What are your leanFIRE, FIRE, and fatFIRE numbers?

[startingout]

Please exclude the home equity on your primary residence in these numbers. I'll start.

leanFIRE: $750k
FIRE: ???
fatFIRE: $5M

[Turtle]

leanFIRE: $1.5M
FIRE: $2-2.5M
fatFIRE: $3M

These numbers are in part due to a mortgage that is at least 15 years from being paid off. 

Lean covers mortgage, basis expenses with current inflation levels, and taxes. 

Regular includes some wiggle room for cutting in a market downturn, or covering lumpy expenses, and a bit more discretionary/travel. 

fatFIRE 4% is more money than I've ever spent in even my most spendypants year.

[NotJen]

leanFIRE: None
FIRE: $825,000 (in 2019 dollars, $1.03M in 2024 dollars)
fatFIRE: None

[jsap819]

LeanFIRE: $1.4M
FIRE:        $1.85M
FatFIRE:    $2.25M

Lean FIRE number is with paid off home ($500k mortgage with 27 years left at 2.375%) and basic living expenses with 20% buffer.
FIRE number is our current standard of living with paid off home, college expenses accounted ($100k) for our only child, and lumpy expenses (new car, new roof, etc.)
Fat FIRE is all of the above plus our discretionary spending x2 (we've never reached this level of spending before and I'm not sure it's possible if we tried)

[Zikoris]

We don't have FIRE or FatFIRE numbers because that represents a totally unappealing lifestyle that neither of us have any interest in (i.e. buying a bunch of stupid shit we don't want or need).

I'd say our LeanFIRE minimum is around 800K, for our 30K annual spending. We're a little over that now. No home equity as we're renters.

[Freedomin5]

I think it also helps to know how many people are in your family. We're a family of 3. Numbers below assume a paid-off home.

leanFIRE: 1M
FIRE: 1.2M
fatFIRE: none - not interested in fatFIRE

[Much Fishing to Do]

leanFire target was $1.4M years ago (family of 5).   FIre was $2M as I really wanted paid off house and paid off college for kids.  FatFire was $3M. 

I'm past all that now, have a good 18 hr/wk job from home that is interesting, keeps me active and involved, and pays the bills, so still working.  Go figure.  Funny thing was at $500k NW I would have killed to get out of my job (that was killing me).  Now that i dont need the money I've finally earned myself into a job I like to have.  I guess thats how things work.

[GilesMM]

lean 5% swr
fire 4%
fat 3%

[Tasse]

We have no home equity (currently renting), so all numbers would have to cover either continued renting or mortgage payments.

LeanFIRE: ~1.15M - this would cover our expenses if we do the move to LCOL we are considering, plus a (conservative?) guess about how much kids cost.
FIRE: 1.4-2M - this would cover our current MCOL expenses plus a range of guesses of how much kids cost.

We don't really have a fatFIRE number. If we pass 2M and I still want to work, I'd love to donate 50% of income to charity and figure out what kind of lifestyle inflation to do with the rest afterward.

[Metalcat]

Lean FI: 1-1.5M??

Hard to say, a lot of that right now is in my spouse's pension, which gets cut in half if he dies, so that's fun to worry about, especially since he's older and likes extreme sports.

I also wouldn't ever feel comfortable not being FI enough to both be independently FI in the event of a divorce. It's my firm belief that you can only choose to stay if you have the option to leave.

FI: 1.5-2.5M

We'll be into this range before I'm 50.

FatFI: 2.5-5M

I honestly have no clue how much we'll end up with because we both love our work and have zero interest in retiring, and we can both make very good money working part time on cool shit.

But we have no kids, so it will be utterly pointless money for us. Some cat rescue is going to end up with a giant trust or something like that.

[ixtap]

Once upon a time, lean FI was $900k and this is silly FI was $2M.

I don't think DH has a this is silly number any more. Instead, we have plans for our next boat upgrade to be a level up rather than just slightly newer and we get enjoyment out of the things we can do for others when we don't really have a budget. DH owns 90% of a boat with a friend who would otherwise be homeless and the friend's stake was gifted so that they were legally co owners for insurance purposes.

[MaybeBabyMustache]

We're just about to finalize college costs (DS18 deciding in the next three weeks and DS17 will be in the same position in a year), which makes it easier to see FIRE a bit more clearly. Subtracting the money we estimate we will need for college for both, our line of thinking is to sell our paid off bay area house & move somewhere less expensive.

