"We" spend considerable time on strategies to ensure that money / income lasts longer than life.
In a single day
a) a college mate (also 70) reported that in one week or less the medical folks diagnosed a swallowing difficulty into multiple internal cancer(s)
b) someone who spent a month in Kenya with our group / team in 1996 reported to have died - a three-time winner of Pulitzer prize(s)
This reminded me of my shock some time ago to learn Doug Marlette (57 at the time) died on a rain-slicked road on his way from the Memphis airport to Oxford, MS
To one, "so long" - to the other, great empathy (as you figure out what for you is best - course of action - or not).
It proves "that no one is getting out of this life alive. Plan accordingly. LOL!
A little bit facile. My MIL moved to a retirement facility and we were all surprised to find she was considered one of the "younger" residents at a mere age 84-1/2. One of her tablemates (residents are grouped for meals four to a table, and one can always change tables if desired) was 94 and a second was over 100, both still tottering along the hallways with their walkers.
We regularly are asked for donations to their charity fund for those residents who HAVE outlived their money and are on Medicaid.
If a couple is in reasonably good health at age 65, the age of the second spouse - not the first, but the remaining spouse - at death is now at average age 94. And that median # rises a little every month.
I agree with both of you, even though you disagree with one another. I think Bo is saying that we should do the things we want in life soon, we shouldn't put the important things off too long. Perfectly healthy and relatively young people die much too often. Although there is a risk of outliving your money, there is also a risk of being so afraid of that- you die rich in assets but poor in experience. jkom51 is making the equally valid point that we do still need to save for tomorrow, and many of us may use up our entire estate living in a nursing home. My mother in law is likely to do this, still alive at age 95. If you make it to old age you have a substantial chance of living much much longer than you might have expected to live, when young. That means your estate might be reduced to nothing, if you live long enough your children are elderly when they finally inherit. That's perfectly true. I am glad there are public assistance programs to cover 90% of the people in my mother-in-law's nursing home, and equally glad that it's a decent, well run sort of place with pretty good food. I am sure the low cost of living in the San Luis Valley has a lot to do with the relative quality of the people working there. The risk of living there seems less horrible to me than the risk of losing my mind to dementia, or dying by inches as cancer eats me up inside. In practical terms, I think there isn't a huge difference between planning for an infinite lifespan or a very long one. A withdrawal rate slightly less than 4% should be adequate in either case, and most of us can't possible save the multiple millions that would be necessary to support ourselves indefinitely in a higher priced nursing home. We'll settle for a normal one, if necessary.
Retrieving data ...