0
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 45 Years of age, at what level would you stop saving for retirement?
Posted on 9/11/26 at 5:50 am to Big Scrub TX
Posted on 9/11/26 at 5:50 am to Big Scrub TX
quote:
you shouldn't think about "retiring early" until you have at least $10M in net worth
You lost me there
Posted on 9/11/26 at 11:36 am to Lawyers_Guns_Money
quote:That's not what I said. I said to retire EARLY. We seem to have 38 year olds on here asking about retiring (with $800K?).
I would love to hear your rationale on why the average person needs $10m to retire
Obviously depends on certain factors (such as where you're at). Also on how much penny pinching/worrying you want to do in retirement. But I think $10M gives one decades of breathing room - for dependents, overwhelming medical situations and, most importantly, the freedom to live nearly entirely untethered from daily concerns about money.
Posted on 9/11/26 at 11:38 am to lynxcat
quote:I guess depends on who/where you are. It's easy to spend at least half that much annually on travel alone.
There isn’t much requirement for $300K+ annually using a conservative SWR.
Posted on 9/11/26 at 12:21 pm to nolaks
I'm 45 and I'm still saving and will be until age 55 when I stop working
Posted on 9/11/26 at 12:23 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
you shouldn't think about "retiring early" until you have at least $10M in net worth
So essentially nobody should be thinking about retiring early.
quote:
All U.S. households: ~1.6% have $10M+ total net worth. A $10 million net worth ranks roughly in the 98th–99th percentile overall
quote:
Near-retirement ages (60–69): Roughly 1.2 million Americans in this age range have an investable net worth of $10 million or more
Posted on 9/11/26 at 12:27 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
That's not what I said. I said to retire EARLY. We seem to have 38 year olds on here asking about retiring (with $800K?). Obviously depends on certain factors (such as where you're at). Also on how much penny pinching/worrying you want to do in retirement. But I think $10M gives one decades of breathing room - for dependents, overwhelming medical situations and, most importantly, the freedom to live nearly entirely untethered from daily concerns about money.
Okay - why would a 38 year old need $10m to retire early?
The math doesn’t dictate that unless you are trying to absolutely ball out of control. As mentioned above, even with insanely conservative returns that would produce $300k in perpetuity without touching the principle.
The reason I’m poking here is because I left my career around that age and heard similar ballooned net worth “advice” from the average person who hadn’t actually run the numbers.
If a person this age has 30x annual expenses and withdrawals 3.33% annually, there is a 98% chance they will not run out of money in 50 years and ~90% odds they’ll not touch the principle after this timeframe.
So unless you’re spending $333k annually, the idea of $10m is a significant overreach.
Posted on 9/11/26 at 12:31 pm to nolaks
I think there are several "correct" answers to this question, but one question also should be considered in response:
"At what point is it more beneficial to put all of your efforts into managing and growing what you have, rather than working to try to increase it through contributions?"
Some will counter with "passive management" and "you can't beat the market" but you could certainly benefit at some point by focusing all of your energy on managing your investments instead of working, even if you are 100% indexed, simply because at some point your gains off of your assets will eclipse anything you can earn through work.
"At what point is it more beneficial to put all of your efforts into managing and growing what you have, rather than working to try to increase it through contributions?"
Some will counter with "passive management" and "you can't beat the market" but you could certainly benefit at some point by focusing all of your energy on managing your investments instead of working, even if you are 100% indexed, simply because at some point your gains off of your assets will eclipse anything you can earn through work.
Posted on 9/11/26 at 12:31 pm to nolaks
I think there are several "correct" answers to this question, but one question also should be considered in response:
"At what point is it more beneficial to put all of your efforts into managing and growing what you have, rather than working to try to increase it through contributions?"
Some will counter with "passive management" and "you can't beat the market" but you could certainly benefit at some point by focusing all of your energy on managing your investments instead of working, even if you are 100% indexed, simply because at some point your gains off of your assets will eclipse anything you can earn through work.
