FiRE vs Die with Zero (dwz)

[FIREin2018]

https://lifehacker.com/money/what-is-the-die-with-zero-movement-and-is-it-right-for-you

'living a more balanced and enjoyable life along the way, rather than sacrificing current experiences for a future payoff.'

dwz is more geared to those without kids/dependents.
But what exactly is their balance between spending and saving before retirement?

And more importantly, how do they spend after retirement?
(I have no kids so i want to die with slightly above zero but how do i estimate that?)

[bacchi]

Key differences from FIRE
[...]
Additionally, DWZ encourages strategic spending throughout life, not just in retirement.

That would be the Dave Ramsey "Live like a pauper now so you can live like a king later." approach.

[franklin4]

Figure out when you will die and spend so you have less than 50 bucks left on that day after dessert:)

Reminds me of a Buffett? (or Munger) quote that went something like - tell me where I will die and I'll make sure I never go there...

[Missy B]

Huh. Well, I don't agree with the linked article's supposition that DWZ and FIRE and naturally opposed.
You can certainly both FIRE and die broke -- simply a question of how you plan to divest near the end.

Something about the whole 'living a more balanced and enjoyable life instead of sacrificing current experiences' shtick really irritates me. I've heard it before, usually from someone smugly informing me that they are 'living in the now'. (And they don't need to be smug... that is so wierd to me. That's their choice, fine. But they're smug... and they're in debt with no forseeable way out. This does not compute.)

If you're living on lentils and toenail clippings in your basement crawl space and working 100 hours a week while renting the rest of your house, and don't date because you don't have time (and because you can't find anyone else who like lentil-toenail gruel) then, sure.

But I really disagree that FIRE people aren't living balanced lives. Or even aren't living luxurious ones. As I was saying to a friend the other day, we live like Pharoahs. Climate control, running hot and cold water, refridgeration, access to a vast array of exotic foods and flavorings, including many that have been worth a kings ransom at various times in history. Music and entertainment, freedom of thought and act and movement and association.

I have enough art supplies - paints, pencils, charcoal, quality paper, metallic embossing paper, yada yada -- to make a renaissance artist weep. I have musical instruments, 400 thread count sheets. Sewing machine. Yards of beautiful fabric, crafting tools of all sorts. Books of extraordinary variety and depth.

I'm not missing out.

I don't eat in restaurants (much) or own a car, because those are very expensive ways to get food and transport.
I don't travel big distances because I'd rather save that for when I have more time and can savor slow travel. Expensive spa or ski weekends - don't need em. If anything, my life is more balanced, not less. Because I'm not swinging from the dopamine high of 'treating myself' to the crashing lows of  realizing it'll be 3 months before the credit card balance gets paid.

[Ron Scott]

I imagine a good percentage of those who try dying with zero end up living with zero.

It’s easier to be young and poor than old and poor.

[MMMarbleheader]

I dont think they have to be opposed

My wife and I had kids young, one at 26 and the other at 29

At that time in our lives we didnt really have the money to travel or do cool things anyways so we put our heads down, took easy boring trips, saved, moved, saved some more. Now 10 years later we have more $$, are not as frugal, but the 10 years of hard core savings went well against 10 years of raising young kids.

[jim555]

DWZ, easier said than done.  When you spend years and years saving to go into spend down mode is VERY difficult.

[Laura33]

'living a more balanced and enjoyable life along the way, rather than sacrificing current experiences for a future payoff.'

Please.  Yet another article that (intentionally or not) misstates the FIRE movement to build a contrast with the approach they want to sell.

"Die with zero" isn't some new, earthshaking idea.  It's what the vast majority of humanity does by default.  "DWZ" is just a rationalization to chase immediate gratification -- to paper that powerful urge with a name that sounds like an intentional plan, to pretty it up into a "movement."

Key points they miss:

-- The value of FI.  I don't care if you want to RE or not, but the ability to say FU to a terrible job, to be able to chase something that you really love instead of sitting in a cubicle for 40 years, is one of the most powerful feelings you will ever know.  Sure, maybe you foresake the cruise to Antarctica to get that; OTOH, what is the value of avoiding 20 years of misery?  It strikes me that DWZ chases the short-term highs, whereas FIRE protects you from the long-term lows (while still providing a bunch of short-term highs, they're just not the kind you want to brag about on Instagram).  IMO, DWZ should be limited to people who love their jobs and so are happy to stay there indefinitely to fund their lifestyles.  If you hate your job, hate going to work every day, you are doing yourself a serious disservice locking yourself into needing that job to fund all the trips you take and toys you buy to make your life tolerable.

-- Hedonic adaptation.  If you spend your money taking big trips, give it a few years, and those trips will seem boring.  So then you need to take even bigger and fancier trips to get the same happy feeling.  Then what?  If you've structured your life around doing Big Impressive Things to chase your happiness, what do you do when those Big Impressive Things are no longer satisfying?