We're aiming for Fat Fire of $5M. Moving somewhere slightly less expensive will get us there.  If we chose to stay in our house, our number would be in the $3M range.

[2Birds1Stone]

leanFIRE:$800k
FIRE:$1.5M
fatFIRE:$2.5M

Caveat: with leanFIRE I assume a conservative 3% WR, for FIRE a traditional 4% WR and for fatFIRE a ballsy 5% WR (since that budget is 75-80% wants and can be EASILY trimmed in a downturn).

[2Birds1Stone]

lean 5% swr
fire 4%
fat 3%

interesting, my logic is exactly the opposite of yours here

[GilesMM]

lean 5% swr
fire 4%
fat 3%

interesting, my logic is exactly the opposite of yours here

If one wants to sail close the wind, retire early with less than the required amount, they may need to withdraw more than 4% to stay afloat.  If they work longer and over-save, they may have so much they don't require the full 4% SWR.

[2Birds1Stone]

lean 5% swr
fire 4%
fat 3%

interesting, my logic is exactly the opposite of yours here

If one wants to sail close the wind, retire early with less than the required amount, they may need to withdraw more than 4% to stay afloat.  If they work longer and over-save, they may have so much they don't require the full 4% SWR.

A leanFIRE'd individual likely has less fat to trim in a downturn, so a lower starting WR% is more robust, someone doing more traditional FIRE is likely ok with the success rate of a 4% WR, and when you're fatFIRE'd you likely have a ton of that budget allocated towards discretionary spending, meaning way more flexibility if SHTF.

Quitting your job and calling yourself leanFI using a 5% WR is just plain stupid/piss poor planning. Being fatFIRE and still being scared of drawing down more than 3% is equally as stupid.

[spartana]

lean 5% swr
fire 4%
fat 3%

interesting, my logic is exactly the opposite of yours here

If one wants to sail close the wind, retire early with less than the required amount, they may need to withdraw more than 4% to stay afloat.  If they work longer and over-save, they may have so much they don't require the full 4% SWR.

A leanFIRE'd individual likely has less fat to trim in a downturn, so a lower starting WR% is more robust, someone doing more traditional FIRE is likely ok with the success rate of a 4% WR, and when you're fatFIRE'd you likely have a ton of that budget allocated towards discretionary spending, meaning way more flexibility if SHTF.

Quitting your job and calling yourself leanFI using a 5% WR is just plain stupid/piss poor planning. Being fatFIRE and still being scared of drawing down more than 3% is equally as stupid.

  I've always considered lean FIRE, regular FIRE and fat FIRE to be based on the same WR (say 4%) and the difference between them is based on an individual's needed/basic expenses and how much beyond those expenses they want.  And the size of the stash to support those costs..

So a lean FIRE person my need $24k/year to cover all their basic expenses without a lot of extras. So their lean FIRE number at a 4% WR would be $600k. The regular FIREee may have the same basic expenses but want to do some extra stuff like more elaborate travel, replacing cars more often, upgrades to the house, etc so may need double the income and and double the stash but the 4% WR remains the same. The fat FIREee may have the same basic expenses but want to be able to do All The Things and live a much higher luxury lifestyle so needs a bigger stash - maybe triple or more the size then their lean FIRE stash -  but still at a 4% WR. ERE verses MMM verses Bogleheads spending and stash levels.

[Ozlady]

Hi

My take is :

Lean Fire: Passive Income covers Basic Expenses (with no or little Buffer )

FIRE: 100% extra Passive Income on top of Lean Fire

FAT FIRE: another 100% extra on top of  FIRE

[2Birds1Stone]

And just like every other thread of it's kind we will argue semantics till the next OP finds a new way of framing the same question
 

[2Birds1Stone]

lean 5% swr
fire 4%
fat 3%

interesting, my logic is exactly the opposite of yours here

If one wants to sail close the wind, retire early with less than the required amount, they may need to withdraw more than 4% to stay afloat.  If they work longer and over-save, they may have so much they don't require the full 4% SWR.

