I made a web tool: savings rate vs time to retirement

[kablamo]

Hi!  I'm new to the forums.  I wanted to share my side project which is based on MMM's mind blowing article "The Shockingly Simple Math Behind Early Retirement":

http://networthify.com/earlyretirement

Its an interactive graph of savings rates vs years to financial independence.  You can also factor in your initial savings.  Move your mouse over the graph to explore the data.  Feedback and suggestions are welcome.

I've also been thinking of building some tools aimed at mustachians and retirement extremists.  I spend way too much time each month inside a spreadsheet and would like to automate some of those tasks.  I suspect there are others who do this as well.  This web tool would probably be something similar to mint.com but simpler with a focus on net worth, savings rate, and years to financial independence.  It would also be anonymous and not require giving up all your bank passwords like mint.com does and it doesn't require you to only have US bank accounts like mint.com does.  Does this seem like a worthwhile project?  I was vaguely considering open sourcing it as I can't figure any way to make money off of a bunch of money hoarding people like you.  Any suggestions or thoughts are very welcome.


See also:
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-simple-math-behind-early-retirement/
http://flavors.me/kablamo

[Adventine]

Hey, this is a fun tool! I'm a highly visual person with an aversion to math, so I love PF interactive charts and graphs.

But since I don't live in the US or Canada, existing services like Mint are next to useless for me. I'm stuck with boring old Excel. If you can come up with a Mint-like service without requiring bank account information, that would be awesome!

[arebelspy]

Love it!

One comment: have a separate (small) tool on the right that will let people calculate their current savings rate.  That is, right now they can put in income and move the mouse over to see how different savings rates will affect their retirement.  But what if they're wondering their current savings rate?

It's a simple calculation (income - expenses / income), but might as well include it for those who aren't going to do that calculation or won't think it through.  It could say something like "At your current savings rate, you can retire in another X years!  Move the mouse over the cart to see how an increased savings rate could speed up your retirement" .. or whatever.

And letting one enter expenses means you can play around with how cutting expenses affects your retirement rate and years to retirement (I.e. "Man, saving 2000 more per year will let me retire 5 years earlier! Better start saving more! ...or whatever.)

I'm a huge fan of the math behind early retirement (I posted that second comment in the linked MMM article about Nord's article and the spreadsheet I made for it), but I particularly love how this lets me add a starting amount.

That means I can recalculate at any time how many years are LEFT, rather than how many years total (and then trying to think back when I started).

This will also let people who get raises, expenses change b/c of kids, whatever, calculate years to retirement from their current  income, savings rate, and amount in savings.

Well done, this is terrific. 

[HumanAfterAll]

Nice interactive tool!  A couple of tweaks I would suggest:

• Label the axes
• Fix the input bug: ".05" becomes 5, not 5%.  0.05 works as intended.  Maybe even convert it all to display "5%" for those who are intimidated by math.

[zinnie]

That is very cool--thanks for sharing! I would be interested in other web tools like this (and may even be willing to pay for it).

[Sparafusile]

Looks good. I wasn't sure what you wanted in "initial savings". Is that a percent or a dollar amount? Once I figured it out, I think the label "current nest egg" might be more descriptive.

[drewstees]

Thanks so much for sharing with us!  Definitely a nice tool to play with.  I think you should keep working at it and build the site up.  Even though we like hoarding money, I think many of us are still willing to donate to a site that provides a valuable tool.  You could also check with MMM to see if he would be interested in integrating some tools into a dedicated section of his site.

See http://firecalc.com for an example of a free and anonymous site, similar to what you might be looking to achieve.  That site has a nice feature in that you can save a link with all your input parameters.  Something to consider for your site.

Also, a suggestion to change "yearly income" to "current yearly income".  I wasn't sure at first if it wanted current income or desired income during retirement.

[kablamo]

Thanks everybody! 

