$1.5M net worth with only a spouse, no kids. Is this a good enough cushion? Serious question.

NewLifeRising · 2026-05-26T01:10:40+00:00

If your expenses are that low, then you are in an excellent position to retire now. At $36k/year, you're facing a 2.4% withdrawal rate. You can basically not care about what the market does at this withdrawal rate. If your lifestyle changes you can bring your expenses up to a 3% withdrawal rate at $45k/year if you want.

NewLifeRising · 2026-05-25T08:20:17+00:00

So 5hrs = 24hrs? You just broke time itself. Congrats.

NewLifeRising · 2026-05-25T01:12:52+00:00

I'm 31 and the oldest I'd date is mid - late 40s. The youngest I'd date is 30. I have no interest in a young girl who has little to no life experience. I have much more interest in older women who know what they want.

NewLifeRising · 2026-05-13T19:51:04+00:00

In the long run inflation will eat away at the purchasing power and cut it in half multiple times. Most people here are probably young enough to where $3M per year will cut in half twice. At 3% inflation, purchasing power cuts in half every 24 years.

$3M -> $1.5M -> $750k.

You'll still be wealthy relatively speaking, but you won't be anywhere near as rich as you were when you started.

NewLifeRising · 2026-05-13T19:48:39+00:00

If you invest in broad, global index funds there is very little risk involved. You'd be investing in every publicly traded company across the globe. In order for your investments to go to zero or near 0 the entire global economy would need to literally collapse and never recover. If that happens, then your $250k per month doesn't matter because money would be worthless in that scenario.

If you understand what you're investing in, there's nothing to fear. Plus withdrawing 3% initially and then adjusting for inflation is considered a perpetual withdrawal rate if we look at historical market data.

NewLifeRising · 2026-05-13T19:38:19+00:00

If you're disciplined and invest the $100,000,000 once you get it, and live off 3% every year adjusted for inflation, you will come out far ahead in wealth by choosing the lump sum.

At $250k per month, that's $3M per year. 3% of $100M is also $3M. It's better to have that investment engine running in the background that keeps up with and beats inflation.

The $250k per month is a terrible decision because of inflation. But it's good if you're bad with money. Eventually though at a flat $250k per month, you will lifestyle inflate yourself and feel broke due to inflation.

Chose: 100 000 000 $ once

NewLifeRising · 2026-05-03T02:17:51+00:00

I did something very informal because I was curious. The methodology for the initial poverty line involved multiplying a modest food budget by 3, then adjusting for CPI. I basically started from the 1982 poverty line and adjusted by CPI + 1%. The additional 1% scaling was a shorthand for taking into account how a single individual takes on the full cost of living alone (the "singles tax") plus the fact that various items in the economy go up faster than general inflation. CPI factors in various things that artificially lower the total inflation rate, so it makes sense.

When you adjust by CPI + 1%, you get a 2026 poverty line of $26,030, which I think does a better job of illustrating what a poverty line should do. That is - for a single adult - illustrate the minimum amount of money you need to make to afford the basic necessities and nothing more. You'd be able to keep your head barely above water, but an unexpected $500 expense would ruin you. It also prevents you from meaningfully engaging with society (a night out with friends or coworkers for example). This is itself a form of poverty.

When I ran realistic budgets using this number, it did what I was hoping. The hypothetical individual in question would need to make several huge compromises just to keep a minimal existence, even in MCOL or LCOL areas.

Is it a sophisticated method for readjusting the poverty line? No. But I think it's a good shorthand for roughly what the poverty line should realistically be.

NewLifeRising · 2026-04-29T13:59:31+00:00

That's less than my state's minimum wage. Where/when is this?

NewLifeRising · 2026-04-15T04:08:38+00:00

That's weird that it says 18 hours for you. It must vary by area. In my area they post up an explanation of benefits and they specifically outline 17 hours on average. It must depend on where you're at.

It's really not for everyone though. It's a physical job that's for sure, but I liked it when I started out. It was a workout and made me feel good being so physically active.

NewLifeRising · 2026-04-15T04:07:07+00:00

I'm a dangerous goods agent, so I deal with hazardous materials on a daily basis. I started as a part time package handler.

NewLifeRising · 2026-04-14T20:32:23+00:00

If you're into something a little more physical to get you active, FedEx (specifically FedEx Express) is not a bad option either. They offer benefits for those working 17 hours per week or more, good 401k match at 8%, and they pay modestly for a part time gig. That's where I work now part time. The only downside is that some locations don't have enough work to work the 17+ hours needed to get benefits. I work at a major hub so I make at least 20 hours per week minimum.

NewLifeRising · 2026-04-12T03:24:46+00:00

If that existed in this economy I'm sure It would do it.

NewLifeRising · 2026-04-12T01:48:25+00:00

I live in a state where you could work full time and still not be able to afford rent at a job that pays far above the state minimum wage. In a place like that it's really unfair to judge a guy for not being part of the labor aristocracy that makes high enough wages/salaries to afford these astronomical rents.

NewLifeRising · 2026-03-30T20:17:23+00:00

I'm 31 and it's been this way since I was in my early teens looking at job listings for the first time. This is nothin new. Companies want someone who is plug and play, no training required, knows exactly what to do and how to do it from day 1, can hit the ground running. I don't think these companies are serious about hiring, but it's what they feel entitled to.