"At what point is it more beneficial to put all of your efforts into managing and growing what you have, rather than working to try to increase it through contributions?"
Some will counter with "passive management" and "you can't beat the market" but you could certainly benefit at some point by focusing all of your energy on managing your investments instead of working, even if you are 100% indexed, simply because at some point your gains off of your assets will eclipse anything you can earn through work.
Posted on 9/11/26 at 12:35 pm to MrSpock
quote:I would say it a bit differently: those thinking about it should be very clear-eyed about what it actually means. And should probably also be doing at least a little something to get some income and keep their minds busy, even in "retirement". The guy talking about $800K seems completely bonkers to me.
So essentially nobody should be thinking about retiring early.
quote:Sure, adjust it for whatever regional co-efficient/multiplier you need to. I live in a pretty expensive area.
All U.S. households: ~1.6% have $10M+ total net worth. A $10 million net worth ranks roughly in the 98th–99th percentile overall
quote:
Near-retirement ages (60–69): Roughly 1.2 million Americans in this age range have an investable net worth of $10 million or more
Posted on 9/11/26 at 12:43 pm to Lawyers_Guns_Money
quote:Yes, dial it in for wherever you are.
Okay - why would a 38 year old need $10m to retire early?
The math doesn’t dictate that unless you are trying to absolutely ball out of control. As mentioned above, even with insanely conservative returns that would produce $300k in perpetuity without touching the principle.
The reason I’m poking here is because I left my career around that age and heard similar ballooned net worth “advice” from the average person who hadn’t actually run the numbers.
If a person this age has 30x annual expenses and withdrawals 3.33% annually, there is a 98% chance they will not run out of money in 50 years and ~90% odds they’ll not touch the principle after this timeframe.
So unless you’re spending $333k annually, the idea of $10m is a significant overreach.
And what are "insanely conservative" returns? Lots of people use 8% as "conservative" and I think that's very optimistic. I think you should use maybe 4% and see what the monte carlo spits out.
But in my own personal calc, I include significant provision for concierge medical services (I would put in a minimum of $50K for this + random medical expenses), at least $100K for travel, depending on how many kids, at least the "both sides" max for gifting (that would be basically $40K/child/year), etc.
It adds up quickly.
I would also think one would want to err on the side of plenty and not meagerness. An example is - god forbid - you or someone you love has to go into a "home" at some point. Even today - and even in a place like BR - you do not want to be anywhere that is charging less than, say $8k/month - and it's hard to see that going down. Very easy to "retire early", waltz through the salad years, then start hitting a wall at 75 or whatever and having to make "tough decisions". My advice anticipates ALWAYS having the means to have the freedom of choice.
Posted on 9/11/26 at 12:54 pm to Big Scrub TX
The "insanely conservative" assumption is 3-3.33% returns, which is tighter than the generally accepted 4% rule for FIRE. The 4% rule assumptions were for a 30 year timeframe, so a 38 year old would need to be more conservative.
This number will vary wildly depending on lifestyle and location. Clearly you are spending a significant amount (ex: $100k on travel), so your target lifestyle may dictate the need for $10m.
My point is - there are a TON of high earners in their 30s/40s that get spooked by blanket advice of needing some insane net worth (ex: $10m). People really need to run the math for their own situation and it can/should be adjusted based on lifestyle.
FIRE Goal = 25x Annual expenses
At a 4% withdrawal rate, there is a 95% chance of the money lasting 30 years and a 85% chance the principle is not touched after 30 years.
If you are younger and have a longer time horizon, use a more conservative equaton (ex: 30x annual expenses and 3.33% withdrawal rate).
Anyone that is fortunate enough to be in this position in their 30s/40s needs to read "Die With Zero" by Bill Perkins. Sometimes the incremental dollar is not worth the sacrifice of not living your life (I know because I was in this position and walked away).
This number will vary wildly depending on lifestyle and location. Clearly you are spending a significant amount (ex: $100k on travel), so your target lifestyle may dictate the need for $10m.