-- FIRE isn't about depriving yourself for 10, 20, 30 years to live like royalty later.  It is about finding a current lifestyle that meets your needs and makes you happy that also allows you to save a big wad of cash so have the freedom to choose what you want to do going forward.  Maybe that is quitting, maybe that is going part-time, or switching to a passion job that pays for shit, or taking off several years to spend time with your kids -- there's no single answer that suits everyone.  Ideally, the FIRE approach should give you a fairly steady-state lifestyle throughout your life.  But, again, having that wad of cash also allows for periods that are either up or down, if that is what your plans call for.

-- The power of immediate gratification means FutureYou doesn't get much of a place at the table.  Imagine not having eaten for three days and facing a giant buffet of all your favorite dishes.  There might be a little voice in the back of your mind saying "now, make healthy choices, don't forget the vegetables, don't eat too much or you'll feel sick/gain weight/whatever," but the part of your mind screaming "FOOD DELICIOUS FOOD!!" drowns that out.  People actively suck at projecting bad shit that might happen in the best of circumstances; we are very, very good at coming up with rationalizations about how that won't be me, because XYZ.  How many people rely on their jobs and yet don't have disability insurance?  If you are a healthy 30-year-old(+/-), the single biggest risk to your financial future is being unable to work.  And yet how many people turn down disability insurance because it costs too much?  To me, the real benefit of the FIRE mindset is that it forces you to plan around what FutureYou will want and need -- that long-term, post-FIRE plan is the cornerstone of the movement, which means you can't even really start until you think pretty deeply about what FutureYou will want to be and what kind of life she'll want to live.  It's still a hard thing to project what you will want/need, to override the pull of immediate desires, but at least FutureYou gets a place at the table.

-- It assumes that doing without or doing things yourself is a bad thing, when really, it is the only way to reset your mindset.  As @Missy B notes, even the most basic modern life is filled with luxury.  Who do you think is happier on a daily basis:  the guy who wakes up and says, "wow, I can't believe I live in an era where I have air conditioning in August and whatever luxury food item I might want two miles away at the grocery store"?  Or the guy who takes all that for granted and is constantly thinking "gee, I wish I had a bigger house and didn't have to spend all this time shopping and cooking"?  There is significant power in knowing that you don't actually need all of the trappings.

I could keep going, but I'll stop for now. 

[Ron Scott]

Who do you think is happier on a daily basis:  the guy who wakes up and says, "wow, I can't believe I live in an era where I have air conditioning in August and whatever luxury food item I might want two miles away at the grocery store"?  Or the guy who takes all that for granted and is constantly thinking "gee, I wish I had a bigger house and didn't have to spend all this time shopping and cooking"? 

I think the least happy people are those who justify their life choices by making negative comparisons to others, who have simply chosen a different path.

[LifeHappens]

I think this article is absolute trash. I read and re-read Die With Zero. It had a pretty profound impact on my. It is also very compatible with FIRE!

Sure, the author is objectively wealthy. He threw himself a birthday party where he flew all of his friends and family to the Caribbean and hired Natalie Merchant to have a private concert. However, you don't have to be wealthy to both live well now AND save for FIRE.

A lot of the philosophy of the book is about "enough", getting to the point where you know you have enough and not being afraid to use that abundance to both live well AND help others to the extent you are able. One key takeaway for me has been thinking through how I might assist my nieces and nephews early in their adult lives rather than trying to leave them an inheritance. Another is how important it is to set up your finances in a way where you can't continue to hoard cash forever out of some ingrained poverty mindset.

[mistymoney]

can someone quantify what DWZ really works out to?

If fire is 4%WR or less, what is DWZ? 6%? 7%?

I understand the concept, but what is the operationalization of it?

[wageslave23]

can someone quantify what DWZ really works out to?

If fire is 4%WR or less, what is DWZ? 6%? 7%?

I understand the concept, but what is the operationalization of it?

That's what I would like to know too. Most of us in the FIRE community are trying to earn just enough to live comfortably until death. There are unknown future expenses and unknown market returns, so you balance working too long with going broke before you die. Sounds like this guy found a way to regurgitate a well known philosophy and make money off of it. Good for him.

[secondcor521]

can someone quantify what DWZ really works out to?

If fire is 4%WR or less, what is DWZ? 6%? 7%?

I understand the concept, but what is the operationalization of it?

I read the DWZ book a while ago.  IIRC, his SWAG math was to take what you spend now, multiply that by the number of years you have left, then subtract about 30% because your investments will grow while you're spending that money down.  If you have more than that, I think the author recommends spending on experiences and things that would bring you happiness.

It does seem to me that the DWZ book and the DWZ movement might be quite different from each other.  So the comments by Laura33 may apply to the movement but AFAICT they don't really apply to the book.

