|
Chadzok posted:I'm a coffee professional, fix machines, deliver coffee and generally hang out at cafes all week drinking mad ristrettos. The side job is a markets-based coffee stall. I get cheap(er) stock (eg coffee/chocolate etc) from my company, and I can use the company vehicle so I can essentially cut out vehicular expenses while I'm working there. The markets are on the weekends (5 days a month). I'm unsure exactly how leaving the job would affect my stall profits - it would definitely impact it but I'd still be making plenty of money. I'm currently in month 3 of a year-long process tracking incomings/outgoings to figure out exactly what the side business makes and costs. Holy poo poo I want this side gig.
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2013 13:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 21:54 |
|
|
Ignoranceisbliss88 posted:Question is, what the hell do you do with your time once you're retired at 30. Pretty sure the answer is: Whatever you want. If whatever you want is working your current job because you love it or whatever, then power to you. Chances are that you can still benefit from financial independence because that love will become the primary motivation for the work, rather than subsistence.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2013 01:43
|
|
|
moana posted:Jesus Office politics and spending all day pretending to be busy are the only legitimately rewarding uses of an adult's time ok?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2013 15:54
|
|
|
zmcnulty posted:I had a longer post typed up but I guess it boils down to a single question: how do you reconcile living life to its fullest with frugality? This is literally the mindset and question that caused me to go into 60k of debt. I think it's the fear of death or maybe mediocrity. You can't take it with you and all that, so why not go to Costa Rica? Why not buy that car you really want? If I found out I would die tomorrow would I be pleased with my life? The answer for me is that living life to its fullest may not mean spending to its fullest. If you have extravagant tastes like travel, then you may be forced to get creative (oh no!) and figure out more affordable ways to do it. Maybe instead of a 400k house in the suburbs somewhere while financing a three month vagabonding trip around Europe you live for awhile in a 40-90k sailboat and travel the world with your family and some likeminded crew members? If you love good, rich food, it may be best to immerse yourself in actually producing some of that food edit: and developing the skills to prepare it rather than paying chefs for that. It's a hard thing to answer, because it's highly individual, but for me it comes down to mindfulness and stoicism. Putting myself in the moment and trying to cultivate a regular sense of awe and gratitude (gratitude is most important) has changed me from a suicidal chainsmoking alcoholic who drank literally dozens of cups of coffee a day and spent 150% of my salary to... well, I don't drink or want to kill myself and I have three cups of coffee a day and spend about 40% of my salary. Nearly nothing else has changed except that mindset. Basically, financial independence may require that you disconnect your concept of happiness from external, material possessions and experiences, or pursue those experiences in new and less expensive ways.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2013 03:32
|
|
|
Unfortunately, unless your goal is to never accept payment for work again like Joe Dominguez, many of your... activities will probably generate income, leading to an ever growing rate of savings as you reinvest the interest and contribute more to your nest egg. Wait, why isn't Your Money or Your Life in the OP?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2013 12:34
|
|
|
Or you could just zero it out and then go back to work for awhile, do whatever. Perfect is the enemy of good.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2013 15:59
|
|
|
There's an MMM article for that.  I think of owning rental properties as like the ultimate FI vehicle, even though I know diversification is key and there is no silver bullet. I just think you could do really well owning a four-plex in a medium-sized Canadian city like, say, Halifax or Winnipeg, living in one of the units, renting out two, and slowly fixing up the fourth. Then moving into the fourth, fixing up the one you used to live in, and so on. And you could garden on the roof and keep some rabbits and a couple of bee boxes up there. Eventually you could retrofit the whole building for graywater recycling and alternative energy. If you found enough likeminded individuals, you could even equip the whole thing with composting toilets and expand to provide for common spaces and go full co-housing development and never look back. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2013 21:17
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:That's interesting, and survivorship bias is also the reason why top tier hedge funds have these ludicrous returns over their lifespan (because if they had a bad stroke of luck, they're out of business and out of the study) I also think something like this is a good way to go. Pay off the loans as a sort of graduation present. If the loans are minimal because your kid was awesome, then they get part of a down payment too or a free Master's or something!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
LorneReams posted:Jesus, reading this thread makes me scared. I was checking out my investments, and I started saving in 2003. As of now, my portfolio has made 2.5% per year on average, far lower then the 4% conservative value that gets thrown around. My timing must have been very bad. US Inflation is like 1.8-2% this year, dude. You need to take some more risks! And 4% is the safe withdrawal rate, which is basically the rate that, given historic market performance and a properly diversified portfolio, will guarantee that you never run out of money.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2013 15:26
|
|
|
Orange_Lazarus posted:My guess is that people who want to retire early will need to have most of their investments in a taxable account. The advice I usually see for taxable accounts is to put everything in the most tax efficient funds like the Vanguard Total Stock Market and Total International Funds. That makes sense of course but my question is if there are special considerations I should consider when investing in taxable accounts considering I would like to retire early. I'm confused about this too, and from what I've read, it doesn't matter that much whether you use tax-free or not. If you retire in ten years with 20% of your pre-retirement income, or forty years with 20% of your pre-retirement income, the benefit of avoiding taxes on your pre-retirement income is still there, right?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2013 12:37
