Instead of hypotheticals, am Auatralian. I (m) retired at 35 and divorced/moved at 45 and lived frugally in a mud brick cabin, off grid (solar and septic) on a dirt road in the bush, for a decade with my new (f) partner, she worked part time 2 days a week, grew lots of our own food, rode our MTBs on fire roads and trails, hiked, kayaked, swam in the river (we could cycle to) on hot days etc etc. Never thought we were missing anything, quite the opposite.

My small untouched share investments compounded hugely. As well as that, I only took 1/2 the dividends to live on, the outer half were reinvested as well,

A series of unfortunate events (aka mega bushfire) saw us buy an apartment in the city near the beach to get our heads stright just before covid lockdown, lived car free there etc , sold that 2 years ago and made a ridiculous profit, bought a place in a small rural village in the back of bumfuck for way less. No flood risk, no bushfire risk and it gets decent rainfall.

Now I have more money then I know what to do with...by that I don't mean I am a billionaire, I mean living frugally becomes a habit so my shares and income have grown and grown. I now donate 25% of my investmwnt income to charities, 25% is reinvested.and I.use the other 1/2 to live on.

My parter works 4 days a week for 6 months of the year, then has 6 months off completely. She wants her.own independent income etc

My only regret was not being brave enough about retiring earlier. I missed those years of freedom and wing get them.back. Am now 60.

If I could retire right now at 38, and kept my expenses at 100% of what they are right now, I'd still be choosing which bill can wait a week and a half past the due date to make sure we can all eat.

65% and we start drawing straws for who gets eaten this week.

65 percent of jack shit is not enough to live on my guy.

Become younger and get money? Sure.

100% I would do that but that's a bit unfair because:

• I make enough money to splurge more than I need to, namely eating out, and I would happily never eat at a restaurant again if it meant I got 40 hours of my week back for the rest of my life.
• I would spend the next 60 years of my life doing all the hobbies I want to do. I have stories I want to write, video games I want to make, furniture I want to craft, themed parties I want to throw, a TTRPG I'm working on, a card game (gods to make a card game before I croak!). Even if I did what I plan to do which is sell all of that at the lowest price I could (including giving as much of it away for free as possible) inevitably some of those things will make me a bit of money. Enough I'd hope to splurge into an international trip every now and then or keep my PC rig rather new.

I just don't expect to stop working in retirement, I just plan to work doing stuff I love instead of stuff that pays well.

So if anyone in the comments is a wealthy person or dying with no heirs feel free to send me enough money to retire. I would love to create things for people for the rest of my life and not worry about anything but if I could afford a thing I don't need and if my hobbies are worthy of other people's time/attention.

The only catch is that you would have to keep your expenses at 65% of what you spend right now.

Permanently? or like, adjusted for inflation? do I get rent control?

Because 65% of what I make now will be worth a lot less in 10 years.

I think this question varies greatly depending on your current salary, if you have dependents, and what your cost of living looks like.

You never know what the future holds. Much better to work now while you are in a good position to do so, than to be forced to work later on, when you have been out of the workforce for years.

Given the rate of inflation, and shrinkflation, I don’t think it’s economically feasible for many people to survive on 65% of their income. At least, I couldn’t. Especially not with two young boys who need clothing, a metric ton of food (and growing!), plus sports, etc. nope. I’m stuck n indentured servitude for the rest of my life.

No, I live relatively lean already. 65% would mean cutting down to rice-and-beans type diet, no Internet, no investment into hobbies, no travel.

Also, there's inflation. At 30 years old I could expect to live another 40+ years. And 65% of today's dollars is going to get less and less valuable as the years go on.

Yes.

Source: I did this.

If I could retire now I would. But living in the US is expensive and gets more expensive every year. From real estate taxes or rent, from insurance, from cost of food, from basic utilities like electric, heat, gas... Neverind if you want a hobby, or a vacation, or Any leisure activities.....

Every time I leave my house it costs me $100 no matter what I am doing.

There's no way I would have enough money to retire comfortably.

A 4% withdrawal rate is intended for a 30yr retirement when accounting for inflation, so you'd need to keep your expenses well below that, probably closer to 2%. But more importantly in my opinion this relies on the assumption of a mostly stable market, which over the course of a ~70yr retirement is riskier a bet to take compared to a ~30yr retirement.

Also what would you do on such a tight budget for ~70yr that you wouldn't get bored of?

65% of what I spend right now? do we assume my mortgage is paid off and I get 65% of that money, too?

I'm currently spending less than I would like to so that I can save for retirement. do I just get 65% of all that money that I would otherwise be spending, in this scenario?

if yes to the above questions, easily. if not, no

I don't think most people could live on 65% of their current income. Many people are poor and can't handle a surprise $500 expense.

I could live happily on the median income of my area (NYC) - $113,400. Even if I got a more expensive apartment, I could make that work.

I do wonder about people's budgets sometimes. One of my friends has crushing medical, student, and credit card debt so they're always struggling. But another friend was like "I can't leave my job at [evil megacorp]! I need the money!" But when pressed slightly, their "needs" included broadway plays, fine dining, and every hot new game on steam (that they don't even play). Most people are probably between those two extremes.

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.

If I was able to retire early at any age, I'd probably do some odd jobs or perhaps I'd volunteer for stuff. I need something to do.

