Die With Zero

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worry that even though DH and I have enough to potentially die leaving a lot behind, I don’t know what the future brings regarding healthcare expenses/needs. A friend’s 66 yr old DW recently had a stroke and even with Medicare paying for almost everything up front, over time her extreme physical and mental disabilities will wipe them out. This worries me — healthcare costs and money not being what it used to be — and keeps me from spending.

Do you know the life expectancy of someone who has a stroke at 66? I'm just curious because I keep hearing people being afraid they'll be stuck with long term medical bills, but I can't imagine many people living to 100 years old with severe medical issues at 66. According to this website, only about 50% of people live past 5 years post stroke. https://www.healthline.com/health/stroke/stroke-prognosis

Yeah, but that’s 50% who do, and that 5 years can cost a fortune if you want even decent care for your loved one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another thing is that if you don’t learn how to spend (responsibly) now, you definitely aren’t going to learn it in retirement. You will be too set in your ways at that point. I have seen countless retirees who sit on huge savings and do nothing with it because they lived their lives saving every dollar possible, and they don’t know how to spend.

I don't think it's that hard to learn how to spend money responsibly - at least it's not harder than saving every dollar possible. I also kind of doubt that these people regret dying with money in the bank, and they probably enjoy being able to pass down their wealth to whoever they want. I think the way to convince people who've been scrimping their whole life to spend more is to figure out what their goals are, and show them why spending now, rather than later, will align with those goals.

For example, the Die with Zero author makes the argument that, no matter what you want to do with your fortune (spend it, pass it down to future generations, donate it to charity), that it's best to start doing it earlier than later. I believe his book (only listened to a podcast) talks about how charities can change with subsequent directors, so you don't know how they'll be run 5 to 10 years into the future, and that it's easier to make sure the charity aligns with your goals if you're still alive when giving them the donation. For giving to future generations, it's better to help them fund college, grad school, down payment for a house, etc., than to give your 60 year old children a lump sum. Obviously, with travel, you'll have more fun doing it at age 40 than 70. If you have family members that refuse to spend, maybe try talking to them about what they're hoping to get out of the money that they're saving.

Why is this obvious? I enjoy things on which I have spent money but which have not detracted from my financial goals. I’m 42 but would not enjoy a $15,000 vacation now because I have other financial goals which that would delay - I’d be thinking about that even while taking in the beautiful scenery. I’m not saying you have to wait till 70, but I know for sure I would enjoy that trip more at 52 than 42.

This age stuff is a bit odd. It is not the 1940s and 1950s. At 70 most people should be able to do most if not all of what they could do at 60. Even at 80 most people today should be reptty heathy to do whatever. At the moment YMMV after 80. People who are 40 today when they are 80 -- that will feel like 70 or 75 does today. We are living longer and healthier and that will expand greatly over the next 20-40 years. In the 1950s you were old at 65. The 1950s 65 is 80 today.

You don't have aging parents yet, I am assuming

DP. I am an older retired person and I tend to agree with pp. My DH and I are in our 60s/70s and are still very active and love to travel, and most of my friends who are in their 70's are the same way. That said, it is widely variable. We just had dinner with a couple my husband's age who have health issues and really can't travel if it requires getting on a plane. In part, though, a lot of that had to do with not staying on top of things -- one had needed back surgery for decades, but kept putting it off and now they're having difficulty moving and other relatively minor health issues are delaying surgery. I had been avoiding getting a knee replacement until I realized that it was beginning to affect my fitness and balance. When I got it done, I was the youngest person in the waiting room in my mid-60's. Looking around, I could see that many had waited so long that complete recovery was very difficult/impossible. Once you become immobile, it becomes a quick spiral downward. The trick is to never give in to inertia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another thing is that if you don’t learn how to spend (responsibly) now, you definitely aren’t going to learn it in retirement. You will be too set in your ways at that point. I have seen countless retirees who sit on huge savings and do nothing with it because they lived their lives saving every dollar possible, and they don’t know how to spend.

I don't think it's that hard to learn how to spend money responsibly - at least it's not harder than saving every dollar possible. I also kind of doubt that these people regret dying with money in the bank, and they probably enjoy being able to pass down their wealth to whoever they want. I think the way to convince people who've been scrimping their whole life to spend more is to figure out what their goals are, and show them why spending now, rather than later, will align with those goals.