- Beardo: Labels and %input are good ideas.  I will work on that.
- Sparafusile: I can see how the 'initial savings' label is a problem.  I'm thinking 'current net worth'.
- Adventine: Thanks for the comments!
- Arebelspy:  This tool might not exist without your comment on MMM's post.  That helped me in several ways.  I spent about 3 days deriving my equations.  I had to do some remedial learning to understand logarithms.  I might post the math somewhere in the near future.  Btw, possibly you misunderstood the 'initial savings' box?  That should be labelled 'current net worth'.  That allows you to play with the numbers and calculate time to retirement given your current salary / net worth.  I think that mostly addresses your suggestion.  I want to keep this simple so I'll have to think about the expenses idea.  It might work.  Especially if others ask for it.  :)

[arebelspy]

I did understand the initial savings box, and that was my favorite part - it lets me see current time to retirement based on where I'm at.

My suggestion boils down to: add expenses box, so it can calculate your current time to retirement based on that savings rate (i.e. currently you have no way to know your time to retirement if you don't know your savings rate), and so you can play around with your expenses.  I.e. "I put in my spending as 30k/yr on 100k income, that's a 70% savings rate.  If I cut my spending to 25k, a 75% savings rate, I can retire this much earlier" -- simple math with those numbers, but when you're calculating cutting $30/mo (or 360/yr) due to cutting cable, you can immediately see the impact it has on your time to savings by editing that "expenses" field, it'll then show your new savings rate and new time to retirement based on that new expenses number.

I would love to see the math if you want to take the time to post it.  :D

[kablamo]

Updates:
- 'initial savings' is now 'current net worth'
- 'yearly income' is now 'current annual income'
- fixed the bug where .05 became 5. (thanks for that one)

The other suggestions are on my todo list.  I really like the idea of making results linkable drewstees.  arebelspy, I understand you now and I'll look into that.  Thanks all.

[goiyala]

I am not able to see any graph on Chrome and IE7. Any chance you broke something while making the fixes?

[arebelspy]

I am not able to see any graph on Chrome and IE7. Any chance you broke something while making the fixes?

Ditto here; was working this morning, not now (though on a different computer, both running Chrome).

Also if we're nitpicking wording, "current net worth" should probably read "current portfolio value".  Having a 500k net worth with 50 in stocks and 450k in home equity, only the 50k is relevant.  Similarly, having 500k in stocks and being underwater 500k in a house so you have a 0 net worth, only the 500k in stocks is relevant (as long as you can pay that mortgage, which will be included in your savings rate, then being underwater on the home doesn't matter for your early retirement).

[kablamo]

Can you get the missing graph back if you do a page refresh (F5)?  That worked for me on Chrome.  Not sure why you have to do that though.  It shouldn't happen.  I'll look into that issue some more at lunch today.

I'll look more at the definition of net worth as well.

[Sparafusile]

It's looking pretty good. One question I do have is what the "current annual income" entry is used for. If I double my salary, without changing any other input, it takes me longer to reach FI. There must be some assumption there I'm missing.

[kablamo]

Sparafusile, that behaviour is correct!  But it is definitely surprising and counter intuitive. 

Lets start with the simplest scenario which is when your current net worth (or portfolio value or whatever) is 0.  If your savings rate is unchanged, it doesn't matter what your salary is -- your time to retirement will stay the same regardless of salary.  That's because an increase in salary will mean greater savings, but it also means higher expenses during retirement and you will need to accumulate a bigger nest egg to accommodate that (because your savings rate is unchanged!).  So it all cancels out in the end.  If you look at the math equations you will see it literally cancel out.

Now lets say your current net worth is x (where x > 0).  If you increase your salary but keep your savings rate the same, you have effectively put yourself further from your retirement goal because, again, your expenses during retirement will be higher so your current nest egg isn't as potent as it was in the previous calculation.

