New FIRE Spend Poll

[Metalcat]

You sure did . Did you happen to see anything else I mentioned?

Even polls like this help to highlight the race to the bottom mentality, no?
At some point during this optimization journey, I would think enough is enough.

Or maybe that’s the MMM mantra I missing. Enough is never enough.

With constant focus and consideration on  every dollar spent, total spend will always trend lower. Things that once brought value will no longer, and it will be cut.

And if for whatever reason that thing or hobby or lifestyle choice is a yacht, (gulp), and that person has honestly decided that it will bring them happiness (gulp), and they’ve made countless other sacrifices to pursue their passion of owning a yacht (gulp) well then, off to yachts-r-us.

Except no one is in a race to the bottom. Not Pete, not the vast majority of forum members here that I've seen even back in the more frugal days.

Racing to the bottom has never been a Mustachian thing.

You're trying to argue against something that isn't a thing here, and as far as I've seen for since I joined years ago, has never really been a thing here.

Challenging thinking about spending? Yes
Race to the bottom to spend as little as possible at all costs? Nope, never a thing

[bryan995]

You sure did . Did you happen to see anything else I mentioned?

Even polls like this help to highlight the race to the bottom mentality, no?
At some point during this optimization journey, I would think enough is enough.

Or maybe that’s the MMM mantra I missing. Enough is never enough.

With constant focus and consideration on  every dollar spent, total spend will always trend lower. Things that once brought value will no longer, and it will be cut.

And if for whatever reason that thing or hobby or lifestyle choice is a yacht, (gulp), and that person has honestly decided that it will bring them happiness (gulp), and they’ve made countless other sacrifices to pursue their passion of owning a yacht (gulp) well then, off to yachts-r-us.

Except no one is in a race to the bottom. Not Pete, not the vast majority of forum members here that I've seen even back in the more frugal days.

Racing to the bottom has never been a Mustachian thing.

You're trying to argue against something that isn't a thing here, and as far as I've seen for since I joined years ago, has never really been a thing here.

Challenging thinking about spending? Yes
Race to the bottom to spend as little as possible at all costs? Nope, never a thing

Well you sort of bolded and focused in on that one statement, hence the reply. :)
-

Why is it so frowned upon to have a 'chubby-spend'?
If someone is pushing spend through their challenge test, to then decide whether to pursue or not, then what's the issue? 

Maybe its just me (... its likely just me) but it seems as if there is only one single acceptable spend level (call it <35k/yr for a family of 4) at which point the OG MMM give the nod of approval?  Anything above that is considered horribly wasteful and destructive.

Why can't it simply be a percentage of ones income/savings/stash?

Even on a average income, if a person made the right career choice and enjoyed their working years, so they worked 10 extra years prior to FIRE.  They now likely have a >3x larger stash.
Now they can have the same MMM frugal lifestyle, only in a more expensive area (coast? beach? mountain? lake?).  Is that not 'allowed'?  Would their now chubby spend due to higher cost of living be belittled on the forum?

[LateStarter]

As I see it, the fundamental values of this site were always those of Frugality, Badassity and the wider principles of Stoicism. These are the things that regularly bring me back to this site. These are the things that brought my vague ideas and directions into sharp focus. These are the things that enabled me to retire a little over a year ago by (strange as it may seem) spending much less than, yet living a much better/happier life than, nearly everyone I know.
While FIRE was what brought me here and FIRE was the goal that inspired me, in hindsight FIRE seems more like just a milestone - the values of Frugality, Badassity and Stoicism have brought way more benefits than just FIRE.

For those that want to celebrate high-spending, look around - it's freely available almost everywhere all of the time - there is no shortage of enthusiasm for luxury, extravagance and materialism in the world. In fact, it's damned near impossible to avoid being continuously force-fed the theory that high-spending Hedonism is the route to happiness.

The MMM site is (was?) a rare and exceptional place that values something different - that's the whole point. Long live Frugality, Badassity and Stoicism on the MMM forum - and bring back facepunches for extravagance !

Keep up the good work Malcat and Spartana, etc.

[Metalcat]

You sure did . Did you happen to see anything else I mentioned?

Even polls like this help to highlight the race to the bottom mentality, no?
At some point during this optimization journey, I would think enough is enough.

Or maybe that’s the MMM mantra I missing. Enough is never enough.

With constant focus and consideration on  every dollar spent, total spend will always trend lower. Things that once brought value will no longer, and it will be cut.

And if for whatever reason that thing or hobby or lifestyle choice is a yacht, (gulp), and that person has honestly decided that it will bring them happiness (gulp), and they’ve made countless other sacrifices to pursue their passion of owning a yacht (gulp) well then, off to yachts-r-us.

Except no one is in a race to the bottom. Not Pete, not the vast majority of forum members here that I've seen even back in the more frugal days.

Racing to the bottom has never been a Mustachian thing.

You're trying to argue against something that isn't a thing here, and as far as I've seen for since I joined years ago, has never really been a thing here.

Challenging thinking about spending? Yes
Race to the bottom to spend as little as possible at all costs? Nope, never a thing

Well you sort of bolded and focused in on that one statement, hence the reply. :)
-

Why is it so frowned upon to have a 'chubby-spend'?
If someone is pushing spend through their challenge test, to then decide whether to pursue or not, then what's the issue? 

Maybe its just be (its likely just me) but it seems as if there is only one single acceptable spend level (call it <35k/yr for a family of 4) at which point the OG MMM give the nod of approval?  Anything above that is considered horribly wasteful.

Why can't it simply be a percentage of ones income/savings/stash?

Even on a average income, if a person made the right career choice and enjoyed their working years, so they worked 10 extra years prior to FIRE.  They now likely have a >3x larger stash.
Now they can have the same MMM frugal lifestyle, only in a more expensive area (coast? beach? mountain? lake?).  Is that not 'allowed'?  Would their now chubby spend due to higher cost of living be belittled on the forum?

I've already written A LOT in this thread answering these very questions. So I'm not sure what more I can say in reply.

[Zikoris]

Why is it so frowned upon to have a 'chubby-spend'?
If someone is pushing spend through their challenge test, to then decide whether to pursue or not, then what's the issue? 

Maybe its just be (its likely just me) but it seems as if there is only one single acceptable spend level (call it <35k/yr for a family of 4) at which point the OG MMM give the nod of approval?  Anything above that is considered horribly wasteful.

Why can't it simply be a percentage of ones income/savings/stash?

