How much $ would it take to you quit working permanently?

[Lepton87]

Assuming average inflation of around 3% your money would be worth half as much every 20-25 years. Taking this into account probably 3m $ would be enough for me but in various currencies. Sometimes hyperinflation happens and your money is worth shit, but I can't imagine that happening to the US dollar, but in 30-40 years everything could change.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Im a minimalist guy and where I live 1M would be more than enough... I could probably make do with 500K actually

 

[spaceman]

1m easy easy

 

[Tweak155]

I think "can't do anything with it" is a retarded condition.

If we're just talking about a suitcase of money, and I can't convert it into some other form of wealth, just spend it on consumables... a few hundred million.

If I could do what I want with it, probably 2-3 million would get me to walk from work and not "work" again.

First off, no one forced you to post. So if it is retarded you can post elsewhere.

Second, it is easy to try and minimize the number assuming you can use it to build other wealth. Picking a number that you can only subtract from is harder to work with.

That said, those picking really large numbers (subjective - so I'll specify hundreds of millions +), do you expect you'll earn that in your working lifetime?

If I thought I would only earn $3million in my working lifetime, wouldn't it be in my better interest to take a $4m offer? So those putting up numbers like $100m +, what are you going to do that will earn you even $50m in your lifetime?

 

[Murloc]

enough money to be able to spend 1 million $$$ a year, considering inflation and devaluation too.

EDIT: considering the post above, if I had certain information about the upper limit of my wage, the number could change. The fact is that if I'm not working, I need more money to travel and have stupid hobbies.

 

[DrPizza]

Define "work". I have hobbies that others would call work.

 

[Tweak155]

Define "work". I have hobbies that others would call work.

You can do "work", but not for profit.

 

[Dirigible]

That said, those picking really large numbers (subjective - so I'll specify hundreds of millions +), do you expect you'll earn that in your working lifetime?

If I thought I would only earn $3million in my working lifetime, wouldn't it be in my better interest to take a $4m offer? So those putting up numbers like $100m +, what are you going to do that will earn you even $50m in your lifetime?

$100m poster here.

You duck-brained twig. No, you wouldn't be better off taking $4m in your scenario unless you're damn old already. You have no idea about the power of compounded interest (would be a huge help in real life, not available in your scenario) and compounded inflation (will kick your ass in your scenario).

Those two things plus risk aversion and a desire for a healthy dose of cash led to my $100M figure.

For example, my $100m was based on spending $200k a year in today's dollars. A lot of money, sure. But not ultra rich cash. I want that because I will give up work, which sucks for a lot of people, and want to have something to make up for that. Plus I'll have lots of free time to fill. And I wanted to be conservative. I want access to good healthcare and that ain't getting cheaper. Plus your "spend only" rules create risk and I want to be compensated for assuming that risk.

Then I used 5% inflation. Higher than we've seen. But totally possible. We are printing money like there's no tomorrow. We are not immune to money woes hitting other countries like Greece. Plus, even with that high number, a brief period of hyper inflation and I'm wiped out anyway, and hopelessly destitute under your no work rule. Hyper inflation seems hard to comprehend happening in this country but a lot can change given a long time frame.

The uncertainty of things happening in a long time frame is a risk I'm assuming under your never work again rule. If I can't bounce back by working after some shit hits the fan, I better get some extra cash for taking on that risk.

Speaking of long time frame, I chose living for another 68 years. I could survive to be over 100.

 

[Tweak155]

$100m poster here.

You duck-brained twig. No, you wouldn't be better off taking $4m in your scenario unless you're damn old already. You have no idea about the power of compounded interest (would be a huge help in real life, not available in your scenario) and compounded inflation (will kick your ass in your scenario).

Those two things plus risk aversion and a desire for a healthy dose of cash led to my $100M figure.

For example, my $100m was based on spending $200k a year in today's dollars. A lot of money, sure. But not ultra rich cash. I want that because I will give up work, which sucks for a lot of people, and want to have something to make up for that. Plus I'll have lots of free time to fill. And I wanted to be conservative. I want access to good healthcare and that ain't getting cheaper. Plus your "spend only" rules create risk and I want to be compensated for assuming that risk.

Then I used 5% inflation. Higher than we've seen. But totally possible. We are printing money like there's no tomorrow. We are not immune to money woes hitting other countries like Greece. Plus, even with that high number, a brief period of hyper inflation and I'm wiped out anyway, and hopelessly destitute under your no work rule. Hyper inflation seems hard to comprehend happening in this country but a lot can change given a long time frame.

The uncertainty of things happening in a long time frame is a risk I'm assuming under your never work again rule. If I can't bounce back by working after some shit hits the fan, I better get some extra cash for taking on that risk.