Its tricky so I hope I explained that well.  I'll post a link to the math once I get that written up.  That might help. ...if you are a math person.  :)

[Sparafusile]

Your explanation makes sense kablamo. But I still don't get it. You assume my spending goes up when my salary does. This may (hopefully) not be true. I think I'm just coming to the same conclusion as arebelspy that there should be an expenses box as well as an income box. Here are my two scenarios:

1) I hit the lottery, my 25k/year salary is meaningless, and I can retire tomorrow.
2) I hit on a really good idea, increase my salary from 25k to 2.5mil, and it takes me longer to retire.

The two should have roughly the same result in my opinion - drastically reducing the time to FI.

[grantmeaname]

If you're looking at savings at the same percentage of your salary (that is, the same spot on the graph), then you're spending 100 times as much after your salary increases.

Here's why. Say you make 25k and you spend 15k of it. Then your savings rate is 40% and your spending rate is 60%.
Then you get a raise to make 2.5M. If your savings rate is 40% and your spending rate is 60%, you're spending 1.5M and saving 1M a year. This dilutes the power of your nest egg and prior savings, because you now need to generate passive retirement income of 1M a year to retire. To see what your projection would be if you didn't increase your spending, you would want to see the new savings rate. Your new spending rate is 15k/25M, which is .6%, so your new savings rate is 99.4%.

Make sense?

[arebelspy]

Your explanation makes sense kablamo. But I still don't get it. You assume my spending goes up when my salary does. This may (hopefully) not be true. I think I'm just coming to the same conclusion as arebelspy that there should be an expenses box as well as an income box. Here are my two scenarios:

1) I hit the lottery, my 25k/year salary is meaningless, and I can retire tomorrow.
2) I hit on a really good idea, increase my salary from 25k to 2.5mil, and it takes me longer to retire.

The two should have roughly the same result in my opinion - drastically reducing the time to FI.

That's why I want an expenses box.  :D

If your income goes up, and your expenses stay the same, you have to adjust your mouse accordingly over the new savings rate percentage to see your new time to ER.

It makes sense that more income = longer to retirement, IF your savings rate stays the same, because with higher income and same savings rate, you have higher expenses.  Then your current net worth is smaller relatively to what you need, so time to FI goes up.

However, you are correct that expenses don't necessarily go up proportionally, so you have to calculate your new savings rate to figure out your new time to FI.  An "expenses" box solves this.

[sol]

By the same token, playing with my own early retirement spreadsheet made it clear to me that every raise I get at work technically makes it harder for me to retire by increasing the needed replacement value of my now higher salary at retirement and diminishing the relative value of my nest egg compared to that need.

The fix, of course, is to realize that with your new higher salary you will also have a higher savings rate.

[arebelspy]

By the same token, playing with my own early retirement spreadsheet made it clear to me that every raise I get at work technically makes it harder for me to retire by increasing the needed replacement value of my now higher salary at retirement and diminishing the relative value of my nest egg compared to that need.

The fix, of course, is to realize that with your new higher salary you will also have a higher savings rate.

That's so weird, I've never run into that issue, because I've never had one based solely on income.

Sounds like you built one without an expenses box as well?  See the comment referenced above in the MMM article for a simple spreadsheet that doesn't have that issue.

[sol]

That's so weird, I've never run into that issue, because I've never had one based solely on income.

Sounds like you built one without an expenses box as well?  See the comment referenced above in the MMM article for a simple spreadsheet that doesn't have that issue.

I built it with all my assumptions listed up front so I could change them easily.  So inflation, withdrawal rate, savings rate, and wage inflation are all tweakable.

If you keep everything else constant (including savings rate) and just increase wage inflation, then the target retirement date gets farther away.  That's because I have the retirement date calculated as the point at which the withdrawal rate on the nest egg can replace a specified percentage of retirement income.  Naturally, a higher income at retirement would mean you would need a larger nest egg to support it, so just modifying the wage inflation alone effectively changes the value of your savings thus far.

