Die With Zero: Should You Spend More and Save Less?

Bill Perkins&rsquo; book <em>Die With Zero</em> struck a nerve when it was published in 2020. The central argument is simple: most people save too much and spend too little, arriving at death with a pile of unspent money and a list of experiences they never had. Instead, Perkins argues, you should aim to optimise your lifetime enjoyment by spending your money when it can bring you the most happiness &mdash; ideally reaching zero on your final day. It is a provocative idea that challenges conventional financial planning wisdom. But is it practical? And does it work in the context of UK finances, pensions, and the realities of later life? This article explores the theory, its strengths, its blind spots, and how you might apply its best ideas without the risks.

The Core Idea

The “Die With Zero” philosophy rests on several key arguments:

• Money has a time value — but so do experiences. A hiking holiday in your 30s is a fundamentally different experience from the same trip in your 70s. You cannot bank experiences for later the way you bank money. Delaying everything until retirement means some experiences are simply no longer available to you.
• Most people die with too much money. Research consistently shows that many retirees spend less than their income, let alone draw down their savings. A US Federal Reserve study found the median retiree dies with significant assets remaining. UK data from the IFS (Institute for Fiscal Studies) shows similar patterns — many pensioners under-spend relative to their means.
• Your ability to enjoy spending declines with age. Perkins divides life into three broad phases: the “go-go” years (active retirement, roughly 55–75), the “slow-go” years (75–85, when health and energy decline), and the “no-go” years (85+, when spending typically drops to basic living costs and care). Saving aggressively for a phase when you may not be able to enjoy the money is, he argues, irrational.
• Give money when it matters most. Rather than leaving a lump sum inheritance when your children are in their 50s or 60s, give money earlier — when they need it for house deposits, starting businesses, or raising their own children. A £50,000 gift to a 30-year-old has far more impact than a £200,000 inheritance to a 60-year-old.
• Use “memory dividends.” Experiences generate returns long after the event itself — through memories, stories, photographs, and relationships formed. A family holiday pays dividends for decades. A savings account just pays interest.

What the Theory Gets Right

Even if you find the idea of literally dying with zero uncomfortable, several of Perkins’ observations are genuinely valuable:

1. Many people do over-save and under-live

Financial planning culture is overwhelmingly focused on accumulation. “Save more, invest more, build a bigger pot” is the default advice. Very few advisers ask: “Are you spending enough to enjoy your life right now?” The result is people who sacrifice holidays, hobbies, and experiences in their 40s and 50s to build a pension pot they then barely touch in their 70s and 80s.

2. The timing of spending matters

There is real wisdom in recognising that a pound spent at 35 on a family experience is worth more (in terms of life satisfaction) than a pound spent at 85 on something you can barely enjoy. This does not mean you should be reckless — but it does mean you should think about when to spend, not just how much.

3. Inheritance timing is often wrong

UK inheritance patterns typically see wealth passed on at death, when the recipients are themselves near or in retirement. Giving earlier — helping children buy homes, start businesses, or manage young family costs — can have a much greater impact. The UK’s seven-year rule for Inheritance Tax (gifts made more than seven years before death are exempt from IHT) actually incentivises exactly this kind of early giving.

4. Health-adjusted spending is sensible

The idea that spending should follow an arc — higher in active years, lower in later life — aligns with actual retiree spending data. The IFS and ONS data consistently show that household spending declines in real terms through retirement, even among wealthier pensioners. Planning for this pattern, rather than assuming flat spending throughout a 30-year retirement, is more realistic.

What the Theory Gets Wrong (or Ignores)

The “Die With Zero” idea is compelling as a thought experiment but has serious practical problems, especially in a UK context:

1. You do not know when you will die

This is the most fundamental objection. The entire concept requires knowing your death date, which is impossible. UK life expectancy at 65 is roughly 19 years for men and 21 years for women (ONS data), but individual variation is enormous. Living to 95 or 100 is increasingly common. Running out of money at 87 because you planned to die at 85 is not an optimisation — it is a catastrophe.