My point is - there are a TON of high earners in their 30s/40s that get spooked by blanket advice of needing some insane net worth (ex: $10m). People really need to run the math for their own situation and it can/should be adjusted based on lifestyle.
FIRE Goal = 25x Annual expenses
At a 4% withdrawal rate, there is a 95% chance of the money lasting 30 years and a 85% chance the principle is not touched after 30 years.
If you are younger and have a longer time horizon, use a more conservative equaton (ex: 30x annual expenses and 3.33% withdrawal rate).
Anyone that is fortunate enough to be in this position in their 30s/40s needs to read "Die With Zero" by Bill Perkins. Sometimes the incremental dollar is not worth the sacrifice of not living your life (I know because I was in this position and walked away).
Posted on 9/11/26 at 1:13 pm to Lawyers_Guns_Money
quote:Yes. I think my main point is perhaps: it needs to be more than you think it needs to be. I also have a pretty big family and might end up with a lot of grandkids. Obviously, this all has to be dialed in for specifics. If you're single and childless, that would obviously be a much different number.
This number will vary wildly depending on lifestyle and location. Clearly you are spending a significant amount (ex: $100k on travel), so your target lifestyle may dictate the need for $10m.
quote:That's fair. I'm advocating the same thing: run the math...but be very conservative with return projections and very liberal with consumption projections. And there are always more left-tail life events than you are projecting.
My point is - there are a TON of high earners in their 30s/40s that get spooked by blanket advice of needing some insane net worth (ex: $10m). People really need to run the math for their own situation and it can/should be adjusted based on lifestyle.
quote:I pretty much agree with it. I added the annual gifting, but beyond that, I don't have a goal of leaving much behind (at least not to heirs).
Anyone that is fortunate enough to be in this position in their 30s/40s needs to read "Die With Zero" by Bill Perkins. Sometimes the incremental dollar is not worth the sacrifice of not living your life (I know because I was in this position and walked away).
quote:Another reason I like this is because it takes some weight off the shape of your equity curve over time. If your denominator is big enough, you can essentially be a majority in low/non-risk assets to service your needs. But if you still require a substantial tilt to volatile asset classes (like equities), you can find yourself coming up with a need for capital (e.g. a large medical expense) in a year when stocks are down 40% or whatever.
The "insanely conservative" assumption is 3-3.33% returns
Posted on 9/11/26 at 4:49 pm to nolaks
What kind of nonsense is this?
I did 18-20% of my income- even while in college towards retirement. The only time I stopped saving was when i retired. But I still follow a budget.
I did 18-20% of my income- even while in college towards retirement. The only time I stopped saving was when i retired. But I still follow a budget.
Posted on 9/12/26 at 12:12 am to nolaks
Turned 50 this year. I've been coast fire for several years now but kept maxing 401k, maxing roth, maxing hsa, taxable account.
Contributions aren't that significant anymore. But I won't stop saving for retirement until I retire; however I am taking my foot off the gas.
This will be the first year since my early 30s that I'm not maxing my 401k. I will do just enough to get the full match. I'll keep maxing hsa & roth; they provide alot of flexibility for controlling taxable income. Though, I will stop contributions to my taxable account.
I believe I could retire now (Firecalc says 100%) but I'm very leery of inflation & healthcare costs. Also it would be much easier to retire using rule of 55. 72t is an option but rather not use it.
My job pays well and it isn't that stressful. So I'll keep working for a few more years and let my nest egg keep growing.
Contributions aren't that significant anymore. But I won't stop saving for retirement until I retire; however I am taking my foot off the gas.
This will be the first year since my early 30s that I'm not maxing my 401k. I will do just enough to get the full match. I'll keep maxing hsa & roth; they provide alot of flexibility for controlling taxable income. Though, I will stop contributions to my taxable account.
