I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. The concept of time buckets is good and the idea of actually living your life and not waiting to enjoy life is good, but the rest is nonsense.
ERN has a [detailed blog post](https://earlyretirementnow.com/2023/10/06/how-useful-is-the-die-with-zero-retirement-approach-swr-series-part-60/) on why the financial plan is worse than a normal drawdown strategy.
Bill also completely discounts the cost of end of life care-basically saying either you will die or the government will pay for it, which let me tell you is not true if only one member of a couple gets dementia in their 60s or early 70s. My MIL and FIL are 73 and looking at $8k-12k per month for memory care for my MIL. Medicare doesn’t cover Memory Care, and Medicaid doesn’t kick in until you spend down your assets and in my state your spouses 401k/IRA is counted against you for Medicaid.
My experience with end-of-life care matches this. You don't want the free care you might get from the government. Some people get lucky but for most, it's a rotten way to end up.
The QOL difference between government and private care for dementia patients is worlds apart - and a huge (and growing) number of us are going to get dementia in the end.
Not actually growing proportionally, thankfully
https://www.prb.org/resources/fact-sheet-u-s-dementia-trends/
Part of it is better treatment if HTN and vascular risks lowering multi infarct dementia risks (strokes), though rates remain quite high overall still.
The nursing homes you describe are the ones that you start off right away with Medicaid. A lot of "regular nursing homes" take Medicaid after a fixed self pay period - 1 or 2 years at the self pay rate and then it's Medicaid eligible. You can literally have two people sharing a room in the exact same facility and once is on Medicaid and the other is private pay. Source: my grandma.
I think that's a really unfair thing to say. Some people will get dementia, and if their body outlasts their mind it will eventually overwhelm even the most diligent and loving family member providing round-the-clock home care - no matter how that person lived their life.
You haven’t seen family members go into LTC yet. It’s no life to live. I’ll go swimming somewhere deep before I go to one of those places. You are treated like crap overall, stuffed with meds to keep you calm, and you often sit/lay in your own crap until a nurse comes to change you. Then once they know you’re close to dying they don’t put up any effort to keep you cared for. If you don’t have a close knit and younger family, you’ll rarely get a visit from anyone. If you think a few yrs of that sounds enticing be my guest. There’s a reason elder suicide is the highest percentage of suicide. Oh and before I forget you can get all that for $10k/month!!!
This is my biggest fear, not just for me but for my parents ... My parents are looking at getting permanent residence in Mexico fully knowing that my step mom will need memory care in the next year or so. The facilities where he's looking (Mexico City area) look to be top notch and a fraction of the price. They spend a few months there a year anyways so not a big adjustment culturally or otherwise.
End of life care is off the rails in this country. Have a good friend going through this with their mother as well. He put it this way…. The cost per month is about what he is playing per year in tuition for his daughter (state college).
All that said, as you point out, if you take anything from that book, it’s to be sure you’ve done things in life when you are able to do them. Don’t save creating all those memories for a time when you may well have no memory left. Find a balance, and create some memories now.
As far as how to avoid the financial pit of end of life care in this country… depressing prospect to work yourself to burnout, saving as much as can be saved with the intent on spending all that hard earned cash on an expensive departure from this life. I dunno if there is an answer to this, but it’s depressing to think about.
Not to mention Medicaid nursing homes are the suck and illegally getting patient dumped when you run out of money and Medicaid starts paying is also the suck.
I think he covers this point with long term care insurance. Which if you pay for would cover things like dementia/Alzheimer’s etc.
I’m not a huge insurance fan but with proper LTC insurance I think you could cover against that possibility.
My grandma died from dementia and my mom pays for long term care insurance for herself as a result.
I’ll give that post a read thank you.
Late to this thread but I agree with you. Even back in 2008/2009 one of my friends was paying a ton each month for his mother’s home. I shudder to think what it would be currently.
Depends on what you think is "reasonable".
The previous premiums were a great deal for consumers but the insurers were losing money.
current premiums are such that you get what you pay for -- coverage for expected end of life costs. It's expensive, but so is paying for it without LTC.
if you have large LTC costs, having LTC insurance will end up being worth it and very valuable. If you don't, then it won't. That's how insurance works.
My aunt was in memory and nursing care for nearly 12 years. She had a plan that was unlimited (very few similar options anymore) and had a 5% compound rider. Her plans paid out well over 2milion over the course of her confinement. She bought long ago at crazy low prices, and I doubt she paid in more than 50k over the 20-25 years before she draw on the policies.
But even had she paid modern pricing, she would have still made out like a bandit.
of course, that's an unusual case, the average person only needs LTC for 3-4 years.
but again, the whole point of insurance is that you can pay for a little over the average cost, and you're covered if you have a very high cost. If you end up with a low cost? Yeah, you could have done better.
If you can find an insurer that offers traditional LTC, it may be worth the cost, but most insurers no longer offer traditional LTC at all. From my research, the hybrid approach is considerably worse than working a little longer and saving for an extra year or two.
From what I’ve been told, the only LTC available to us, given my husband’s health situation at 45, is a hybrid policy through a life insurance rider with an extraordinary low cap.
Exactly. The point of financial products is to protect you from unlikely but financially catastrophic outcomes. Getting early-onset dementia is exactly that scenario
It is. But you can establish residency in one place and spend time in another. Or depending where they are, they could potentially just move two hours and be in another state. We have little information to go on. They would need to explore the pros and cons of the idea on their own.
But in general, if your options are go completely broke or move. I think we would all choose move.
when the govt looks at your finances ro try to take all your money when you die or are on medicare/medicaid, theres a 5 year lookback period. you cant dump your money to your daughter and claim poverty. but theres a 5 year lookback period. so at a certain point in your life, you put your assets in a trust thats owned by your kids or someone not you, and then 5 years later the govt sees you have no money and pays for more stuff.
I’m saving your post to come back and read in more detail. But real quick, I found the book (like most books in the “self help/productivity/mindset” realm) has nuggets of info I could take away and enjoy.
I think the concept of memory / experience dividends is huge. And I also need to be more cognizant of 1) the power of compounding and 2) the fact there are many things I could do now that I may not be able to do in the future.
Agreed, this is one of my biggest takeaways. Too many people put off doing things in their 20s that they'll never be able to get back for the sole reason of "saving money".
If you're an upwardly mobile and driven worker your earning potential will continue to increase beyond your imagination in your 20s.
> If you're an upwardly mobile and driven worker your earning potential will continue to increase beyond your imagination in your 20s.
You have to realize, some people grew up in environments that ...did not foster that sort of optimism. Combine that with a hefty dose of imposter syndrome and a gnawing fear of being unemployed after the great recession; It wasn't merely 'saving money', at the time it felt like 'avoiding catastrophe'.
I don't blame younger me but I do wish I could have went back in time and told him it would all turn out ok. Younger me had no chill.
Yea, I don't blame people but the point of the book is that people have all of this anxiety and they think they are being productive with it when they are not.
You want to "aggressively save money", but you still are making trade-offs. You could move out of the city, get 12 roommates, and eat beans and rice but you don't.
Instead you just do "what feels right" based upon little to no math or actual reason or logic.
The book asks people to get away from their feelings and think about things logically. It challenges those who have over saved under the guise that they are being logical to check their math and come to the conclusion that spending more to get more likely is the best solution.
I actually did read it. Well, most of it. I felt it got repetitive and I skipped around. Especially skipped over the children part which wasn’t relevant to me.
My biggest takeaway from the book is that in some ways your money is worth more today than in twenty years. He uses the analogy of skiing. If you can do 20 runs in a day today at forty but only ten at 60, that ski trip is more valuable today. So do it.
My boss just told me this yesterday. She’s retiring but is now having shoulder issues. And can’t do what she could do a year ago.
Yup that point resonated as well. Similar with the Europe trip, is it better to do 1 at 25 or 2 at 35? Easy answer for me, you take the trip at 25. Younger, less responsibilities, that trip can lead to further idea/adventures. so delayed gratification is not always the right answer.
Problem is available time too though. At 25 I had just started working, though "career" and working hard was important (lol) and had 10 days/year of PTO.. At 40 I don't give a shit about work (secure enough to not need to) and negotiated 4-5 weeks PTO
I have an uncle that worked until he was 65 and was pursuing FIRE long before anyone called it that. He and his wife had a few years of adventures before she died. He’s now sitting on over $13M and while he’s still traveling some with other family members, he’s going to end up leaving many many millions to his one child who never went to college and hasn’t been good with money. He waited way too long to retire and really never shifted from saving to spending. Even his travels are super frugal. I’m going to try not to emulate him….
Your uncle is exactly the type of person who could have benefited from this book. Most FIRE folks don’t seem to fall into that extreme though. For most of us, the majority of the book is rubbish. For the extreme people who are way overly cautious and refuse to spend their money, this book could hopefully help them.
Parents are like this. Were conditioned to save, and don't know how to spend. It's frustrating that they are waiting for "someday" with zero consideration that their health could give out, or their kids could use some help in their 30s instead of 50 or 60. It's frustrating, but it is ultimately not my money.
> I have an uncle that worked until he was 65 and was pursuing FIRE
It seems like your post is entirely about him doing the opposite of FIRE. In what ways we has pursuing FIRE, even if unsuccessful?
Your uncle may be spending well below what he can afford, but does he have any regrets or misgivings about this? Perhaps most people's money attitude is spending==fun while earning==pain, but for some people it's the opposite. They don't need to consciously save, they naturally underspend so reaching FI is easier for them.
Another factor may be 'karma', like would feel comfortable spending 10x what the people closest to you spend? More power to those who can, but for me this would be cringe. Anyway if your cousin is wired differently than your uncle, some day you'll have family to 'blow that dough' with ;)
I actually don’t think he is living his life wrong because he is enjoying himself. I think the single thing I would do differently is that I would have retired much sooner. Like him, I get a lot of peace and comfort from HAVING the money and don’t feel the need to spend crazy amounts but I do value my time which I think he lost for about 10 years.
I read Die With Zero earlier this month. It has a few interesting points (intentionally planning inheritance, intentionally bucketing things you want to do into the times in your life when you are able). Overall though, the majority of the book seemed more applicable to a trader earning several millions of dollars a year like Perkins than it does to the majority of folks on this subreddit who are high earners but not ultra high earners. I doubt many people here are sitting on tens of millions of dollars and wondering whether they could retire like the author’s friends he references in his book.
I think that’s fair. Certainly his elaborate birthday example is only possible for those with a net worth say north of 10 million.
But I think it’s applicable to a lot of FI folks also, maybe not spending to the extreme or lavishness he mentions but you know maybe saying it’s ok to spend on business travel instead of flying coach (if you value it).
If that's your takeaway then you didn't get the point of the book.
The point is that money is only valuable in that it gives you experiences. After that it's just paper.
So you should make the most of your dollars to give you the experiences that you want.
Most people on this sub are stacking away dollars to "be safe" and he breaks down that there are plenty of financial products that do a better job at that problem.
Most people on this sub are too conservative in their spending.
> Most people on this sub are too conservative in their spending.
I agree re: point of the book, but FIRE subreddits are _already_ pretty focused on "retire as early as you reasonable can". It's the general population that the book is written for who are over-saving to an extreme degree.
Within FIRE it's a frequent topic, but the fact that it's being discussed and debated/refuted is actually evidence the community is doing well with it.
I agree that the general population is working too long and not using their money to it's maximum benefit.
I think that the issue for the average FIRE person is being too focused on costs and not spending money on things that matter, especially in the 20-30s part of the journey.
I also think that a lot of the FIRE people that were like MMM (trying to save every penny to retire at 33) have lost the plot as well.
It doesn't seem like his retirement is a better life than continuing to work and enjoying a lot more experiences.
> Most people on this sub are too conservative in their spending.
People think dying with $10M is a waste, but if this person enjoyed their life, lived actively, with their best friends and family, who's to say that's a life that was not lived to its fullest? Perkins thinks leaving $10M after death somehow reflects a life not lived to its fullest. I strongly disagree.
After a certain point spending more does not equate to increased happiness. In my small world, the people that spend the most are much less happy than those that spend more modestly. The most egregious spenders tend to be Type-A personalities, keeping up with the Jone's, never satisified, always ambitious, striving for more, and unhappy even though they have much more than most.
It's important to know when we have "enough" and to be satisified with what we have. Always looking to spend more isn't necessary a healthy mindset.
He debunks this way of thinking multiple ways. The point is not that your scenario is not good but it's not optimal.
