What withdrawal strategy do you use / plan to use?

[tooqk4u22]

My pre-retirement plan was to either spend or withdraw (and cash-save) 4%.

I have not done so.

I track our spending vs 4% rule/guideline.  Up till last year, we were very below that value, last year we were substantially above.
No sweat, as our 4% of current liquid worth is still higher than our current spend.

Special spending (house upgrades/major maintenance) and special circumstances (two nephews in college at the same time), dictated a bit higher spend.

Not worried yet :-)

I’m not sure what the research shows but as you probably know, the 4% Rule of thumb isn’t 4% of every years balance, but 4% of the initial balance.   Probably lots of people update every year and in effect ‘re-retire’ but I don’t know if historically that gives you the same result. Might be better, might be worse. 

My intuition is that when markets are high, and CAPE is high, that you should probably be taking less than 4% and then when markets are low you take a little more.  That’s the determination that BigERN has made with his toolkit, I believe.

Taking 4% every year is essentially re-retiring as you say and restarting the SORR clock and I agree probably best to ratchet the % down a bit, but it probably is still fine most of the time.....dare I say 96% of the time.

[TempusFugit]

My pre-retirement plan was to either spend or withdraw (and cash-save) 4%.

I have not done so.

I track our spending vs 4% rule/guideline.  Up till last year, we were very below that value, last year we were substantially above.
No sweat, as our 4% of current liquid worth is still higher than our current spend.

Special spending (house upgrades/major maintenance) and special circumstances (two nephews in college at the same time), dictated a bit higher spend.

Not worried yet :-)

I’m not sure what the research shows but as you probably know, the 4% Rule of thumb isn’t 4% of every years balance, but 4% of the initial balance.   Probably lots of people update every year and in effect ‘re-retire’ but I don’t know if historically that gives you the same result. Might be better, might be worse. 

My intuition is that when markets are high, and CAPE is high, that you should probably be taking less than 4% and then when markets are low you take a little more.  That’s the determination that BigERN has made with his toolkit, I believe.

Taking 4% every year is essentially re-retiring as you say and restarting the SORR clock and I agree probably best to ratchet the % down a bit, but it probably is still fine most of the time.....dare I say 96% of the time.

It might be that it is fine or 'safer' in the sense that it is much less likely to deplete your portfolio over time, but that is a tradeoff with potentially volatile spending amounts in dollar terms.  If the market is down 25%, and you still withdraw 4%, that's 25% less in dollar terms than the previous year. 

I just wonder if sometimes (and I have no idea about this particular case) we might tend to take a 'buffet' style approach and mix and match strategies in such a way that we can deceive ourselves and take on more risk than we think.  As long as people are aware of the tradeoffs it's fine. 

[Retire-Canada]

I just wonder if sometimes (and I have no idea about this particular case) we might tend to take a 'buffet' style approach and mix and match strategies in such a way that we can deceive ourselves and take on more risk than we think.  As long as people are aware of the tradeoffs it's fine.

I'd say it's just as likely people do that with risk mitigation and "pay" for being overly conservative beyond what they need/want.

[tooqk4u22]

My pre-retirement plan was to either spend or withdraw (and cash-save) 4%.

I have not done so.

I track our spending vs 4% rule/guideline.  Up till last year, we were very below that value, last year we were substantially above.
No sweat, as our 4% of current liquid worth is still higher than our current spend.

Special spending (house upgrades/major maintenance) and special circumstances (two nephews in college at the same time), dictated a bit higher spend.

Not worried yet :-)

I’m not sure what the research shows but as you probably know, the 4% Rule of thumb isn’t 4% of every years balance, but 4% of the initial balance.   Probably lots of people update every year and in effect ‘re-retire’ but I don’t know if historically that gives you the same result. Might be better, might be worse. 

My intuition is that when markets are high, and CAPE is high, that you should probably be taking less than 4% and then when markets are low you take a little more.  That’s the determination that BigERN has made with his toolkit, I believe.

Taking 4% every year is essentially re-retiring as you say and restarting the SORR clock and I agree probably best to ratchet the % down a bit, but it probably is still fine most of the time.....dare I say 96% of the time.

It might be that it is fine or 'safer' in the sense that it is much less likely to deplete your portfolio over time, but that is a tradeoff with potentially volatile spending amounts in dollar terms.  If the market is down 25%, and you still withdraw 4%, that's 25% less in dollar terms than the previous year. 