Because overconsumption is going to kill us all and destroy the planet regardless of what percentage of people's income it involves? Wasteful and destructive lifestyle choices don't become less so because someone also saves a lot.

[bryan995]

With my shiny new big-spendy-pants, hated-by-all, destroyer-of-the-planet badge in hand, I will now excuse myself from this thread.

As I see it, the fundamental values of this site were always those of Frugality, Badassity and the wider principles of Stoicism. These are the things that regularly bring me back to this site. These are the things that brought my vague ideas and directions into sharp focus. These are the things that enabled me to retire a little over a year ago by (strange as it may seem) spending much less than, yet living a much better/happier life than, nearly everyone I know.
While FIRE was what brought me here and FIRE was the goal that inspired me, in hindsight FIRE seems more like just a milestone - the values of Frugality, Badassity and Stoicism have brought way more benefits than just FIRE.

For those that want to celebrate high-spending, look around - it's freely available almost everywhere all of the time - there is no shortage of enthusiasm for luxury, extravagance and materialism in the world. In fact, it's damned near impossible to avoid being continuously force-fed the theory that high-spending Hedonism is the route to happiness.

The MMM site is (was?) a rare and exceptional place that values something different - that's the whole point. Long live Frugality, Badassity and Stoicism on the MMM forum - and bring back facepunches for extravagance !

Keep up the good work Malcat and Spartana, etc.

And not sure why the forum does not have a 'like' feature for posts ... but <like> #respect :)

[matchewed]

And this highlights the drift of the forum's culture to more "mainstream" cultural values.

The message of "spend on anything you want and value; just know what you want and value" has been appropriated into "spend anything you want and value; don't question what you want and value as long as you're saving money to FIRE".

Cool... appropriate frugality in the name of more consumerism. With people no longer questioning the why they're purchasing a particular thing and therefore trying to find an optimized method of providing the thing people jump to whatever solution is in front of them. No more introspection and determining of values.

Relevant discussion from 6yrs ago regarding yachts and evolution of forum culture -

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/antimustachian-wall-of-shame-and-comedy/forum-check-what-forum-is-this/

[Metalcat]

With my shiny new big-spendy-pants, hated-by-all, destroyer-of-the-planet badge in hand, I will now excuse myself from this thread.

As I see it, the fundamental values of this site were always those of Frugality, Badassity and the wider principles of Stoicism. These are the things that regularly bring me back to this site. These are the things that brought my vague ideas and directions into sharp focus. These are the things that enabled me to retire a little over a year ago by (strange as it may seem) spending much less than, yet living a much better/happier life than, nearly everyone I know.
While FIRE was what brought me here and FIRE was the goal that inspired me, in hindsight FIRE seems more like just a milestone - the values of Frugality, Badassity and Stoicism have brought way more benefits than just FIRE.

For those that want to celebrate high-spending, look around - it's freely available almost everywhere all of the time - there is no shortage of enthusiasm for luxury, extravagance and materialism in the world. In fact, it's damned near impossible to avoid being continuously force-fed the theory that high-spending Hedonism is the route to happiness.

The MMM site is (was?) a rare and exceptional place that values something different - that's the whole point. Long live Frugality, Badassity and Stoicism on the MMM forum - and bring back facepunches for extravagance !

Keep up the good work Malcat and Spartana, etc.

And not sure why the forum does not have a 'like' feature for posts ... but <like> #respect :)

Uh...a lot of people in this thread are perfectly aligned with your values. I don't see why a few people challenging your positions is an issue.

That has always been the value of this place *to challenge thinking*.

This is what's getting so frustrating about the new crop of high spenders, it seems like it's not welcome to challenge anything.

[simonsez]

Why is it so frowned upon to have a 'chubby-spend'?
If someone is pushing spend through their challenge test, to then decide whether to pursue or not, then what's the issue? 

Maybe its just be (its likely just me) but it seems as if there is only one single acceptable spend level (call it <35k/yr for a family of 4) at which point the OG MMM give the nod of approval?  Anything above that is considered horribly wasteful.

Why can't it simply be a percentage of ones income/savings/stash?

Because overconsumption is going to kill us all and destroy the planet regardless of what percentage of people's income it involves? Wasteful and destructive lifestyle choices don't become less so because someone also saves a lot.

I guess I would have to agree with your general gist about overconsumption being bad (I doubt my death certificate will say that overconsumption was the reason for my death but I digress) but it contains some assumptions.  For instance, if someone spends more, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with harm to humans or the planet.  Sometimes people pay for services they didn't have before or want an augmented version of a service.  I'll spend more on "things" I was needing to purchase anyway if I can get a more sustainable version that doesn't involve child labor or at least a non-plastic version - this type of spending does still have impact on the environment but it's an improvement.  I'm pretty bullish on future technology to improve many environmental aspects, including what consumers are consuming and the way we live and organize our society.  Giving to charity is also a large part of my FIRE spending which I guess could be seen as detrimental to the environment depending on the charity but I personally think it's at least an order of magnitude better than spending money on shiny new gadgets or the monocrop/feedlot ag industry and multiple orders better than procreating.  Not all spending is the same but yes, the bad consumption could stand to go wayyy down. 

[Mmm_Donuts]

I feel like I’ve learned a lot from MMM (website back in the day, and now the forum) yet my spend is on the higher side. I like the questioning of habits, the optimization of spending, consuming less, counterculturalism, etc that goes on here. But I do spend on experiences, some conveniences (I am not much of a DIYer and I don’t see how it harms the planet to support other people’s livelihoods?), and organic / good quality / small farm -supporting foods. I also give a relatively high percentage of my income to charities that support my values - mainly environmentalism and animal rights.

FTR Zikoris and Malcat are two of my favourite posters on here and I’ve learned a lot from them. However this thread has devolved into some fat-FIRE shaming that is getting into some weird generalizations. Not everyone on the higher spending spectrum buys crap and destroys the planet with reckless abandon.

[Metalcat]

I feel like I’ve learned a lot from MMM (website back in the day, and now the forum) yet my spend is on the higher side. I like the questioning of habits, the optimization of spending, consuming less, counterculturalism, etc that goes on here. But I do spend on experiences, some conveniences (I am not much of a DIYer and I don’t see how it harms the planet to support other people’s livelihoods?), and organic / good quality / small farm -supporting foods. I also give a relatively high percentage of my income to charities that support my values - mainly environmentalism and animal rights.