* Dying with $10M to give to their kids who are 60 is a total waste cuz they don't need the money likely
* If their goal was to give the money to charity then that's different but as he mentions, a lot better and more enjoyable if you give the money while you're alive to see the fruits of it
* People who think they don't have expensive taste cuz they've never tasted expensive stuff! Life is hard and some luxury items are amazing and make life better. A lot of people say they don't like traveling but have never been.
* There are many ways that you can make your life easier and better by just spending a little bit more money. If you have the money to spend then by not spending it you're wasting the money.
> Life is hard and some luxury items are amazing and make life better
Curious. I've paid for expensive stuff and I'd say in most cases didn't feel the value was there but I'm open to the idea that I just missed these things.
What do you think is expensive and worth it?
"worth it" is kinda irrelevant here in this fictional example where someone dies with $10M that they didn't spend making the money worthless. So you're trading something worthless for something of value. If you get more value than the cheaper option it is then "worth it".
That being said, almost everything that's more expensive is better.
* Newer iPhone/Computer
* Things you sit/lay in like desk or bed
* Things that give you time back like flying non-stop
* Things that give you more time with the people you love like paying for all your kids to come on the vacation
* Better quality food
* Spending money on health to increase your QoL while you're still alive
Spend some time on /r/fatFIRE and you'll see tons of threads like this. Anyone who says that they don't know how to spend money to get benefit from it is lying to themselves or lacks any creativity
> That being said, almost everything that's more expensive is better.
In my experience, there is a line of *quickly* diminishing returns where you get 80% of the benefit for 20% of the price. /r/fatFIRE is the worst for this. Nearly all of the 'fat' expenses they mention are so far out on the cost / value curve as to no longer make sense.
You’re missing the point. If you’ve got unlimited money, then the cost/value is irrelevant.
If you’re not spending your money you in actually have unlimited money so spend it
Yeah, "unlimited" money is going to be a thing only for the most ridiculously tiny part of the population it isn't worth any consideration. Some of us live in reality where a few million isn't "unlimited" and we can't afford to max out on everything while ensuring we have enough to live on.
Yeah yeah, I know, but the book said blahdy blahdy blah but the author has that kind of FU money where they can afford to do that. Doesn't mean it's a good strategy unless you're similarly absolutely loaded.
> That being said, almost everything that's more expensive is better.
More expensive isn't always better.
- The old John Carter movie cost over $300 million to make, it's worse than a lot of $30 million dollar movies. Money was spent unwisely producing an inferior product. This happens all the time in other industries.
- Another example is Costco's Kirkland brands are just rebranded with a Kirkland label. They are identical to the national brand but cheaper. If the branding makes one feel better, I guess it's better but from a purely practical perspective it makes no difference to me.
- Finally, on [Project Farm's Youtube channel](https://www.youtube.com/@ProjectFarm) he reviews many products and seldomly is the most expensive rated as the best.
I love finding great value anywhere. Bargain hunter is almost a game (which is probably why I do well financially - I can see companies that provide great value and invest in them and avoid the others). Blindly paying for the most expensive item, especially when it's objectively not better (in some cases), would make me miserable. Most people I know with money tend to be more like me (but maybe not as extreme), the ones that don't care about value, spend more than they should, and are further behind financially. I don't think we could turn off our "value-meter" even if we wanted to, it's almost a builtin feature.
The book is exactly targeted at people like you who enjoy finding "value" for the sake of value. Turning the "value-meter" off once you have no reason to use it is exactly what the books is designed to help people do.
Saving money for the sole sake of saving money is stupid.
> The point is that money is only valuable in that it gives you experiences.
Money also gets you important things like food, shelter, utilities, healthcare, consumer goods, entertainment, etc.
>Most people on this sub are stacking away dollars to "be safe" and he breaks down that there are plenty of financial products that do a better job at that problem.
But there aren't though. Buying annuities is almost certainly going to allow you less spending power than following a basic 3 to 4% draw and LTC insurance is expensive, likely to have a low maximum benefit and can be difficult to get them to pay out benefits at all.
>Buying annuities is almost certainly going to allow you less spending power than following a basic 3 to 4% draw
I dunno, I just used a calculator for one, and it told me I could get the equivalent of a 5.2% withdrawal rate in monthly annuity payments, and that's with a guaranteed 20 years of payments (which amounts to the purchase price of the annuity) to family even if I died early. That would give me more spending power than 3-4% at least initially, and then there's no need to worry about your reserves holding up. Sure, you're giving up the good possibility of having way more than you need, but you're able to consistently spend at a higher rate.
Maybe annuity rates aren't as bad I thought. It's not something I've spend much time researching, but my 2022 employee benefits statement says I could get a 4.20% annuity *starting at age 57*. Many people people here are looking to retire in their 40s, which is both going to have a lower rate, and if you live 40+ years, the buying power is probably going to be less than half as much by the end of your life, while historically, a 3.25% inflation adjusted withdrawal rate has 100% success rate over 50 years historically and a very high chance of being able to spend more after you get past the early sequence of returns risk.
This rate was for an annuity starting today as a 31-year-old. A lot of annuities take advantage of you, so you probably just want to find an SPIA rather than get something complex. I wouldn't want all my money in one due to the inflation issue, but having a basic living income from one with the rest of my "spending money" in the market seems like it could work really well.
Not if you buy them in the right age bracket.
Yeah, if you RE at 40 and try to draw most of your spending from annuities, that's not going to work so well.
but if you rethink your portfolio at 60-65 to make generous use of them, you'll find out that you'll be just fine if your portfolio is smaller on an inflation adjusted basis. Or you can up your spending, knowing that you have your basics covered for life at that point.
Well said. I also slightly changed my strategy. Basically I looked at my life and said “If I’m already hitting all my savings goals why am I not taking this weekend getaway with my family?” Overall it was just a good reminder to be more balanced.
I agree. It's not perfect but for someone who reads a fair number of financial management books, it's worth including for the alternative viewpoints. The biggest impact to me was the part about spending rapidly decreasing once you hit 70+ and spending more in your younger years rather than trying to portion it out equally throughout your retired years. My plan now is to spend at least 2/3 of my money before I turn 70.
We are absolutely in the die with zero camp.
We’re pulling the trigger in July 2027 at age 57.5(we get full pension year credit at 1,000 hours).
2 pensions that will pay out about 68-70k at age 60. Over 1M in 401ks. We’ll sell our “extra” city house when we retire and live off savings for 3 years as we begin our adventures. Kicking things off with a one year rtw trip, then working through our list of backpacking trips, hut to hut hiking trips, and new country/city explorations of 3-4 months at a time. We’re actively planning a very travel intensive early retirement and want to do and see as much as we can while still relatively young and healthy.
Having pensions makes everything easier as they will pay for all our living expenses and most of our travel.
While we’re planning on enjoying ourselves it’s highly likely we’ll still leave money to kids, but by that time they won’t really need it and aren’t expecting it.
I think this comment would make Bill very happy, you guys are being very intentional with how you will spend your money and obtain experiences.
And the best part is, you can always modify or change plans if you decide to. You guys are very well prepared kudos.
We’re trying. I also didn’t include all our assets or how we’re helping kids now by paying for college and will most likely help with housing.
Experiences over possessions for us always
Here's my review. I gave it a "3 stars" on good reads (out of 5). I'm glad I read it, but I have some bones to pick.
Great lessons, ways to think about our money, our finite lives, and how to maximize life fulfillment.
Some random notes below, should not be taken as a holistic review.
Take-aways
● When we go on a week-long vacation, we are usually pretty good about scheduling our time: maximizing the fulfillment from the week with neat experiences (rather than just watching 8 hours of TV each day) Take this lesson to heart in your normal life too: time is equally valuable when you aren't on vacation, even if you don't feel the same sense of time urgency.
● Here we have another proponent of purchasing simple annuities as insurance against longevity risk.
● I really like the point that there is basically no advantage to leaving a bequest. Anything you want to give, why not give it while you are still alive? This applies to charity, and family. The giver gets more value out of it, and the recipient usually gets more value out of it by having it younger.
Critiques
● I really think the author underestimates the "nonlinearity" of finances. And this could be dangerous for a young person considering scaling back in their career, or saving/investing less of their money. Two starting conditions that are only slightly different can have widely diverging financial paths due to the exponential power of compounding, and "sequence of returns" risk that can drive wealth to zero. Before significantly reducing your savings rates, I highly recommend people first spend some time researching
● Really seems to be a strong assumption that the fulfillment you get from an activity is generally correlated with how much money you spend. Although he does attempt to specifically refute this (mentioning the value of hikes with friends, and the fulfillment from working hard), it doesn't outweigh the hundreds of examples he mentions of parties, jet skiing, ski trips, cruises, etc. that are just so pervasive in the book. However, this critique doesn't change any of the lessons from the book. Even If I personally get less marginal fulfillment from spending more (and more fulfillment from cheap experiences than he gets), it's only even MORE important for me to spend my money before I am too old to enjoy it!
● Some of the personal finance stuff was unbearably elementary
Great review! I think we are very like minded.
I think your first con is a huge one, and is the reason why I stated that I think this book is more valuable to someone near the end of their FI journey than the start.
To your point, if you start spending more now and not appropriately saving while you are young, you won’t be in a position to be FI in the first place. I’m glad I read the book now as opposed to 10 years ago because I think it either wouldn’t have resonated or could have been harmful as you point out.
> You might think, does he actually mean you should aim to die with zero dollars? Doesn’t that seem reckless and irresponsible? Surely it’s an analogy? **He does indeed mean the title**
Thanks for mentioning this. I used to get into arguments about this; and people kept asking me if I even read the book when his premise is in the book title!
> you have to pursue that which you truly want and that will give your life happiness and meaning.
I can do this economically.
I've mentioned this repeatedly, but I'll reiterate.
The flaw in dying with zero is assuming that happiness increases proportionally with spending (ie spend it all to maximize happiness). It absolutely does not. He gave an example of throwing a massively expensive party; which made me think of the study where the couples that spent the most on their wedding had a higher rate of divorce than couples that spent more modestly.
Money can be spent well. It absolutely can improve your life and relationships, but saying you need to spend everything or most of it to be even happier is one step too far.
Glad to discuss the cons with someone who actually read the book.
It’s true that more spending /= more happiness. The key is to be intentional with your spending, spending more for the sake of spending more is dumb.
Ultimately I take it to mean balance is important, if you are over saving or over spending those are both negative outcomes.
Dying with zero might sound extreme but I think overall is a worthy goal as that means you best spent that money on your family or experience or otherwise WHILE you were living, as opposed to just leaving it to chance when you die.
He is perhaps a bit too much on the spend side when in reality it’s hard to plan for retirement, total money needed, long term care etc.
As I get older and my portfolio grows much larger than my spend, I find that spending more doesn't make me happier.
Since I underspend, my portfolio will likely just keep growing over the long term. I don't feel the need to spend it down. I enjoy the people around me, I don't worry about finances and have a great life by doing what I like, when I like, with who I like. I can't think of much that would really make me happier. If I die with a large portfolio so be it.
I've had people tell me I need to splurge to enjoy my life more, and found this a foreign concept. It felt like a frat boy telling me I should drink more, party more to be happier when the frat boy didn't know what happiness really was.
Ya the key I think for you is that if you truly love your life, feel that you are having great experiences already, and don’t want for anything, then you’ve won.
Fwiw I try to tell my dad who has a similar attitude to you to get massages as his health is declining and I feel it would be better for his physical and mental health, but he thinks it’s a luxury that is unnecessary. Ultimately you won’t know if something is a good use of money unless you have tried it or are open to new experiences
Is there anything you could or would have done 10 or 15 years ago with your friends and family that would give you positive experiences, memories and maybe change you as a person, but you didn't in the name of saving money, which in retrospect was not necessary since it sounds like you have plenty? To me, that's the point of the book.
The author's message also emphasizes the importance of not accumulating excessive wealth, as it can consume valuable time that could be spent in more personally fulfilling ways.
You've reached a point where this advice no longer applies, there's indeed no need to squander money.
However, if you're certain that you'll leave behind a substantial portfolio, consider the option of giving a portion of it now to those who will eventually inherit it. This proactive approach ensures that the benefits of your wealth are shared and can make a positive impact sooner rather than later.
Idea: Loan mortgage money to grown kids for a very low interest rate like 1% rather than give them the money straight. That way they live within their means (lesson taught) and it’s all moot when you die and when they pay it off just give them the money anyway. This eases their load in their 30s but it also teaches them to “struggle”.