For example, the Die with Zero author makes the argument that, no matter what you want to do with your fortune (spend it, pass it down to future generations, donate it to charity), that it's best to start doing it earlier than later. I believe his book (only listened to a podcast) talks about how charities can change with subsequent directors, so you don't know how they'll be run 5 to 10 years into the future, and that it's easier to make sure the charity aligns with your goals if you're still alive when giving them the donation. For giving to future generations, it's better to help them fund college, grad school, down payment for a house, etc., than to give your 60 year old children a lump sum. Obviously, with travel, you'll have more fun doing it at age 40 than 70. If you have family members that refuse to spend, maybe try talking to them about what they're hoping to get out of the money that they're saving.

Why is this obvious? I enjoy things on which I have spent money but which have not detracted from my financial goals. I’m 42 but would not enjoy a $15,000 vacation now because I have other financial goals which that would delay - I’d be thinking about that even while taking in the beautiful scenery. I’m not saying you have to wait till 70, but I know for sure I would enjoy that trip more at 52 than 42.

This age stuff is a bit odd. It is not the 1940s and 1950s. At 70 most people should be able to do most if not all of what they could do at 60. Even at 80 most people today should be reptty heathy to do whatever. At the moment YMMV after 80. People who are 40 today when they are 80 -- that will feel like 70 or 75 does today. We are living longer and healthier and that will expand greatly over the next 20-40 years. In the 1950s you were old at 65. The 1950s 65 is 80 today.

The life expectancy for people in the United States as of 2018 (pre-covid) is 78.64, so most people will be dead, rather than healthy, at 80.

In the 1950s, the average life expectancy in the United States was 68 years old. So if you were to compare, I guess 75 of today is the 65 in 1950.

But we're talking about relatively wealthy people here, not the "average." Men and women in the top 1% of income have a life expectancy of 87.3 and 88.9 years, respectively.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4866586/#:~:text=Men%20in%20the%20top%201,of%20death%20of%2078.8%20years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another thing is that if you don’t learn how to spend (responsibly) now, you definitely aren’t going to learn it in retirement. You will be too set in your ways at that point. I have seen countless retirees who sit on huge savings and do nothing with it because they lived their lives saving every dollar possible, and they don’t know how to spend.

I don't think it's that hard to learn how to spend money responsibly - at least it's not harder than saving every dollar possible. I also kind of doubt that these people regret dying with money in the bank, and they probably enjoy being able to pass down their wealth to whoever they want. I think the way to convince people who've been scrimping their whole life to spend more is to figure out what their goals are, and show them why spending now, rather than later, will align with those goals.

For example, the Die with Zero author makes the argument that, no matter what you want to do with your fortune (spend it, pass it down to future generations, donate it to charity), that it's best to start doing it earlier than later. I believe his book (only listened to a podcast) talks about how charities can change with subsequent directors, so you don't know how they'll be run 5 to 10 years into the future, and that it's easier to make sure the charity aligns with your goals if you're still alive when giving them the donation. For giving to future generations, it's better to help them fund college, grad school, down payment for a house, etc., than to give your 60 year old children a lump sum. Obviously, with travel, you'll have more fun doing it at age 40 than 70. If you have family members that refuse to spend, maybe try talking to them about what they're hoping to get out of the money that they're saving.

Why is this obvious? I enjoy things on which I have spent money but which have not detracted from my financial goals. I’m 42 but would not enjoy a $15,000 vacation now because I have other financial goals which that would delay - I’d be thinking about that even while taking in the beautiful scenery. I’m not saying you have to wait till 70, but I know for sure I would enjoy that trip more at 52 than 42.

This age stuff is a bit odd. It is not the 1940s and 1950s. At 70 most people should be able to do most if not all of what they could do at 60. Even at 80 most people today should be reptty heathy to do whatever. At the moment YMMV after 80. People who are 40 today when they are 80 -- that will feel like 70 or 75 does today. We are living longer and healthier and that will expand greatly over the next 20-40 years. In the 1950s you were old at 65. The 1950s 65 is 80 today.

The life expectancy for people in the United States as of 2018 (pre-covid) is 78.64, so most people will be dead, rather than healthy, at 80.

In the 1950s, the average life expectancy in the United States was 68 years old. So if you were to compare, I guess 75 of today is the 65 in 1950.