FTR Zikoris and Malcat are two of my favourite posters on here and I’ve learned a lot from them. However this thread has devolved into some fat-FIRE shaming that is getting into some weird generalizations. Not everyone on the higher spending spectrum buys crap and destroys the planet with reckless abandon.

Not really.

People ask why anyone should care about frugality beyond just having a certain savings rate, and the default answer is that less consumption generally correlates with lower environmental impact. Not that there are no exceptions, but that the general correlation stands and that keeping that environmental metric in mind is a great way to challenge the powerful socially fueled drive to consume ever more things.

We are, in fact, in an environmental crisis. It is worth challenging that just because you can afford to spend a half million a year and still only have a 1% WR, that maybe you might want to think about the impact of that spend? Just maybe???

That *just* saving enough money to retire isn't the ONLY thing that matters, which A LOT of people on the forums these days are literally saying. There's a TON of "well I still have a 50% savings rate, so it doesn't matter how much I spend".

Well...it does.

Pointing that out is valid.

I'm not perfect on that front, none of us are. But this place keeps reminding me to at least think about it when I contemplate something environmentally wasteful that I can easily "afford".

So yeah, when someone asks what's the point of frugality when you don't "need" it, the environment is a reasonable default answer. If that person wants to come back with "well, I spend the bulk of my half a million annual spend on funding environmental initiatives and I'm a vegan who doesn't own a car and only travels by bike or sail boat" then that person shouldn't feel butt hurt, they should happily participate in the conversation and share how their spend actually serves the greater good.

Remember, the REST OF THE WORLD will pat people on the back for spending. And increasingly so will this place. The VAST majority of posts here about spending more are met with a general consensus of "you do you" and "as long as you can afford it". This place is NOT somewhere that is hostile to higher spends, luxury purchases, etc.

But yeah, every once in awhile someone will ask why anyone would bother with frugality if they can "afford" to spend more, and someone, probably Zikoris, will comment about the environmental impact of spending. Not to censor them, just to keep at least *some* voices at the party talking about it.

[Mmm_Donuts]

I feel like I’ve learned a lot from MMM (website back in the day, and now the forum) yet my spend is on the higher side. I like the questioning of habits, the optimization of spending, consuming less, counterculturalism, etc that goes on here. But I do spend on experiences, some conveniences (I am not much of a DIYer and I don’t see how it harms the planet to support other people’s livelihoods?), and organic / good quality / small farm -supporting foods. I also give a relatively high percentage of my income to charities that support my values - mainly environmentalism and animal rights.

FTR Zikoris and Malcat are two of my favourite posters on here and I’ve learned a lot from them. However this thread has devolved into some fat-FIRE shaming that is getting into some weird generalizations. Not everyone on the higher spending spectrum buys crap and destroys the planet with reckless abandon.

Not really.

People ask why anyone should care about frugality beyond just having a certain savings rate, and the default answer is that less consumption generally correlates with lower environmental impact. Not that there are no exceptions, but that the general correlation stands and that keeping that environmental metric in mind is a great way to challenge the powerful socially fueled drive to consume ever more things.

We are, in fact, in an environmental crisis. It is worth challenging that just because you can afford to spend a half million a year and still only have a 1% WR, that maybe you might want to think about the impact of that spend? Just maybe???

That *just* saving enough money to retire isn't the ONLY thing that matters, which A LOT of people on the forums these days are literally saying. There's a TON of "well I still have a 50% savings rate, so it doesn't matter how much I spend".

Well...it does.

Pointing that out is valid.

I'm not perfect on that front, none of us are. But this place keeps reminding me to at least think about it when I contemplate something environmentally wasteful that I can easily "afford".

So yeah, when someone asks what's the point of frugality when you don't "need" it, the environment is a reasonable default answer. If that person wants to come back with "well, I spend the bulk of my half a million annual spend on funding environmental initiatives and I'm a vegan who doesn't own a car and only travels by bike or sail boat" then that person shouldn't feel butt hurt, they should happily participate in the conversation and share how their spend actually serves the greater good.

Remember, the REST OF THE WORLD will pat people on the back for spending. And increasingly so will this place. The VAST majority of posts here about spending more are met with a general consensus of "you do you" and "as long as you can afford it". This place is NOT somewhere that is hostile to higher spends, luxury purchases, etc.

But yeah, every once in awhile someone will ask why anyone would bother with frugality if they can "afford" to spend more, and someone, probably Zikoris, will comment about the environmental impact of spending. Not to censor them, just to keep at least *some* voices at the party talking about it.

LOL the bolded is me in a nutshell. Well I suppose I had to push back a little on the "All high spenders are destroying the earth" comment. I agree with what you've written, which is why I said I like the counterculture aspect of this forum, as the anti-consumerist / environmentalist bent is something I can get behind. But - I don't really feel welcome to share the details of my spending habits when I am feeling like I am probably going to be attacked. So perhaps a little more curiosity, a little less judgment could be a worthy goal, as well. I don't automatically assume high spenders are unaware that we are in an environmental crisis - I don't necessarily equate low spending with environmentalism (though of course, it is a positive thing! Less consumer waste). For example, it sounds like Zikoris does a lot more air travel than I do, yet my yearly spend is over 4x hers.

Basically the luxuries I spend on are:

- education (I am always taking courses- this is expensive)
- charitable giving (I am an unofficial member and follower of https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/pledge/ and Give Well (or the CDN version, RC Forward)
- I hire people to do work around the house, as well as housecleaning, both of which are expensive in our area
- I buy organic locally grown food as much as possible
- I hire trainers and physiotherapists, do a lot of fitness classes and have a peloton

It's really nothing that radical or new, I just wanted to say, somehow I manage to spend a lot without buying any junk. Personally I don't have any moral objections to the above luxuries. I buy clothes mostly second hand (in non covid times), use the library, am generally a minimalist in terms of possessions. The Peloton was a splurge, for sure, but my DH and I both use it and it has really improved our health and mobility. When I do buy things, I tend to buy high quality items that last a long time, preferably a lifetime. That's not to say I don't buy things second hand or get them for free on facebook groups, but mostly I do tend to take the easier route and just get the high end item - Le Creuset pots and a Vitamix is a good example of this (potentially controversial, I know.) I have only ever had one smartphone, which I will use until it dies / is unfixable. I don't buy gadgets. I feel I've optimized spending based on my values. Maybe I'm kidding myself, but I feel I'm doing what I can. I am at my FIRE number in my 40s. My husband is not as frugal as me, I should say, and he is also a part of the equation. But - he is a high earner and though he doesn't buy stuff (he hates shopping), he does enjoy nice wines, and that tends to add up. We have a lot of lower earning friends whom my DH is constantly helping out, either with loans or treating them to dinner and other experiences.

