3 Levels of Financial Independence


#21

I can see that you like being surrounded by men… :rofl:


#22

:rofl: It was this way even when I was still working. Women generally were not interested in investments. To talk money talk to men.


#23

Ouch! A slap in the face to all the female investors out there… :rofl:


#24

Well, it’s a good thing you don’t work for Google. They’d fire you for saying that.


#25

That’s the rule. You’d better be FI if you want to speak your mind.


#26

In this PC world we would all be fired… So much for the first amendment… Thanks to Manch for the anonymous freedom here…


#27

No… it’s ok for a woman to say that but not for a man to say that. American culture has this very wierd concept that you are not considered racist/sexist/bigot if you are degrading your own kind or a supposedly “superior” kind. So women can diss women all they want, blacks can diss blacks all they want, and transgenders can diss transgenders all they want. It’s also ok for blacks to diss whites and for women to diss men, because historically they’ve been victimized by the kinds they are dissing. It’s only considered racist/sexist/bigot if you are white dissing non-white, men dissing women, and straight dissing gay.


#28

How’s it weird? People can say their kids are fat and ugly but you better not go around telling people their kids are fat and ugly.


#29

It’s wierd because it’s unique to the Western world. What I said does not apply to non-Western societies.


#30

No, it’s same way everywhere.


#31

Yup, there’s a hierarchy. You can’t say anything negative about those below you. Those below you can say anything they want about you. Some people are sick of it.


#32

No, not really.


#33

Yes… you need to pay a price for being “superior”… :wink:


#34

I like Russians because they don’t believe in PC crap. If you are fat they will tell you.


#35

It has to do with cultural advancement. Chinese newspapers diss other “inferior” races and gays all the time. You don’t see anyone protesting. It goes to show that American culture is far more advanced and tolerant. It’s a nice problem to have :wink:


#36

"If your household income is less than ~$40,000 a year, you are considered lower middle class. If you are happy with living a lower middle class lifestyle, then you would need between $800,000 – $1,600,000 in investable assets returning 2.5% – 5% a year to replicate the $40,000 in gross annual income."
As an end of year exercise I added up all my spending. ALL of it - down to the last tube of toothpaste. Just over 38k. On that I spent a night in NYC celebrating a cousin’s 60th, visited another cousin in CO for about a week, got over to AZ twice to look at property, and spent time in Switzerland and England. Oh and I have to pay for all my own health care (premiums, deductibles). If this is doable in the SF Bay Area - and with HOA fees now approaching $400 a month - just imagine how much less is needed in other less congested parts of the country.


#37

Single? Presume exclude taxes and contributions to 401k/IRA/College funds.


#38

You canadd $30000/ year in SS after 66
Plus any pension… So most people, like 90% would be fine with $1m plus a home owned free and clear
Of course on this forum $10m is the goal…


#39

Yes, single/childless. No 401k/IRA contributions. Retired two years ago. Doesn’t include taxes but after taxes I made just a hair less in dividends.


#40

To make 38k in after tax dividend, you need 1.5M assuming 3% dividend yield. But if your yield is only 1.5%, you would need to have 3M