Would you retire at 30 and live frugally?
-
If you had the money to retire at 30, your savings would be invested and on an average year your earnings would cover your expenses. You would have health insurance, so no worries there. The only catch is that you would have to keep your expenses at 65% of what you spend right now. Would you take it, or would you rather work a few more years for a better lifestyle and financial security?
I'm not retiring until my house is paid off and I can include at least 1 large vacation a year into my budget. Those two things will probably happen simultaneously, but I've never heard of anyone paying off their mortgage by 30 in my life.
-
No, you didn't mention Oligarchs or Corporations because that would undercut your "moral" argument, so I did.
The entire world has been sold the concept that the only "moral" lifestyle is to sacrifice your life to earn barely subsistence wages in the pursuit of obscene wealth for a few wealthy families. That is the 21st century human paradigm across the entire planet, regardless of political ideology. EVERY society is Capitalist in practice, and those that deny it it, are lying. There is not a single nation on this planet who is not dedicated to funnelling vast amounts of money to a few wealthy people in their country.
In addition, if we continue on this path, the number of wealthy families benefiting by this system will shrink, until there is only a single family, or perhaps person, who controls the entire planet's wealth. It may take a few generations, but it is inevitable.
And yes, ALL corporations are sociopathic, by definition. There are NO exceptions.
The entire world has been sold the concept that the only "moral" lifestyle is to sacrifice your life to earn
EVERY society is Capitalist in practice, and those that deny it it, are lying.
I wonder why...
And yes, ALL corporations are sociopathic, by definition. There are NO exceptions.
-
If you had the money to retire at 30, your savings would be invested and on an average year your earnings would cover your expenses. You would have health insurance, so no worries there. The only catch is that you would have to keep your expenses at 65% of what you spend right now. Would you take it, or would you rather work a few more years for a better lifestyle and financial security?
i tried and its boring as fuck so i want to work again instead
-
If you had the money to retire at 30, your savings would be invested and on an average year your earnings would cover your expenses. You would have health insurance, so no worries there. The only catch is that you would have to keep your expenses at 65% of what you spend right now. Would you take it, or would you rather work a few more years for a better lifestyle and financial security?
I would, but it's not possible since I don't have millions of dollars in my savings account.
-
The entire world has been sold the concept that the only "moral" lifestyle is to sacrifice your life to earn
EVERY society is Capitalist in practice, and those that deny it it, are lying.
I wonder why...
And yes, ALL corporations are sociopathic, by definition. There are NO exceptions.
We got a real bootlicker vibe going on here.
-
We got a real bootlicker vibe going on here.
Corporations aren't inherently bad. It's the money that corrupts. The love of money is a root of all kinds of evils.
You can run a corporation that provides a good service to society, pay a fair wage and provide good employment locally. However, to make a large corporation, a lot of the time requires the said corruption, you need to fight and cheat your way to the top, cutting corners as well as employee benefits.
-
Corporations aren't inherently bad. It's the money that corrupts. The love of money is a root of all kinds of evils.
You can run a corporation that provides a good service to society, pay a fair wage and provide good employment locally. However, to make a large corporation, a lot of the time requires the said corruption, you need to fight and cheat your way to the top, cutting corners as well as employee benefits.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Let me tell you a story about how corporations used to be time limited, for the public good, and held their members directly financially responsible.
The reasons? At the time people recognized corporations as a concentration of capital and it needed severe limitations to prevent corruption.
After a century of lobbying and a whole new legal field around corporate law sprouted up we ended up with corporations that are no longer time limited, that do not have to be for the public good, and their members are no longer held accountable.
Objectively corporations are horrible and have caused irreparable harm to the environment and society. They have become the dominant form of our culture bending governments to their will and killing off hundreds of millions of people for profit.
As I said, you are trying real hard to be a bootlicker.
-
Let me tell you a story about how corporations used to be time limited, for the public good, and held their members directly financially responsible.
The reasons? At the time people recognized corporations as a concentration of capital and it needed severe limitations to prevent corruption.
After a century of lobbying and a whole new legal field around corporate law sprouted up we ended up with corporations that are no longer time limited, that do not have to be for the public good, and their members are no longer held accountable.
Objectively corporations are horrible and have caused irreparable harm to the environment and society. They have become the dominant form of our culture bending governments to their will and killing off hundreds of millions of people for profit.
As I said, you are trying real hard to be a bootlicker.
Okay. This is irrelevant to what I was saying but go off.