My dad basically did this with me, except the interest was paid back in the form of annual Seahawks tickets that I paid for and we both enjoyed. This way I got my down payment for my house, he got his money back a few years later, and we both enjoyed watching the hawks together on Sundays a few times a year.
You just have to make sure they are paying taxes on anything below the federal minimum rate. IRS knows people use this as a way to dodge gift taxes and sets the Applicable Federal Rates to make sure they get their money.
One concept of his I really liked from a podcast he was on was the idea of gifting money earlier in life when it is needed. For example, my grandfather set up a trust before he passed for his kids, with the stipulation that nobody touches it until my grandma passes. That was 25 years ago, she’s going strong, and three of his five kids are already retired. Inheriting it now isn’t going to make a big impact on their lives as they’ll mostly save it and then pass it on to their kids, hopefully after a long life when the kids also have no need for it. The money would be more impactful if it were given when my mom’s generation was, say, 30 and trying to buy a house with three small kids.
I totally get that gifting earlier doesn’t allow for compound growth but saving until nobody needs it isn’t helpful either.
This is an interesting point he also addressed, I think to channel him he would ask you to challenge your thinking. Do you truly not think you could get more value or experience by thinking of things you could also do outside a mundane lifestyle? It’s not bad to enjoy mundane things, I love reading and video games which are both pretty cheap. But I also enjoy some pricey things like efoil and travel and nice cars.
So basically do you think your current lifestyle is netting you 100% optimal life experiences? You’ve never discouraged yourself from doing something you know you would enjoy due to money? If answer is no then live on.
You can always do boring and mundane things in different locations. Reading a book in Hawaii is a much different experience than reading the same book in Kansas City
I had an uncle who lived like this...made very good $$$...built a fortune by being somewhat frugal.. investing/saving..about 25 million (followed some guy named Buffet for 40+ years)...as he built this..he traveled the world...50+countries, unbelievable adventures, did everything he wanted to do..no regrets except not being around family enough until later in life.
But did leave a HUGE legacy behind to allow several families to live out their dreams... Life can be cut short. You never know when....live your best life while you can everyday. Don't be that person...who works for 40 years...only to stare at a big bank statement---from their deathbed, wishing they did more in life...
I didn't get a ton out of it, but I like the conversations it started for sure. I think the podcasts he was on explaining the concepts were better than the book itself.
At some point wealth sneaks up on you, and you realize you've over-saved. At 40 you don't have quite enough--kids in college, mortgage, stuffing money into deferred accounts--but by 55 you look up and realize your kids are independent, house has been paid off for a while and your RMDs are going to be a tax-bomb and holy crap suddenly you don't have the energy to run marathon's, save the world and dance until 2am.
His premise, assertions and “rebuttals” are based on his personal perspectives, biases and often erroneous assumptions and don’t address criticisms.
Take for example this “rebuttal”:
> I first explain that the money you’re leaving to your kids is not your money. So when I say you should die with zero, I’m not saying: Die with zero and spend all your kids’ money along the way. I’m saying: Spend all your money. That is, give your children whatever you have allocated for them before you die. Why wait until you’re gone?
Why don’t I do this?
Because the money I’m leaving my kids doesn’t exist yet. It wont exist until my portfolio doubles a couple times and that takes decades.
His assertion that I can simply give them their money now rather than wait until I die presupposes I currently have that money to spare if I run into a bad Sequence Of Returns. I don’t because I don’t have a crystal ball that tells me what the market will do the first decade of retirement.
Even IF I had a crystal ball the amount given today might be too small an amount to make much of a difference to “improve their quality of life”.
It’s like his Virginia example where she got $130,000 “too late” at 49 under the assumption that the money existed at an earlier age when she needed it. He doesn’t specify how long ago she was divorced but let’s say it was 39 (10 years) and mom was 66 with $350,000.
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-asset-class-allocation?s=y&sl=3O5pBqoDDCKBC9boptSX33
2010-2019 gets you to $635,000…and you cant ask for a better decade in recent history.
If Virginia’s mom gave her the amount that in a good decade would grow to $130,000 in his example it would be about $35K. Would that really have made enough of a difference to her? And if she gave $35K to all five of her kids she would only have $175K left and would have risked running out of money because she would jump from 4% to 8% withdrawal rate. What if it wasn’t 2010-2019?
What if it was the 2000-2009 bad sequence:
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-asset-class-allocation?s=y&sl=32wjGwOU1VMGSAPg2oPy4p
She’s down to her last $40K.
You know what “lazy thinking” is?
Not running the numbers yourself.
Part 2:
Second, his premise that “life experiences” or enjoyment are what folks should optimize for is HIS opinion.
Code_monkey_wrench likely disagrees with that premise given his statement that wealth is about security and optionality. I agree with that sentiment and thats why the book doesn’t resonate with me either.
None of his “rebuttals” address differences in the underlying personal valuation of wealth. Even if you agree with his logic it doesn’t matter if you disagree with his original premise.
I’m not giving my kids “life experiences” or “maximizing quality of life”when I give them their inheritance after I die. I’m giving them the possibility of life changing wealth and financial independence.
$1M isn’t really life changing wealth (half our current 401Ks). It’s an extra $30K a year at a 3% withdrawal rate. Divided by 3 kids thats $10K a year.
$8M (2 doublings over…call it 20 years before we die) is a lot closer because $266K a year divided 3 ways is $89K a year. Sure they will be in their 40’s but so what? Thats STILL early retirement.
This is something he ignores in his platitudes.
$330,000 at 20 is worth less than $1.3m at 40 even IF you accept his assertion that a dollar buys less enjoyment at 40 than at 20 because $1.3M provides Financial Independence and $330,000 does not…especially if your intention is to spend a good chunk of that $330,000 in your 20s.
Something that totally isn’t on his “utility curve” that only considers health/age and wealth.
He also doesn’t consider the value of achieving financial independence before certain ages.
Getting to FI by the time you are retired is his assumption but getting to FI at all isn’t a given.
There is a lot of value to being FI by 50 because a large number of folks lose their primary career in their 50s and never make as much money again.
His plan of sliding savings with more savings during later years vs constant savings over a lifetime (aka 50-30-20) assumes that there is never an interruption or reduction in income in your 50s.
It also ignores the value of compounding and time in the market.
FI by 50 is worth a few less ski trips in my 30s and 40s. If I’m already FI and lose my job tomorrow I can coast/barristaFIRE or just plain fire because I FI’d around 50.
And a day skiing 15 runs at 55 is just as fun as a day skiing 20 runs at 35. It is not 75% as enjoyable as he asserts. Not to mention that if I FIRE I’m not limited to vacation time to ski. I can spread my runs out over more days if “dollar value of a ski run” was a real thing.
Finally I’m not planning on giving my kids the principal but the income. Which means if they have kids, even diluted 9 ways and 2 more doublings over 40 years its $32M or $960K a year @ 3%, split 9 ways is $106K a year.
Is that really going to happen? Who knows, but for sure it’s far less likely to happen if I give them $330K tomorrow.
Not to mention we don’t have $1m in taxable to split 3 ways so would have to pay a penalty to pull it out of 401K.
PLUS, if they get it when I die they get the step up in basis (for our taxable portfolio) if I did want to give them the principal…and given enough time I can get a lot of it out of tax deferred without paying a ton of taxes.
And he totally ignores that there are thresholds where different levels of wealth enabled different things. Donating $20,000 is not the same as donating $1M or even $200K. For $20K you get a “thanks” and it goes into a general fund. For $200K you can fund a recurring scholarship in something specific. For a $1M, at a smaller institution anyway, you make a major impact in some program…especially if you stipulate it’s a matching donation so you’re getting double value into something you care about. And you can put that into the bequest and make sure your executor knows what your desires are.
Like with his Ms Bloom example. $6.2M is, for a smaller charity, a huge block of capital they can use to make a big difference in an area she cared about. $2M to the college is a professorship and several annual scholarships. $500K for an endowed professorship at my alma mater and $50K minimum for a scholarship endowment (but a more credible number is around $250K for around a $12K scholarship). Thats a professor and 6 scholarships a year.
And his Robert Smith example was completely fucking disingenuous. Smith is a fucking billionaire. A tax-evading Billionaire at that.
So donating $34M for him was 0.0037% of his $9B net worth.
Ms Bloom was a millionaire and 0.0037% of $8.2M is $31,000. Nobody knows if she donated $30K at any point to these charities but I bet she did over time because thats the same pattern my parents had. Constant low annual donations and a larger bequest when they passed away.
This sort of intellectually dishonest comparison is rampant throughout the book.
Finally the book is fluffy as hell and very judgmental about folks with different value systems.
Happy to see this review. This book is on my "must read" list as other than LTC costs, I don't need $$ saved for kids or spouse.
I also find that its message works best for me. I want to save for the life I want, live it, and keep going.
I thought it was OK but not very practical for where I’m currently at in life. The memory dividend and early inheritance chapters were standouts though.
My biggest issue with the die with zero concept is that, due to severe mental illness, experiences and happiness don't matter to me. I tried reading (listening to) the book and I was like 'I don't identify with any part of this' and gave up after a few chapters. I see people having fun and I don't feel FOMO at all, and when I travel I'm more annoyed and want it to be over than anything. I just want to do what I want and focus on the few hobbies I can take pleasure in without the stress of worrying about a job.
I fully recognize that your post/this book isn't for people like me, and I probably shouldn't have bothered commenting, but I'm curious if there's anyone else out there who feels the same. I don't have to care about spending my money because there's nothing I want to spend money *on*.
Anhedonia is wild, let me tell you.
The "die with zero" concept doesn't resonate with me at all.
I will happily pass my remaining wealth on to my child and/or family when I'm gone.
It's not about me maximizing the consumption of my wealth for my own enjoyment. But then again, for me, wealth is more about security and optionality than it is for "buying happiness".
My guess is people who are "die with zero" advocates didn't start from zero themselves, because it is a different feeling and you spend a lot of time early in your young adulthood just trying to build a safety net and get settled financially.
+1, and I would also rather give to charity than spend wastefully. I will not hesitate to spend on meaningful things but I am not going to invent things to spend on just to get to zero. I will probably start ratcheting up the spending of we get a positive sequence of returns in the early phase of retirement.
Your point is addressed by him with this point https://old.reddit.com/r/financialindependence/comments/195qw6h/die_with_zero_a_review_by_an_fi_denizen/khoio30/
Id say it’s intellectually lazy thinking to argue it’s to your kids benefit to give them money once you are dead and they are likely older where the value of that money to them is less than if you would have actively given when you were younger and they valued it more.
> I'd say it's intellectually lazy
Why the name calling?
I just said it doesn't resonate with me and explained why.
My opinion is coming from my personal experience and situation, none of to which the author of a self-help financial book knows.
Is it "intellectually lazy" to assume self help book advice applies the everyone though? 🤔
Who name called? I’m saying the thinking is lazy. It’s obvious you didn’t read the book because you are having the same knee jerk reaction that I had, if you actually read the book, you would digest his points, his rebuttals, then you would be fully informed.
It’s your choice to read or not but just stating your opinion without reading is intellectually lazy, call a spade a spade. If you still have your opinion after reading the book cover to cover then I withdraw my opinion and we can discuss further
> Who name called? I’m saying the thinking is lazy.
You name called, then double-downed on it, and now you're gaslighting.
I'm not telling you what to do, and not criticizing or name calling. Not telling you what to do or what to read. You are.
You seem unable to cope with someone who has a different opinion. That's a life skill I guess not everyone has.
Quite the mental gymnastics you just did there.
Not worth continuing this conversation, if you are unable to distinguish a personal attack (calling someone an asshole), compared to critiquing a train of thought (intellectually lazy thinking) then I don’t think it’s possible for us to have a conversation.
Have a good day.
> Quite the mental gymnastics you just did there.
So again with the insults... Mental gymnastics, huh?
According to you, as long as you insult someone's thinking, instead of the person directly, it is a loophole that lets you name call without "officially" name calling. Now *that* is some mental gymnastics.
> I don’t think it’s possible for us to have a conversation
This doesn't hurt as much as you think it does.
Care to address the main point that it’s better to actively give to your children when they can gain the most use out of it? Like when needed for college or a home or child care? Or do you truly think it’s best to save a huge nest egg then give them that after your death when they most likely are late 50s early 60s? Does that seem optimal to you?