It took me a minute to wrap my head around, but it makes sense.

Sadly, I actually discovered this effect in the reverse direction; we got a two year pay freeze and my retirement date magically moved up.

[HumanAfterAll]

How does this calculator handle taxes?  Is the Current Annual Income intended to be gross, or after tax?  Is the savings rate based on gross income, or net after tax?

Is the annual return real (above inflation) or absolute?

[arebelspy]

That's so weird, I've never run into that issue, because I've never had one based solely on income.

Sounds like you built one without an expenses box as well?  See the comment referenced above in the MMM article for a simple spreadsheet that doesn't have that issue.

I built it with all my assumptions listed up front so I could change them easily.  So inflation, withdrawal rate, savings rate, and wage inflation are all tweakable.

Ah, hmm.  I never made savings rate tweakable, because it never made sense to me to just increase "savings rate" -- either increase the income, or decrease the spending.  Both of those are tweakable, and they de facto increase (or decrease) the savings rate, but I don't understand how you'd tweak the savings rate and have stuff adjust - what's changing, income going up or expenses going down?  It does make a difference.

[kablamo]

How does this calculator handle taxes?  Is the Current Annual Income intended to be gross, or after tax?  Is the savings rate based on gross income, or net after tax?

Is the annual return real (above inflation) or absolute?

None of that is part of the calculations.  The only variables are the four that are listed on the web page.  So I'd say all your inputs should be after tax and after inflation.  A very good point!  I should make that clear somehow. 

I've been going around in my head trying to decide if I should add more variables -- stuff like taxes and inflation.  The thing is:
1. I like the simplicity of the web app as it is now.
2. ROI already feels like such a wild guess to me.  I'm not convinced that adding more variables which are also guesses improves accuracy.  And I like that ROI encapsulates most of the guessing nicely in one place.

[arebelspy]

I've been going around in my head trying to decide if I should add more variables -- stuff like taxes and inflation.  The thing is:
1. I like the simplicity of the web app as it is now.
2. ROI already feels like such a wild guess to me.  I'm not convinced that adding more variables which are also guesses improves accuracy.  And I like that ROI encapsulates most of the guessing nicely in one place.

I agree, I think it's quite elegant as-is.

It doesn't give you a complete financial picture, but a snapshot of how long until your stash grows to support your expenses.  That's it, and that's all, and it does an amazing job of that.  There are other tools for more complex and different ideas.

[Sparafusile]

To see what your projection would be if you didn't increase your spending, you would want to see the new savings rate. Your new spending rate is 15k/25M, which is .6%, so your new savings rate is 99.4%.

Light bulb! I guess I'm just use to spreadsheets where everything is a number. The two dimensional graph is throwing me for a loop. Thanks for explaining it.

[ToughMother]

Nicely done.  Like the layout, ease of use.  Only Q I had when using it was to use gross or net salary (or how to tweak savings rate depending on gross/net).

Thanks!

[vwDavid]

hmmm, as my withdrawl rate goes to zero my years to retirement goes up. Why?

If I factor in a 4% investment income and zero capital withdrawal shouldn't my situation improve and not worsen?

[TLV]

@vwDavid, I think the tool assumes that you want your withdrawal rate at retirement to equal your current expenses (as calculated by current income * (1-savings rate)).

EG If you have 60% savings rate, income 100k, then your expenses are 40k. With withdrawal rate .05, you need to have 40k/.05 = 800,000 nest egg to retire. If you want withdrawal rate = .01, you need to have 40k/.01 = 4,000,000 nest egg.

[kablamo]

ToughMother, I'll try to make that more clear.  And TLV's explanation looks right to me.  Woah, thats kind of mind bending.  I didn't notice that before.

[arebelspy]

The withdrawal rate is based on the concept of SWR - how much can you safely withdraw soas to not run out of money.

If you are withdrawing 0 (say, because you have a pension covering all your expenses so you don't use any of your portfolio) then it'll last forever and you don't even need a portfolio or any investments.