|
|
|
Does the same thing work for RRSPs in Canadaland?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2013 12:17
|
|
|
Folly posted:I was hoping that another Canadian would chime in here, but honestly there's no way to tell from my end. It looks like there's a whole different set of vocabulary tied to RRSPs than what I'm use to. Canadian law hopefully supports the same policies, but the method it uses to get there is probably completely different. I don't think it's a HUGE deal anyway, I mean your contributions are capped at around $5000 per year at the highest income level. Unless you're going to move to Uganda or something for your retirement, you're going to have to save more than that and use other types of account.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2013 14:50
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:The maximum yearly contribution for RRSP in 2013 is $23,820 Well poo poo, I guess I missed that.  I mean, my contributions have always been capped at like 5300/year. Now I feel inadequate.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2013 20:54
|
|
|
That 100% sounds like financial abuse. To a judge. In case of divorce. Just saying.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
How does it work with your goals? Like, do you want to retire early? How are you going to break that to her? "So uh, yeah, we have so much money that we no longer have to work. Just an FYI, I'm retiring, you can do whatever since you have no concerns regarding our financial independence at all."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
unprofessional posted:She makes three times as much as I do, and her retirement is a mandatory amount of her paycheck (state job), so she doesn't care enough to even know how much it is. She knows I put money in the Roth and my 403(b), but she doesn't realize how much it is. She is a "put the minimum amount in and figure that everything will be fine" kind of person. I just want to make sure we're well set when we do want do retire. She knows nothing about saving, and doesn't seem to really care about it, so I just put as much in as I can, so I can feel that we'll be in a good position in the future. Obviously, by asking, I know it's wrong, but I can't help but feel I should keep doing it, knowing her. So your goal is to work a normal amount of time, like 30-40 years, and retire comfortably? I mean sure that's financial independence but it's not really the subject of this thread, as I understand it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
Bernstein's comparison with a house is pretty awesome. Your house may lose half it's value one month, do you notice or care? If you notice, what do you do, do you immediately move? He says that you should treat your portfolio like a homeowner treats their home. Only "move" if you need to and try to design your life so that you have the ability to not "move" if poo poo has gone south for a few years.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2013 19:58
|
|
|
Paying for my own university was a pretty formative experience for me and I really wouldn't want to deny that experience to my kids, even if it is potentially painful. That doesn't preclude setting up a fund to help them just in case something terrible happens, but giving them a full-ride just because we happen to be related really doesn't appeal to me.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2013 20:34
|
|
|
No Wave posted:"just because we happen to be related?" Like, part of your rationale is that it would be too much of a pain in the rear end? You are not ready. How does what I said mean "it would be a pain in my rear end" to you? I was raised to feel a sense of worth and worthiness based on what I'd done, not on where I lived or who my parents were or any other amount of things I couldn't control. If I had to decide between setting up a scholarship fund that gave 10k to someone who demonstrated need and potential and giving my child 10 grand just because, then I'd much rather do the scholarship fund. Of course my child will probably show lots of need and potential, but if the deciding factor is that they're my child, then I don't place a lot of value on that. This has absolutely nothing to do with the labor of saving or spending the money and everything to do with my values. If I have a kid who, say, is incredibly motivated to be a dancer and isn't being served by the public school system, I have no problem at all with compromising financial independence to put them in some kind of fine arts-centered school.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
Rudager posted:Back in my day kids payed for their own education, and they liked it! tuyop posted:That doesn't preclude setting up a fund to help them just in case something terrible happens, but giving them a full-ride just because we happen to be related really doesn't appeal to me. I really don't see how it's this huge emotional issue for people. My parents bought a cottage instead of paying for my education. This is literally exactly how it was explained to me, and so I joined the army to pay for part of my school (I didn't qualify for public OR private loans) and ruined my back for the rest of my life. I don't feel any resentment toward my parents for this, I have no idea what kind of person I'd be if they hadn't bought the cottage, but I'm very happy now.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
Well, obviously this is pretty divisive, but I remember one of the more important realizations of university being that I wasn't accountable to anyone for my performance. I didn't have to show my parents my report card, for better or worse. It took about two years to pay off the 18k of student loans and 13k of credit card debt that college left me with, and I don't think I'd trade that two years of moderate sacrifice to be under my parents' thumb. But I moved out when I was 18 because independence is very important to me, and for other reasons. Edit: And yes, I understand that my debt is paltry compared to the total that Americans have to deal with. If I was American I may not feel the same way. I was also extremely lucky to have a job right after university that paid an above-average salary and had awesome benefits. tuyop fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Nov 4, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Human lives cost around $1800 to save from preventable diseases. I know that FI and ethics make for strange bedfellows, but in what ethical system is your child's student loan debt worth the actual lives of 90 other children? I don't think that this makes for very productive conversation, and I have a degree in international development. There is simply no way to square the circle of balancing your own life and priorities with the insane relative costs of the most basic of luxuries or conveniences if you frame it this way. You cut cable and opt for netflix so that you can donate an additional $50/month to your pet charity. But still, if you could just make do with less TV or movies, you could give another 14%! And what about the cost of food? Better go vegetarian, maybe you can find another 60 bucks to send to starving naked brown children who are covered in flies. I think someone coined it Schindler's syndrome? There is only so much that you can do, and your own sanity depends on finding a definition of "enough" that allows you to sleep at night and also live well.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2013 03:49
