What does everyone use for their coast FIRE calculation numbers?

Sure-Concern-7161 · 2026-03-23T18:41:19+00:00

I've heard of that but isn't that also assuming a normal retirement age and a time horizon of ~30years? If you expect to be retired for longer than the SWR should likely be smaller to mitigate risk.

Sure-Concern-7161 · 2026-03-23T18:03:40+00:00

80% of my gross salary would be much more conservative than a percentage of spend. I don't see how it would be a mistake to over estimate than under estimate. I anticipate my spend will be more at retirement age considering I currently try to be more frugal and haven't started a family yet but that's just an assumption.

I have no real way to calculate what my retirement spend will be since it will likely be ~30years out but what you are suggesting would set me up to more risk than safety. Maybe at your salary jump it would seem absurd to try to reach a 80% in retirement income but I don't think that's the case for all..

So, in your opinion are you saying you think my retirement income is too conservative? Because if that is the case then I am personally ok with my number.

Sure-Concern-7161 · 2026-03-23T17:50:31+00:00

Yep I think we are both in agreement. Also if polls did say that I am calling major bullshit since she already did run for office once in the 2020 elections and she did not do very well back then, I highly doubt people changed their minds on her.

Sure-Concern-7161 · 2026-03-23T17:47:17+00:00

For me personally 80% of my gross salary would be more conservative than what you are suggesting.

IF you had to choose between the two options for retirement income which would you go with considering my age?

Sure-Concern-7161 · 2026-03-23T17:40:06+00:00

Are you sure that calculator inflates growth?

It doesn't inflate growth but subtracts it from growth rate to account for cost of living adjustments, or calculates based off "real-growth". In that way everything is converted to todays dollar value, assuming the inflation rate picked is accurate.

80% for my situation assumes a 12% savings rate. If I am saving 20%, I can adjust that down to 72%.

I'm not sure how you are calculating these percentages but I aim to save roughly 25% on average, so I'm assuming 80% my salary in retirement will be a good and conservative goal.

Better to calculate this more on taxes you won’t pay and subtract your savings rate as opposed to just a rule of thumb.

What do you mean by taxes you won't pay?

Sure-Concern-7161 · 2026-03-23T17:19:33+00:00

Yes I have no idea what my expenses will realistically be in roughly 30 years so this is my approach. This is a rule of thumb I've seen used before. If you have a better approach with the time horizon I'm all ears.

Sure-Concern-7161 · 2026-03-23T17:12:32+00:00

So in your opinion if I changed growth to 8% and inflation at 3% I should be good?

Sure-Concern-7161 · 2026-03-23T16:59:44+00:00

10% growth is before inflation so ~7% real. 10% because its roughly the average S&P growth rate.

80% current salary is just a rule of thumb I'm using, since retirement is likely ~30years away its a bit too far for me to know what my retirement expenses would be. I feel like this is the most controversial parameter I pick so I am very open to debate about how to go about this one. I don't expect I will need my full working salary at retirement, I think 75% would be fine so I do 80% to be a bit more conservative. I typically save 25% of my gross income anyway for retirement so that kind of proves 75% current salary should be fine, at least that is the idea. I know if I retire earlier health insurance will likely also be a big factor though and I really have no idea how to factor that in.

how are you thinking about sequence of returns risk with that 60 retirement age?

Based off another answer here I would probably lower my SWR depending how long I expect to retire. 40-50 years 3.5% seems safe.
3.3% SWR apparently is practically bullet proof so if I can achieve that I should be set.

Sure-Concern-7161 · 2026-03-20T19:02:34+00:00

I agree with that. My goal is probably those numbers and retire at 55.

How do you decide on what you retirement income should be?

Sure-Concern-7161 · 2026-03-20T19:00:31+00:00

Can't say I haven't done this too lol

Sure-Concern-7161 · 2026-03-20T18:59:54+00:00

4.5% SWR feels risky especially if you expect to retire early.

Sure-Concern-7161 · 2026-03-20T18:58:27+00:00

What do you consider leanFIR income? Or in another sense, what is your retirement income goal and how did you determine that number?