You people really don’t know how life expectancy statistics work, do you? The 78.6 figure includes people who die in a car accident at age 20, die from lung cancer at 50 after smoking two packs a day, etc. However, someone that makes it to age 65 can reasonably expect to live another 21 years, NOT 13 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another thing is that if you don’t learn how to spend (responsibly) now, you definitely aren’t going to learn it in retirement. You will be too set in your ways at that point. I have seen countless retirees who sit on huge savings and do nothing with it because they lived their lives saving every dollar possible, and they don’t know how to spend.

I don't think it's that hard to learn how to spend money responsibly - at least it's not harder than saving every dollar possible. I also kind of doubt that these people regret dying with money in the bank, and they probably enjoy being able to pass down their wealth to whoever they want. I think the way to convince people who've been scrimping their whole life to spend more is to figure out what their goals are, and show them why spending now, rather than later, will align with those goals.

For example, the Die with Zero author makes the argument that, no matter what you want to do with your fortune (spend it, pass it down to future generations, donate it to charity), that it's best to start doing it earlier than later. I believe his book (only listened to a podcast) talks about how charities can change with subsequent directors, so you don't know how they'll be run 5 to 10 years into the future, and that it's easier to make sure the charity aligns with your goals if you're still alive when giving them the donation. For giving to future generations, it's better to help them fund college, grad school, down payment for a house, etc., than to give your 60 year old children a lump sum. Obviously, with travel, you'll have more fun doing it at age 40 than 70. If you have family members that refuse to spend, maybe try talking to them about what they're hoping to get out of the money that they're saving.

Why is this obvious? I enjoy things on which I have spent money but which have not detracted from my financial goals. I’m 42 but would not enjoy a $15,000 vacation now because I have other financial goals which that would delay - I’d be thinking about that even while taking in the beautiful scenery. I’m not saying you have to wait till 70, but I know for sure I would enjoy that trip more at 52 than 42.

Are you really saying that, if you had the money, you would rather take the trip at 52 than 42? FWIW, Die with Zero is directed at people with money, not the average joe who has 150K in net worth at age 65.

Sure, if money were no object, then I would do everything now instead of delaying. But for me (and probably for many others my age), I’ve only been able to finally start saving large amounts of money in the last few years.

In the first 42 years of my life, I’ve only been able to accumulate $900K. I estimate that by age 52, I’ll have at least $2.5 million, which will be enough for me (a single person) to retire. These are my prime money-building years, so delaying vacation for a decade absolutely makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another thing is that if you don’t learn how to spend (responsibly) now, you definitely aren’t going to learn it in retirement. You will be too set in your ways at that point. I have seen countless retirees who sit on huge savings and do nothing with it because they lived their lives saving every dollar possible, and they don’t know how to spend.

I don't think it's that hard to learn how to spend money responsibly - at least it's not harder than saving every dollar possible. I also kind of doubt that these people regret dying with money in the bank, and they probably enjoy being able to pass down their wealth to whoever they want. I think the way to convince people who've been scrimping their whole life to spend more is to figure out what their goals are, and show them why spending now, rather than later, will align with those goals.

For example, the Die with Zero author makes the argument that, no matter what you want to do with your fortune (spend it, pass it down to future generations, donate it to charity), that it's best to start doing it earlier than later. I believe his book (only listened to a podcast) talks about how charities can change with subsequent directors, so you don't know how they'll be run 5 to 10 years into the future, and that it's easier to make sure the charity aligns with your goals if you're still alive when giving them the donation. For giving to future generations, it's better to help them fund college, grad school, down payment for a house, etc., than to give your 60 year old children a lump sum. Obviously, with travel, you'll have more fun doing it at age 40 than 70. If you have family members that refuse to spend, maybe try talking to them about what they're hoping to get out of the money that they're saving.

Why is this obvious? I enjoy things on which I have spent money but which have not detracted from my financial goals. I’m 42 but would not enjoy a $15,000 vacation now because I have other financial goals which that would delay - I’d be thinking about that even while taking in the beautiful scenery. I’m not saying you have to wait till 70, but I know for sure I would enjoy that trip more at 52 than 42.

