This might seem rather arcane to some people, but if you're in a certain category of expats, it is very relevant.

Say you're a retired expat (in Thailand or anywhere) from a much more expensive country and while you obviously don't want to ever run out of money, you don't care about leaving a legacy for heirs.

Traditional mainstream retirement planning advice does not apply to such people!

That goal is to not only take no risk to run out of money, but also to not decimate your principle, and with the assumption that you care about leaving significant assets to heirs.

The result of that is that many people who didn't need to be frugal in retirement end the game of life with a similar or even MUCH MORE money than when you started. That's just stupid. Even if you care about legacy if your net work is much higher than when your retirement started, you're probably doing things wrong.

So what if you don't want to leave a legacy AND you're an expat?

That's where planning gets complicated or maybe impossible.

The tired old four percent withdrawal rate plus later inflation adjustment for a "safe" 30 year retirement is total garbage for such people.

What if your window is less than 30 years (depending on where you're starting from, etc.)?

Again the fossilized advice is for planning expecting to leave a large legacy.

So as a basic starter the 4 percent rule can be SIGNIFICANTLY much higher than that.

What number exactly that would be safe enough depends on a lot of individual factors, but let's say at least 6 percent and in some cases up to 10 percent.

But wait.

Here's the EXPAT PARADOX.

You're planning your spending based on cost of living in the cheaper country (Thailand or elsewhere) NOT you home country.

Not at all rarely expats for different reasons (visas, bad chains of life events, especially health crises) are forced or pressured to leave their expat home.

What then?

Well if they are able to move to ANOTHER relatively low cost country, then their retirement planning withdrawal rate shouldn't really need to change.

But in many cases expats are forced to move back to their home country.

That happens often enough for it to be real risk.

The question here is about factoring in that risk to retirement withdrawal rate plan for an expat that doesn't care about leaving a legacy.

I'm in a similar situation and so I developed some code in R to calculate a maximum amount you could spend monthly. You input some variables, like income from pension and/or stocks, when you think you'll die and some other stuff. You'd have to install R but it runs fairly easily. Let me know if you want it.

1 hour ago, eddyod said:

when you think you'll die

Ha ha ha. What a silly statement. Tomorrow, next birthday or Christmas, St Valentine's Day?

4 hours ago, eddyod said:

I'm in a similar situation and so I developed some code in R to calculate a maximum amount you could spend monthly. You input some variables, like income from pension and/or stocks, when you think you'll die and some other stuff. You'd have to install R but it runs fairly easily. Let me know if you want it.

Well thanks but such tools aren't hard to find.

Here's one:

Retirement Withdrawal Calculator |- MyCalculators.com

www.mycalculators.com/ca/retcalc1m.html

It is interesting and fun to punch in different number scenarios to check out possible (much higher than 4 percent!) withdrawal rates.

Again, it's still very important to not run out of money, but the ideal end game number if no need for a legacy would not ideally be zero but zero-ish relative to your wealth.

For example someone with a million in assets, 100K might be zero-ish.

Lower wealth, lower zero-ish number.

But the problem as I tried to emphasize in this topic is the unquantifiable unknown RISK of being forced back to a higher cost country.

If you knew 100 percent you would never need to repatriate, you could do better projections.

But add the "Expat Paradox" risk and that implies it would probably be wise to be more conservative than otherwise because if forced back, you're going to hope your existing pot of gold is still decently large.

3 hours ago, wil iam not said:

Ha ha ha. What a silly statement. Tomorrow, next birthday or Christmas, St Valentine's Day?

It's not silly at all.

Considering life expectancy is a very conventional factor in retirement planning.

Of course you can't know exactly, but you can make educated guesses.

There is something called LONGEVITY RISK in retirement financial planning meaning say you planned for 30 years of retirement but then you end of living for 50 years more.

How to do this?

Many factors.

Actuarial tables.

Look at your parents and other close relatives.

Consider known genetic risk factors.

Consider your own health profile.

Most people are either biologically older or younger than their actual age.

