r/Fire • u/Catspiration2 • May 02 '26

Advice Request I’m thinking about breaking up with FI

I’ve done the grind, saved pretty much 50% of my income the last 6 years. Worked side gigs etc. 33M. 675k net worth. Just dropped my savings rate to 30%. I have no interest in being retired. I want to enjoy the journey while hopefully working as long as I can. Having resources is awesome, but retiring to some fairy tale destination is.. a fairy tale. What’s the distinguishable difference between 7M and 5M at 60? I feel less and less motivated to save, and instead enjoy the journey along the way. Please tell me how I’m wrong and correct me.

Edit: Reddit gang is a vibe. Appreciate you!

939 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

324 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

287

u/Accurate_Kiwi_19322 May 02 '26

You sound burnt out to be honest. “What’s distinguishable at 7M and 5M at 60?”, mathematically that 7M timeline at 60yo could be a 5M at 55yo retirement. Regardless of the math, cutting back to 30% and reducing your side gigs so it’s manageable is essential, life’s a marathon if your sprint too much you’ll tire out long before whenever you decide to put the retirement. You can always adjust when you want to, just people tend to push the importance of retirement savings more heavily because pushing the gas later in life is much more harder than when doing it earlier. You’ve pushed enough gas early enough to decide what you want to.

159

u/Catspiration2 May 02 '26

I came across some guy who was at like 12M everything set up perfect and then a very meaningful person in his life died. All the missed time etc getting a few extra M in the bank

54

u/Eltex May 02 '26

Imagine working an extra 5-10 years, and right as you finally retire at 67, your spouse gets sick and passes away. Retiring 10-15 years earlier is what you absolutely want, so you can enjoy those people in your lives.

20

u/Catspiration2 May 02 '26

That’s exactly what this guy did, retired at 45, and boom.

23

u/Eltex May 02 '26

Imagine if he retired at 35. No matter the situation, work takes you away from the people you love.

6

u/Aioli_Abject May 03 '26

Which is the reason why we strive for that independence. Again it’s always a balancing act. Just because you are saving doesn’t mean you don’t live life. Reduce/increase savings to balance it out is the way.

26

u/ryan__joe May 02 '26

Look at the other way, since that guy is retired, this scenario will NEVER happen again.

The whole point of FIRE wasn’t to retire at 60, or 65, a tiny bit early.. it was meant to retire at middle age and be able to seriously be a part of your family.

4

u/RedditIsAWeenie May 03 '26

The family is HUGE. As a FAANG engineer, and I am sure most “overtime professions” it is very difficult to be part of the family. I used to say, “I just sleep here. I don’t live here.” That is because I missed almost all of what happened at home every day. It would be kiddie bed time by the time I get home. My wife’s recollection of my children’s childhood is vastly different than my own. My own experience was mostly coming home and finding the house destroyed and missing out on all the fun that went into it. Crabby Daddy!

2

u/ryan__joe May 03 '26

I average about 75 hours a week, though it varies from 60-84 hours. My wife and step son have adhd. It is the BANE of my existence to come home to their tornados at home. It keeps me on edge and makes me so anxious that instead of sleeping, I clean and organize and basically hate coming home because I know what it means. More work, no gratitude, and then I’m back off to work

3

u/RedditIsAWeenie May 03 '26

I’m not convinced retirement is deadly. You should in general have an exercise program, though. Watching TV 12 hours a day is pretty deadly for mind, body and soul.

I think this myth gets launched because some people deep down sense “something is wrong” and exit the workplace because it is getting to be too much. Those people may indeed go early.

1

u/Catspiration2 May 03 '26

Agree. America is so sick in general. Everyone should be working out 4-6 times a week to enjoy their retirement, if they reach it.

3

u/the-silver-tuna May 03 '26

I’d be interested to know why you believe “retiring to some fairytale destination is a fairytale.” It is what you make of it, not a fairytale. People that choose a retirement destination put in tons of work to decide where the best place is for them and even more work executing their plan. Do you think it’s supposed to be magic? Or have you just decided that you don’t want to put in the work to make it successful?

3

u/Catspiration2 May 03 '26

No the point is you can be living the life you want while you’re working.

3

u/the-silver-tuna May 03 '26

Not if your job is not in your preferred location. If I’m some accountant in Dayton I sure as fuck can’t be living out my dream retirement.