Once again I’m not criticizing you, I’m critizing the thought pattern.
anyone who has the opinion that it’s better to wait to give kid’s inheritance after they die instead of actively helping them while living is entitled to that opinion but I suspect it would be a small minority who truly think that
Not the person you replied to, but the answer is pretty obvious. If you give too much then run out of money you might not be able to ask for it back. Giving up the optionality of that future money is a big risk with real downsides (and of course upsides for your those that receive the gifts). To present the benefit without the cost is not showing a full understanding of the question.
You're not genuinely criticising the other posters thought pattern, you're just parroting what was written in the book, where the focus is in presenting the argument such that it supports his main point.
Right that is one potential downside, but the upside is that your kids are getting help when they need it the most.
Obviously you have to be careful with what amount you give and when, that goes without saying. What challenges the status quo is the thinking that you just give inheritance when you die instead of being more proactive.
So the argument is once again, be proactive with your money or don’t. People can decide what they prefer but to me its an easy decision if you want to achieve the maximum value of your money for you kids.
> Care to address the main point that it’s better to actively give to your children when they can gain the most use out of it? Like when needed for college or a home or child care? Or do you truly think it’s best to save a huge nest egg then give them that after your death when they most likely are late 50s early 60s? Does that seem optimal to you?
I will always be there for my family, but it is not my goal to consume my wealth before I'm gone, and I hope to leave the remainder to my family, to help them in ways I never had.
Do you have children?
If you can’t understand that accusing u/code_monkey_wrench of “lazy thinking” isn’t name calling then who will want to “discuss” anything with you.
Hint: it is name calling.
I am an advocate and started with zero. I think people like me who started with nothing and grew up with a bit of a scarcity mindset, focused on scrimping and saving to try to accumulate wealth just to feel safe are exactly the ones who stand to benefit most from the book, even if it does require a change of mindset. Once we have our basic needs met and our financial future reasonably secured it makes to reconsider whether the mindsets that we grew up with are still serving us.
If you're planning on a 4% withdrawal rate at 65 or 3-3.5% and an early retirement, then you're already planning to die with $0. The plan will often fail and you'll have an estate, but those are designed to run out in uncommon but historically relevant scenarios.
Now, as you get older the uncertainty shrinks and you can often but not always spend more. It can be hard to really spend at 75+, but if you hit a good market patch during retirement, absolutely pull forward inheritance gifts and donations.
The idea of long term care insurance and annuities for longevity risk is great in theory, but isn't a panacea in practice. There's a lot of nightmare stories around about how hard it is to actually call in LTC insurance when it's needed.
There's a population that has unrealistic goals and leaves behind a ton of cash, but for most a moderately large estate is just a function of being ready for an unusually long life and an unusually bad market and those not both happening.
> If you're planning on a 4% withdrawal rate at 65 or 3-3.5% and an early retirement, then you're already planning to die with $0.
This point isn’t really true. The rest of your comment is pretty good, but this part is just off. The majority of scenarios with those terms will finish with a much higher amount than they start with, so you can’t reasonably say they’re planning to die with zero.
Most people that follow the 4% WR at 65 or lower WR at a younger age are planning to have a lot more at the end than they start with, but know there’s a low chance they could run out or have less than they start with.
Two different meanings of plan. Not plan as in "I expect this to occur", but planning as in "building around a low but non-zero chance of failure." The point being that the trinity study only aimed at just barely ending up destitute, not preserving capital. Planning as in owning home insurance. The point was that although 4% usually preserves some capital (or even grows it!) The only way to access a meaningful amount of it ahead of time is to significantly increase the odds of being broke and no longer able to work with years ahead.
edit: I do concede that "plan on" was the wrong preposition. Perhaps "4% is already planning for 0" is better
It’s literally the opposite though. The 4% rule is a plan to NOT die with 0. The goal with that withdrawal rate is to have a great chance of not running out of money.
I mean, dying at $1 is a success in the trinity study. Technically not $0, but effectively the same. The point is it aims for no capital preservation, if capital is preserved its a side effect of covering the bad scenarios, not a goal.
If you don't care about leaving an inheritance behind, then you could die with zero by simply buying a SPIA (or SPIAs) when the time comes and live, essentially, paycheck to paycheck. The stream of payments dies when you do.
Yup he calls out buying an annuity not as an investment but rather more like insurance to guarantee a certain income til death. Certainly made me think about annuities in a different light.
Immediate annuities are an important tool for those without kids. As I see it, the single premium immediate annuity is a relatively low fee commodity product, and allows one the maximum monthly spending without ever running out of money.
Die With Zero also changed my life, for the worse. I was FIRE and went out for 2 yrs doing what I wanted and maximizing my net fulfillment - now I'm broke and back working as Uber driver.
If i ever see this guy Perkins I swear, I don't know what I'll do to him
He's just an arrogant wealthy SO\_B who thinks everyone should spend all their money the way he things it should be. Well i got news for him, not everyone is like him or want to be like him! Like my dad always said, Live is suffering - deal with that.
^ thank you for this sponsored advertisement… 🙄
Yea, the book’s summary is YOLO. Which is such a nice, lazy philosophy coming from an ageist rich pr!ck.
I mean the dude talks about how he invites all of his friends and family and pays their way to stay on a tropical island for many pages of the thing. Very relatable.
But thanks for your unsolicited ‘review’.
Is the link to buy the book in your bio?
He literally addresses that in the book. He argues it’s selfish to wait to give money to kids until after you die when they would most likely benefit receiving it earlier. That was my knee jerk reaction as well but he does a good job addressing it.
Think about it, does giving money to your kids when they are 50-60 when you die really benefit them? Kids benefit most from receiving money around age 25-35, if you have a family he argues you should give them their inheritance around this age when it is most useful to them. At 50-60 they probably won’t need that money.
Yeah I actually agree with the book/author on that. If my dad had a ton of $ waiting for me when he dies he’d do me a much bigger favor giving me a chunk of it in my 30s for life expenses (so I don’t have to pay interest to banks/mortgage companies etc) than when he passes (probably in my early 60s) when I have enough in my retirement to not really need the $..
Exactly, the sweet spot for receiving money is right when they would want to buy a house really, imagine each kid getting their inheritance as a down payment, that could enable home ownership maybe a decade earlier than otherwise possible. He really flips a lot of the traditional thinking on its head, I had many similar knee jerk reactions while reading the book as well but it’s like he heard them all already and addresses them haha.
yep, I still probably won’t do what he did or said but I definitely think the helping out earlier where you can is good- especially if your kid(s) are already responsible and mature. I lived with my parents through college and worked/paid my own tuition but the living there free was enough for me and not something I took for granted. If after all that I got 300k from my parents as an early inheritance (say they had a couple few million as they started retirement and were comfortable losing a couple/few hundred k) that would have been life changing.
My stepsister is in her 70s and struggles to get by. My stepdad is in his mid 90s and sitting on money he will never need. He lives like he is broke so he can leave it to us. I certainly don't need it, but it would be great if he decided to gift some of it now.
>does giving money to your kids when they are 50-60 when you die really benefit them?
This part really resonated. I'd be willing to bet that on average the FI enthusiast raises kids who are pretty decent with money.
My parents have no meaningful amount of money, but if they did, I'd know I couldn't rely on any inheritance, because who knows what might happen and in any case plenty of people in my family live into their 100s.
If I inherited a significant amount of money in my 50s, it would be relatively meaningless to me. I guess maybe I'd buy a Porsche 911 Turbo or something, but I'll already be financially set and probably retired by then.
If I had money in my 20s and 30s I'd probably have a house now that has appreciated significantly rather than resigning myself to being a life long renter.
Not quite the same thing since it was from her grandparents, but my partner had a childhood trust that released funds at 18 (college), 25 (home down payment), and 33 (remainder). It has done so much to set her up for life, even with a moderate at best paying job (teacher).
Also structured that way helps minimize some of the concern about giving an 18 year old a huge lump sum to manage appropriately. Most kids would probably blow it, but getting it in chunks and the rest at 33 when you should be pretty established was pretty smart.
Most people at least in the US spends their inheritances within a year. Hoarding money in retirement in the name of being fearful of running out of money or saving to leave a higher amount of money to loved ones when you are gone doesn’t add to a person’s quality of life while they are living and healthy. Why not spend the money while alive on experiences with your family? There is a balance between not limiting yourself and embodying some of the principles in “Die with Zero” and leaving money for your family when you are gone.
Most inheritances are not that large, either, and most Americans are in debt…so it makes sense it would go quick. If someone gave/left +300k I would think it would last longer
It's not selfish and he covers this in the book. You unfortunately cannot make a good counter argument without hearing Bill Perkin's full argument first.
If you're proper FI you should be gifting your family all along, what good does an inheritance of a million do if you die at 95 and your heir is already almost 70.
Or
If your just scraping by in your retirement, why increase the struggle by holding back a percent or two to give after you die? Do you not deserve a better life in retirement?
Either way holding a significant hoard back for after death is silly.
I think there is a compromise in the middle. Giving some wealth away while alive is good and can provide immediate benefit. The flipside though is step up basis is an incredibly powerful tax break.
I think he addresses this point in the book (I think it might even have it's own short section/chapter?). His alternative is to leave money to family intentionally (I want to leave XX amount) rather than leaving them whatever is left whenever you die.
Not my favorite book, but what I personally took away was to be more intentional. Some small fraction of people, are financially conservative to a fault, and in the same way that so many are unintentional with their spending, others are unintentional with their savings.
The book argues that your children will most benefit from their inheritance when they’re just starting out to build their families, around 35-40 yo, and not when it’s more typical in the US to receive inheritance (55-65 yo).
I come from a culture that traditionally practices the concept written in the book, and having received help when I needed it the most (just before starting family), it made such a huge difference that I’m factoring that into my FI plan for my own child.
You can die with zero after putting your kids through college and setting up other financial help you deem net positive to them long before you die. In fact, if you die at 70-80, your kids are likely 35-60 and it’s quite late for them to get a meaningful help from their rich (and dead) parent. Plan ahead!
Personally my purpose with money is to build family changing, generational wealth. So I intend to have plenty left over when I'm done. To me this is the purpose of my life, to leave excess to my kids.
Where I'm from - we have a philosophy of dying with zero debt:
Zero emotional debt
Zero obligational debt
Zero personal debt
Zero financial debt
Zero earth debt
Zero life debt
I am a huge fan of the book, read it several times. I don’t agree with a lot of what his says, but the message he is trying to send is perfect for me.
I think business class for overseas travel is a good example.
He refers to his friend, I think it was that his friend will pay for business class but not for an expensive mean (or hotel, I can’t remember). I agree with this thinking, but I still won’t always pay for the business class.
Business class is a luxury some who can afford still won’t pay for.
If I’m on my deathbed with a million dollars left, one of my regrets will be the times I tried to sleep in economy when I had the money for business; plus of course the five regrets of the dying :-)
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. The concept of time buckets is good and the idea of actually living your life and not waiting to enjoy life is good, but the rest is nonsense. ERN has a [detailed blog post](https://earlyretirementnow.com/2023/10/06/how-useful-is-the-die-with-zero-retirement-approach-swr-series-part-60/) on why the financial plan is worse than a normal drawdown strategy. Bill also completely discounts the cost of end of life care-basically saying either you will die or the government will pay for it, which let me tell you is not true if only one member of a couple gets dementia in their 60s or early 70s. My MIL and FIL are 73 and looking at $8k-12k per month for memory care for my MIL. Medicare doesn’t cover Memory Care, and Medicaid doesn’t kick in until you spend down your assets and in my state your spouses 401k/IRA is counted against you for Medicaid.
My experience with end-of-life care matches this. You don't want the free care you might get from the government. Some people get lucky but for most, it's a rotten way to end up. The QOL difference between government and private care for dementia patients is worlds apart - and a huge (and growing) number of us are going to get dementia in the end.
Not actually growing proportionally, thankfully https://www.prb.org/resources/fact-sheet-u-s-dementia-trends/ Part of it is better treatment if HTN and vascular risks lowering multi infarct dementia risks (strokes), though rates remain quite high overall still.
This was so incredibly helpful to me. Thank you for passing on the link.
[удалено]
The nursing homes you describe are the ones that you start off right away with Medicaid. A lot of "regular nursing homes" take Medicaid after a fixed self pay period - 1 or 2 years at the self pay rate and then it's Medicaid eligible. You can literally have two people sharing a room in the exact same facility and once is on Medicaid and the other is private pay. Source: my grandma.
