Flagpole wrote:...must have $1 million in investments, have zero debt including a paid-for house (or money separately set aside that pays for rent increases the rest of your life) and still doing 15% of income minimum into retirement accounts if still working.
The underlined and bolded part seems grossly overconservative for somebody who's had the diligence and discipline to have $1M invested (depending on their age and income I suppose), particularly in today's ultra-low interest rate environment.
In our case (granted I am an idiot), we carry debt worth about a third of the value of our assets. We could sell stuff to pay down that debt, which would certainly be the lowest risk approach, but our fairly careful examination of the alternatives doesn't incline us in that direction. Rent on the properties securing that debt more than covers the cost of the debt, and the properties are in markets we consider much more likely to appreciate than not, particularly over the medium to longer term). There is some chance we will do worse with this approach than we might otherwise, as there is risk with any investment strategy.
There are good reasons to avoid debt, but not all debt is bad or dangerous, and avoidance of debt risk may be prudent for most in many circumstances, but ruling it out as a legitimate option in some circumstances is, I think, short-sighted and perhaps ignorant.