this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2025
169 points (95.2% liked)

Ask Lemmy

34996 readers
1541 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

If you had the money to retire at 30, your savings would be invested and on an average year your earnings would cover your expenses. You would have health insurance, so no worries there. The only catch is that you would have to keep your expenses at 65% of what you spend right now. Would you take it, or would you rather work a few more years for a better lifestyle and financial security?

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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.

[–] KingBoo@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago
[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] Psythik@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

I would have retired at 16 if I could.

[–] Nemo@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 month ago

I live frugally now.

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

[–] Venus_Ziegenfalle@feddit.org 3 points 1 month ago

No, work is nice tbh. I might do 35 hours instead of 40 a week at some stage but full on retirement at 30 doesn't sound appealing at all to me.

[–] ZoteTheMighty@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 month ago

I'm not retiring until my house is paid off and I can include at least 1 large vacation a year into my budget. Those two things will probably happen simultaneously, but I've never heard of anyone paying off their mortgage by 30 in my life.

[–] throws_lemy@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 month ago

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

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 3 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] etchinghillside@reddthat.com 3 points 1 month ago

30s are prime earning years – stick with it for a bit longer.

[–] pachrist@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

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

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] Squizzy@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

No.

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

[–] Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone 3 points 1 month ago

I don't think you would keep up with inflation

[–] KingGimpicus@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] KombatWombat@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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.

[–] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 2 points 1 month ago

If I had the money to retire at 30, I'd be so much richer than I am now that even 65% of that would still be more than I'm getting now. But if I was the kind of person who earns that much, would I be content with that? We'll never know.

[–] LoafedBurrito@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[–] BigBananaDealer@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

same. keep my ass away from any store

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 2 points 1 month ago

No questions asked, as long as I got to keep my current house to live in and not move back to the house I lived in at 30.

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago

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

[–] Frigidlollipop@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] vane@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Invested in what ? What's the magic trick that won't leave you with nothing in the next 10 years.

[–] qarbone@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (3 children)

It's...a hypothetical? A fabricated reason why you aren't given a massive lump sum of money, and instead have to live off dividends? The "what" doesn't matter.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›