I just wonder if sometimes (and I have no idea about this particular case) we might tend to take a 'buffet' style approach and mix and match strategies in such a way that we can deceive ourselves and take on more risk than we think.  As long as people are aware of the tradeoffs it's fine.

I say that as a person who manages to 3% and has way too much in a slush/smoothing fund (both noted in the thread) AND my budget includes full pay health insurance AND a healthy annual amount for capex/travel........oh and let's not forget that i went back to work at the end of 2022 with expectation that it would be for a year or two.....and yet I am still employed!   Bonus (or not), vesting RSUs, and such I need to get into April and plan is to bail....will I? Well, a bunch of deals are happening that could set up for a record comp next year....ugh, WTF is wrong with me.....kind of hoping they all fall through. 

I talk a good game but I am not a good role model!

[YHD]

I delink withdrawal rate from spend rate. I wish more people in the FIRE community delinked the two when talking.
[quote/]

This.  I plan to withdraw up to the 28% tax bracket since most of our savings is tax deferred.  What I don’t/spend is irrelevant to that action.

Tbf tho, we spend a lot so I anticipate we’ll spend it all. Any withdrawal strategies that allow maximizing early year withdrawals are preferred.  Yes I understand the risks.

This comparison from wci is illuminating. My key take away, in the early years using the average market performance, most models come to 4.x.  In our household, if I’m worrying about 4.0 vs 4.2 as make or break retirement, I can’t afford to quit.

https://www.whitecoatinvestor.com/comparing-portfolio-withdrawal-strategies-in-retirement/

[PhilB]

My pre-retirement plan was to either spend or withdraw (and cash-save) 4%.

I have not done so.

I track our spending vs 4% rule/guideline.  Up till last year, we were very below that value, last year we were substantially above.
No sweat, as our 4% of current liquid worth is still higher than our current spend.

Special spending (house upgrades/major maintenance) and special circumstances (two nephews in college at the same time), dictated a bit higher spend.

Not worried yet :-)

I’m not sure what the research shows but as you probably know, the 4% Rule of thumb isn’t 4% of every years balance, but 4% of the initial balance.   Probably lots of people update every year and in effect ‘re-retire’ but I don’t know if historically that gives you the same result. Might be better, might be worse. 

My intuition is that when markets are high, and CAPE is high, that you should probably be taking less than 4% and then when markets are low you take a little more.  That’s the determination that BigERN has made with his toolkit, I believe.

That holds for starting percentage on a traditional fixed SWR, but it's a recipe for dollar cost ravaging on a variable withdrawal model.  If you are a few years into a variable withdrawal and slush fund approach, your portfolio will do better by drawing more when markets are above your inflation adjusted starting point and less when they are below.

[41_swish]

I have heard that if you are retiring relatively early, 40s or so, to actually shoot for having about 30X your annual spending in retirement. So that would be a 3.3% rule. I think like others have said, you should execute flexibility when it comes to withdrawals rates.

[FIRE 20/20]

I FIREd in 2019.  I withdraw an amount that minimizes my costs for my ACA plan, and just spend whatever I spend.   I haven't really given it much more thought than that.  I got "lucky" that my first few years of real FIRE were during COVID, plus we've had great market returns.  My withdrawal rates were:

2020 - 1.94%-2.91% (using actual spend / high market value during calendar year and actual spend / low market value for the year)
2021 - 1.75%-1.95%
2022 - 2.41%-2.77%
2023 - stopped tracking

I never planned on spending so little, but 2 of my largest anticipated expenses - ACA premiums and travel - were VASTLY lower than I planned.  I planned for no subsidies because the ACA was so new I expected it to be messed with, and we didn't travel due to COVID for a few years.  Now that my total net worth is between $1-1.5M more than when I FIREd, I just spend what I want.  Barring a truly major market drop, we'll spend all we want and never approach 4%.  And with SS plus 2 pensions coming in about 17 years or so, there's no reason to put in any spending restrictions. 

I only treat the 4% rule as a rough general guideline to get me in the ballpark before FIRE.  I don't see it as a withdrawal strategy at all.  But if you plan for 4% (or even lower) in almost all cases your net worth will rise, possibly a LOT.  At the same time if you're in the US, you're getting closer and closer to SS, which means you can be spending a larger % of your assets while in actual fact if you're a Mustachain you're probably spending a lower %. 