My key takeaway from the book was that people tend to make a mistake of deferring enjoyment in their 40s/50s/60s to make sure they have "enough", then end up with too much money and not enough health to enjoy it in their 70s/80s/90s.  The "Die With Zero" title is not about dying with zero dollars, it's about dying with zero regrets.  That takeaway might or might not apply to the FIRE folks here and elsewhere.

[blueberrybushes]

DWZ or FIRE or "Giving while Living" - they all represent a way to manage your assets throughout your life.

secondcor521 is right in that we tend to wait too long to enjoy life, but hey - that makes us human and sentient...

It continually amazes me how many people decide how to live their lives (invest their money) based on what someone else tells them they should do.  Like the one poster who "asked permission" to quit his job or FI or FIRE or whatever it was (no disrespect intended to OP).

In the end, your decision should be what you are comfortable with and not what anyone else thinks your should do....

[FallenTimber]

Here’s a quote from the Die With Zero book that I found interesting:

At the high end, retirees who had $500,000 or more right before retirement had spent down a median of only 11.8 percent of that money 20 years later or by the time they died. That's more than 88 percent left over —which means that a person retiring at 65 with half a million dollars still has more than $440,000 left at age 85!

• At the lower end, retirees with less than $200,000 saved up for retirement spent a higher percentage (as you might expect, since they had less to spend overall) — but even this group's median members had spent down only one-quarter of their assets 18 years after retirement
.
• One-third of all retirees actually increased their assets after retirement! Instead of slowly or quickly decumulating, they continued to accumulate wealth.

[Fru-Gal]

My biggest takeaway from Die with Zero was his point about US medical costs. He says that the old boogeyman that you need to save up enough for catastrophic medical care is a myth. Basically, that a year or two or three of extra savings is not enough to pay for a medical catastrophe anyway. Instead, facing such an event, you should negotiate the bills or be on some sort of insurance or government healthcare plan.

Ironically we survived a medical catastrophe last year (and I am FIRE) and that proved his point to me.

Love the points made by @LifeHappens , @Missy B  and @Laura33

[FIREin2018]

DWZ, easier said than done.  When you spend years and years saving to go into spend down mode is VERY difficult.

I FiRED in 2018 at age 47.
I find it hard to spend more $ than usual.

One piece of advice i try to follow is 'If an item you're thinking of buying costs less than $10, BUY IT!'
Not worth the mental energy hemming and hawing over $10 or less when you can easily afford it.
Defeats the purpose of relaxing in retirement.

At first i thought this might be a slippery slope but so far i still struggle to easily buy stuff under $10. (But alot less struggle than before.)

Here’s a quote from the Die With Zero book that I found interesting:

At the high end, retirees who had $500,000 or more right before retirement had spent down a median of only 11.8 percent of that money 20 years later or by the time they died. That's more than 88 percent left over —which means that a person retiring at 65 with half a million dollars still has more than $440,000 left at age 85!

• At the lower end, retirees with less than $200,000 saved up for retirement spent a higher percentage (as you might expect, since they had less to spend overall) — but even this group's median members had spent down only one-quarter of their assets 18 years after retirement
.
• One-third of all retirees actually increased their assets after retirement! Instead of slowly or quickly decumulating, they continued to accumulate wealth.

Because of my low expenses and 8% avg return in the stock market over 30yrs, my investments will earn more $ than i spend.
I could have retired years sooner if i had planned better.

Or maybe not because I wouldn't have a safety net. That would cause me stress and worry everytime the stock market drops, which is not something i want to do in retirement.

ie: The 4.5% drop in the s&p500 in the last 2 days doesn't phase me one bit but would probably cause ulcers if i didn't have a safety net.

[FIREin2018]

can someone quantify what DWZ really works out to?

If fire is 4%WR or less, what is DWZ? 6%? 7%?

I understand the concept, but what is the operationalization of it?

Well, I retired at 4% swr but my safety net was my paid off $500k house that i didn't include in my calcs.
So if i included my house in my calcs, my swr is more like 1%.

With DWZ, I could have planned like this:
- Estimate how much I need if i died at age 100 with no safety net (ie: sell my house)
- So basically whatever age i die before 100 would be my buffer
- And if i'm wrong and run out of $ at age 90, i think i still win

20/20 hindsight, i like having a safety net.
It's a great feeling not being phased by the huge stock market drops the past 2 days.

[FIREin2018]

can someone quantify what DWZ really works out to?

If fire is 4%WR or less, what is DWZ? 6%? 7%?

I understand the concept, but what is the operationalization of it?

