And zero relevance to this thread.

lol "living" = forever.

Apparently forever...

doesn't equal forever.


Maybe you should start another thread where you babble about broth and Roth IRAs?

lol "living" = forever.

And you can tell us your startling discovery that you can live forever?

Even this guy died eventually.

Are you planning to live that long? If so, I can advise you on other investments if that floats your boat.

I'm trying to imagine what you would look like after a few hundred years. Picking up chicks might be out, so you probably could cut back on your entertainment budget.

It was some sort of smoked turkey I think. I read your stipulations and I did not consider it to be water infused or compressed gibberish. I'm not sure what part of my last post suggested otherwise. If you don't want to believe me that's fine.

Those aren't really judgment calls.

Could you name (or if possible provide a link) a brand or type of deli meat that would meet your specifications. I think that would help me better understand what you are talking about.

you can take significantly lower risk portfolios at the expense of your annual income.
real estate markets do worse than stock markets, but are significantly less risky and are indexed relative to your cost of living.

you can remove money from the 1m principle to reflect your life expectancy. it's obvious to anyone that isnt autistic that 'forever' implies for the rest of your life.

there are many non-occupational things you can do to ease financial burdens. doing favors for people and having them do favors for you (as long as there's no cash exchange) should be acceptable.



it's clearly not realistic for high maintanance queens that demand the best of everything.
it's not realistic for people accustomed to big city life, period. i wouldnt do it. but there are so many people out there living simple lives on less than that, and it's not because they're charity cases.

i wouldnt doubt that the majority of them are happier in their lives than the typical ******* you'll find on an internet message board, who makes it his business to insult anyone that disagrees with his ******ed perspective of the world.

You are being absurd. Not sure why I am posting that though. I might as well just said the sky is blue.

Injecting fluid into meat isn't a judgment call? Do you even read or do you just say stuff, like in SE where you made absurd commentary previously?

Or how about while making conceited comments and someone asks you to explain one of your warped views, you explain it to them instead making another conceited comment?

Cite pls. Or is this just one of your misguided personal attacks from a mixture of poor reading comprehension and a lack of critical thinking?

I'll give it a shot...

Live in Phoenix, AZ.
Buy 7 houses (yes, this is possible, you could even get 8 or 9 if you're really clever)
Live in one house with a roommate (sorry Henry)
Roommate's rent covers taxes and utilities on house 1.
6 additional houses rent for at least $1000 (they will possibly even rent for more)
50% expenses on your rentals (from the spex thread)
=$3000/mon = $36,000/yr and you don't have to pay for rent or utilities

After taxes you're looking at what $2200/mon?

Increasing rents should cover inflation.

Budget:
$400 health insurance - have no idea how much this costs.
$300 transportation
$600 food
$900 misc/entertainment

Its not glamorous but I think it should be workable for a lot of people.

I mean you've basically decided that any activity which is free is not possibly enjoyable, and have compared legitimate hobbies to things like watching paint dry.

You also refuse to accept that people can eat well for cheap on the basis that if you aren't spending a lot on food that you are eating like a pauper, when in fact there are a lot of people who eat for much less than you and do so because they don't desire more.

I don't really see how you can honestly believe that you aren't being arrogant and dismissive of lifestyles which differ from yours.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?k...OcFFFQVE&hl=en

Starting with $1m
4% municipal bond yield
10% municipal bond tax rate
3% rate of inflation

30 year fixed rate mortgage ($360k mortgage)
$30k 'new' car once every 10 years on a 5 year loan.

Drawdown begins after 10 years, but once the mortgage is paid for at 30, the burn rate slows down considerably.

Anything I'm missing? Feel free to take this and fudge with the numbers. Increasing the muni yield to 5% makes the money last forever.

Outright lie. Much like your assessment of tomato cost.

No. I'm refusing to accept the contention that you can eat near-gourmet quality food cooked at home for cheap. If you want to feed yourself, that is fine. Your prices are fine for someone wanting to just eat. Though your argument may not be similar to the one Shoe put forth earlier that near-gourmet meals can be cooked for ~100 a week. If you just wanna eat, that is fine. But if you want to make cooking a hobby or what not, it'll cost more like virtually any hobby does.

I'm not. I don't expect people to live similar lifestyles. But I expect the conversation to atleast to be reasonable. The argument for $40 for food, or excluding dental/eye/health coverage is asinine. As are people talking about relying on the food pantry. Those types of things are ****ing idiotic. If you want to argue those issues. $0 is whats needed as you can forage/steal/beg for anything. Or leech off society.

There needs to be a reasonable standard set (which was put forth earlier) as well as agreement on what type of income could be perpetually sustained off 1million. 3% real return was cited as a fairly reasonable return. But the arguments put forth about basically taking jobs (Rogers Clemens citing rental income, rvince citing trading, earlier in the thread +EV hobbies were suggested) is completely dumb and defeats the purpose of the entire theoretical discussion.

The idea isn't whether some miserly 2p2 poster and project his lifestyle, but whether a normal average person could live off ~25kish post tax. And IMO the measure comes up short. Perhaps with the standards he could do it with another 500k banked. Or if you wanted to assume some sort of principle drawdown that may busto him that would also be acceptable. As soon as RoR moves up, you have an infinitely more doable situation than one where you want a 0% chance of going back to work.

