Poll: Age of Death for Retirement Planning

[rodi]

Just a comment on using calculators for 50 year or 60 year retirements.... If they are historic calculators (like firecalc) - you miss some recent historic crappy times - including bad sequence of returns where the retirement starts in a crappy market and/or with high inflation.

That's not to say the calculator output is useless for these long retirement plans - but just that you also want to run it with shorter lengths of retirement.

But - as others have mentioned... if you have a low enough WR - it ends up being perpetual. I'm hoping our 2.8% WR is sustainable long term.

 

[LARS]

Poll:Age of Death for Retirement Planning

The more I read what people are writing the more I shake my head. There will no doubt be medical breakthroughs that will theoretically extend life. I suspect where it will really be felt is not through extending life to 110 or 120, but instead decrease mortality that will cause more to live to be in their 80's and 90's (just as the big increase in the last century for avg. life expectancy was caused by reduced childhood mortality).

The musculoskeletal system deterioration is very real; and, so cancers, by example, may get licked, but the host body will still decline.

But hey who am I to tell you not to plan for 110, 120 or 130 years...


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

 

[LARS]

If I live to age 85, I am planning to re-do my retirement planning at that time with 100 or even 105 as the projected age of death instead of 95. To do this I might have to buy an immediate lifetime annuity (which I suppose should be fairly cheap at age 85), or cut back on my expenses.

Only real world way to look at this issue. I might quibble that the first hard look ought be at 80, but that's nitpicking.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

 

[H2ODude]

90-99 for both but since we underspend the FIDO calculator it's likely a forever deal.

Lars comment reminded me of a thought that recurs to me when I read many of these threads that deal with longevity. I suppose I could do some googling but does anyone have any statistics about what the average condition of Americans is as they age? As in yeah, life expectancy average for a male may be 84 or so but what is the average condition of 78,79,80,81....year old who makes it these years regarding mobility, mental acuity, any other quality of life measures? We have a good friend who's 87 and goes to a movie and dinner every week with 6 friends. All but two of these women use walkers or cane.

I don't think anyone would care to designate their year endpoint, but if given some such choice I would likely set my longevity limit somewhere, say, less than 90 (but indeterminate, I don't really want to know the date!). Sure there are some great anecdotes of happy 95 year olds but the majority of folks I see in upper 80's aren't having a lot of fun.

 

[LARS]

90-99 for both but since we underspend the FIDO calculator it's likely a forever deal.



Lars comment reminded me of a thought that recurs to me when I read many of these threads that deal with longevity. I suppose I could do some googling but does anyone have any statistics about what the average condition of Americans is as they age? As in yeah, life expectancy average for a male may be 84 or so but what is the average condition of 78,79,80,81....year old who makes it these years regarding mobility, mental acuity, any other quality of life measures? We have a good friend who's 87 and goes to a movie and dinner every week with 6 friends. All but two of these women use walkers or cane.



I don't think anyone would care to designate their year endpoint, but if given some such choice I would likely set my longevity limit somewhere, say, less than 90 (but indeterminate, I don't really want to know the date!). Sure there are some great anecdotes of happy 95 year olds but the majority of folks I see in upper 80's aren't having a lot of fun.

My observation, albeit based upon limited experience with parents and hanging around an Assisted Living facility for too long with parents) is that 80 seems to be a real turning point for most people that get that far.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

 

[Free To Canoe]

I use 85. After Firecalc etc this gives us a number for maximum safe withdrawal. I actually use something less. We don't spend all of that.


It is estimated that genetics play no more than a 25% role in our longevity. Some estimates are less.

 

[sheehs1]

I play with different ages, anywhere from 85 to 95.....just to know I have the resources to make it that far.
Every year I continue to save bumps it out farther. (more for the kids!)

Mom passed at 76
Dad at 82

 

[Teacher Terry]

As someone else pointed out our bodies do just wear out. Both of my Dad's parents died of old age at 86 and 91. Neither were on any meds or had any chronic conditions, etc. I have noticed lately that a lot of people are dying at 69 upon looking at the obits. I actually read a number of years ago that your 10 dangerous years are between 55-65 and if you survive that without cancer, heart disease etc that you can expect to live to be fairly old.

 

[Totoro]

The musculoskeletal system deterioration is very real; and, so cancers, by example, may get licked, but the host body will still decline.

But hey who am I to tell you not to plan for 110, 120 or 130 years...

We'll see indeed.

Looking at the stats, fixing cancers and being able to replace organs with new ones made from your own cells would remove the bulk of deaths on the current tables. Especially replacement hearts and lungs (above 80). Except Alzheimer's and dementia.

Musculoskeletal system breakdown doesn't even show in the Top-10 except for women 80+, less than 2% of deaths.

There's a real good chance we'll end up with a huge population of relatively ok bodies with gone minds. Not a good scenario.

 

[LARS]

We'll see indeed.

Looking at the stats, fixing cancers and being able to replace organs with new ones made from your own cells would remove the bulk of deaths on the current tables. Especially replacement hearts and lungs (above 80). Except Alzheimer's and dementia.

Musculoskeletal system breakdown doesn't even show in the Top-10 except for women 80+, less than 2% of deaths.

There's a real good chance we'll end up with a huge population of relatively ok bodies with gone minds. Not a good scenario.

The reason it isn't top ten is because today other body parts are the limiting factor. Take those away (i.e. improve organs, stop cancer, etc.) and then the limiting factor will be musculoskeletal (and brain as you point out) issues. I also would add that the outer covering (e.g. Skin) will also be a limiting factor: in advanced seniors it is paper thin.