To withdraw a smaller percent of your portfolio (say 3% instead of 4%) while having the same expenses so you're withdrawing the same dollar amount, naturally the portfolio needs to be bigger.  It will take more time to acquire that larger portfolio, and this years to retirement increases as you decrease your SWR.

[arebelspy]

I use this tool all the time, I love it.

Thanks again for making it.

[chrissyo]

Wow - this is pretty fun! neat tool!

[velocistar237]

• Label the axes

The axis labels are switched at the moment.

[Rich M]

Hey, Nice programming but this tool is not really useful for me.

First off, It seems to present results based on my current income as if I expect that when I retire, thus It will be a long time till I retire.  I know for a fact it's not true.

This is an error in many calculators.  If I make 100k and  save 40k, then by default, I can live on 60k because I'm doing it.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but if I put in my worth and a lower income, I retire a lot earlier, if not in the past.

[arebelspy]

Hey, Nice programming but this tool is not really useful for me.

First off, It seems to present results based on my current income as if I expect that when I retire, thus It will be a long time till I retire.  I know for a fact it's not true.

This is an error in many calculators.  If I make 100k and  save 40k, then by default, I can live on 60k because I'm doing it.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but if I put in my worth and a lower income, I retire a lot earlier, if not in the past.

You aren't understanding how this works.  If you make 100k and save 40, so you spend 60 (40% savings rate) this calculates how long until you have a portfolio that will kick off 60k, your current spending.

It does not, in fact, base what you need in retirement on your current income, it bases it on your current expenses, which it calculates by taking your income combined with the savings rate to figure out your expenses.

With that in mind, go give it another look.

[Rich M]

Hey, Nice programming but this tool is not really useful for me.

First off, It seems to present results based on my current income as if I expect that when I retire, thus It will be a long time till I retire.  I know for a fact it's not true.

This is an error in many calculators.  If I make 100k and  save 40k, then by default, I can live on 60k because I'm doing it.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but if I put in my worth and a lower income, I retire a lot earlier, if not in the past.

Still don't get it.  I played a number of scenarios.  And the more I play, the more I am confused.

For me this is how it works.  I have a million bucks say.  I put that in as my portfolio.  But when I change the income I make, the more I make the worse the scenario becomes.

So yes, I don't understand it.

And if it's counter intuitive to me, it's not useful to me. 

[arebelspy]

EDIT: I see you took out the line asking why I'm defending this webapp.  I'll go ahead and leave the following paragraph though, which is my response to that:
I enjoy the tool a lot and appreciate that the OP was kind enough to make and share it. Beyond that, I have no affiliation, but I do feel a need to help someone who has a misunderstanding so they can hopefully get something out of it or learn something.  If it's not helping you, feel free to move on, but I'll go ahead and still post my explanation in the hopes that it helps someone else that's confused like you are.

The reason why it changes the way it does is because you aren't adjusting your savings ratio appropriately, as discussed above.

Let's say you have a 1MM portfolio, and you make 100,000, and your savings rate is 20%.  That means you are spending 80k per year (saving 20).  You need a portfolio that puts off 80k per year.  At a 4% SWR, 1MM only puts out 40k.  At your current 20% savings rate, it'll take you 11 years to retire.

If you up your income without changing the savings rate, your expenses go up too!  So say you up the income to 200k. Now if you are still only saving 20%, it'll take you longer to retire, because though you're saving 40k/yr now, your expenses are 160k instead of 80k, so you need a bigger portfolio to support that, so it'll take you 20.1 years to get there.

If your expenses stay the same when your income went up, then you need to move the mouse to your new savings rate.  So if you went from 100k to 200k but still only spend 80k, your savings rate goes from 20% to 60% (120k saved of 200k income) and your time to retirement drops from 11 years to 5.3 years! 

The problem is you aren't adjusting your savings rate to show you are saving more of that increased income.

