Poll: Age of Death for Retirement Planning

[JohnT]

95, in the calculators

This might be a bit conservative from a financial retirement planning standpoint, but still realistic.

I have done a lot of investigation on future health care advances. I believe advances in health care and medicine over the next 30 years (I am 56) will likely dramatically extend human longevity, so 95 might be on the low side. 100 or 110 (or older) are real possibilities for me.

However, if this is the case, then the overall economics of life on planet earth will change, since everyone will be living longer. What will it mean for major portions of the world population to live 20-30 years longer than today's life expectancy? So the concept of retirement (and therefore retirement income planning) could be very very different. Not sure what to do about that!

[W2R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnT 95, in the calculators This might be a bit conservative from a financial retirement planning standpoint, but still realistic. I have done a lot of investigation on future health care advances. I believe advances in health care and medicine over the next 30 years (I am 56) will likely dramatically extend human longevity, so 95 might be on the low side. 100 or 110 (or older) are real possibilities for me. However, if this is the case, then the overall economics of life on planet earth will change, since everyone will be living longer. What will it mean for major portions of the world population to live 20-30 years longer than today's life expectancy? So the concept of retirement (and therefore retirement income planning) could be very very different. Not sure what to do about that!

I share your concerns, although my concerns are perhaps not so much for the general population as for myself as an individual. 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.

[pacergal]

Have always used 90-99 for both of us, just to be cautious. One grandparent lived to 100, one grandparent only 42, most other older relatives in their mid 80's. Same on DH side, one in his 40's, one in her 50's, one in his late 90's and the rest in their 80's.

[GravitySucks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan 93-93 for us. I can't remember why I chose 93, but that is what is in the Fidelity RIP that I've used for years.

92 because of RIP for me.
In reality I'd be happy with 80, but I don't want to be broke and 90. I'll leave something for the 'kids'. They'll be in their 50s when I'm 80 though, I hope they won't need it by then.

[jabbahop]

For grins I put in 60 years in firecalc (am 56 now) - 100% without social security so not worrying about the age right now.

Now if one of us in a nursery home for 30 years I am in trouble!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[braumeister]

It's easy to understand the desire for some certainties in our lives, but the poll results surprised me.

Many here have figured out how to pay no taxes, but nearly everyone seems to be planning to die at some point. Why not go for both contradictions?

[Major Tom]

My WR is 2% of the current portfolio value, and I'll also have SS in the future. I think my WR can increase a fair bit over the years and my "plan", such as it is, could continue indefinitely - or at least as long as I'm likely to live.

I don't/didn't use a specific age. My "plan" is for my WR to be sustainable for a very, very long time if necessary. I'll adjust as I get older, depending on how I'm feeling

My parents both passed in their mid 80's. My grandparents passed mainly in their late 70's, though one made it to 102. She was born in 1899, so actually lived in 3 separate centuries. Who knows how long I'll live? I like planning for a very long life, just in case.

[mickeyd]

I have always used 100. Hope I'm not caught short.

[DEC-1982]

I used 85/95 (M/F) for us in Fidelity RIP in the past, because that was my best guess. However, when I went in for a one-time consultation with Fidelity last year, the rep suggested using 92/94 so that's what I use now.

[RenoJay]

45...I walk in front of lots of moving busses.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

[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]

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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by W2R 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LARS 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totoro 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