Die With Zero

[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.

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

I'm not assuming I will or won't. I'm planning for both but you can take the amassing money thing way too far at the expense of living life, and my personal opinion is the amount you actually need is way less than what OP already has, especially after it grows to her planned retirement date.

I think OP should run some calculators separately on the $4 mil she already has and then $4 mil + contributions at current rate and then $4 mil + contributions at her proposed lower rate and any other combos like contributing $X less per year to spend it on more travel. Then she can see how much of the "final" expected value at retirement comes from what she already has vs. what she's sacrificing to get even more. I think many people would be surprised at the breakdown and how much the current amount might grow even with zero further contributions, which is much more extreme than she's considering.

Then think about what her goals now and for the future actually are, and how each of those scenarios affect her goals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, if that's actually their worst nightmare, that's fine and I won't tell them differently. I think the point of the discussion is to make sure that's your true values and you're being realistic about what having tons of cash for the best care might cost you in non-monetary terms and not just assume more money is always the right answer.

It just seems to me like a lot of people try to control the future money piece because they're afraid to admit they can't control how long/healthy they will live.

[Anonymous]

We’re all idiots

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

I'm not assuming I will or won't. I'm planning for both but you can take the amassing money thing way too far at the expense of living life, and my personal opinion is the amount you actually need is way less than what OP already has, especially after it grows to her planned retirement date.

I think OP should run some calculators separately on the $4 mil she already has and then $4 mil + contributions at current rate and then $4 mil + contributions at her proposed lower rate and any other combos like contributing $X less per year to spend it on more travel. Then she can see how much of the "final" expected value at retirement comes from what she already has vs. what she's sacrificing to get even more. I think many people would be surprised at the breakdown and how much the current amount might grow even with zero further contributions, which is much more extreme than she's considering.

Then think about what her goals now and for the future actually are, and how each of those scenarios affect her goals.

+1
Tried that with the fidelity retirements planning tool, very interesting

[Anonymous]

If you invest your whole life you will probably have made most of your money from investment gains instead of wages, so you aren’t really wasting your time.

If you make 5M over the course of your life and never invest, you might die with nothing

But if you made 5M and invested along the way you’d have 10-20M in the end.

The problem is, money is wasted on the old. And anyone young with money probably was born into wealth so they can’t appreciate it or manage it well. I think the ideal situation is someone born lower middle class who became wealthy in their mid 20’s or 30’s through hard work and has the wisdom to not lose it.

[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.

Unreliable, though.

[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.

Yes, this is a wonderful strategy for those of us who make MORE THAN A MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR after age 50.

JFC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Every human. It's science.

[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.

For most people -- nothing bad will happen. Most can travel at 70 and 80.

[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.

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.

The data was in response to pp who was arguing that you can't have fun in your 70's because you're going to be dead. Of course, even most wealthy people slow down in their late '80's. But the ones I know who are in their 70's are still active and traveling all over the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am leaving mine to my kids.

Some kids don't need money. I have those kids.

[Anonymous]

It's worth dying with money to leave money to my children and to the worthy causes I care about. I'm not dying to retire, I'm 59, and don't know yet what I'll do in retirement. I already spent a lot of time volunteering and travelling since my children are grown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Correct, many people on this board are pathological hoarders of money. They think that since many people are irresponsible with money, they are doing well by avoiding that behavior. They don’t realize they are simply extremists in the other direction.

Anyone who has $3 million saved and continues to work—unless they truly feel that their work is their mission, the reason they have been put on this earth—is wasting their life.

We have more than $3 million saved. My husband is retired and I continue to work. What do you think would be a better use of my time, since I already volunteer for two causes I care about?

[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.

But maybe I just don't have a good imagination or I have been lucky but working and continuing to save a bit is what I want to do. If I got hit by a bus tomorrow, I would not regret continuing to work. And I have just a regular job, not a passion project. If I had an alternative lifestyle that I'd rather live, I'd do it.

My husband's retirement consists of 10 hours a week of a hobby and doing grocery shopping and cooking. And a whole lot of internet surfing. He's an introvert and that works for him. I would much much rather work that spend my time that way. YMMV indeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But maybe I just don't have a good imagination or I have been lucky but working and continuing to save a bit is what I want to do. If I got hit by a bus tomorrow, I would not regret continuing to work. And I have just a regular job, not a passion project. If I had an alternative lifestyle that I'd rather live, I'd do it.

My husband's retirement consists of 10 hours a week of a hobby and doing grocery shopping and cooking. And a whole lot of internet surfing. He's an introvert and that works for him. I would much much rather work that spend my time that way. YMMV indeed.

Do you have grandchildren? If you are still mobile and active, can't you help with them, take some burden off your children