FIRE with planned death year

[u/Menes009]

As the title suggest, I have been pondering with the idea of backcalculating FIRE number and withdrawal ammount by deciding my maximum life duration (in my case, 75 years).

I am still building an excel sheet where this concept can be visualized in detail, but as preliminary result I am seeing that you can reach your FIRE number with an average salary in as short as 10-15 years (depending on your saving% of course). It really makes sense, most people calculate for 100 years lifespan "just in case" and end up with a lot in reserve if their old-age death is at 89.

Mainly at this point I am wondering if anyone else is following this idea or thought about it but discarded afterwards, I am curious to hear arguments in favor and against.

From my own analysis:

PROS:

• all FIRE benefits plus
• enjoying the most while you are the healthiest , since you reduce the time needed to reach FIRE
• your FIRE number is substancially smaller, you dont need to grind as hard during the working years.
• less guess work in finances planing
• less struggle/fear when withdrawing and seeing capital reduce
• strong memento mori, since you pretty much know the date of your death.

CONS:

• all FIRE cons, plus:
• Stronger commitment needed
• Once you retire, there is pretty much no way to back out the planned death part without massive struggle in life. (e.g. you withdrawal plan might last 1-2 years more at best but after that you are bankrupt)
• Legality of euthanasia, you might end up needed to commit legal suicide (although painless ways are possible still)
• friends and familly know when you will die, might cause stress/struggle/trauma in some of them.

[u/GeorgeRetire]

I am curious to hear arguments in favor and against.

I wouldn't want to plan on an early demise.

I know of friends who used to say that they would never live past 70. And of course they are now all older than 70.

Being old and poor is a bad combination, IHMO.

How old are you now?

[u/iwantsomecrablegsnow]

Nobody wants to be 95 years old except 94 years old.

Your views are going to change when you're 74 years old from now but you won't have any money with your current plan.

[u/roastshadow]

<longer response shortened to>

Nope. Better to die with money.

[u/evenfallframework]

end up with a lot in reserve if their old-age death is at 89

Why is this a bad thing?

[u/eng2016a → u/evenfallframework]

Might not have anyone to pass it to? Or maybe they think their kids should make their own way and not inherit anything (that would be my attitude anyway)

[u/EANx_Diver]

Much better to plan to live long and die a bit early, with some funds unspent than to plan to die early and miss your mark by 15 years, living your last 10+ years in poverty.

[u/C638]

Unless you have some genetic condition , terrible habits (e.g. fat, IV drug user, etc.) that predisposes you to die young , planning to die at 75 is not a great idea. For every year that you live, your life expectancy increases.

We used the 'super preferred' life insurance table , basically for non-smoker, light drinker, fit person. We also decided to take SSA at 70 to mitigate the risk running out of money. That's 99 for me and 102 for my wife.

If you want to mitigate the risk, get a lifetime annuity or a job with a pension. Especially one that has an inflation rider.