Would you rather…

[Jazzy]

know the date of your death or the cause of your death? And why?

 

[Lamb]

If I knew the cause I could probably change that? Maybe?

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

Date. Preferably hour and minute too.

 

[tango]

Probably the date. At least that way I could be prepared and make sure people left behind were as prepared as they could be.

Knowing the cause could be useful in that I might be able to take steps to prevent or postpone it but if it was something vague like being involved in a car crash or having a heart attack that seems like the kind of thing that could theoretically happen tomorrow just as easily as 40 years from now. I wouldn't expect to have a heart attack any time soon but then I not everyone who has a fatal heart attack even knew they had heart issues.

 

[Fritz Kobus]

It certainly helps one prepare and not leave a total mess to those left behind, but it also is kind of creepy. I can certainly pick some dates that I will surely have left this world by (2060 for example, unless I live to 102), I like to think I have another 20-30 years at my age (65) but it very well could be tomorrow. So I guess I should get prepared sooner than later.

 

[tango]

Another thought, especially for people who are retired and living on a combination of retirement income and nest egg. It would be nice to know whether the nest egg has to last 5 years or 35 years. Even down to simple considerations - if I knew I had 6 years left and my wife had 28 years left I could figure out what memories she would like to make together while she still can. If I knew we both had 35 years left I'd watch our spending more carefully than if I knew we would both be dead in 18 months.

I guess another question would be whether knowing might result in the date changing. If I knew I'd die on March 28, 2027 but not what took me out it might mean I'd figure it wasn't worth paying for an expensive medical treatment, which in turn might mean that either some condition would finish me off earlier than March 2027 or potentially mean I'd live longer if a side effect of the treatment proved to be what finished me off.

 

[Fritz Kobus]

The idea of knowing when we will die so we can time it for our money to run out just in time (please leave funeral expenses) would really fit in with the book titled, Die Broke.

But I would want to figure how much I need to live on (account for inflation and other such) and then pass more of the inheritance to my kids sooner than later.

There was a guy on a classical music site, terminally ill, told he had no more than 6 months to live. He was trying to find a home for his rather large classical music collection. He even would donate it to a classical music interest group, but was not getting anywhere. Sometimes we just have to say, oh well, once I am gone does it really matter what happens to my stuff.

 

[tango]

I don't have kids so there's not such a concern about inheritance. The main thing isn't so much to be sure I'll spend it all before I die as to have a better idea of how fast I can burn through savings, accepting that there may be some left over that I can leave to causes I care about. The idea isn't to make sure I die with nothing but to feel more comfortable spending at a rate knowing I won't budget for living 20 years and then find I have 20 good years and another 10 years living in poverty because I spent it all.

In simplistic terms, if you start with $1,000,000 and have 50 years you can spend $20,000 annually. If you only have 20 years you can spend $50,000 annually. If you'll be dead in five years you can really live it large for five years. But you wouldn't want to be spending $200,000 annually having a great time only to find you had to make the scraps last another 45 years, but neither would you necessarily want to live on $20,000 only to die with $900,000 left.