A leanFIRE'd individual likely has less fat to trim in a downturn, so a lower starting WR% is more robust, someone doing more traditional FIRE is likely ok with the success rate of a 4% WR, and when you're fatFIRE'd you likely have a ton of that budget allocated towards discretionary spending, meaning way more flexibility if SHTF.

Quitting your job and calling yourself leanFI using a 5% WR is just plain stupid/piss poor planning. Being fatFIRE and still being scared of drawing down more than 3% is equally as stupid.

  I've always considered lean FIRE, regular FIRE and fat FIRE to be based on the same WR (say 4%) and the difference between them is based on an individual's needed/basic expenses and how much beyond those expenses they want.  And the size of the stash to support those costs..

So a lean FIRE person my need $24k/year to cover all their basic expenses without a lot of extras. So their lean FIRE number at a 4% WR would be $600k. The regular FIREee may have the same basic expenses but want to do some extra stuff like more elaborate travel, replacing cars more often, upgrades to the house, etc so may need double the income and and double the stash but the 4% WR remains the same. The fat FIREee may have the same basic expenses but want to be able to do All The Things and live a much higher luxury lifestyle so needs a bigger stash - maybe triple or more the size then their lean FIRE stash -  but still at a 4% WR. ERE verses MMM verses Bogleheads spending and stash levels.

I very much agree with your loose definitions.

Which is why I would want a more conservative 3% WR with lean fire starting point and have the balls to push past 4% if my budget was 75% vacations, fine dining and maintenance on a fleet of exotic cars or planes.

[spartana]

lean 5% swr
fire 4%
fat 3%

interesting, my logic is exactly the opposite of yours here

If one wants to sail close the wind, retire early with less than the required amount, they may need to withdraw more than 4% to stay afloat.  If they work longer and over-save, they may have so much they don't require the full 4% SWR.

A leanFIRE'd individual likely has less fat to trim in a downturn, so a lower starting WR% is more robust, someone doing more traditional FIRE is likely ok with the success rate of a 4% WR, and when you're fatFIRE'd you likely have a ton of that budget allocated towards discretionary spending, meaning way more flexibility if SHTF.

Quitting your job and calling yourself leanFI using a 5% WR is just plain stupid/piss poor planning. Being fatFIRE and still being scared of drawing down more than 3% is equally as stupid.

  I've always considered lean FIRE, regular FIRE and fat FIRE to be based on the same WR (say 4%) and the difference between them is based on an individual's needed/basic expenses and how much beyond those expenses they want.  And the size of the stash to support those costs..

So a lean FIRE person my need $24k/year to cover all their basic expenses without a lot of extras. So their lean FIRE number at a 4% WR would be $600k. The regular FIREee may have the same basic expenses but want to do some extra stuff like more elaborate travel, replacing cars more often, upgrades to the house, etc so may need double the income and and double the stash but the 4% WR remains the same. The fat FIREee may have the same basic expenses but want to be able to do All The Things and live a much higher luxury lifestyle so needs a bigger stash - maybe triple or more the size then their lean FIRE stash -  but still at a 4% WR. ERE verses MMM verses Bogleheads spending and stash levels.

I very much agree with your loose definitions.

Which is why I would want a more conservative 3% WR with lean fire starting point and have the balls to push past 4% if my budget was 75% vacations, fine dining and maintenance on a fleet of exotic cars or planes.

But if you are already barebones-ing it at 4% to cover all your lean FIRE expenses you probably couldn't go down to 3 % without having either a big EF or a bigger stash. And we all know a bigger stash or bigger EF means you gotta work longer instead of riding your bike to the beach to play volleyball and surf all day ;-).

[curious_george]

LeanFIRE: 1.2M LNW
Fire: 1.5M LNW
fatFire: 2.0M LNW

These numbers are for a family of six.

ETA: These numbers do not include our paid off house and vehicles, etc.

[2Birds1Stone]

lean 5% swr
fire 4%
fat 3%

interesting, my logic is exactly the opposite of yours here

If one wants to sail close the wind, retire early with less than the required amount, they may need to withdraw more than 4% to stay afloat.  If they work longer and over-save, they may have so much they don't require the full 4% SWR.

A leanFIRE'd individual likely has less fat to trim in a downturn, so a lower starting WR% is more robust, someone doing more traditional FIRE is likely ok with the success rate of a 4% WR, and when you're fatFIRE'd you likely have a ton of that budget allocated towards discretionary spending, meaning way more flexibility if SHTF.