[tooqk4u22]

I FIREd in 2019.  I withdraw an amount that minimizes my costs for my ACA plan, and just spend whatever I spend.   I haven't really given it much more thought than that.  I got "lucky" that my first few years of real FIRE were during COVID, plus we've had great market returns.  My withdrawal rates were:

2020 - 1.94%-2.91% (using actual spend / high market value during calendar year and actual spend / low market value for the year)
2021 - 1.75%-1.95%
2022 - 2.41%-2.77%
2023 - stopped tracking

I never planned on spending so little, but 2 of my largest anticipated expenses - ACA premiums and travel - were VASTLY lower than I planned.  I planned for no subsidies because the ACA was so new I expected it to be messed with, and we didn't travel due to COVID for a few years.  Now that my total net worth is between $1-1.5M more than when I FIREd, I just spend what I want.  Barring a truly major market drop, we'll spend all we want and never approach 4%.  And with SS plus 2 pensions coming in about 17 years or so, there's no reason to put in any spending restrictions. 

I only treat the 4% rule as a rough general guideline to get me in the ballpark before FIRE.  I don't see it as a withdrawal strategy at all.  But if you plan for 4% (or even lower) in almost all cases your net worth will rise, possibly a LOT.  At the same time if you're in the US, you're getting closer and closer to SS, which means you can be spending a larger % of your assets while in actual fact if you're a Mustachain you're probably spending a lower %.

So I had also planned/budgeted for full cost insurance but this post reminded me that it has been about two years since I checked - wow has full rate gone up.  Originally planned for the Silver plans....costs are now such that the cheapest bronze (also highest deductible/OOP) is 25% higher than I budgeted and the Silver plans are about 50% higher.   

And the goal posts keep moving.......well I just hope ACA stays intact for the most part!

[FIRE 20/20]

And the goal posts keep moving.......well I just hope ACA stays intact for the most part!

I am worried enough about the future of the ACA that I've started the application process for a D7 Visa to move to Portugal.  While I think the odds of it going away are in the single digit percent range, with some preexisting conditions I could never get insurance without it and I'm not willing to take even a few percent chance of not being able to get health insurance.  We started the process in November, and are on track for a July move.  But that's a story for another thread...

[Metalcat]

I have heard that if you are retiring relatively early, 40s or so, to actually shoot for having about 30X your annual spending in retirement. So that would be a 3.3% rule. I think like others have said, you should execute flexibility when it comes to withdrawals rates.

It's more that the 4% rule is just a starting point for everyone, and each person has to assess what risk hedges they're most comfortable with.

The risks with retiring very early have much, much less to do with long term market performance, and a lot more to do with the ability to project your future financial needs.

Not only do you not know what personal factors could influence your future spending, you don't know what local economic factors could come into play.

So saving more is one hedge that can help, having a more flexible budget is another, maintaining then ability to generate income is another. There are numerous ways one can hedge against the risks inherent in longer retirement.

For some folks it makes more sense to just stay in their job longer and build a bigger 'stache. For others that's a terrible idea because they want out early for a reason, and for them, it makes more sense to do more what MMM did, to leave their career as soon as possible and work on cultivating enjoyable projects that are sustainably profitable for years.

Also, 3.3% WR only tells part of the story. What is that even based on?? I guarantee you that there are some folks with a 4% WR who are at far less long term risk than some folks at a 3.3% WR.

If I give you 3 scenarios, which would you rather?

A: A 'stache of 900K with an annual WR of 3.3% for an annual spend of 30K for you and your spouse. You achieve this by renting in a low-income co-op where all residents perform maintenance tasks as part of their tenancy agreement. You are both avid gardeners, so you work the communal garden. You had both worked in sales jobs, so you have no professional skills aside from general sales skills to fall back on.

B: A 'stache of 2.5M with an annual WR of 4% for an annual spend of 100K. You also have a 1.3M paid off house with very high property taxes and utilities. You outsource a lot of domestic labour, have country club memberships, etc. A lot of expenses that could be cut if necessary. You were an executive and your spouse an admin at the same company. Your professional knowledge and connections are rapidly becoming outdated and ageism will quickly make it hard for you to re-enter your industry.

C: A 'stache of 1.125M with an annual WR of 4% for an annual spend of 45K. You also have a 250K, paid off house with low property taxes and utilities. You retired because your partner had cancer, and it was a long, brutal battle, but they're in remission now. Still, you want to focus on quality of life and neither of you were great at that when you were both working full time. You are both licensed psychiatrists, you maintain your credentials and you stay on top of continuing education and networking. You also both do volunteer work on a very part time basis. At any point, one of both of you could pick up part time work and generate 6 figures working remotely. But right now, you both value living in your little, remote cabin in the woods, living a really peaceful, nature-focused lifestyle after years of grinding and then fighting cancer, and you may never want anything else.

As you can see, the couple with the lowest WR are actually the most susceptible to risk. Because WR alone tells only an extremely narrow sliver of the overall risk story for real human beings.

It would be lovely if there were some simple numbers we could achieve and think "yay, we're safe now," but that's just not the way it works.

I personally don't feel comfortable unless I maintain skills that I can lean on to generate income if needed. So that's my preferred hedge. In my particular circumstances, that's a lot more favourable to front-loading savings as much as possible.

[41_swish]

All good points, @Metalcat . I think making a few plans, like a best case, worst case, and something in the middle and acting accordingly is best. I have also heard that you should carry about 18 months of expenses in cash to avoid a sequence of returns risk. I may be a sicko, but my idea of fire is working seasonally at a job a really enjoy, so I will probably start out in a barista fire situation.

[Metalcat]

All good points, @Metalcat . I think making a few plans, like a best case, worst case, and something in the middle and acting accordingly is best. I have also heard that you should carry about 18 months of expenses in cash to avoid a sequence of returns risk. I may be a sicko, but my idea of fire is working seasonally at a job a really enjoy, so I will probably start out in a barista fire situation.

Not sure why that would make you a "sicko," we've had many people over the years who do fun seasonal work and really enjoyed it.

Also, whatever you've "heard" are just popular hedge strategies that work for some scenarios better than others. There are no one-size-fits-all strategies for managing risk.

It's more about understanding your specific scenario, your specific risks, and your specific capacities for adapting to changing circumstances.

[41_swish]

I think that is just the way I talk as a gen zer.

[Metalcat]

I think that is just the way I talk as a gen zer.

Yes, I understand, I'm just saying that just because you hear about an approach being common, that doesn't mean it's a universally good approach, it just means it's possibly a good approach for a specific scenario that's more common, but might be a terrible approach for a different scenario.

For example, there are a lot of things that are useful if all of your 'stache is in investment accounts, but wouldn't make sense is 25-50% of your retirement income is coming from a pension or rental income.

In the world of personal finance, just because a strategy is popular doesn't mean it's a better strategy necessarily, it can just means it's the strategy that works for the most common scenario.

So just because it's something you've heard often as a good idea doesn't mean it's given that it's a good idea for any one person.

[Scandium]

My pre-retirement plan was to either spend or withdraw (and cash-save) 4%.

I have not done so.

I track our spending vs 4% rule/guideline.  Up till last year, we were very below that value, last year we were substantially above.
No sweat, as our 4% of current liquid worth is still higher than our current spend.

Special spending (house upgrades/major maintenance) and special circumstances (two nephews in college at the same time), dictated a bit higher spend.

Not worried yet :-)

I’m not sure what the research shows but as you probably know, the 4% Rule of thumb isn’t 4% of every years balance, but 4% of the initial balance.   Probably lots of people update every year and in effect ‘re-retire’ but I don’t know if historically that gives you the same result. Might be better, might be worse. 

My intuition is that when markets are high, and CAPE is high, that you should probably be taking less than 4% and then when markets are low you take a little more.  That’s the determination that BigERN has made with his toolkit, I believe.

ERN has an equation for the SWR vs CAPE.
https://earlyretirementnow.com/2022/10/12/dynamic-withdrawal-rates-based-on-the-shiller-cape-swr-series-part-54/

Basically
WR= 1.75% + 0.50/CAPE

Current CAPE = 38.66, which yields a SWR= 3.22%

In the last 10 years CAPE had never been below 24, which is a SWR of 3.83%. If we ignore the covid dip, the last time below 28 (3.54%) was in 2016. So if anyone retired on 4% in the last decade they're "at risk" per this calc. But of course the market has returned 300% in that time, so those retirees are probably doing pretty ok.

[Scandium]

All good points, @Metalcat . I think making a few plans, like a best case, worst case, and something in the middle and acting accordingly is best. I have also heard that you should carry about 18 months of expenses in cash to avoid a sequence of returns risk. I may be a sicko, but my idea of fire is working seasonally at a job a really enjoy, so I will probably start out in a barista fire situation.

