Die With Zero

[Anonymous]

The book is not about spending every penny you have. It talks about how if you want to give money to your children, it should be when they need it most - early in their careers or to help buy a house. Not when they are about to retire themselves. It also discusses how you should figure out how much you estimate you will need for care in your old age and set that aside. The goal is to spend your money on experiences that you will remember and cherish.

I inherited money from my dad. Enough for me to retire in my 50s. I plan to walk away from my job teaching. I am about 5 years away from earning my full pension. But, it this book helped me realize that I will be working for another 5 years, but it will have little to no positive impact on my financial needs. It will only increase the money that I have to spend, but even then, I probably wouldn't be able to spend it all. So, I am probably quitting at the end of this year. I will still have money to pass down to my kids. I will still have money to live off of and travel and enjoy life.

[Anonymous]

We believe in saving for the future. But we take one idea that we are with a lot and we want to gift to our kids now. We are in 50/. We want to gift now while it matters most. College and any grad school will be fully funded. We gift so kids max retirements and we will help with down payments. The $$$ has much more impact now other lives in the 20s -and 30s than when we are 80* and the kids are 50+.

We will also save enough to pay for grandkids and great grandkids education. We have more than enough and we own multiple homes and travel plenty/.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

LTC might provide $150-200/day for 1-2 years. After a 90 day "waiting period". Most memory care/nursing care/assisted living cost more than that. Not to mention you have to fund the first 90 days. And most policies are for only 1-2 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We believe in saving for the future. But we take one idea that we are with a lot and we want to gift to our kids now. We are in 50/. We want to gift now while it matters most. College and any grad school will be fully funded. We gift so kids max retirements and we will help with down payments. The $$$ has much more impact now other lives in the 20s -and 30s than when we are 80* and the kids are 50+.

We will also save enough to pay for grandkids and great grandkids education. We have more than enough and we own multiple homes and travel plenty/.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We believe in saving for the future. But we take one idea that we are with a lot and we want to gift to our kids now. We are in 50/. We want to gift now while it matters most. College and any grad school will be fully funded. We gift so kids max retirements and we will help with down payments. The $$$ has much more impact now other lives in the 20s -and 30s than when we are 80* and the kids are 50+.

We will also save enough to pay for grandkids and great grandkids education. We have more than enough and we own multiple homes and travel plenty/.

+1000

+1

That is what "die with zero" really means. Focus on gifting money when it matters most. Giving the gift of education without loans, early maxing out of retirement savings and help with a downpayment are some of the best financial gifts you can give you kids.

My own 26yo has over $250K to their name. All from saving intensively, including maxing out Roth IRA and investing high amount into their 401K. By time they are 30, they will have enough in retirement accounts for $3M+ at 65---even if they stop contributing (which they wont).
But this will allow them in their 30/40s to spend more now on their families. They also wont have to worry about college/education for their kids. So they can buy the house they want, that affords them a shorter commute and more family time.
So money when it makes a greater impact on their life for the next 40+ years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That sounds great, but what are the chances you time it right? The cost of healthcare is unknown, so that makes for some tricky math.

+1

I think the concept is also downplaying the mental security of knowing you have a cushion should you need in home care, memory care, etc. as you age or should some other emergency come up. Also, it’s a gift to your children for them to know you will not need to financially rely upon them as you age. And if your home is paid off that is in theory net worth you’re sitting on, but how freeing to know you own your home outright.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We believe in saving for the future. But we take one idea that we are with a lot and we want to gift to our kids now. We are in 50/. We want to gift now while it matters most. College and any grad school will be fully funded. We gift so kids max retirements and we will help with down payments. The $$$ has much more impact now other lives in the 20s -and 30s than when we are 80* and the kids are 50+.

We will also save enough to pay for grandkids and great grandkids education. We have more than enough and we own multiple homes and travel plenty/.

+1000

+1

That is what "die with zero" really means. Focus on gifting money when it matters most. Giving the gift of education without loans, early maxing out of retirement savings and help with a downpayment are some of the best financial gifts you can give you kids.