Oh, to answer your question...
1) If you FiRE at 4%:
- 60/40 stock market allocation returns 8%/yr avg over 30yrs
- Lets say inflation is 3% avg so 5% effective gain
- Since your expenses is only 4%, you actually gain 1% per year so you will die with the same $ you FiRED at plus 1%/yr profit

2) Fire at 5%:
The 5% effective stock market gain is equal to your expenses. You will die with the same amount of $ you FiRED with

3) Fire at 6%:
You will spend 1% of your original starting amount to make up your shortfall.
So if you plan to live 100 years after you FiRE, then 6% is your DWZ answer. :)

7% = Live 50yrs after your FiRE
8% = Live 33 yrs after you Fire
etc

I would choose swr = 7% if i was doing DWZ.
Even if you're wrong and live more than 50yrs after Fire, i think you still win

[mistymoney]

DWZ, easier said than done.  When you spend years and years saving to go into spend down mode is VERY difficult.

I FiRED in 2018 at age 47.
I find it hard to spend more $ than usual.

One piece of advice i try to follow is 'If an item you're thinking of buying costs less than $10, BUY IT!'
Not worth the mental energy hemming and hawing over $10 or less when you can easily afford it.
Defeats the purpose of relaxing in retirement.

At first i thought this might be a slippery slope but so far i still struggle to easily buy stuff under $10. (But alot less struggle than before.)

2017, eh?

Have you been keeping abreast of inflation??

Value of $10 from 2017 to 2024
$10 in 2017 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $12.82 today, an increase of $2.82 over 7 years. The dollar had an average inflation rate of 3.61% per year between 2017 and today, producing a cumulative price increase of 28.17%.

https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/2017?amount=10

 I hedge heavily on anything made or packaged in plastic.

[mistymoney]

can someone quantify what DWZ really works out to?

If fire is 4%WR or less, what is DWZ? 6%? 7%?

I understand the concept, but what is the operationalization of it?

Well, I retired at 4% swr but my safety net was my paid off $500k house that i didn't include in my calcs.
So if i included my house in my calcs, my swr is more like 1%.

With DWZ, I could have planned like this:
- Estimate how much I need if i died at age 100 with no safety net (ie: sell my house)
- So basically whatever age i die before 100 would be my buffer
- And if i'm wrong and run out of $ at age 90, i think i still win

20/20 hindsight, i like having a safety net.
It's a great feeling not being phased by the huge stock market drops the past 2 days.

When you lay it out like that, it is pretty tempting, lol!

But that is average scenario, and one could get hit with more of a worse case, and with those higher WRs, could be a stache killer in just a few years. If you start out at 7% and then year 1 is a 10% market drop, the next year is 8%WR. Year 2 with a 10% drop, and then year 3 is a 10%WR and you enter year 4 at only 8-9 times expenses.

And that isn't even a terrible market performance.

Personally - I've been trying to make a plan for a 6% initial WR for 11-12 years and if the market averages 6% over that time (no real gain or loss in the portfolio) then when I take social security I drop to about 3% (various debt payments stop along those years lowering annual spend so gradual go from 6 to 5% WR and then 3% when adding soc sec).

not sure where I will end up, but the market is currently not playing ball with those plans, lol!

Still, it feels risky and I am hesitant to do it. 7% would be a breeze for spending, but very worrying in SORR.

[FIREin2018]

Still, it feels risky and I am hesitant to do it.
7% would be a breeze for spending, but very worrying in SORR.

The advice on this board for sorr is set up a bond tent.
If your target allocation is 60/40 then 5yrs before you start FiRE/DWZ, slowly increase Bonds by 1% so by the time you pull the trigger, you're at 55/45.
Then use 1% of the Bonds for expenses for the next 5 years.
You're now at 60/40 and past the SORR stage.

Incidentally, i never heard of sorr when i FiRED.
I got lucky in that i Fired in a bull market.
Really lucky!

[GilesMM]

It helps to have SS, a decent pension or two, healthcare and low expenses.  My old man was a good example. He lived his last few years with his sister, owned two cases of clothes and a bag of golf clubs only (no car, no property).  He was on a "very" fixed income of about $8,000/mo plus a 7 figure portfolio.  He tried to die with zero but couldn't get there because he was still saving about $6,500/mo at the age of 90 or so.

[Smokystache]

I read the DWZ book (which this article strays from quite a bit in places) a couple of years ago and the two examples that stuck out most to me where:

1) His grandmother was always low-income. He was able to give her $10,000 when she was much older (80+ if I recall) and then she wasn't healthy enough to really do much with it. She wasn't mobile enough to travel and she wouldn't touch a penny of it to buy something that would increase the quality of her life.

2) The idea that giving a pre-inheritance can have a much bigger impact. For almost everyone, receiving $50k at 30 (and then doing smart things with it) has a much larger impact than receiving it at age 60. Or a related example, imagine if every grandparent who was financially able would start two 529 accounts for each grandchild as soon as they are born with $1,000. Earmark one for college/training and one to be converted to a Roth IRA. ($1,000 in a 529/Roth for 65 years at 10% annual return becomes about $450k with no additional contributions (and yes, I understand that it won't have the same purchasing power, but it was only a thousand bucks for crying out loud).)