As I said, I do think we will have growing populations of old people courtesy of medical advancements, but that will manifest itself in many more folks making 80 and 90: not legions living to 100, 110 or 120.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

 

[Teacher Terry]

I don't think people will choose to have new organs when they are failing mentally, etc and the insurance could decide not to pay for it. I don't know many people that want to live without a mind.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

Our plan is to keep LBOMs and saving a bit so there is no actual end date in the plan. I watch the science shows on lab grown organ replacement and feel that it is possible that might be the actual future of medicine. I'd rather spend a bit less now than have to worry about running out of money at age 90 or older.

 

[Danmar]

Why do I need to plan to die at a certain age?

I thought that if I spent way below what FIRECalc says I can, I will not run out of money. I do not plan to die broke, and in fact want to leave my children with some money. Actually my wife will be the one doing that, as she will outlast.

Yes, agree. Since I (her) plan to leave a legacy, Its not really that important when I think I might die. As long as you don't overspend, there should be lots left. Having said that, given my current health, I would hope to make it well into my 90's.

 

[bingybear]

I voted Huh? Since I used ages for both me and DW... 2 people of different sex. I understand why you were interested in what sex based on life expectancy.

In my mid 40's I used 94 as the end of planning for both of us. I expected I would not really make it that long.

A few years back (early 50's) I moved it to 104 and for the fun of it I used 115 (the age that RMD deplete you IRAs).

I usually used the same age for both of use. Sometimes put DW 3 or 4 years older.

If we follow these plans, the kids will be happy

 

[Totoro]

I don't think people will choose to have new organs when they are failing mentally, etc and the insurance could decide not to pay for it. I don't know many people that want to live without a mind.

A well-functioning empty shell is a nightmare, both for the patient and family. I do hope we can fix that in parallel, but less optimistic there.

With regards to coverage an example: A kidney failure costs $89k per year in the US (dialysis), and transplants still cost $25k per year to avoid rejection.

https://pharm.ucsf.edu/kidney/need/statistics

So get the cost of a regrown kidney down to $100k or so, and why wouldn't insurance cover this procedure?

It's not a small market either, $34 billion or 7% of the medicare budget.

 

[Car-Guy]

I voted for 90 to 99 since I've also used 100 for planning purposes. Twenty years ago, I felt that "one of us" could live that long. As the years pass, I'm realizing I have way over estimated. Thinking about this, my adjusted targets should be more in the mid 80's range, at best.

No need to consider adjusting our WR since we are already doing everything we want now.

 

[Lsbcal]

In the VPW tool I put in age 110 as the depletion of portfolio age. That is high enough so that it is unlikely we will too severely draw down our money as we grow ancient.

Should we have a normal sequence of returns over the next 30 years, I might have to live longer!

 

[Tom57]

I voted Male, 80-89. I have always used 84 for life expectancy based on questionnaires. I did die already on 7/13/2016 from cardiac arrest but wasn't dead for long. No brain damage, the cardiac issues are fixed so I'll stick with 84.

 

[kcowan]

When I was planning for retirement in 2002, my median life expectancy was 91. There was a 90% chance that I would be dead by 99 so I used 99. With all the discussion about declining spending after 85, I think we are conservative in the plan so DW should be fine.

 

[Koolau]

I haven't run FireCalc or any other rigorous planning tool for several years now. When I retired at 58, I assumed a life span of 30 more years. Each year, I add on 30 years - so I guess that's about 99 now. Firecalc for 30 years (at 58) said WDR of upper 3% range was fine. So I figure that's still true if I live another 30 years (though I realize some figures have changed by now.) Just to be safe, If I keep it at 3%, I should be fine. Thinking 30 years down the road is starting to seem a bit ridiculous, but I have less control over how long I live than I do how much I withdraw and spend. Just want to be reasonably certain I don't run out of money. YMMV

 

[aaronc879]

I go with 80. My maternal grandfather passed in his 50's and paternal grandfather died at 76. Dad will be very lucky to make it to 75. Based on that I think 80 is very optimistic. If I live past 80 then i'll live my final days in a government subsidized nursing home. If I die with more than mid-five figures then I worked too long.

 

[ziggy29]

I'm 50 (almost 51), DW is 48. I'm assuming joint life expectancy of 95, meaning through 2063 in our case.

We have a rather unremarkable family history of longevity. Going back four generations my oldest ancestor lived to 91 (one of my great grandmothers) and DW's oldest ancestor lived to 90 (her father's mother). I can't find any men in that time frame on my side of the tree who lived past 81. Of course, that was generations ago, some of those deaths were caused by what are now preventable and/or treatable conditions, and includes cancer deaths for smokers, so maybe it will be different moving forward. I did have one great great grandfather who made it almost 96 years, though (1832-1928). Not sure how much of his genes made it through 5 generations to me.

 

[Teacher Terry]

Totoro: right now we can't grow organs so they are not going to give one to someone really old. Plus transplant surgery is very expensive. My friend's 19 yo daughter had to go to Indiana for a liver because on the West coast the wait was 7 years and she would not live that long. Before being allowed on the list she had to prove she had insurance and the means to pay what it did not and to pay for anti-rejection drugs afterwards. Unfortunately she only lived 24 hours after getting it.

 

[6miths]

I guess I used 90s for DW and I but really I wanted to get to a FIRECalc result that was 100% and the end numbers just were bigger than the initial nest egg.

 

[2035]

95


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum