654
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
654 points (97.1% liked)
News
23320 readers
1414 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You can't retire on $1m net worth. That's not even a house in lots of areas.
It definitely helps. But giving up my career for $1m would be a very bad investment.
Average investment returns are (conservatively) 8% per year, with a safe draw down being 4% per year. Which means she can safely withdraw $40,000/yr indefinitely without her investment decreasing in value over the long run.
Easily enough to retire in a decent cost of living area if she wishes, or work a small side job to boost her income to support a higher cost of living.
Especially considering she was making $42k annually as a teacher (according to another comment, I didn't actually read the article). So she was able to live on roughly that amount already.
Realistically, she could continue to create OnlyFans content for some time and make and invest more than the initial $1m.
The safe withdraw for an extended early retirement is 3.5%
With 4%, while the chance is small, you could end up running out of money.
Someone did all the numbers for 35-40+ years looking back historically, and there were 4 or 5 years where if you started then and didn't adjust your plan, you'd run out of cash.
There were 0 scenarios where 3.5% ran out
Sort of the joke in it all. You can't retire on $42k/year either
yea but you can teach all life long, whereas on Onlyfans you... uh,... nevermind
y'all misunderstood my post, I think. I was trying to joke about the fact that even if you're getting on in years, there will always be an audience for your OnlyFans. Anywayyyy
How many years will it take to save a million dollars working for 42k a year
I don't know
Dying on your feet in class, because you can never afford to retire
Yeah, except she can go makeinimum wage working full time for benefits and call it a day. You can live on minimum wage if you also have a mil in the bank to start. One door closed but a bunch of others opened. She can do that job you want that you don't do because it doesn't pay much.
Working full time isn't retiring.
You also have a weird notion about benefits, and employers willingness to give full time hours so you even qualify. But that's not even the slightest bit related to this discussion.
Most folks with the degree and certification required to teach can find another full-time job that offers benefits, e.g. health insurance (which even a million dollars will get burned up quickly if a serious medical issue arises and you have no insurance).
But I think the point you're missing is that she can continue making shit loads of money on OF for as long as she can while also working another job, as OF isn't exactly something you need to 8 hours a day to do (though, some models probably do when you factor in advertising and getting your name/rep established).
You can't pay for groceries with your net worth but given million bucks I'd retire immediately. That amount of money invested to the stock market pays around 50 - 70k interests every year and you get to keep the million.
Someone else calculated that $1 million is about 30 years of the teaching salary. So you cannot retire on a career either.
If I were forced to choose I'd take the $1 million up front over a low-paying career and let it grow in the market while I found other work to avoid using it. $1 million up front over $1.3 million across 40-some years is a very good investment. Consider the decreased value of future money.
Not only that, 1 mil invested and making a modest 5% a year will return more than the teaching salary for doing nothing.
I have no idea why you're being down voted. You're absolutely right. You can't live on back interest from $1M, so you have to invest it, and while some years you'll make more than 10% average invested in the stock market, over 10 years you'll average 8% because some years you'll not only make no returns but you'll lose some of your investment. Which means if you're living off those returns, some years you'll have to eat into those investments, slowly eating down the money you have making money for you. You're paying taxes on those returns, and if you're living off them, they're considered short term investments and you pay a higher tax rate - because you pay taxes on returns on your investments.
Rich people get richer because they have other income and can leave the money and the returns untouched; they aren't living on the returns until they have far more money invested than $1M.
People down-voting you are morons.
(US tax info) Investments are taxed as long term (the lower tax rate) if you hold them for at least a year. Meaning, after the very first year, there is no reason to every pay the higher short term capital gain rates. A solid strategy is to invest in index funds and hold them for decades. If you aren't retired, put the dividends back into more index funds. The long term trends earn you (conservatively) 8% per year average.
The capital gains which you are, supposedly, drawing off of to live on (this was the original premise) is short term capital gains. The amounts you draw in your loss years are, yes, long term, and taxed at a lower rate, but that's the hole in the boat causing your revenue stream to sink - the bigger problem is that what you draw from ROI is taxed at the higher rate.
You don't get taxed on losses, or on loss years, whatever that means tax-wise. You get taxed on gains, period, which is the increase over your basis. Less than a year held is short-term, more than a year is long.
Yep, people acting like it's plausible for someone to retire and live the rest of their life renting a room, at the same income as they got fresh out of college.
Plus they're citing studys aimed at 35-40 years life expectancy, for someone retiring in their 20s, maybe early 30s.
And in one breath will decry the inflation calculations being cited by the government to show we have a "healthy" economy. And in the next, try to pretend cost of living isn't sky rocketing and someone can live the rest of their long life on 40k/yr.
That's lemmy for you, though. No point fighting the tide.
Edit - also, I'm sure those studies probably included some amount of social security helping out, which you're not getting if you retire in your 20s.
Actually, looking at the down votes for your comments, I think you're being stalked. Someone's got it in for you.
Rofl, they're welcome to it. I guess everyone needs a hobby
I think they just mostly don't understand economics, taxes, or have spent any time thinking about these things. Which isn't surprising, because why waste time thinking about it when it's increasingly unlikely to happen to you? Not understanding it is one thing, but thinking and then voting with your hormones is another.
If you get a modest 5% return on that mil that's $50k per year, which is more than her teaching salary for doing nothing.