This is a thread going on over at bogleheads. The answer in the first post--$10M. Ten. Million.
I think we could ALL retire together somewhere with that much.
http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtop ... st=1411482
What's your Number?
haha some of the comments on that thread are so funny; like this one:
''For a couple age 50 this year, yes, $10M sounds high.
But you have 15 years of health insurance and related expenses to cover, so allow $1M for that.
Say two teens at home, so another $1M to get them through college.
A million here, a million there, it adds up...''
I mean seriously...??
''For a couple age 50 this year, yes, $10M sounds high.
But you have 15 years of health insurance and related expenses to cover, so allow $1M for that.
Say two teens at home, so another $1M to get them through college.
A million here, a million there, it adds up...''
I mean seriously...??
-
TheLuckyWizard
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 11:35 pm
- Contact:
-
Spartan_Warrior
- Posts: 1659
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17175
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
There seems to be an uneasy tension between certain posters on bogleheads and ERE (or just me, maybe for offending their core beliefs).
They say ERE is irresponsible advocating not saving those huge amounts and retiring early thus missing the opportunity to work and save more, namely, millions. Also, some say I apparently don't understand the most popular finance theories of academia in the 1970s (index investing).
I say they don't know how to budget nor do they know very much about being frugal. It seems that the faith in diversification does not extend to having more than a single income source and relying on a single method (money) to pay for all one's needs. I'm sure there are exceptions.
They say ERE is irresponsible advocating not saving those huge amounts and retiring early thus missing the opportunity to work and save more, namely, millions. Also, some say I apparently don't understand the most popular finance theories of academia in the 1970s (index investing).
I say they don't know how to budget nor do they know very much about being frugal. It seems that the faith in diversification does not extend to having more than a single income source and relying on a single method (money) to pay for all one's needs. I'm sure there are exceptions.
-
Christopherjart
- Posts: 191
- Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:03 am
- Contact:
jacob
CLEARLY you do not understand retirement! (once again I see your frustration.... fortifying my ignorance in my proposed promotion of you last year as some talking head on TV etc.)
Some people just don't want to admit the truth and quietly implore to be controlled.
My advice
Turn off your inbox and crank out a blog post occasionally about your retirement (read freedom)
CLEARLY you do not understand retirement! (once again I see your frustration.... fortifying my ignorance in my proposed promotion of you last year as some talking head on TV etc.)
Some people just don't want to admit the truth and quietly implore to be controlled.
My advice
Turn off your inbox and crank out a blog post occasionally about your retirement (read freedom)
-
Spartan_Warrior
- Posts: 1659
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am
The vitriol in those threads would be amazing if I weren't already so familiar with these types of people (read: most people).
Not only Jacob, but everyone here on the ERE forum gets pulled into their jealous rage. Apparently we're all young and foolish sheep being led to slaughter by Jacob's perilous propaganda of simple mathematics and historical trends.
Not only Jacob, but everyone here on the ERE forum gets pulled into their jealous rage. Apparently we're all young and foolish sheep being led to slaughter by Jacob's perilous propaganda of simple mathematics and historical trends.
I'm not really convinced that hitting a magic "number" in a brokerage account has any meaningful significance for making a determination when to retire.
I believe this was mentioned in prior posts, but all that really should matter is how much passive income can be generated. It is also important to be confident that the amount of passive income will keep pace with inflation. Additionally, a buffer should be built in for "black swan" events, such as market down-turns, dividend cuts, unexpected expenses, problems with renters, etc.
For my personal situation, I would be more than happy to live on 2000 dollars per month of after-tax passive income (in 2012 dollars). I will probably continue to work until I have enough investments and rental properties to generate passive income of 2500 or 3000 per month (again, CPI adjusted to what a dollar is worth today in 2012.)
Since I am still really young, I think it would be a worth-while trade-off to work an additional couple of years to permanently increase my standard of living by 25% or 50% for the rest of my life. After my portfolio of dividend stocks and real estate rentals reaches a critical mass, if I continue to work for a couple of years, the savings will be compounding with great effect
I believe this was mentioned in prior posts, but all that really should matter is how much passive income can be generated. It is also important to be confident that the amount of passive income will keep pace with inflation. Additionally, a buffer should be built in for "black swan" events, such as market down-turns, dividend cuts, unexpected expenses, problems with renters, etc.
For my personal situation, I would be more than happy to live on 2000 dollars per month of after-tax passive income (in 2012 dollars). I will probably continue to work until I have enough investments and rental properties to generate passive income of 2500 or 3000 per month (again, CPI adjusted to what a dollar is worth today in 2012.)
Since I am still really young, I think it would be a worth-while trade-off to work an additional couple of years to permanently increase my standard of living by 25% or 50% for the rest of my life. After my portfolio of dividend stocks and real estate rentals reaches a critical mass, if I continue to work for a couple of years, the savings will be compounding with great effect
My number would be $5000 a month income from my rental houses (in today's dollars). I don't see any need for more than this. A paid off property that can neutralize the effects of inflation is the way to build long term wealth.
My current strategy is to flip a house when I can find a 20-25% return on the flip (typically $15-20K) then dump these funds into cash cows (rentals that produce close to a 25% ROI per year.
My current strategy is to flip a house when I can find a 20-25% return on the flip (typically $15-20K) then dump these funds into cash cows (rentals that produce close to a 25% ROI per year.
-
jennypenny
- Posts: 6910
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Jacob, I hadn't seen some of those threads. I only remembered the one from the night you pulled the plug in December. One comment jumped out at me:
>>So, one more time, it is not about Jacob, but about the danger of the influence of his message on uninformed young people.
Wow.
The bogleheads community is just like Stepford. I actually know 3 people on the board who post regularly (they don't know that I know--they gave themselves away once assuming I was just a dumb wife and didn't know what they were talking about). One guy is the guy I mentioned who built a $50K pool house. Think about living in a bogleheads city--that's what it's like living in Stepford.
People really think I'm *harming* my kids by not giving them the best of everything. (as they define it) I get called "low rent" because even though I have the money to buy [insert status symbol here] I don't have the sense to do so. They try and explain the value of spending money on such things so people will get the "right impression." I get "Why would you want to look poor?" To be clear, I don't look poor, I just don't look rich--there's a difference. And the truly rich often look poor, it's only the wannabes in Stepford that try so hard to look rich.
I'm not trying to fuel the us v. them thing. I really am trying to be less judgemental. But if they're going to pile on judgements, right back at ya...
>>So, one more time, it is not about Jacob, but about the danger of the influence of his message on uninformed young people.
Wow.
The bogleheads community is just like Stepford. I actually know 3 people on the board who post regularly (they don't know that I know--they gave themselves away once assuming I was just a dumb wife and didn't know what they were talking about). One guy is the guy I mentioned who built a $50K pool house. Think about living in a bogleheads city--that's what it's like living in Stepford.
People really think I'm *harming* my kids by not giving them the best of everything. (as they define it) I get called "low rent" because even though I have the money to buy [insert status symbol here] I don't have the sense to do so. They try and explain the value of spending money on such things so people will get the "right impression." I get "Why would you want to look poor?" To be clear, I don't look poor, I just don't look rich--there's a difference. And the truly rich often look poor, it's only the wannabes in Stepford that try so hard to look rich.
I'm not trying to fuel the us v. them thing. I really am trying to be less judgemental. But if they're going to pile on judgements, right back at ya...