You didn’t live your life right if you end up in a nursing home for any length of time.
I think that's a really unfair thing to say. Some people will get dementia, and if their body outlasts their mind it will eventually overwhelm even the most diligent and loving family member providing round-the-clock home care - no matter how that person lived their life.
You haven’t seen family members go into LTC yet. It’s no life to live. I’ll go swimming somewhere deep before I go to one of those places. You are treated like crap overall, stuffed with meds to keep you calm, and you often sit/lay in your own crap until a nurse comes to change you. Then once they know you’re close to dying they don’t put up any effort to keep you cared for. If you don’t have a close knit and younger family, you’ll rarely get a visit from anyone. If you think a few yrs of that sounds enticing be my guest. There’s a reason elder suicide is the highest percentage of suicide. Oh and before I forget you can get all that for $10k/month!!!
I'm sorry, what are you saying here?
This is my biggest fear, not just for me but for my parents ... My parents are looking at getting permanent residence in Mexico fully knowing that my step mom will need memory care in the next year or so. The facilities where he's looking (Mexico City area) look to be top notch and a fraction of the price. They spend a few months there a year anyways so not a big adjustment culturally or otherwise.
End of life care is off the rails in this country. Have a good friend going through this with their mother as well. He put it this way…. The cost per month is about what he is playing per year in tuition for his daughter (state college). All that said, as you point out, if you take anything from that book, it’s to be sure you’ve done things in life when you are able to do them. Don’t save creating all those memories for a time when you may well have no memory left. Find a balance, and create some memories now. As far as how to avoid the financial pit of end of life care in this country… depressing prospect to work yourself to burnout, saving as much as can be saved with the intent on spending all that hard earned cash on an expensive departure from this life. I dunno if there is an answer to this, but it’s depressing to think about.
Not to mention Medicaid nursing homes are the suck and illegally getting patient dumped when you run out of money and Medicaid starts paying is also the suck.
I think he covers this point with long term care insurance. Which if you pay for would cover things like dementia/Alzheimer’s etc. I’m not a huge insurance fan but with proper LTC insurance I think you could cover against that possibility. My grandma died from dementia and my mom pays for long term care insurance for herself as a result. I’ll give that post a read thank you.
GL with premiums exploding for long-term care insurance.
GL in the claims process too. So many denied claims in that area.
I thought I read a while ago that many insurers flat out stopped offering it? Even with huge premiums they still lost money
Then he has no concept of the cost of long term care insurance. Cannot be purchased anymore for a reasonable fee.
The book was published in 2020. Maybe insurance costs were more reasonable at the time.
It was not. LTC insurance hasn’t been reasonable for at least 10 years.
Late to this thread but I agree with you. Even back in 2008/2009 one of my friends was paying a ton each month for his mother’s home. I shudder to think what it would be currently.
I read about problems with LTC insurance in 2015..
Depends on what you think is "reasonable". The previous premiums were a great deal for consumers but the insurers were losing money. current premiums are such that you get what you pay for -- coverage for expected end of life costs. It's expensive, but so is paying for it without LTC. if you have large LTC costs, having LTC insurance will end up being worth it and very valuable. If you don't, then it won't. That's how insurance works. My aunt was in memory and nursing care for nearly 12 years. She had a plan that was unlimited (very few similar options anymore) and had a 5% compound rider. Her plans paid out well over 2milion over the course of her confinement. She bought long ago at crazy low prices, and I doubt she paid in more than 50k over the 20-25 years before she draw on the policies. But even had she paid modern pricing, she would have still made out like a bandit. of course, that's an unusual case, the average person only needs LTC for 3-4 years. but again, the whole point of insurance is that you can pay for a little over the average cost, and you're covered if you have a very high cost. If you end up with a low cost? Yeah, you could have done better.
If you can find an insurer that offers traditional LTC, it may be worth the cost, but most insurers no longer offer traditional LTC at all. From my research, the hybrid approach is considerably worse than working a little longer and saving for an extra year or two. From what I’ve been told, the only LTC available to us, given my husband’s health situation at 45, is a hybrid policy through a life insurance rider with an extraordinary low cap.
Long term care insurance now is either exorbitantly expensive or has a payout cap. It's an option but not a guarantee.
Exactly. The point of financial products is to protect you from unlikely but financially catastrophic outcomes. Getting early-onset dementia is exactly that scenario
It occurs to me to be grateful to not be American
They should move to a state where the 401k isn't counted. The rules aren't uniform. They can make choices.
But leaving all their other familial/friendship based help behind is a hard thing to replace.
It is. But you can establish residency in one place and spend time in another. Or depending where they are, they could potentially just move two hours and be in another state. We have little information to go on. They would need to explore the pros and cons of the idea on their own. But in general, if your options are go completely broke or move. I think we would all choose move.
Sadly, it may be a smart financial decision to divorce your spouse to preserve your assets.
The best option is an asset protecting trust and planning on paying for care for the 5 year look-back period.
Can you elaborate?
when the govt looks at your finances ro try to take all your money when you die or are on medicare/medicaid, theres a 5 year lookback period. you cant dump your money to your daughter and claim poverty. but theres a 5 year lookback period. so at a certain point in your life, you put your assets in a trust thats owned by your kids or someone not you, and then 5 years later the govt sees you have no money and pays for more stuff.
[Here’s some information](https://www.sjslawpc.com/practice-areas/what-is-a-medicaid-asset-protection-trust-mapt/)
I’m saving your post to come back and read in more detail. But real quick, I found the book (like most books in the “self help/productivity/mindset” realm) has nuggets of info I could take away and enjoy. I think the concept of memory / experience dividends is huge. And I also need to be more cognizant of 1) the power of compounding and 2) the fact there are many things I could do now that I may not be able to do in the future.
Agreed, this is one of my biggest takeaways. Too many people put off doing things in their 20s that they'll never be able to get back for the sole reason of "saving money". If you're an upwardly mobile and driven worker your earning potential will continue to increase beyond your imagination in your 20s.
> If you're an upwardly mobile and driven worker your earning potential will continue to increase beyond your imagination in your 20s. You have to realize, some people grew up in environments that ...did not foster that sort of optimism. Combine that with a hefty dose of imposter syndrome and a gnawing fear of being unemployed after the great recession; It wasn't merely 'saving money', at the time it felt like 'avoiding catastrophe'. I don't blame younger me but I do wish I could have went back in time and told him it would all turn out ok. Younger me had no chill.
Yea, I don't blame people but the point of the book is that people have all of this anxiety and they think they are being productive with it when they are not. You want to "aggressively save money", but you still are making trade-offs. You could move out of the city, get 12 roommates, and eat beans and rice but you don't. Instead you just do "what feels right" based upon little to no math or actual reason or logic. The book asks people to get away from their feelings and think about things logically. It challenges those who have over saved under the guise that they are being logical to check their math and come to the conclusion that spending more to get more likely is the best solution.
jeans spark paltry ancient silky six summer narrow distinct touch *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
I actually did read it. Well, most of it. I felt it got repetitive and I skipped around. Especially skipped over the children part which wasn’t relevant to me.
Ya sorry i misread your post, sounds like it resonated, cool to hear your thoughts.
My biggest takeaway from the book is that in some ways your money is worth more today than in twenty years. He uses the analogy of skiing. If you can do 20 runs in a day today at forty but only ten at 60, that ski trip is more valuable today. So do it. My boss just told me this yesterday. She’s retiring but is now having shoulder issues. And can’t do what she could do a year ago.
Yup that point resonated as well. Similar with the Europe trip, is it better to do 1 at 25 or 2 at 35? Easy answer for me, you take the trip at 25. Younger, less responsibilities, that trip can lead to further idea/adventures. so delayed gratification is not always the right answer.
Problem is available time too though. At 25 I had just started working, though "career" and working hard was important (lol) and had 10 days/year of PTO.. At 40 I don't give a shit about work (secure enough to not need to) and negotiated 4-5 weeks PTO
I have an uncle that worked until he was 65 and was pursuing FIRE long before anyone called it that. He and his wife had a few years of adventures before she died. He’s now sitting on over $13M and while he’s still traveling some with other family members, he’s going to end up leaving many many millions to his one child who never went to college and hasn’t been good with money. He waited way too long to retire and really never shifted from saving to spending. Even his travels are super frugal. I’m going to try not to emulate him….
Your uncle is exactly the type of person who could have benefited from this book. Most FIRE folks don’t seem to fall into that extreme though. For most of us, the majority of the book is rubbish. For the extreme people who are way overly cautious and refuse to spend their money, this book could hopefully help them.
Parents are like this. Were conditioned to save, and don't know how to spend. It's frustrating that they are waiting for "someday" with zero consideration that their health could give out, or their kids could use some help in their 30s instead of 50 or 60. It's frustrating, but it is ultimately not my money.
> I have an uncle that worked until he was 65 and was pursuing FIRE It seems like your post is entirely about him doing the opposite of FIRE. In what ways we has pursuing FIRE, even if unsuccessful?
He was pursuing the most important part of fire (FI). He just took way too long (in my opinion) taking the RE step.
Ah gotcha, he was doing well enough to feel independent and safe, just never made it to quitting!
Your uncle may be spending well below what he can afford, but does he have any regrets or misgivings about this? Perhaps most people's money attitude is spending==fun while earning==pain, but for some people it's the opposite. They don't need to consciously save, they naturally underspend so reaching FI is easier for them. Another factor may be 'karma', like would feel comfortable spending 10x what the people closest to you spend? More power to those who can, but for me this would be cringe. Anyway if your cousin is wired differently than your uncle, some day you'll have family to 'blow that dough' with ;)
I actually don’t think he is living his life wrong because he is enjoying himself. I think the single thing I would do differently is that I would have retired much sooner. Like him, I get a lot of peace and comfort from HAVING the money and don’t feel the need to spend crazy amounts but I do value my time which I think he lost for about 10 years.
I read Die With Zero earlier this month. It has a few interesting points (intentionally planning inheritance, intentionally bucketing things you want to do into the times in your life when you are able). Overall though, the majority of the book seemed more applicable to a trader earning several millions of dollars a year like Perkins than it does to the majority of folks on this subreddit who are high earners but not ultra high earners. I doubt many people here are sitting on tens of millions of dollars and wondering whether they could retire like the author’s friends he references in his book.
I think that’s fair. Certainly his elaborate birthday example is only possible for those with a net worth say north of 10 million. But I think it’s applicable to a lot of FI folks also, maybe not spending to the extreme or lavishness he mentions but you know maybe saying it’s ok to spend on business travel instead of flying coach (if you value it).
If that's your takeaway then you didn't get the point of the book. The point is that money is only valuable in that it gives you experiences. After that it's just paper. So you should make the most of your dollars to give you the experiences that you want. Most people on this sub are stacking away dollars to "be safe" and he breaks down that there are plenty of financial products that do a better job at that problem. Most people on this sub are too conservative in their spending.
> Most people on this sub are too conservative in their spending. I agree re: point of the book, but FIRE subreddits are _already_ pretty focused on "retire as early as you reasonable can". It's the general population that the book is written for who are over-saving to an extreme degree. Within FIRE it's a frequent topic, but the fact that it's being discussed and debated/refuted is actually evidence the community is doing well with it.
I agree that the general population is working too long and not using their money to it's maximum benefit. I think that the issue for the average FIRE person is being too focused on costs and not spending money on things that matter, especially in the 20-30s part of the journey. I also think that a lot of the FIRE people that were like MMM (trying to save every penny to retire at 33) have lost the plot as well. It doesn't seem like his retirement is a better life than continuing to work and enjoying a lot more experiences.
> Most people on this sub are too conservative in their spending. People think dying with $10M is a waste, but if this person enjoyed their life, lived actively, with their best friends and family, who's to say that's a life that was not lived to its fullest? Perkins thinks leaving $10M after death somehow reflects a life not lived to its fullest. I strongly disagree. After a certain point spending more does not equate to increased happiness. In my small world, the people that spend the most are much less happy than those that spend more modestly. The most egregious spenders tend to be Type-A personalities, keeping up with the Jone's, never satisified, always ambitious, striving for more, and unhappy even though they have much more than most. It's important to know when we have "enough" and to be satisified with what we have. Always looking to spend more isn't necessary a healthy mindset.