[Missy B]

I imagine a good percentage of those who try dying with zero end up living with zero.

It’s easier to be young and poor than old and poor.

This. It's tough to be old; being old AND poor deeply sucks.

[WVstache]

I imagine a good percentage of those who try dying with zero end up living with zero.

It’s easier to be young and poor than old and poor.

This. It's tough to be old; being old AND poor deeply sucks.

This. 

Also - whenever I read beyond a superficial depth of the dwz folks, there is always an understanding that Uncle Sam is a fall back.  Or worse, religious non-profits (who dwz folks despise) can provide with supplemental resources.

If your plan is rely on entitlements or charity - that's not a plan.  That is unbridled greed, to take the labor of others so you can laze about.

[obstinate]

If your plan is rely on entitlements or charity - that's not a plan. 

Leaving the moralizing aside, it's also not a good plan for one's own personal comfort. Famously, the social safety net is loosely tied and easy to fall through in the US. Poor old people do not live like kings in this country. They barely scrape by in sometimes desperate circumstances.

[mistymoney]

If your plan is rely on entitlements or charity - that's not a plan.  That is unbridled greed,

if applying for food stamps when you run out of money at 85 strikes you as the ulimate in greed, that's sad and also hilarious.

[Ron Scott]

If your plan is rely on entitlements or charity - that's not a plan.  That is unbridled greed,

if applying for food stamps when you run out of money at 85 strikes you as the ulimate in greed, that's sad and also hilarious.

This seems like unfair criticism to me.

I don’t think it’s reasonable PLAN to RELY on taxpayer supported entitlements, or charity. Especially for people who pride themselves on striving for Financial Independence .

It doesn’t mean that those who fall on hard times in old age don’t deserve compassion or help.


Why assume the worst in people who post here?

[mistymoney]

If your plan is rely on entitlements or charity - that's not a plan.  That is unbridled greed,

if applying for food stamps when you run out of money at 85 strikes you as the ulimate in greed, that's sad and also hilarious.

This seems like unfair criticism to me.

I don’t think it’s reasonable PLAN to RELY on taxpayer supported entitlements, or charity. Especially for people who pride themselves on striving for Financial Independence .

It doesn’t mean that those who fall on hard times in old age don’t deserve compassion or help.


Why assume the worst in people who post here?

"unbridled greed" for someone who didn't quite save enough money and then turned to public assitance in old age is just ridiculous.

how about big tobacco suppressing info on the harmiful effects of smoking just to make more money?

how about big oil suppressing climate change science just to keep making more money?

how about the crazy escalation in executive pay while wages stagnant for the working joe for decades?

Nope - its an 85 year old who needs food stamp to eat because they didn't save enough money from their decades of stangnant wages.

I stand by sad and hilarious.

[twinstudy]

I imagine a good percentage of those who try dying with zero end up living with zero.

It’s easier to be young and poor than old and poor.

This. It's tough to be old; being old AND poor deeply sucks.

This. 

Also - whenever I read beyond a superficial depth of the dwz folks, there is always an understanding that Uncle Sam is a fall back.  Or worse, religious non-profits (who dwz folks despise) can provide with supplemental resources.

If your plan is rely on entitlements or charity - that's not a plan.  That is unbridled greed, to take the labor of others so you can laze about.

I don't think it's greedy to make use of the same entitlements everyone else has. That said, I wouldn't want to ever rely on government support. Having to line up in the dole queue, literally or figuratively, is not for me.

[Ron Scott]

If your plan is rely on entitlements or charity - that's not a plan.  That is unbridled greed,

if applying for food stamps when you run out of money at 85 strikes you as the ulimate in greed, that's sad and also hilarious.

This seems like unfair criticism to me.

I don’t think it’s reasonable PLAN to RELY on taxpayer supported entitlements, or charity. Especially for people who pride themselves on striving for Financial Independence .

It doesn’t mean that those who fall on hard times in old age don’t deserve compassion or help.


Why assume the worst in people who post here?

"unbridled greed" for someone who didn't quite save enough money and then turned to public assitance in old age is just ridiculous.

But thats’s not the scenario being criticized, is it?

The scenario at issue is about someone who actually PLANS to retire before saving enough to be FI, with the PLAN to RELY on public assistance programs like food stamps to bridge the gap.

We all understand the difference.

[jim555]

But if you are not relying on it, it is just added gravy?   BTW I looked into SNAP and at 60 I can got a whopping $23.  Since I would qualify I shouldn't take it?  I say if they didn't want me to have it I wouldn't qualify for it.

[Fru-Gal]

If you have paid into the system, as we all do as tax payers, feel no remorse in receiving whatever benefits you qualify for.

