Do you have a zero withdrawal rate?

[pb4uski]

Your view is not shared by most on this forum.

+1. Even if you are only taking interest and dividends from the portfolio it is still withdrawals.

 

[Dtail]

Your view is not shared by most on this forum.

Yeah like I effectively said in post#222.

 

[Ed_The_Gypsy]

** On what grounds do you reject the concept?
Do you know where the 4% idea came from? **

i have limited savings , probably not enough if inflation kicks in , or i need major medical care ( and linger on for years afterwards ) ,so a drawdown ( of any size ) except in emergencies is probably not a safe choice , for me

the second reason is one can rarely guess future inflation it could easily be over 10% is say 10 years time , all you need is a credit crunch and nervous lenders

4% seems to be the figure the fund managers selling annuaties came up with to allow most retirees to have on income in their later years ( but what if you live beyond 100 , that income might look pretty slim then )

*** Could you rewrite the above, I don't understand what you said. If I do, I may disagree. ***

consider your asset base as the $$$ value of your stocks , bonds and cash deposts at the end of the 12 months ( calendar year , of financial year , whichever works for you ) any dividends and interest that hasn't been spent in the last 12 months should have been reivested or sitting in a cash deposit account so would get counted in the $$ value of the portfolio )

those with property assets MIGHT keep profits from them in a seperate fund for ( property related ) emergency expenses ( burst pipes , fires , storm damage etc ) ( and if that fund is overflowing maybe even buy some more investment property )

now others might disagree that i treat property assets seperately but i consider them illiquid assets ( it might take 12 months or more to sell them at 'a fair price ' when YOU really need that cash .. say in the middle of a credit crunch or property downturn )

( and disagreeing is fine by me this a forum where we can swap views and opinions )

cheers

DANGER, WILL ROBINSON!
The 4% rule and the Trinity Study are based on US equities and bonds.
Projecting those results to other (and realistically, smaller) markets (even English-speaking countries--sorry, mate) has real risk. Be aware that in the US, fund management fees are the lowest. And some folks cannot invest in equities outside their home country. I have thrown in the towel on non-US equities. I wish you all well. 4% may be fine, but YMMV.

 

[Time2]

As I see it, one can have a zero withdrawl rate if they take the income, but do not touch the principal. So if one has worked and accumulated a nest egg to retire on, then invests the nest egg in income producing things (stocks, bonds, CDs, real estate) there would be a zero withdrawal rate if they spend the income that the nest egg produces, but do not touch the principal, which would be killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. It is really the same as buying a business or rental property and living on the income that it produces.

You need to understand, that you have a nest egg, the nest egg generates dividends and/or interest and capital gains. Anything you withdraw from that nest egg is a withdrawal.
That is pretty basic, if you don't follow that convention, you will be confused and others will misunderstand what you have to say.

This is what I aim for in retirement, but I am still working, so we will see how that goes.

I'm have a hard time even trying to give you an explanation if you aren't even having withdrawals. But let's say you are living off of the income produced by the (stocks, bonds, CDs, real estate). The first thing I'd say is, you will need a very large nest egg. Or you should live on less then the income produced by the (stocks, bonds, CDs, real estate). The going theory is, you can withdraw 4% of the nest egg each year and in most 30 year stock market scenarios you will have money left at the end.
So, if you expect to "spend the income that the nest egg produces" your nest egg has to be very large, because sometimes it loses 40%. and you were spending all the income the nest egg produced so it never had any growth.

 

[gwraigty]

As I see it, one can have a zero withdrawl rate if they take the income, but do not touch the principal. So if one has worked and accumulated a nest egg to retire on, then invests the nest egg in income producing things (stocks, bonds, CDs, real estate) there would be a zero withdrawl rate if they spend the income that the nest egg produces, but do not touch the principal, which would be killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. It is really the same as buying a business or rental property and living on the income that it produces.

This is what I aim for in retirement, but I am still working, so we will see how that goes.

You need to understand, that you have a nest egg, the nest egg generates dividends and/or interest and capital gains. Anything you withdraw from that nest egg is a withdrawal.
That is pretty basic, if you don't follow that convention, you will be confused and others will misunderstand what you have to say.






