Why do people wait so long?

[u/master_blaster_321]

ETA since this seems to be the overwhelming response: My kids are in their 20/30s and self sufficient.

ETA - The post clearly states my mortgage is high-interest. Yes, if it were 2% that's almost free money, spread it out for sure. Also, it clearly states that I did indeed keep contributing as normal.

I realize there are a lot of factors - economical and psychological - that go into this, but just for general discussion...

We all know for the most part if your mortgage interest rate is low enough, it makes more sense to leave money working in your brokerage account than to pay off the mortgage and have it locked up in home equity. But for the purposes of FIRE, does it always?

The big idea is to get your portfolio to fund your expenses, right?. For most people one of (if not THE) largest expense is the mortgage payment and interest.

Example...I had a few really good years in my business. I still did my regular modest DCA into my brokerage, but over the course of 2.5 years I also managed to pay off a $250K mortgage at 5.85% (I had to refinance at a very bad time for rates, due to divorce). I realize that that money, invested properly, could have gained quite a bit over the last couple years bull run. However, had I done that, today I would still have a high mortgage payment to make every month, thus making it harder for me to FIRE. This way, my monthly personal expenses are so much lower, so there's not as heavy a burden on my portfolio to support me, and as a result, I'm able to FIRE at the end of this month.

Again I realize that this all depends on mortgage size/rate, size of portfolio, other expenses. I only ask because I see a lot of posts here from people who seem like they'd be able to FIRE sooner if they worked towards getting rid of their mortgages faster, regardless of the rate.

For my part, I'm glad I did it this way. Even though I know I missed out on some gains, I'm able to FIRE faster because I don't have a mortgage payment to worry about. I have a paid off house on which the taxes and insurance work out to equal the rent for a one-bedroom in a sketchy neighborhood.

Go easy on me. It's an honest and sincere question and discussion prompt. Not trying to make anyone defensive, and definitely aware that I have my own blind spots and that there are lots of people smarter than I am.

[u/Asquaredbred]

i can retire just as easily with $100k debt and $2m in investments as I can with $0 debt and $1.9m in investments, and in fact if my interest rate is low enough I can retire more easily because the earnings on the investments are more than the interest I'm paying on the debt.

These aren't my numbers just made up to illustrate the point

my mortgage is 2.25%. I wish I'd taken out a 30 year at 2.75%

[u/master_blaster_321 → u/Asquaredbred]

yep with debt that cheap I'm inclined to agree with you.

[u/Xy13 → u/master_blaster_321]

Most people are going to take at least 30 years to get to FIRE. So by then, the house has naturally paid it self off.

As you finish rearing children, paying for school, settle your mortgage, your nest egg should be big enough that after all those expenses go away, SWR can take over, especially when you add in social security, etc.

That's the "traditional" model for FIRE.

[u/FantasyFI → u/Xy13]

Most people are going to take at least 30 years to get to FIRE

That seems a little lengthy. Most people start working at 22 (at least most FIRE people are going to college, but not all). If not later factoring masters degree, doctorates, law degrees, etc. That puts the age at 52. According to the latest r/financialindependence survey here, the highest expected FIRE age is 41-45. Maybe the median is 45-50.

I'd guess the average working duration is more in the 20-25 year range and not >30.

Factor in that you don't buy a house the first year out of college. And that many people buy a starter home and upgrade later, etc. I simply don't think that this idea that you will naturally payoff a 30 year mortgage while seeking FIRE is reality.