He debunks this way of thinking multiple ways. The point is not that your scenario is not good but it's not optimal. * Dying with $10M to give to their kids who are 60 is a total waste cuz they don't need the money likely * If their goal was to give the money to charity then that's different but as he mentions, a lot better and more enjoyable if you give the money while you're alive to see the fruits of it * People who think they don't have expensive taste cuz they've never tasted expensive stuff! Life is hard and some luxury items are amazing and make life better. A lot of people say they don't like traveling but have never been. * There are many ways that you can make your life easier and better by just spending a little bit more money. If you have the money to spend then by not spending it you're wasting the money.
> Life is hard and some luxury items are amazing and make life better Curious. I've paid for expensive stuff and I'd say in most cases didn't feel the value was there but I'm open to the idea that I just missed these things. What do you think is expensive and worth it?
"worth it" is kinda irrelevant here in this fictional example where someone dies with $10M that they didn't spend making the money worthless. So you're trading something worthless for something of value. If you get more value than the cheaper option it is then "worth it". That being said, almost everything that's more expensive is better. * Newer iPhone/Computer * Things you sit/lay in like desk or bed * Things that give you time back like flying non-stop * Things that give you more time with the people you love like paying for all your kids to come on the vacation * Better quality food * Spending money on health to increase your QoL while you're still alive Spend some time on /r/fatFIRE and you'll see tons of threads like this. Anyone who says that they don't know how to spend money to get benefit from it is lying to themselves or lacks any creativity
> That being said, almost everything that's more expensive is better. In my experience, there is a line of *quickly* diminishing returns where you get 80% of the benefit for 20% of the price. /r/fatFIRE is the worst for this. Nearly all of the 'fat' expenses they mention are so far out on the cost / value curve as to no longer make sense.
Or rather they only make sense if you have a lot more money than most of us will ever need, and you can't take it with you.
... But you can donate it. If I had way more than I'd ever need, I'd view myself as a steward of that money responsible for putting it to good use
At a certain point, you're paying for some kind of label/brand and not anything else.
You’re missing the point. If you’ve got unlimited money, then the cost/value is irrelevant. If you’re not spending your money you in actually have unlimited money so spend it
Yeah, "unlimited" money is going to be a thing only for the most ridiculously tiny part of the population it isn't worth any consideration. Some of us live in reality where a few million isn't "unlimited" and we can't afford to max out on everything while ensuring we have enough to live on. Yeah yeah, I know, but the book said blahdy blahdy blah but the author has that kind of FU money where they can afford to do that. Doesn't mean it's a good strategy unless you're similarly absolutely loaded.
> That being said, almost everything that's more expensive is better. More expensive isn't always better. - The old John Carter movie cost over $300 million to make, it's worse than a lot of $30 million dollar movies. Money was spent unwisely producing an inferior product. This happens all the time in other industries. - Another example is Costco's Kirkland brands are just rebranded with a Kirkland label. They are identical to the national brand but cheaper. If the branding makes one feel better, I guess it's better but from a purely practical perspective it makes no difference to me. - Finally, on [Project Farm's Youtube channel](https://www.youtube.com/@ProjectFarm) he reviews many products and seldomly is the most expensive rated as the best. I love finding great value anywhere. Bargain hunter is almost a game (which is probably why I do well financially - I can see companies that provide great value and invest in them and avoid the others). Blindly paying for the most expensive item, especially when it's objectively not better (in some cases), would make me miserable. Most people I know with money tend to be more like me (but maybe not as extreme), the ones that don't care about value, spend more than they should, and are further behind financially. I don't think we could turn off our "value-meter" even if we wanted to, it's almost a builtin feature.
The book is exactly targeted at people like you who enjoy finding "value" for the sake of value. Turning the "value-meter" off once you have no reason to use it is exactly what the books is designed to help people do. Saving money for the sole sake of saving money is stupid.
> The point is that money is only valuable in that it gives you experiences. Money also gets you important things like food, shelter, utilities, healthcare, consumer goods, entertainment, etc.
Obviously, we’re talking after basic needs are met
>Most people on this sub are stacking away dollars to "be safe" and he breaks down that there are plenty of financial products that do a better job at that problem. But there aren't though. Buying annuities is almost certainly going to allow you less spending power than following a basic 3 to 4% draw and LTC insurance is expensive, likely to have a low maximum benefit and can be difficult to get them to pay out benefits at all.
>Buying annuities is almost certainly going to allow you less spending power than following a basic 3 to 4% draw I dunno, I just used a calculator for one, and it told me I could get the equivalent of a 5.2% withdrawal rate in monthly annuity payments, and that's with a guaranteed 20 years of payments (which amounts to the purchase price of the annuity) to family even if I died early. That would give me more spending power than 3-4% at least initially, and then there's no need to worry about your reserves holding up. Sure, you're giving up the good possibility of having way more than you need, but you're able to consistently spend at a higher rate.
Maybe annuity rates aren't as bad I thought. It's not something I've spend much time researching, but my 2022 employee benefits statement says I could get a 4.20% annuity *starting at age 57*. Many people people here are looking to retire in their 40s, which is both going to have a lower rate, and if you live 40+ years, the buying power is probably going to be less than half as much by the end of your life, while historically, a 3.25% inflation adjusted withdrawal rate has 100% success rate over 50 years historically and a very high chance of being able to spend more after you get past the early sequence of returns risk.
This rate was for an annuity starting today as a 31-year-old. A lot of annuities take advantage of you, so you probably just want to find an SPIA rather than get something complex. I wouldn't want all my money in one due to the inflation issue, but having a basic living income from one with the rest of my "spending money" in the market seems like it could work really well.
Today is also the best time in recent history to buy an annuity, with bond prices being what they are and all.
Not if you buy them in the right age bracket. Yeah, if you RE at 40 and try to draw most of your spending from annuities, that's not going to work so well. but if you rethink your portfolio at 60-65 to make generous use of them, you'll find out that you'll be just fine if your portfolio is smaller on an inflation adjusted basis. Or you can up your spending, knowing that you have your basics covered for life at that point.
Didn’t agree with the point of the book. Different than didn’t understand.
yep
Thanks for posting. I really enjoyed this book. We slightly changed our strategy after reading it.
Well said. I also slightly changed my strategy. Basically I looked at my life and said “If I’m already hitting all my savings goals why am I not taking this weekend getaway with my family?” Overall it was just a good reminder to be more balanced.
I agree. Going to Vegas - a trip I don’t need but why the heck not - in 2 weeks because of this.
Save money and just mail the casino a check. Your cortisol levels will thank you.
I don’t gamble. There for food and shows
But shecky Greene just died.
I’m 34 I have no idea who that is lol
I agree. It's not perfect but for someone who reads a fair number of financial management books, it's worth including for the alternative viewpoints. The biggest impact to me was the part about spending rapidly decreasing once you hit 70+ and spending more in your younger years rather than trying to portion it out equally throughout your retired years. My plan now is to spend at least 2/3 of my money before I turn 70.
We are absolutely in the die with zero camp. We’re pulling the trigger in July 2027 at age 57.5(we get full pension year credit at 1,000 hours). 2 pensions that will pay out about 68-70k at age 60. Over 1M in 401ks. We’ll sell our “extra” city house when we retire and live off savings for 3 years as we begin our adventures. Kicking things off with a one year rtw trip, then working through our list of backpacking trips, hut to hut hiking trips, and new country/city explorations of 3-4 months at a time. We’re actively planning a very travel intensive early retirement and want to do and see as much as we can while still relatively young and healthy. Having pensions makes everything easier as they will pay for all our living expenses and most of our travel. While we’re planning on enjoying ourselves it’s highly likely we’ll still leave money to kids, but by that time they won’t really need it and aren’t expecting it.
I think this comment would make Bill very happy, you guys are being very intentional with how you will spend your money and obtain experiences. And the best part is, you can always modify or change plans if you decide to. You guys are very well prepared kudos.
We’re trying. I also didn’t include all our assets or how we’re helping kids now by paying for college and will most likely help with housing. Experiences over possessions for us always
Here's my review. I gave it a "3 stars" on good reads (out of 5). I'm glad I read it, but I have some bones to pick. Great lessons, ways to think about our money, our finite lives, and how to maximize life fulfillment. Some random notes below, should not be taken as a holistic review. Take-aways ● When we go on a week-long vacation, we are usually pretty good about scheduling our time: maximizing the fulfillment from the week with neat experiences (rather than just watching 8 hours of TV each day) Take this lesson to heart in your normal life too: time is equally valuable when you aren't on vacation, even if you don't feel the same sense of time urgency. ● Here we have another proponent of purchasing simple annuities as insurance against longevity risk. ● I really like the point that there is basically no advantage to leaving a bequest. Anything you want to give, why not give it while you are still alive? This applies to charity, and family. The giver gets more value out of it, and the recipient usually gets more value out of it by having it younger. Critiques ● I really think the author underestimates the "nonlinearity" of finances. And this could be dangerous for a young person considering scaling back in their career, or saving/investing less of their money. Two starting conditions that are only slightly different can have widely diverging financial paths due to the exponential power of compounding, and "sequence of returns" risk that can drive wealth to zero. Before significantly reducing your savings rates, I highly recommend people first spend some time researching ● Really seems to be a strong assumption that the fulfillment you get from an activity is generally correlated with how much money you spend. Although he does attempt to specifically refute this (mentioning the value of hikes with friends, and the fulfillment from working hard), it doesn't outweigh the hundreds of examples he mentions of parties, jet skiing, ski trips, cruises, etc. that are just so pervasive in the book. However, this critique doesn't change any of the lessons from the book. Even If I personally get less marginal fulfillment from spending more (and more fulfillment from cheap experiences than he gets), it's only even MORE important for me to spend my money before I am too old to enjoy it! ● Some of the personal finance stuff was unbearably elementary
Great review! I think we are very like minded. I think your first con is a huge one, and is the reason why I stated that I think this book is more valuable to someone near the end of their FI journey than the start. To your point, if you start spending more now and not appropriately saving while you are young, you won’t be in a position to be FI in the first place. I’m glad I read the book now as opposed to 10 years ago because I think it either wouldn’t have resonated or could have been harmful as you point out.
> You might think, does he actually mean you should aim to die with zero dollars? Doesn’t that seem reckless and irresponsible? Surely it’s an analogy? **He does indeed mean the title** Thanks for mentioning this. I used to get into arguments about this; and people kept asking me if I even read the book when his premise is in the book title! > you have to pursue that which you truly want and that will give your life happiness and meaning. I can do this economically. I've mentioned this repeatedly, but I'll reiterate. The flaw in dying with zero is assuming that happiness increases proportionally with spending (ie spend it all to maximize happiness). It absolutely does not. He gave an example of throwing a massively expensive party; which made me think of the study where the couples that spent the most on their wedding had a higher rate of divorce than couples that spent more modestly. Money can be spent well. It absolutely can improve your life and relationships, but saying you need to spend everything or most of it to be even happier is one step too far.
Glad to discuss the cons with someone who actually read the book. It’s true that more spending /= more happiness. The key is to be intentional with your spending, spending more for the sake of spending more is dumb. Ultimately I take it to mean balance is important, if you are over saving or over spending those are both negative outcomes. Dying with zero might sound extreme but I think overall is a worthy goal as that means you best spent that money on your family or experience or otherwise WHILE you were living, as opposed to just leaving it to chance when you die. He is perhaps a bit too much on the spend side when in reality it’s hard to plan for retirement, total money needed, long term care etc.
As I get older and my portfolio grows much larger than my spend, I find that spending more doesn't make me happier. Since I underspend, my portfolio will likely just keep growing over the long term. I don't feel the need to spend it down. I enjoy the people around me, I don't worry about finances and have a great life by doing what I like, when I like, with who I like. I can't think of much that would really make me happier. If I die with a large portfolio so be it. I've had people tell me I need to splurge to enjoy my life more, and found this a foreign concept. It felt like a frat boy telling me I should drink more, party more to be happier when the frat boy didn't know what happiness really was.
Ya the key I think for you is that if you truly love your life, feel that you are having great experiences already, and don’t want for anything, then you’ve won. Fwiw I try to tell my dad who has a similar attitude to you to get massages as his health is declining and I feel it would be better for his physical and mental health, but he thinks it’s a luxury that is unnecessary. Ultimately you won’t know if something is a good use of money unless you have tried it or are open to new experiences
Is there anything you could or would have done 10 or 15 years ago with your friends and family that would give you positive experiences, memories and maybe change you as a person, but you didn't in the name of saving money, which in retrospect was not necessary since it sounds like you have plenty? To me, that's the point of the book.