Since were on the ERN topic;  here's more on the bucket strategy, and why (IMO) it's not that great at alleviating SORR.
https://earlyretirementnow.com/2021/09/14/bucket-strategies-swr-series-part-48/
It also implies a bit too much market timing for my taste. You only use cash in a "down market", but down how much? How do you time it so you don't drain cash at the bottom of the market, the worst time to sell stocks!
I'm a  few years away, at least, but personally I'm more likely to do a "bond tent. Something like 60/40 > 90/10 in the 5 years before/after retirement.

[41_swish]

I think that is just the way I talk as a gen zer.

Yes, I understand, I'm just saying that just because you hear about an approach being common, that doesn't mean it's a universally good approach, it just means it's possibly a good approach for a specific scenario that's more common, but might be a terrible approach for a different scenario.

For example, there are a lot of things that are useful if all of your 'stache is in investment accounts, but wouldn't make sense is 25-50% of your retirement income is coming from a pension or rental income.

In the world of personal finance, just because a strategy is popular doesn't mean it's a better strategy necessarily, it can just means it's the strategy that works for the most common scenario.

So just because it's something you've heard often as a good idea doesn't mean it's given that it's a good idea for any one person.

I will tone it down on the young kid slang.

I guess sicko was the wrong word. I am someone who does like to stay busy so the idea of barista fire makes a lot of sense to me. Whenever I am doing something that I really enjoy as a job I like it and it keeps me entertained. During University I would go home every summer and work at a rafting company. This never ever felt like work. I had tons of fun doing this and met tons of cool people. Working seasonally seems like a good way to keep me occupied.

When it comes to risk management strategies it will vary greatly from person to person. As you said, there is no one size fits all answer. You are right that what may be a good idea for one person could be a terrible idea for another.

[GuitarStv]

It's on fleek bra, not cheugy.

[Telecaster]

I guess sicko was the wrong word. I am someone who does like to stay busy so the idea of barista fire makes a lot of sense to me. Whenever I am doing something that I really enjoy as a job I like it and it keeps me entertained. During University I would go home every summer and work at a rafting company. This never ever felt like work. I had tons of fun doing this and met tons of cool people. Working seasonally seems like a good way to keep me occupied.

Sure.  MMM wrote a blog post about this "Great News – Early Retirement Doesn’t Mean You’ll Stop Working."   

[41_swish]

I have read that one it is good. I think there is a quote in it that says working for the sake of working is actually good when you don't need the money

[Metalcat]

I think that is just the way I talk as a gen zer.

Yes, I understand, I'm just saying that just because you hear about an approach being common, that doesn't mean it's a universally good approach, it just means it's possibly a good approach for a specific scenario that's more common, but might be a terrible approach for a different scenario.

For example, there are a lot of things that are useful if all of your 'stache is in investment accounts, but wouldn't make sense is 25-50% of your retirement income is coming from a pension or rental income.

In the world of personal finance, just because a strategy is popular doesn't mean it's a better strategy necessarily, it can just means it's the strategy that works for the most common scenario.

So just because it's something you've heard often as a good idea doesn't mean it's given that it's a good idea for any one person.

I will tone it down on the young kid slang.

I guess sicko was the wrong word. I am someone who does like to stay busy so the idea of barista fire makes a lot of sense to me. Whenever I am doing something that I really enjoy as a job I like it and it keeps me entertained. During University I would go home every summer and work at a rafting company. This never ever felt like work. I had tons of fun doing this and met tons of cool people. Working seasonally seems like a good way to keep me occupied.

When it comes to risk management strategies it will vary greatly from person to person. As you said, there is no one size fits all answer. You are right that what may be a good idea for one person could be a terrible idea for another.

My point was that a lot of folks around here like to continue working even when we don't need the money. MMM himself made more money doing enjoyable work after he retired than he ever did from his first career.

We even have a term for it: SWAMI aka satisfied working advance mustachian individual

https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/04/30/weekend-edition-retire-in-your-mind-even-if-you-love-your-job/

I personally retired in 2020, but ultimately got so into reading and taking courses that it just made sense to get another degree, so I did, and now I have a whole new career. I own a small business where I work 10-15 hours a week doing super chill remote work that I absolutely love.

So yeah, I myself obviously don't think there's anything unusual about wanting to work in retirement if that's what you enjoy.

[PhilB]

I think that is just the way I talk as a gen zer.

Yes, I understand, I'm just saying that just because you hear about an approach being common, that doesn't mean it's a universally good approach, it just means it's possibly a good approach for a specific scenario that's more common, but might be a terrible approach for a different scenario.