I'm have a hard time even trying to give you an explanation if you aren't even having withdrawals. But let's say you are living off of the income produced by the (stocks, bonds, CDs, real estate). The first thing I'd say is, you will need a very large nest egg. Or you should live on less then the income produced by the (stocks, bonds, CDs, real estate). The going theory is, you can withdraw 4% of the nest egg each year and in most 30 year stock market scenarios you will have money left at the end.
So, if you expect to "spend the income that the nest egg produces" your nest egg has to be very large, because sometimes it loses 40%. and you were spending all the income the nest egg produced so it never had any growth.

Whether you consider it to be a legitimate zero withdrawal rate or not, I get what james7 is aiming for. It's also our goal after DH retires - to be able to live off the passive income our investments produce, eventually combined with SS. Yes, to that end, you do need a large nest egg, which many forum members have. You're preaching to the choir here. The real key is to not spend all the income, but have some leftover to reinvest when you can. That will lead to the passive income increasing year after year. The odds of running out of money are slim to none.

This is not a theory. I've posted this before, but since you're a new member, I'll share this again. I've been investing for income for about 15 years, even though we don't need to, as DH still works. We consistently spend less than he brings home in his net paycheck. (Taxes on our investment income are accounted for through his W4.) For example, last year, his net pay was just over $65K. Our expenses out of that net pay were just over $38K, including food for 4 and medical expenses relating to a surgery. (Obviously, we don't live in a HCOL area. We paid cash for our 4BR house in 1996.) That leaves $27K that went into income-producing investments.

On top of that, we had over $77K passive income from our portfolio of individual corporate and muni bonds, and a bond mutual fund. (I've been gradually transitioning to ETFs to reduce tax complexity, with good results.) I reinvest the passive income (paid in cash) manually. In 2017 we had $70K in passive income, which shows that when you don't spend it all (or in our case right now, any) and just reinvest it in more income-producing investments, your passive income the following year should increase.

Investing for growth has the advantage of generating a lower tax burden than investing for income (unless you go 100% muni in taxable accounts). Then we see posts from people who are worried about running out of money before they run out of time, because they've never learned to invest for income. That's the disadvantage, IMO. (I also wasn't good at growth investing, but that's another story.) Investing for income has the advantage of reducing the draw down on the next egg - or as in my example, eliminating it entirely. The main disadvantage can be a higher tax burden, with the exception I noted above.

In the end, you have to invest in a manner that suits your temperament and understand what it takes to lessen the chance that you'll run out of money before you run out of time.

 

[camfused]

I am a bit of a mix. According to my spreadsheet, in the early years, before SS kicks in, I will occasionally withdraw a bit (around 0.5% WR) from our assets, partly due to some Roth conversions, but once SS and RMDs kick in around 70, I will be in the negative withdrawal camp from there onwards, with the surplus all going into the taxable assets bucket. Maybe i'll change my mind by then and spend some of the yearly surplus (or maybe we will need to for some reason, who knows).

 

[Sue J]

Secure Income Retire Early
Secure Income refers to SS, Pensions, etc.

Thank you.

 

[Time2]

Whether you consider it to be a legitimate zero withdrawal rate or not, I get what james7 is aiming for. It's also our goal after DH retires - to be able to live off the passive income our investments produce, eventually combined with SS. Yes, to that end, you do need a large nest egg, which many forum members have. You're preaching to the choir here. The real key is to not spend all the income, but have some leftover to reinvest when you can. That will lead to the passive income increasing year after year. The odds of running out of money are slim to none.

I have no knowledge of studies showing investing for income will give you,
"odds of running out of money are slim to none" I do know about the Trinity study that says spending 4% of you nest egg that is 80% stock market invested will give you a slim to none chance of running out of money.
What vehicles are you using to invest for income?

This is not a theory.

What is not a theory? Investing for income will give you low odds of running out of money?
That lacks too much information. How much is the nest egg? What interest rate are the investments producing? How much risk do the income producing investments have? What percent of the total income are you returning to the nest egg? Is the income fixed or variable?

I've posted this before, but since you're a new member, I'll share this again. I've been investing for income for about 15 years, even though we don't need to, as DH still works. We consistently spend less than he brings home in his net paycheck. (Taxes on our investment income are accounted for through his W4.) For example, last year, his net pay was just over $65K. Our expenses out of that net pay were just over $38K, including food for 4 and medical expenses relating to a surgery. (Obviously, we don't live in a HCOL area. We paid cash for our 4BR house in 1996.) That leaves $27K that went into income-producing investments.

Ok, you are saving money, so did my wife and I.
We also paid cash for our last home in 1994. It's arguable whether paying cash is financially the best plan, but we did.