2. Care costs can be devastating

The average cost of a UK residential care home is approximately £800–£1,200 per week, and nursing care can exceed £1,500 per week. At these rates, four years of care can cost £200,000–£300,000+. The UK government’s proposed care cost cap (currently set at £86,000 for personal care costs, though implementation has been delayed) does not cover accommodation costs, which typically make up half or more of the total. Spending down to zero before needing care means falling back on local authority provision — with less choice and lower quality.

3. The State Pension is not enough

The full new State Pension is approximately £11,500 per year (check GOV.UK for the current rate). This is below most definitions of a minimum comfortable retirement. If you have spent everything else, the State Pension is your only income — and it does not go far, especially if you need to pay for housing.

4. Sequence-of-returns risk is real

Drawing down investments aggressively in the early years of retirement is especially dangerous if markets fall. A 30% market drop in year one of retirement, combined with high withdrawals, can permanently impair a portfolio. Traditional financial planning builds in buffers for exactly this reason. “Die With Zero” actively works against those buffers.

5. It assumes a level of control you may not have

Job losses, recessions, health crises, family emergencies, and market crashes are not scheduled events. Financial resilience — having reserves you hope never to use — is not waste. It is insurance against a world that does not follow your plan.

6. Some people want to leave a legacy

Not everyone views inheritance as waste. Many people derive genuine satisfaction from knowing they are leaving something for their children, grandchildren, or causes they care about. This is a valid life goal, not a planning failure.

The UK-Specific Challenges

Several features of the UK financial system create particular tensions with the “Die With Zero” approach:

Defined benefit pensions cannot be “spent down”

Many UK retirees have defined benefit (final salary) pensions that pay a fixed income for life. You cannot accelerate these payments or take a lump sum (beyond the 25% tax-free amount). The pension pays out whether you want to “die with zero” or not. For DB pension holders, the concept is less relevant because a significant portion of retirement income is guaranteed and cannot be optimised in the way Perkins describes.

Pension tax rules discourage early depletion

UK pension tax rules are designed to prevent early depletion. You cannot access pension savings before age 55 (rising to 57 in 2028). Drawing large lump sums triggers income tax at your marginal rate. Taking too much too fast can push you into higher tax bands, meaning 40% or 45% goes to HMRC. The system actively penalises the kind of aggressive early drawdown that “Die With Zero” implies.

ISA and pension wrappers reward staying invested

ISAs grow tax-free indefinitely. Pensions grow tax-free and can be passed on free of Inheritance Tax (pension death benefits are not part of your estate for IHT purposes). Spending these assets down eliminates their tax advantages. In many cases, drawing from taxable accounts first and preserving ISAs and pensions is more tax-efficient — the opposite of “spend it all now.”

Property is illiquid

For many UK households, the family home is the largest single asset. You cannot easily spend down housing wealth without selling or using equity release. Equity release carries significant costs and reduces what you can pass on. “Die With Zero” struggles with illiquid assets that also serve as your home.

The Decumulation Problem

What Perkins is really addressing is the decumulation problem — the challenge of converting accumulated wealth into lifetime spending. This is one of the most difficult problems in personal finance, and the UK financial industry is not good at solving it.

The numbers illustrate the challenge:

• A 65-year-old with a £500,000 pension pot, drawing £20,000 per year (4%), has a reasonable chance of the money lasting 25–30 years — but no guarantee.
• Drawing £30,000 per year (6%) to “enjoy life more now” dramatically increases the risk of running out before death.
• Drawing £15,000 per year (3%) to be “safe” means potentially dying with a large unspent pot.

There is no perfect answer. But Perkins is right that erring too far towards caution has a real cost — years of under-living that you cannot get back.

The financial planning industry increasingly talks about “spending permission” — helping clients understand when it is safe to spend more. This is essentially the constructive version of “Die With Zero”: not reckless depletion, but informed, confident spending based on realistic projections.

A Balanced Approach: Taking the Best Ideas

You do not have to choose between “die with zero” and “hoard everything.” A more practical approach takes the best insights from Perkins while respecting the realities of uncertainty:

1. Separate your money into buckets

• Essential spending floor — State Pension plus any DB pension income, covering basic living costs. This is your “never run out” layer.
• Comfortable living — drawdown from pensions and ISAs to maintain your lifestyle. Target a sustainable withdrawal rate (3–4%) and review annually.
• Discretionary / experience fund — a dedicated pot for travel, hobbies, gifts, and experiences, skewed towards the early, active years of retirement. This is where “Die With Zero” thinking is most valuable.
• Care reserve — a contingency for potential care costs, either held as savings or addressed through insurance or equity release planning.