This thread started out with some interesting points, such as what the DWZ percentage would be, but has devolved into something unrelated to the book, which at no point suggests you should rely on handouts.

I hope no one gets misled into believing FIRE means don’t take social security, ACA, Medicare, or use public schooling/universities/community colleges, national and local parks, transportation infrastructure, the energy grid, etc.

Billionaires feel no remorse in earning their vast wealth via government contracts.

[Fomerly known as something]

Yeah I’m not sure how die with zero, became to actually have zero when you die.  I also don’t see how it is in conflict with FIRE or FI.  I’m team both.  I’m a die with zero which means that I can FIRE.

I’m more of a don't die with millions person.  I happen to not have kids so I’m not “leaving a legacy.”  If I leave millions to extended family, charity or the government when I die, I don’t view it as a good thing.  I’d rather help family or charity while I’m still living.  Instead of living on cat food, handouts and the government at 80, if I overshoot I’m just going to have to do less of the passing on while living things to others.

ETA:  Die with zero is not the same is YOLO.  Using more of your money to enjoy life while working is not the same as living above your means or even at your means.

[spartana]

Yeah I’m not sure how die with zero, became to actually have zero when you die.  I also don’t see how it is in conflict with FIRE or FI.  I’m team both.  I’m a die with zero which means that I can FIRE.

I’m more of a don't die with millions person.  I happen to not have kids so I’m not “leaving a legacy.”  If I leave millions to extended family, charity or the government when I die, I don’t view it as a good thing.  I’d rather help family or charity while I’m still living.  Instead of living on cat food, handouts and the government at 80, if I overshoot I’m just going to have to do less of the passing on while living things to others.

ETA:  Die with zero is not the same is YOLO.  Using more of your money to enjoy life while working is not the same as living above your means or even at your means.

This is me and I don't see it as a conflict with FI or RE. No kids or anyone to leave my money too so am working on "gifting" some to my one sib (also kidless) and to charities now rather then horde it for the future. I have "enough" to live the life I want and "enough extra" to cover my old age care.

[blueberrybushes]

In lockstep with spartana and formerly known as something.  No family, no kids, will gift $25-30K to each of 9 nephews and nieces when it helps them.  Beyond that it is all going to charities we believe in.

Why wait 15 years from now to donate $7MM?  That is not effective philanthropy.  We plan to donate ~$300K each year for at least 10 years and see where things stand at that point.  Admittedly, donating that much (and see our asset value decline) is proving hard to wrap my head around.  We will try though.

Another benefit of spending down is reducing inheritance/estate taxes.  In Oregon, under current guidelines, the state gets about $732K of the $7MM (assuming nothing is donated).  Ugh!

FI/RE and DWZ - no conflict in my mind either...

[GilesMM]

In lockstep with spartana and formerly known as something.  No family, no kids, will gift $25-30K to each of 9 nephews and nieces when it helps them.  Beyond that it is all going to charities we believe in.

Why wait 15 years from now to donate $7MM?  That is not effective philanthropy.  We plan to donate ~$300K each year for at least 10 years and see where things stand at that point.  Admittedly, donating that much (and see our asset value decline) is proving hard to wrap my head around.  We will try though.

Another benefit of spending down is reducing inheritance/estate taxes.  In Oregon, under current guidelines, the state gets about $732K of the $7MM (assuming nothing is donated).  Ugh!

FI/RE and DWZ - no conflict in my mind either...

On the other hand, leaving it invested to grow should more than compensate for the state tax burden if enough years are involved.

[spartana]

In lockstep with spartana and formerly known as something.  No family, no kids, will gift $25-30K to each of 9 nephews and nieces when it helps them.  Beyond that it is all going to charities we believe in.

Why wait 15 years from now to donate $7MM?  That is not effective philanthropy.  We plan to donate ~$300K each year for at least 10 years and see where things stand at that point.  Admittedly, donating that much (and see our asset value decline) is proving hard to wrap my head around.  We will try though.

Another benefit of spending down is reducing inheritance/estate taxes.  In Oregon, under current guidelines, the state gets about $732K of the $7MM (assuming nothing is donated).  Ugh!

FI/RE and DWZ - no conflict in my mind either...

On the other hand, leaving it invested to grow should more than compensate for the state tax burden if enough years are involved.

But it's fun to see it help people or your charities now rather then waiting until your gone. I like to do more hands on charity work - generally with military veterans, disaster support groups and animal groups (so sayith Octo-dog mom me) - then giving money. But when I do give money, along with my time, I've found it to be rewarding that I can see how that helped. Can't do that (or control where $$ goes all the time) if I'm dead. 