I would have thought the same, but after being incredibly fit and healthy in his forties, my spouse hurt his back around age 50 (while exercising) and spent several years in a lot of pain. We did take some trips during that time but flights were excruciating and we modified activities extensively. He could barely walk up stairs. There is no question the trips were less fun than they would have been a few years before. The good news is that after several rough years he is getting better and we are able to do more. But it has brought home to me that if you want to do something, now is the time. None of us know what the future holds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another thing is that if you don’t learn how to spend (responsibly) now, you definitely aren’t going to learn it in retirement. You will be too set in your ways at that point. I have seen countless retirees who sit on huge savings and do nothing with it because they lived their lives saving every dollar possible, and they don’t know how to spend.

I don't think it's that hard to learn how to spend money responsibly - at least it's not harder than saving every dollar possible. I also kind of doubt that these people regret dying with money in the bank, and they probably enjoy being able to pass down their wealth to whoever they want. I think the way to convince people who've been scrimping their whole life to spend more is to figure out what their goals are, and show them why spending now, rather than later, will align with those goals.

For example, the Die with Zero author makes the argument that, no matter what you want to do with your fortune (spend it, pass it down to future generations, donate it to charity), that it's best to start doing it earlier than later. I believe his book (only listened to a podcast) talks about how charities can change with subsequent directors, so you don't know how they'll be run 5 to 10 years into the future, and that it's easier to make sure the charity aligns with your goals if you're still alive when giving them the donation. For giving to future generations, it's better to help them fund college, grad school, down payment for a house, etc., than to give your 60 year old children a lump sum. Obviously, with travel, you'll have more fun doing it at age 40 than 70. If you have family members that refuse to spend, maybe try talking to them about what they're hoping to get out of the money that they're saving.

Why is this obvious? I enjoy things on which I have spent money but which have not detracted from my financial goals. I’m 42 but would not enjoy a $15,000 vacation now because I have other financial goals which that would delay - I’d be thinking about that even while taking in the beautiful scenery. I’m not saying you have to wait till 70, but I know for sure I would enjoy that trip more at 52 than 42.

This age stuff is a bit odd. It is not the 1940s and 1950s. At 70 most people should be able to do most if not all of what they could do at 60. Even at 80 most people today should be reptty heathy to do whatever. At the moment YMMV after 80. People who are 40 today when they are 80 -- that will feel like 70 or 75 does today. We are living longer and healthier and that will expand greatly over the next 20-40 years. In the 1950s you were old at 65. The 1950s 65 is 80 today.

The life expectancy for people in the United States as of 2018 (pre-covid) is 78.64, so most people will be dead, rather than healthy, at 80.

In the 1950s, the average life expectancy in the United States was 68 years old. So if you were to compare, I guess 75 of today is the 65 in 1950.

You people really don’t know how life expectancy statistics work, do you? The 78.6 figure includes people who die in a car accident at age 20, die from lung cancer at 50 after smoking two packs a day, etc. However, someone that makes it to age 65 can reasonably expect to live another 21 years, NOT 13 years.

Sure. But we're not talking about whether you should continue to save as much money as possible in retirement [which begins at age 65 for most people]. We're talking about whether you should be saving money at age 40 to prepare for your retirement at 65, or spending it now so you can have a nice house while your kids are still young, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another thing is that if you don’t learn how to spend (responsibly) now, you definitely aren’t going to learn it in retirement. You will be too set in your ways at that point. I have seen countless retirees who sit on huge savings and do nothing with it because they lived their lives saving every dollar possible, and they don’t know how to spend.

I don't think it's that hard to learn how to spend money responsibly - at least it's not harder than saving every dollar possible. I also kind of doubt that these people regret dying with money in the bank, and they probably enjoy being able to pass down their wealth to whoever they want. I think the way to convince people who've been scrimping their whole life to spend more is to figure out what their goals are, and show them why spending now, rather than later, will align with those goals.

For example, the Die with Zero author makes the argument that, no matter what you want to do with your fortune (spend it, pass it down to future generations, donate it to charity), that it's best to start doing it earlier than later. I believe his book (only listened to a podcast) talks about how charities can change with subsequent directors, so you don't know how they'll be run 5 to 10 years into the future, and that it's easier to make sure the charity aligns with your goals if you're still alive when giving them the donation. For giving to future generations, it's better to help them fund college, grad school, down payment for a house, etc., than to give your 60 year old children a lump sum. Obviously, with travel, you'll have more fun doing it at age 40 than 70. If you have family members that refuse to spend, maybe try talking to them about what they're hoping to get out of the money that they're saving.