There are similar calculations for Americans deciding when to make their social security claim. Possible with a lower amount of money at age 62. Wait longer, higher number. The beak even point is about age 78.

In other words a person who started at 62 "wins" if they die under 78 but "loses" if they die over 78.

8 hours ago, Jingthing said:

So as a basic starter the 4 percent rule can be SIGNIFICANTLY much higher than that.

The 4% rule is now 4.7%.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2025/09/01/4-percent-rule-why-matters-retirement/85891056007/

Do you expect to live to 90? Spend your money and adjust for market conditions.

Read this book

https://www.amazon.com/Die-Zero-Getting-Your-Money-ebook/dp/B07T5LSF1J?crid=3R4XTWNUAG74H&keywords=die+with+zero&qid=1642358918&sprefix=die+with+zer,aps,130&sr=8-1&linkCode=sl1&tag=slowwco-20&linkId=7ee65a8bf3e427e50adb3207613dd97e&language=en_US&ref_=as_li_ss_tl

Every day is your last day, have fun!

Never heard of th 4% rule, but then, never did listen to govt or investors when thinking about retiring, and never planned on retiring on savings, as that's just stupid.

Before TH and having wife & kids, as never thought I'd get married again, let alone a kid. Planned on living month to month, and hope the last check bounced or CC bill never got paid, and hope it was big one.

Soc Sec & pension is more than enough to live on, and always had large lines of credit for any oops, so living month to month would have been easy. Without the wife & kid, there would have been no need for savings.

I know what you mean, I'm worth quite a lot more now at almost 70 than I was when I was 60, in spite of trying to spend around 3%-5% of my savings every year. Together with my pensions, I end up trying to spend quite a lot of money and in the 13 years I spent living in Pattaya as a retiree, before I reached pension age, I seem to have inculcated a certain carefulness with money so I can't simply throw it away. I mean, if I wanted to get rid of 6 million baht then I could buy a Porsche, but why would I want one? I've got a great Japanese car which cost me 1.3 million Baht that does everything I want and more. So the 6 million Baht stays in the bank and I nibble away at it by staying in nice hotels, eating in the best restaurants, and treating myself to 20K Baht bottles of wine and cognac. The Porsche money hardly notices those things, though, and my total worth is far more than that.

One of the difficulties, as you alluded, is that I want to set myself up to live well here in Thailand. So I have a nice house in South Pattaya, a nice car, I gave the GF a car as a present and, with the 800K in the bank for Immigration purposes, I've got about 12 million Baht invested here. But as we all know, things can change suddenly and I've always planned so that I can afford to lose everything here in Thailand for whatever reason. I wouldn't be happy about it, but I still have a property back in the UK and plenty of savings and investments and my pensions would be unaffected. In fact, moving back to the UK they'd be larger as the state pension would no longer be frozen. And this is one difficulty - in order to feel 100% secure I need to have almost parallel lives set up here and back home, which costs a lot.

At the end, the money has to go somewhere and I'd like to have a say in it so, legacy-wise, the plan is to leave all my UK assets to my grandnieces, which will be a bit over £300K so free from IHT. Recent changes in the (extremely harsh) UK IHT rules mean that as I've lived abroad full-time for over 20 years my foreign estate is not subject to it. So the GF will get all my Thai assets tax-free, lucky her. The bulk of my money, though, is invested offshore and I'm still figuring out what to do with that when I finally croak. And, in the meantime, I continue to try and spend the 3%-5% of my savings each year, as well as my pensions, without any great success, in spite of flying business class and giving people increasingly generous gifts. It's a problem, though in many ways it's a nice one to have.

I have similar quandary. I have property in UK and the rental income is taxed as government pension puts me over the tax allowance, so including agent fees, service charges etc, it's not a great ROI. If I sold up, I could have a significantly higher spending in Thailand, but would be eating into my capital.

I've had investments in the past, but greedy 'advisors' basing their recommendations on maximising their commissions destroyed most the fund, so not going that way again.

