Does the 4% rule
still work?
The 4% rule has guided retirement planning for three decades. But conditions have changed — lower yields, longer retirements, tax complexity. We run four real scenarios to find out whether it still holds up.
Where the 4% rule
came from
In 1994, financial planner William Bengen asked a deceptively simple question: what is the highest withdrawal rate that would have survived every 30-year retirement period in U.S. history? He tested every starting year from 1926 onward, using actual stock and bond returns, and found that a retiree who withdrew 4% of their portfolio in year one — then adjusted that dollar amount for inflation each subsequent year — never ran out of money.
Four years later, the Trinity Study (Cooley, Hubbard, and Walz, 1998) confirmed and expanded Bengen's findings. Testing various stock-to-bond allocations across multiple time horizons, the study found that a 4% rate with a 50/50 portfolio succeeded in roughly 95% of historical 30-year periods. The "4% rule" entered the financial planning canon.
But both studies made critical assumptions that are often overlooked. The analysis used only U.S. market data — one of the best-performing markets in global history. It assumed a 30-year retirement, a 50/50 stock-bond allocation, and perhaps most importantly, no taxes. Every dollar withdrawn was assumed to be fully spendable. For someone retiring at 65 with a diversified portfolio and modest spending needs, those assumptions were reasonable. For many of today's retirees, they are not.
The question is not whether the 4% rule was correct in 1994. It was. The question is whether the conditions it depends on still hold.
What's changed
since 1994
Three decades have passed since Bengen's paper. The retirement landscape looks fundamentally different. Bond yields are lower, retirements are longer, healthcare costs have outpaced inflation, and tax complexity has increased. Each of these factors puts pressure on the 4% assumption — some in ways that are easy to quantify, others in ways that are harder to see until you model them year by year.
From 1926 to 1994, intermediate-term U.S. government bonds averaged roughly 5.2% nominal returns. Since 2000, that average has dropped to around 3.5%, and real (inflation-adjusted) returns have been under 2% for extended periods. Since bonds are half the traditional 4% rule portfolio, lower yields directly compress sustainable withdrawal rates. Research by Wade Pfau suggests this alone drops the safe rate to 3.0–3.5% for new retirees.
Average life expectancy at 65 has increased by roughly 4 years since the 1990s. More importantly, the FIRE movement and shifting work patterns mean many people are planning for retirement at 50 or 55, not 65. A 40- or 45-year retirement is a fundamentally different problem than a 30-year one. Historical data shows the safe rate drops by 0.3% to 0.5% for each additional decade.
Healthcare costs have risen at roughly 5–7% annually — well above the 2–3% general inflation the 4% rule adjusts for. A 65-year-old couple retiring today faces an estimated $315,000 in lifetime healthcare costs (Fidelity, 2025). This "inflation within inflation" means the standard CPI adjustment may understate actual spending needs in later years.
In 1994, most retirees drew from pensions and Social Security. Today, the majority of retirement wealth sits in tax-deferred 401(k)s and IRAs where every withdrawal is taxed as ordinary income. Required minimum distributions (RMDs) starting at 73 can force taxable withdrawals beyond what you need. The 4% rule ignores all of this — it models gross withdrawals, not after-tax spending power.
Running the
scenarios
Abstract debate about the 4% rule only goes so far. To understand whether it works, you need to run specific scenarios with concrete numbers. We ran four cases through the Drawdown Arc calculator, tracking year-by-year withdrawals, taxes, and portfolio survival.
Total spending is $64,000/yr — of which Social Security covers $24,000 starting at age 67. That leaves roughly $40,000 the portfolio must supply, a 4% net withdrawal rate on the $1M starting balance. This is the number the 4% rule is really about.
- $1M starting portfolio
- $64,000/yr spending (inflation-adjusted at 3%)
- $24,000/yr Social Security starting at 67
- 6% nominal growth (3% real) unless noted
- Single filer, no state tax
- Federal taxes calculated using 2026 brackets
- Deterministic projection — constant growth, not historical backtest
$1M Roth (tax-free) · Retire at 65
- Age 67 $1,005,333
- Age 85 $1,106,837
- Age 95 $789,619
- Age 100 $409,426
Survives — but only $409K left at 100. Less margin than the textbook suggests.
$1M Roth (tax-free) · Retire at 55
- Age 55 $996,000
- Age 65 $801,627
- Age 75 $407,711
- Age 81 Depleted
Net rate jumps to 6.4% before SS — portfolio gone at 81. Early retirees need a bridge strategy or 3.0–3.3% spending.