Anyway - compared to our high earning peers, I feel really good about our habits, and I think that's what matters. Nobody is perfect, and we're all just doing our best. I don't expect anyone to really learn anything new from my spending, and I don't feel "butthurt" by the generalization, but just wanted to point out that some high spenders are mindful and actually do care. This is probably coming off as defensive; but you (Malcat) asked me to share.

[Metalcat]

I feel like I’ve learned a lot from MMM (website back in the day, and now the forum) yet my spend is on the higher side. I like the questioning of habits, the optimization of spending, consuming less, counterculturalism, etc that goes on here. But I do spend on experiences, some conveniences (I am not much of a DIYer and I don’t see how it harms the planet to support other people’s livelihoods?), and organic / good quality / small farm -supporting foods. I also give a relatively high percentage of my income to charities that support my values - mainly environmentalism and animal rights.

FTR Zikoris and Malcat are two of my favourite posters on here and I’ve learned a lot from them. However this thread has devolved into some fat-FIRE shaming that is getting into some weird generalizations. Not everyone on the higher spending spectrum buys crap and destroys the planet with reckless abandon.

Not really.

People ask why anyone should care about frugality beyond just having a certain savings rate, and the default answer is that less consumption generally correlates with lower environmental impact. Not that there are no exceptions, but that the general correlation stands and that keeping that environmental metric in mind is a great way to challenge the powerful socially fueled drive to consume ever more things.

We are, in fact, in an environmental crisis. It is worth challenging that just because you can afford to spend a half million a year and still only have a 1% WR, that maybe you might want to think about the impact of that spend? Just maybe???

That *just* saving enough money to retire isn't the ONLY thing that matters, which A LOT of people on the forums these days are literally saying. There's a TON of "well I still have a 50% savings rate, so it doesn't matter how much I spend".

Well...it does.

Pointing that out is valid.

I'm not perfect on that front, none of us are. But this place keeps reminding me to at least think about it when I contemplate something environmentally wasteful that I can easily "afford".

So yeah, when someone asks what's the point of frugality when you don't "need" it, the environment is a reasonable default answer. If that person wants to come back with "well, I spend the bulk of my half a million annual spend on funding environmental initiatives and I'm a vegan who doesn't own a car and only travels by bike or sail boat" then that person shouldn't feel butt hurt, they should happily participate in the conversation and share how their spend actually serves the greater good.

Remember, the REST OF THE WORLD will pat people on the back for spending. And increasingly so will this place. The VAST majority of posts here about spending more are met with a general consensus of "you do you" and "as long as you can afford it". This place is NOT somewhere that is hostile to higher spends, luxury purchases, etc.

But yeah, every once in awhile someone will ask why anyone would bother with frugality if they can "afford" to spend more, and someone, probably Zikoris, will comment about the environmental impact of spending. Not to censor them, just to keep at least *some* voices at the party talking about it.

LOL the bolded is me in a nutshell. Well I suppose I had to push back a little on the "All high spenders are destroying the earth" comment. I agree with what you've written, which is why I said I like the counterculture aspect of this forum, as the anti-consumerist / environmentalist bent is something I can get behind. But - I don't really feel welcome to share the details of my spending habits when I am feeling like I am probably going to be attacked. So perhaps a little more curiosity, a little less judgment could be a worthy goal, as well. I don't automatically assume high spenders are unaware that we are in an environmental crisis - I don't necessarily equate low spending with environmentalism (though of course, it is a positive thing! Less consumer waste). For example, it sounds like Zikoris does a lot more air travel than I do, yet my yearly spend is over 4x hers.

Basically the luxuries I spend on are:

- education (I am always taking courses- this is expensive)
- charitable giving (I am an unofficial member and follower of https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/pledge/ and Give Well (or the CDN version, RC Forward)
- I hire people to do work around the house, as well as housecleaning, both of which are expensive in our area
- I buy organic locally grown food as much as possible
- I hire trainers and physiotherapists, do a lot of fitness classes and have a peloton

It's really nothing that radical or new, I just wanted to say, somehow I manage to spend a lot without buying any junk. Personally I don't have any moral objections to the above luxuries. I buy clothes mostly second hand (in non covid times), use the library, am generally a minimalist in terms of possessions. The Peloton was a splurge, for sure, but my DH and I both use it and it has really improved our health and mobility. When I do buy things, I tend to buy high quality items that last a long time, preferably a lifetime. That's not to say I don't buy things second hand or get them for free on facebook groups, but mostly I do tend to take the easier route and just get the high end item - Le Creuset pots and a Vitamix is a good example of this (potentially controversial, I know.) I have only ever had one smartphone, which I will use until it dies / is unfixable. I don't buy gadgets. I feel I've optimized spending based on my values. Maybe I'm kidding myself, but I feel I'm doing what I can. I am at my FIRE number in my 40s. My husband is not as frugal as me, I should say, and he is also a part of the equation. But - he is a high earner and though he doesn't buy stuff (he hates shopping), he does enjoy nice wines, and that tends to add up. We have a lot of lower earning friends whom my DH is constantly helping out, either with loans or treating them to dinner and other experiences.

Anyway - compared to our high earning peers, I feel really good about our habits, and I think that's what matters. Nobody is perfect, and we're all just doing our best. I don't expect anyone to really learn anything new from my spending, and I don't feel "butthurt" by the generalization, but just wanted to point out that some high spenders are mindful and actually do care. This is probably coming off as defensive; but you (Malcat) asked me to share.

Having a few posters challenge you is not the same as being "attacked". It's part of the culture here to challenge, you are welcome to do so yourself.

If you stand by your spending, then go ahead and talk about it. Laura owns an expensive sports car, Dicey owns a clown house, I buy t-shirts for at least $120 each and seriously considered buying a small plane last year, and none of us get "attacked". The thinking here is unconventional, and dogmatic shit tends to actually be challenged to hell, so even if someone did attack you, they would probably get shot down just as quickly.

I would love to hear more about your use of dollars. I personally have no issue with people spending, I only take issue with the increasing vilification here of frugality, that's all.

