Monday, 2 January 2017


I am scrapping the idea of increasing my budget for 2017.

I had intended to increase my annual budget for 'security reasons' but thinking more about it the idea, it just does not make sense. Especially not since my costs in general are not intended to be increased. Using a changed annual budget just for calculations throws the row of calculations off and does not really provide any benefits. Although there are projects we dream off, tentatively plan, which will break the budget, nothing is certain or booked. The project plan is not enough to increase the entire annual budget concept. It is ok if the dreamt off-project breaks the monthly budget and there should be room enough in the annual budget. If the whole thing ends up breaking the annual budget for the year, then let it. The project is/could be an amazing experience and there are resources available.

Currently, with my old and same as always annual budget, I have a FI-number of 32,30. That means I can live of my current assets for 32,3 years without income (and without any interests or additions but also not taking into account any increase in cost. I hope those will equate themselves.)

It is not an extreme budget by any means. Many live on it, even more should live on it and very many are expected to live way below it when going gets tough. I have lived on this budget for many years and it includes a lot of no-buys and some things that I consider worth spending money on.

In the calculation of my asses, I am not including the value of my house, although I paid of the mortgage in February 2010. The reason is that I will always have to live somewhere and that money is not readily available.

I am also not including any retirement funds that I do not have access to, neither private nor public. I do trust to be provided with an income from pensions, vastly exceeding my annual budget in 17 years (or rather 7 to 17 years as some of these pension schemes could be made available earlier than the official retirement age of my mother's country - which is where I keep my pension right.) You see, for comparison, retirement funds are just not useful to include in ones personal wealth.

The next and most important question is of course: What are the important things in life when working for money isn't one of them? 
For me, I know, it will still involve some type of work. It is the work I currently do as long as I can. After that, I will work with something else rewarding and engaging.
But it will be work.
My financial independence will not be used for constant travelling nor for an indulgent life in luxury.

But there might be small occasional inclusions of it.


  1. I was intrigued by your frugal lifestyle until I fully understood that it is possible only because you had already accumulated a certain amount of money, presumably by having a fairly high paying job. At that point I lost interest. I do not own a house and as an adjunct professor have never made more money than what would just cover my expenses.

  2. That is fair and fine, although it is never the income but the expenses that determines if anything is ever saved and accumulated. (Happy to hear that you are recovering btw!)

    1. True about the expenses. I could have saved a lot of money by getting rid of the kids' dog after the divorce, but that seemed too cruel. Many of my discretionary expenses involved making life better for the children.
      I am happily on the mend, thank you, and the hearing is improving as my brain adjusts to receiving new signals.

    2. Your brain is having a party!
      Pets are difficult to value but they do usually come out do on the side of assent and benefits, not only as costs, don't they?

  3. Just make sure that, eventually, what you do for work is very enjoyable. Life is too short to spend it in an unhappy state.

    1. Unhappy states need to be changed, strived to be changed, dreamed to be changed, and never accepted. Even the tiniest little pleasure is better than unhappy.