FIRE CALCULATOR

The FIRE number is an arithmetic comparison between annual spending and an assumed withdrawal rate. At 4%, $50,000 of annual spending corresponds to $1,250,000 before considering any benefits already being paid. This division does not show that the money is accessible, that taxes have been covered, or that spending can continue indefinitely. A lower rate increases the comparison target; it does not create a guarantee. Historical withdrawal studies use particular portfolios, periods and spending rules, so their outcomes cannot establish a universal safe rate for a different horizon. This calculator keeps the arithmetic date separate from the liquid bridge and the total spending the modeled accounts cannot fund. Review those three results together rather than treating the first threshold crossing as permission to retire. Deterministic scenario; arithmetic targets and simulated survival do not establish legal access or a safe retirement date. Lean models 70% of spending; Fat models 250%; Barista subtracts the entered part-time income assumption. Coast discounts the target over the remaining growth window. Variants are comparison targets; they do not change entered spending, income or planned retirement age.

Savings affect both sides of the comparison: more money is invested and less spending needs replacing. As a simple arithmetic illustration, assume zero starting assets, a constant 5% real return, a 4% withdrawal rate, no taxes, benefits or events, and deposits at each year end. Saving 10% of a constant income and spending 90% first meets the target after 52 annual deposits; saving 50% takes 17 deposits, while saving 75% takes eight. These are conditional examples, not forecasts or fixed rules about how many years any increase will save. The working calculator instead deducts modeled employment taxes before finding recurring savings. Negative savings require withdrawals and can create an unfunded amount when accessible accounts are insufficient. One-time events are shown separately so an inheritance or purchase is not mistaken for recurring income or spending. Change a single assumption and inspect the corresponding dated ledger row to understand its effect. Rows start at the labeled age/year; growth and cash flows occur at year end. Age100 is a terminal snapshot.

Employment taxes, account access and future benefits answer different questions. Selecting a state name is a label for your scenario, not a current-law lookup. Enter and verify the flat state rate yourself; a previous saved rate remains an unverified assumption. The employment estimate does not deduct retirement contributions or model their limits. Restricted balances combine accounts whose rules and tax bases may differ. Confirm access only when one assumption is appropriate for the whole amount. Delayed benefits reduce the dated portfolio need when payment starts, so they do not erase an earlier bridge requirement. Employment tax estimate: 2026 single-filer federal brackets and payroll taxes, no credits; editable flat state rate with a $5,000 deduction assumption. Values are held in today’s dollars, not a forecast of future tax law. Restricted access and effective withdrawal tax are user assumptions. The model does not determine plan eligibility, Roth basis, exceptions, penalties, RMDs or capital-gains tax on liquid assets. Benefits are entered net annual amounts in today’s dollars and begin only at the entered age. Claiming eligibility and benefit adjustments are not calculated.

The order of returns matters when accounts must pay living costs. A large decline near retirement can force withdrawals from a smaller balance and leave less capital for later growth. The scenario comparison uses a single specified real-return shock in the planned retirement interval. Its labels refer to illustrative magnitudes rather than complete historical return sequences. Inspect the base and shocked balances on the same axis, then select the affected year to reconcile growth, withdrawals, taxes and unpaid spending. The simulation uses the same account cash flows as the deterministic projection, so restricted access does not disappear in a random path. Keeping a seed fixed makes comparisons reproducible; changing it creates another sample rather than new market evidence. Seeded independent normal nominal returns, floored at a total loss, with entered inflation. Percentiles and path counts describe this model, not probabilities guaranteed by markets. The selected illustrative shock replaces the retirement year’s real return once. Later years return to the entered assumption; no recovery penalty or guaranteed rebound is added. Deterministic scenario; arithmetic targets and simulated survival do not establish legal access or a safe retirement date.