[Fomerly known as something]

I’ll add because I’m Ok with zero, it’s why I’m going to fire in 11 months.  It’s not Pete timeline early but I’ll no longer be working for a living at 50, less than 1% of the US population is done working before age 50.  My inner bag lady is confident that I won’t be living in a tent on the bike trail at 95.  I’m also not as low spend as those like Spartana.  Ive said for say the last 10 years, I could FIRE right now, but it wasn’t the life I wanted to live.  It would be a perfectly good life, but I wouldn’t be content.  So I’ve stayed until next year, when I will FIRE with the life I know I’ll be happy with.

As I think about my next 50 years budget, what is the worst case scenario.  For me it’s using all my invested assets say by age 75, this is based on a Monte Carlo with a 0% return.   At that point I’d have to live off my inflation adjusted pension and I’d sell my paid of home if I needed long term care.  But let’s be honest, I’m not going to die with zero, I’ll spend and give away less if the worst case actually happened because I’m a nerd that posts on this forum. 

[Turtle]

If you have paid into the system, as we all do as tax payers, feel no remorse in receiving whatever benefits you qualify for.

This thread started out with some interesting points, such as what the DWZ percentage would be, but has devolved into something unrelated to the book, which at no point suggests you should rely on handouts.

I hope no one gets misled into believing FIRE means don’t take social security, ACA, Medicare, or use public schooling/universities/community colleges, national and local parks, transportation infrastructure, the energy grid, etc.

Billionaires feel no remorse in earning their vast wealth via government contracts.

Not to mention leveraging government infrastructure to create that wealth while at the same time avoiding contributing to maintenance of that infrastructure as much as they can get away with.

[Taran Wanderer]

I recently turned 50, and DW will turn 50 in a couple years.  FI, but not RE, but actively debating RE in my head all the time.  When I run the numbers over a possible 50-year scenario into the future (we both have a strong family history of people living to 95 to 100), there isn’t much of a difference in monthly spend to end up with zero vs. stay where we are or even continue growing the stash.  And that’s without incorporating social security, DW’s pension, or potential inheritance (FIL is one of those people who compulsively saved and now doesn’t know how to spend).

Mathematically, there is a 10% difference between monthly withdrawals that lead us to DWZ at the end and a scenario where we stay even. Ten percent less spending isn’t going to meaningfully impact our lifestyle, so why would I risk running out when I can maintain a safety factor all the way to the end?  Of course, if we die at age 70 or 80 or 90, the monthly withdrawal difference could be higher, but we live a luxurious life now. Why do we need to spend more?

I think a lot of this comes down to excuses for people to get their instant gratification.  No bugger, no safety factor, and then they can whine about how the world is against them when the unexpected happens.  And let’s face it, while the specific event may be unexpected, there’s a high probability that some unexpected event will happen do you sometime over a long enough time period.

[FIREin2018]

I recently turned 50, and DW will turn 50 in a couple years.  FI, but not RE, but actively debating RE in my head all the time.  When I run the numbers over a possible 50-year scenario into the future (we both have a strong family history of people living to 95 to 100), there isn’t much of a difference in monthly spend to end up with zero vs. stay where we are or even continue growing the stash.  And that’s without incorporating social security, DW’s pension, or potential inheritance (FIL is one of those people who compulsively saved and now doesn’t know how to spend).

Mathematically, there is a 10% difference between monthly withdrawals that lead us to DWZ at the end and a scenario where we stay even. Ten percent less spending isn’t going to meaningfully impact our lifestyle, so why would I risk running out when I can maintain a safety factor all the way to the end?  Of course, if we die at age 70 or 80 or 90, the monthly withdrawal difference could be higher, but we live a luxurious life now. Why do we need to spend more?

I think a lot of this comes down to excuses for people to get their instant gratification.  No bugger, no safety factor, and then they can whine about how the world is against them when the unexpected happens.  And let’s face it, while the specific event may be unexpected, there’s a high probability that some unexpected event will happen do you sometime over a long enough time period.

For me, it's not spending more per year to die with $0.
I have more $ now than when i FiRED in 2018 thx to the bull market.
I'm slowly spending more $ outside of my comfort zone but it's only by dollars and not hundreds of dollars.
ie: i no longer overthink about buying something that cost $10 or less.

For me, die with $0 would have been to retire even earlier than Age 47.
See my sig about MinimalFire

[firemane]

Dwz is a good read for anyone with interest in fire

For the most part,I thin the winner is fire. His example of splurging on a big island party does not appeal to me. Most of my enjoyment comes from sports which does not cost a ton of money. I don’t need to look for random excuses to spend money. I do, however, make it a goal to not do things such as buy a weird color of sneakers to save $20 over the regular color (used to do this).  this brings me tremendous happiness. If it’s a fast car, flies, or floats, I’d prefer to rent, as I am lazy and don’t like to maintain equipment, so I gain more happiness by not buying a boat. But overall, putting this much thought into this in general is counter productive to my happiness..

