Die With Zero

[Anonymous]

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.

I feel the same way. If we all knew our health issues would be covered, we might be willing to spend more. Wouldn’t that be better for the economy?

Due to healthcare uncertainty, we are working longer to save more. If we need wheelchair ramps or expensive medicine or a care aid, I want us to have the money for it.

[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.

I feel the same way. If we all knew our health issues would be covered, we might be willing to spend more. Wouldn’t that be better for the economy?

Due to healthcare uncertainty, we are working longer to save more. If we need wheelchair ramps or expensive medicine or a care aid, I want us to have the money for it.

Perkins has addressed the healthcare issue - basically says that you can NEVER have enough to cover every potential medical scenario. He's a hedge fund manager with an estimated net worth of $100M and has noted that there are certain treatments/situations that only someone in his position would be able to afford. So, for high-earners/HNW individuals, are you going to live your life trying to go from a 99% certainty of everything being fine to a 99.9% certainty - or are you going to enjoy your life? He's a poker player and looks at probabilities, and the odds do not favor the healthcare fearmongers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

This has been my experience as well with my parents and all of older family members. They seem to spend less and less after their early 70s.

My dad just likes being home since he hit 80, and he is fairly healthy for someone that age although he can’t bend down very well anymore. Gym and home that is his routine, with rare outings, and that’s the way he likes it.

[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.

Yes and that number will rapidly increase over the next 20-40 years. As there are advances in healthcare and if people take somewhat care of themselves they will live longer productive lives. I agree with a PP -- the aging issue today is that you can never stop. Once you stop for any reason coming back is hard.

[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.

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.

Agree but a back issue like that at 50 is not common. There really should be no difference between say 40 and 60. At 60 there is a change but 50 is not normal to have an issue like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I feel the same way. If we all knew our health issues would be covered, we might be willing to spend more. Wouldn’t that be better for the economy?

Due to healthcare uncertainty, we are working longer to save more. If we need wheelchair ramps or expensive medicine or a care aid, I want us to have the money for it.

Perkins has addressed the healthcare issue - basically says that you can NEVER have enough to cover every potential medical scenario. He's a hedge fund manager with an estimated net worth of $100M and has noted that there are certain treatments/situations that only someone in his position would be able to afford. So, for high-earners/HNW individuals, are you going to live your life trying to go from a 99% certainty of everything being fine to a 99.9% certainty - or are you going to enjoy your life? He's a poker player and looks at probabilities, and the odds do not favor the healthcare fearmongers.

He also says that it's much cheaper to just get long term health care insurance, than to try to self-insure.

[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.

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.

Agree but a back issue like that at 50 is not common. There really should be no difference between say 40 and 60. At 60 there is a change but 50 is not normal to have an issue like this.

Is there a difference between 20 and 30? 30 and 40? If you answer yes, then logically it would follow that there would be also a difference between 40 and 60. My parents exercise and eat healthy - BMI well within the healthy range. But they could not hike at age 55 like they used to at age 45, nor could they at 45, like how they did at 35.

[Anonymous]

My parents are in their early 70’s, quite wealthy and still very healthy. But, I can see that they are slowing down and not willing to take trips to places that require them to hike mountain trails. My dad hates cobblestone sidewalks and streets! There is no doubt that they want to provide a good safety net for their children and now small army of grandchildren. They are very generous with charities and that’s where what ever is left will go via a donor advised fund that my siblings and I will manage when they are gone. I think they are doing exactly what they want to do and that all of the experiences in the world can’t match what they are doing now. My dad has two car seats in the back of his car and he loves when they are in use.

[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.

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.

Agree but a back issue like that at 50 is not common. There really should be no difference between say 40 and 60. At 60 there is a change but 50 is not normal to have an issue like this.

Is there a difference between 20 and 30? 30 and 40? If you answer yes, then logically it would follow that there would be also a difference between 40 and 60. My parents exercise and eat healthy - BMI well within the healthy range. But they could not hike at age 55 like they used to at age 45, nor could they at 45, like how they did at 35.

20 and 30 -- no there should not be a difference. 30 and 40 -- no there should not be a difference. The body changes at 40 and 60. not at 30 or 20. You can make your body do less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My parents are in their early 70’s, quite wealthy and still very healthy. But, I can see that they are slowing down and not willing to take trips to places that require them to hike mountain trails. My dad hates cobblestone sidewalks and streets! There is no doubt that they want to provide a good safety net for their children and now small army of grandchildren. They are very generous with charities and that’s where what ever is left will go via a donor advised fund that my siblings and I will manage when they are gone. I think they are doing exactly what they want to do and that all of the experiences in the world can’t match what they are doing now. My dad has two car seats in the back of his car and he loves when they are in use.

I will say this: YMMV. In my family on both sides of parents, grandparents, great grandparents and extended cousins -- death tends to come in the 90s. Some in their 80s. The mindset is different. They all see 70s as a prime decade. Most do not slow in a major way until mid-80s and then it comes. Everything people are saying. Some of the pulling back is on the people. If your mindset was you are not supposed to pull back, you don't unless you have to. My parents when on a family trip to the old country at 80. Same type of trip as the decade before and the decade before that. I saw no real slowing. Fast forward just a couple of years and they could not do that trip. So I see what people are saying. But 70 is still young for most people.

[Anonymous]

A lot of these responses assume nothing bad will happen until some certain age. That's so far from sure, and it's arrogant (that may not be quite the right word, but it seems more willful than just naive) to think you will definitely be here and ready to travel at 70, 80, whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of these responses assume nothing bad will happen until some certain age. That's so far from sure, and it's arrogant (that may not be quite the right word, but it seems more willful than just naive) to think you will definitely be here and ready to travel at 70, 80, whatever.

To add, without having read the book but having read lots of commentary about it, people tend to look at one risk -- not amassing enough money for many years of care, which can be "calculated" financially -- without balancing the other risks like dying early or becoming sick or disabled and not "living enough," whatever that looks like for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Agree but a back issue like that at 50 is not common. There really should be no difference between say 40 and 60. At 60 there is a change but 50 is not normal to have an issue like this.

Is there a difference between 20 and 30? 30 and 40? If you answer yes, then logically it would follow that there would be also a difference between 40 and 60. My parents exercise and eat healthy - BMI well within the healthy range. But they could not hike at age 55 like they used to at age 45, nor could they at 45, like how they did at 35.

20 and 30 -- no there should not be a difference. 30 and 40 -- no there should not be a difference. The body changes at 40 and 60. not at 30 or 20. You can make your body do less.

Name one person that has attained this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of these responses assume nothing bad will happen until some certain age. That's so far from sure, and it's arrogant (that may not be quite the right word, but it seems more willful than just naive) to think you will definitely be here and ready to travel at 70, 80, whatever.

But if you're assuming that you won't be, seems a bit self-fulfilling. Research has shown that negatively affects outcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of these responses assume nothing bad will happen until some certain age. That's so far from sure, and it's arrogant (that may not be quite the right word, but it seems more willful than just naive) to think you will definitely be here and ready to travel at 70, 80, whatever.

To add, without having read the book but having read lots of commentary about it, people tend to look at one risk -- not amassing enough money for many years of care, which can be "calculated" financially -- without balancing the other risks like dying early or becoming sick or disabled and not "living enough," whatever that looks like for you.

Maybe the other posters' worst nightmare is realizing that, at 70 years old, that all they have are memories of being in Greece, but no money to pay the hospital to feed them through a tube. I am the opposite - I'd rather die knowing that I lived life than spending everything I have to cling on to a few more years of living in a dying body.