Quitting your job and calling yourself leanFI using a 5% WR is just plain stupid/piss poor planning. Being fatFIRE and still being scared of drawing down more than 3% is equally as stupid.

  I've always considered lean FIRE, regular FIRE and fat FIRE to be based on the same WR (say 4%) and the difference between them is based on an individual's needed/basic expenses and how much beyond those expenses they want.  And the size of the stash to support those costs..

So a lean FIRE person my need $24k/year to cover all their basic expenses without a lot of extras. So their lean FIRE number at a 4% WR would be $600k. The regular FIREee may have the same basic expenses but want to do some extra stuff like more elaborate travel, replacing cars more often, upgrades to the house, etc so may need double the income and and double the stash but the 4% WR remains the same. The fat FIREee may have the same basic expenses but want to be able to do All The Things and live a much higher luxury lifestyle so needs a bigger stash - maybe triple or more the size then their lean FIRE stash -  but still at a 4% WR. ERE verses MMM verses Bogleheads spending and stash levels.

I very much agree with your loose definitions.

Which is why I would want a more conservative 3% WR with lean fire starting point and have the balls to push past 4% if my budget was 75% vacations, fine dining and maintenance on a fleet of exotic cars or planes.

But if you are already barebones-ing it at 4% to cover all your lean FIRE expenses you probably couldn't go down to 3 % without having either a big EF or a bigger stash. And we all know a bigger stash or bigger EF means you gotta work longer instead of riding your bike to the beach to play volleyball and surf all day ;-).

My logic is that someone barebonesing it in the first place should just wait till they can 3% to start.

[Metalcat]

And just like every other thread of it's kind we will argue semantics till the next OP finds a new way of framing the same question

Bingo

[Drink Coffee And Stack Money]

I'll play...

We're a family of 2 DINKS. No kids and we do not want any. We both come from big families so we have plenty of nieces and nephews to spoil.

Lean FIRE: $850k
FIRE: $1.25M
FatFIRE: We don't care about FatFIRE so we have no number for this.


*(Note)* The above numbers are our invested asset targets, excluding any home equity or any owned possessions. We currently have $161k equity in our current home which was recently appraised for $567K. I'm also a collector or pre-1920 Baseball artifacts, arcade machines, and vintage coin-op.. Current realistic collection value is well over $100k. While I have always loved collecting my collection or the vast majority will be sold at some point as I do not want to leave my loved ones a giant headache when I eventually pass, and because we are considering downsizing quite a bit in general when we pull the plug on work. We're looking at pulling the plug in Q4 of 2029 and barring a huge and/or sustained market drop we should be at or over our FIRE number.

[vand]

[Arbitrage]

Family of 4. 

LeanFIRE: $1.25M as of 3 years ago. 
Would be a little higher today with inflation, perhaps $1.4M.  We had this number (plus a tad more) and were getting prepared to FIRE, but elected to go coast-FIRE instead.  Good thing, since we ended up buying a more expensive house due to rapid house price inflation...and requirements creep once we knew we'd still have part-time work.

FIRE: $2.1-2.2M
Haven't calculated a number for this in a while.  Figured I'd use 3.5% SWR on non-debt expenditures, with a little buffer on our expenses for some future teenage stuff, and then add our debt.  We're right around this number now, but still coasting. 

FatFIRE: no real interest in this.  Spending much more than our current spend brings me very little additional joy;  definitely not in proportion to the life/time required to acquire additional assets to support it.  The only thing I'm seeking is additional financial security.

[PlanetDee]

We are planning to Lean/Fire on the same number of about $900k, could probably go as low as $800k. As others have said, we have no interest in Fat Fire as we can live the life we want on a lot less.

[Turtle]

Hi

My take is :

Lean Fire: Passive Income covers Basic Expenses (with no or little Buffer )

FIRE: 100% extra Passive Income on top of Lean Fire

FAT FIRE: another 100% extra on top of  FIRE

I like this definition @Ozlady

Mine is a variant of that - if the amount needed to cover mortgage payments was subtracted from my numbers above, what I stated would roughly fit your guidelines there.   

[ixtap]

I'll play...

We're a family of 2 DINKS.

That is quite a polycule.