Thai wife has property in her name, so maybe I should sell up and buy a red sports car and an insanely large TV, then hope I don't live too long?

Those who saved up in an annuity pension plan don't have the problem with leaving something to heirs and they get maximum out, as long as they live.

Living of own savings – on the other hand – you are in great risk of not managing to spend it all on fun, before your time line is cut earlier than expected; or run out of funds, if you need to relocate to a place with higher living costs.

A difficult balance living of own savings, where you – just like making a budget – might need to re-adjust your financial planning sometimes on its way to fit a new situation.

However, you might find a way not to leave anything behind for heirs and still have some savings left to protect yourself for unforeseen event – I started to let cats share the mansion with me – so, if I pass away before the cats, it all goes to them…😼

2 hours ago, Guderian said:

I know what you mean, I'm worth quite a lot more now at almost 70 than I was when I was 60, in spite of trying to spend around 3%-5% of my savings every year. Together with my pensions, I end up trying to spend quite a lot of money and in the 13 years I spent living in Pattaya as a retiree, before I reached pension age, I seem to have inculcated a certain carefulness with money so I can't simply throw it away. I mean, if I wanted to get rid of 6 million baht then I could buy a Porsche, but why would I want one? I've got a great Japanese car which cost me 1.3 million Baht that does everything I want and more. So the 6 million Baht stays in the bank and I nibble away at it by staying in nice hotels, eating in the best restaurants, and treating myself to 20K Baht bottles of wine and cognac. The Porsche money hardly notices those things, though, and my total worth is far more than that.

One of the difficulties, as you alluded, is that I want to set myself up to live well here in Thailand. So I have a nice house in South Pattaya, a nice car, I gave the GF a car as a present and, with the 800K in the bank for Immigration purposes, I've got about 12 million Baht invested here. But as we all know, things can change suddenly and I've always planned so that I can afford to lose everything here in Thailand for whatever reason. I wouldn't be happy about it, but I still have a property back in the UK and plenty of savings and investments and my pensions would be unaffected. In fact, moving back to the UK they'd be larger as the state pension would no longer be frozen. And this is one difficulty - in order to feel 100% secure I need to have almost parallel lives set up here and back home, which costs a lot.

At the end, the money has to go somewhere and I'd like to have a say in it so, legacy-wise, the plan is to leave all my UK assets to my grandnieces, which will be a bit over £300K so free from IHT. Recent changes in the (extremely harsh) UK IHT rules mean that as I've lived abroad full-time for over 20 years my foreign estate is not subject to it. So the GF will get all my Thai assets tax-free, lucky her. The bulk of my money, though, is invested offshore and I'm still figuring out what to do with that when I finally croak. And, in the meantime, I continue to try and spend the 3%-5% of my savings each year, as well as my pensions, without any great success, in spite of flying business class and giving people increasingly generous gifts. It's a problem, though in many ways it's a nice one to have.

The "problem" at a certain age IF you've saved well is effectively switching to SPENDING instead of saving and investing.

Which is a bit ironic as older people often don't have the same expensive appetites and desires as they did while younger.

In my case, I used to be consumed with a need to travel the world.

Now I'd really rather not! Much less expensive that.

Obviously everyone's social and financial situation is their own and any plan they might try to carry out should be individually tailored.

But again, the mainstream advice out there mostly isn't about expats with repatriation risk and also expats who don't want to leave a legacy (would rather enjoy their money will alive).

To add, for the very wealthy (thank you to the Carnegies of the world) GIVING can be and arguably should be a big part of the spending phase.

Another related topic for those who do want to leave a legacy -- why wait? Why not give the money while alive and enjoy watching the changes it makes to their beneficiaries?

19 minutes ago, khunPer said:

Those who saved up in an annuity pension plan don't have the problem with leaving something to heirs and they get maximum out, as long as they live.

Living of own savings – on the other hand – you are in great risk of not managing to spend it all on fun, before your time line is cut earlier than expected; or run out of funds, if you need to relocate to a place with higher living costs.