For example, there are a lot of things that are useful if all of your 'stache is in investment accounts, but wouldn't make sense is 25-50% of your retirement income is coming from a pension or rental income.

In the world of personal finance, just because a strategy is popular doesn't mean it's a better strategy necessarily, it can just means it's the strategy that works for the most common scenario.

So just because it's something you've heard often as a good idea doesn't mean it's given that it's a good idea for any one person.

I will tone it down on the young kid slang.

I guess sicko was the wrong word. I am someone who does like to stay busy so the idea of barista fire makes a lot of sense to me. Whenever I am doing something that I really enjoy as a job I like it and it keeps me entertained. During University I would go home every summer and work at a rafting company. This never ever felt like work. I had tons of fun doing this and met tons of cool people. Working seasonally seems like a good way to keep me occupied.

When it comes to risk management strategies it will vary greatly from person to person. As you said, there is no one size fits all answer. You are right that what may be a good idea for one person could be a terrible idea for another.

My point was that a lot of folks around here like to continue working even when we don't need the money. MMM himself made more money doing enjoyable work after he retired than he ever did from his first career.

We even have a term for it: SWAMI aka satisfied working advance mustachian individual

https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/04/30/weekend-edition-retire-in-your-mind-even-if-you-love-your-job/

I personally retired in 2020, but ultimately got so into reading and taking courses that it just made sense to get another degree, so I did, and now I have a whole new career. I own a small business where I work 10-15 hours a week doing super chill remote work that I absolutely love.

So yeah, I myself obviously don't think there's anything unusual about wanting to work in retirement if that's what you enjoy.

The one that has really resonated with me since retirement is 'First Retire...Then Get Rich'

https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/05/14/first-retire-then-get-rich/

The combination of finding we spent less than expected, and a few hours a week of unplanned for work has just caused things to snowball.  Plus the work has been fun since it became optional.  So many of us seem to find that our best life does end up earning us a bit of money after all.

[41_swish]

Those old blog posts are so good. They are what inspired me to join the forum. I do not know even remember how one got recommended to me, but I read one of them from this era and then went down the rabbit hole.

I think both of you have good points. FIRE means a different thing to every person, and if I want to still work in some capacity that is completely fine.

[secondcor521]

I think both of you have good points. FIRE means a different thing to every person, and if I want to still work in some capacity that is completely fine.

I would just not plan on a "barista FIRE for 50 years plan".  Right now you're young and energetic and having fun working and exploring.  Fantastic!

But most people some time in their 40s/50s/60s and occasionally a bit later either get tired and don't want to work any more, get sick or injured and can't work any more, or get age discriminated or skill gapped out of the work force.  Planning on the barista income after this point won't work.

Depending on the numbers, though, it could work if your FIRE stash grows mostly unused and/or the barista salaries are small relative to your expenses (i.e., nice to have, not necessary for survival).  I wouldn't choose a plan where I didn't have much of a stash and I spent most of my barista money down, maybe saving a few dozen $K which got used up on brief mini retirements or work gaps.

[Metalcat]

Those old blog posts are so good. They are what inspired me to join the forum. I do not know even remember how one got recommended to me, but I read one of them from this era and then went down the rabbit hole.

I think both of you have good points. FIRE means a different thing to every person, and if I want to still work in some capacity that is completely fine.

Yeah, if you hang around for awhile, you will find that the population here is perhaps a bit different from what you might expect from the blog.

But at least you're cool about it. We have had years of folks who join assume everyone here is ultra frugal and retiring incredibly young and then they lecture us endlessly about how unrealistic and risky our plans are. It's incredibly annoying, so thanks for not being like that.

If you poke around a bit, you will probably enjoy how detailed and customized we tend to get when discussing plans. We don't subscribe to any rules of thumb here as gospel or as universally applicable.

[GuitarStv]

We're all about buying Vitamix blenders on the forums these days.

[Metalcat]

We're all about buying Vitamix blenders on the forums these days.

But the SMOOTHNESS!!!

[Villanelle]

Those old blog posts are so good. They are what inspired me to join the forum. I do not know even remember how one got recommended to me, but I read one of them from this era and then went down the rabbit hole.

I think both of you have good points. FIRE means a different thing to every person, and if I want to still work in some capacity that is completely fine.

Another thing to keep in mind is the perils of today making concrete decisions for a complete stranger--and that's what 25+ years-from-now-41-Swish is---a stranger. 