Regarding SWR, our logic was lean FIRE at 4% + what we referred to as a transition budget in case we ever wanted to change lifestyle, then additional savings went to reducing to 3.5% and only then did we start thinking about increasing spending.

[glacio09]

My husband is a (comparative) spendy pants but is also the sort that will always have some sort of job. My numbers are more about what the job would need to be for my anxiety ridden self to be comfortable.

Lean fire: 1 mil. All bills are covered but the equivalent of one full time job is needed to make sure we don't actually touch the investments.

Fire: 1.5 mil. All bills are covered through investments and part time jobs cover any additional fun times.

Fatfire: 2 mil. We can live entirely off investments while working volunteer positions.

I guess it's more different layers of coast-fire. Right now we're at 800k while renting in a city I don't love, so it's helpful to know exactly what I'm comfortable with at what level.

[GilesMM]

Hi

My take is :

Lean Fire: Passive Income covers Basic Expenses (with no or little Buffer )

FIRE: 100% extra Passive Income on top of Lean Fire

FAT FIRE: another 100% extra on top of  FIRE

I like this definition @Ozlady

Mine is a variant of that - if the amount needed to cover mortgage payments was subtracted from my numbers above, what I stated would roughly fit your guidelines there.

If I understand the math, if lean=4%, FIRE=8% and Fat=12% SWR?

[spartana]

lean 5% swr
fire 4%
fat 3%

interesting, my logic is exactly the opposite of yours here

If one wants to sail close the wind, retire early with less than the required amount, they may need to withdraw more than 4% to stay afloat.  If they work longer and over-save, they may have so much they don't require the full 4% SWR.

A leanFIRE'd individual likely has less fat to trim in a downturn, so a lower starting WR% is more robust, someone doing more traditional FIRE is likely ok with the success rate of a 4% WR, and when you're fatFIRE'd you likely have a ton of that budget allocated towards discretionary spending, meaning way more flexibility if SHTF.

Quitting your job and calling yourself leanFI using a 5% WR is just plain stupid/piss poor planning. Being fatFIRE and still being scared of drawing down more than 3% is equally as stupid.

  I've always considered lean FIRE, regular FIRE and fat FIRE to be based on the same WR (say 4%) and the difference between them is based on an individual's needed/basic expenses and how much beyond those expenses they want.  And the size of the stash to support those costs..

So a lean FIRE person my need $24k/year to cover all their basic expenses without a lot of extras. So their lean FIRE number at a 4% WR would be $600k. The regular FIREee may have the same basic expenses but want to do some extra stuff like more elaborate travel, replacing cars more often, upgrades to the house, etc so may need double the income and and double the stash but the 4% WR remains the same. The fat FIREee may have the same basic expenses but want to be able to do All The Things and live a much higher luxury lifestyle so needs a bigger stash - maybe triple or more the size then their lean FIRE stash -  but still at a 4% WR. ERE verses MMM verses Bogleheads spending and stash levels.

I very much agree with your loose definitions.

Which is why I would want a more conservative 3% WR with lean fire starting point and have the balls to push past 4% if my budget was 75% vacations, fine dining and maintenance on a fleet of exotic cars or planes.

But if you are already barebones-ing it at 4% to cover all your lean FIRE expenses you probably couldn't go down to 3 % without having either a big EF or a bigger stash. And we all know a bigger stash or bigger EF means you gotta work longer instead of riding your bike to the beach to play volleyball and surf all day ;-).

My logic is that someone barebonesing it in the first place should just wait till they can 3% to start.

Yeah. I personally think my version/definition of lean FIRE is very risky - quitting your job and living off a passive income the moment you hit 25X's your barebones expenses. No fat to cut if SHTF and zero wriggle room if your situation changes. I personally consider myself chubby FIRE because my current WR is lower than 3% but the actually amount I live on is pretty low (and the stash is relatively small compared to most here) due to having very low barebones expenses. 50% or more of my spending is on "fun" stuff that could be cut if ever needed.

[ChickenStash]

Using a 4% WR and my own made up definitions...

LeanFIRE - basic necessities and simple hobbies/luxuries: 1M
FIRE - lean plus more buffer for hobbies and int'l travel that can be avoided, if needed: 1.3M
PhatFIRE - FIRE plus an even larger, more luxurious buffer, hookers, blow: 1.7M

I'm <2years (hopefully) from Lean and some time between there and regular FIRE I'll probably switch to short term contract work for part of the year and coast that way for awhile. If that works out I may never RE.