If you don't want to share your details, then don't, but if you have a high spend that you think aligns with environmental values, then yeah, there are probably a TON of people here who would want to hear about it. I personally will likely end up with way too much money, and have no idea what I'll do with it, and definitely do not want to end up someone who dies rich and never used their wealth.

As I said in a previous post, I actually encouraged my very wealthy friend to spend a lot more on her kitchen reno by investing in local artisans instead of cheap, mass produced crap shipped in from Asia. She has absolute heaping boat loads of money she doesn't spend, it's ridiculous, but she's someone who doesn't need her consumerism challenged, she's someone who needs her cheapness challenged. Something that MMM himself has harped on about repeatedly, that being frugal is not the same as being cheap.

So yeah, this place has a history of challenging people, but you're pretty safe from actually being attacked and marginalized for a high spend, especially these days when that's the majority of the population here.

[BDWW]

I would argue that it's not only, or even mainly about the environmental aspect. Stoicism is a large part of it, but I suspect that word falls a little short to fully describe it. MMM probably does a better job explaining it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-Li_sFNc4Q

Particularly from about the 9:30 mark to about the 18 minute mark.

[Zikoris]

I guess I would have to agree with your general gist about overconsumption being bad (I doubt my death certificate will say that overconsumption was the reason for my death but I digress) but it contains some assumptions.  For instance, if someone spends more, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with harm to humans or the planet.  Sometimes people pay for services they didn't have before or want an augmented version of a service.  I'll spend more on "things" I was needing to purchase anyway if I can get a more sustainable version that doesn't involve child labor or at least a non-plastic version - this type of spending does still have impact on the environment but it's an improvement.  I'm pretty bullish on future technology to improve many environmental aspects, including what consumers are consuming and the way we live and organize our society.  Giving to charity is also a large part of my FIRE spending which I guess could be seen as detrimental to the environment depending on the charity but I personally think it's at least an order of magnitude better than spending money on shiny new gadgets or the monocrop/feedlot ag industry and multiple orders better than procreating.  Not all spending is the same but yes, the bad consumption could stand to go wayyy down.

I've seen people say this before, but I have to say, I've seen a LOT of budgets posted over the years, and I have never ever seen one where someone spent 80, 90, 100K/year, and they were living modestly overall and just contributed a shit ton to charities and/or non-consumptive spending (like, say, taking a bunch fitness classes or getting lots of massages). I would have no issue with that obviously, but it doesn't seem like a thing anyone actually does.

[Mmm_Donuts]

Having a few posters challenge you is not the same as being "attacked". It's part of the culture here to challenge, you are welcome to do so yourself.

If you stand by your spending, then go ahead and talk about it. Laura owns an expensive sports car, Dicey owns a clown house, I buy t-shirts for at least $120 each and seriously considered buying a small plane last year, and none of us get "attacked". The thinking here is unconventional, and dogmatic shit tends to actually be challenged to hell, so even if someone did attack you, they would probably get shot down just as quickly.

I would love to hear more about your use of dollars. I personally have no issue with people spending, I only take issue with the increasing vilification here of frugality, that's all.

If you don't want to share your details, then don't, but if you have a high spend that you think aligns with environmental values, then yeah, there are probably a TON of people here who would want to hear about it. I personally will likely end up with way too much money, and have no idea what I'll do with it, and definitely do not want to end up someone who dies rich and never used their wealth.

As I said in a previous post, I actually encouraged my very wealthy friend to spend a lot more on her kitchen reno by investing in local artisans instead of cheap, mass produced crap shipped in from Asia. She has absolute heaping boat loads of money she doesn't spend, it's ridiculous, but she's someone who doesn't need her consumerism challenged, she's someone who needs her cheapness challenged. Something that MMM himself has harped on about repeatedly, that being frugal is not the same as being cheap.

So yeah, this place has a history of challenging people, but you're pretty safe from actually being attacked and marginalized for a high spend, especially these days when that's the majority of the population here.

OK, here you go. Average 2021 Monthly Spend (Jan-June):

Fixed Expenses:

Property Tax: $1084
Home Insurance: $90
Hydro: $108
Utilities: $65
Gas: $173
Phones, Internet: $356 (DH is reimbursed for his cell)
House Cleaners: $218

Variable:

Groceries: $1162
Restaurants: $331
Transportation: $67
Home Repairs & Maintenance: $1278
Home Supplies: $587 (a lot of this was on our garden - I love gardening.)
Medical / Dental: $47
Personal Care: $257
Clothes: $58
Entertainment (includes alcohol, hobbies): $746
Pets: $66
Gifts and Charity: $1540
Travel: $0 (we usually do some travelling, but - covid.)
Education: $388
Work Expenses: $557

Total Monthly Expenses: $9178

This is slightly inflated because our property taxes are front-loaded at the beginning of the year. And I think DH has spent more on alcohol than usual. Anyway, you get the gist. High spending, but (IMHO) not much on "stuff." (ETA: this is for 2 adults).

[Mmm_Donuts]

I guess I would have to agree with your general gist about overconsumption being bad (I doubt my death certificate will say that overconsumption was the reason for my death but I digress) but it contains some assumptions.  For instance, if someone spends more, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with harm to humans or the planet.  Sometimes people pay for services they didn't have before or want an augmented version of a service.  I'll spend more on "things" I was needing to purchase anyway if I can get a more sustainable version that doesn't involve child labor or at least a non-plastic version - this type of spending does still have impact on the environment but it's an improvement.  I'm pretty bullish on future technology to improve many environmental aspects, including what consumers are consuming and the way we live and organize our society.  Giving to charity is also a large part of my FIRE spending which I guess could be seen as detrimental to the environment depending on the charity but I personally think it's at least an order of magnitude better than spending money on shiny new gadgets or the monocrop/feedlot ag industry and multiple orders better than procreating.  Not all spending is the same but yes, the bad consumption could stand to go wayyy down.

I've seen people say this before, but I have to say, I've seen a LOT of budgets posted over the years, and I have never ever seen one where someone spent 80, 90, 100K/year, and they were living modestly overall and just contributed a shit ton to charities and/or non-consumptive spending (like, say, taking a bunch fitness classes or getting lots of massages). I would have no issue with that obviously, but it doesn't seem like a thing anyone actually does.

Is that a challenge? See my above post ;)

[Metalcat]

Having a few posters challenge you is not the same as being "attacked". It's part of the culture here to challenge, you are welcome to do so yourself.

