, *after* all of the savings has been done, and likely when there's either a paid off house, or a ton of untouched equity in that house. 

Plus, if the person is retired, then there's no work obligation keeping them in an HCOL area, so choosing to stay there is a luxury decision, which is thankfully affordable on a generous 100K retirement income.

100K in retirement income is a lot. No one is saying it's too much, no one is saying it's an unreasonable goal, but also no one can safely argue that it's not a lot of retirement income.

And that's what OP said, that they used to think it was a lot, and now they are unsure. Well no, it's still a lot. It's still a hefty amount to be able to spend year over year, plus inflation, indefinitely in retirement.

As the OP I want to correct you I mean saying I was unsure if it was a lot, I said I still think it is a lot.  But I questioned whether or not it would still be Fat FIRE (again whatever that is).  Based on the thread the consistency is that it means different amounts to different people on different areas. 

Also, your counter to other posters in a lot of your responses is basically "Its a luxury" implying that they are stupidly fat fire and spendy. And that may in fact be the case but that is not the question.   Shit, even lean FIRE is a luxury.  Just living in the U.S. is a luxury (even with a feed up health system).   Typing this on a phone is huge luxury.   

Anyway, $100k in my mind is a lot of money but I am still not sure it is a level that is hugely fat especially when location is factored in.  Sure I could move to rural Alabama probably be stupidly fat but that's not happening.

You're the one implying that it's implying that being able to afford a luxury implies a stupid level of spending.

I never ever said or implied that and clearly stated the opposite multiple times.

fatFIRE doesn't have to connote a negative implication. I see nothing wrong with having 100K of retirement income I think I already mentioned that I expect more than that from my own stash. I'm simply recognizing that it is an extreme level of luxury, the amount of options that will be available to me with that level of retirement income.

I could choose to help my parents financially, there isn't a city I couldn't afford to live in, I have zero concerns about medical costs, etc, etc. My level of savings will provide me a profound level of retirement luxury that most can never have. That's a fact. Not an insult.

What I find really weird is that people seem to only want to call FIRE "fat" if they're spending on things they personally think are excessive and unnecessary. So spending 6 figures a year is not fat if there's no handbags or luxury cars? It's only luxury if it's something you wouldn't buy for yourself?

Seems unnecessarily judgmental and arbitrary to me.

The entire concept of "fat FIRE" is arbitrary.  So i'm not sure how it is any more arbitrary to say that certain things feed into that and others don't.  And you yourself keep harping on the fact that it isn't a negative term, so how is it then judgmental to apply it to certain behaviors and not others.  Because yes, I think someone who has adopted the 7 children of their deceased sibling and is raising them in SoCal so they can remain close to the deceased father's family to maintain that connect, is not living what *I personally* consider a fat FIRE lifestyle.  Someone traveling frequently (as I plan to do) is probably fat FIRE by my definition, even if they spend the same amount.  (So yes, I consider my FIRE plans and budget to be either fat, or at least chubby, and no, I don't consider that to be a negative thing.)

Yes, there is no definition, so why apply arbitrary metrics to be judgmental. I don't understand.

Because I'm not being judgmental, assuming your definition of "judgmental" means placing a negative value on something.  I'm not being judgmental when I say X is fat FIRE and Y isn't, because fat FIRE isn't a negative term for me.  You strongly imply it isn't negative to you either, but then you claim that using it in some cases is applying "judgement", which certainly makes it sound like you think it's negative, or being applied negative, and you balk at it being applied in some case and not others.  When I say that 'this apple is large and that one is not', there is no judgement (in any negative sense), even though "large apple vs not large apple" is an arbitrary and nebulous concept and people will disagree with exactly where the line is between large and not large.  .  So how is "fat FIRE vs not fat FIRE" judgmental (again, assuming you are applying a negative connotation to "judgmental").

You say you don't think it's negative, but it seems maybe you do, at least a bit, where as I truly don't.   

Also, are there some versions of FIRE you'd consider fat, and others you wouldn't, or do you just reject the term entirely.  It seems like you are fine with the term, you just object to my definition.  So you there are things you would say are fat FIRE and things you would say are not fat FIRE, then you too are making a "judgement".  it's just got different criteria then I'm using.

Not really.

I don't really define fatFIRE, and have exactly zero negative feelings towards the term.

I'm surprised that so many people seem to want to define it in terms that seem to me as judgemental. People seem to want to define fatFIRE as spending on unnecessary luxuries, but certain acceptable luxuries seem to not count, like choosing to live somewhere insanely expensive.