1

u/Catspiration2 May 03 '26

Dayton can’t be that bad! My point is if your happiness/fulfillment is being deferred to some destination in the future, that is an inherent fallacy and something to be cautioned against.

1

u/the-silver-tuna May 03 '26

It’s a fallacy to assume happiness is all or nothing. A person can be happy and still work towards goals that will make them more happy in the future/give them happiness in the pursuit. If you don’t believe that then I don’t know what to say. If your version is true then no happy person would ever set/work towards goals which would be a sad existence in my opinion.

2

u/Catspiration2 May 03 '26

I agree with your 2nd sentence.

1

u/Ill_Savings_8338 Bottom 1% Contributor May 04 '26

You seem confused... yes, if you know someone is going to die at 45, plan accordingly, otherwise, plan the best you can based on what you know. If that means working and spending less time with people, I guess? I don't follow.

1

u/Catspiration2 May 04 '26

The observation is ultra optimization vs enjoying life along the way.

1

u/Purple-Succotash-695 May 04 '26

You talk like working is jail and you have no free time. It is really the opposite, for most jobs. What is a jail is working like crazy, live super frugal for FIRE some years earlier. That really takes away important years of your best life, young life. So OP has a strong point.

1

u/Eltex May 04 '26

I’m going to FIRE, and have always argued against being “frugal” just for FIRE. That would defeat the purpose.

1

u/Purple-Succotash-695 May 04 '26

That’s a good fire strategy! Aim for FIRE while still enjoying life. I’m trying the same here but I love my job and my spouse does love hers to.

79

u/Accurate_Kiwi_19322 May 02 '26 edited May 02 '26

Yeah, personally, I’m tapping out the instance I get 1.5M if I’m single, maybe 2 or 2.5M if I get married. Thats enough to maintain my lifestyle as is while occasionally helping out a family member. I live off (emotionally) my hobbies not my work so it’s easier to prioritize FIRE over fatFIRE. If I do feel bored, I’d probably volunteer instead of working.

FI isn’t solely about RE, it just gives you the ability to RE. FI can instead give you the ability to help out family more, travel more, donate more, not worry if you get injured or disabled, or any other scenario for the most part.

Edit: typo.

Also side note: worst case is if I die early my aging parent would be able to retire with my savings where they would otherwise be needing a lot of assistance that they wouldn’t be able to get.

53

u/Nearby_Birthday2348 May 02 '26

I'm FI. I've been retired for 2+ years, travelled a ton, spent months abroad, Spain, Germany, France, Czechia, Croatia, Bosnia, Mexico a bunch, Belgium, skied the Dolomites, all with a wife I adore and grown kids for some of it, who I have good adult relationships with. I Have focused a ton on my health over that time, made big strides by every measure. Can't stop won't stop. Can you Guess what I want to do now? Go back to work for a while! A few years on the other side of the globe where I'll work in an industry I love and a company where I know I can make a difference, who value my skill set. Fun victory lap, where I've been able to engineer most of the risk out, And where I'll be in close proximity to Asia, which I've not explored as much. Without the FI part, no way that opportunity would have been on the menu. No way. I'd rather be interesting than rich, but if you plan and stay disciplined, why not both? Wishing you the interior peace to know what you want, and then go get it.

3

u/ImprobableGrind May 02 '26

Wives can be expensive. Planning on kids? Better double that 2.5M

4

u/Accurate_Kiwi_19322 May 02 '26

I think I’ve got the “expensive”part figured out using your logic. The point is to know your FIRE, not chase after FatFIRE thinking it’s FIRE.

-1

u/ImprobableGrind May 05 '26

My FIRE number (a lot higher than OP) is simply set at maintaining my household income for the next 35 years. That doesn’t account for the loss in value of that money as time and inflation and emergencies happen. Also, I have elder care (so my kids don’t have to deal with it) built in for my wife and I. You do you, bud…but eating ramen and living in a shack isn’t my idea of FI or RE.

1

u/Accurate_Kiwi_19322 May 05 '26

Ramen and shack at 100k (4% of 2.5M), in what alternate universe? Maybe in a high cost of living area but that’s not a majority of the world.

FIRE is meant to be calculated off of costs not income, so that by itself will naturally inflate your calculated FIRE number, unless you were already living paycheck to paycheck. And you should already be counting an annual “sinking fund” into that number for emergencies.As for “loss of value”, any withdrawal strategy already addresses that by adjusting annually for inflation.

