FIRECALC and i-ORP are free remember, and no calculator can provide an "xExpenses figure" that's anything but a ballpark number at best. I find them both useful planning tools for different reasons, and future taxes are an unknown like most input/variables, especially for long term projections. I'd rather factor in taxes for myself, so I know what the assumptions are, and range of sensitivity.If I'm hijacking this thread, please just ignore me or something...
Great chart, but my issue with Firecalc is it doesn't factor in for taxes though it does factor in fees. I-Orp and FRIP factor taxes but not fees. Given these limitations, does anyone else find it difficult to reconcile results produced by these 3 calculators? For me, I-Orp is the most generous, followed by FRIP, and then by Firecalc if I try to "guestimate" taxes (particularly since I'm delaying SS til 70 and looking at minimizing RMD's plus SS taxes). I would find this chart more meaningful if Firecalc included taxes like I-Orp does.
Finally, and forgive me, but isn't any xExpenses figure relatively meaningless unless both taxes and fees are both considered?
If you find a calculator that accurately accounts for future taxes you might suggest whoever designed it also include accurate future market returns. That's a calculator I would gladly pay to use.Great chart, but my issue with Firecalc is it doesn't factor in for taxes...
...
Great chart, but my issue with Firecalc is it doesn't factor in for taxes though it does factor in fees. ...
Finally, and forgive me, but isn't any xExpenses figure relatively meaningless unless both taxes and fees are both considered?
It wouldn't change much at all, but you can easily test that for yourself by just entering a couple cases and comparing them...Great chart. Love to see with a 50/50 stock and bond mix.
Thanks for that chart. ....
One question: is a 3-4% increase in the firecalc success rate statistically significant or is it in the noise?
Some people can (temporarily) lose perspective with retirement calculators/planning, but if you look at the underlying result from FIRECALC, is there any doubt? Calculators planners can suggest where to aim the shotgun, but you still get a shotgun blast scatter no matter where you aim...On question: is a 3-4% increase in the firecalc success rate statistically significant or is it in the noise?
Noise in my opinion.
I think "only" might be loosely applied here.Some people feel it is going to extremes to plan for above 95% success, and/or for more than a 30 year retirement, but the extra assurance doesn't really 'cost' all that much.
100% for 40 years only required a 20% adjustment (in spending or portfolio size) compared to 95% and 30 years.
+1.Thanks for that chart.
I do these manually / in table form to assess these sensitivities.
My takeaway is that reducing spending 20% to go from 95 to 100% isn't necessary.
If a bad trajectory occurs then I'll adjust future spending.
You can run firecalc beginning in a future year - at lower spending and with fewer years to fund. That way you can assess how effective such cuts will be out in time.
On question: is a 3-4% increase in the firecalc success rate statistically significant or is it in the noise?
Some people can (temporarily) lose perspective with retirement calculators/planning, but if you look at the underlying result from FIRECALC, is there any doubt? Calculators planners can suggest where to aim the shotgun, but you still get a shotgun blast scatter no matter where you aim...
Two observations, only you can decide if they are related:BTW, rerunning these new numbers in FRIP, I-ORP, and FIRECALC results in FIRECALC and I-ORP roughly equal in results with FRIP much more conservative.