Compare similar life situations, assumptions, and retirement tradeoffs.
Australia
Housing
Sydney family: extra super or pay down the mortgage faster?
For: Sydney dual-income family with one child, large owner-occupier mortgage, and spare cash to split between super and debt reduction
Should a Sydney family with spare cash put it into super or use it to ease mortgage pressure sooner? This comparison shows when long-run compounding wins.
Australia part-time parent: super gap or family time?
For: Australian dual-income family, parents age 38, one young child, mortgage-sized household costs; deciding whether one parent should reduce hours and later catch up super
If one parent cuts back to 0.6 FTE for the early-child years, the family buys breathing room, but the retirement gap only closes with explicit catch-up saving.
Coast FIRE is the moment where your existing savings can plausibly compound into a full retirement plan - even if you ease off the gas in your 40s.
This scenario is for a dual-income professional couple in Melbourne (age 36, renting) with about AUD120k in savings today. The research baseline for this persona is AUD160k-AUD240k household gross income, or roughly AUD10.6k-AUD15.1k/month after tax. Typical "comfortable but not extravagant" renting costs land around AUD5.2k-AUD7.6k/month, leaving a realistic savings capacity of roughly AUD3k-AUD7k/month.
The pack compares three practical ways to define "coast before 50":
Keep pushing: save hard to 50, then drop to a lower maintenance contribution.
Coast sooner: ease off in your mid-40s, so lifestyle improves earlier.
Family-aware: assume a short window of higher costs and lower saving around family formation, then push again.
All figures are shown in today's AUD. Each path is tested across cautious, central, and stronger after-inflation return cases so you can see how much of Coast FIRE comes from market growth versus saving effort.
The most useful output is not "did we get rich?" but how sensitive the plan is to returns and to a handful of high-impact life choices (rent level, a car cycle, and a family-cost window).
These nine variants start from the same Melbourne couple profile and then test what changes when saving pace and returns change.
Variant
Return case
Effort/mo
Retirement spend (planned/safe)
Liquid at age 92
Base · Keep pushing
Central
A$3,081/mo
A$8,500 / A$10,351
≈A$1,520k
Pessimistic · Keep pushing
Cautious
A$3,081/mo
A$8,500 / A$8,505
≈A$513k
Optimistic · Keep pushing
Stronger
A$3,081/mo
A$14,000 / A$14,952
≈A$538k
Base · Coast sooner
Central
A$2,290/mo
A$7,500 / A$8,301
≈A$887k
Pessimistic · Coast sooner
Cautious
A$2,290/mo
A$7,500 / A$6,785
≈A$89k
Optimistic · Coast sooner
Stronger
A$2,290/mo
A$12,000 / A$12,136
≈A$400k
Base · Family-aware
Central
A$2,629/mo
A$7,000 / A$7,875
≈A$898k
Pessimistic · Family-aware
Cautious
A$2,629/mo
A$7,000 / A$6,530
≈A$182k
Optimistic · Family-aware
Stronger
A$2,629/mo
A$11,000 / A$11,233
≈A$399k
"Safe" = the spending level that still leaves a multi-year cushion in this comparison. Use it as a guardrail, not a promise.
The biggest story here is compounding, not just monthly effort. In the base keep-pushing path, the couple contributes about A$1.15M before retirement and earns about A$1.15M of investment growth on top of that. Even the base coast-sooner path still gets roughly A$956k of growth from about A$852k of contributions, which is why easing off later can still work if the early saving base is strong.
In the strongest keep-pushing path, that late-life surplus is best read as flexibility for extra costs, lower future returns, or a gentler drawdown - not as a target budget you need to chase.
When is "coast" actually safe? (Not "forever", but safe enough that a bad decade won't immediately break the plan.)
How much lifestyle can you buy with "coast"? (What happens if you redirect savings into better housing, travel, or time back?)
What's the big failure mode? (Usually: coasting too early, then taking a housing or family cost step-up anyway.)
In Australia, that trade-off is sharper than many US Coast FIRE examples suggest because a lot of long-run wealth may sit inside super while rent, childcare, and replacement-car costs still have to be covered from accessible cashflow before 60.
This scenario does not try to recreate every line of a Melbourne household budget. Instead, it treats your investable savings as the main engine and then adds a few "budget killers" as explicit entries:
A long-run rent upgrade (extra space / better location).
A car cycle (a realistic upgrade and a later replacement).
One-off relocation/setup costs.
In the family-aware path, a temporary higher-spend window plus a baby setup buffer.
The base and pessimistic variants assume retirement spending in roughly the A$7k-A$8.5k/month range across the three paths. The optimistic variants deliberately test a more expensive retirement - about A$11k-A$14k/month - to show how quickly the margin shrinks when lifestyle rises with returns. A small Age Pension line is included only as a planning anchor, and for higher-asset households it could be much lower or zero.
You invest aggressively through your late 30s and 40s, then you deliberately "coast" by dropping to a smaller maintenance contribution from 50 onward. This path is the closest thing to a clean Coast FIRE narrative: it creates a large compounding base before you relax.
This path is intentionally tempting: it moves the lifestyle trade-off forward by easing off in the mid-40s. It answers the question, "If we start taking the win earlier, what return assumptions does that require?"
Instead of pretending your savings rate will be smooth forever, this path builds in a few years where costs rise and savings drop, then assumes you rebuild saving effort after that period.
When you open the preset, start with the life path that matches your near-term reality, then adjust only the entries that are truly different.
Change the two monthly investing bands (pre-50 and post-50) to match your actual "surplus after bills".
If buying a home is likely, add a deposit + purchase-cost one-off and a monthly housing cost increase (and remember home equity is not counted unless you model a future sale).
Replace the "Family formation costs" band with your own childcare/leave plan once you have credible numbers.
Superannuation vs accessible savings: Read this as one combined investment pot for comparison purposes. In real life, super is usually locked until at least age 60, so a couple who eases off early still needs enough accessible savings to cover the bridge years.
Age Pension is means-tested: The included pension line is a planning anchor, not a promise. For higher-asset households it can be much smaller (or zero).
Returns are real, not nominal: Returns here are shown after inflation, so the middle case should be read as a modest long-run real return, not a forecast. Your brokerage account will show higher nominal returns if inflation runs hot.
The hardest part of Australian Coast FIRE is usually not the back half of retirement. It is the bridge years before super becomes accessible. A household can look comfortably on track for life after 60 while still feeling squeezed if rent rises, childcare arrives, or one salary softens for a year or two. For many Melbourne renters, that bridge is where housing and family costs do the real damage, because those costs land years before the super system starts helping. That is why the sturdier versions here keep building accessible investments into the late 40s instead of assuming super alone will carry the whole plan. In practice, the safer reading of Coast FIRE is often smaller contributions with a real liquid buffer, not a plan you can ignore entirely.
This scenario is educational, not personal financial advice. It simplifies taxes, benefits, and portfolio setup so you can stress-test the decision before speaking with a qualified professional.