5 ms·

To me, it sounds like the real problem is greed. $1B for some reason isn't enough for these people. Personally, I'm looking to pay off my house, pay off the c

To me, it sounds like the real problem is greed. $1B for some reason isn't enough for these people. Personally, I'm looking to pay off my house, pay off the car, and then save up ~$2M in cash (Could happen quickly if the options in the startup I work at pay off, which based on current growth is very likely), then throw that $2M into an index fund and retire. Maybe in retirement, I'll actually feel like I have the time to get some work done on personal projects. I have ideas for things I want to make that could make a couple dollars, but I'm tired all day and don't want to spend my limited free time working.

jleyank 5y ago
By the 4% rule, 2m in the retirement funds gets you 80k of income. Of which you have to pay taxes and fees and all those charges that accumulate. Most people who wish to do this add “going to a very low tax environment” to the discussion. But take a pro tip: health care costs add up. As a guesstimate for California…. If you get 5m, taxes will take a third of it, and a house will take 1-2m. Which leaves you +/- on the 2m to invest. If you’re not into heirs, you can reverse mortgage.
- im3w1l 5y ago
  I've recently heard some criticism of the 4% rule. It's designed with two assumptions: that you are old, and that when you die there may be basically nothing left. So it only needs to last around 30 years give or take. But if you retire at 30 with a strategy that runs out in 30 years that could be an issue. But on the other hand I do believe you can prevent blowing up if you are willing to live lean when the economy is doing bad (the standard assumption is that you keep increasing your spending in line with inflation even as your portfolio craters).
  - h-w 5y ago
    The 4% rule is pretty generic. But if 2.5-3% will cover your expenses, statistically that will never run out no matter how long you live.
  - jleyank 5y ago
    Quite agree - good point. In other words, 2m isn’t that much of a pile to put up against Father Time. Perhaps choose to use your fuck you money to go somewhere you like to do something you like. Work isn’t bad when it’s enjoyable or worth doing.
- Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
  > and a house will take 1-2m Remember, I'm operating under the assumption that the house is already paid off. Right now, I've got about $250K left in my mortgage. Property taxes aren't too bad, about $4K/year. That $2M is also assumed to be after taxes from selling my options, but I acknowledge that any gains from the index fund will be taxed. > But take a pro tip: health care costs add up. Yeah, this is likely the expense I'm not planning enough for. But also, as I said, I've got projects that could make money. Also, my wife has stated before that she wants to work to avoid boredom, so she'd keep working, though she'd cut her hours to work 2-3 days/week.
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    Consider this: Rent out the house, move somewhere where you can continue to work remote and have universal healthcare or similar systems where your healthcare risk is limited. Quality western european countries will accept folks with as little as ~EUR25k/year in passive/rental/remote work income. Personally, healthcare costs keep me up at night regardless of NW. I've seen high net worth individuals get obliterated by a black swan healthcare event (almost always cancer). EDIT: @mukwenhac Drop an email in your profile.
    - mukwenhac 5y ago
      Out of wanting to research more, which countries accept folks at that income level?
      - jleyank 5y ago
        I think it easy for techies to get a job in Canada. Once there, they can start the clock for permanent resident, which takes 3-5 years. Once that’s obtained, only have to be here 2 years out of 5, or working for a Canadian company or married to a Canadian to keep it. It’s not bad living here, and I suspect the aggregate taxes are comparable to high tax states and you have a diversity from Texas like to France like. They’re not into health tourism, however, so you have to lay the groundwork earlier in your career.
  - 5y ago
bberenberg 5y ago
Can you share your general location (CoL) and high level math around retirement budget? Your target fund size feels really low if you're in any moderately high CoL spot. Not here to criticize your goal, but to see if theres something I can learn from your logic.
- Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
  Beaverton, a suburb right outside Portland, OR. CoL isn't too bad here, especially if you're operating under the assumption that the house is paid off.
commandlinefan 5y ago
> $1B for some reason isn't enough for these people I feel the same way, but... when I was younger I always thought that if I could ever get to the point where I made half what I currently make, I'd be "set for life". Now I make twice that much and... it's still somehow not enough. So maybe you and I think a billion is plenty and maybe they thought that until they got to that point.
- gowld 5y ago
  That's... the whole point. Step off the hedonic treadmill, and you'll be happy.
MichaelRazum 5y ago
I don’t think it is greed. And I don’t think retirement early is a good idea. Especially seems kind of bad for society. I think the point is more. A lot of Money needs a lot of effort to manage it. Alone if you realize that optimizing taxes could have a huge impact, which kind of pushes people to choose tax friendly jurisdictions. I mean its like why should I pay billions of taxes if it is possible to avoid them. So the pressure is huge. Then if you are owning companies, that means a lot of management as well. So of course you could just say „fuck it“ , but it is not an easy call.
- gowld 5y ago
  Boomers refusing to retire is why Millenials can't earn money. Retired people can contribute to their communities, in ways that return psycho-emotional rewards, supporting the real economy and themselves, and reducing waste from consumerist materialism.
  - MichaelRazum 5y ago
    Im pretty sure you would decrease wealth, if you force people to retire. The ones who earn a lot also bring the experience on the table. A good example would be a world class physics professor. Should he really be just replaced with some Millennials? Maybe they first should prove themselves…
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
> To me, it sounds like the real problem is greed. The thing is, money can be exchanged for just about everything else. So in peoples' thinking, money stands for everything else, and everyone has a "something else" that they want enough money to get. I think, though, that people want four broad categories of general things. They want security, they want identity, they want satisfaction, and they want rest. The last two you can have enough money to be set for life. Security you kind of can, but (I suspect) you always worry about a big enough black swan and whether you're diversified enough. But if you're looking for identity, money will never be enough. You're always looking up at someone else who has more money, or a bigger yacht, or a more successful sports team. (Or so it seems to me, someone with nowhere near enough money to try to find my identity there.)

