Member Sign In

I have a friend — a certified financial planner, let's call him Marcus — who once told me about the hardest conversation of his career. It wasn't with a client who had run out of money.

 

It was the opposite.

 

A couple came in for what they thought was a routine check-up on their retirement plan. For decades, they'd done everything personal finance tells you to do; they saved aggressively, kept expenses low, put retirement ahead of almost everything else. Vacations could wait. The family reunion that required airfare and a hotel? Maybe next year.

 

Then they came to Marcus to see how everything was shaping up; were they getting close to where they needed to be to safely retire? He ran their numbers. 

 

They didn't have barely enough, or enough if everything went perfectly. They had several times more than they were ever realistically going to spend.

 

He expected relief. Instead, he watched them fall apart in his office — because suddenly they weren't looking at a retirement account. They were looking at everything they'd traded for it. The trips they didn't take. The family events they skipped. The years when their kids were young, their parents were healthy, and their knees didn't hurt.

 

They had spent decades sacrificing for retirement. Nobody had ever told them when they were allowed to stop.

We're very good at telling people to save. Max out the 401(k). Fund the IRA. Bump your contribution every time you get a raise. Don't touch the brokerage account. Let compounding do its thing.

 

To be clear, all of that can be excellent advice. The problem is that "more" doesn't have an endpoint.

 

If a $2 million portfolio feels secure, $2.5 million feels safer. And once you hit $2.5 million... wouldn't $3 million be even better? There's always another cushion you could build. Unless you deliberately define what you're saving for, retirement can quietly turn into a lifelong game where the only winning move is the biggest possible number.

 

That was never supposed to be the goal.

It's tempting to think you'll loosen up once you get there. The research says otherwise.

 

The Employee Benefit Research Institute found that six in 10 retirees who left full-time work with $500,000 or more still had at least 80% of those assets a decade later. Economists call it the "retirement consumption puzzle," and it holds up even in studies that remove much of the uncertainty about health and longevity. People simply don't like watching a pile of money get smaller.

 

That's why this is a question for now, not later. If you spend 30 years training yourself to believe that touching your savings is dangerous, you're not going to wake up on your 65th birthday and think, Great. Time to start draining this thing. Marcus's couple didn't develop their fear of spending in retirement. They'd been practicing it for decades.

Most diligent savers are asking: How much more can I possibly save?

 

The better question is, what am I trying to make this money accomplish?

 

Good retirement planning gives you a target — an imperfect one, admittedly — built from when you expect to retire, what you expect to spend, your Social Security or pension income, your investments, inflation, taxes, healthcare costs, and how long the money needs to last. Maybe your number is $2 million. Maybe it's $3 million, or considerably more or less.

 

The exact figure isn't the point. The point is that there should be a figure. Without one, it's very easy to keep sacrificing today's life for an undefined version of "security" you may never feel you've reached.

 

The simplest way to get there is to build your plan backward. Instead of starting with how much you can save, start with the life you're trying to fund:

 

- What will retirement actually cost you each year?

- What will Social Security or a pension cover?

- Do you want to travel extensively? Help your kids? Retire early? Leave a large inheritance?

 

Once you know roughly what retirement requires, you can estimate what you need to save each year to get there. That changes the whole psychology of saving. You're no longer piling money into accounts because more always feels safer. You're funding a plan — and if you're comfortably ahead of it, that's useful information too.

This one may make committed savers uncomfortable: Decide on a point at which saving more stops automatically winning.

 

That doesn't mean abandoning your contributions the moment a calculator flashes green. Your assumptions will change, markets will change, and your plan should be revisited regularly. But there's a difference between keeping a healthy margin of safety and endlessly moving the goalposts.

 

Say your plan calls for investing $30,000 a year to reach your goal with a comfortable cushion, and you're actually saving $60,000. It's worth asking what that extra $30,000 is buying you.

 

Maybe the answer is something important — earlier retirement, a bigger legacy for your kids, more protection against long-term care costs. Wonderful. Keep saving.

 

But if the honest answer is I don't know, more money just makes me feel safer, that decision deserves another look. Because that money could also buy something today.

Before you make a meaningful sacrifice in the name of saving more, ask one question: What exactly am I getting in exchange?

 

If skipping a $15,000 trip means you can retire a year earlier, that's a real tradeoff, and you may happily make it. If a $20,000 kitchen renovation would knock your retirement plan off track, that's worth knowing too.

 

But if skipping the trip moves your projected retirement balance from $3.8 million to $3.84 million? Now you're weighing something very different.

 

The question isn't whether saving is "better" than spending. It's whether the future benefit you're buying is worth the present experience you're giving up. That's a deeply personal calculation — but you should be making it on purpose.

 

Once you're on track, raises and bonuses don't have to flow into your accounts on autopilot. A few ways that might look...

 

- Split the raise. Half goes toward your future, half makes your life better now.

- Carve out the bonus. Invest most of it, but let $5,000 pay for the trip your family has been talking about for three years.

- Choose a slightly smaller number on purpose. Retiring with $4 million instead of $4.4 million might buy you a decade of experiences while your kids still want to vacation with you.

 

Those aren't failures of discipline. They're allocation decisions.

We have sinking funds for property taxes, emergency funds for broken air conditioners, 529s for college, and IRAs for retirement. Why not deliberately fund the things you want to experience while you're still able to experience them?

 

Open a travel fund. A family-experience fund. A ridiculous-hobby fund. Then contribute to it with the same seriousness you bring to your 401(k).

 

I think about this with my own twins. There's a window when your kids genuinely want to go places with you, and it doesn't stay open forever. Funding that window on purpose isn't frivolous. It's recognizing that you're allocating finite resources across different stages of your life. Some of your money belongs to 70-year-old you. Some of it belongs to 40-year-old you, too.

I can already hear the objection: Great. So forget retirement and book the trip?

 

No. No. That is not what I'm saying.

 

Running out of money in retirement is a very real risk, and most Americans are nowhere near the problem Marcus's couple had. In the Federal Reserve's most recent Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking, only about a third of non-retired adults said they think their retirement savings are on track. If that's not you, saving more is exactly the right move.

 

You need an emergency fund. You need retirement savings. You need to plan for healthcare, inflation, market downturns, and the possibility that you live a very long time. And sometimes the right answer really is to say no to something you want now because future you needs the money more.

 

But there's another extreme we talk about far less often — saving so aggressively for your future life that you consistently refuse to participate in your current one.

 

The goal isn't to die with zero. It also isn't to die with the largest possible account balance. It's to use your money across your whole lifetime in a way that gives you both security and a life worth securing.

Nothing went wrong with Marcus's couple's investments. They saved beautifully. They avoided lifestyle creep. They did almost everything the personal finance world tells responsible adults to do.

 

What nobody asked was when enough would actually be enough. And by the time they had the answer, some of the things they'd postponed were no longer available to buy.

 

So save for retirement. Save aggressively if your plan requires it. Build the cushion that lets you sleep at night.

 

But give that cushion an edge. Know what you're building, check whether you're on track, and revisit the numbers as your life changes.

 

And if the math says you're doing more than enough? You're allowed to let some of that money belong to the person you are right now.