A difficult balance living of own savings, where you – just like making a budget – might need to re-adjust your financial planning sometimes on its way to fit a new situation.

However, you might find a way not to leave anything behind for heirs and still have some savings left to protect yourself for unforeseen event – I started to let cats share the mansion with me – so, if I pass away before the cats, it all goes to them…😼

That is a very interesting point possibly of use to younger people in earlier stages of saving for retirement.

I know very little about annuities but you seem to be saying you lose the principle upon death, correct? Or some kind of level of losing it I suppose depending on the contract.

In my case with most of my assets in a taxable US retirement account a conversion to an annuity is out of the question as I would be heavily taxed on withdrawing that.

Bringing up another big factor for anyone's planning -- taxes.

More related to the topic for U.S. nationals with taxable retirement accounts, the U.S. government FORCES a rather high level of withdrawal starting at about age 72.

Their reason is that they hope to get more tax (it's not about caring for the investors), but forcing oldies to take more of their money than they might have planned is probably what they should have been doing already!

19 hours ago, Jingthing said:

But the problem as I tried to emphasize in this topic is the unquantifiable unknown RISK of being forced back to a higher cost country.

If you knew 100 percent you would never need to repatriate, you could do better projections.

But add the "Expat Paradox" risk and that implies it would probably be wise to be more conservative than otherwise because if forced back, you're going to hope your existing pot of gold is still decently large.

This is similar to trying to game out potential long term care costs. I think you're going to need run a few different scenarios modeling different starting years and associated costs to get a range of possible funds to set aside.

You can use this tool and under the "Off Chart" Spending put different amounts and starting years to model effects, such as moving to a more expensive locale or LTC, on your portfolio.

Once you've projected a cushion you are comfortable with you can spend the rest.

https://www.firecalc.com/

6 minutes ago, Oliver Holzerfilled said:

This is similar to trying to game out potential long term care costs. I think you're going to need run a few different scenarios modeling different starting years and associated costs to get a range of possible funds to set aside.

You can use this tool and under the "Off Chart" Spending put different amounts and starting years to model effects, such as moving to a more expensive locale or LTC, on your portfolio.

Once you've projected a cushion you are comfortable with you can spend the rest.

https://www.firecalc.com/

Good to bring that up.

While elders tend to naturally decrease spending on many items. one major exception is health care.

But health care cost risk is something ALL older people are effected by.

It's not specific to this topic which is focused on what's different about expats (who have repatriation risk) and those who contrary to mainstream social norms aren't interested in dying with a massive unspent fortune.

On 2/13/2026 at 1:40 PM, Jingthing said:

if your net work is much higher than when your retirement started, you're probably doing things wrong.

Happiness is positive income?

1 minute ago, VocalNeal said:

Happiness is positive income?

No need to get richer after a certain age yet many people do.

They're psychologically incapable of making the switch to a freer spending phase.

I'm in this situation and as somebody who was heavily in debt in his 20s, then became an avid saver/invester in his 30s (approx 1/2 my take home pay + 1/2 of any bonuses) I'm really struggling to get into the decumilation mindset now I've (just) hit 60.

I'll get my 1st pension payment in a couple of weeks & already have more than enough money coming in from passive income (Rent, Dividends, Gilt interest) for my budget so I don't know what I'm going to do with it except to invest and generate more income (Which is a very nice problem to have).

If the worse really did come to the worse and I needed to go back to the UK, I would use 1/2 the rental income from my UK house to pay for rent on a nice flat and the remainder + my other passive income + my pension should more than cover my budget needs.

No heirs to leave anything to so having got my Thai partner covered (She'll inherit the Condo + whatever is in my Thai Bank accounts & get 1/2 my UK pension), I do need to take a long hard look at a drawdown strategy, even if I don't need the money right now.

41 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

Happiness is positive income?

"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen shillings and six pence, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six, result misery"

Money can't guarantee happiness but a critical lack of it (i.e. not enough to live on) will guarantee misery.

