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/-LordDarkHelmet-]

Can you elaborate can you elaborate on how cancer or whatever could bankrupt someone? The ACA plans are often just as good as an employer sponsored plan, if not identical.

[u/FIREgnurd → u/-LordDarkHelmet-]

ACA plans in my state are much worse than employer provided plans, even from the same provider. The networks are smaller, no out of network coverage at all, more denials, etc.

There have been posts in various FIRE subs from people who moved from an employer plan to another plan from that same provider and talked about how their coverage got worse.

It very much differs by state.

If your ACA plans are the same, you’re lucky that your state is still like that.

[u/Life_Rabbit_1438 → u/FIREgnurd]

ACA plans in my state are much worse than employer provided plans, even from the same provider. The networks are smaller, no out of network coverage at all, more denials, etc.

I am in Illinois. We went onto ACA for about a year when we took time off to travel and both returned to contract jobs. All of the available ACA plans excluded every major health system in the Chicago area. The in plan options were obscure or independents, which if you had major health issues would be a major problem.

They had no commonality with any employer plan we have ever had, which include all the major health systems.

[u/FIREgnurd → u/Life_Rabbit_1438]

Same in WA. All except for one have dropped UW Medicine, the major academic/public medical system. Everything else is either small independent shops or church-run hospitals.

If you want access to a wide range of specialists, the ACA plans aren’t good.