3 ms·
10-15 years is doable with a savings rate of 67%. At that rate, you're accumulating 2 years' worth of spending for every year that passes by. In 12.5 years, y
by pmiller2 7y ago
10-15 years is doable with a savings rate of 67%. At that rate, you're accumulating 2 years' worth of spending for every year that passes by. In 12.5 years, you'll have accumulated 25 years' worth of expenses.
If you invest well over that time, you can either retire earlier or do it with a somewhat lower savings rate.
- s1t5 7y agoEven if we assume that saving that much is possible, the math only works if you're up for living a lifestyle costing 33% of your current earnings for the rest of your life.
- pmiller2 7y agoYes, that's the idea.
- pfranz 7y agoThis is something I wish was talked about more in personal finance. Salary and spending don't have to be coupled.
- pmiller2 7y agoIt is, but usually only to the extent of "spend less than you make" and "save X% of your income," where X is significantly less than 50%. Only until you get to the FIRE community do you see people start talking about 50-60+% savings rates.
- pfranz 7y agoI see it all around, like "housing should be around 30% if income" or a budgeting system like 50/30/20 (needs/wants/savings&debt). I just think the concept of decoupling them isn't something people quite appreciate until you get really into personal finance. When going from college into a career your salary can double quite a few times and if you can keep you living expenses restrained it's a lot easier than a decade later trying to pull back and pay down debt.
- burntoutfire 7y agoThat's one of the main ideas behind the more extreme variants of FIRE - live like you lived when you were 25, keep getting raises, save 80-90% of your post-tax income. Also, learn to cook, fix things around your house, fix your car, grow some food etc and you'll be freed from from jobworld in 5-10 years max.
- cercatrova 7y agoCorrect; there is no free lunch, spend time or spend money.