Speaking of long time frame, I chose living for another 68 years. I could survive to be over 100.

Thanks for the insult, but that was just an example. There is no way for you to know the future in any case. So it makes sense to "require" a larger payout, but $100m sounds unrealistic to me, because if that's what you "need", you're boned unless you have plans in place to earn that much.

So other than the dickhead insult, I appreciate your post.

 

[Dirigible]

Duck-brained twig is a nice insult. A dickhead insult would be much meaner.


And if you want to insult me back, I did not think through your earn $3m v $4m now question well at all and believe I got the answer to that one wrong.


I've enjoyed the thread.

 

[Acanthus]

I'd walk away for $3m.

Buy into a franchise or something and let someone else run it. Invest whatever is left. Live the same lifestyle I do now and never worry about bills again.

 

[soulcougher73]

Id probably quit for a mil. Would take me 17 years to make that and im 40 now. So im thinking i can stretch the interet out a while. I wouldnt increase my expenses though.

 

[Rakehellion]

Under that situation, at least a billion. I know that sounds crazy, but there are projects I want to do once I have a fair amount of money. I would still want to do those projects, so I would need enough money to not only fund them, but also to be able to refuse all income from the results of the projects. I could get them started for much less, but only if I were ok with making a profit on them.

This. And with inflation, a billion won't go as far as it used to in 20 years.

 

[slayernine]

The only way I would stop working is if I could take some of that money and pursue interesting things which may possibly lead to making money.

 

[Fritzo]

I'd probably need around $4 million. I should be able to get 8-10% off of that and live off the interest.

 

[brianmanahan]

1m easy easy

easy easy, i can respect that

 

[mnewsham]

at my age to not work would take 100-150 Million

I have the chance of living for the next 50-60 years and inflation's a bitch.

 

[rommelrommel]

First off, no one forced you to post. So if it is retarded you can post elsewhere.

Second, it is easy to try and minimize the number assuming you can use it to build other wealth. Picking a number that you can only subtract from is harder to work with.

That said, those picking really large numbers (subjective - so I'll specify hundreds of millions +), do you expect you'll earn that in your working lifetime?

If I thought I would only earn $3million in my working lifetime, wouldn't it be in my better interest to take a $4m offer? So those putting up numbers like $100m +, what are you going to do that will earn you even $50m in your lifetime?

Oh well, I felt like pointing out that it was a retarded condition. Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer I guess.

If you expect to earn 3m you also are expecting to invest at least some of that money. You'll buy some assets that may make you some money. If something major happens to the economy, you can retrain, get a new job, start dealing in a new currency, whatever.

If you take a magic bag of cash that you can only use to consume stuff you can't do anything to safeguard your earning potential or your wealth. You are subject to hyperinflation destroying your wealth. You're theoretically giving up your ability/right to ever earn money again, so what if you get wiped out somehow... live in a cardboard box? Many people are also likely to be bored as hell if they can never do anything productive again.

I would want at least 100m to hedge against the risks, assuming that somehow the "no work" condition could ever be enforced.

 

[Vic Vega]

$10,000,000.00 usd.

 

[MustISO]

4.2 million - 5.1 million

Somewhere in there. Invested wisely you and your family will be fine for a very long time.

 

[Slew Foot]

Im young so that money is going to have to last a loooong time and be inflation proof. SO Id say about 10 million would be enough. Those of you who are thinking 1 million is going to be enough are either going to die soon or dont realize how much inflation is going to kill the value of your funds.

 

[Slew Foot]

I'd probably need around $4 million. I should be able to get 8-10% off of that and live off the interest.

You dont get to keep the interest, thats where this question is stupid.

 

[DAGTA]

Maybe this question is really a test to see how many people reply to a thread without reading the first post.

 

[Tweak155]

Oh well, I felt like pointing out that it was a retarded condition. Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer I guess.

If you expect to earn 3m you also are expecting to invest at least some of that money. You'll buy some assets that may make you some money. If something major happens to the economy, you can retrain, get a new job, start dealing in a new currency, whatever.

If you take a magic bag of cash that you can only use to consume stuff you can't do anything to safeguard your earning potential or your wealth. You are subject to hyperinflation destroying your wealth. You're theoretically giving up your ability/right to ever earn money again, so what if you get wiped out somehow... live in a cardboard box? Many people are also likely to be bored as hell if they can never do anything productive again.

I would want at least 100m to hedge against the risks, assuming that somehow the "no work" condition could ever be enforced.

A stupid answer I'm ok with. Complaining about a scenario you're choosing to respond to... well that makes you the stupid.

 

[Tweak155]

Maybe this question is really a test to see how many people reply to a thread without reading the first post.

Haha, honestly that is part of it