2. Front-load your spending (moderately)

Plan to spend more in your 60s and early 70s than in your 80s and 90s. This aligns with both the “Die With Zero” philosophy and actual retiree spending data. A spending plan that starts at £30,000 per year and gradually declines to £20,000 by age 80 may be more realistic and enjoyable than a flat £25,000 throughout.

3. Give while you are alive (with structure)

Use the UK’s IHT exemptions to give meaningfully during your lifetime:

• £3,000 annual exemption per person, per tax year
• £250 small gifts to any number of recipients
• Wedding gifts up to £5,000 for children, £2,500 for grandchildren
• Gifts out of surplus income — regular gifts from income you do not need are immediately exempt from IHT (no seven-year rule), provided they do not affect your standard of living
• Potentially exempt transfers (PETs) — larger gifts that become fully exempt if you survive seven years

4. Use projections, not rules of thumb

Rather than guessing, model your finances. A cashflow projection that maps your income, spending, pensions, investments, and State Pension entitlement across your expected lifetime is the single most useful tool for deciding whether you can afford to spend more now. This is exactly what Wealth365 is designed to do — giving you a clear, personalised view of whether your money will last, and by how much.

5. Review and adjust

Your plan should not be static. Review your spending and projections annually. If markets have been strong and your pot has grown, give yourself permission to spend more. If markets have fallen or costs have risen, pull back. Flexibility is the key to balancing enjoyment and security.

The &ldquo;Enough&rdquo; Number

One of the most practical takeaways from the “Die With Zero” philosophy is the concept of knowing your “enough” number — the point at which you have saved enough to fund your desired lifestyle for the rest of your life, and everything above that is surplus you should either spend, give, or deploy differently.

Calculating this requires:

• Your desired annual spending in retirement
• Your guaranteed income (State Pension, DB pensions)
• The gap between spending and guaranteed income (this is what your savings need to cover)
• A sustainable drawdown rate applied to your investment portfolio
• Contingency for care costs, inflation, and longevity

For example, if you want £30,000 per year in retirement and your State Pension provides £11,500, you need your savings to generate £18,500 per year. At a 3.5% drawdown rate, that requires a pot of approximately £530,000. Anything above that is your surplus — money you can choose to spend on experiences, give to family, or donate to causes you care about.

Knowing your “enough” number transforms the conversation from “am I saving enough?” to “can I afford to live more?”

What Bill Perkins Would Say to a UK Financial Planner

If we could sit Perkins down with a typical UK IFA, the conversation would probably go something like this:

Perkins: “Your client has £800,000 in pensions and ISAs, a paid-off house, a DB pension paying £15,000 a year, and a State Pension. They are 67 and in good health. Why are they only spending £22,000 a year and worrying about running out of money?”

IFA: “Because they might live to 100, need four years of care at £70,000 a year, and markets could fall 40% next year.”

Perkins: “And they might also die at 74 having never taken that trip to New Zealand, never helped their daughter buy a house, and never used 80% of what they saved. Which outcome is worse?”

The honest answer is that both outcomes are bad — and good financial planning tries to protect against both. The value of “Die With Zero” is not as a literal instruction manual, but as a counterweight to the default bias of the financial planning industry, which overwhelmingly errs on the side of “save more, spend less, just in case.”

The Bottom Line

“Die With Zero” is a useful provocation, not a financial plan. Its best ideas — time-value your experiences, give while it matters, spend more in your active years, and know your “enough” number — are genuinely valuable and under-represented in mainstream UK financial advice.

But taken literally, it ignores longevity risk, care costs, market volatility, the illiquidity of housing wealth, and the simple psychological comfort of having reserves. In the UK, with its specific pension rules, IHT framework, and care funding system, a modified version of the philosophy is more practical than the pure form.

The real question is not “how do I die with zero?” but “am I spending enough to enjoy my life, while keeping enough to feel safe?” That is the question a good financial plan — and a good cashflow projection — should help you answer.