What is a realistic life expectancy assumption. 90, 120, or more?

[Anonymous]

Again, life expectancy is not decreasing because of cancer. It’s just not true no matter what your holistic health guru told you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a friend who is an actuary who recommended taking the oldest age a parent or grandparent has lived to plus 7 as the estimate for the longest you are likely to live for retirement savings planning.

My oldest grandparent/parent was my grandmother who lived to 94, so my number would be 101.

Wow, I have a 102 y/o grandmother. I really don’t want to live to be 109. Even with reasonably good health, past ~95 the quality of life isn’t really there. She cannot see or hear much. So she can’t even read or watch tv.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a friend who is an actuary who recommended taking the oldest age a parent or grandparent has lived to plus 7 as the estimate for the longest you are likely to live for retirement savings planning.

My oldest grandparent/parent was my grandmother who lived to 94, so my number would be 101.

Wow, I have a 102 y/o grandmother. I really don’t want to live to be 109. Even with reasonably good health, past ~95 the quality of life isn’t really there. She cannot see or hear much. So she can’t even read or watch tv.

The thinking is that you at 95 would not be like that do to advances in medical care and prevention treatments over the 40 year before that.

In other words? 95 would be the new 80.