Useful Links

palomalou · 04-26-2013, 08:37 PM

I went to livingto100.com and ran their stuff. Probably safe since they didn't really ask what my DNA had to say. It said 94, so I've been using 95 in Firecalc. What do you use, and how did you decide on it?

ERhoosier · 04-26-2013, 09:33 PM

My earthly mortality is 100%.
But I can guess at the timing of that mortality.
Unfortunately men in my family generally get heart disease around 50 & rarely make it past mid-70's. Prob better guess than any on-line calculator.

Onward · 04-26-2013, 09:46 PM

I don't have a formal number, but I assume around 100. Long-lived genes, fairly healthy lifestyle, plus some medical advances.

A few yrs ago a doctor told me anyone then in their 40's should plan to live to at least 100.

ERD50 · 04-26-2013, 09:56 PM

https://personal.vanguard.com/us/ins...etirement-tool

Like FIRECALC, it just reports on historical data. Nothing specific to your own profile, other than current age and gender. It might make a good starting point, then maybe adjust it if your profile indicates a better/worse than average outcome.

I still err on the high side. Who knows what will happen?

But it's interactive and shows combined life expectancy for couples.

-ERD50

timo2 · 04-26-2013, 10:17 PM

My RMD calculator said 94, so it must be true

W2R · 04-26-2013, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by palomalou

I went to livingto100.com and ran their stuff. Probably safe since they didn't really ask what my DNA had to say. It said 94, so I've been using 95 in Firecalc. What do you use, and how did you decide on it?

It's a tough problem!

I have a lot of extreme longevity in my family, as well as those who died earlier. For FIRECalc right now I use age 95.

If/when I live to be age 83-85, I will revise my plans for an expiration age of 105.

obgyn65 · 04-26-2013, 11:30 PM

I have been using 95 after reading a few posts on this topic on this website.

Quote:

Originally Posted by palomalou

I went to livingto100.com and ran their stuff. Probably safe since they didn't really ask what my DNA had to say. It said 94, so I've been using 95 in Firecalc. What do you use, and how did you decide on it?

LitGal · 04-27-2013, 12:40 AM

Paternal grandmother died at 85, but grandfather died at 67. Maternal grandmother died at 51, but grandfather lived to be 98. My dad passed at 81, but Mom is still independent at 87.

So, based on the previous 2 generations, I'm planning for the savings to last until 98 if necessary. So far, my health history is better at my age than were those of my mom, my 85-year-old grandmother, and my 98-year-old grandfather. If I "head out" sooner than any of them, charities and our son will reap the rewards.

Should be a pretty good deal for all concerned. "Win-win."

heeyy_joe · 04-27-2013, 05:30 AM

I plan on running out of money at age 87. By then I won't give a darn how long I live or how I live.

ER Eddie · 04-27-2013, 06:28 AM

I googled "life expectancy" and looked at a few estimates. They were in the same range, about 75 to 77, so that's what I'm assuming. Actually I suspect I'll kick the bucket a little earlier than that -- I've always had a sense I'd die in my late 60's, because I mistreated my body pretty badly for decades -- but who knows for sure.

I'm not using that for financial calculations, though. My money should be preserved well beyond the point where I'm gone.

**MichaelB** · 04-27-2013, 08:30 AM

The life expectancy calculators aren't much help to us. My greater concern is quality, not quantity. We are a couple, so the statistics are much different, at least one of us is likely to live a long time. have a very clear view of longevity and health on both paternal and maternal families going back at least two generations. What stands out is not so much the age but the quality of life toward the end. There is considerable poor health with old age, physical and mental, and that makes it more challenging to plan. Modern health care is extending lifespan in the US but so far not adding much in the way of quality.

We need to keep substantial reserve assets to the very end. We also need to live life today while we are still able to do so. Still trying to figure out how to do both.

ERD50 · 04-27-2013, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ER Eddie

I googled "life expectancy" and looked at a few estimates. They were in the same range, about 75 to 77, so that's what I'm assuming. ...

I think you are using the 'wrong' life expectancy number. One that is in the 75-77 range would likely be "Life Expectancy at birth". So the number is brought lower due to deaths in the early years.