My own 26yo has over $250K to their name. All from saving intensively, including maxing out Roth IRA and investing high amount into their 401K. By time they are 30, they will have enough in retirement accounts for $3M+ at 65---even if they stop contributing (which they wont).
But this will allow them in their 30/40s to spend more now on their families. They also wont have to worry about college/education for their kids. So they can buy the house they want, that affords them a shorter commute and more family time.
So money when it makes a greater impact on their life for the next 40+ years.

Agree with the general point of giving kids money earlier, but I quibble with the bolded. If I went back to being 26, I’d much rather have $250K liquid than in retirement accounts.

There are all these “startup” expenses that you have as a young adult—a down payment (a BIG down payment can make one’s life easier for decades to come), closing costs, now potentially a buyer’s agent fee, furniture, a car, an emergency fund, a wedding, etc., etc. Having $250K in retirement accounts doesn’t help at all with that.

Of course, I know that, due to compounding, you end up with a lot more money at age 65 if you can be invested for a few additional years. But the whole point of the “die with zero” philosophy is to balance out the present with the future—and having $250K liquid will help a young person’s “present” much more than that amount will in retirement accounts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We believe in saving for the future. But we take one idea that we are with a lot and we want to gift to our kids now. We are in 50/. We want to gift now while it matters most. College and any grad school will be fully funded. We gift so kids max retirements and we will help with down payments. The $$$ has much more impact now other lives in the 20s -and 30s than when we are 80* and the kids are 50+.

We will also save enough to pay for grandkids and great grandkids education. We have more than enough and we own multiple homes and travel plenty/.

If you're saving enough to fund your great-grandkids' education, own multiple homes, and travel plenty, you'll probably have over $10m. In your situation, I would do the same. Most people posting here sound like they are in the $2-5m category in total household net worth, which is not enough to do all of those things. We have to make choices. I can pay for my kids' education at that range, but not a home downpayment. I'm not willing to delay retirement to get there, either. I've already lost a close friend.

[Anonymous]

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.

+1
Happiness for me is knowing that I’ve loved à comfortable life giving and receiving love anmd helping others …and leaving my family with some money that allows them to do the same.

On the other hand, this advice is probably good for the “new generation” of GenZs who have declared that they are content to remain childless on purpose. Because they will need to create meaning from experiences and it makes no sense to die with excess if you have no vested interest in who is left behind when you pass on. So why not soend it.

[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.

+1
Happiness for me is knowing that I’ve loved à comfortable life giving and receiving love anmd helping others …and leaving my family with some money that allows them to do the same.

On the other hand, this advice is probably good for the “new generation” of GenZs who have declared that they are content to remain childless on purpose. Because they will need to create meaning from experiences and it makes no sense to die with excess if you have no vested interest in who is left behind when you pass on. So why not soend it.

There seems to be a trend that people who inherited money feel more inclined to leave money for the next generation. My parents are first-generation wealthy, and other than paying for our education, they haven't provided us with any financial assistance, and they've indicated they intend to give their money to causes they support rather than family members. I don't know yet where I stand, but I'm not working with the goal of leaving money for my kids. I feel a responsibility to fund their education fully. Maybe we mostly revert to what our parents modeled for us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We believe in saving for the future. But we take one idea that we are with a lot and we want to gift to our kids now. We are in 50/. We want to gift now while it matters most. College and any grad school will be fully funded. We gift so kids max retirements and we will help with down payments. The $$$ has much more impact now other lives in the 20s -and 30s than when we are 80* and the kids are 50+.

We will also save enough to pay for grandkids and great grandkids education. We have more than enough and we own multiple homes and travel plenty/.

+1000

+1

That is what "die with zero" really means. Focus on gifting money when it matters most. Giving the gift of education without loans, early maxing out of retirement savings and help with a downpayment are some of the best financial gifts you can give you kids.

My own 26yo has over $250K to their name. All from saving intensively, including maxing out Roth IRA and investing high amount into their 401K. By time they are 30, they will have enough in retirement accounts for $3M+ at 65---even if they stop contributing (which they wont).
But this will allow them in their 30/40s to spend more now on their families. They also wont have to worry about college/education for their kids. So they can buy the house they want, that affords them a shorter commute and more family time.
So money when it makes a greater impact on their life for the next 40+ years.