His take on annuities is something I will consider in the future if it is still applicable (lightly consider though).

[mistymoney]

When I run the numbers over a possible 50-year scenario into the future (we both have a strong family history of people living to 95 to 100), there isn’t much of a difference in monthly spend to end up with zero vs. stay where we are or even continue growing the stash. 

wondering what kind of 50-year scenario you modeled? was there only 1?

I was recently looking at some excel projections on if things were low but steady gains - or choppy with big dips early on and larger increases a few years down the line. Just for thinking about sorr not dwz vs more sustained fire and how much of negativity I could sustain before hitting soc sec at 70.

[Much Fishing to Do]

If you're investing significantly in risk assets such as equities, any spending level has a lot of risk to it. 

I think a lot of 4% SWR folks here think of that as a dying with zero plan, as some of the past worst case scenarios that actually happened ended up with zero. Of course one could spend at about a 6% SWR to, on average past performance, end up with zero after 30 years, when they may likely be dead given their health and age.  That is also a legitimate die with zero plan, but of course you;ve increased your "live with zero" probability to ~50% as well.

Back away from risky assets and I see how it works more practically.  As someone who invests mostly in equities, my own "die with zero" plan would look something like "hey, I'm 85 and still alive, a life annuity finally pays great now and will end with zero when I end"...But I've pof course have to make it to 85...

[NorthernIkigai]

I just read the book for the first time, and was actually quite impressed by it. The big lesson in it for me was not the literal “die with zero” as in try to get as close to that number but preferably still in the black as possible.

For me the point of the book was that we should think about the things we want to experience and achieve in life and also be realistic about when will be too late for those. So if you like extreme sports, don’t scrimp on doing those when you are young, since there will be a time when you won’t be able to do them anyway. (I liked how one graph, I think inadvertently, showed that there’s never a good time in life for a lot of skiing — first you’re too poor and later you’re too old!) Yes, his own hobbies and adventures seemed a bit out there and over the top, but I get the point. I’m also happy my hobbies include pretty unambitious hiking, reading books, and taking language classes, since these are things I’ll probably we able to do into my 80s. I don’t really want to do some of the more adventurous things I enjoyed when I was younger, so I don’t do them anymore but I’m glad I did them at the time.

The one thing that clashed with FIRE, at least the Mustachian kind, in the book was that there was no hint of a thought about what your consumer choices does to the world and the environment in the book. There was stuff about charity (give early rather than more later), but it felt as if the author had never thought of the environmental impact of his choices.

[mistymoney]

Dwz is a good read for anyone with interest in fire


His take on annuities is something I will consider in the future if it is still applicable (lightly consider though).

what was the take?

[eyesonthehorizon]

... But I really disagree that FIRE people aren't living balanced lives. Or even aren't living luxurious ones. As I was saying to a friend the other day, we live like Pharoahs. Climate control, running hot and cold water, refridgeration, access to a vast array of exotic foods and flavorings, including many that have been worth a kings ransom at various times in history. Music and entertainment, freedom of thought and act and movement and association.

I have enough art supplies - paints, pencils, charcoal, quality paper, metallic embossing paper, yada yada -- to make a renaissance artist weep. I have musical instruments, 400 thread count sheets. Sewing machine. Yards of beautiful fabric, crafting tools of all sorts. Books of extraordinary variety and depth.

I'm not missing out. ...

Every time someone puts our modern luxury in historical context it’s like stepping into the sunlight, or a clean hot shower courtesy our wonderful modern indoor plumbing: a balm for the dull ache of general thoughtlessness. I never tire of reading these. I suspect recalling that we didn’t always have it so good might also do society the service of bolstering our interest in keeping it so good.

[twinstudy]

... But I really disagree that FIRE people aren't living balanced lives. Or even aren't living luxurious ones. As I was saying to a friend the other day, we live like Pharoahs. Climate control, running hot and cold water, refridgeration, access to a vast array of exotic foods and flavorings, including many that have been worth a kings ransom at various times in history. Music and entertainment, freedom of thought and act and movement and association.

I have enough art supplies - paints, pencils, charcoal, quality paper, metallic embossing paper, yada yada -- to make a renaissance artist weep. I have musical instruments, 400 thread count sheets. Sewing machine. Yards of beautiful fabric, crafting tools of all sorts. Books of extraordinary variety and depth.

I'm not missing out. ...

Every time someone puts our modern luxury in historical context it’s like stepping into the sunlight, or a clean hot shower courtesy our wonderful modern indoor plumbing: a balm for the dull ache of general thoughtlessness. I never tire of reading these. I suspect recalling that we didn’t always have it so good might also do society the service of bolstering our interest in keeping it so good.

In a historical (or any) context, modern life is so incredibly easy that I wonder why able-bodied people - who don't have some terrible luck like having cancer or being an orphan - can complain at all.