So once you hit 50 (for example), the stats on people who died ages 1-49 are not relevant. Those are the 'other people', not you. You need to look at Life Expectancy for your age.

The vanguard calculator I linked earlier does that in a nice interactive way.

-ERD50

kmt1972 · 04-27-2013, 09:24 AM

We plan for us to live to 95 from a resource point of view. Our grandparents all pretty much lived or continue to live into their 90s in very good health and good quality of life. I suspect we are not that lucky and we plan to have resources for long term care starting in our 70s.

ziggy29 · 04-27-2013, 09:30 AM

I'd rather live a happy, healthy life and suddenly drop dead at 80 than live another 20 years if it meant being frail, often sick and in and out of the hospital -- to say nothing about concern over outliving my money.

That's not to say these are the only two choices -- I suppose dropping dead at 100 while being pretty healthy is theoretically a possibility too -- but just to illustrate that to me, longevity is only a "bonus" is the extra years are healthy years, ones where I remain of sound mind and body.

kmt1972 · 04-27-2013, 09:37 AM

Thanks for this link livingto100.com I just tried it, it claimed I would live to 98. I really doubt it. Although one thing in my favor is that once I do ER I will be able to spend more time working out. I used to be able to do that 10 years ago when I had a more junior role but now I am in a much more senior role at work (same with my wife) and I know I can do better with eating earlier in the day and working out. I look forward to that in 3-4 years when I am 45.

Original Wally · 04-27-2013, 10:22 AM

There are two issues. Mortality and fiscal resources. I plan to spend down my non-pension resources by 90. Then it will be just pension and SS (currently = $86k / year. Pension gets COLA up to 5% year). We also have long term care policies that will assist should that need arise.

My logic is that in our younger years we will be more active and likely to spend more on travel and so on. As we age, we will be less likely to have the desire / ability to "do" stuff.

At least that is the plan and philosophy. If I/We die before 90, the balance to the kids. If we live past 90, it will probably be at a reduced lifestyle. Shrug.

MooreBonds · 04-27-2013, 11:16 AM

I'm the spitting image of my paternal grandfather in so many ways (including fiscal habits, sense of humor, etc.). He passed away at age 80 from pneumonia, but had some prostate/bone cancer issues starting at 75 (which suddenly appeared after not going to the doctor for about 35 years). He was starting to show symptoms of alzheimers and dementia in his final 6 months or so. He was a plumber for a number of years, so I don't know if those were the result of some of his job hazards (sweating lead joints, various solvents, etc.), or nearly all genetic.

My grandmother (his wife) lived to be 88 in actually very good health, despite having most of a lung removed from a rare lung disease in her 40s and having terrible kidneys from terribly strong medicine given to her from said lung treatment.

I'll be planning financially to make it to the early-mid 90s with my future wife and will be doing everything I can to enjoy life while also trying to prolong it as long as possible, but realistically think if I make it to 84 with a clear mind I'll be damn happy, and consider anything beyond that as "borrowed time". I know that medicine will continue to make amazing advances, but I think most of the hope of "a cure for _____" is just wishful thinking for the most part, and that the realities will be that some drugs for more of the symptoms rather than cures will be the prescriptions available.

ER Eddie · 04-27-2013, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50

I think you are using the 'wrong' life expectancy number. One that is in the 75-77 range would likely be "Life Expectancy at birth". So the number is brought lower due to deaths in the early years.

So once you hit 50 (for example), the stats on people who died ages 1-49 are not relevant. Those are the 'other people', not you. You need to look at Life Expectancy for your age.

-ERD50

I believe I did. It's been a few months since I did it, but IIRC, the calculators I used asked you to input your current age. It wasn't just based on life expectancy on your birth date. But I'll double check.

edit: Yeah, I remember that this was one of the calculators I used. It includes current age and other health data.
http://gosset.wharton.upenn.edu/mort.../CalcForm.html

I got 77 with the short form, 79 with the long form. I got a few extra years this time, probably because some of my inputs have changed (trying to exercise more, have dropped a little weight, etc.).