Is there a poll on this info? I always put 30 yrs. out, we're 61 now. VG brings you to 100 when they calculate a personal plan. I figure 91 and Firecalc assumes a fairly good probability that we'll have a nice inheritance for the nieces and nephews. I'll re evaluate if they by chance, become successful.
Years of RE in Firecalc
- Thread starter Rianne
- Start date
USGrant1962
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
I run to age 95.
Carpediem
Full time employment: Posting here.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2016
- Messages
- 770
I go to age 95 but highly doubt I'll make it til then so I consider it somewhat of a buffer.
Major Tom
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
When I began using Firecalc, something like 10 years ago (maybe a bit more), I would plan for a 40 year retirement. I was 45 then, but figured that a plan which would last 40 years could probably stretch out for a bit longer. Now, at the age of 55, I still use 40 year runs. Realistically, I probably won't live to 95, but it doesn't hurt to dream 
At some point in the next 10 years, I will probably start coming to grips with the fact that 30 years or less is a more realistic outlook. Allow this feller a little time to adjust to this harsh reality, will ya?
At some point in the next 10 years, I will probably start coming to grips with the fact that 30 years or less is a more realistic outlook. Allow this feller a little time to adjust to this harsh reality, will ya?
CardsFan
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
I use 30 years but only one SS check (we are both 63). Since we are only spending about 60% of what Firecalc says we could spend at 100% success, I think we will be fine even if one or both of us lives past 93.
It's a good question. I usually use 35 years, which takes me to early 80s and DH to 90. But it's clear that changing the time horizon doesn't just have a linear effect on assets needed, which is interesting.
We're targeting 95-100% success rates, but are not including the value of our home in our net worth. It's about 25% of our total net worth and I'm assuming we'll want to downsize at some point, so will give us a nice bump in $ that we're not accounting for.
We're targeting 95-100% success rates, but are not including the value of our home in our net worth. It's about 25% of our total net worth and I'm assuming we'll want to downsize at some point, so will give us a nice bump in $ that we're not accounting for.
W2R
Moderator Emeritus
Years ago I used to use age 93-95 most of the time, 100 at the most.
But now that we have had this bull market, and now that I have claimed my own SS at age 70 (last June), I feel pretty flush and I run it out to age 117. Apparently 117 is one year older than the age of the oldest living person.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_oldest_living_people
A realistic estimate of my age at death would be around 80-85, but that is not what I use for my financial planning since I have no desire to live in a cardboard box under a bridge if I should live to be very aged.
But now that we have had this bull market, and now that I have claimed my own SS at age 70 (last June), I feel pretty flush and I run it out to age 117. Apparently 117 is one year older than the age of the oldest living person.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_oldest_living_people
A realistic estimate of my age at death would be around 80-85, but that is not what I use for my financial planning since I have no desire to live in a cardboard box under a bridge if I should live to be very aged.
That's a pretty cool list. It makes me think of the eating and exercise habits of those born in the early 1900's. The stories of walking everywhere and "hard work" I grew up with come to mind. The way my grandma's cooked, vegetables and unprocessed meats. My mom (passed at 93) never had potato chips, sweets, junk food in the house. European and Japanese diets and lifestyle are becoming Westernized.
I wonder what that list will look like in 20 years.
NYEXPAT
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
I suspect none on the current list will be alive and high doses of radiation in your early 40's may be the holy grail?
Dtail
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
I use 92 y.o. which has a 25% chance of reaching at least on an individual basis, plus that is also the default in I-ORP.
Perhaps when/if I get closer to that age, I might extend it out further.
Perhaps when/if I get closer to that age, I might extend it out further.
Souschef
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
I used 97. My dad died at 92, and mom at 102, so I took the average. I am 80, and cannot figure a way to spend all I have
I use 95 for both of us. Not really sure why. The odds of both of us making it to 80 are 40% and for both of us making it to 90 around 5%. Probably a more realistic projection would be for one of us to die at 80 and the other at 90.
mountainsoft
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
So it looks like the best odds of living over 100 is to be a female from Japan. There aren't many men in that list.
I use age 95 in my planning, though realistically I'll probably die in my 80's.
Financially, the critical years of our retirement will be the early years before we can claim social security. By the time I'm 70 my wife and I will both have social security, her pension, and I probably won't need to help my mother financially anymore. From that point onward we won't really be using our savings, so our portfolio will start growing. Of course, we'll probably have increasing medical costs by then so it will probably break even.
Lewis Clark
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2018
- Messages
- 1,030
Society of Actuaries Longevity Illustrator
Rather than taking a poll, it might be useful to think about what the Society of Actuaries has put together in their longevity calculator. I think I remember on the Actuary on Fire blog that actuaries typically recommend planning to the age at which the probability of reaching that age is 10 percent. Using this age, there is a 90 percent chance of dying before reaching the planning horizon.
Actuaries Longevity Illustrator - Welcome to the Actuaries Longevity Illustrator
Rather than taking a poll, it might be useful to think about what the Society of Actuaries has put together in their longevity calculator. I think I remember on the Actuary on Fire blog that actuaries typically recommend planning to the age at which the probability of reaching that age is 10 percent. Using this age, there is a 90 percent chance of dying before reaching the planning horizon.
Actuaries Longevity Illustrator - Welcome to the Actuaries Longevity Illustrator
It doesn't take into account parents health. I thought that had a lot to do with longevity estimate.
Dtail
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Supposedly less correlated than previous thinking, but who knows.
My parents are alive and 89/86.
While I don't plan on using the same withdrawal methods that Firecalc uses, I still run it annually to get a rough idea. In my case, I plan to age 95. Both my DW and I have a few relatives at the upper end of the bell curve that made it to 93 or 94, so seems like a reasonable starting point.
Moemg
Gone but not forgotten
My Mom passed three months before she turned a 100 . She rarely exercised and never met a dessert she did not like .In fact if she could she would have had dessert at every meal.
I'm using 90 for myself and 85 for DW. None of her folks lived to 80. Mine lived into the 90's. But none of them had much use for money past 85. They didn't travel, eat out much, have parties, etc. etc.
I figure with my military pension and SS at 70, I could lose it all and be just fine after 85. So I'd rather spend a bit more now than give it to my kids when I do the dirt nap.
I figure with my military pension and SS at 70, I could lose it all and be just fine after 85. So I'd rather spend a bit more now than give it to my kids when I do the dirt nap.
joylesshusband
Recycles dryer sheets
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2015
- Messages
- 138
80 is probably the latest I'd be willing to accept before I turn the lights off.
I have Zero interest in any sort of semi-vegetative existence past that.
I have Zero interest in any sort of semi-vegetative existence past that.
Sojourner
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2012
- Messages
- 2,609
I've observed this same tendency among all my older relatives, too. Life really seems to slow down to a snail's pace around 85 (or 80 for some, or even 75), with very little money spent on anything other than the basic necessities. Having said that, though, I still put in 95 when using the various retirement calculators, since that gives me greater confidence in the resulting SWRs.