On top of that, we had over $77K passive income from our portfolio of individual corporate and muni bonds, and a bond mutual fund. (I've been gradually transitioning to ETFs to reduce tax complexity, with good results.) I reinvest the passive income (paid in cash) manually. In 2017 we had $70K in passive income, which shows that when you don't spend it all (or in our case right now, any) and just reinvest it in more income-producing investments, your passive income the following year should increase.

Well, that was my thought while reading, your income producers are taxable, Yikes! Or are they in tax advantaged accounts?
We have most of our assets in VTSAX or VTI (the same) for growth, if there comes a time when I want to have a mix of income and growth, I can do that, but in general, income has a lower return than growth. Yes, I understand that growth has more volatility, and that is often why people transition to a mix near retirement.
I had great growth from 2011 thru 2017 and paid little of it to the taxman, meaning I had compound growth on almost all the money in my fund. Although a good percentage of my money is tax deferred.

Investing for growth has the advantage of generating a lower tax burden than investing for income (unless you go 100% muni in taxable accounts).

OK, I wrote, before I read everything.

Then we see posts from people who are worried about running out of money before they run out of time, because they've never learned to invest for income.

If you invested for growth and in most scenarios have a larger nest egg than if you had invested for growth, why would you worry about running out of money.

That's the disadvantage, IMO. (I also wasn't good at growth investing, but that's another story.) Investing for income has the advantage of reducing the draw down on the next egg - or as in my example, eliminating it entirely. The main disadvantage can be a higher tax burden, with the exception I noted above.

Ya the more I read, I guess we are just going agree to disagree
Somehow, It seems like because you invested for income earlier you are going to have a higher return, that is a timing thing and might or might not come true.
I feel pretty comfortable I can leave the larger portion of my nest egg in the market and take the near 2% in dividends and interest, then sell enough of the stocks to get me up to the 4% and that I'll be fine over the long term. We can live well on less than 4% as we over saved, we are older and can get SS anytime but will probably wait until 70. because I want to do as much Roth conversion at low tax rates while I can.

In the end, you have to invest in a manner that suits your temperament and understand what it takes to lessen the chance that you'll run out of money before you run out of time.

Yes.
Please tell me what type of income producing investments you have.

 

[gwraigty]

I have no knowledge of studies showing investing for income will give you,
"odds of running out of money are slim to none" I do know about the Trinity study that says spending 4% of you nest egg that is 80% stock market invested will give you a slim to none chance of running out of money.
What vehicles are you using to invest for income?

What is not a theory? Investing for income will give you low odds of running out of money?
That lacks too much information. How much is the nest egg? What interest rate are the investments producing? How much risk do the income producing investments have? What percent of the total income are you returning to the nest egg? Is the income fixed or variable?





Ok, you are saving money, so did my wife and I.
We also paid cash for our last home in 1994. It's arguable whether paying cash is financially the best plan, but we did.
Well, that was my thought while reading, your income producers are taxable, Yikes! Or are they in tax advantaged accounts?
We have most of our assets in VTSAX or VTI (the same) for growth, if there comes a time when I want to have a mix of income and growth, I can do that, but in general, income has a lower return than growth. Yes, I understand that growth has more volatility, and that is often why people transition to a mix near retirement.
I had great growth from 2011 thru 2017 and paid little of it to the taxman, meaning I had compound growth on almost all the money in my fund. Although a good percentage of my money is tax deferred.

OK, I wrote, before I read everything.

If you invested for growth and in most scenarios have a larger nest egg than if you had invested for growth, why would you worry about running out of money.
Ya the more I read, I guess we are just going agree to disagree
Somehow, It seems like because you invested for income earlier you are going to have a higher return, that is a timing thing and might or might not come true.
I feel pretty comfortable I can leave the larger portion of my nest egg in the market and take the near 2% in dividends and interest, then sell enough of the stocks to get me up to the 4% and that I'll be fine over the long term. We can live well on less than 4% as we over saved, we are older and can get SS anytime but will probably wait until 70. because I want to do as much Roth conversion at low tax rates while I can.




Yes.
Please tell me what type of income producing investments you have.

