DMRick
I prefer to be tagless!
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2001
- Messages
- 12,819
The thing is, sorry, but he has a "kinder, gentler" way of putting it. And you're right, I don't think most people need to have 70-80% of their income after they retire. I wonder if the biggest difference is you don't have any of those expensive kids living with you. As I've said before, once they got out on their own, we felt like we had gotten a hugh raise, and our discretionary income blossomed. With kids in private school, college and those darn weddings, not to mention what their sneakers cost (more than a night in Disney) we got a good idea of what it was like living on a much lower percent of your income.
Hey, great for those who are able to save the large amount you do..but some would rather spend a lot of that money now, after seeing friends and relatives not able to use the money later because of illness or death. And it doesn't make them bad, or stupid, or foolish..or even just plain wrong.
Hey, great for those who are able to save the large amount you do..but some would rather spend a lot of that money now, after seeing friends and relatives not able to use the money later because of illness or death. And it doesn't make them bad, or stupid, or foolish..or even just plain wrong.
dvcgirl said:In fact I believe DisneySteve mentioned he's aiming for 3 million, and since he's likely to stick to the "4%" rule, we can determine that he's looking to pull about 120K per year when he retires. I would even venture to say that like us, DisneySteve would say that the 3 million would never in a million years make him feel wealthy....not in least. Because that's going to be his income for many, many years in the style to which he has become accustomed to living.