SecondCor521
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Hi all.
I've been stewing the last week or so on the topic of how much to plan for the future. (Planning for the past is pretty much an oxymoron.)
The kind of planning I am talking about is any sort of spreadsheet or model that goes more than about five years into the future. Examples might include retirement tax planning to one's planning horizon, or looking at Social Security, or looking at RMDs and the tax torpedo.
Planning for the future appeals to me because it seems like there is always opportunity to do clever things and end up with more spendable income or wealth, which in turn provides options like travel, a better living situation when I'm older, giving more to charities, or leaving more money to my children. Further, I am a nerd who has lots of Excel spreadsheets and this sort of planning and analysis could be considered fun.
On the other hand, I am beginning to think that there are more negatives than positives:
1. It is complex. Between different kinds of accounts (traditional IRAs, Roth IRAs, taxable), federal income taxes, state income taxes, FAFSA, college accounts, real estate, Social Security, IRMAA, RMDs, multiple conflicting goals (spending now, preserving for later, tax avoidance, estate planning), things get complicated.
a. This complexity makes planning less fun. I once tried to develop an actual tax planning spreadsheet for 10 years into the future just using my own situation. It ended up being something like 350 rows long and took me hours and hours to do, and by the end of it, I sort of had a headache.
b. This complexity makes it difficult to get things right. In my tax spreadsheet mentioned in (a), I probably found 5 to 10 errors, each of which could have made the results inaccurate. There was possibly an error or two left which I didn't find before I gave up and threw the whole thing in the bit bucket. I have a similar planning worksheet on RMDs, and it's pretty complex too and has errors in it that I know about but am not willing to go in and fix (for example, it doesn't handle the two-year-offset aspect of IRMAA).
2. Future unknowable changes may make planning moot. Even if I could struggle past item #1 (most days I can't), it is possible that tomorrow's changes mean that the assumptions necessary to do the analysis are no longer true and the goalposts have moved. Changes related to inheritances, my health, my future life plans, my children's life situations, or tax laws are all possible to likely over the long term. These changes could very well make any extensive long-range planning irrelevant.
3. It may not matter. Sometimes when I try to do sensitivity analyses in my models, the end result doesn't change within a broad range of reasonable choices (convert to the top of X% bracket or Y% bracket, or take SS at 66 or 70).
4. It may not matter, part II. It seems I really don't spend that much money compared to what I have available to me, so my life won't change one way or the other if I have $X or $2X or $5X. My kids may end up with more or less; however I doubt they would bother to go back and figure out if I had taken SS at 66 instead of 70 then they could have had $15K more than what they did get. I'm having a hard time making the effort.
I'm not suggesting people don't plan. In fact, I'm not really suggesting anyone do anything differently than what they're already doing, if they're happy with their current state of planning.
I'm mainly throwing this out there to see what excellent thoughts you all have on the topic.
I've been stewing the last week or so on the topic of how much to plan for the future. (Planning for the past is pretty much an oxymoron.)
The kind of planning I am talking about is any sort of spreadsheet or model that goes more than about five years into the future. Examples might include retirement tax planning to one's planning horizon, or looking at Social Security, or looking at RMDs and the tax torpedo.
Planning for the future appeals to me because it seems like there is always opportunity to do clever things and end up with more spendable income or wealth, which in turn provides options like travel, a better living situation when I'm older, giving more to charities, or leaving more money to my children. Further, I am a nerd who has lots of Excel spreadsheets and this sort of planning and analysis could be considered fun.
On the other hand, I am beginning to think that there are more negatives than positives:
1. It is complex. Between different kinds of accounts (traditional IRAs, Roth IRAs, taxable), federal income taxes, state income taxes, FAFSA, college accounts, real estate, Social Security, IRMAA, RMDs, multiple conflicting goals (spending now, preserving for later, tax avoidance, estate planning), things get complicated.
a. This complexity makes planning less fun. I once tried to develop an actual tax planning spreadsheet for 10 years into the future just using my own situation. It ended up being something like 350 rows long and took me hours and hours to do, and by the end of it, I sort of had a headache.
b. This complexity makes it difficult to get things right. In my tax spreadsheet mentioned in (a), I probably found 5 to 10 errors, each of which could have made the results inaccurate. There was possibly an error or two left which I didn't find before I gave up and threw the whole thing in the bit bucket. I have a similar planning worksheet on RMDs, and it's pretty complex too and has errors in it that I know about but am not willing to go in and fix (for example, it doesn't handle the two-year-offset aspect of IRMAA).
2. Future unknowable changes may make planning moot. Even if I could struggle past item #1 (most days I can't), it is possible that tomorrow's changes mean that the assumptions necessary to do the analysis are no longer true and the goalposts have moved. Changes related to inheritances, my health, my future life plans, my children's life situations, or tax laws are all possible to likely over the long term. These changes could very well make any extensive long-range planning irrelevant.
3. It may not matter. Sometimes when I try to do sensitivity analyses in my models, the end result doesn't change within a broad range of reasonable choices (convert to the top of X% bracket or Y% bracket, or take SS at 66 or 70).
4. It may not matter, part II. It seems I really don't spend that much money compared to what I have available to me, so my life won't change one way or the other if I have $X or $2X or $5X. My kids may end up with more or less; however I doubt they would bother to go back and figure out if I had taken SS at 66 instead of 70 then they could have had $15K more than what they did get. I'm having a hard time making the effort.
I'm not suggesting people don't plan. In fact, I'm not really suggesting anyone do anything differently than what they're already doing, if they're happy with their current state of planning.
I'm mainly throwing this out there to see what excellent thoughts you all have on the topic.