I'd probably still continue working for a bit even after I've hit the "don't work again" point just to pack more into the investment accounts and have more cash to reinvest over the $10,000. I'd also have the option to work remotely if I wanted to raise money for something (buy a car, etc.).

If I get bored, I can always pursue a hobby or do consulting work, but I'd like to see what I'd do with my time/life if I didn't have to work and had a set daily budget.

>>1360953
186k returning 7% average with 3% reinvested to hedge against inflation would do it

Vanguard etf's

>>1360953
60-40 broad market stock-bond is a ballpark standard retirement allocation.

3-5% is about right. With 5% expect to work occasionally, especially during recessions.

>I know Vanguard, etc. are good for VERY long term investing,
>but I'm looking for something where I can consistently draw a small amount from without having to worry about multi-year recessions and so on.

These statements are contradictory. Retirement for 40 or so years is by definition long term.

Vanguard is low-cost and generally offers diversified funds, which are pluses.

The bond portion of your portfolio is your shock absorber for recessions.

>>1360953
You did not factor in any rise in cost of living over the period of time you will be retired. Also no investments yield 5% every year without any risk. If there were, they would not be giving 5%.

Start by maxing out a Roth IRA every year. 5500.00 in something live a dividend growth fund so you're getting reinvested dividends tax free until you turn 60.

If you're company matches any of your 401k contribute that amount to get the match.

Everything else put in low cost index funds or a target retirement fund. If you like trading stocks set aside 10% to play with as you wish.

>>1360953
>i know where i want to live
>it'l cost $833.33 a month


so....rent price
high dividend stocks

Thanks for the replies, everyone. Hopefully some other people get some useful information from this thread, too.

>>1360978
>These statements are contradictory.
Maybe I didn't state it correctly, but what I meant was that from what I've seen the expected average return of these is calculated over many, many years. I'm not looking for something where it might be in the shitter for half a decade and then recover for the next 15 years and ultimate make 10% or something. I'd need to do periodic withdrawals rather than not touching anything for decades. I'd rather have a stable 3-5% than a 10% with wild fluctuations.

>>1360987
The country I'm looking at (where I've lived before) has a currency weaker than the USD, so it's been getting slightly less expensive over time.

>>1361036
My employer matches 4.5%, but I have nothing like this set up. I read that the IRS treats any early withdrawals as income + you have to pay a penalty. That seems like I'm just throwing money away, right? I'd need to make a withdrawal at least once/year.

>>1361091
>My employer matches 4.5%, but I have nothing like this set up. I read that the IRS treats any early withdrawals as income + you have to pay a penalty. That seems like I'm just throwing money away, right? I'd need to make a withdrawal at least once/year.

72t

>>1361091

You can withdraw what you put into a Roth penalty free. You get the penalty when you withdraw profits you've made, but I would just set aside money you'll need within that year and put it in something more liquid like a cd or money market account.

You should really only invest money you won't need for at least 5 years.

>>1361099
Awesome, didn't know about this.

>>1361104
Makes sense. Thanks!

>>1360953
That's all well and good, until inflation or a market collapse turns you homeless.