Let me know if that still isn't making sense, and I'm sure we can hash through it together, but I'm sure you know that just because something doesn't click right away or isn't 100% intuitive doesn't mean it has no value, but in fact it may be worth taking the time to understand.

(Note to OP: this confusion is why I advocated above for a expenses input box.. then if one changes the income or expenses, it'll calculate the new savings rate for you and the new time to retirement.)

[Physics]

I completely agree with Rebel above.

I think the tool would vastly benefit from just having an expenses input, rather than a saving rate input.

It is the same data, but more intuitive for most folks when they are playing with the inputs.

[arebelspy]

I completely agree with Rebel above.

I think the tool would vastly benefit from just having an expenses input, rather than a saving rate input.

It is the same data, but more intuitive for most folks when they are playing with the inputs.

Right, I think the key is most people think in two terms:
1) How do I increase my income (and how will that affect my years to retirement)?, and
2) How do I decrease my expenses (and how will that affect my years to retirement)?

They don't think "how will I increase my savings rate" because this is a combination of the two above factors.  Then when they change one (currently income, because that's all that's available to change) and their time to retirement goes UP, because they don't think about changing the savings rate correspondingly (having to calculate the new rate based on the new income manually), they get confused.

I think getting rid of the savings rate input (cool as it is) to instead have income and expenses input is ideal.

Once you "get it" it works either way.  But it could be more intuitive, as Physics, Rich M, vwDavid, Sparafusile, etc. have all pointed out (or struggled with).

[HumanAfterAll]

Yeah, I agree that it would really send the point home to explicitly say "this is your savings rate, this is your annual spending, this is how long until you can retire".  These could pop up just like the savings rate and year to retirement do when you hover over one of the bars on the chart.

Because really, you don't reach a target savings rate until you reduce your expenses.  Drive that point home!

And the axis labels, as pointed out above, are indeed reversed :)

[velocistar237]

I like line plots better than bar plots.

I agree with what's been said. I want to suggest a format that I think would make a big impact.

Before displaying the graph, have a person plug in their net worth, post-tax income, and expenses. Hide the safe withdrawal rate, investment return, and marginal tax rate (can guess from income) in an advanced settings area, everything with tool-tips clarifying and explaining what they are. When the user clicks Calculate, show a plot of years-to-retirement vs. spending, with the user's value as a big dot.

Then give some commentary:
- "If you reduce monthly spending by $X/month (say, 10-20% of income), then you could retire Y years earlier." Put an arrow to a second, bigger, friendlier dot on the plot. Give tips, like "Here's how you can reduce expenses most easily..." Give options for different levels of expense reduction, with more tips for higher levels. If someone chooses a different amount for X, update the second plot dot.
- "For the same result, you would need a raise of $Z/year, without increasing your expenses." Use the marginal tax rate.
- "Your money needs to be working for you. Here are some investing basics to make sure you're getting a decent return." Can even earn money for referrals to Fidelity or whatever.
- "It's important to know what you're spending. Don't let your retirement plan be a leaky ship!" Can earn referrals to Mint or whatever.

In the advanced settings tab, you can also put the typical calculator things that we FIRE folks ignore, like current age, how long you expect to live, etc., since most people plan on drawing down their principal.

[arebelspy]

I like many of velocistar237's ideas, and would like to subscribe to his newsletter.

[Rich M]

EDIT: I see you took out the line asking why I'm defending this webapp.  I'll go ahead and leave the following paragraph though, which is my response to that:
I enjoy the tool a lot and appreciate that the OP was kind enough to make and share it. Beyond that, I have no affiliation, but I do feel a need to help someone who has a misunderstanding so they can hopefully get something out of it or learn something.  If it's not helping you, feel free to move on, but I'll go ahead and still post my explanation in the hopes that it helps someone else that's confused like you are.

The reason why it changes the way it does is because you aren't adjusting your savings ratio appropriately, as discussed above.