Thremp, something is confusing me. You say that if someone is living off $1M, and their annual return has any variance, then they're sure to go busto, right? (If I've missed your point, please correct me.) Doesn't this also apply to poker players? For example, if I gave someone $1M to play poker with and live off for the rest of their life, wouldn't it be the same (from a math/stats point of view) as giving them $1M to live off through investments? I mean, poker returns for good players are like stock market returns, that is, they're random variables with variance and a positive mean. So would you also extend your argument by saying poker players couldn't live off $1M if they couldn't "work" for the rest of their life, since "any variance will make them go busto"?

Find me a post where someone claimed to be able to eat near-gourmet meals on the 30k a year budget. I certainly never claimed this, and neither did anyone else as far as I can tell. Maybe shoe did in fact say that you can cook near-gourmet meals for ~100 a week, and I entirely disagree with him, but that's not the point I've made ever. My point was merely that I can easily buy $300 worth of food per month and for me, this $300 covers all the food I even want to eat, it's not like I'm not buying things merely because I'm on a budget.

I will admit that I mistakenly read the cost of tomatoes for some other thing as the retail cost on the website I posted, so yes, half a tomato actually costs about 30 cents and not the 8 cents I had claimed, but it's not as if you hadn't made even more egregious pricing errors. Especially when you price mayo by how much it costs to make it at home out of egg whites and oil. How many people actually prefer this to buying a jar of mayo? Even if it did taste better, I wouldn't want to put forth the effort for something so insignificant. I doubt many other people I know would want to, either.

I think that you are misrepresenting the claims made by people who believe 30k a year is enough to live a reasonably comfortable lifestyle. Some people in the thread are being ridiculous with the leeching off food shelters and other bull****, but personally I can live happily on a $300 a month food budget.

Yes. While Thremp is correct that everyone will eventually go bust I don't see that as relevant. In theory there is actually a non-zero chance that my desk will fly out the window without being touched by anyone -- the odds of this happening though are so small that it would take a dozen or so generations to write out all the zeros before reaching the decimal point that actually had a number. I think proceeding with an acceptably low chance of bust is fine and for the sake of argument could be just spoken of as no chance of bust. Say something like 0.05% to even 0.5% might be fine.


What you want and what you are happy with though is a product of your tastes. Growing up as a child I actually looked forward to having spaghetti and meatballs that came out of a can but now I rather go hungry than eat that ****. I don't believe the quality of food in a can has decreased (it actually likely increased) but my tastes are such that I don't consider it food. A lot of what people are happy eating is a function of restrictions on both time and money. If I am driving long distances I will eat McDonald's breakfast because it is there on the side of the highway and will make hunger go away but I don't consider that food or anything I would ever choose to consume without coercion. Our hypothetical individual has an abundance of time and while very restricted on money his restriction is self-imposed by choosing to not work when he easily could. His tastes are most likely not going to be met by the same diet as someone who is making $30k while exhausted from busting his ass working.

The hypothetical individual has nothing but time so he likely would. I don't believe in cooking but the rare times I do everything has to be made from scratch. Opening up a bottle of sauce and pouring it over pasta is not acceptable. I'm sure if I had to start working tomorrow and lost 80 hours out of the week I would quickly change my position on that. Our happiness is not so much a function of what we have and can do but as a function of the percentage of what we have and can do relative to what is realistically possible. People who currently don't have both those extra 80 hours a week and the option to make more money with little effort are happy with stuff that they would not be happy with once they had both an extra 80 hours a week and an option to increase income.

Ok, I get the point. He's saying the probability of going broke within infinite years is 100%. I don't really think that's relevant. In practice, we want to know the probability of going busto over 60-80 years.

bet it all on BLACK (Roulette)!

double up and it's already much easier with 2 Mio.

Took you a while, but I'm glad you understand trivial mathematical concepts. More about how you want to invest in high yield bonds for someone with a fixed income.

I would understand your point if most of the foods I eat were processed, but when the majority of the food you eat is raw, you're not getting much increase in quality when you pay more. Apples aren't going to suddenly cost $5 a pound instead of $1 a pound because you are buying higher quality apples. Most of the high cost foods thremp wants to eat are prime filets and other meat, and obviously your diet will be expensive as hell if you eat 3-5 pounds of expensive meat every day. People who eat a diet which consists of less meat are going to save massive amounts over people who are eating good steak 3-5 nights a week, and it has nothing to do with prefering good meat over canned meat, or sacrificing quality in other ways, as you make it sound.

If you want to argue that for you or thremp that it isn't possible to live on less than $40 a day for food because of your paticular tastes, then I think you are being somewhat unreasonable. I could probably find some billionaire who claims that he cannot live on less than $4000 a day on food because of his expensive tastes, and to that person you would probably be like "well you don't need to pay $500 per meal to your chef to prepare the most gourmet food on earth just to eat well."

I've never once suggested eating Prime quality meat, and you don't know how much prime meat costs if you think the prices I listed are anywhere near that.

I think its just asinine to come up with a probable cost that includes baloney and wonderbread each day coupled with buying and deep freezing quarter cows. If you wanna argue $100 a week for a simple diet, that is fine. But don't pretend you can eat well or fancy on that budget.