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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Same here. I came from nothing and worked hard to accumulate wealth. Yes, I worked hard, but there was a substantial luck component. My children are unlikely to repeat that. Why not leave them a comfortable cushion? If I wanted to die with zero, I could quit now. But I also want to instill good work ethic in my children, so I plan on working and saving for another 10 years. With some luck, I will still be healthy enough for another decade of traveling and collecting memories.

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.