Let's say you have a 1MM portfolio, and you make 100,000, and your savings rate is 20%.  That means you are spending 80k per year (saving 20).  You need a portfolio that puts off 80k per year.  At a 4% SWR, 1MM only puts out 40k.  At your current 20% savings rate, it'll take you 11 years to retire.

If you up your income without changing the savings rate, your expenses go up too!  So say you up the income to 200k. Now if you are still only saving 20%, it'll take you longer to retire, because though you're saving 40k/yr now, your expenses are 160k instead of 80k, so you need a bigger portfolio to support that, so it'll take you 20.1 years to get there.

If your expenses stay the same when your income went up, then you need to move the mouse to your new savings rate.  So if you went from 100k to 200k but still only spend 80k, your savings rate goes from 20% to 60% (120k saved of 200k income) and your time to retirement drops from 11 years to 5.3 years! 

The problem is you aren't adjusting your savings rate to show you are saving more of that increased income.

Let me know if that still isn't making sense, and I'm sure we can hash through it together, but I'm sure you know that just because something doesn't click right away or isn't 100% intuitive doesn't mean it has no value, but in fact it may be worth taking the time to understand.

(Note to OP: this confusion is why I advocated above for a expenses input box.. then if one changes the income or expenses, it'll calculate the new savings rate for you and the new time to retirement.)

Ok. Fine.  I appreciate your devotion to this and that the OP posted and coded this Kudos.

I still have issues with this calculator and will not be using it...and will not try to debate it anymore.

Thanks for the feedback.

[arebelspy]

Fair enough.  I understand your issues, and they're completely valid; multiple people have had the same issues.  (I may even venture to guess that about half the people trying it?). Hopefully the developer will look into a more intuitive method.

[arebelspy]

I just hit a situation where inputting an inflation estimate would be useful.

So I agree with those that think an "advanced" version of this with more inputs would be cool.

[sol]

For a slightly more advanced take on an online retirement calculator, I like the one available at

http://www.calcxml.com/do/ret02?skn=#results

Mostly because I really dig the graphical output of how your stash will grow and then deplete after you stop working, and for the suggestions on how much to save to reach your goals.  What I don't like about it is that it doesn't allow you to input a pension, and it won't let you stay retired for more than 40 years.  Still, I think it's better than the vast majority of retirement web tools available out there.

[keith]

I want to try out this tool, but the site is down for me.

[kablamo]

Hey everybody! Sorry I haven't been around.  For some reason the forum software didn't notify me about activity.

@keith, thanks for letting me know!  This feed back is really useful.  My site monitoring software reports my site as  having 94% uptime, but I never need to restart the server due to a crash so I think its running out of memory at busy times.  I haven't figured that out yet.  But its up right now.  So try it again and I'll keep working on it.

@velocistar237 wow, thanks for the ideas.  I like them.  I will get to work on that.

@Sol, thanks for telling me about the labels.  As you say, calcxml.com isn't oriented to early retirement, but you are right about the table at the end which shows how your stash grows.  I think something like that on my page might greatly improve understanding of the results.  I will try to incorporate that.

@Rich M and @Physics, I appreciate your comments that the tool is not intuitive for you.  Clearly a few others agree.  I think most of the world calculates retirement by looking at expenses.  MMM got me to look at retirement as a function of savings rate.  So I think that is a fundamental disconnect people have when they come to the site.   I'm hoping that applying @velocistar237 and @Sol's suggestions might fix this problem.  Or maybe I have to add an expenses box.  I'll keep working on it!

@Arebelspy thanks for the many many comments and compliments. 

[arebelspy]

Hey everybody! Sorry I haven't been around.  For some reason the forum software didn't notify me about activity.

If you would like it to, try this:
When you hit "reply" to the topic, right under the text box where you type click the plus sign next to "Attachments and other options" and check the box "Notify me of replies."