You might be fine now with the idea of working forever, but that could change.  Or your body and health could change.  So relying on your 60yo self to bring in barista money, for example, might not be ideal.  You can be somewhat confident in how you'll feel about working in 3-5 years, but   much less so in 30 years. 

[Metalcat]

Those old blog posts are so good. They are what inspired me to join the forum. I do not know even remember how one got recommended to me, but I read one of them from this era and then went down the rabbit hole.

I think both of you have good points. FIRE means a different thing to every person, and if I want to still work in some capacity that is completely fine.

Another thing to keep in mind is the perils of today making concrete decisions for a complete stranger--and that's what 25+ years-from-now-41-Swish is---a stranger. 

You might be fine now with the idea of working forever, but that could change.  Or your body and health could change.  So relying on your 60yo self to bring in barista money, for example, might not be ideal.  You can be somewhat confident in how you'll feel about working in 3-5 years, but   much less so in 30 years.

Exactly.

This is a point that I work on with my clients all the time, letting go of the illusion that you actually have the power to make decisions for your future self.

You can't. It's impossible. Your future self is going to do what's best for them and they won't really give a fuck what you thought was a good idea in your 20s.

The only thing you can do is make decisions today that give your future self options to choose from. Beyond that, what they choose to do is up to them and we in the present have no say over the matter.

[Villanelle]

Those old blog posts are so good. They are what inspired me to join the forum. I do not know even remember how one got recommended to me, but I read one of them from this era and then went down the rabbit hole.

I think both of you have good points. FIRE means a different thing to every person, and if I want to still work in some capacity that is completely fine.

Another thing to keep in mind is the perils of today making concrete decisions for a complete stranger--and that's what 25+ years-from-now-41-Swish is---a stranger. 

You might be fine now with the idea of working forever, but that could change.  Or your body and health could change.  So relying on your 60yo self to bring in barista money, for example, might not be ideal.  You can be somewhat confident in how you'll feel about working in 3-5 years, but   much less so in 30 years.

Exactly.

This is a point that I work on with my clients all the time, letting go of the illusion that you actually have the power to make decisions for your future self.

You can't. It's impossible. Your future self is going to do what's best for them and they won't really give a fuck what you thought was a good idea in your 20s.

The only thing you can do is make decisions today that give your future self options to choose from. Beyond that, what they choose to do is up to them and we in the present have no say over the matter.

This was largely what I was trying to get at with my recent thread about whether people will spend less when they are seniors, though I don't think I articulated it well.  I'm just imagining scores of gray-haired mustachians feeling deprived and confined because their 40-yo selves decided that old people statistically spend less, so clearly they will want to spend less, too.  Depending on the size of the cuts they plan to make, they are making a pretty significant gamble that their older selves will have to pay off. 

And I'm not saying, "work an extra decade or save an extra million just in case your 75yo self decides they like luxury travel or cocaine", but I do think it's worth considering what you are asking of that particular old person. 

[41_swish]

Those old blog posts are so good. They are what inspired me to join the forum. I do not know even remember how one got recommended to me, but I read one of them from this era and then went down the rabbit hole.

I think both of you have good points. FIRE means a different thing to every person, and if I want to still work in some capacity that is completely fine.

Another thing to keep in mind is the perils of today making concrete decisions for a complete stranger--and that's what 25+ years-from-now-41-Swish is---a stranger. 

You might be fine now with the idea of working forever, but that could change.  Or your body and health could change.  So relying on your 60yo self to bring in barista money, for example, might not be ideal.  You can be somewhat confident in how you'll feel about working in 3-5 years, but   much less so in 30 years.

Exactly.

This is a point that I work on with my clients all the time, letting go of the illusion that you actually have the power to make decisions for your future self.

You can't. It's impossible. Your future self is going to do what's best for them and they won't really give a fuck what you thought was a good idea in your 20s.

The only thing you can do is make decisions today that give your future self options to choose from. Beyond that, what they choose to do is up to them and we in the present have no say over the matter.

This was largely what I was trying to get at with my recent thread about whether people will spend less when they are seniors, though I don't think I articulated it well.  I'm just imagining scores of gray-haired mustachians feeling deprived and confined because their 40-yo selves decided that old people statistically spend less, so clearly they will want to spend less, too.  Depending on the size of the cuts they plan to make, they are making a pretty significant gamble that their older selves will have to pay off. 

And I'm not saying, "work an extra decade or save an extra million just in case your 75yo self decides they like luxury travel or cocaine", but I do think it's worth considering what you are asking of that particular old person.