jleyank 5y ago

By the 4% rule, 2m in the retirement funds gets you 80k of income. Of which you have to pay taxes and fees and all those charges that accumulate. Most people who wish to do this add “going to a very low tax environment” to the discussion. But take a pro tip: health care costs add up. As a guesstimate for California…. If you get 5m, taxes will take a third of it, and a house will take 1-2m. Which leaves you +/- on the 2m to invest. If you’re not into heirs, you can reverse mortgage.

im3w1l 5y ago
I've recently heard some criticism of the 4% rule. It's designed with two assumptions: that you are old, and that when you die there may be basically nothing left. So it only needs to last around 30 years give or take. But if you retire at 30 with a strategy that runs out in 30 years that could be an issue. But on the other hand I do believe you can prevent blowing up if you are willing to live lean when the economy is doing bad (the standard assumption is that you keep increasing your spending in line with inflation even as your portfolio craters).
- h-w 5y ago
  The 4% rule is pretty generic. But if 2.5-3% will cover your expenses, statistically that will never run out no matter how long you live.
- jleyank 5y ago
  Quite agree - good point. In other words, 2m isn’t that much of a pile to put up against Father Time. Perhaps choose to use your fuck you money to go somewhere you like to do something you like. Work isn’t bad when it’s enjoyable or worth doing.
Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
> and a house will take 1-2m Remember, I'm operating under the assumption that the house is already paid off. Right now, I've got about $250K left in my mortgage. Property taxes aren't too bad, about $4K/year. That $2M is also assumed to be after taxes from selling my options, but I acknowledge that any gains from the index fund will be taxed. > But take a pro tip: health care costs add up. Yeah, this is likely the expense I'm not planning enough for. But also, as I said, I've got projects that could make money. Also, my wife has stated before that she wants to work to avoid boredom, so she'd keep working, though she'd cut her hours to work 2-3 days/week.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  Consider this: Rent out the house, move somewhere where you can continue to work remote and have universal healthcare or similar systems where your healthcare risk is limited. Quality western european countries will accept folks with as little as ~EUR25k/year in passive/rental/remote work income. Personally, healthcare costs keep me up at night regardless of NW. I've seen high net worth individuals get obliterated by a black swan healthcare event (almost always cancer). EDIT: @mukwenhac Drop an email in your profile.
  - mukwenhac 5y ago
    Out of wanting to research more, which countries accept folks at that income level?
    - jleyank 5y ago
      I think it easy for techies to get a job in Canada. Once there, they can start the clock for permanent resident, which takes 3-5 years. Once that’s obtained, only have to be here 2 years out of 5, or working for a Canadian company or married to a Canadian to keep it. It’s not bad living here, and I suspect the aggregate taxes are comparable to high tax states and you have a diversity from Texas like to France like. They’re not into health tourism, however, so you have to lay the groundwork earlier in your career.
- 5y ago

bberenberg 5y ago

Can you share your general location (CoL) and high level math around retirement budget? Your target fund size feels really low if you're in any moderately high CoL spot. Not here to criticize your goal, but to see if theres something I can learn from your logic.

Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
Beaverton, a suburb right outside Portland, OR. CoL isn't too bad here, especially if you're operating under the assumption that the house is paid off.

commandlinefan 5y ago

> $1B for some reason isn't enough for these people I feel the same way, but... when I was younger I always thought that if I could ever get to the point where I made half what I currently make, I'd be "set for life". Now I make twice that much and... it's still somehow not enough. So maybe you and I think a billion is plenty and maybe they thought that until they got to that point.

gowld 5y ago
That's... the whole point. Step off the hedonic treadmill, and you'll be happy.

MichaelRazum 5y ago

I don’t think it is greed. And I don’t think retirement early is a good idea. Especially seems kind of bad for society. I think the point is more. A lot of Money needs a lot of effort to manage it. Alone if you realize that optimizing taxes could have a huge impact, which kind of pushes people to choose tax friendly jurisdictions. I mean its like why should I pay billions of taxes if it is possible to avoid them. So the pressure is huge. Then if you are owning companies, that means a lot of management as well. So of course you could just say „fuck it“ , but it is not an easy call.

gowld 5y ago
Boomers refusing to retire is why Millenials can't earn money. Retired people can contribute to their communities, in ways that return psycho-emotional rewards, supporting the real economy and themselves, and reducing waste from consumerist materialism.
- MichaelRazum 5y ago
  Im pretty sure you would decrease wealth, if you force people to retire. The ones who earn a lot also bring the experience on the table. A good example would be a world class physics professor. Should he really be just replaced with some Millennials? Maybe they first should prove themselves…

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

> To me, it sounds like the real problem is greed. The thing is, money can be exchanged for just about everything else. So in peoples' thinking, money stands for everything else, and everyone has a "something else" that they want enough money to get. I think, though, that people want four broad categories of general things. They want security, they want identity, they want satisfaction, and they want rest. The last two you can have enough money to be set for life. Security you kind of can, but (I suspect) you always worry about a big enough black swan and whether you're diversified enough. But if you're looking for identity, money will never be enough. You're always looking up at someone else who has more money, or a bigger yacht, or a more successful sports team. (Or so it seems to me, someone with nowhere near enough money to try to find my identity there.)