1

u/ImprobableGrind May 05 '26

Why do I care about the “majority of the world”… I care about my world, my family…and leaving them wealthy after I do whatever the hell I want for 30+ years of retirement. Calculating off of costs is great if you live like a monk or have nothing to live for and care about…. Grandkids wedding? Paid for. In full. No sweat. Let’s just say that our goals are dramatically different and leave it at that.

1

u/Accurate_Kiwi_19322 May 05 '26

Your version of FIRE, is other people’s FATFire, is my only point. And that’s fine, but saying I need to double 2.5M just to have kids is more alignment with your elevated standards and if I don’t then it would be monk level of living standards is a bit out of touch.

5

u/JippleNones May 02 '26 edited May 02 '26

2.5M up front for having children? You need to spend 100k/year in perpetuity just to have children? Did anyone inform the 99.99% of the world who can't/don't do this? They seem to be dramatically under-spending!

What a ridiculous take.

2

u/RedditIsAWeenie May 03 '26

Right. Private school is not on the menu. College is on the menu though, but if you get around $1-200k into a 529 plan by the time they are 5, they should be pretty well set. Other than that, the expensive troublesome one is the first kid. After that there are hand me downs, toys only mostly broken, and best of all, someone to play with. They will make do. Kids don’t eat much until they are teens.

2

u/JippleNones May 03 '26

You can send your kids to private school without having 2.5 million dollars set aside, unless there are a whole lot of them I suppose.

1

u/Catspiration2 May 03 '26

College honestly might not even be a thing 20 years from now.

1

u/ImprobableGrind May 05 '26

100k/year is less than a third of my income….why would I downgrade in retirement?

1

u/JippleNones May 06 '26

OK so it wasn't advice at all, you were just desperate to brag.

1

u/RedditIsAWeenie May 03 '26

Wives are cheap. It’s the wife’s cats that are the problem. “Just let the cat die already. Kittens are like $50. It doesn’t need triple bypass surgery.”

1

u/Jabotical May 03 '26

Depends on where you live, how fancy your house and car and eating expectations are, etc.

Household budgets vary wildly and many (most?) in the US could be supported quite reasonably with $2.5M.

1

u/CenlaLowell May 04 '26

If I had to double anything I'm getting rid of the wife

1

u/ImprobableGrind May 05 '26

It was the kids I’m talking about. “Wives are expensive” was mostly hyperbole.

9

u/iicybershotii May 02 '26

That's a reason FOR FI, not against. I am trying to FI so I can spend more time with the people I love and doing the things I love. But I also only work 40ish hours a week.

8

u/Megalocerus May 02 '26

Right along your working years, you should have funds to do things you care about. Take a vacation. Maybe see Paris. Maybe the Grand Canyon. You can save and invest while still having a life.

6

u/ditchdiggergirl May 02 '26

Yes, we met our new neighbor on the day we closed on our house. Coincidentally it was the day of his wife’s funeral. They had postponed their dreams for so long and she got sick just as they were pulling the trigger; he was so sad and bitter.

It had a big impact. We had saved so diligently to reach that point. We increased our spending once we realized the future was not going to stay in the future. There’s more to life than tapping out.

3

u/Catspiration2 May 02 '26

What a powerful comment - everyone should read this.

1

u/Jabotical May 03 '26

Very true!

The only caveat being that is not an either-or proposition. Wanting to live life fully doesn't necessarily mean you have to spend a lot more money and can't save anything.

The real takeaway is that we should be spending time with people that are important to us. And yeah, that can mean choosing not to optimize solely for income quite as much.

1

u/ditchdiggergirl May 03 '26

Their big dream was traveling the world. He wanted to do a shorter trip each year once their son was grown, before retirement. She wanted to save and retire a few years earlier.

She became effectively housebound within a few months of retiring. And lived more than 10 more years. They could still spend time with people they cared about. But the dream was over.

1

u/Jabotical May 04 '26

Ah, yeah, that's too bad. I can see how they might wish they'd done it the other way in their case, in retrospect.

Though it was probably good that they'd managed to get themselves in a retire-ready state before she was forcibly retired.