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Do you guys think this is ethically defensible behavior? You would need to define "ethically defensible" so that we can imagine a reasonable lifestyle that is also immune to ethical criticisms for this to make any sense.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2013 13:54
|
|
|
neaden posted:OK, this argument is bad for two reasons. This is very well-said.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2013 15:31
|
|
|
Switchback posted:Philippines I've heard that that's a pretty common strategy, expatriating to somewhere cheap, but isn't there a ban on landowning for expats or something?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2013 13:52
|
|
|
Or just get a grip on your impulses and keep it in your chequing account.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
razz posted:living on half that This is the key to financial independence regardless of income. A 50% savings rate, using rough, simple math that involves a bit of risk*, will result in financial independence in 16 years of working. I think it's helpful to imagine it this way: If you live on only 50% of your income for a year, it means that you do not have to work the next year. You could live off of your savings and go traveling or something. Same with 30%, after three years you can take one off. * MMM Hisself posted:Assumptions:
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
razz posted:Thanks for giving me some hope and insights. Not like I'm hopeless but you know. When the people you graduated with are all making 45-60K and my husband and I don't even make that combined, and you read how easy it is to retire early... it's not easy for everyone. And yes we currently do live on about 25-28K a year but like I mentioned, we live rent free. So obviously that saves us a considerable amount. Yeah it sounds like over the next couple of years you're going to feel the squeeze as your lifestyle inflates. What kind of grad school are you going to where your degree is expected to land you a job that makes under 30k? That seems pretty ridiculous.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2013 14:09
|
|
|
spwrozek posted:Razz, go to the private sector if you want to make money. Also move west where everything is on public land and needs impact reviews. We basically have HDR on speed dial for all or work (EA, NEPA, field monitors and such). Yeah this, mobility trumps all.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2013 18:19
|
|
|
razz posted:EDIT: Nah, I'm done with the E/N. Maybe I'll just go live in a yurt One of us, one of us...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
semicolonsrock posted:So, somewhat related question. I'm not interested in retiring early because I really enjoy all the work I'd be doing. What I am interested in, however, is taking 2 years or so off from being employed by other people to work on my own companies with an income to support myself so I can take risks I otherwise couldn't. So, over the next 3-4 years I'd like to save enough to support myself independently for 2 years. Just multiply your annual expenses by two. Save that amount in a savings account. Stop working and withdraw your savings at the rate of your expenses, monthly, weekly, whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2013 13:36
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I agree with tuyop: just keep track of your annual expenses and multiply by 2. That's how much you need to save. I think he means that he could save the amount needed sooner by using his bonus, but I really don't think it matters when the question is simply "how much".
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
I don't know if using your fame to spread a message that you deeply believe in is "selling out", even if you do collect a fee for spreading it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
Guys, please tell me how to become a TIGHTER. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
Maybe he meant most people in the world? Like, 2 billion living on $1/day or less "inescapable poverty"?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
I'm also very interested in the idea of mini-retirements or long sabbaticals. Like, set your finances up to allow you to take five years off to raise your child(ren), or take two years to hike the PNT and AT, you know? It's just that once you have the habits that allow you to save for five years of no work plus emergency and traditional retirement, the difference of funds is not that much to allow you to just live on a little less or work one more year to get the nest egg up. And then one more year "just in case". And then... But I think once my wife leaves the army and I finish this degree, it would be excellent to take $5-10k and do the Appalachian Trail together. If I can.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Velochis posted:I like this thread and want to play too. You're saving impressive amounts, but I think the most important thing that all the FI folks try to hammer home is saving percentage. If you save 80% of your income, then you only have to work for five years as long as you make 5-7% returns and maintain your lifestyle at the same cost as that 20% living expense. This post goes into this stuff in more detail.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
SpelledBackwards posted:God, this threads and the Newbie Personal Finance one remind me that Just put an ad out in craigslist for a "Herero life mate" with those reasons as the rationale. I tried that when I was like 21 and it didn't work, though. But there are people like me out there!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Don't forget to budget for a new SUV when you have a kid. I love MMM.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 21:54 |
|
|
Just google "is owning better than renting" and you'll get a good sampling of the arguments against owning a place. Short answer is: no, owning a place is not a panacea of financial health or independence.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 19:59
|
|