I’d find a comfy job that’s easy to do even if it doesn’t pay the best.

65% of what I spend rn would be unlivable

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.

I'd work a bit more. Seeing my parents struggle with money made me never want to do that. So I'll do what I can early on to reduce the chances of that ever happening.

No, because I'm close to 30, literally had a more favorable version of this option (enough money, relocate to a low cost-of-living country and doesn't even have to be frugal) presented to me, and I chose not to. And I already live frugal enough that 65% would be really rough... I'm okay with a lite version though: only take fun and engaging part-time/flexi jobs, and dedicate my full time to a rewarding but not necessarily well-paid (or paid at all) career, while cutting down a bit on spending

I just felt that with all the education & things I have going for me I'd rather do something productive that contributes to society. If I literally couldn't find a job that's not a metaphorical meat grinder then it's another story, but I'm not at that stage yet

We couldn't. More than 65% of what we make goes just to cover the bills, so it wouldn't be a possibility. Even if we didn't eat or have a car.

Would be underwater and back at work within a couple of months.

If you mean some version of 65% of our current lifestyle like magically the house shrinks and costs 65% of what it currently does, then maybe? We don't eat out much, don't vacation much, don't go out much already though.

If you mean health costs all covered, and no more retirement contributions and 65% of GROSS earnings, that would actually give me almost the exact same net pay, and wouldn't be a different lifestyle. Those things cost 32% of my earnings and taxes 15%.

So I'm not sure exactly how to think about this but in short - I am more willing to work to have a reasonably good life, than to not work and not have a good life, but have a lot of free time. I do know how to have fun for cheap, have been poor before, but I like life now better than then.

No. I'm already living frugally. Cutting my spending by further 45% would make my life unsustainable.

We "retired" when my wife was 30 and I was 33. That was nine years ago.

As Australians, healthcare is free, so that wasn't a concern. (That being said, we also take out yearly travel insurance policies, which are surprisingly cheap compared to regular private insurance.)

That, not having kids (but we've met people who did a similar thing BECAUSE they wanted to spent time with kids), and living very frugally was what made it possible, and continues to make it possible. When we were working, after having paid off our small apartment, we could live on less than 20% of our combined income by being very tight.

The more you save, the more you can invest, and the less you'll need invested to sustain yourself. It's a positive feedback loop, and after three years of trying to be as frugal as possible, tracing every dollar, it became second nature.

After building our investments, our cost of living has gone up, but not by much. When you're building your portfolio, being extra stingy pays off greatly. We have been slow traveling non-stop for the last nine years, because the cost of living is cheaper in (almost) every other country, even when you consider paying for short-term rentals. Next year we'll hit 100 countries visited.

We've also done extra university courses, languages courses, and have a ton of hobbies. Even without work, there's not enough time in the day if you have an active mind.

65% of what I spend right now. So basically 35% below paycheck to paycheck? Seems like a bad idea to me.

idk; I get work via commissions (is that the word?) and rarely, earning little money. But with this at least I would have a constant source of money, and would get some peace of mind, so maybe?

I quit at 50, living on savings and stock market...

I dont know, its just something awful about working every day. I got sick of it.

Now im not doing anything special but im free to just live.

For sure no. I don't want to live frugally for the long term. I played that game in college and I'm not excited to go back.

Lol, that's called being homeless

I would have retired at 16 if I could.

Yes.

I'd continue to work. I want to do more in my retirement than just stay at home.

I live frugally now.

I also just like to work. I don't plan to ever retire.

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.

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.

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.

When I was approaching 30 I was looking forward to kids, and that wouldn’t be sufficient to raise them.

In a couple years though ….. once they are through college so I’m done with those payments and child support, living on 65% of my income would be easy.

No.

My mortgage and childcare are like 80% of my outgoings. Once the mortgage is gone and kids in school maybe

My wife and I spend about 25% of our pre-tax income on childcare. Cutting that, plus another 10% other places would be fine.

I don't think you would keep up with inflation

My initial response was Hell yeah! But, then I remembered my job will pay for the kids college, so I'd be crazy to make that trade.

Depends on if I could afford to own a scrapyard/pick and pull first. As a welder and machinist, thats basically a playground for me. If I ain't working, ill still be making. Otherwise, yes. I don't spend much now as it is, but growing my own weed would probably drop me below 65% by itself.

It depends on what you mean by current spending. I'm putting almost a third of my pre-tax income into savings already. If you mean I can live off of 65% of my default post-tax salary, sure. That probably wouldn't change too much from my current expenses, and I would love the free time. If you mean 65% of what's left over after my normal contributions, then that would be pretty tough. I consider my current lifestyle to be relatively frugal, so that would be very hard.

I'm actually trying to achieve the FIRE lifestyle, so the goal is getting to the point where average post-tax returns on investments is at least annual expenses. But I can't do it by thirty.

I would, but it's not possible since I don't have millions of dollars in my savings account.

I was pretty close to this option, but in the end we moved to a much nicer house. So now our expenses are a lot more. I don't regret it, it's a much better place to raise kids.

I did took a sabbatical for about a year, and will probably do that again in 5 years or so. It doesn't have to be a binary option, you can do sabbaticals (mini retirements) and still work.

I'd try, but my shopping addiction would get me in trouble.

Nope, 65% of what I make now is barely subsistence. It would be nice for a few months, but quickly become boring

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.

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.