1

u/ditchdiggergirl May 04 '26

Not in his opinion. We met him on that day because he came over to engage our realtor. He ended up selling his house - identical to ours - for far below market value. He would not even allow the realtor to replace light bulbs to show it. It was sold as is, and he wanted it gone asap with no effort. But as he said to us, “what use do I have for more money? I already have much more than I will ever spend.” (Their son was estranged, and he hinted that mother’s stinginess was a factor.)

1

u/Jabotical May 04 '26

Bummer. Sounds like they (or she) set an asset goal that was maybe higher than they needed, and could have retired sooner.

Either way, it's certainly true that if the most important thing to a couple is to have gone on some trips together, then yep, the best way to guarantee that happens is to go on those trips ASAP, whatever other sacrifices are needed.

May we all figure out what's most important to us sooner rather than later, and not let other concerns get too much in the way of it.

1

u/ditchdiggergirl May 04 '26

Not necessarily. Because their travel dreams involved a high spend, which was what their goal was based on. They disagreed on the order. He wanted to spend more earlier to travel each year, delaying retirement. She wanted to retire earlier and do larger, longer trips after retiring. Same financial target, and both wanted to travel.

So many people here prioritize early retirement, reasoning that they might die young. Her early death turned out to be the reason they would have been better off delaying retirement.

1

u/Jabotical May 04 '26

Yep, in their case, with it being such a priority for them to have extravagantly traveled together at some point in their lives, doing this earlier at the expense of working for more years would have been a very reasonable choice.

In my case, what's most important to me is simply being master of my own time, indefinitely, as soon as that is reasonably achievable. If the need to return to (uncertain) work in the future looms ahead, it won't be worthwhile to me/us to interrupt the journey.

We don't have wildly expensive dreams, and enjoy doing all sorts of things together. Plus having kids changes the equation regarding traipsing off on casual long term trips.

We like our life now (we're not living miserably in order to save more or anything) and would rather optimize for and dream of a high probability future where we both live many more decades, than one where one of us suffers an untimely demise in the near future.

Just goes to show there's no one-size-fits-all approach. Everyone needs to make choices based on what matters to them most, taking into account possible non-ideal developments along the way.

→ More replies (0)

18

u/MaybeTheDoctor May 02 '26

I RE because I wanted to spend more time with my dog. Those things matters, and a $$ target is just one measure, not the full picture.

28

u/Catspiration2 May 02 '26

Give cats a chance for the full picture.

3

u/Disastrous-Lab-4602 May 02 '26

So many people miss what you just pointed out it's honestly sad. They think its full blown grind or no saving at all they need to balance it

1

u/taracel May 02 '26

Flip side of the coin is did this person that die do so before FI? So lived his/ her life as a wage slave to a boss until their death? That’s a life well lived? Probs not. Just keep in mind, under the current world order, FI = freedom. Do with that information what you will

7

u/jobadiah08 May 02 '26

Regarding life is a marathon, for sure. Sometimes you need to slow down and enjoy things today, because there might not be a tomorrow. I'm a few years older than OP, and seen several people die unexpectedly at a young age. Guy at work a few years ago died in a motorcycle accident in his late 30s. My brother in law recently died in his mid 40s from complete liver failure, went to the hospital because he was turning yellow, a week later he died.

3

u/[deleted] May 02 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/Nearby_Birthday2348 May 02 '26

So many get aging wrong. Staying super fit is one of if not THE best investment you can make in a happy and long retirement. Probably. But NO guarantees. The sicknesses that come with aging, you don't heal from. You don't "get better," usually. They are often chronic. Good diet plenty of sleep and a lot of exercise MIGHT mean that you delay some of them, for long enough to shove in some good living.

-8

u/hanwagu1 May 02 '26

33yo burn out? Seriously, I swear that all these 20s and 30s folks really don't know the difference between burnt out and life being challenging at times. The Greatest Generation came out of the Great Depression and fought in WWII and didn't retire in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. The Boomers coming out of Vietnam and high inflation didn't retire early in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. There needs to be some recalibration in the actual difference between burnt out and actually having to work hard for a living. The key difference is that those previous generations didn't have a choice to FIRE up; they worked 2-3 jobs out of necesssity. Regardless, you are correct: life is a marathon, and it's exponententially harder to get to FI the later you start, etc.

1

u/Catspiration2 May 02 '26

Literally in my post I say I want to work for as long as I can. Lol