“Fuck You” Money | Hacker News Reader

“Fuck You” Money

youngmoney.co

32 pointshuashu32 comments

Open articleView on HN

In a recent interview, Eric Weinstein commented on recently rich crypto millionaires and how boring they are. What's the point of having "fuck you" money if you never say "fuck you"? They all fall into the same trappings as everyone else. The weirdest thing about people with this kind of money is that very few people use it in any meaningful way. These crypto millionaires should be funding new institutions to replace modern monetary theory, the predominant school of economics that will (according to them) lead to the end of fiat and global disaster apart from the enlightened. Instead they're buying lambos and flexing for internet strangers

https://mleverything.substack.com/p/whats-the-point-of-f-you...

To me, it sounds like the real problem is greed. $1B for some reason isn't enough for these people.

Personally, I'm looking to pay off my house, pay off the car, and then save up ~$2M in cash (Could happen quickly if the options in the startup I work at pay off, which based on current growth is very likely), then throw that $2M into an index fund and retire.

Maybe in retirement, I'll actually feel like I have the time to get some work done on personal projects. I have ideas for things I want to make that could make a couple dollars, but I'm tired all day and don't want to spend my limited free time working.

By the 4% rule, 2m in the retirement funds gets you 80k of income. Of which you have to pay taxes and fees and all those charges that accumulate. Most people who wish to do this add “going to a very low tax environment” to the discussion. But take a pro tip: health care costs add up.

As a guesstimate for California…. If you get 5m, taxes will take a third of it, and a house will take 1-2m. Which leaves you +/- on the 2m to invest. If you’re not into heirs, you can reverse mortgage.

I've recently heard some criticism of the 4% rule. It's designed with two assumptions: that you are old, and that when you die there may be basically nothing left. So it only needs to last around 30 years give or take. But if you retire at 30 with a strategy that runs out in 30 years that could be an issue.

But on the other hand I do believe you can prevent blowing up if you are willing to live lean when the economy is doing bad (the standard assumption is that you keep increasing your spending in line with inflation even as your portfolio craters).

Quite agree - good point. In other words, 2m isn’t that much of a pile to put up against Father Time. Perhaps choose to use your fuck you money to go somewhere you like to do something you like. Work isn’t bad when it’s enjoyable or worth doing.

The 4% rule is pretty generic. But if 2.5-3% will cover your expenses, statistically that will never run out no matter how long you live.

> and a house will take 1-2m

Remember, I'm operating under the assumption that the house is already paid off. Right now, I've got about $250K left in my mortgage. Property taxes aren't too bad, about $4K/year.

That $2M is also assumed to be after taxes from selling my options, but I acknowledge that any gains from the index fund will be taxed.

> But take a pro tip: health care costs add up.

Yeah, this is likely the expense I'm not planning enough for.

But also, as I said, I've got projects that could make money. Also, my wife has stated before that she wants to work to avoid boredom, so she'd keep working, though she'd cut her hours to work 2-3 days/week.

Consider this: Rent out the house, move somewhere where you can continue to work remote and have universal healthcare or similar systems where your healthcare risk is limited. Quality western european countries will accept folks with as little as ~EUR25k/year in passive/rental/remote work income.

Personally, healthcare costs keep me up at night regardless of NW. I've seen high net worth individuals get obliterated by a black swan healthcare event (almost always cancer).

EDIT: @mukwenhac Drop an email in your profile.

Out of wanting to research more, which countries accept folks at that income level?

I think it easy for techies to get a job in Canada. Once there, they can start the clock for permanent resident, which takes 3-5 years. Once that’s obtained, only have to be here 2 years out of 5, or working for a Canadian company or married to a Canadian to keep it. It’s not bad living here, and I suspect the aggregate taxes are comparable to high tax states and you have a diversity from Texas like to France like.

They’re not into health tourism, however, so you have to lay the groundwork earlier in your career.

You can also "retire to startups", meaning go pick the most interesting company to work with and not worry about their ability to pay you or even their long-term viability. If the work interests you and the people will be good to work with, you don't need anything else.

I've done this and it is truly great.

As a pure swag, assume 2k/month outside the us and 5k/month inside the us as insurance for old farts is $$ and things like dental, glasses, meds, … might not be covered under typical insurance. Once you’re not on work provided insurance, things like travel insurance becomes a concern. If a partner wants to work, use that as a source of insurance in the us as long as possible. Not needed outside, really.

Can you share your general location (CoL) and high level math around retirement budget? Your target fund size feels really low if you're in any moderately high CoL spot. Not here to criticize your goal, but to see if theres something I can learn from your logic.

Beaverton, a suburb right outside Portland, OR.

CoL isn't too bad here, especially if you're operating under the assumption that the house is paid off.

