Get the PDF version of my Tax Bomb book for free follow this link.

Get my books on Audible here:

Want to support what I’m doing for $10 a month? Join my SubscribeStar page.


If you like what you see, a thumbs up helps A LOT. It tells YouTube that people are engaged and so the Youtube algorithm will show the video to others who may be interested in the content. So, give me a thumbs up, please!

Don’t forget to SUBSCRIBE by clicking here:

My Amazon Product page:
Anything you buy there Amazon pays me a commission. Much appreciated!

Contact me:

ALL are FREE to Kindle Unlimited Subscribers!

The Tax Bomb In Your Retirement Accounts: How The Roth IRA Can Help You Avoid It

Strategic Money Planning: 8 Easy Ways To Put Your House In Order

State by State Tax Guide For Retirees:






27 replies
  1. Bill Schultz
    Bill Schultz says:

    I read the article on this and when I first saw it I thought, wow, so they determined if you wait until you are about to die and don't take any retirement income until you have to by law or the longest length of time you can wait, then the money lasts through retirement. Wow, what a surprise! That was worth the 6 figure college educations. Useless article and study that doesn't take real life into account. Hey, I did a study too, I determined if you would invest regularly in the stock market and leave the money there for over 100 years, you would be richer than those who don't do it. 🙄 Of course the longer you wait to take SS and withdraw from your investments will guarantee it lasts the longest. That's the only takeaway I could discern from this study that disguises itself as a retirement income strategy. Yes, it's a strategy to not retire until your 70 years old, but it sure as hell isn't a good one.

  2. Tom Settles
    Tom Settles says:

    Josh – can you add a basket of Dividend stocks that grow their dividend 8%+ per year to a 4 Fund portfolio and have it reduce the losses in crash and increase income after 10+ years? Or possibly just add a high yield Dividend ETF like SPHD?

  3. Radnally
    Radnally says:

    Again. At 80, the cumulative totals are equal. And then the higher payouts accelerate from there. Taking ss at 62 just gives you access to your money for 5 or more years than if you had waited.

  4. Mark Austin
    Mark Austin says:

    Delaying taking SS payments can benefit lots of people. It certainly would help me. If I delay taking SS until my FRA of 67 those payments would cover about 90% of my projected expenses. If I retire early and start collecting SS at 62 those payments would barely cover 50% of projected expenses. Since I'll only have around 300-400k in my 403b that's a big deal.

  5. lucor001
    lucor001 says:

    I love the idea, VWELX (or 65/35) with a (linear/square/exponential) withdrawal decrease as the years roll by. I'm a little skeptical the numbers will work out starting at 8% but it should be easy to adjust. I hate how the RMD table doesn't fit a curve nicely but I will do this exercise approximating it so I can try different curve profiles quickly.

  6. reevin riggin
    reevin riggin says:

    Matlock????? I can't look at that show without having to whistle the theme to the Andy Griffith Show. Now that is annoying. Now Columbo…….THAT is a show worth watching in late retirement.

  7. JD Thompson
    JD Thompson says:

    Agree income needs overall go down as you age. However, the earlier in retirement you take the bigger distributions, the more it seems it adds sequence of return risk and running out of money. When you take more later on it’s had more time to grow prior so should last longer. That’s my same concern with waiting to take SS by spending down your own funds if you actually retire years before your FRA.

  8. Larsonwjh
    Larsonwjh says:

    I would love to listen to your analysis on this: With the rise in index investing, and most of the money in the larger indexes, is there an increased danger in the downside of market volatility (and likewise upside)? Could a case be made for non-indexed mutual funds with a lower Beta to have less volatility to balance out your portfolio?

    Another idea–compile and highlight your favorite podcasts, YouTube channels, books

  9. John C
    John C says:

    I can't imagine wanting to watch "Matlock" at any age, yeeeccchhh! Run that spreadsheet… using the RMD table forward and backwards (so much more exciting than "Matlock," too! 😁 ). Thanks.

  10. Brian
    Brian says:

    Josh, I used to hate these videos of the reading articles… I’m not gonna lie. But now I appreciate it and just hook you up to my car and listen to you like you’re an audiobook. You’re reading articles that I would never read on my own. And I appreciate the commentary.

  11. Tom Gradel
    Tom Gradel says:

    Even though the RMD percentage is low in the beginning, it starts at 3.77% at age 70. It then increases as you get older and whenever the market does well. It flattens if your portfolio begins to deplete. I first heard about this method in Wade's 2017 book, "How Much Can I Spend in Retirement".

  12. engalvan
    engalvan says:

    Most people cannot wait till 70 for their ss because they don’t have enough in a retirement account and or paying down debt. None of this works if you are still paying student loans, medical bills or for your lazy worthless children. I plan on retiring early and moving to Thailand as to avoid supporting lazy siblings. I just need to figure out how to support myself until 70

  13. GW LIFE TV
    GW LIFE TV says:

    I am not a fan of target date funds. Due to the only factor during the transition to conservative holdings is time. What happens to your portfolio when equities are sold in a down market. For example 2000-2003. Not even considering the 2008 crash. I made a video explaining my thoughts a little more but I think you get the gist of my thoughts. Just the hard rigid rule of time and time only is what I do not like.


Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *