Is the 25x annual expenses target a valid retirement number for most people?

Question

Rich Dad · Accepted Answer

“25x expenses is a decent rule… if you’re planning to live small and die on schedule.”
The 25x annual expenses rule comes from the 4% rule — the idea that if you withdraw 4% of your portfolio annually, your money should last ~30 years. So if you spend $80,000 per year, you need $2 million. Clean. Simple. Respectable. But here’s the problem: it assumes average returns (~7% after inflation), predictable markets, and a retirement that ends neatly after 30 years. Reality? Markets crash 30–50%. People live to 95. Healthcare explodes. And governments change tax laws.
Now, is it valid? For a traditional retire-at-65, live-to-90 middle-class lifestyle? Yes, often. Historically, a 60/40 stock-bond portfolio survived most 30-year periods with a 4% withdrawal rate. But here’s what they don’t tell you: in bad sequence-of-return decades (like retiring in 1966 or 2000), that margin gets razor thin. A 3% withdrawal rate (33x expenses) dramatically increases safety. That’s why many FIRE enthusiasts now target 30x–35x, not 25x.
But here’s where I challenge the entire premise: Why are you planning to only withdraw? Why not build assets that generate cash flow? Rental properties yielding 6–8%, dividend portfolios yielding 3–5%, small businesses producing 15–30% returns. If your expenses are $80k and you own four properties netting $2,000/month each, that’s $96k/year — and you may never touch principal. That’s real freedom. The 25x rule is based on liquidation investing. I prefer ownership investing.
Also, inflation isn’t dead. At 3% inflation, your $80k lifestyle costs $144k in 20 years. Medical expenses in the U.S. rise faster than CPI. If you retire at 45 using 25x, you’re funding potentially 45–50 years — not 30. That’s dangerous math unless you’re flexible. Early retirees especially should treat 25x as the bare minimum, not the finish line.
Now, counterpoint: most people won’t start businesses. They won’t manage properties. They won’t stomach volatility. For them, a diversified index fund portfolio and 25–30x expenses is practical. Vanguard data shows long-term global equity returns around 8–10% nominal. If you’re disciplined and expenses are controlled, it works.
But here’s the bold truth: 25x is a calculator answer. Wealth is a strategy. If you want safety, aim for 30–35x. If you want abundance, build cash-flowing assets that make the rule irrelevant. The real question isn’t “Is 25x enough?” It’s “Do you want to retire from work… or graduate from needing it?”
If your retirement plan depends on selling assets, you’re retired on paper — not in power.

Poor Dad · Answer

“If you’re going to jump out of the workforce, at least pack a big enough parachute.”
The 25x annual expenses rule is one of the most researched and widely referenced retirement guidelines available. It comes from the Trinity Study, which showed that withdrawing 4% annually from a diversified portfolio historically lasted at least 30 years in most scenarios. For someone spending $60,000 per year, that means $1.5 million saved. It’s not flashy, but it’s grounded in data.
However, we must be careful. The 4% rule was based largely on U.S. historical returns from 1926 onward — a period of strong growth. Future returns may be lower. Many financial planners today recommend a more conservative 3–3.5% withdrawal rate, especially with today’s valuations and longer life expectancy. That means closer to 28x–33x annual expenses. If you retire at 65 and live to 95, that’s 30 years. But if you retire at 55, you may need 35–40 years of funding.
Healthcare is a major wild card. Fidelity estimates the average 65-year-old couple in the U.S. may need over $300,000–$350,000 for healthcare in retirement, excluding long-term care. That’s not trivial. Markets also don’t move in straight lines. A 30% market decline early in retirement can significantly reduce portfolio longevity — this is called sequence-of-returns risk. The 25x rule assumes discipline and no panic selling during downturns.
On the positive side, many retirees spend less than expected. Mortgage paid off. No commuting. Children independent. Social Security provides supplemental income — which effectively reduces the amount you must withdraw. For example, if you need $80,000 per year but receive $30,000 in Social Security, your portfolio only needs to support $50,000 — lowering the required nest egg significantly.
So is 25x valid? For someone retiring around 65, with diversified investments, controlled spending, and Social Security, yes — it’s a reasonable starting benchmark. But I would encourage a margin of safety. Aim for 30x if possible. Build flexibility into your spending. Consider part-time work in early retirement. Safety isn’t pessimism — it’s preparation.
Retirement isn’t the time to test optimistic assumptions — it’s the time to rely on conservative math.

Is the 25x annual expenses target a valid retirement number for most people?

Rich Dad Says

Poor Dad Says

The Bottom Line

Whose advice would you follow?

Share this debate

What do you think? (0)

More debates