Agree with the general point of giving kids money earlier, but I quibble with the bolded. If I went back to being 26, I’d much rather have $250K liquid than in retirement accounts.

There are all these “startup” expenses that you have as a young adult—a down payment (a BIG down payment can make one’s life easier for decades to come), closing costs, now potentially a buyer’s agent fee, furniture, a car, an emergency fund, a wedding, etc., etc. Having $250K in retirement accounts doesn’t help at all with that.

Of course, I know that, due to compounding, you end up with a lot more money at age 65 if you can be invested for a few additional years. But the whole point of the “die with zero” philosophy is to balance out the present with the future—and having $250K liquid will help a young person’s “present” much more than that amount will in retirement accounts.

PP said she’s also going to gift him a down payment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We believe in saving for the future. But we take one idea that we are with a lot and we want to gift to our kids now. We are in 50/. We want to gift now while it matters most. College and any grad school will be fully funded. We gift so kids max retirements and we will help with down payments. The $$$ has much more impact now other lives in the 20s -and 30s than when we are 80* and the kids are 50+.

We will also save enough to pay for grandkids and great grandkids education. We have more than enough and we own multiple homes and travel plenty/.

+1000

+1

That is what "die with zero" really means. Focus on gifting money when it matters most. Giving the gift of education without loans, early maxing out of retirement savings and help with a downpayment are some of the best financial gifts you can give you kids.

My own 26yo has over $250K to their name. All from saving intensively, including maxing out Roth IRA and investing high amount into their 401K. By time they are 30, they will have enough in retirement accounts for $3M+ at 65---even if they stop contributing (which they wont).
But this will allow them in their 30/40s to spend more now on their families. They also wont have to worry about college/education for their kids. So they can buy the house they want, that affords them a shorter commute and more family time.
So money when it makes a greater impact on their life for the next 40+ years.

Agree with the general point of giving kids money earlier, but I quibble with the bolded. If I went back to being 26, I’d much rather have $250K liquid than in retirement accounts.

There are all these “startup” expenses that you have as a young adult—a down payment (a BIG down payment can make one’s life easier for decades to come), closing costs, now potentially a buyer’s agent fee, furniture, a car, an emergency fund, a wedding, etc., etc. Having $250K in retirement accounts doesn’t help at all with that.

Of course, I know that, due to compounding, you end up with a lot more money at age 65 if you can be invested for a few additional years. But the whole point of the “die with zero” philosophy is to balance out the present with the future—and having $250K liquid will help a young person’s “present” much more than that amount will in retirement accounts.

We want to encourage our kids to save, save save and take advantages of the tax free growth. Over $100K is non-retirement that our kid has saved themselves and invested (hence it has grown). They were ready to finance a new car and put down $25K, but we paid the $40K ourselves as a gift to them. They know they will have help for a downpayment when they are ready to settle in an area. They know we will fund their wedding.
But you do you. Most people would benefit greatly from saving for retirement EARLY and at a higher level than they do. My kid is living in a nice apartment, but not the nicest around---they don't see the need to pay $300+ more per month. As it is they have a 800 sq ft 1 bedroom, AC, large bathroom, indoor parking (it's the midwest you need it), with a well managed team who responds same day for all maintenance issues. I like that they don't see the need to waste $300+ per month and happily save that. So I think you need to balance wants with needs and recognize the huge benefits of having retirement front loaded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We believe in saving for the future. But we take one idea that we are with a lot and we want to gift to our kids now. We are in 50/. We want to gift now while it matters most. College and any grad school will be fully funded. We gift so kids max retirements and we will help with down payments. The $$$ has much more impact now other lives in the 20s -and 30s than when we are 80* and the kids are 50+.

We will also save enough to pay for grandkids and great grandkids education. We have more than enough and we own multiple homes and travel plenty/.

If you're saving enough to fund your great-grandkids' education, own multiple homes, and travel plenty, you'll probably have over $10m. In your situation, I would do the same. Most people posting here sound like they are in the $2-5m category in total household net worth, which is not enough to do all of those things. We have to make choices. I can pay for my kids' education at that range, but not a home downpayment. I'm not willing to delay retirement to get there, either. I've already lost a close friend.