I don't read studies. I'm not interested in theories. I deal in our reality. As I said, I've been investing for passive portfolio income for the last 15 or so years. I handle our finances. I know what comes in, and what goes out, to the penny. I know how much portfolio income we have coming in, and how it's increased from year to year. I expect that to continue. I already said that the bulk of our portfolio last year was in individual corporate and muni bonds, with some in a bond fund, VBTIX. Overall, many of the bonds have coupons of 4% to 6%. Current ETFs I'm using are: IHYV, XSHD, USHY, FALN, IGLB, PFF, SRLN, SPYD, PSK, FDVV, VCLT. (I've been asked to share so often, (via PM also), maybe it should be made a forum sticky. )

Some of the income is fixed. Some is variable, mainly the ETFs. Most of the coupons/yields/distributions are between 4% and 6%. VBTIX, of course, is yielding less than 3% and I wouldn't even bother with it, but it's the best option in my parameters that's available in DH's 401k.

Are you seriously asking me how much money we have? That's rather rude. I'll just tell you...low 7 figures. Do some math. You have more than enough information.

About half of the passive income is in taxable accounts. The rest is in tax advantaged accounts. As far as, why would a growth investor worry about running out of money? I don't know. Search the forum and you'll find people posting to ask if they have enough money to retire, even those with multiple millions.

Gotta go make dinner now.

 

[Time2]

I don't read studies. I'm not interested in theories. I deal in our reality. As I said, I've been investing for passive portfolio income for the last 15 or so years. I handle our finances. I know what comes in, and what goes out, to the penny. I know how much portfolio income we have coming in, and how it's increased from year to year. I expect that to continue. I already said that the bulk of our portfolio last year was in individual corporate and muni bonds, with some in a bond fund, VBTIX. Overall, many of the bonds have coupons of 4% to 6%. Current ETFs I'm using are: IHYV, XSHD, USHY, FALN, IGLB, PFF, SRLN, SPYD, PSK, FDVV, VCLT. (I've been asked to share so often, (via PM also), maybe it should be made a forum sticky. )

Some of the income is fixed. Some is variable, mainly the ETFs. Most of the coupons/yields/distributions are between 4% and 6%. VBTIX, of course, is yielding less than 3% and I wouldn't even bother with it, but it's the best option in my parameters that's available in DH's 401k.

Are you seriously asking me how much money we have? That's rather rude. I'll just tell you...low 7 figures. Do some math. You have more than enough information.

It wasn't my intention to ask that, and rereading what I wrote, I don't see where you even got the idea I was asking that. So no, I wasn't asking how much money you have. Seriously!

About half of the passive income is in taxable accounts. The rest is in tax advantaged accounts. As far as, why would a growth investor worry about running out of money? I don't know. Search the forum and you'll find people posting to ask if they have enough money to retire, even those with multiple millions.

At some point you said I was new here, that is correct, but I'm not new to retirement or FIRE forums. I have to wonder if your financial investment
method is common to this forum or if this is just your method. I have went another way with my investing and that is stocks funds. That is what I have invested in for about 30 years. We were never high earners, but lived under our income. I think we have done well for a couple that earned just above the mean US income.
Using your numbers, I can may a guess that your total return on you portfolio is no more than 5% but probably over 4%.
I'm sure you have heard of the 4% guidance presented by the Trinity study, so I won't rehash it, but that's the direction I'm heading.

Gotta go make dinner now.

Had my dinner, even had a snack of popcorn later

 

[gwraigty]

It wasn't my intention to ask that, and rereading what I wrote, I don't see where you even got the idea I was asking that. So no, I wasn't asking how much money you have. Seriously!









At some point you said I was new here, that is correct, but I'm not new to retirement or FIRE forums. I have to wonder if your financial investment
method is common to this forum or if this is just your method. I have went another way with my investing and that is stocks funds. That is what I have invested in for about 30 years. We were never high earners, but lived under our income. I think we have done well for a couple that earned just above the mean US income.
Using your numbers, I can may a guess that your total return on you portfolio is no more than 5% but probably over 4%.
I'm sure you have heard of the 4% guidance presented by the Trinity study, so I won't rehash it, but that's the direction I'm heading.




Had my dinner, even had a snack of popcorn later

Maybe I misinterpreted, but after I gave some specific information about our investments, you then asked (emphasis mine):

How much is the nest egg? What interest rate are the investments producing? How much risk do the income producing investments have? What percent of the total income are you returning to the nest egg? Is the income fixed or variable?

Moving on...I think my investment method isn't as common as investing for growth. I fell into it after not succeeding as a growth investor, mainly due to my insistence on trying to be a stock picker. That's another story for another day. I'm not against growth investing. My point in posting was to affirm the choice of a goal of living off passive income, and to illustrate that it is indeed possible. I believe it might to helpful to someone who is concerned about running out of money, severe stock market downturns in retirement, etc. Not necessarily to switch entirely from growth to income investing, but even a portion might be helpful. In the end, you have to understand what you're doing, what you hope to achieve, and sleep well at night doing it.