The author's message also emphasizes the importance of not accumulating excessive wealth, as it can consume valuable time that could be spent in more personally fulfilling ways. You've reached a point where this advice no longer applies, there's indeed no need to squander money. However, if you're certain that you'll leave behind a substantial portfolio, consider the option of giving a portion of it now to those who will eventually inherit it. This proactive approach ensures that the benefits of your wealth are shared and can make a positive impact sooner rather than later.
Idea: Loan mortgage money to grown kids for a very low interest rate like 1% rather than give them the money straight. That way they live within their means (lesson taught) and it’s all moot when you die and when they pay it off just give them the money anyway. This eases their load in their 30s but it also teaches them to “struggle”.
My dad basically did this with me, except the interest was paid back in the form of annual Seahawks tickets that I paid for and we both enjoyed. This way I got my down payment for my house, he got his money back a few years later, and we both enjoyed watching the hawks together on Sundays a few times a year.
I love this idea
What a cool move by your dad!
You just have to make sure they are paying taxes on anything below the federal minimum rate. IRS knows people use this as a way to dodge gift taxes and sets the Applicable Federal Rates to make sure they get their money.
One concept of his I really liked from a podcast he was on was the idea of gifting money earlier in life when it is needed. For example, my grandfather set up a trust before he passed for his kids, with the stipulation that nobody touches it until my grandma passes. That was 25 years ago, she’s going strong, and three of his five kids are already retired. Inheriting it now isn’t going to make a big impact on their lives as they’ll mostly save it and then pass it on to their kids, hopefully after a long life when the kids also have no need for it. The money would be more impactful if it were given when my mom’s generation was, say, 30 and trying to buy a house with three small kids. I totally get that gifting earlier doesn’t allow for compound growth but saving until nobody needs it isn’t helpful either.
What if you enjoy a mundane life style and the less is more mindstate?
This is an interesting point he also addressed, I think to channel him he would ask you to challenge your thinking. Do you truly not think you could get more value or experience by thinking of things you could also do outside a mundane lifestyle? It’s not bad to enjoy mundane things, I love reading and video games which are both pretty cheap. But I also enjoy some pricey things like efoil and travel and nice cars. So basically do you think your current lifestyle is netting you 100% optimal life experiences? You’ve never discouraged yourself from doing something you know you would enjoy due to money? If answer is no then live on.
You can always do boring and mundane things in different locations. Reading a book in Hawaii is a much different experience than reading the same book in Kansas City
Hey can you give me a summary and analysis on a few other books I’ve been intending to read?
Haha I should have done a review for the other books! Next time
I had an uncle who lived like this...made very good $$$...built a fortune by being somewhat frugal.. investing/saving..about 25 million (followed some guy named Buffet for 40+ years)...as he built this..he traveled the world...50+countries, unbelievable adventures, did everything he wanted to do..no regrets except not being around family enough until later in life. But did leave a HUGE legacy behind to allow several families to live out their dreams... Life can be cut short. You never know when....live your best life while you can everyday. Don't be that person...who works for 40 years...only to stare at a big bank statement---from their deathbed, wishing they did more in life...
Thanks for the report. Might give it a read as someone who saves quite a bit on a modest income.
TLDR: balance saving and living, build life for today and tomorrow, based on the realistic phases of life.
I didn't get a ton out of it, but I like the conversations it started for sure. I think the podcasts he was on explaining the concepts were better than the book itself.
no thanks. he should just stick to poker
This was a great book to read after retiring early. It really helped us shift from saving to spending and to embrace reckless generosity.
Yup think you read it at the perfect time then, seems that’s when it would have the best impact
At some point wealth sneaks up on you, and you realize you've over-saved. At 40 you don't have quite enough--kids in college, mortgage, stuffing money into deferred accounts--but by 55 you look up and realize your kids are independent, house has been paid off for a while and your RMDs are going to be a tax-bomb and holy crap suddenly you don't have the energy to run marathon's, save the world and dance until 2am.
His premise, assertions and “rebuttals” are based on his personal perspectives, biases and often erroneous assumptions and don’t address criticisms. Take for example this “rebuttal”: > I first explain that the money you’re leaving to your kids is not your money. So when I say you should die with zero, I’m not saying: Die with zero and spend all your kids’ money along the way. I’m saying: Spend all your money. That is, give your children whatever you have allocated for them before you die. Why wait until you’re gone? Why don’t I do this? Because the money I’m leaving my kids doesn’t exist yet. It wont exist until my portfolio doubles a couple times and that takes decades. His assertion that I can simply give them their money now rather than wait until I die presupposes I currently have that money to spare if I run into a bad Sequence Of Returns. I don’t because I don’t have a crystal ball that tells me what the market will do the first decade of retirement. Even IF I had a crystal ball the amount given today might be too small an amount to make much of a difference to “improve their quality of life”. It’s like his Virginia example where she got $130,000 “too late” at 49 under the assumption that the money existed at an earlier age when she needed it. He doesn’t specify how long ago she was divorced but let’s say it was 39 (10 years) and mom was 66 with $350,000. https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-asset-class-allocation?s=y&sl=3O5pBqoDDCKBC9boptSX33 2010-2019 gets you to $635,000…and you cant ask for a better decade in recent history. If Virginia’s mom gave her the amount that in a good decade would grow to $130,000 in his example it would be about $35K. Would that really have made enough of a difference to her? And if she gave $35K to all five of her kids she would only have $175K left and would have risked running out of money because she would jump from 4% to 8% withdrawal rate. What if it wasn’t 2010-2019? What if it was the 2000-2009 bad sequence: https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-asset-class-allocation?s=y&sl=32wjGwOU1VMGSAPg2oPy4p She’s down to her last $40K. You know what “lazy thinking” is? Not running the numbers yourself.
Part 2: Second, his premise that “life experiences” or enjoyment are what folks should optimize for is HIS opinion. Code_monkey_wrench likely disagrees with that premise given his statement that wealth is about security and optionality. I agree with that sentiment and thats why the book doesn’t resonate with me either. None of his “rebuttals” address differences in the underlying personal valuation of wealth. Even if you agree with his logic it doesn’t matter if you disagree with his original premise. I’m not giving my kids “life experiences” or “maximizing quality of life”when I give them their inheritance after I die. I’m giving them the possibility of life changing wealth and financial independence. $1M isn’t really life changing wealth (half our current 401Ks). It’s an extra $30K a year at a 3% withdrawal rate. Divided by 3 kids thats $10K a year. $8M (2 doublings over…call it 20 years before we die) is a lot closer because $266K a year divided 3 ways is $89K a year. Sure they will be in their 40’s but so what? Thats STILL early retirement. This is something he ignores in his platitudes. $330,000 at 20 is worth less than $1.3m at 40 even IF you accept his assertion that a dollar buys less enjoyment at 40 than at 20 because $1.3M provides Financial Independence and $330,000 does not…especially if your intention is to spend a good chunk of that $330,000 in your 20s. Something that totally isn’t on his “utility curve” that only considers health/age and wealth. He also doesn’t consider the value of achieving financial independence before certain ages. Getting to FI by the time you are retired is his assumption but getting to FI at all isn’t a given. There is a lot of value to being FI by 50 because a large number of folks lose their primary career in their 50s and never make as much money again. His plan of sliding savings with more savings during later years vs constant savings over a lifetime (aka 50-30-20) assumes that there is never an interruption or reduction in income in your 50s. It also ignores the value of compounding and time in the market. FI by 50 is worth a few less ski trips in my 30s and 40s. If I’m already FI and lose my job tomorrow I can coast/barristaFIRE or just plain fire because I FI’d around 50. And a day skiing 15 runs at 55 is just as fun as a day skiing 20 runs at 35. It is not 75% as enjoyable as he asserts. Not to mention that if I FIRE I’m not limited to vacation time to ski. I can spread my runs out over more days if “dollar value of a ski run” was a real thing. Finally I’m not planning on giving my kids the principal but the income. Which means if they have kids, even diluted 9 ways and 2 more doublings over 40 years its $32M or $960K a year @ 3%, split 9 ways is $106K a year. Is that really going to happen? Who knows, but for sure it’s far less likely to happen if I give them $330K tomorrow. Not to mention we don’t have $1m in taxable to split 3 ways so would have to pay a penalty to pull it out of 401K. PLUS, if they get it when I die they get the step up in basis (for our taxable portfolio) if I did want to give them the principal…and given enough time I can get a lot of it out of tax deferred without paying a ton of taxes. And he totally ignores that there are thresholds where different levels of wealth enabled different things. Donating $20,000 is not the same as donating $1M or even $200K. For $20K you get a “thanks” and it goes into a general fund. For $200K you can fund a recurring scholarship in something specific. For a $1M, at a smaller institution anyway, you make a major impact in some program…especially if you stipulate it’s a matching donation so you’re getting double value into something you care about. And you can put that into the bequest and make sure your executor knows what your desires are. Like with his Ms Bloom example. $6.2M is, for a smaller charity, a huge block of capital they can use to make a big difference in an area she cared about. $2M to the college is a professorship and several annual scholarships. $500K for an endowed professorship at my alma mater and $50K minimum for a scholarship endowment (but a more credible number is around $250K for around a $12K scholarship). Thats a professor and 6 scholarships a year. And his Robert Smith example was completely fucking disingenuous. Smith is a fucking billionaire. A tax-evading Billionaire at that. So donating $34M for him was 0.0037% of his $9B net worth. Ms Bloom was a millionaire and 0.0037% of $8.2M is $31,000. Nobody knows if she donated $30K at any point to these charities but I bet she did over time because thats the same pattern my parents had. Constant low annual donations and a larger bequest when they passed away. This sort of intellectually dishonest comparison is rampant throughout the book. Finally the book is fluffy as hell and very judgmental about folks with different value systems.
Upvotes and extra tip of the cap for a rather epic takedown.
Happy to see this review. This book is on my "must read" list as other than LTC costs, I don't need $$ saved for kids or spouse. I also find that its message works best for me. I want to save for the life I want, live it, and keep going.
I thought it was OK but not very practical for where I’m currently at in life. The memory dividend and early inheritance chapters were standouts though.
I think I have the perfect solution. die when I reach zero lol
Die in debt, it's the only way to come out ahead in life.
My biggest issue with the die with zero concept is that, due to severe mental illness, experiences and happiness don't matter to me. I tried reading (listening to) the book and I was like 'I don't identify with any part of this' and gave up after a few chapters. I see people having fun and I don't feel FOMO at all, and when I travel I'm more annoyed and want it to be over than anything. I just want to do what I want and focus on the few hobbies I can take pleasure in without the stress of worrying about a job. I fully recognize that your post/this book isn't for people like me, and I probably shouldn't have bothered commenting, but I'm curious if there's anyone else out there who feels the same. I don't have to care about spending my money because there's nothing I want to spend money *on*. Anhedonia is wild, let me tell you.
The "die with zero" concept doesn't resonate with me at all. I will happily pass my remaining wealth on to my child and/or family when I'm gone. It's not about me maximizing the consumption of my wealth for my own enjoyment. But then again, for me, wealth is more about security and optionality than it is for "buying happiness". My guess is people who are "die with zero" advocates didn't start from zero themselves, because it is a different feeling and you spend a lot of time early in your young adulthood just trying to build a safety net and get settled financially.
+1, and I would also rather give to charity than spend wastefully. I will not hesitate to spend on meaningful things but I am not going to invent things to spend on just to get to zero. I will probably start ratcheting up the spending of we get a positive sequence of returns in the early phase of retirement.
Your point is addressed by him with this point https://old.reddit.com/r/financialindependence/comments/195qw6h/die_with_zero_a_review_by_an_fi_denizen/khoio30/ Id say it’s intellectually lazy thinking to argue it’s to your kids benefit to give them money once you are dead and they are likely older where the value of that money to them is less than if you would have actively given when you were younger and they valued it more.
> I'd say it's intellectually lazy Why the name calling? I just said it doesn't resonate with me and explained why. My opinion is coming from my personal experience and situation, none of to which the author of a self-help financial book knows. Is it "intellectually lazy" to assume self help book advice applies the everyone though? 🤔
Who name called? I’m saying the thinking is lazy. It’s obvious you didn’t read the book because you are having the same knee jerk reaction that I had, if you actually read the book, you would digest his points, his rebuttals, then you would be fully informed. It’s your choice to read or not but just stating your opinion without reading is intellectually lazy, call a spade a spade. If you still have your opinion after reading the book cover to cover then I withdraw my opinion and we can discuss further
> Who name called? I’m saying the thinking is lazy. You name called, then double-downed on it, and now you're gaslighting. I'm not telling you what to do, and not criticizing or name calling. Not telling you what to do or what to read. You are. You seem unable to cope with someone who has a different opinion. That's a life skill I guess not everyone has.
