We each have a pension that will go to the other that would pay for our needs and we will get small SS. So no worries about being broke in addition to the $ saved for our wants. Some people want to leave $ to heirs-I could care less about that. At 95 if you have enough $ to cover your needs I think your wants would be pretty small. Probably a happy medium between the 2 extremes of spending it all or saving it all.
Well, the problem (from Scott Burn's -and my- viewpoint) is not that you die with no or only modest assets, having spent the overwhelming majority in life. He seems to be in favor of that. Me too. The
problem is that by following an ultra-conservative spending approach (I'd use as an example the folks around here who back themselves into four, three, two-and-a-half, two percent withdrawals --often on top of other guaranteed income, illiquid assets, etc.) said u/c spenders deprive themselves in life and leave a big chunk of their money piled up against a day of need that never occurs. And was not likely ever to occur.
Not out of specific intention to benefit future generations of hungry cats, but simply in fear of the catfood scenario falling out of a blue sky on them, someday, someway.
That's is just not quite sane, sez Burns.
Saying that is what got his article sent to detention on the Anti-Mustachian Wall of Shame and Comedy.