How much do you need to retire?

eastcorkram

Maybe it's more common than some of you think. I don't do social either. As for being invited somewhere, this would never happen, but if it did, I certainly wouldn't go. And I promise you that is nothing to do with cost.

Loughton_Monkey

Cyberman60 wrote: »

I don't agree. I lowered my expectations to be able to retire at 52, eight years ago. I still have the same car but maintain it myself, cancelled gym memberships (I just walk a lot instead) and made a lot of sensible cuts to unnecessary expenditure, such as saving nearly 300 quid a year on my water bill by having a meter installed, and dumping my phone contract to save almost another 200 quid a year. Retiring also allows a fortune to be saved on daily commutes to work.:D

You are totally free to disagree. Everyone is different. Retiring at 52 is a "big ask" but personally, I decided to retire only when I could be confident that my total spending could be maintained (including inflation) to age 90.

I came to the conclusion that the amounts I saved on travelling to work, suits, lunching out etc. would be usefully channelled to better/longer holdays running my own car (instead of company car).

Hence I have found over 9 years of retirement a 'perfect' situation. That is I command exactly the same 'budget' that I comfortably lived within while working. Except I am free of all the stress, hassle, and responsibilities that go with a career. Most importantly, I have not had to compromise on anything financially.

Yes, (like you) I use some of my time to screw the last ounce of blood from utilities, Insurance Companies, and significant purchases, and I also have the time to partake of as many 'freebies' I can from banks - like high interest current accounts - and manage my money fruitfully.

My retirement plan spreadsheet added up when I plonked in my actual assets when I retired. I still use the same figures unadjusted, even though my inflation and interest rate assumptions are very much awry from today's actuals. But 'swings and roundabouts' have allowed me to accumulate a very healthy 6-figure 'surplus' - perhaps rather ironically adding weight to your assertion that living on less is possible after retirement.

Cyberman60

atush wrote: »

Not harsh at all, but to have no one you would want to buy a birthday present for (and not monetary it could be a gift of your time, or something you make yourself) is very sad indeed. The OP said they had no costs at all for any of these activities which seems to me to indicate they have only superficial contact with others on a social basis/

AS for christmas, I come from a place where people who are not christian practice the festive bit of friends and family getting together for a meal. No religion required. And if you are going to someone for a emal, and didn't have to buy and cook food for yourself, a very small low cost token gift for the host is good practice.

If you have ZERO costs for these activities it means you don't participate in them. Which i find quite sad really. Does mean you or anyone else has to? Ie friends invite you around for a meal but you don't go as buying a bunch of flowers or a bottle of wine is an extravagance so you don't go?

Sure a gift isn't required but nor is buying a gift, as I said you could make one, or give the gift of your time.

I don't really know what to say bout your undiagnosed mental problems except best of luck going forwards with diagnosis and treatment? As long as you are happy that is the main thing. But for Torbrex to crow he doesn't spend money on the fripperies of social contact, in effect saying that is a total waste of someone else's money, is also harsh. Some would consider such small expenses part of the enjoyment of life.

You ARE being harsh. I have an arrangement whereby I don't buy presents either as I am out of the country during the winter. I don't buy and I don't want other people to buy for me. I am generally a loner also and I am happy most when in my own company. I do like to meet up with people fairly regularly but I am happy knowing that I can go home and be happy with no stress of worrying about others or living with others.

atush

Dont you have friends and family you see for meal in their home (thus buying them flowers or a bottle of wine) or any family who have birthdays in t he 6-9 months of the year you are home and not traveling? Dont you invite friends and family to your own home (thus incurring costs of the celebratory meals)?

All these loners w/o a lot of social contact is sad really. And I mean sad as in sad, not that you or they are Sad for choosing this. But i guess this is the internet, which does attract many of life's lone wolves.

Triumph13

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I have not had to compromise on anything financially.

In that case either you have a near infinite amount of money or you have done a truly magnificent zen-like job of eliminating material desires from your life. Either way you have my congratulations!
For most mortals any retirement will involve some level of financial compromise. The art is to find the balance that you are happy with - and one of the best ways to find that balance is by experimenting with expenditure levels before you retire. If living on 75% of your income leaves you miserable then you probably need to keep working until you can have a pension above that. On the other hand, if you are perfectly happy living on 40% then you get to retire nice and early by banking the other 60% until your assets can support that 40% level in perpetuity. I'm towards the latter end of that scale, but I fully recognise that it involves and will continue to involve financial compromises - but they should all be well worth it in return for retiring at a planned 53 and never having to work for the man again.

System

Triumph13 wrote: »

In that case either you have a near infinite amount of money or you have done a truly magnificent zen-like job of eliminating material desires from your life. Either way you have my congratulations!
.

I don't think that the positions are as extreme as that.
Realistically for most people surely the upper limit is their current income just prior to retirement? So the real decision is whether you could cope with a reduced standard of living, or not.?
Having decided, all you need to do is make the appropriate decisions early enough to make it happen.

Triumph13

In my case my target retirement income is actually quite a bit higher than my expenditure pre-retirement as I plan to do an awful lot of travelling the world.
Many people want to take a lot more holidays when they retire and very few can afford to do them in the style they would choose 'in a perfect world'. Similarly can most people afford to drive exactly the car they would if money was no object or live in the house of their dreams? Eat out as and when they want? Buy the toys they would like?
I think it is a very rare individual who isn't having to make some financial compromises.

mgdavid

Triumph13 wrote: »

In that case either you have a near infinite amount of money or you have done a truly magnificent zen-like job of eliminating material desires from your life.......

You appear to have not read his post. He said "...a 'perfect' situation. That is I command exactly the same 'budget' that I comfortably lived within while working."

I'm in a similar position as my retirement income is only constrained by my total unwillingness to pay HRT. I actually have slightly more net income than when employed due to the NIC saving. I can maintain this level to age 80 by which time I'm expecting to have given up my expensive hobby and probably doing a lot less longhaul travel too.

mystic_trev

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

You are totally free to disagree. Everyone is different. Retiring at 52 is a "big ask" but personally, I decided to retire only when I could be confident that my total spending could be maintained (including inflation) to age 90.

I retired at 42 in 1996 without a clue how long my pot of money would last me! Quite a few people thought I was mad, and suggested I should wait until at least 50. Over 18 years later, even counting for inflation, my Investments are worth far in excess of what they were when I retired. The only problem I'm going to have is trying to spend it all before I croak :rotfl:

racing_blue

mystic_trev wrote: »

I retired at 42 in 1996 without a clue how long my pot of money would last me! Quite a few people thought I was mad, and suggested I should wait until at least 50. Over 18 years later, even counting for inflation, my Investments are worth far in excess of what they were when I retired. The only problem I'm going to have is trying to spend it all before I croak :rotfl:

Trev, you (fortunate person in colloquial dialect) - tell us how you did it?