[kudokatz]

> If you save a third of that (which is not easy)

This is very easy, actually. You just happen to like fancy things and houses, probably.

> Now if you’re dual cogs with no kids, maybe. If you do have kids, you’re not retiring until long after ten years.

I find it depressing that so many people use kids as an excuse to avoid facing their own problems with money and spending. Look deeper and you can find happiness with a lot less.

[ojbyrne]

Actually I just looked at my last year at a FAANG in California. I earned about $370 K (including 401K match). $135 K went to taxes (Federal, Social Security, Medicare, State).

If I save absolutely everything left ($235 K) for 10 years that gets me to 2.35 million.

The parent post mentioned saving $2-5 million. To get to $ 2 M I have to live off $35 K a year (I realize I'm ignoring investment activities).

EDIT: additionally to minimize taxation you’re probably doing some of that savings in a 401k. Let’s say $25k * 10 year (I was). But that actually creates a deferred tax obligation. Let’s say the tax rate you pay that at is 20% (very optimistic but by the time you pay it you’ll likely be used to living below the poverty line). That takes you down to $30k a year. Actually even worse the employer match is taxable when you withdraw it, so another deferred tax obligation means that to get to $2M (accounting for future tax obligations) in 10 years you need to live on $25K a year.

That seems challenging in Northern California. Also why would I want to do that? - living at that spending level is likely to affect my long-term health and happiness, so the motivation is not clear to me.

[kudokatz]

At $45,000/yr of expenses (do-able in SF), it'll take 7 years to have passive income from a stock+bond portfolio cover those expenses.

https://ibb.co/qyFz1C3

Of course, a bad market makes it longer, but the converse is also true: it's more likely a good market makes it shorter! (historically markets go up more than down, of course)

Add a spouse that also saves and invests, and you can have MORE than $45,000/yr of expenses covered within 7 years of earning at that rate. You can also back off to part time or have one spouse continue working after having kids, and all you need to do is cover SOME (not even all!) of your expenses.

> I want to do that? - living at that spending level is likely to affect my long-term health and happiness

The freedom of not dealing with "the cult of impact" [1] and other such silly things is amazing. Having a huge pile of money allows solid peace of mind in a way most people can't even conceive.

And finding out how much happiness you can get independently of spending money is truly eye-opening. Most people are too scared to even TRY finding fulfillment away from what society tells us is "fun".

[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/ExperiencedDevs/comments/1bh80wl/go...

[kudokatz]

> But that actually creates a deferred tax obligation. Let’s say the tax rate you pay that at is 20% (very optimistic

There are also ways to get at this money with almost no taxes paid later IF you are not working--look for "Roth IRA conversion ladder".

Also look into "Mega Backdoor Roth" for more tax sheltering.

> That seems challenging in Northern California

You don't have to retire to California. Just pay minimal costs while you're there. Many places in US are beautiful, have great infrastructure and health care, and don't cost as much.

And investment growth is a LOT; don't ignore it. And after just a few years of not working, unless you have a bad start you can probably live off of much more than the initial safe withdrawal rate.

[ojbyrne]

This is just a thinly veiled ad hominem.