You have your particular examples of spending 100K that you don't think should be considered fatFIRE because what the person is spending on, to you, isn't a luxury, such as adopting a bunch of orphaned nieces and nephews. I, on the other hand, consider it a HUGE luxury to be able to adopt a bunch of orphaned nieces and nephews and raise them in a crazy expensive location so that they can stay close to other family. I would be like "thank fuck I'm fatFIREd enough to afford this!"

In all honesty, I actually prefer to use fat vs lean as relative terms to how much someone has saved compared to their lean expenses. I don't even like using actual amounts for fat vs lean FIRE, so I don't usually.

I was initially responding to OP implying that 100K in retirement income was possibly no longer considered "a lot". It's just so much more than most people could ever hope to have, I can't fathom a world where we don't consider it a huge luxury to have that much money to spend in retirement.

[nereo]

FatFIRE is over $76,804
LeanFIRE is under $76,801

Multiply by 1.1 if you live in a HCOL area, 1.13 if it is a VHCOL and 0.7 of it is LCOL
/s

[tipster350]

FatFIRE is over $76,804
LeanFIRE is under $76,801

Multiply by 1.1 if you live in a HCOL area, 1.13 if it is a VHCOL and 0.7 of it is LCOL
/s

And so it has been written.

[Blindsquirrel]

    So by my calculations, $153,608 is morbidly obese FIRE as it is 2x fat FIRE.

[RWD]

FatFIRE is over $76,804
LeanFIRE is under $76,801

Multiply by 1.1 if you live in a HCOL area, 1.13 if it is a VHCOL and 0.7 of it is LCOL
/s

And so it has been written.

Gotta aim for that sweet spot: $76,802 to $76,803. Anything else and we'll need to bring in the FIRE police.

[tooqk4u22]

That said, I think the PF space should move away from the concept of "lean fire". At least in the US. The ACA has been a big help, but even with the ACA, the OOPM can get up to $17K. The idea that people think they can retire at 40 on something like $30K a year and live for the next 50 years with no major medical incidents or any other major life changes that might require more money is silly IMO.

You can blow out your knee tomorrow. That's the surgery + physical therapy. And then maybe all of the sudden, your compact non-"clown car" kills your knee to get in and out of, or even to drive in for extended periods of time. There are taxes. Often times, they go up. If you own property and you're not a senior citizen, in a lot of cases, your property taxes go up faster than inflation.

Except that someone who is FIREing on something like $30k  / year won't have an ACA plan that has an OOPM of $17k.  Someone FIREd living on $30k almost has ways to get their taxable income down to the level where Cost Sharing Reductions reduce OOPM to a few thousand, and preimums, deductibles, and co-insurance costs are much lower than normal as well.   

The question is about FAT fire. Not ability to live and survive and normal FIRE. Are you stating that 50k is FATfire?

I'm not the person you were referring to, but I would think that $50k would be the range I would start to see as fatFIRE.  In that case, I'm assuming a single individual or a couple and a paid off house.  It's not all that hard to do that very comfortably on something like $40k/year so $50k adds an extra $10k of fat to spend.  Certainly for a family or people with other extra costs might need more for FatFIRE, but to me the discussion about whatever FatFIRE means starts around $50k.  It's very hard for me to imagine any universe where spending that's WAY OVER the median household income (talking $100k here) is not FatFIRE.  With a paid off house that means that you're spending more money than the median, but you don't have to save anything more for retirement and you don't have a mortgage to pay.  More income than most but leaving out 2 major expenses?  Not calling that FatFIRE just seems insane to me.

Median hh income is a good benchmark as I indicates previously, but the median is $64k for the US but in my example my town median hh is $95k and even more direct my neighborhood of 1600 houses is closer to $150k. Even the state has med hh income of $85k.  So for me in my area $100k isn't exorbitant and certainly not "Way over over the median"

[maizefolk]

Median hh income is a good benchmark as I indicates previously, but the median is $64k for the US but in my example my town median hh is $95k and even more direct my neighborhood of 1600 houses is closer to $150k. Even the state has med hh income of $85k.  So for me in my area $100k isn't exorbitant and certainly not "Way over over the median"

Say I live in St. Louis. Specifically I live in Ladue (median household income $214k/year) and have FIRED with a spend of $100k/year, half of the median for my neighborhood. For you is that leanFIRE? Then I buy a new house 15 minutes away in Kinloch (median household income $28k/year). Now my spend is 4x that of my neighborhood.

By moving a few minutes down the road, am I now fatFIRE?