Clearly_Irrational wrote:I'm not a critic, I'm just saying that it has drawbacks
Clearly_Irrational wrote:Cut-Throat wrote:I agree; You don't see it.
The advantage is that you're guaranteed to use up all of the money, the only problem for me is that I don't see that as an advantage unless you pair it with an SPIA.
Clearly_Irrational wrote: I don't see it as an improvement over the SWR model, in fact it seems less workable.
MossySF wrote:Seems like an easy answer to the topic question. To plan for a low-return future, spend less -- save more.
lululu wrote:People have responsibilities to both. Here we see little responsibility towards the current wife and their child.
four7s wrote:As you make plans don't overlook the Florida Keys as an alternative.
Clearly_Irrational wrote:Simplegift wrote:A low-return future implies lowered expectations from those of the past, which were all based on past historical data!
Right, which would imply an even lower SWR, not a higher one.
Leeraar wrote:The savings rate has everything to do with it, because you need some withdrawal amount, not a percentage.
I more think I need a sabbatical.
ralph124cf wrote:I would take a third side of the argument and say to include the infant nights in the calculation.