If you stand by your spending, then go ahead and talk about it. Laura owns an expensive sports car, Dicey owns a clown house, I buy t-shirts for at least $120 each and seriously considered buying a small plane last year, and none of us get "attacked". The thinking here is unconventional, and dogmatic shit tends to actually be challenged to hell, so even if someone did attack you, they would probably get shot down just as quickly.

I would love to hear more about your use of dollars. I personally have no issue with people spending, I only take issue with the increasing vilification here of frugality, that's all.

If you don't want to share your details, then don't, but if you have a high spend that you think aligns with environmental values, then yeah, there are probably a TON of people here who would want to hear about it. I personally will likely end up with way too much money, and have no idea what I'll do with it, and definitely do not want to end up someone who dies rich and never used their wealth.

As I said in a previous post, I actually encouraged my very wealthy friend to spend a lot more on her kitchen reno by investing in local artisans instead of cheap, mass produced crap shipped in from Asia. She has absolute heaping boat loads of money she doesn't spend, it's ridiculous, but she's someone who doesn't need her consumerism challenged, she's someone who needs her cheapness challenged. Something that MMM himself has harped on about repeatedly, that being frugal is not the same as being cheap.

So yeah, this place has a history of challenging people, but you're pretty safe from actually being attacked and marginalized for a high spend, especially these days when that's the majority of the population here.

OK, here you go. Average 2021 Monthly Spend (Jan-June):

Fixed Expenses:

Property Tax: $1084
Home Insurance: $90
Hydro: $108
Utilities: $65
Gas: $173
Phones, Internet: $356 (DH is reimbursed for his cell)
House Cleaners: $218

Variable:

Groceries: $1162
Restaurants: $331
Transportation: $67
Home Repairs & Maintenance: $1278
Home Supplies: $587 (a lot of this was on our garden - I love gardening.)
Medical / Dental: $47
Personal Care: $257
Clothes: $58
Entertainment (includes alcohol, hobbies): $746
Pets: $66
Gifts and Charity: $1540
Travel: $0 (we usually do some travelling, but - covid.)
Education: $388
Work Expenses: $557

Total Monthly Expenses: $9178

This is slightly inflated because our property taxes are front-loaded at the beginning of the year. And I think DH has spent more on alcohol than usual. Anyway, you get the gist. High spending, but (IMHO) not much on "stuff." (ETA: this is for 2 adults).

And if you posted this in a case study, I would expect no one to "attack" you, but I would expect a number of people to challenge why you spend on certain things, because that's what we do here.

[Mmm_Donuts]

And if you posted this in a case study, I would expect no one to "attack" you, but I would expect a number of people to challenge why you spend on certain things, because that's what we do here.

OK sure. But I'm not really looking for advice on spending, so not sure what a case study would accomplish? Again, I was just pushing back on the idea that all high spenders are ruining the planet.

[Metalcat]

And if you posted this in a case study, I would expect no one to "attack" you, but I would expect a number of people to challenge why you spend on certain things, because that's what we do here.

OK sure. But I'm not really looking for advice on spending, so not sure what a case study would accomplish? Again, I was just pushing back on the idea that all high spenders are ruining the planet.

I'm not suggesting you do. I was saying that that's where most people post their spending, and describing how it would be met.

You seem to think that the general consensus here is to not tolerate spending, and that isn't true. You would get push back because that's what we do here, but that's it. You wouldn't get attacked.

[Zikoris]

I guess I would have to agree with your general gist about overconsumption being bad (I doubt my death certificate will say that overconsumption was the reason for my death but I digress) but it contains some assumptions.  For instance, if someone spends more, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with harm to humans or the planet.  Sometimes people pay for services they didn't have before or want an augmented version of a service.  I'll spend more on "things" I was needing to purchase anyway if I can get a more sustainable version that doesn't involve child labor or at least a non-plastic version - this type of spending does still have impact on the environment but it's an improvement.  I'm pretty bullish on future technology to improve many environmental aspects, including what consumers are consuming and the way we live and organize our society.  Giving to charity is also a large part of my FIRE spending which I guess could be seen as detrimental to the environment depending on the charity but I personally think it's at least an order of magnitude better than spending money on shiny new gadgets or the monocrop/feedlot ag industry and multiple orders better than procreating.  Not all spending is the same but yes, the bad consumption could stand to go wayyy down.

I've seen people say this before, but I have to say, I've seen a LOT of budgets posted over the years, and I have never ever seen one where someone spent 80, 90, 100K/year, and they were living modestly overall and just contributed a shit ton to charities and/or non-consumptive spending (like, say, taking a bunch fitness classes or getting lots of massages). I would have no issue with that obviously, but it doesn't seem like a thing anyone actually does.

Is that a challenge? See my above post ;)

I mean, your spending does look extremely high consumption. I personally would not be comfortable consuming at that level, and there's no way that consumption level would be at all sustainable on a large-scale basis.

What part of your spending/consumption do you consider modest? I'm just wondering because it's not obvious to me at all.

[PDXTabs]

I guess I would have to agree with your general gist about overconsumption being bad (I doubt my death certificate will say that overconsumption was the reason for my death but I digress) but it contains some assumptions.  For instance, if someone spends more, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with harm to humans or the planet.  Sometimes people pay for services they didn't have before or want an augmented version of a service.  I'll spend more on "things" I was needing to purchase anyway if I can get a more sustainable version that doesn't involve child labor or at least a non-plastic version - this type of spending does still have impact on the environment but it's an improvement.  I'm pretty bullish on future technology to improve many environmental aspects, including what consumers are consuming and the way we live and organize our society.  Giving to charity is also a large part of my FIRE spending which I guess could be seen as detrimental to the environment depending on the charity but I personally think it's at least an order of magnitude better than spending money on shiny new gadgets or the monocrop/feedlot ag industry and multiple orders better than procreating.  Not all spending is the same but yes, the bad consumption could stand to go wayyy down.

I've seen people say this before, but I have to say, I've seen a LOT of budgets posted over the years, and I have never ever seen one where someone spent 80, 90, 100K/year, and they were living modestly overall and just contributed a shit ton to charities and/or non-consumptive spending (like, say, taking a bunch fitness classes or getting lots of massages). I would have no issue with that obviously, but it doesn't seem like a thing anyone actually does.

Do mortgages count (£3,750,000 1,124sqft two bedroom flat in London)? I don't plan to save enough to get one, but that's exactly the sort of thing that I would love to have and would spend my stache on if I accidentally accumulate too much. Surely higher education for my kids and grandkids would qualify? Because I already had the kids.