7 hours ago, Kinnock said:

Thai wife has property in her name, so maybe I should sell up and buy a red sports car and an insanely large TV, then hope I don't live too long?

Why not? Enjoy your life.

On 2/13/2026 at 1:40 PM, Jingthing said:

The tired old four percent withdrawal rate plus later inflation adjustment for a "safe" 30 year retirement is total garbage for such people.

I don't get your lengthy rant. Just use a different formula for your withdrawals that fits your lifestyle and your goals. It is, after all, your money and your decision.

4 minutes ago, Caldera said:

I don't get your lengthy rant. Just use a different formula for your withdrawals that fits your lifestyle and your goals. It is, after all, your money and your decision.

It's fine with me that you don't get it.

I'm used to people not getting me.

Doesn't phase me one bit.

For those that do get it, the obvious point of this topic is that we're conditioned to think about retirement finances a certain way and it takes some effort to shake that if that certain way isn't best for you.

Specifically about much less covered aspects:

Repatriation risk

Trying to end game with zero-ish money rather than a fortune.

The latter is much better covered but again we're conditioned differently than that.

If this topic doesn't speak to you, simply move on. It's not for everyone.

5 hours ago, Jingthing said:

More related to the topic for U.S. nationals with taxable retirement accounts, the U.S. government FORCES a rather high level of withdrawal starting at about age 72.

You should be able to model this out. I pulled this from ChatGPT. As you stated, the 4% rule leaves people with a higher balance at the end of their retirement than at the start. Up until 80 its less than 5%,

Age	Life-Expectancy Factor	Approx. Minimum % (1 ÷ factor)
72	27.4	~3.65%
73	26.5	~3.77%
74	25.5	~3.92%
75	24.6	~4.07%
76	23.7	~4.22%
77	22.9	~4.37%
78	22.0	~4.55%
79	21.1	~4.74%
80	20.2	~4.95%
81	19.4	~5.15%
82	18.5	~5.41%
83	17.7	~5.65%
84	16.8	~5.95%
85	16.0	~6.25%
86	15.2	~6.58%
87	14.4	~6.94%
88	13.7	~7.30%
89	12.9	~7.75%
90	12.2	~8.20%

46 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Trying to end game with zero-ish money rather than a fortune.

The latter is much better covered but again we're conditioned differently than that.

If this topic doesn't speak to you, simply move on. It's not for everyone.

See that's exactly what doesn't make sense. Whole books have been written on the subject of "die with zero", and yet you make it sound like you're trying to do something novel that nobody understands. Financially speaking, you're not all that special, which is what I meant when I wrote just use a different formula.

4 words... James Van Der Beek

And suddenly all money becomes no money

46 minutes ago, Caldera said:

See that's exactly what doesn't make sense. Whole books have been written on the subject of "die with zero", and yet you make it sound like you're trying to do something novel that nobody understands. Financially speaking, you're not all that special, which is what I meant when I wrote just use a different formula.

I never said I was special.

Accept yourself. Pointless to try to create a new desire.

Don't scimp on yourself either. If there's something you want, get it.

If the emergency fund never gets used then it's because there was no emergency. Feel blessed.

Make a will where your favourite charity benefits from your good fortune at not needing expensive surgery/care home.

Relax about dying with money. Don't think of it as unspent, think of it as not needed.

10 hours ago, Jingthing said:

That is a very interesting point possibly of use to younger people in earlier stages of saving for retirement.

I know very little about annuities but you seem to be saying you lose the principle upon death, correct? Or some kind of level of losing it I suppose depending on the contract.

In my case with most of my assets in a taxable US retirement account a conversion to an annuity is out of the question as I would be heavily taxed on withdrawing that.

Bringing up another big factor for anyone's planning -- taxes.

More related to the topic for U.S. nationals with taxable retirement accounts, the U.S. government FORCES a rather high level of withdrawal starting at about age 72.

Their reason is that they hope to get more tax (it's not about caring for the investors), but forcing oldies to take more of their money than they might have planned is probably what they should have been doing already!

