Your main point that "Wealth is far different from income." is very true, but I am not sure why you are doubling down on over-stating the results of the Trinity

Your main point that "Wealth is far different from income." is very true, but I am not sure why you are doubling down on over-stating the results of the Trinity study. >...4% is just fine as a rule of thumb, or for the purposes of this post. Let's see. Your claim was that "If a person has $1M wealth, it's $40K interest in his pocket forever, assuming he invests wisely and follows the 4% drawdown rule." Going to your suggested website and entering the numbers for 30 years gives a 5% change of bring broke by the end: >...For our purposes, failure means the portfolio was depleted before the end of the 30 years. FIRECalc found that 6 cycles failed, for a success rate of 95.0%. That's not what most people think of when they hear they will be able to spend 4% forever. Using a larger number just increases the failure rate. Someone retiring early and trying to last 50 years gives an estimated failure rate of almost 22%: >...For our purposes, failure means the portfolio was depleted before the end of the 50 years. FIRECalc found that 21 cycles failed, for a success rate of 78.8%. Nothing in the Trinity study indicated that its "in his pocket forever" - just that historically, withdrawal rates of 4% were able to last 30 years before the assets were totally depleted