U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-12-2016, 08:39 AM
 
Location: Close to an earthquake
890 posts, read 676,616 times
Reputation: 2390

Advertisements

Some here are very numerical and analytical in their retirement planning. You use cost-of-living, rate of return and life expectancy assumptions in the analysis you do. Whether you use a website calculator, one of a planning professional you employ, or your own spreadsheets/napkins, these and other assumptions are necessary to do the math.

If this is you, what is your life expectancy assumption?

I'll go first. I use age 95 years. I don't have family history to support this life expectancy but I feel comfortable when using 95 years in my math.

Years ago I recall seeing a financial planning company's advertisement; I thought it was very clever. It had a photo of an older man in a business suit with hands in his pocket with a caption reading something like this: "Well off at 65 and broke at 80."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-12-2016, 08:41 AM
 
6,306 posts, read 5,046,206 times
Reputation: 12810
75!

Why I Hope to Die at 75 - The Atlantic
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2016, 08:43 AM
 
Location: Close to an earthquake
890 posts, read 676,616 times
Reputation: 2390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clemencia53 View Post
Had an older friend who shared this expression with me that I constantly use: "Ain't no man who wants to live to be 100 except the 99-year old man."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2016, 08:55 AM
 
Location: Jollyville, TX
3,850 posts, read 9,437,792 times
Reputation: 4392
My husband and I just had this discussion with our financial advisor. Based on our family histories and personal health issues, we plugged in numbers in the low 80's for him and high 80's for me. The FA wanted to put our ages in the mid-nineties range which leaves us lacking in our financial readiness to retire although hubby is already retired and I am just plain tired! After 38.5 years of working in the corporate world, I have to believe my NOT working that job is going to prolong my life...which of course is a catch 22. I guess it's better to plan for the worst case than running out of money but I'm having a hard time accepting it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2016, 08:56 AM
 
Location: Albuquerque NM
1,656 posts, read 1,521,661 times
Reputation: 3627
I use 95 because that that is the recommended FIRECALC value assuming that you do not have a lot of longevity in your family in which case you should use 100 or more. Also I am female. If male, I might use 92. One rule of thumb that I have seen is expect to live 10 years longer than your parents. My mom died in her early 80's but my dad died at age 52 in 1968 - he was one of those heavy smokers with untreated high blood pressure and a meat and potatoes diet which was typical then when many men his age were dying of heart attacks. While I doubt I will live to be 95, it is just another conservatism as it is better to be safe than sorry and I am not a risk taker. Also using FIRECALC, I have not seen big differences in success levels at different withdrawal rates using 90 or 95 - the results are somewhat similar.

On the 99 year old man wanting to be 100, my older relative was ready to leave this earth by her late 80's. Her arthritis was painful, she couldn't drive anymore, her husband had been dead for 20 years, most of her friends had died, and life was just one doctor's appointment after another. She died earlier this year at 91 and I am grateful that she is now out of her pain and at peace.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2016, 08:56 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
23,558 posts, read 17,535,380 times
Reputation: 27607
Life expectancy is something I can control only to a limited extent. I'm a bit overweight, fairly heavy drinker, but otherwise in good health at 30. I've cut my drinking down some and have lost some weight, but not enough on either front. Blood pressure and all of that sort of thing was fine when I had a physical in August.

I have no reason to believe I'll live to 95. Most of my family have died before 80. 3/4 of my grandparents are still alive and are all 80/81 - decent shape for their ages, but almost all of their siblings are now dead, many of whom died in their 70s or even 60s.

Life expectancy for a man in my community is in the early 70s- in nearby counties, life expectancy for a male child born this year is still below 70. Life expectancies where I am are regressing.

I'd say I'll kick the bucket by 80.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2016, 09:13 AM
 
Location: SoCal
13,200 posts, read 6,308,074 times
Reputation: 9815
I used 100 for me and 110 for my husband. I know I'm forever an optimist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2016, 09:37 AM
 
Location: Florida
4,358 posts, read 3,692,049 times
Reputation: 4084
I would add 10 years to what a good life expectancy calculator would give. Remember most calculators start out with the average age and then adjust for health, work profession, income etc. 95 or 100 seem good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2016, 09:45 AM
 
Location: Close to an earthquake
890 posts, read 676,616 times
Reputation: 2390
If you look at most actuary tables, the older you are the longer is your life expectancy.

Take the IRS tables used for required minimum distributions for example.

At age 70, you use 27.4 years so that equals 97.4 years.

At age 90, you use 11.4 years so that equals 101.4 years.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/uniform_rmd_wksht.pdf

So the lesson learned? The older you are the older you'll be with you being not you but the masses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2016, 10:58 AM
 
29,772 posts, read 34,851,819 times
Reputation: 11681
We originally used 94 but now a age limit doesn't make sense under our circumstances.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top