I believe I could retire now (Firecalc says 100%) but I'm very leery of inflation & healthcare costs. Also it would be much easier to retire using rule of 55. 72t is an option but rather not use it.
My job pays well and it isn't that stressful. So I'll keep working for a few more years and let my nest egg keep growing.
Posted on 9/12/26 at 1:06 am to nolaks
Never know when you might lose your job. 10-15yrs with no income and a market correction, that 800K can dwindle down quick. I'd continue to max the 401K and Roth.
Posted on 9/12/26 at 7:59 am to lsu xman
quote:
Never know when you might lose your job. 10-15yrs with no income and a market correction, that 800K can dwindle down quick. I'd continue to max the 401K and Roth.
Agreed or just a life emergency that drains a lot of your savings. I'm 43 and my wife is 37, and we have a nice chunk saved and being a teacher I'll have a pension when I retire. We could cut back from our current savings rate and still be good down the road, however we keep stashing away as much as possible. I'd rather have the good problem of having money we don't need down the road instead of not having enough.
Posted on 9/12/26 at 11:06 am to grsharky
I think most in this thread have missed the question. It’s not whether one should retire with 800k at 40, it’s whether one should dial back saving for retirement at that time. With 20 plus years for the portfolio to grow, that could be a possibility.
Whether or not it is a good idea depends on an individuals financial situation and goals. But there is a point where you run into the “problem” of having more money than you can spend in retirement, and you may be better served to spend more now, trade that money for time, etc.
Echo the poster who recommended “Die with Zero.” That whole book is more or less about this question, or issues related to it.
Whether or not it is a good idea depends on an individuals financial situation and goals. But there is a point where you run into the “problem” of having more money than you can spend in retirement, and you may be better served to spend more now, trade that money for time, etc.
Echo the poster who recommended “Die with Zero.” That whole book is more or less about this question, or issues related to it.
Posted on 9/12/26 at 8:39 pm to wahootiger
The other way to look at it is you have so much in retirement but not enough between now and retirement. You don't want to cash out retirement money if you need the money before then, or if you wanted to start treating yourself more. I'd be concerned about that.
Posted on 9/13/26 at 7:59 am to Mariner
I agree with this. At some point, once the retirement nest egg gets to a certain amount, it may make sense to forego the tax advantage of stockpiling in retirement accounts so that you have more flexibility and can actually use your money before 60.
Again, whether that is the right decision for an individual is nuanced. But this thread seemed to have pivoted from the initial question (as I see it) of “when is it ok to start dialing back retirement savings.”
For what it’s worth, I’m coming from the perspective of a 40 year old who has built up both 401k and taxable over the last 12 years (when I started my career). I’m now at the point where I’m considering making a pretty drastic career move (big law to opening a solo practice). Part of my thinking for a long time was to stack cash, max 401k, etc. and that thinking has gotten me to a strong financial position to feel comfortable (relatively) with making this move. And it’s a challenge to change the thinking from save save save. But at some point you have to ask the question “why?” Why am I saving this money, and is it actually serving my needs or am I just on autopilot. That’s why I think Die with Zero is a must read for anyone who is thinking about these issues.
Again, whether that is the right decision for an individual is nuanced. But this thread seemed to have pivoted from the initial question (as I see it) of “when is it ok to start dialing back retirement savings.”
For what it’s worth, I’m coming from the perspective of a 40 year old who has built up both 401k and taxable over the last 12 years (when I started my career). I’m now at the point where I’m considering making a pretty drastic career move (big law to opening a solo practice). Part of my thinking for a long time was to stack cash, max 401k, etc. and that thinking has gotten me to a strong financial position to feel comfortable (relatively) with making this move. And it’s a challenge to change the thinking from save save save. But at some point you have to ask the question “why?” Why am I saving this money, and is it actually serving my needs or am I just on autopilot. That’s why I think Die with Zero is a must read for anyone who is thinking about these issues.
Posted on 9/13/26 at 8:02 am to wahootiger
Who the hell wants to work big law!?!?!
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News