Ramit Sethi and Joe compare two retirement plans: working eight more years to die with $14 million, which Joe calls dumb, versus retiring at 65 with $5.6 million. Joe prefers the second option because he knows what the money is for: better end-of-life care. The real issue isn't the number, it's whether you can explain why you're accumulating it.
That's dumb. I don't want to die with $14 million.
So in this case, Joe, you're working for 8 more years to potentially die with $14 million, and your reaction to that was? That's dumb. That's dumb. Yes. Where would the money go?
Nieces and nephews and charity. They can have some, but not— no, they don't need $14 million. Yeah.
My observation on this plan, this is just my personal opinion, is that this is the most financially responsible plan. I think it's also probably the one most likely to produce more resentment, because if I'm going to work and I'm like, what's this money for?
Totally.
It's just like, why? That's scenario 1. A good, a very good option. Great. Scenario 2, Meg retires at 65, at the age of 95 for Joe. You will have $5.6 million.
That actually feels pretty good. That gives like an insurance policy for needing some nicer end-of-life care.
Quite a good life, I think.
