Life expectancy?

[kramer]

Age.

Yes, 100 is arbitrary but not at all unrealistic. Couldn't find USA data, but if you're 55 in England today, you have a 12% chance of reaching 100. UK's life expectancy is only 2 yrs longer than USA at birth & if you avoid death before age 1, gun fights, & traffic accidents, & have health insurance, I'd expect USA expectancy for 55 yr olds till death are similar if not longer.

Then that being said, planning to run out of money at 85 or 90 or even 95 seems pretty risky vs. the likely change in lifestyle required to use age 100 - or 105. JMO.

I am very skeptical about those future life expectancy predictions put out by the UK Office of Work and Pensions.

In fact, their calculations assume that a new born has the same chance of reaching age 100 that a 96.5 year old does today. And that an 82 year old has a greater chance of reaching 100 than an 83 year old.

See:

Surprising Probability Estimate of the Day

Also, according to the last US census, 62.5% of centenarians were 100 or 101 years old and only 0.6% of centenarians were 110 or older.

I am an optimist on life expectancy but not that optimistic. . . me thinks they are using linear extrapolation on what actually should be an asymptotic estimate.

 

[Moscyn]

Originally 85 and now using 90. Have genetic illness from both dad and mom but with the advance in medicine and early screening, I think I have a good chance to live over 85 unless I die of any of those new diseases or sheer pollution or an accident.

 

[Badger]

I seem to take after my mother's side of the family. Mom died at 84. Her father at 63 and mother at 83. I hope to reach 85 without being in a nursing home and free of pain and dementia. That's 20 years. I will be greatful if that can be achieved. Everything else after that is gravy.

Cheers!

 

[eytonxav]

DW is 5 years younger than me, so I plan for 95 for her. As for me, I'll be lucky to make mid 80s.

 

[Meadbh]

When I was using FireCalc and other calculators to determine the sustainability of my portfolio, I used 95, because I have quite a few relatives who lived into their 90s and there was a centenarian on my father's side. Realistically, I will probably kick the bucket before then. Recently I had a detailed financial plan done and it goes to age 90. So many things will have changed by then that many current assumptions will be invalid. If I were 85, I would plan till 100. The longer you are around, the more likely it is that you will make it to 100!

 

[bbbamI]

I intend to live forever, or die trying.... Groucho Marx
​

 

[Lsbcal]

When planning your retirement and/or withdrawal rates after retirement, what age do you expect to live to? It's a balance between running out of money versus running out of life. Seems like the number you choose can have a big impact on your safe withdrawal rate. I am 51 and personally use age 100. If I had a chronic health issue, I'd use a lower number. Curious what number others use.

Surprisingly

I have a somewhat different approach then others here. I run FireCalc out to age 85 and target a minimum portfolio value. That leaves an estate but also protects us against living even longer.

The main point: if our portfolio got too low I'd be worried sick. The 2008 down market did not take our portfolio down even as low as 50% but it was still very worrying as it was down to 68% of the beginning 2008 level.

I want to have enough in my 70's to be easily able to afford services (gardeners, fix it guys, etc.) as I reduce my do-it-yourself checklist items. So that's another reason to not spend too freely. Still we currently have enough to do plenty of travel and have fun.

 

[bUU]

The longer you are around, the more likely it is that you will make it to 100!

This is my philosophy... If I plan for 86 and I get to 75, I'll worry about the fact that I might run out of money then, and start more deliberately reducing my expenses (to aim for living to 90). For us, I think that's a more viable alternative, since when I'm 75, my spouse will be 85, and so I'll probably be spending the last six or seven years of my life alone anyway, therefore my expenses should be a little lower at that time.

 

[meekie]

Wow, I'm feeling pretty cynical, but I am looking for 100% till I'm 70. Too many health issues in my family, even though I had great grandmas on both sides live to 100, we've had a lot die much, much younger. I also plan to adjust as I go, if all goes well and I retire at 43-45, I should have a good idea how things are going after 10-20 years, and do some adjusting if needed.

 

[Texas Proud]

This is my philosophy... If I plan for 86 and I get to 75, I'll worry about the fact that I might run out of money then, and start more deliberately reducing my expenses (to aim for living to 90). For us, I think that's a more viable alternative, since when I'm 75, my spouse will be 85, and so I'll probably be spending the last six or seven years of my life alone anyway, therefore my expenses should be a little lower at that time.

I agree that planning to 100 is not wise.... and that if you reach 85 or 90 you can adjust... heck, if you reach 95 the likelihood is that you will not be doing much except be pushed around in a wheelchair.... you might or might not have good brain function... IOW, you might not really care....


As for your spouse... unless there is something in her family history.... she would probably live 7 years longer than you.... so I would say only 3 or so years alone...

 

[freebird5825]

85

T-minus 30 years, 3 months and counting

 

[W2R]

When planning your retirement and/or withdrawal rates after retirement, what age do you expect to live to? It's a balance between running out of money versus running out of life. Seems like the number you choose can have a big impact on your safe withdrawal rate. I am 51 and personally use age 100. If I had a chronic health issue, I'd use a lower number. Curious what number others use.

Surprisingly

Realistically, I expect to live into my 80's. However, for financial planning purposes, I am using age 95.

If I should live to my 80's, I will revise my financial plans and use a higher age.

 

[kcowan]

I used 100 when we retired in 2002. At the time life expectancy was 91, so 100 represented the 10% chance of survival that long. I suspect the numbers have increased by now.

 

[JustCurious]

To me planning for a life span of 100 is ultra conservative and insures a legacy. I have seen first hand the low quality of life brought on by Dementia, Parkinsons and Cancer. Something out there has my name it or vice versa. I don't want to cheat myself in being able to live and enjoy what my money can do in the years I have my health in such an extreme manner so as to insure a steady annual income with annual increases to 100 yrs. The probability of reaching that age is remote, especially for a man. I use 85 with the understanding that I will never run out of income, I will fall back to SS combined with a non inflation adjusted annuity if I live past that age.

+1

Try this exercise... first, estimate how many people you personally know... family, friends, coworkers (or former coworkers), people from church, neighbors, etc... (is it 100? more?)... then count how many of those people that you personally know that are over the age of 85. I would bet it is a small number. Just sayin'.

 

[Animorph]

+1

Try this exercise... first, estimate how many people you personally know... family, friends, coworkers (or former coworkers), people from church, neighbors, etc... (is it 100? more?)... then count how many of those people that you personally know that are over the age of 85. I would bet it is a small number. Just sayin'.

That's one reason a less than 100% SWR over a 30 year period is OK with me. A retirement failure only happens if I reach past 85 or so and we have one of the bad economic scenarios. Not that I'm counting on kicking off early...

 

[unclemick]

84.6 back in the 90's. Now sort of 91. Both kinda keying off IRS RMD tables.

heh heh heh - even after taxes I expect to hold some reserve(cause I'm cheap) so if I live longer then ??