I caught this Kiplinger article this am on my news feed, https://www.kiplinger.com/article/r...s-go-ahead-and-spend-more-in-go-go-years.html. Intellectually, I subscribe to this philosophy, however, I wonder as a practical matter if I would have the kahunas to really implement a strategy accordingly. It seems as though most here implement a much more more conservative strategy by targeting a WR in the 3% - 4% range based on initial projected expenses as opposed to say a planned more aggressive WR of 5% for the "go go years" and then say 3% for the "slow go years" and then perhaps 2% for the "won't go years" (i.e. only). Understandably, potential medical/long term care costs could make the "won't go years" more expensive, but in my experience from taking care of parents when they were ill prior to passing, just about all the other costs are negated if they fall into this high medical needs state. Anyways, I am just curious if any of you have intentionally planned a WR strategy this way. I suspect my conservative nature may take over and I will default to what most of you all do, but it does beg the question are we perhaps A) leaving too much money on the table, or B) is our conservative nature perhaps holding us back from spending on some bucket list items in the go go years in fear of the future unknowns? Just something to kick around.