> $1B for some reason isn't enough for these people

I feel the same way, but... when I was younger I always thought that if I could ever get to the point where I made half what I currently make, I'd be "set for life". Now I make twice that much and... it's still somehow not enough. So maybe you and I think a billion is plenty and maybe they thought that until they got to that point.

That's... the whole point. Step off the hedonic treadmill, and you'll be happy.

I don’t think it is greed. And I don’t think retirement early is a good idea. Especially seems kind of bad for society.

I think the point is more. A lot of Money needs a lot of effort to manage it. Alone if you realize that optimizing taxes could have a huge impact, which kind of pushes people to choose tax friendly jurisdictions. I mean its like why should I pay billions of taxes if it is possible to avoid them. So the pressure is huge. Then if you are owning companies, that means a lot of management as well. So of course you could just say „fuck it“ , but it is not an easy call.

Boomers refusing to retire is why Millenials can't earn money.

Retired people can contribute to their communities, in ways that return psycho-emotional rewards, supporting the real economy and themselves, and reducing waste from consumerist materialism.

Im pretty sure you would decrease wealth, if you force people to retire. The ones who earn a lot also bring the experience on the table. A good example would be a world class physics professor. Should he really be just replaced with some Millennials? Maybe they first should prove themselves…

> To me, it sounds like the real problem is greed.

The thing is, money can be exchanged for just about everything else. So in peoples' thinking, money stands for everything else, and everyone has a "something else" that they want enough money to get.

I think, though, that people want four broad categories of general things. They want security, they want identity, they want satisfaction, and they want rest. The last two you can have enough money to be set for life. Security you kind of can, but (I suspect) you always worry about a big enough black swan and whether you're diversified enough.

But if you're looking for identity, money will never be enough. You're always looking up at someone else who has more money, or a bigger yacht, or a more successful sports team. (Or so it seems to me, someone with nowhere near enough money to try to find my identity there.)

And there's something else to consider as well: The more money you have, the more you have to loose. When you're worth 20 Mil. you've got to worry about where it's invested and hope it doesn't all go down the drain. you certainly can't leave it in cash otherwise, you'll lose 75% in just 14 years.

the root of all evil is not money. the root of all evil, is requiring humans to have money to live.

i aspire to require the least amount of money to live happily ~ combined with some money, that's true freedom.

True, but at the same time, you are insulated against some sudden shocks. I always try to have enough money to live on for about a year, so that I don't panic and start making bad decisions if business goes wrong for a month or two.

The traditional saying is "the love of money is the root of all evil"

You don't need $20Mil to live.

> lose 75% in just 14 years.

What currency had 400% inflation in 14 years?

Venezuelan Bolivars have been worse than that. I think the Turkish Lira is too, and lately the Russian Ruble. We in the US are super lucky the world considers our currency the most favorable, although printing 80% of all dollars in existence over the last few years could impact that...

> The more money you have, the more you have to loose. When you're worth 20 Mil. you've got to worry about where it's invested and hope it doesn't all go down the drain

True, but there are plenty of safe investment options if you're willing to have lower yields (CDs, bonds, the S&P, given time). Of course anything can fail, but that applies to everything and everyone.

> you certainly can't leave it in cash otherwise, you'll lose 75% in just 14 years.

I'm not familiar with this stat. How is this calculated? Inflation and expenses?

10% inflation over 7 years will 1/2 it's worth.

Rule of 70: the formula goes like this 70/percent = # of years.

So if you assume inflation is 7% over the long term then 70/7= 10 years to loose half and 20 years to keep 1/2*1/2=1/4 (lose 75%)

so this whole thing is based on a Nassim Taleb quote.

I read his books and thought they were kind of interesting, but it always felt like he was just saying random absurd things that he didn't have to defend because it was his book.

When I started reading his twitter account I realized this is true. He makes ridiculous statements like he is an authority on all possible things, and blocks and berates anyone who dares to disagree with him in even the slightest way. He is basically a troll.

He basically made one lucky bet in his trading career and then pivoted to making money by telling everyone how smart he is.

Taleb seems plenty smart to me, but his ego is even bigger than his smarts.

He is probably a lot more bearable in person and drunk. (Provided that you don't stay sober either.)

yeah I think that is a better way of phrasing it.

I suppose most people are better in person than they are on twitter - I should stop reading people's twitter accounts :D

"the traits that made them so successful" - or perhaps the choices?

Too much confusion between fame and wealth - the author tried to disambiguate, but I don't think they succeeded.

"If you are "publicly rich" (think athletes, authors, movie stars, politicians, etc.), you no longer have a private life." - isn't this true for most public figures regardless of their wealth status?

I don't want to be rich and famous. I want to be rich and not famous.

Thanks for sharing! - the author

Reply on news.ycombinator.com