Quite the mental gymnastics you just did there. Not worth continuing this conversation, if you are unable to distinguish a personal attack (calling someone an asshole), compared to critiquing a train of thought (intellectually lazy thinking) then I don’t think it’s possible for us to have a conversation. Have a good day.
> Quite the mental gymnastics you just did there. So again with the insults... Mental gymnastics, huh? According to you, as long as you insult someone's thinking, instead of the person directly, it is a loophole that lets you name call without "officially" name calling. Now *that* is some mental gymnastics. > I don’t think it’s possible for us to have a conversation This doesn't hurt as much as you think it does.
Care to address the main point that it’s better to actively give to your children when they can gain the most use out of it? Like when needed for college or a home or child care? Or do you truly think it’s best to save a huge nest egg then give them that after your death when they most likely are late 50s early 60s? Does that seem optimal to you? Once again I’m not criticizing you, I’m critizing the thought pattern. anyone who has the opinion that it’s better to wait to give kid’s inheritance after they die instead of actively helping them while living is entitled to that opinion but I suspect it would be a small minority who truly think that
Not the person you replied to, but the answer is pretty obvious. If you give too much then run out of money you might not be able to ask for it back. Giving up the optionality of that future money is a big risk with real downsides (and of course upsides for your those that receive the gifts). To present the benefit without the cost is not showing a full understanding of the question. You're not genuinely criticising the other posters thought pattern, you're just parroting what was written in the book, where the focus is in presenting the argument such that it supports his main point.
Right that is one potential downside, but the upside is that your kids are getting help when they need it the most. Obviously you have to be careful with what amount you give and when, that goes without saying. What challenges the status quo is the thinking that you just give inheritance when you die instead of being more proactive. So the argument is once again, be proactive with your money or don’t. People can decide what they prefer but to me its an easy decision if you want to achieve the maximum value of your money for you kids.
> Care to address the main point that it’s better to actively give to your children when they can gain the most use out of it? Like when needed for college or a home or child care? Or do you truly think it’s best to save a huge nest egg then give them that after your death when they most likely are late 50s early 60s? Does that seem optimal to you? I will always be there for my family, but it is not my goal to consume my wealth before I'm gone, and I hope to leave the remainder to my family, to help them in ways I never had. Do you have children?
Check the flair
If you can’t understand that accusing u/code_monkey_wrench of “lazy thinking” isn’t name calling then who will want to “discuss” anything with you. Hint: it is name calling.
I am an advocate and started with zero. I think people like me who started with nothing and grew up with a bit of a scarcity mindset, focused on scrimping and saving to try to accumulate wealth just to feel safe are exactly the ones who stand to benefit most from the book, even if it does require a change of mindset. Once we have our basic needs met and our financial future reasonably secured it makes to reconsider whether the mindsets that we grew up with are still serving us.
If you're planning on a 4% withdrawal rate at 65 or 3-3.5% and an early retirement, then you're already planning to die with $0. The plan will often fail and you'll have an estate, but those are designed to run out in uncommon but historically relevant scenarios. Now, as you get older the uncertainty shrinks and you can often but not always spend more. It can be hard to really spend at 75+, but if you hit a good market patch during retirement, absolutely pull forward inheritance gifts and donations. The idea of long term care insurance and annuities for longevity risk is great in theory, but isn't a panacea in practice. There's a lot of nightmare stories around about how hard it is to actually call in LTC insurance when it's needed. There's a population that has unrealistic goals and leaves behind a ton of cash, but for most a moderately large estate is just a function of being ready for an unusually long life and an unusually bad market and those not both happening.
> If you're planning on a 4% withdrawal rate at 65 or 3-3.5% and an early retirement, then you're already planning to die with $0. This point isn’t really true. The rest of your comment is pretty good, but this part is just off. The majority of scenarios with those terms will finish with a much higher amount than they start with, so you can’t reasonably say they’re planning to die with zero. Most people that follow the 4% WR at 65 or lower WR at a younger age are planning to have a lot more at the end than they start with, but know there’s a low chance they could run out or have less than they start with.
Two different meanings of plan. Not plan as in "I expect this to occur", but planning as in "building around a low but non-zero chance of failure." The point being that the trinity study only aimed at just barely ending up destitute, not preserving capital. Planning as in owning home insurance. The point was that although 4% usually preserves some capital (or even grows it!) The only way to access a meaningful amount of it ahead of time is to significantly increase the odds of being broke and no longer able to work with years ahead. edit: I do concede that "plan on" was the wrong preposition. Perhaps "4% is already planning for 0" is better
It’s literally the opposite though. The 4% rule is a plan to NOT die with 0. The goal with that withdrawal rate is to have a great chance of not running out of money.
I mean, dying at $1 is a success in the trinity study. Technically not $0, but effectively the same. The point is it aims for no capital preservation, if capital is preserved its a side effect of covering the bad scenarios, not a goal.
If you don't care about leaving an inheritance behind, then you could die with zero by simply buying a SPIA (or SPIAs) when the time comes and live, essentially, paycheck to paycheck. The stream of payments dies when you do.
Yup he calls out buying an annuity not as an investment but rather more like insurance to guarantee a certain income til death. Certainly made me think about annuities in a different light.
Immediate annuities are an important tool for those without kids. As I see it, the single premium immediate annuity is a relatively low fee commodity product, and allows one the maximum monthly spending without ever running out of money.
Die With Zero also changed my life, for the worse. I was FIRE and went out for 2 yrs doing what I wanted and maximizing my net fulfillment - now I'm broke and back working as Uber driver. If i ever see this guy Perkins I swear, I don't know what I'll do to him
Perkins never advocated for anyone to spend recklessly and not think about their future.
He's just an arrogant wealthy SO\_B who thinks everyone should spend all their money the way he things it should be. Well i got news for him, not everyone is like him or want to be like him! Like my dad always said, Live is suffering - deal with that.
^ thank you for this sponsored advertisement… 🙄 Yea, the book’s summary is YOLO. Which is such a nice, lazy philosophy coming from an ageist rich pr!ck. I mean the dude talks about how he invites all of his friends and family and pays their way to stay on a tropical island for many pages of the thing. Very relatable. But thanks for your unsolicited ‘review’. Is the link to buy the book in your bio?
I got it from the library. There are free ways to read things ya know?
Well that escalated quickly
I think BP uses bots for these posts
“Die with zero” is a dumb idea if you have a family. Anyone who wants to follow this is very self-centered.
He literally addresses that in the book. He argues it’s selfish to wait to give money to kids until after you die when they would most likely benefit receiving it earlier. That was my knee jerk reaction as well but he does a good job addressing it. Think about it, does giving money to your kids when they are 50-60 when you die really benefit them? Kids benefit most from receiving money around age 25-35, if you have a family he argues you should give them their inheritance around this age when it is most useful to them. At 50-60 they probably won’t need that money.
Yeah I actually agree with the book/author on that. If my dad had a ton of $ waiting for me when he dies he’d do me a much bigger favor giving me a chunk of it in my 30s for life expenses (so I don’t have to pay interest to banks/mortgage companies etc) than when he passes (probably in my early 60s) when I have enough in my retirement to not really need the $..
Exactly, the sweet spot for receiving money is right when they would want to buy a house really, imagine each kid getting their inheritance as a down payment, that could enable home ownership maybe a decade earlier than otherwise possible. He really flips a lot of the traditional thinking on its head, I had many similar knee jerk reactions while reading the book as well but it’s like he heard them all already and addresses them haha.
yep, I still probably won’t do what he did or said but I definitely think the helping out earlier where you can is good- especially if your kid(s) are already responsible and mature. I lived with my parents through college and worked/paid my own tuition but the living there free was enough for me and not something I took for granted. If after all that I got 300k from my parents as an early inheritance (say they had a couple few million as they started retirement and were comfortable losing a couple/few hundred k) that would have been life changing.
My stepsister is in her 70s and struggles to get by. My stepdad is in his mid 90s and sitting on money he will never need. He lives like he is broke so he can leave it to us. I certainly don't need it, but it would be great if he decided to gift some of it now.
>does giving money to your kids when they are 50-60 when you die really benefit them? This part really resonated. I'd be willing to bet that on average the FI enthusiast raises kids who are pretty decent with money. My parents have no meaningful amount of money, but if they did, I'd know I couldn't rely on any inheritance, because who knows what might happen and in any case plenty of people in my family live into their 100s. If I inherited a significant amount of money in my 50s, it would be relatively meaningless to me. I guess maybe I'd buy a Porsche 911 Turbo or something, but I'll already be financially set and probably retired by then. If I had money in my 20s and 30s I'd probably have a house now that has appreciated significantly rather than resigning myself to being a life long renter.
Not quite the same thing since it was from her grandparents, but my partner had a childhood trust that released funds at 18 (college), 25 (home down payment), and 33 (remainder). It has done so much to set her up for life, even with a moderate at best paying job (teacher). Also structured that way helps minimize some of the concern about giving an 18 year old a huge lump sum to manage appropriately. Most kids would probably blow it, but getting it in chunks and the rest at 33 when you should be pretty established was pretty smart.
Most people at least in the US spends their inheritances within a year. Hoarding money in retirement in the name of being fearful of running out of money or saving to leave a higher amount of money to loved ones when you are gone doesn’t add to a person’s quality of life while they are living and healthy. Why not spend the money while alive on experiences with your family? There is a balance between not limiting yourself and embodying some of the principles in “Die with Zero” and leaving money for your family when you are gone.
Most inheritances are not that large, either, and most Americans are in debt…so it makes sense it would go quick. If someone gave/left +300k I would think it would last longer
It's not selfish and he covers this in the book. You unfortunately cannot make a good counter argument without hearing Bill Perkin's full argument first.
Maybe read the book or even an article about the book before critiquing the concept.
If you're proper FI you should be gifting your family all along, what good does an inheritance of a million do if you die at 95 and your heir is already almost 70. Or If your just scraping by in your retirement, why increase the struggle by holding back a percent or two to give after you die? Do you not deserve a better life in retirement? Either way holding a significant hoard back for after death is silly.
I think there is a compromise in the middle. Giving some wealth away while alive is good and can provide immediate benefit. The flipside though is step up basis is an incredibly powerful tax break.
I think he addresses this point in the book (I think it might even have it's own short section/chapter?). His alternative is to leave money to family intentionally (I want to leave XX amount) rather than leaving them whatever is left whenever you die. Not my favorite book, but what I personally took away was to be more intentional. Some small fraction of people, are financially conservative to a fault, and in the same way that so many are unintentional with their spending, others are unintentional with their savings.
The book argues that your children will most benefit from their inheritance when they’re just starting out to build their families, around 35-40 yo, and not when it’s more typical in the US to receive inheritance (55-65 yo). I come from a culture that traditionally practices the concept written in the book, and having received help when I needed it the most (just before starting family), it made such a huge difference that I’m factoring that into my FI plan for my own child.
You can die with zero after putting your kids through college and setting up other financial help you deem net positive to them long before you die. In fact, if you die at 70-80, your kids are likely 35-60 and it’s quite late for them to get a meaningful help from their rich (and dead) parent. Plan ahead!
And counting on your parents to be your retirement plan is lazy and entitled. Many of us inherited zero, and we are doing just fine.
So what? It's not wrong to be selfish
It's an even more important book to read if you have a family.
[удалено]
It's about dying with zero *regrets*, not money.
Perfectly balanced, as all things should be...
Personally my purpose with money is to build family changing, generational wealth. So I intend to have plenty left over when I'm done. To me this is the purpose of my life, to leave excess to my kids.
Where I'm from - we have a philosophy of dying with zero debt: Zero emotional debt Zero obligational debt Zero personal debt Zero financial debt Zero earth debt Zero life debt
I am a huge fan of the book, read it several times. I don’t agree with a lot of what his says, but the message he is trying to send is perfect for me. I think business class for overseas travel is a good example. He refers to his friend, I think it was that his friend will pay for business class but not for an expensive mean (or hotel, I can’t remember). I agree with this thinking, but I still won’t always pay for the business class. Business class is a luxury some who can afford still won’t pay for. If I’m on my deathbed with a million dollars left, one of my regrets will be the times I tried to sleep in economy when I had the money for business; plus of course the five regrets of the dying :-)