Thanks for your comment.

Annuity retirement pension might work little different from one country to another. The principle where I'm from is that when one die, all savings go to the others. In that way the dividend paying capital is higher than what the single person pays in.

Normally you might work with the FIRE-system, where 4% will be your pay-out return. Annuity pensions give typically 7% to 10% – and some even more – which is percentages mentioned in the Opening Post and made me instantly thinking of annuity pension.

Where I come from – Denmark – we have a mandatory tiny retirement supplement pension called ATP, it’s deducted from salary from work, just like Social Security might be deducted in other countries (in Denmark SS is part of our world class mega high taxes). The employee pays 1/3, circa $16 (99 DKK) in official 2026-amounts per month, and the employer pays 2/3, circa $32 (198 DKK) per month. At retirement age you will receive circa $340 (2,150 DKK) per month as long as you live; i.e., at present 7 times as much as you pay per month. The pension is indexed.

Based on 2026 amounts: If you count on for example 40 working years, you and the employer pay 3,564 DKK per year, equalling 142,560 DKK in total . When retired you will be paid 25,800 DKK per year in pension, which equals a dividend of 18% of the total savings, as long as you live. The pay-out rate will grow over time, as some will die in benefit for others.

If you wait some years before you begin cashing in, your dividend will be higher. I stopped working early – self-retired at 56 years and moved to Thailand – and also postponed my start date till I was 70 years old. So, I'm actually paid a dividend of 158% per year based on what I and the employer paid in total – quite OK retirement saving, even it's only a small supplement...👍

40 minutes ago, sidjameson said:

Accept yourself. Pointless to try to create a new desire.

Don't scimp on yourself either. If there's something you want, get it.

If the emergency fund never gets used then it's because there was no emergency. Feel blessed.

Make a will where your favourite charity benefits from your good fortune at not needing expensive surgery/care home.

Relax about dying with money. Don't think of it as unspent, think of it as not needed.

Emergency fund is one thing.

A massive fortune is another.

How much should the emergency fund be?

Well.

bigger in the West than in Thailand,.right?

Don't create a new desire.

On point interesting comment.

If you're withdrawing more where to spend it?

Again personal.

You drink coffee?

Why not better coffee?

You clean your own place to save money?

Why?

You've been putting off useful purchases based on a decades long habit of frugality?

Why?

Such a list could go on and on without creating a new desire.

8 hours ago, TedG said:

5%,

Age	Life-Expectancy

We’ve done this one before. Yeah, I have too much to spend as a result of early caution. Like the other guy, my amount rises every month no matter what I do.

Stuff that turned out not to be great to spend money on

Expensive watches, I could never pull the trigger. There’s just too many of them pretending that I’m Indiana Jones.Do I need a chronometer? Lol

High end restaurants. At 73, my appetite is not what it was. So no 10 course tasting meals anymore. Honorary mention : Ministry of crab, $350 crab that came with its own crab concierge to pick out the piles of meat.

Business class. I’ve only done it twice. It costing four times as much it’s just too galling. I found premium economy enough of an upsell.

New girlfriend. Won’t let me spend any money, lives on fruit and salmon that she brings over in a suitcase.

Things that I do enjoy spending money on:

Taking tours with the intrepid tour company. Like going to the gym, it makes me show up and do it. Also, going to places like Mongolia on your own is not worth the trouble.

Personal trainer. Someone who cares about your upper chest muscles, studies them while you lift and gently corrects you is a great way to get fit with no risk of injury.

Better polo shirts. Unfortunately, I now have 18, including three purple ones. That means that I might not come around to the other two purple polo shirts in possibly three weeks or even longer.

Problem: nicer polar shirts last longer, particularly in light rotation.at 73, I may have enough polo shirts to last me until the grave.

Giving money away. Some to charity, mostly to friends. Picking up dinner tabs, buying people plane tickets. Many people say the best meal they ever ate was with me. So my memory will definitely live on.