A couple of years after leaving the workforce, an aggressive headhunter was trying to recruit me for a California based tech company.
Recruiter: “How much salary would you need to take on a role like this?”
Me: About $500k
Recruiter: “We were thinking more around $250k…”
Me: Oh, you were just looking for somebody part-time then…?
Obviously, I stopped receiving recruiting emails.
But, having the bizarre way of thinking about the world that I do, I invested a little time to calculate just how much income I really would need to fund our lifestyle via more traditional means.
What if somebody gave you an interest-free loan for a year? Say, the government, maybe. And then instead of requiring you pay back all of the loan, they only wanted half?
This situation actually exists within the Affordable Care Act / Obamacare in some circumstances. Throughout the year, Premium Tax Credits are paid directly to the insurance company based on our estimated income for the year. Then come tax filing season, we reconcile any differences – if our actual income is greater than estimated, we repay the excess on the advanced credits.
For the self-employed, seasonal workers, and retirees living off variable investment income, estimating income accurately can be next to impossible. As such, to provide some protection against unexpectedly large tax bills, as long as total income is less than 400% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) the amount of repayment is limited.
One anonymous GCC reader made an astute observation in a recent email:
“In your analysis of the 4% rule and the worst times to retire (1929, 1965, 2000) you repeatedly made a suggestion that early retirees spend less in the early years of retirement to minimize sequence of returns risk.
You also shared how you have been increasing spending every year as the stock market has grown. If the market crashed 50% tomorrow, what would you do? If you were to follow your own advice, wouldn’t you need to roll back all of your spending increases?”
One of the things I dislike about the 4% Rule / Trinity Study is the open-ended definition of success – if you have more than $0 after 30 years, great success!
Having $1 and $1 million both meet that criteria, but will have obviously different outcomes over the next 30 years.
Planning for a 60+ year retirement requires looking a little closer.
Your typical Trinity Study / 4% Rule style portfolio longevity analysis requires a full 30+ year period to determine retirement success. If the portfolio value was still positive after 30 years of spending, you passed. If you ran out of money, you didn’t…amongst other things.
Since we don’t have a full 30 years’ worth of data for people retiring in 2000 or 2008, the most recent scary dates, these periods are left out of the pass/fail statistics of the most common retirement calculators. [The most recent possible start date is 1989 (1989 + 30 = 2019)]
This dearth of data is exacerbated for early retirees since we expect our retirements to be much longer than 30 years. [The most recent start date for a 50 year period is 1969 (1969 + 50 = 2019.)]
But let’s see how these retirees would be doing mid-stream, and compare to other difficult times in history.