Excellent points all around. I really need to think about me in 25 years vs. now. There is no way that I will know what me or my life may be like then so I shouldn't get caught up in trying to have everything concretely planned out.

[Metalcat]

Those old blog posts are so good. They are what inspired me to join the forum. I do not know even remember how one got recommended to me, but I read one of them from this era and then went down the rabbit hole.

I think both of you have good points. FIRE means a different thing to every person, and if I want to still work in some capacity that is completely fine.

Another thing to keep in mind is the perils of today making concrete decisions for a complete stranger--and that's what 25+ years-from-now-41-Swish is---a stranger. 

You might be fine now with the idea of working forever, but that could change.  Or your body and health could change.  So relying on your 60yo self to bring in barista money, for example, might not be ideal.  You can be somewhat confident in how you'll feel about working in 3-5 years, but   much less so in 30 years.

Exactly.

This is a point that I work on with my clients all the time, letting go of the illusion that you actually have the power to make decisions for your future self.

You can't. It's impossible. Your future self is going to do what's best for them and they won't really give a fuck what you thought was a good idea in your 20s.

The only thing you can do is make decisions today that give your future self options to choose from. Beyond that, what they choose to do is up to them and we in the present have no say over the matter.

This was largely what I was trying to get at with my recent thread about whether people will spend less when they are seniors, though I don't think I articulated it well.  I'm just imagining scores of gray-haired mustachians feeling deprived and confined because their 40-yo selves decided that old people statistically spend less, so clearly they will want to spend less, too.  Depending on the size of the cuts they plan to make, they are making a pretty significant gamble that their older selves will have to pay off. 

And I'm not saying, "work an extra decade or save an extra million just in case your 75yo self decides they like luxury travel or cocaine", but I do think it's worth considering what you are asking of that particular old person.

It is tricky to strike the right balance.

In this community, we definitely err far more on the over conservative side.

No one should make a plan that depends on committing their future self to do work that the future body might not be too happy to do. That's simply not retirement.

But it's also a lot easier for most early retirees to generate income in retirement than people think it is because they look at it through a lens of what it's like for an unemployed person to find work, and that's simply not at all what it's like for an early retiree.

So it all depends on the starting point.perspective of the individual what assumptions they've made that they might want to investigate when it comes to planning for an unknown future.

[JupiterGreen]

Those old blog posts are so good. They are what inspired me to join the forum. I do not know even remember how one got recommended to me, but I read one of them from this era and then went down the rabbit hole.

I think both of you have good points. FIRE means a different thing to every person, and if I want to still work in some capacity that is completely fine.

Another thing to keep in mind is the perils of today making concrete decisions for a complete stranger--and that's what 25+ years-from-now-41-Swish is---a stranger. 

You might be fine now with the idea of working forever, but that could change.  Or your body and health could change.  So relying on your 60yo self to bring in barista money, for example, might not be ideal.  You can be somewhat confident in how you'll feel about working in 3-5 years, but   much less so in 30 years.

Exactly.

This is a point that I work on with my clients all the time, letting go of the illusion that you actually have the power to make decisions for your future self.

You can't. It's impossible. Your future self is going to do what's best for them and they won't really give a fuck what you thought was a good idea in your 20s.

The only thing you can do is make decisions today that give your future self options to choose from. Beyond that, what they choose to do is up to them and we in the present have no say over the matter.

This was largely what I was trying to get at with my recent thread about whether people will spend less when they are seniors, though I don't think I articulated it well.  I'm just imagining scores of gray-haired mustachians feeling deprived and confined because their 40-yo selves decided that old people statistically spend less, so clearly they will want to spend less, too.  Depending on the size of the cuts they plan to make, they are making a pretty significant gamble that their older selves will have to pay off. 

And I'm not saying, "work an extra decade or save an extra million just in case your 75yo self decides they like luxury travel or cocaine", but I do think it's worth considering what you are asking of that particular old person.

excellent advice. it hit, I really like the way you worded this!

[Telecaster]

I don't think there's much point leaving behind a financial legacy without a livable world to go with it, so it's not high on my list of priorities.

I can never tell if you are messing with me or just the most cynical poster on here.

Why not both? 

[GuitarStv]

I don't think there's much point leaving behind a financial legacy without a livable world to go with it, so it's not high on my list of priorities.

I can never tell if you are messing with me or just the most cynical poster on here.

Why not both?

:D