I think your tax calculation is way low too, but haven't done the math.

EDIT: Also: house should not be included in your net worth for the purposes of calculating retirement draw-down, unless you plan to liquidate your home equity to live on.

https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-si...

What happens if you want to buy a condo in a competitive market that requires a 200k downpayment? Or have a medium-sized wedding? Or have two kids in day-care?

I understand that the FIRE response would be that you don't _have_ to buy into all that stuff, but saying that it's just a little algebra and some simple assumptions is fantasy unless you want to live like a single 24 year old your whole life.

Controlling expenses and living a humble life style is pretty much the opposite of living like a single 24 year old. At least for me and most of the single 24 year olds I knew back then.

It takes wisdom and maturity to realize that you don't need all that stuff. And if you can find a partner with the same outlook, you can certainly avoid spending tens of thousands on a wedding, or buying a condo in a competitive market. And there should be no need for day care if you're retired.

This is _exactly_ what I take issue with. Look, "live below your means and be thoughtful about what spending will make you happier" is great advice. So is "plan for a future where you don't have to work".

"Get a high paying remote job from a young age with no student loans, move somewhere cheap, actually find a partner there, don't dare find someone that makes teacher or non-professional salary or has health problems or student loans, wait until you're retired at 38 to have children, don't dare have kids with health problems or special needs, and lecture everyone else about how easy it is." is perhaps not the wise and mature advice you think it is.

I'm just the right age (37) to have grown up alongside the FIRE thing. I have a number of friends who tried it, some of them to the point of being smarmy about it. 100% of them hit late twenties and realized that the combo of "making a high income while having very low expenses" involves significant trade-offs, and is super hard to keep up. All of my friends eventually abandoned it, but I don't think that's the rule.

Describing FIRE as easy and saying that anyone who fails to do it is somehow less wise or immature is nonsense peddled by a bunch of people who retired early by writing "how to get retire early" blogs.

I haven't heard anyone claiming it's easy or that any failure to do it is due to a lack of wisdom or maturity.

I think wisdom and maturity are required, but that's not all that is required. There's also a fair amount of discipline, and alignment with the tradeoffs, plus a good helping of privilege and luck.

> "Get a high paying remote job from a young age with no student loans, move somewhere cheap, actually find a partner there, don't dare find someone that makes teacher or non-professional salary or has health problems or student loans, wait until you're retired at 38 to have children, don't dare have kids with health problems or special needs, and lecture everyone else about how easy it is." is perhaps not the wise and mature advice you think it is.

That's not even close to what I claimed required wisdom and maturity to realize.

For me, I didn't feel like there were many trade-offs. The key take-away is prioritizing value and figuring out what brings you joy in life. By doing this, I was able to eliminate a lot of unnecessary spending. I don't feel like I ever missed out on anything.

If you mean after you retire, you'd plan for those things within your 4% swr budget just like you would if you were making a salary.

If you mean before, then it depends on whether you're planning on getting married annually for the rest of your life, or if it is a one time expense. If it is a one time expense, I'm sure everyone here is capable of doing the math to figure out how much a large one-time expense will delay your retirement. (hint: it is one-time expense / earnings)

If it is recurring, then the math still applies.

Unless you know of a way to put $84k/year into a roth account.

As of 2021, a very high income married one-earner household can potentially put away $19.5k/yr pre-tax into a traditional 401(k), $38.5k/yr into a after-tax Roth 401(k) which can be optionally converted to a Roth IRA, plus $6k/yr for both the worker and the spouse into Roth IRAs, plus $7,200/yr into a family HSA (if it's available thru your employer).

That's $19.5k + 38.5k + 6k + 6k + 7.2k = 77.2k tax advantaged. $57.7k of that is not subject to income tax or capital gains upon distribution, as long as you are following the rules. Not too bad.

But a material chunk of the $14M belongs to the government (not available for the individual to spend).

If someone takes out a $2M loan at the age of 58, and retires at 59 (before any of it is paid back), do you think that should be money considered in a retirement calculation?

Also, Capital gains is treated differently than ordinary income.

Your income tax bracket is irrelevant in determining your capital gains rate (at least for now).

Income tax bracket doesn't directly correspond with capital gains brackets, but total income affects the capital gains tax rate.