[LongtimeLurker]

LF - $943,000
FI - $1.3M
FF - $1.9M

I think my wife plans on working past when I retire, so its not set in stone. There are also plenty of P/T jobs a person can grab to make some fun money. Stuff like substitute teaching or adult softball umpire. Stuff that is always hiring, is very flexible, and has no long term responsibility.

[wageslave23]

Hi

My take is :

Lean Fire: Passive Income covers Basic Expenses (with no or little Buffer )

FIRE: 100% extra Passive Income on top of Lean Fire

FAT FIRE: another 100% extra on top of  FIRE

I like this definition @Ozlady

Mine is a variant of that - if the amount needed to cover mortgage payments was subtracted from my numbers above, what I stated would roughly fit your guidelines there.

If I understand the math, if lean=4%, FIRE=8% and Fat=12% SWR?

Dammit gyles, you have everything assbackwards and it's confusing everyone :) . For Ozleys definition.  Lean equals 4% swr, i.e basic expenses are $40k and you have $1m to cover it, no cushion. FIRE equals 2% swr because 4% of your stache is double what your basic expenses are. I.e 40k basic expenses and $2m stache. Fat fire is $3m stache with 40k basic expenses.

For the record, this is a dumb way to answer the OPs question when they specifically provided a dollar amount as the example, which would avoid all of this back and forth.

Mine is lean fire $1.4m, Fire $1.9m, Fat fire anything more than that.

[wenchsenior]

Lean: 1.2 million with pension, meaning we could stay in our current location, which we desperately don't want, and live comfortably (hit this a couple years ago)
FIRE: 1.5-1.7 million with pension (really hoping to achieve this by 2027)
Fat FIRE: >1.7 million with pension

[Tasse]

And just like every other thread of it's kind we will argue semantics till the next OP finds a new way of framing the same question

But it's a fascinating survey!

	LeanFIRE	FIRE	FatFIRE
MIN	$   750,000	$1,000,000	$1,700,000
MED	$1,000,000	$1,550,000	$2,375,000
MAX	$1,500,000	$5,000,000	$10,000,000

Everyone who provided a range was plotted/analyzed at the midpoint of their range.

Weirdly, of the people who reported their family size, there is only a weak positive correlation between family size and LeanFIRE number, and none at all for FIRE numbers. Maybe bigger families are more likely to live in LCOL areas or vice-versa? Or maybe one person each at family sizes 5 and 6 is too few to mean anything. ;) Sample size is so small for FatFIRE numbers it's not worth pretending it means something.

The scatter plot has some "jitter" added for data visibility. All the points around a family size of 2 are 2, they're just spread out a little so they aren't all overlapping.

If you already said your number without including family size, let me know and I'll add you to the chart. :)

[wageslave23]

And just like every other thread of it's kind we will argue semantics till the next OP finds a new way of framing the same question

But it's a fascinating survey!

	LeanFIRE	FIRE	FatFIRE
MIN	$   750,000	$1,000,000	$1,700,000
MED	$1,000,000	$1,550,000	$2,375,000
MAX	$1,500,000	$5,000,000	$10,000,000

Everyone who provided a range was plotted/analyzed at the midpoint of their range.

Weirdly, of the people who reported their family size, there is only a weak positive correlation between family size and LeanFIRE number, and none at all for FIRE numbers. Maybe bigger families are more likely to live in LCOL areas or vice-versa? Or maybe one person each at family sizes 5 and 6 is too few to mean anything. ;) Sample size is so small for FatFIRE numbers it's not worth pretending it means something.

The scatter plot has some "jitter" added for data visibility. All the points around a family size of 2 are 2, they're just spread out a little so they aren't all overlapping.

If you already said your number without including family size, let me know and I'll add you to the chart. :)

thar.

Family of 4 for us.

[vand]

lean 5% swr
fire 4%
fat 3%

I think of it this way also. The sort of numbers I have in my head are

Lean = 25 x basic budget
normal = 27 x (basic budget)*1.4
Fat = 30 x (basic budget)*1.8

so both my WR rate falls and my expenditure goes up for higher levels of FI.
I suppose we could introduce some intermediate levels too. Howabout

Lean
Lormal
Normal
Formal
Fat

[spartana]

And just like every other thread of it's kind we will argue semantics till the next OP finds a new way of framing the same question

But it's a fascinating survey!