-
If you had the money to retire at 30, your savings would be invested and on an average year your earnings would cover your expenses. You would have health insurance, so no worries there. The only catch is that you would have to keep your expenses at 65% of what you spend right now. Would you take it, or would you rather work a few more years for a better lifestyle and financial security?
I would have retired at 16 if I could.
-
If you had the money to retire at 30, your savings would be invested and on an average year your earnings would cover your expenses. You would have health insurance, so no worries there. The only catch is that you would have to keep your expenses at 65% of what you spend right now. Would you take it, or would you rather work a few more years for a better lifestyle and financial security?
I am older than 30, but am literally facing this decision right now. I have chosen the latter: work for more years for better lifestyle and financial security. My job isn't too bad, so I don't have a huge push to walk away.
I'm planning to scale back my career in a few years, but most likely part-time or seasonal work rather than full-on retirement.
-
Easy. Currently I am probably saving close to 35% of my income as I don't really know what to spend it on and already live pretty frugally, but I have to work still. So just stop the spending on savings and live like I do now.
Earning £26k so nothing special but a bit over minimum wage. Can save at least £500 a month without trying after paying my half of the bills and mortgage. Would probably save more if I didn't buy so many cat toys.
Easy. Currently I am probably saving close to 35% of my income
They did specify 65% of what you currently spend, not what you currently earn. I save a high percentage of my income too, mostly because I'm largely anti-consumption. Cutting my current spending down by 35% would be a bit leaner than I'd like to live.
-
Living frugally isn't the problem, at least not directly.
The boredom is what would get most people.
Most people need to engage themselves in something satisfying and challenging.
The sky is the limit on hobby spending, but we've also never had more access to inexpensive hobbies and entertainment options.
-
The sky is the limit on hobby spending, but we've also never had more access to inexpensive hobbies and entertainment options.
Hobbies won't nourish your soul for the next 40 years.
-
If you had the money to retire at 30, your savings would be invested and on an average year your earnings would cover your expenses. You would have health insurance, so no worries there. The only catch is that you would have to keep your expenses at 65% of what you spend right now. Would you take it, or would you rather work a few more years for a better lifestyle and financial security?
I don't think I could keep my expenses at 65% of what I spend now because I already spend as little as I can since I'm trying to save up for an early retirement. I'd love to retire as early as possible.
-
Okay. This is irrelevant to what I was saying but go off.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I am not sure we are seeing eye to eye on this and that is okay. I wish you good luck on your learning journey.
-
Hobbies won't nourish your soul for the next 40 years.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Sure. People need socialization and relationships with other people. Similar to hobbies, that can be as expensive or as inexpensive as one wants. Socialization often even combines with hobbies and recreational activities.
What else do people need? I'd say that purpose. That's why many people choose to volunteer.
-
If you had the money to retire at 30, your savings would be invested and on an average year your earnings would cover your expenses. You would have health insurance, so no worries there. The only catch is that you would have to keep your expenses at 65% of what you spend right now. Would you take it, or would you rather work a few more years for a better lifestyle and financial security?
wrote last edited by [email protected]If living on 65% of my current income was possible.
If I had that little I would be homeless, not retired.
But by 30 most people have already contributed way more than they will ever consume by existing peacefully.
-
If you had the money to retire at 30, your savings would be invested and on an average year your earnings would cover your expenses. You would have health insurance, so no worries there. The only catch is that you would have to keep your expenses at 65% of what you spend right now. Would you take it, or would you rather work a few more years for a better lifestyle and financial security?
I'd do it, but retiring early = doing my hobbies instead. Long days writing books, making art, volunteering, and pet sitting. Retiring would just mean working the jobs I want instead of the ones I have to.
-
If you had the money to retire at 30, your savings would be invested and on an average year your earnings would cover your expenses. You would have health insurance, so no worries there. The only catch is that you would have to keep your expenses at 65% of what you spend right now. Would you take it, or would you rather work a few more years for a better lifestyle and financial security?
I wasn't even out of school yet.
-
If you had the money to retire at 30, your savings would be invested and on an average year your earnings would cover your expenses. You would have health insurance, so no worries there. The only catch is that you would have to keep your expenses at 65% of what you spend right now. Would you take it, or would you rather work a few more years for a better lifestyle and financial security?
Fuck yeah. Nothing's more tiresome and stultifying than the whole work routine. That's time you're never getting back.
The whole idea of retiring at 65 after you've been squeezed like an orange that's been sent twice into the press, just to "enjoy" your failing body, failing senses, failing brain in your twilight years is absurd.
If you can retire at 30, hell yes do it.