And you shouldn't. You are accurate, we have well over $10M. So it's not an inconvenience for us. But If I had $5M I'd still fully fund their education. That gift is huge. My kid has friends who owe $1000+ monthly for loans. My kid doesn't and is able to save that instead. That alone sets them up well for their future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We believe in saving for the future. But we take one idea that we are with a lot and we want to gift to our kids now. We are in 50/. We want to gift now while it matters most. College and any grad school will be fully funded. We gift so kids max retirements and we will help with down payments. The $$$ has much more impact now other lives in the 20s -and 30s than when we are 80* and the kids are 50+.

We will also save enough to pay for grandkids and great grandkids education. We have more than enough and we own multiple homes and travel plenty/.

+1000

+1

That is what "die with zero" really means. Focus on gifting money when it matters most. Giving the gift of education without loans, early maxing out of retirement savings and help with a downpayment are some of the best financial gifts you can give you kids.

My own 26yo has over $250K to their name. All from saving intensively, including maxing out Roth IRA and investing high amount into their 401K. By time they are 30, they will have enough in retirement accounts for $3M+ at 65---even if they stop contributing (which they wont).
But this will allow them in their 30/40s to spend more now on their families. They also wont have to worry about college/education for their kids. So they can buy the house they want, that affords them a shorter commute and more family time.
So money when it makes a greater impact on their life for the next 40+ years.

Agree with the general point of giving kids money earlier, but I quibble with the bolded. If I went back to being 26, I’d much rather have $250K liquid than in retirement accounts.

There are all these “startup” expenses that you have as a young adult—a down payment (a BIG down payment can make one’s life easier for decades to come), closing costs, now potentially a buyer’s agent fee, furniture, a car, an emergency fund, a wedding, etc., etc. Having $250K in retirement accounts doesn’t help at all with that.

Of course, I know that, due to compounding, you end up with a lot more money at age 65 if you can be invested for a few additional years. But the whole point of the “die with zero” philosophy is to balance out the present with the future—and having $250K liquid will help a young person’s “present” much more than that amount will in retirement accounts.

PP said she’s also going to gift him a down payment.

Exactly! I also wouldn't encourage any 25/26yo to not save a lot for retirement and to instead spend it on a $75K+ wedding. My own wedding was $6K (30+ years ago) and that involved 2 ceremonies. It was beautiful, what we could afford at the time, and I am happy we didn't go into debt for one day. I got much more happiness from owning a home 2 years later than I would have from spending $20K+ more on a wedding day.
I would encourage them to find a meaningful wedding for a bit less and realize it's one day, but saving for the future is for decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We believe in saving for the future. But we take one idea that we are with a lot and we want to gift to our kids now. We are in 50/. We want to gift now while it matters most. College and any grad school will be fully funded. We gift so kids max retirements and we will help with down payments. The $$$ has much more impact now other lives in the 20s -and 30s than when we are 80* and the kids are 50+.

We will also save enough to pay for grandkids and great grandkids education. We have more than enough and we own multiple homes and travel plenty/.

If you're saving enough to fund your great-grandkids' education, own multiple homes, and travel plenty, you'll probably have over $10m. In your situation, I would do the same. Most people posting here sound like they are in the $2-5m category in total household net worth, which is not enough to do all of those things. We have to make choices. I can pay for my kids' education at that range, but not a home downpayment. I'm not willing to delay retirement to get there, either. I've already lost a close friend.

And you shouldn't. You are accurate, we have well over $10M. So it's not an inconvenience for us. But If I had $5M I'd still fully fund their education. That gift is huge. My kid has friends who owe $1000+ monthly for loans. My kid doesn't and is able to save that instead. That alone sets them up well for their future.

Obviously you would, because with 5 million, you should! The scenario you describe with the 1k/mo loan is people like my dh, who has actually middle class parents who could not afford to pay for college, and didn't advise him well about where to go. This is why many UMC (but not rich) people here are conscious about where to send their kids: so they dcs do not have loans, but they also do not have to sacrifice their own financial picture for the kids.