[Mmm_Donuts]

I guess I would have to agree with your general gist about overconsumption being bad (I doubt my death certificate will say that overconsumption was the reason for my death but I digress) but it contains some assumptions.  For instance, if someone spends more, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with harm to humans or the planet.  Sometimes people pay for services they didn't have before or want an augmented version of a service.  I'll spend more on "things" I was needing to purchase anyway if I can get a more sustainable version that doesn't involve child labor or at least a non-plastic version - this type of spending does still have impact on the environment but it's an improvement.  I'm pretty bullish on future technology to improve many environmental aspects, including what consumers are consuming and the way we live and organize our society.  Giving to charity is also a large part of my FIRE spending which I guess could be seen as detrimental to the environment depending on the charity but I personally think it's at least an order of magnitude better than spending money on shiny new gadgets or the monocrop/feedlot ag industry and multiple orders better than procreating.  Not all spending is the same but yes, the bad consumption could stand to go wayyy down.

I've seen people say this before, but I have to say, I've seen a LOT of budgets posted over the years, and I have never ever seen one where someone spent 80, 90, 100K/year, and they were living modestly overall and just contributed a shit ton to charities and/or non-consumptive spending (like, say, taking a bunch fitness classes or getting lots of massages). I would have no issue with that obviously, but it doesn't seem like a thing anyone actually does.

Is that a challenge? See my above post ;)

I mean, your spending does look extremely high consumption. I personally would not be comfortable consuming at that level, and there's no way that consumption level would be at all sustainable on a large-scale basis.

What part of your spending/consumption do you consider modest? I'm just wondering because it's not obvious to me at all.

I don’t buy much stuff and am very careful about all purchases. I tend to spend on quality food, services, education, and experiences that I believe benefit the world rather than take away from it. (Organic farms, charities, health, basically to me it’s mostly non-consumptive spending.)

[uniwelder]

I guess I would have to agree with your general gist about overconsumption being bad (I doubt my death certificate will say that overconsumption was the reason for my death but I digress) but it contains some assumptions.  For instance, if someone spends more, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with harm to humans or the planet.  Sometimes people pay for services they didn't have before or want an augmented version of a service.  I'll spend more on "things" I was needing to purchase anyway if I can get a more sustainable version that doesn't involve child labor or at least a non-plastic version - this type of spending does still have impact on the environment but it's an improvement.  I'm pretty bullish on future technology to improve many environmental aspects, including what consumers are consuming and the way we live and organize our society.  Giving to charity is also a large part of my FIRE spending which I guess could be seen as detrimental to the environment depending on the charity but I personally think it's at least an order of magnitude better than spending money on shiny new gadgets or the monocrop/feedlot ag industry and multiple orders better than procreating.  Not all spending is the same but yes, the bad consumption could stand to go wayyy down.

I've seen people say this before, but I have to say, I've seen a LOT of budgets posted over the years, and I have never ever seen one where someone spent 80, 90, 100K/year, and they were living modestly overall and just contributed a shit ton to charities and/or non-consumptive spending (like, say, taking a bunch fitness classes or getting lots of massages). I would have no issue with that obviously, but it doesn't seem like a thing anyone actually does.

Is that a challenge? See my above post ;)

I mean, your spending does look extremely high consumption. I personally would not be comfortable consuming at that level, and there's no way that consumption level would be at all sustainable on a large-scale basis.

What part of your spending/consumption do you consider modest? I'm just wondering because it's not obvious to me at all.

I don’t buy much stuff and am very careful about all purchases. I tend to spend on quality food, services, education, and experiences that I believe benefit the world rather than take away from it. (Organic farms, charities, health, basically to me it’s mostly non-consumptive spending.)

Consumption constitutes a bit more than just material goods.  Bigger houses and corresponding lifestyle means more use of natural resources.  Comparing my 2 person household to yours, our water bill (hydro?) was typically 1/4 as much, our house with all electric appliances and heat (utilities + gas?) also about 1/4 of yours.  Great that you don't have a car and don't fly much, but if you are environmentally conscious, it would help to take a look at these other areas for improvement-- not so much for the spending part, but the affect that using these resources has.  Granted, you might be billed at a higher rate than me and I don't know where you live, but I would assume a higher water rate probably means greater water scarcity.

edited to clarify the utilities

[shuffler]

our water bill (hydro?) was typically 1/4 as much

"Hydro" is Canuckistani for "Electric".
It's like it's a foreign country up there.  ;^)

[Mmm_Donuts]

I guess I would have to agree with your general gist about overconsumption being bad (I doubt my death certificate will say that overconsumption was the reason for my death but I digress) but it contains some assumptions.  For instance, if someone spends more, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with harm to humans or the planet.  Sometimes people pay for services they didn't have before or want an augmented version of a service.  I'll spend more on "things" I was needing to purchase anyway if I can get a more sustainable version that doesn't involve child labor or at least a non-plastic version - this type of spending does still have impact on the environment but it's an improvement.  I'm pretty bullish on future technology to improve many environmental aspects, including what consumers are consuming and the way we live and organize our society.  Giving to charity is also a large part of my FIRE spending which I guess could be seen as detrimental to the environment depending on the charity but I personally think it's at least an order of magnitude better than spending money on shiny new gadgets or the monocrop/feedlot ag industry and multiple orders better than procreating.  Not all spending is the same but yes, the bad consumption could stand to go wayyy down.

I've seen people say this before, but I have to say, I've seen a LOT of budgets posted over the years, and I have never ever seen one where someone spent 80, 90, 100K/year, and they were living modestly overall and just contributed a shit ton to charities and/or non-consumptive spending (like, say, taking a bunch fitness classes or getting lots of massages). I would have no issue with that obviously, but it doesn't seem like a thing anyone actually does.

Is that a challenge? See my above post ;)

I mean, your spending does look extremely high consumption. I personally would not be comfortable consuming at that level, and there's no way that consumption level would be at all sustainable on a large-scale basis.

What part of your spending/consumption do you consider modest? I'm just wondering because it's not obvious to me at all.

I don’t buy much stuff and am very careful about all purchases. I tend to spend on quality food, services, education, and experiences that I believe benefit the world rather than take away from it. (Organic farms, charities, health, basically to me it’s mostly non-consumptive spending.)

