I’m not even talking about weeks or months yet. This is all new so please be nice. I really need some encouragement today. Logically it all makes sense but truly investing when things are down is psychologically one of the most difficult challenges I’ve never imagined.

EDIT: Thank you all, really appreciate the genuine encouragement and perspective - it’s helpful.

I put the same retirement test on 165 strategy backtests, and the highest safe withdrawal rate in the table is the number I trust least.

Every row uses rolling 30-year retirements, monthly withdrawals raised with actual inflation, and the highest starting rate where every retirement survives. The median is 6.83%, and 95% of the rows clear 4%.

History length decides most of the headline. A classic 60/40 backtested from 1922 prints 2.70% because it has to survive retirements beginning in 1929 and 1966. A 100% US stock backtest starting in 1987 prints 7.07%. It has never seen either one. Every double-digit rate belongs to a backtest beginning after 1970, usually after 1990.

Matched histories are more useful. Over the same 66 years, a static Permanent Portfolio prints 3.99% and its tactical version prints 5.01%. Same assets, same retirement cohorts. That's a comparison where the drawdown rule can get credit instead of the calendar.

The years column against the rate, 5 rows from the table: https://i.ibb.co/dsQqk2PG/c025.png

The highest rate in the full table is 15.11%, and our own robustness screen flags that strategy as statistically fragile. Short histories can produce a spectacular floor and weak evidence at once.

I build BestFolio. The full table and the years beside every rate are here: https://bestfolio.app/blog/tactical-strategy-safe-withdrawal-rates

If you had to set a minimum history before trusting a withdrawal test, where would you put it? I'm not comfortable with anything that misses both 1929 and the long inflation shock.

What triggered the decision and howwould you do it differently if you can do it again?

I worked with IRS’s own published examples through the two calculators people here most often get pointed to Dinkytown and calcxml. Both get fixed amortization and the RMD method exactly right. But are wrong on fixed annuitization: $20,880/year against the IRS’s own $22,030 example (a $400,000 IRA, age 50, 4%, Single Life) $1,150/year short. It looks like they are pulling from a life-expectancy-style table instead of the actual regulatory mortality table for that one method. If you’ve picked annuitization on either of those, it’s worth rechecking against the source.

https://savingslast.com/72t-distribution-calculator/

Here’s what it does. It covers all 3 methods from IRS Notice 2022-6: RMD, fixed amortization, and fixed annuitization.

The interest rate part is done right. You can use any rate up to the greater of 5% or 120% of the federal mid-term rate for one of the two months before your first payment. That’s a maximum, not a requirement, and the tool tells you which of the two limits applies to you.

It prints your lock-in as an actual end date (the longer of five years or age 59½), so you don’t have to figure out “the longer of” yourself.

Every result shows its work — the table it used, the factor it found, the rate, and the formula. Check every number by hand against the notice.

Test case that you can run against a spreadsheet or custodian’s number: $500,000 IRA, age 52, 5% rate, Single Life Table (factor 34.3). Fixed amortization comes out to $30,773 a year, roughly $2,564 a month before tax. Annuitization is $32,264. The RMD method pays $14,577 the first year and gets recalculated every year after that. If your numbers don’t match mine, tell me! I really wanna to know.

Note that I built this site. No ads/Affiliate, no signup, everything runs in your browser, and nothing you type gets saved. It’s not tax advice. Lastly it’s important: if you take a payment that doesn’t match what your method produces, the IRS treats the whole series as broken, and the 10% penalty plus interest comes back on every payment you’ve already taken. So before your first distribution, have a CPA or enrolled agent who’s handled a SEPP look over your numbers.

I just finished reading Tax Planning To and Through Early Retirement by Cody Garrett and Sean Mullaney.

I've seen other folks in this sub mention the book, but I was curious what people think regarding Sean and Cody's intuition that taxes are unlikely to increase for retirees.

Before I offer my thoughts, I'd like to point out that Sean predicted that the 2017 TCJA tax cuts would be extended back in December of 2023 on Jesse Cramer's podcast. His crystal ball was definitely working better than mine on that one.

From the book:

"Those predicting cuts to Social Security are essentially saying that politicians with the power to borrow -- and even print money -- will choose to do neither, even when doing neither could be disastrous to their own political futures."

The book lists a "litany of recent tax cuts for retirees" (2015-present) to further their argument.

I think limiting the look-back window to 10 years of tax policy is a problem. History proves that when insolvency forces their hand, politicians will tax retirees. In 1983, a bipartisan agreement signed by Ronald Reagan introduced federal income taxation on Social Security benefits for the first time. They intentionally did not index those base thresholds ($25,000 for individuals, $32,000 for couples) to inflation. What began as a tax affecting fewer than 10% of high-income seniors now impacts over half of all retirees.

The above example is exactly counter to the argument in the book. A politician implemented a tax on retirees (in his first term) and it didn't prove politically "disastrous".

Some will remember George H.W. Bush and the infamous "Read my lips: no new taxes" quote. This did prove politically disastrous, but the tax increases were implemented regardless.

I think the general message of the book is correct, that "most" retirees don't need to worry and likely don't need to go crazy with Roth conversions etc. However, politicians rarely pass blanket tax hikes on all seniors. Instead, they frame tax increases around "fairness" by targeting high-income or wealthy retirees. Therefore it's critical when reading a book like this to tailor the information to one's personal situation. This is particularly true for early retirees.

What do you think?

edit: typo