	LeanFIRE	FIRE	FatFIRE
MIN	$   750,000	$1,000,000	$1,700,000
MED	$1,000,000	$1,550,000	$2,375,000
MAX	$1,500,000	$5,000,000	$10,000,000

Everyone who provided a range was plotted/analyzed at the midpoint of their range.

Weirdly, of the people who reported their family size, there is only a weak positive correlation between family size and LeanFIRE number, and none at all for FIRE numbers. Maybe bigger families are more likely to live in LCOL areas or vice-versa? Or maybe one person each at family sizes 5 and 6 is too few to mean anything. ;) Sample size is so small for FatFIRE numbers it's not worth pretending it means something.

The scatter plot has some "jitter" added for data visibility. All the points around a family size of 2 are 2, they're just spread out a little so they aren't all overlapping.

If you already said your number without including family size, let me know and I'll add you to the chart. :)

I like it! I didn't put my numbers here since I'm already FIRE and my numbers would seriously skew the results - on the low side ;-).  So much depends on family needs or life needs it's hard to compare. You could take 3 people each with a $2mm stash throwing off a passive income of $80k and for one person that'll be lean FIRE, for another that would be FIRE, and for the third that would be seriously "hooker and blow, Ferraris and luxury spa vacations" fat FIRE.
As a single person with no kids, no debt, paid off house, low cost or free medical, low expenses, free hobbies, etc it's pretty easy to live on $1000/month and lean FIRE on a small stash. Too risky for me so made sure I had more (chubby FIRE after selling the house and downsizing) to both spend more and to ride out any market downturns or life changes. 

[Villanelle]

DH and I are way less into running numbers than most people here, for several reasons.  Honing in on exact numbers (or at least general ranges) is something we've only very recently started considering.

Lean:  ~$0 (plus pension (PP) which is inflation-adjusted and he's now fully earned)

Regular:  $750k-ish, PP

Fat: $1.5k-ish, PP

Of note is that these are all based on about the same SWR.  They constitute the numbers we'd need to live, and at least somewhat thrive, withdrawing at the same rate.  If we needed to, we could retire on just the pension alone, though we'd have to move to a LCOL or MLCOL place to do so.  I won't say this is a worst-case scenario, but it's one we wouldn't consider unless there were major influences.  Thankfully, since we already have well more than $0, it would be almost impossible for this to come to pass.

The regular number opens up most locations to us and ore wiggle room to enjoy hobbies, not have to track every dollar, etc. The biggest question mark here is location.  We don't know where we want to land.  In some places, this number would be well more than enough for the lifestyle we want and in others, it might be tight-ish.

The Fat number means we can live almost anywhere (except, sadly, the one place in the US we'd love to be if money were no object, and where very modest houses start at about $2m, but we could go to that larger metro area if we wanted to).  Slow travel with little regard for costs would be entirely available to us, as would much support for our favorite charitable institutions. We could basically never think about money, which is about what we do now--not think about it. 
 

[wenchsenior]

And just like every other thread of it's kind we will argue semantics till the next OP finds a new way of framing the same question

But it's a fascinating survey!

	LeanFIRE	FIRE	FatFIRE
MIN	$   750,000	$1,000,000	$1,700,000
MED	$1,000,000	$1,550,000	$2,375,000
MAX	$1,500,000	$5,000,000	$10,000,000

Everyone who provided a range was plotted/analyzed at the midpoint of their range.

Weirdly, of the people who reported their family size, there is only a weak positive correlation between family size and LeanFIRE number, and none at all for FIRE numbers. Maybe bigger families are more likely to live in LCOL areas or vice-versa? Or maybe one person each at family sizes 5 and 6 is too few to mean anything. ;) Sample size is so small for FatFIRE numbers it's not worth pretending it means something.

The scatter plot has some "jitter" added for data visibility. All the points around a family size of 2 are 2, they're just spread out a little so they aren't all overlapping.

If you already said your number without including family size, let me know and I'll add you to the chart. :)

thar.

Family of 4 for us.