Consumption constitutes a bit more than just material goods.  Bigger houses and corresponding lifestyle means more use of natural resources.  Comparing my 2 person household to yours, our water bill (hydro?) was typically 1/4 as much, our house with all electric appliances and heat (utilities + gas?) also about 1/4 of yours.  Great that you don't have a car and don't fly much, but if you are environmentally conscious, it would help to take a look at these other areas for improvement-- not so much for the spending part, but the affect that using these resources has.  Granted, you might be billed at a higher rate than me and I don't know where you live, but I would assume a higher water rate probably means greater water scarcity.

edited to clarify the utilities

Yes, the water bill is in “utilities” category (water and garbage.) As clarified above, hydro is electricity. We do live in a pretty luxe house (it is detached, in a nice neighbourhood) but is not huge. Maybe 1600 sq feet? We plan to downsize eventually, maybe to a condo, which would require less heating. But as everyone here keeps saying - Pete himself lived in a large house (I’m sure much bigger than mine). I don’t feel we overconsume on utilities, though I admit I could try harder to conserve water - even with a rain barrel, we also have an irrigation system as it’s not really possible to water everything via rain barrel. We don’t use much AC, and I keep the heat down to borderline uncomfortable levels in the winter. To kill those bills we’d need to downsize and that’s not on the table just yet. We really enjoy our house.

[friedmmj]

I live in a suburban neighborhood with houses built in the 60s which are a bit on the larger side maybe 2500 sf on average and 4 BRs.  One of the things I consider wasteful is the amount of landscaping that people in my hood hire out to armies of noise and air polluting professionals who terrorize me with their gas powered leaf blowers and weed whackers 8 months out of the year along with copious amounts of chemical fertilizers and pesticides.  They mostly all drive Stupid U Vees 2-3 per household.  I prefer to cut and trim my own grass with battery operated mower and lawn tools.  I consider DIY for outside maintenance to be a form of stoicism and frugality since I could easily afford to hire my own suburban terrorists but choose not to.

[uniwelder]

Yes, the water bill is in “utilities” category (water and garbage.) As clarified above, hydro is electricity. We do live in a pretty luxe house (it is detached, in a nice neighbourhood) but is not huge. Maybe 1600 sq feet? We plan to downsize eventually, maybe to a condo, which would require less heating. But as everyone here keeps saying - Pete himself lived in a large house (I’m sure much bigger than mine). I don’t feel we overconsume on utilities, though I admit I could try harder to conserve water - even with a rain barrel, we also have an irrigation system as it’s not really possible to water everything via rain barrel. We don’t use much AC, and I keep the heat down to borderline uncomfortable levels in the winter. To kill those bills we’d need to downsize and that’s not on the table just yet. We really enjoy our house.

It wasn't until I saw how you use the word 'hydro' that I looked up other posts to see that you're from Toronto, Canada.  Different currency, a little colder, unknown utility conventions compared to me.  Based on dollar amounts, its difficult to criticize usage.

[Dicey]

This thread has taken an interesting turn. Here's an aspect I haven't seen mentioned. We plan on spending the estimate I gave in retirement because this shit works, man! OMG, when RMD's kick in, we may be forced to spend even more! That doesn't mean we're going to waste it.

For reference, I was single until 54, have always lived in a HCOLA (and don't plan on moving) and I never earned so much as $100k a year, even in my very best year! My career average was probably around $50k. I retired when we got married, DH is preparing to retire soon.

When we wed, DH and I had roughly the same NW, and we both knew how to live a satisfying life without spending a ton of money. We each owned real estate, had no other debt, and were regular savers. Since we married, we have flipped a couple houses, and BRR'd two more. The stock market has performed magnificently and our combined NW has soared. Plus, DH has qualified for a sweet Defined Benefits Pension.

Despite the fact that we're rolling in dough, our lifestyle hasn't changed much. Even our clown house, which was purchased so his mother and her pal, Al Z. Heimer could live with us, has doubled in value in eight years, which is totally unexpected.

Therefore, our income in retirement will equal or exceed our average earnings during our working years.

We don't plan on moving, because we are very connected to our community. Initially, volunteering was a way to make friends and entertain ourselves without spending a lot of money. As a result, we have an extensive social network and feel like we belong here. As our NW has risen, it's been fun to be able to donate ever-larger sums of money to the causes we care about. Now we volunteer and give $$$.

[MrMoneySaver]

We don't plan on moving, because we are very connected to our community. Initially, volunteering was a way to make friends and entertain ourselves without spending a lot of money. As a result, we have an extensive social network and feel like we belong here. As our NW has risen, it's been fun to be able to donate ever-larger sums of money to the causes we care about. Now we volunteer and give $$$.

What kinds of things are you volunteering at?

[American GenX]

I always concern myself much more with my stash than my net worth since net worth includes my home, which isn't part of my drawdown.

I'm not sure where I will ramp up my discretionary spending in retirement, but it's easy to spend money.  lol

Then you will run into the "can't break the frugal mode" problem.  I still find it hard to spend without a very good reason.

You're exactly right.  In theory, I can see how spending can add up quickly in retirement, but actually carrying through with a much higher spend is a different matter.  I'll have opposing forces of my inherent frugal nature against the pressure to spend down my stache so that I don't leave anything on the table.

I suggest watching Brewster's Millions for guidance.

I'm talking maybe only $50K discretionary spending per year "on average" over the first 17 years of retirement, which I can spend on anything, yet I don't want to be wasteful, plus I don't even have to spend it, so it's very different.  If I don't relocate, that figure may be closer to $60K/yr average.  But, as I mentioned earlier, despite what my stache will allow, I'll probably be pretty conservative in early retirement and not spend over $30K/yr on discretionary spending, maybe even less if my frugal nature is too strong.  Even as little as $20K/yr would still be a many times greater than my limited discretionary spending in any recent year.  This year is going to be higher than usual for me because I bought a new e-bike, and it still probably won't be much over $3K on discretionary spending by year end.  Of course, once retired, I'll have a lot more free time to do things which will cost more money, so I expect some natural increase in spending without even trying just because of that, but probably not enough to absorb the additional funds what the stash will allow.

[soccerluvof4]

Right now in retirement we spend or have a budget of 9k a month/108k a year without a Mortgage. This is an expensive time for us with 2 in college and 2 in HS , Select sports and so on. Personally I am not sure if it will come down that much in the next 5 years when were empty nesters because we will still have two in college and the continuous rise and cost of things but I think it could be realistic to get down to 7k month perhaps more, and we have saved accordingly.