I don't usually speak of total return, because it's my intent to not have to touch the nest egg, except for an extreme circumstance. I focus on cash flow, which I already posted above. This year has been a great year for bonds, so much so, that I took advantage and sold several individual bond holdings and bought ETFs. Anyway, in one taxable account, our YTD return is 10.01%, 1 year - 12.69%, 3 years - 5.06%, 5 years - 5.39%, since inception - 5.90%. The coupons on individual bonds range from about 4% to over 6%. That is fixed cash flow. Yields on the ETFs range from 3.9% to 6.6%. I have a few other accounts I could look up the current figures for, but you get the idea.

 

[Time2]

Maybe I misinterpreted, but after I gave some specific information about our investments, you then asked (emphasis mine):

How much is the nest egg? What interest rate are the investments producing? How much risk do the income producing investments have? What percent of the total income are you returning to the nest egg? Is the income fixed or variable?

Hmm , I guess I did ask, but in context, that was a general question about a hypothetical nest egg. I really wasn't asking specifically about yours!

Moving on...I think my investment method isn't as common as investing for growth. I fell into it after not succeeding as a growth investor, mainly due to my insistence on trying to be a stock picker. That's another story for another day. I'm not against growth investing. My point in posting was to affirm the choice of a goal of living off passive income, and to illustrate that it is indeed possible. I believe it might to helpful to someone who is concerned about running out of money, severe stock market downturns in retirement, etc. Not necessarily to switch entirely from growth to income investing, but even a portion might be helpful. In the end, you have to understand what you're doing, what you hope to achieve, and sleep well at night doing it.

Well, I guess I was somewhat lucky in that I got turned onto mutual funds very early by a Financial Radio talk show host Bob Brinker. I bought into his 5 to 7 fund picks that changed slightly with economic conditions. After I got tired of so much mail, I just bought VTSAX and that's where I stayed, and figured with 3500 American stocks, if America does well I do well. Also many of these stocks have some overseas exposure. One thing that does 'stick in my craw" is his advice, once you reach "Critical Mass"* don't put it at risk. I read that as I really should start moving towards a more balanced portfolio. Meaning getting into some bonds. But when I look at bonds and their low returns, I just can't do it.

I don't usually speak of total return, because it's my intent to not have to touch the nest egg, except for an extreme circumstance. I focus on cash flow, which I already posted above. This year has been a great year for bonds, so much so, that I took advantage and sold several individual bond holdings and bought ETFs. Anyway, in one taxable account, our YTD return is 10.01%, 1 year - 12.69%, 3 years - 5.06%, 5 years - 5.39%, since inception - 5.90%. The coupons on individual bonds range from about 4% to over 6%. That is fixed cash flow. Yields on the ETFs range from 3.9% to 6.6%. I have a few other accounts I could look up the current figures for, but you get the idea.

What you describe there is an advantage of having a mixed portfolio. If rates drop you can sell bonds at a profit.


This zero withdrawal method could be used with growth stocks also. If I have $1M in stocks, and then at the end of the year I have $1.1M in stocks
I could sell $100,000 for expenses and then even return some of that for more growth. So, in your scenario, since my nest egg is the same, I didn't have a withdrawal, and I even reinvested my non withdrawal for more growth.
And much of that $100,000 would have favorable tax treatment, Capital gains and qualified dividends.
So many options!!

 

[gwraigty]

I read that as I really should start moving towards a more balanced portfolio. Meaning getting into some bonds. But when I look at bonds and their low returns, I just can't do it.


What you describe there is an advantage of having a mixed portfolio. If rates drop you can sell bonds at a profit.

It depends on the bonds. If you research the tickers I listed, you'll see that they're mainly corporate bonds, preferred stocks, and higher yield dividend stocks. I don't like the bond choice in DH's Vanguard 401k, because it's about 60% Treasuries, which probably brings the yield down about 1% over a corporate bond fund. IGLB is a long-term corporate bond ETF, and the lowest-yielding of the group, but decent enough, IMO.

