Chat is a text only community for casual conversation, please keep shitposting to the absolute minimum. This is intended to be a separate space from c/chapotraphouse or the daily megathread. Chat does this by being a long-form community where topics will remain from day to day unlike the megathread, and it is distinct from c/chapotraphouse in that we ask you to engage in this community in a genuine way. Please keep shitposting, bits, and irony to a minimum.
As with all communities posts need to abide by the code of conduct, additionally moderators will remove any posts or comments deemed to be inappropriate.
Thank you and happy chatting!
I spoke the other day about rich people whingeing that they don't have enough to retire in luxury. In today's news there is a 67 year old man who hates his job and wants to retire. However the poor thing only has $700K saved up. This only gives him $28K a year in interest. 
Poor old dear still hasn't paid off his mortgage so how will he manage on that?
How the other half live.
And what're they supposed to do if they live to 82? In retirement planning you want to overestimate how long you'll live because the alternative really really sucks. In this case they're assuming a 4% withdrawal rate which is considered "safe" in that there's only a 5-10% chance you run out of money before 30 years.
There's only like a 0.1% chance he makes it to 97. Who cares if there's a 10% chance he'll run out of money at 97 when there's a 99.99% chance he'll be dead. Can't spend money if you're dead.
The 4% rule is useful rule of thumb if you're like 50-60 when you retire. If you're pushing 70, you can increase it.
Social Security data says that 3.16% of 67 year old men and 7.22% of women live to be 97. Bit high not to take into account when the stakes are putting food on the table.
ok so 97% chance of death. What I said remains correct, his late age of working means he can withdraw more than 4%. 4% is the rule of thumb for people retiring at 55, not at 67
We don't know the gender of this person
Rule of 4% is just for a period of 30 years. The math doesn't become less correct based on age. It was originally conceived in 1994 for people retiring 62-65. With increases in life expectancy since then I don't think 67 is too far of a stretch to apply it.
Wow, you're right. A lot of people in these comments have said they're a man, but it doesn't actually say that anywhere.
I was going off of this from OP, I thought they knew this person personally and didn't see the hyperlink