How much will I need for retirement?

quote:

---

I see this question often. At my age, you should have no debt. House, cars, etc - ZERO debt. Learn the 4% rule. Have enough money to live off 4% of your assets. Historically, the S&P 500 investment will allow a 4% or greater annual return / withdrawal without ever touching your investment. Of course, Social Security if not bankrupt will be a kicker. GL

---

How old are you? I could have been debt free many of times but I keep buying stupid shite

My fire number is 6 to 10 mil depending on what the market does and how long I want to work.

My wife and I have been maxing the social security for a long time so it might be 8k to 9k a month if we hold out.

$6 to $10 milley is a very nice goal. Congrats!

quote:

---

I am a voracious reader. Evidently, others are not. As I stated this post is asked on the regular.Trying to be helpful.

---

But you weren’t helpful, just annoying

quote:

---

Why would I want to ensure I have a huge pile of money leftover when I die?

---

Set the kiddos up. Really after you have a million or two that is all your doing anyway unless you are a big spender.

quote:

---

Why would I want to ensure I have a huge pile of money leftover when I die?

---

I enjoy this side of the debate somewhat. The counter argument is, "Do you want to run out of money when you don't die when you planned on dying"?

I don't suppose there is any right or wrong answer, but if you run out of money due to unforeseen circumstances, you're living on SS and medicare and maybe earlier than you expected. Nothing wrong with that. To me, that's a subjective risk threshold proposition.

Oh, and on the "how much will I need for retirement" you have to answer the question of "how much will you spend in retirement" question first. That is how you get to the answer of how much you need.

It's a misnomer that 4% rule is for passing on wealth. The rule of thumb is based on a 90+% chance of.not depleting your nest egg. It's a conservative estimate of how much you can draw.down and have very little chance of going broke. The happy upside is in most cases your wealth will continue to grow and you may pass.along a big inheritance but it isnt the goal.

quote:

---

I enjoy this side of the debate somewhat. The counter argument is, "Do you want to run out of money when you don't die when you planned on dying"?

---

Absolutely do not want to do that.

I just don’t see a reason to preserve my entire nest egg until death and only live off interest. Which is what was described as an “ideal”. To me ideal would be spending nearly all of it, at the optimal time for both myself and those I care about. This means I have to do certain things I want when I am still physically able (travel) and means I will help my children when they need it most, when they are starting out.

This seems like an OT thread.

People saying 3+M to retire must have ridiculously lavish lifestyles they want to increase. You don't need that much money to retire and do most any thing you want. A lot of it is predicated on how much debt you have.

quote:

---

Why would I want to ensure I have a huge pile of money leftover when I die?

---

quote:

---

Do you want to run out of money when you don't die when you planned on dying?

---

This is why I'm studying up on dynamic distribution options. The most impressive option that I've read is the risk-based guardrails system. The guys that developed this system are in academia and financial planning. The goal is to adjust your spending slightly based on market returns. You can factor in future large purchases, social security, and even what you want your legacy amount to be. It's powerful. If you don't mind slight variations in income, it looks to be the most efficient way to spend in retirement.

I use Jason Kelly's Income Sig plan. It's a very aggressive Income system and not for everyone. However, I expect to get more from my assets in income than any other dynamic plan I've seen.