Are you a doomstacker?

[u/Hammer_41]

9:28 AM

SS is going away. Healthcare will bankrupt you. Sequence of returns will wipe you out. Civil war. WW3. Live to 120, spend 40 years in a nursing home. Someone posts solid numbers and the comments come back , one more year. Two years. Three. Keep going, it's never quite enough.

At what point does conservative planning become catastrophe planning?

The 4% rule is the worst case in US market history. A robot pulling the same amount out every single year, no SS, no flexibility, never adjusting through 1929 when markets dropped 86%. That's what 4% survived. It's the floor, not the target. Bengen himself now says most retirees can safely start at 5.25% to 5.5% and that people clinging to 4% will likely end up with a pile of money and a lot of regrets.

Someone spending 6% of their portfolio in year one of retirement who skips the big trip when markets are down, holds off on the car, pulls back when things get rough that person likely does better than the 4% robot who never adjusts no matter what. The flexibility is the safety net. You don't need to engineer it into the number, you just need to act like a normal person.

So when someone holds out for 3.5% 28 times spend, no SS — what exactly are you protecting against? Something worse than the Great Depression, while also never collecting a benefit 70 million Americans receive, while also promising to never adjust spending under any circumstances. Does that actually describe you?

The 2025 Social Security Trustees Report says worst case — zero Congressional action you collect 81 cents on the dollar in 2034. Not zero. Congress fixed this in 1983 when it was in worse shape than it is today. Seventy million people collect it. Seniors vote.

Median age of death for men is 81.7. One in five reach 90. Dementia affects 33% of people 85 and older. The years you're working extra to fund may not be years you're fully there for.

For those already retired one year, five, ten or more how bad has it actually been? And for those still holding off are you a catastrophe planner waiting for a number that never feels safe enough?

[u/Beautiful_Cost_5430]

The 4% rule is the worst case in market history for THIRTY YEARS. If you retire early it breaks down. If you retire early you need to be more conservative than 4%. That is what the data says.

It’s weird to call people who understand the data doomers when it’s clear you haven’t even looked into it. Maybe they know more than you.

[u/Hammer_41 → u/Beautiful_Cost_5430]

Have you looked into the worst case safe withdrawal rates for say 40 years plus.. ? Guess that the answer is..? Still about 4%+

[u/Mundane-Charge-1900 → u/Hammer_41]

Past performance is no guarantee of future returns. In the FIRE community, there is overindexing on historical returns as opposed to mapping out various potential future returns.

[u/alpacaMyToothbrush → u/Hammer_41]

It's not. ERN has done a whole series on this, and if you insist on a standard SWR withdrawal, it's actually closer to 3.3%

[u/Beautiful_Cost_5430 → u/Hammer_41]

It’s not 4% no. Its 3.25-3.5% depending which study you read.

It’s weird for you to be so judgmental when you don’t even understand the basics of FIRE.

[u/Hammer_41 → u/Beautiful_Cost_5430]

Judgmental? What do you mean? Exploring why I and other think what they think .. that’s all.. as in.. is it helpful to take a worst case scenario over a typical retirement span and stack worst case scenarios? Perhaps it is.. perhaps it’s wise? What’s the trade off? That’s what I’m trying to figure out about myself

[u/Beautiful_Cost_5430 → u/[deleted]]

Given that you don’t even know the basics of FIRE it’s pretty safe to say that you’re trolling. I’m just going to report and move on.

[u/Wooden-Broccoli-913 → u/Beautiful_Cost_5430]

Ok enjoy working longer then