Minimalist Homestead Requirements To Live On $500 A Month In Oregon.

[arakboss]

Very cool cabin!

May I ask how old you are?

53. It is rough but it was cheap to buy and taxes are super cheap $150ish a year. Best part is, the back end of my lot borders a National Forest so it's like having many thousands of acres for a backyard.

 

[MikeInOr]

53. It is rough but it was cheap to buy and taxes are super cheap $150ish a year. Best part is, the back end of my lot borders a National Forest so it's like having many thousands of acres for a backyard.

I am 54. Retiring at 67 seems like it is a long way away! If I can make it 67 I will receive $3200/mo SS, $2300 at 62. This is assuming SS is still around. I would have a very hard time making it on $500 a month.

Are you talking about when you retire... or moving out there full time now?

 

[Certaindeaf]

Kazinsky was able to augment his income by gathering pine nuts.






probably

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

I am 54. Retiring at 67 seems like it is a long way away!

I'm 61 and retiring at 67 and 10 months, funny thing is the closer I get the farther away it feels

 

[MikeInOr]

I'm 61 and retiring at 67 and 10 months, funny thing is the closer I get the farther away it feels

Why the "and 10 months"?

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Why the "and 10 months"?

The longer you wait the more you get, not sure if the timeline is the same for everyone for me the next bump is at 10 months
But the real trick in figuring out when to start drawing on your SS is knowing when you are going die

 

[2Wheels4Ever]

$500/month barely covers bourbon and beer! And ammo? How you going to shoot?!

But in all seriousness, if I were trying to live on the extreme low end of costs, I would move to the coast. Fresh fish/crab/shellfish/seafood can provide year round meat. Foraging for shrooms and wild greens can be a fun side activity while hunting on land. Water can be harvested from rain and with proper management, a half acre can provide ample food with room for a septic system.

 

[Spitpatch]

I've lived in a wall tent on the Montana Prairie for 30 days each year for 6 years now.

I don't think I get by on 500 bucks.

 

[MikeInOr]

The longer you wait the more you get, not sure if the timeline is the same for everyone for me the next bump is at 10 months
But the real trick in figuring out when to start drawing on your SS is knowing when you are going die

My graph shows 62 + 1 month for first eligible. Then 67 + 0 months and then 70 + 0 months. Must be some funky government equation they are using.

 

[357 MAX]

My graph shows 62 + 1 month for first eligible. Then 67 + 0 months and then 70 + 0 months. Must be some funky government equation they are using.

depends on your date of birth. if you were born on january 1st you would be correct. born december 1st. it would be 67+ 11 months

 

[MikeInOr]

depends on your date of birth. if you were born on january 1st you would be correct. born december 1st. it would be 67+ 11 months

Thanks fir the clarification, I am a january baby.

 

[The Heretic]

But the real trick in figuring out when to start drawing on your SS is knowing when you are going die

I took it when I got to FRA (66) 4 years ago. I had just been laid off, so it wasn't a hard decision, even though I could have just lived on UI benes for another 18 months.

At that point, SS predicted I would live to 83? That's about what I figured - nobody in my parents or grandparents generation made it thru their 80s. My dad died from cancer at 77 and was already starting to suffer from dementia/Alheimers and maybe Parkinsons. My mother died at 82 after multiple strokes and heart problems. My older brother had a heart attack and a quad bypass (IIRC) and my little brother had stents years before I finally went to a cardiologist.

So yeah, so back of envelope calculations show it was best to start SS at FRA - for me at least.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Just went back and did the math, I would "give up" 10 months of SS payments for about a 1.5% bump, and it would take just over 15 years to 'earn back' the monnies I didn't take for those 10 months!

Retirement(sic) just got moved up a bit!

 

[Benchrest]

Kazinsky was able to augment his income by gathering pine nuts.






probably

Ok, that's it! Joe, we need an intervention!

 

[thorborg]

The long term really requires more than survival. If growth and profit is not eventually attainable, any reasonable quality of life will not be either.
Whether in the city or wilderness, acquisition beyond needs to be squirreled away is paramount, you must produce and save more than you require. Life's expenses, and your health, will never remain static.

 

[oremike]

I retired at 59 1/2 but didn't start Social Security until I was 62. If a remember the math right if I'd have waited until I was 65 or 67 I'd have to live past 80 to make more money than I've have made with the early payments. I had Congestive Heart Failure back in December. I feel like living past 80 is a crap shoot so I think that the early start is to my advantage. Because of my work history I get about 1500 a month. The low amount also qualifies me for Medicare, Medicaid and the extra help program.

 

[dangerranger60]

Our food bill runs $800 a month that includes our animals. We could do with less if we wanted. We heat with wood and use Evaporative cooling. The only things I could do to reduce those costs is move into a smaller home. our RV is under 250 sf. I don't think I would want to live any smaller than that.
I could never see us getting to live on $1000 a month. DR

 

[nehalemguy]

Not to throw cold water on this discussion, but nobody in Oregon or Washington truly owns the land they live on, even if it's "paid off".

-E-

 

[CamoDeafie]

Not to throw cold water on this discussion, but nobody in Oregon or Washington truly owns the land they live on, even if it's "paid off".

-E-

Make that, all of America??

 

[lucusloc]

It seems that there is a wide understanding of what the term "minimalist" means to people here. To some that means a basic, fully functional home and cutting all the unnecessary luxury items like entertainment and discretionary spending, just keeping the basics like food and utilities while supplementing what they can from the local land (e.g. heat and food). To others it seems like the minimum is "can I actually survive like a hobo in a shack on some random piece of property with zero infrastructure development for a decade or more in my old age?" The budget for those is wildly different, as is the standard of living that can be expected from each of them.

I would argue that the expected lifespan for each will also likely be wildly different, as the capability to deal with a "health event" in each situation is wildly different.

Now I am not gong to knock anyone's life choices here. Hell, I have family that chooses to live like a hermit in the back woods and basically talks to no one but me and my father, and we do not have enough time to get back and check on him as often as we would like. But it is important that we understand what the limitations and trade offs are in such minimalist situations. It really is quite isolating, as even things like basic communication cost money. Forgoing those, and forgoing trips out to visit people is really quite isolating. If that is your thing then sure, you can live on next to nothing. My relative lives, like @arakboss is considering, on shelf stable goods supplemented with foraged and hunted food. He has no refrigeration, so perishables are consumed only when available. His only entertainment (and outside connection) is a radio. He only ventures off the property once every few months. If he wants to call us it is a 10 mile drive to the nearest country store to borrow their phone.

As for me I would not call that "minimalist living" I would call that "bare minimum survival," but he seems to like it. And it will kill him I am sure. He smoked for a good chunk of his life and caries the health complications from it. My worry is that he will have a heart attack, and even if it would have been survivable it will still kill him, because he has no way to get assistance in an emergency. It will be weeks before anyone even thinks to go looking for him, and given where he lives that likely means there will be little left to even find. I have shared my concern with him, but that is the way he wants to go, so not a lot more is to be said about it. If that is your thing then sure, $500 is probably more than doable. I have not asked but I bet he spends way less than that on everything put together (although he is living on a family property and does not pay the taxes on it, I am sure they are not more than a few hundred a year as it is a wholly undeveloped property). But I do not find that to be a desirable way to live, especially when there is at least some friends or family that enjoys having you around. I pray that someday soon I can get enough land together to stick him on the back 40 so I can at least check on him regularly and make sure he does not freeze to death over the winter, but then I have to start the process of talking him down off his mountain and that is going to be a task in itself.