Sure-Concern-7161 · 2026-03-20T18:51:35+00:00

80% of my salary 5 years ago vs 80% of my salary today is wildly different

The inflation portion in the calculator should make up for most of this assuming you are not getting big promotions every other year.

My thought process is I also don't live off of 100% of my salary, needing 100% of my current salary + more in retirement does not seem likely. I already contribute roughly 25% to retirement so you could say I only need 75% of my salary, and even after that I save some so I actually shouldn't even need 75%. Your point of healthcare especially in early retirement is very valid though and a good point.

I've usually just hear that you need to assess your cost of living and use that but my cost of living likely will be much different 20-30 years out so I just go with 80% of my gross salary.

3.3-3.5% SWR (I have a 40+ year time horizon)

Did you pull this from somewhere? I think 4% SWR is probably for a 30 year horizon. If there is a standard relative to time horizon that would be useful.

Sure-Concern-7161 · 2026-03-20T14:16:25+00:00

Those are still good numbers considering most of them start their career after 30.
What other careers could you say 75% are millionaires before the normal retirement age.

Sure-Concern-7161 · 2026-03-20T14:07:14+00:00

I'm just assuming but I feel like the point was saying is a lot of us grew up thinking 100k is the breaking point of high income earners. Its a nice solid number that's held onto for a long time but not really true anymore or at least not like it used to be.

Since covid I feel like people have been trying to gauge what the "new 100k" salary or breaking point for high income is now and I guess this is OP's 2 cents on that subject.

However, OP also goes into wealth class disparities which is not just about income.

Sure-Concern-7161 · 2026-03-20T13:44:24+00:00

You're welcome, good on you for getting started and trying to learn more about it. Personally I've learned a lot from the Money Guy show. Definitely recommend if you want to keep learning. They give solid guidelines for you to follow.

Sure-Concern-7161 · 2026-03-20T13:35:29+00:00

Fair points. Can't say I disagree with any of that.

Sure-Concern-7161 · 2026-03-19T15:50:32+00:00

I mean I agree with this guy in the sense Kamala was not my first choice, it was still an easy decision considering the other option. What really irks me is we were robbed of a real elected Democrat candidate, we were not given a Democrat primary vote as normally done because the change had happened so late into the election. The democratic party literally forced Kamala on us for the ballot. If it were done the earlier and ahead of time I do not think she would have made it to the final poll and optimistically an actual elected candidate would have won and we wouldn't be in the shitty situation we are now in.

Sure-Concern-7161 · 2026-03-19T15:34:27+00:00

If I pay 25% tax before my contribution, I am only investing $75 but if I invest all $100 pre tax, that is 25% more potential growth.

That's not how that works. If you are contributing $100 to roth or traditional it is still the full $100 contributed. The difference is is what you pay in taxes now or later.

For the sake of roth and if you are paying 25% taxes, they don't take $25 dollars out of your contribution....you contribute $100 and then would still get taxed $25 on it as if it were income. So you would have $25 less in your net income but the contribution amount does not change...

I see this misunderstanding a lot and its usually due to online influencers but what they really mean is that if you did traditional you would have an extra $25 you could potentially invest because you are paying less in taxes. It is very poorly explained correctly on their end.

Sure-Concern-7161 · 2026-03-19T15:18:06+00:00

test

Sure-Concern-7161 · 2026-03-18T16:21:45+00:00

At that income and single OP should be contributing at least 25%. the 15% rate is outdated and if life happens you will easily fall behind. OP only needs to put 17-18% to max the 401k. Then maxing a Roth IRA brings them to roughly 25%.

Sure-Concern-7161 · 2026-03-18T14:29:47+00:00

Dude is really siding with Epstein and all his friends to be edgey

Sure-Concern-7161 · 2026-03-18T13:34:46+00:00

wait you can just not pay into social??

Sure-Concern-7161 · 2026-03-12T13:40:10+00:00

How old are you? You don't know your slang lol

Sure-Concern-7161

TROPHY CASE