Interesting, but I'm not sure if our 'family size' counts in a typical way. Our numbers would be about 250K-500K lower for each category if it was just the two of us, but we are supporting another adult...currently in a separate house; but if we want to move, we will need much much more expensive housing to accomadate this third person. That hugely inflates our number.

So it's not like: "a family of 3" b/c that would usually be 2 adults and child who presumably is already part of the established living space.

[ChpBstrd]

Lean: $1.4M
FIRE: $1.5M
Fat:   $1.8M

Current: $1.06M

These numbers are highly questionable for the following reasons:

1) My household has entered a period of time when we have lower income and a low savings rate (about 10-15%), so even a small gap will take years to close. During that time, inflation could raise our FIRE number. Our FIRE number could even grow faster than our savings, and the gap could widen.

2) Numbers are based on the assumption of a 3.25% mortgage with 10 years left to go. As those 10 years slowly run out, so does the validity of the assumption.

3) They are based on the assumption we could obtain an Obamacare marketplace plan in our LCOL Medicaid expansion state, which is completely Republican controlled, for $12-15k per year out of pocket. Repealing a popular 13 year old law has become less of a political priority lately, but it could happen. If insurance runs $20k or $25k instead, it's back to work.

4) We have had a string of medical problems in this household which have been costly and which have reduced income. If that trend worsens with age, we may need to increase our FIRE number to add cushion. "Fat FIRE" for us may mean having the liberty to pay for elective procedures, non-covered medications, and medical travel.

5) As time goes by (see theme: time is the enemy) our 12 and 13 year old cars get closer and closer to needing replacement. That's a $50k hit.

[Tasse]

Interesting, but I'm not sure if our 'family size' counts in a typical way. Our numbers would be about 250K-500K lower for each category if it was just the two of us, but we are supporting another adult...currently in a separate house; but if we want to move, we will need much much more expensive housing to accomadate this third person. That hugely inflates our number.

So it's not like: "a family of 3" b/c that would usually be 2 adults and child who presumably is already part of the established living space.

Anyone who didn't report a family size (unless I happen to know theirs from following journals) was included in the box and whisker plots but not in the family size scatter plot.

[Villanelle]

Regarding family size, I wonder how many people plan to retire while their kids are still living at home (and for more than a few years) and if they are counting paying for college in those numbers.  If they don't plan to retire until the kids are gone, and if they won't fund college or it will be funded outside the FIRE number (paid before R, paid via a 529, etc.) then I don't see how family size now has all that much to do with the need for more money in retirement. 

(That said, I didn't include family size.  It's 2.  But I also didn't include the amount of the pension that makes that $0 Lean FIRE possible.)

[Freedomin5]

We plan to retire soon. DD will be 11. Therefore our FIRE number is higher than if DD was already grown and on her own. So I think family size does affect the size of stash needed. Perhaps a more accurate way of phrasing it is “family size at FIRE”. Essentially, it’s helpful to know how many people that stash needs to support.

[2sk22]

I discovered the concept of FIRE relatively late in life at which point  we were well above the FATFire numbers that everyone has posted in this thread. Now, three years after I retired, I guess I am in obese FIRE territory 😀

I have to say that our spending has not changed a lot over the years except in the area of travel. We have lived in the same house now for over 25 years and that's the only house we own. We drive modest cars and barely eat out. We do travel a lot more now than we did when accumulating our money.

[Mrs. Healthywealth]

We are FI but not RE, cashflow  covers all expenses, however, we are shooting for Fat FIRE simply to have even more money. Someone mentioned they didn’t want to fat FIRE cause it’s just wasting money. Another perspective is thinking about how you can help others with that extra money. Achieving Fat FIRE allows us to provide more help to the younger relatives with college tuition, donating to our fave charities, tipping even more, and hopefully helping with creating an exhibit at our fave zoo. This doesn’t take much effort due to compound interest, plus I appreciate the meaningful work I do 10-12hrs/wk.

Family of 4

Lean FIRE -1.5 million
FIRE $3 million
Fat FIRE $5 million

[FireLane]

When I originally made my retirement plan, my lean-FIRE number was 1.25M and my FIRE number was 1.5M.

In the end, I did an OMY and the markets went on a tear. When I quit my job, my NW was closer to 2.3M.

So, I guess that's fat-FIRE? But I'm not planning to spend more, I'm just planning to reduce my withdrawal rate.