Spending Post-FIRE: What I Do (And Why It Changed)

If you read enough about FIRE, you’ll see a lot of debate about the “right” withdrawal rate.

4%.

5%.

Maybe less. Maybe more.

I’ve read a lot and listened to a lot of the advice.

What’s been more useful, at least for me, is not picking a number and locking it in… it’s paying attention to how these approaches actually feel when you’re living them.

Because they feel different.

When I was first working toward financial independence, I leaned on a much higher number—I relied on Dave Ramsey’s suggestion that you can spend 8%.

That idea, more than anything, made the goal feel real and reachable. It pulled the timeline forward. It made me think, “Okay… this is actually doable.”

And that mattered, a lot.

I’m not sure I would have pushed as hard without that belief in the early years.

But once I crossed over, I became more conservative—more aware of risk, and more interested in protecting what I had built than in testing the upper limits of what I could spend.

So instead of pushing toward 4% or higher, I went the other direction.

The year before I left my corporate position, I created a spending plan that would mirror what my assets would produce in cash flow.

It worked—and this gave me confidence.

In fact, after my first year of FIRE (where expenses were very, very high!), I’ve mostly lived off the cash flow my portfolio produces. In practice, that’s kept my withdrawal rate around 3%-3.5%.

Part of that was intentional—I was curbing my spending.

Part of it just… happened. Seeing higher interest rates helped. Dividend growth helped, too. And honestly, I didn’t feel a strong pull to spend more.

But something has shifted recently.

After five-plus years of doing this, and seeing how my portfolio has held up through good years and bad ones, I feel more comfortable.

The fear of “what if this doesn’t work?” isn’t gone—but it’s quieter.

And that opens up a different question:

Not “Can I spend more?”

But “Do I want to?”

There are things I’ve delayed. Trips. Experiences. Some bigger, more meaningful expenditures that didn’t quite fit inside the tighter version of the plan.

So now I’m starting to experiment again.

I am now leaning toward the fixed percentage approach (the third option from yesterday’s post). This year I am testing 5%.

At some point, I may even take this up to 6%...but we’ll see. You need contingency plans.

What matters most to me now is the growth of my liquid assets. Is the portfolio keeping up with inflation after my annual spending?

Looking back, I’m glad I approached it the way I did.

Psychologically, early on, it helped to believe I could spend more aggressively.  

Testing if I could be more conservative, once I arrived, has given me peace of mind.

And now… I am testing somewhere in the middle.

I am still paying attention and will continue to adjust as needed.

So maybe that’s the real takeaway:

The number does matter.

But your relationship to the number matters more.

Because this isn’t just about not running out of money.

It’s about knowing when you’ve built enough… and actually letting yourself live like it.

Personally, I still prefer—and honestly love—the cash flow approach.

But this year I am venturing out a bit further to see if I can build in a couple of those dream experiences, too.

Here’s a couple of things for you to think about:

What will be the major expenses you need to cover once you’re no longer working for a paycheck? That is, what is your annual spending need to support your lifestyle? It is a real number.

What are the big experiences and “luxuries” you want to ensure you include, too? How can you prepare for those now?