Why is this obvious? I enjoy things on which I have spent money but which have not detracted from my financial goals. I’m 42 but would not enjoy a $15,000 vacation now because I have other financial goals which that would delay - I’d be thinking about that even while taking in the beautiful scenery. I’m not saying you have to wait till 70, but I know for sure I would enjoy that trip more at 52 than 42.

This age stuff is a bit odd. It is not the 1940s and 1950s. At 70 most people should be able to do most if not all of what they could do at 60. Even at 80 most people today should be reptty heathy to do whatever. At the moment YMMV after 80. People who are 40 today when they are 80 -- that will feel like 70 or 75 does today. We are living longer and healthier and that will expand greatly over the next 20-40 years. In the 1950s you were old at 65. The 1950s 65 is 80 today.

The life expectancy for people in the United States as of 2018 (pre-covid) is 78.64, so most people will be dead, rather than healthy, at 80.

In the 1950s, the average life expectancy in the United States was 68 years old. So if you were to compare, I guess 75 of today is the 65 in 1950.

But we're talking about relatively wealthy people here, not the "average." Men and women in the top 1% of income have a life expectancy of 87.3 and 88.9 years, respectively.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4866586/#:~:text=Men%20in%20the%20top%201,of%20death%20of%2078.8%20years.

Okay, sorry. I forgot about all the fun things that the 87 year olds are doing right before they die. Scratch that, the fun things that the 80 year olds are doing until they die seven years later.

[Anonymous]

My parents worked a long time and saved a ton, and I am surprised by how little they are spending in retirement in their 70s. They do travel, but their life is becoming simpler day to day as they age. I think it is just something about the life stage, that you need less, want less, and are less interested in seeking out "stuff" and novelty. They used to dine out at expensive restaurants for example, for special occasions, but now they don't. They buy very little.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If medical aid in dying were legal across the US and available to people with early dementia diagnoses I would 100% embrace this.

Motorcycling is legal.

[Anonymous]

Trying to spend your day to happiness makes you hungrier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If medical aid in dying were legal across the US and available to people with early dementia diagnoses I would 100% embrace this.

Motorcycling is legal.

Most people don't want their families to see them as a blob to be cleaned off the street. Or to risk killing others as they end their own lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a high-income Uncle who I always think did life right in terms of spending.

The only $ he saved from his 20s to about age 50 was in his 401k and a healthy emergency fund. He used to spend like crazy, awesome vacations, he loved cars (that was his main industry) and was always trading them in like every year or two, and was the life of the party and paid the bill. He also moved houses a lot, probably 10 times (some were bigger, some were just a different layout that he thought would be better).

Then around 50 he got a final big promotion. From 30-50 he made the equivalent of mid to high 6 figures and this one about doubled his salary. Instead of spending even more he saved all the extra and retired about 7-8 years later (then consulted part-time for a few more). Now in his late 70s he spends less, says he did everything he wanted to and can’t or doesn’t want to travel the same way, mostly only travels to his childhood hometown in Europe.

He lived it up young and now is enjoying a quieter less spendy life (been in the same house for 20 years). I personally couldn’t do it, he had supreme confidence that he could always get another high paying job, but wish I could and feel he spent his money in a pretty ideal fashion. Enjoyed the younger days fully and pulled back when older.

That sounds like fun. I’d be too nervous I’d be axed at 50 and not be able to find another job though.

[Anonymous]

I am leaving mine to my kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entire point of my existence is to live happily while passing on the bulk of my fortune to my children. Something my family has done, or attempted to do, for generations.

So I'll pass on the nonsense advice, thanks.

Tend to agree. Do not ignore the moment. Have fun, enjoy life. Also save. You can do both. Unless you hate your kids, passing on wealth is important. You could think -- I made mine so they have to make theirs -- sure. But life does not work that way -- it is unfair and someone with all the right moves falls flat ont heir face -- or does fine but never gets their shot or has a very ill child or a divorce or maybe they have to quit their job for a moral reason -- will not fudge numbers -- and that is the end of their run. You never know. Hopefully you leave your money and the kids have a fun life but they may not and may need that money you blew for no reason at all. Don't deny yoursefl. Don't act stupid.

Our parent will outlive their money. Their advisor told them to spend more but they didn’t. Now the parent has dementia.

I don’t want to be like that. I want to help my kids.