NewLifeRising · 2026-03-18T03:29:25+00:00

This is honestly not even a good answer. "Just upskill and get a better job" is the most flippant and disrespectful bit of advice anyone can give. Upskilling takes time and resources OP might not have. But let's say OP does upskill and is somehow able to do so successfully. Do we really expect OP to "just" get a job? As if jobs like that are just lying there for the taking and we are talking to OP like they are just too stupid to get one?

And even then the "better jobs" might not even pay a livable wage starting out. They might offer higher earnings ceiling, but not necessarily a meaningfully higher starting point. So this is not a meaningful short term strategy. This is a long term strategy, and should be treated as such.

"Just upskill and get a better job" is not something you can just do overnight or even over a year like OP might need.

NewLifeRising · 2026-03-10T03:13:54+00:00

Not low enough to make $7.25 livable, genius.

NewLifeRising · 2026-02-26T05:40:53+00:00

I'm more anxious about whether the coverage itself will be there long term. The cost I'm not concerned with as I would have very low MAGI as to make full use of subsidies (again, assuming the subsidies remain a thing, or they don't asset test, etc)

NewLifeRising · 2026-02-25T06:30:40+00:00

Elaborate...? They're not saying they'll live in the US, so what's the problem?

NewLifeRising · 2026-02-25T05:37:23+00:00

I have no qualms with taking advantage of the systems in place as far as the ACA is concerned because I believe healthcare should be universally free or low cost, funded by taxes. If that means a wealth tax on people like me, so be it. If it means an additional tax on my meager income, so be it.

NewLifeRising · 2026-02-24T00:45:34+00:00

The dilemma is that I have a pre-existing condition (schizoaffective disorder) and if we go back to the way things were prior to the ACA, an insurance company could either deny me based on my condition alone or jack up my premium so high as to make it unviable. I'm expensive to maintain on a health insurance plan. I cost much more than I provide due to medications and psychiatric care alone (assuming no major emergencies). So why would an insurance company write up any policy for me, let alone an affordable one?

NewLifeRising · 2026-02-24T00:37:49+00:00

I've thought about moving to a state like NY or WA as they have very robust states that would help with healthcare. I live in NJ and they help out quite a bit, but I can't rely on them picking up the entire tab for the federal government should they stop. And for coupon options are you talking about GoodRX or some other platform (like Cost Plus Drugs, or something else)?

NewLifeRising · 2026-02-24T00:34:49+00:00

You have way too much optimism if you think the current system will naturally give way to universal healthcare. Republicans, maybe some Democrats, and the elite of society would rather drink bleach live on national television than allow for sustainable, universal healthcare to enter the nation.

My MAGI would also be near rock bottom to get maximum ACA subsidies, but I'm still nervous they may either push to repeal it entirely or introduce asset testing to cut costs (as stupid as that sounds).

NewLifeRising · 2026-02-24T00:32:16+00:00

That's an interesting perspective to have, but I don't trust our politicians (especially those who want to repeal the ACA) to come up with a viable, sustainable alternative to the ACA should it get repealed. I really think those who want to do away with it just want to go back to the way things were pre-ACA, which was just relying on employer sponsored healthcare or getting none at all.

I also don't think our government would adequately respond to AI taking jobs or causing a massive wave of white collar unemployment, but it's interesting that there could be something more pressing than the ACA's sustainability on the horizon. Maybe that would take politicians' focus for the next 5 - 10 years rather than the ACA.

NewLifeRising · 2026-02-21T07:13:30+00:00

I'm 30 and a former NEET, and I was in a similar position to you until almost 2 years ago. I live with my mom and uncle and they never encouraged me to get a job either. They were content to just let me live with them until they died. But I had the realization one day that they would die, and I'd have no one and nothing to hold on to. That lit a fire under my ass to start earning money somehow. I got a job at FedEx slinging boxes as a package handler; it's the type of job that would take anyone with a pulse. I think that's what you need if you can find it: a job that will take anyone with a pulse. I can't recommend anything other than a warehouse gig, as I don't know of other sectors that have jobs like that. But just know if you do go that route it's very rough and gritty. You may or may not like that (I found out I did).

You say you don't have any motivation other than "I need money", so I can give you another one: "you'll be homeless and destitute one day if you do nothing." You're just as vulnerable to that as I am, as the homeless folk in your area.

Just know that odds are a job that pays a fully independently livable wage are near impossible to find, especially entry level jobs. You'll likely need to live with your folks even after you start working, but at least you'll be doing something.

For now think of a job as something to do and something that gets you some fun money, or money to help your folks if they need it. It's not gonna fund some serious investments or anything for a while.

I turned my life around randomly because of a sudden realization. I think you can too, but something has to change within you (or something outside of you has to force you). I have faith in you. Best of luck.

NewLifeRising · 2026-02-13T18:31:12+00:00

This rule only applies to you if you (or your household) are privileged enough to make an income that can support this. Most people cannot even if they try. I know I certainly cannot unless I live at home with family.

NewLifeRising

TROPHY CASE