I didn't sell my individual bonds for the profit alone. I have a spreadsheet set up that tells me whether it makes sense to do so, provided I could reinvest the proceeds for increased cash flow. Such as, $10,000 face value with a coupon of 5.875% for cash flow of $587.50 annually. But the price rose so it could be sold for over $11,013.60, to be reinvested at 5.50% for cash flow of $605.75 annually. But someone who doesn't care about the cash flow, but profit, might sell anyway. I made over $20K profit in 2 days, sitting at my computer waiting for the bid offers to come in. (That part isn't exactly fun.) Many of the bonds I bought below par, too. I'll be glad to be rid of most individual issues someday.

 

[PatrickA5]

My SIL lives on her $1,000 per month disability. No savings. 0% WD rate. Many live on SS alone with little to no savings. I doubt we'll see them post here.

 

[RenoJay]

I guess I theoretically spend less than income since most of my funds are in high yielding fixed income instruments. Obviously I’m giving up future appreciation potential though.

 

[steelyman]

I haven’t read all the replies in this thread (it’s a popular one!) but can say that I definitely do not have a zero withdrawal rate but a planned one that started when I turned 59-1/2 and continues. I withdraw annually an amount calculated in a spreadsheet I spent quite a bit of time constructing.

The decisions I make on withdrawal are which funds to sell based on my current asset allocation target and how much to take from tax-free (Roth) and tax-deferred (traditional) funds. Those are both rebalancing decisions in my view.

The fact that I’m a non-parent influenced this approach greatly.

 

[pb4uski]

.... This zero withdrawal method could be used with growth stocks also. If I have $1M in stocks, and then at the end of the year I have $1.1M in stocks
I could sell $100,000 for expenses and then even return some of that for more growth. So, in your scenario, since my nest egg is the same, I didn't have a withdrawal ....

I hate to burst your bubble but if you have a $1m portfolio that grows to $1.1m and you withdraw $100k for expenses you are not zero withdrawal... in fact, you're withdrawing 10%.

 

[REWahoo]

I hate to burst your bubble but if you have a $1m portfolio that grows to $1.1m and you withdraw $100k for expenses you are not zero withdrawal... in fact, you're withdrawing 10%.

Or are you withdrawing 9.1% ?

This is another example of why numbers is hard...

 

[dtbach]

This thread is getting silly. 0% withdrawal? Good for you, but for the rest of us it is rather tedious. Most of us worked many years for ER with careful consideration for how much we could withdraw to maintain a good retirement. If you don't need your money, fine. But most of us do.

 

[USGrant1962]

This thread is getting silly. 0% withdrawal? Good for you, but for the rest of us it is rather tedious. Most of us worked many years for ER with careful consideration for how much we could withdraw to maintain a good retirement. If you don't need your money, fine. But most of us do.

+1

These 0% (and 1%, 2%, 3%) discussions feel to me like they are actively discouraging early retirement. Kind of 180 degrees from the whole purpose of this forum.

 

[RobbieB]

It doesn't matter.

Some are zero because of fat pensions, others from real estate rentals, some from frugality and others by no portfolio to draw from.

Some of the above are good while others not so much.

 

[griffithee]

I think it is just a measuring contest. Comparing the Joneses. But fun to watch!!!

 

[Elbata]

It doesn't matter.

Some are zero because of fat pensions, others from real estate rentals, some from frugality and others by no portfolio to draw from.

Some of the above are good while others not so much.

Inheritances too. I would think many here would receive inheritances. For us, that has made things that much easier.

 

[Time2]

I hate to burst your bubble but if you have a $1m portfolio that grows to $1.1m and you withdraw $100k for expenses you are not zero withdrawal... in fact, you're withdrawing 10%.

Ya, that's been my argument all along, this talk about having 0% withdrawal rate is just silly, if you are getting any income from your nest egg. You didn't bust my bubble, my disagreement started in post #207 on page 11.
If you have a pension and SS and that covers all of your expenses then
it seems you could easily have 0% withdrawal rate.
But don't let me catch you paying taxes due for income generated by your

nest egg from that nest egg, or I'm calling that a withdrawal and I'm going to notify the retirement police.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

If you have a pension and SS and that covers all of your expenses then
it seems you could easily have 0% withdrawal rate.
But don't let me catch you paying taxes due for income generated by your

nest egg from that nest egg, or I'm calling that a withdrawal and I'm going to notify the retirement police.

Taxes on portfolio income, especially once we have to start RMDs, make 0% WR more of a challenge for me than a 1% WR. But I like spreadsheets, budget hacks, trying to have a champagne life on a beer budget, etc. so we will see how it goes.