$1M Traditional 401(k) · Retire at 65
- Age 67 $985,860
- Age 85 $816,542
- Age 95 $110,838
- Age 96 Depleted
Taxes kill it at 96 — vs. $409K at 100 with Roth. RMDs and SS push AGI into higher brackets.
$1M Roth (tax-free) · 4% growth (1% real) · Retire at 65
- Age 80 $672,856
- Age 85 $424,453
- Age 90 $58,573
- Age 91 Depleted
Gone at 91 — 9 years earlier than Scenario A. Two points of return is the entire margin.
Taken together, these scenarios reveal where the 4% net rate breaks. It survives in the classic case — but with only $409K at 100, not the comfortable cushion most people imagine. Retire 10 years early and the net rate jumps to 6.4% before SS — the portfolio is gone at 81. Put everything in a traditional 401(k) and taxes kill it at 96. Drop returns by 2% and it fails at 91. The 4% rule isn't wrong — it's narrow. Change one variable and the safe rate drops. Change two and it becomes genuinely dangerous.
Launch with Example Scenario →
The tax problem
nobody talks about
The 4% rule treats every dollar withdrawn as a dollar spent. In reality, every dollar pulled from a traditional 401(k) or IRA is taxed as ordinary income. For a retiree in the 22% federal bracket, a $40,000 withdrawal becomes $31,200 in spending power. Add state income taxes in states like California (9.3%) or New York (6.85%), and that same $40,000 withdrawal may net only $27,000 to $28,000.
This matters more than most people realize. To maintain $40,000 in after-tax spending, a retiree with all traditional accounts needs to withdraw approximately $51,000 to $55,000 depending on their state. That's a gross withdrawal rate of 5.1% to 5.5% — well above what any historical analysis considers safe for 30 years.
Required minimum distributions make it worse. Starting at age 73 (75 if born 1960 or later), the IRS forces you to withdraw a minimum percentage of your traditional account balances each year. For a $1M traditional IRA at 73, the RMD is roughly $37,700. By age 80, it climbs to about $45,900. By 85, it's $52,600. These forced withdrawals may exceed your spending needs, pushing you into higher tax brackets and potentially triggering higher effective withdrawal rates than you planned.
The Roth-traditional mix is the real variable. A retiree with $500,000 in a Roth IRA and $500,000 in a traditional IRA has vastly more tax flexibility than someone with $1M entirely in traditional accounts. Roth withdrawals are tax-free, which means they don't push you into higher brackets and don't count toward the income thresholds that determine how much of your Social Security is taxable. This is why Roth conversion strategies in the years before retirement can effectively raise your sustainable withdrawal rate by 0.5% to 1.0%.
The broader point is this: any discussion of the 4% rule that ignores taxes is incomplete. Your tax-adjusted withdrawal rate is the number that actually matters, and it depends entirely on which accounts you withdraw from and in what order.
What actually
works better
If the 4% rule is too rigid for modern retirement, what replaces it? The answer isn't a different fixed number — it's a different approach entirely. Dynamic withdrawal strategies adapt your spending to what the market actually does, rather than locking in a number on day one and hoping for the best.
Set an upper and lower withdrawal rate boundary (e.g., 3.5% to 5.5% of your current portfolio). If your effective rate drifts outside the corridor — because the market surged or crashed — you adjust spending by a fixed amount (typically 10%). This prevents catastrophic overspending in bear markets while allowing you to enjoy bull markets. Research by Jonathan Guyton and William Klinger shows guardrails can support initial rates of 4.5% to 5.0% with high confidence.
Guarantee a minimum annual withdrawal (the "floor") to cover essential expenses — housing, food, healthcare, insurance. Then allow a higher withdrawal up to a ceiling when portfolio performance supports it. The floor is funded by the most stable part of your portfolio (bonds, cash, Social Security). The ceiling gives you upside for travel, gifts, and discretionary spending. This approach separates needs from wants at the withdrawal level.
Instead of withdrawing a fixed dollar amount adjusted for inflation, withdraw a fixed percentage of your current portfolio value each year. If you use 4% of the current balance, a $1M portfolio yields $40,000 in year one. If it drops to $800,000, you withdraw $32,000. You can mathematically never run out of money, but income volatility can be significant — making this strategy best suited for retirees with flexible spending.
Divide your portfolio into time-based buckets: 1–3 years of spending in cash or short-term bonds (safety bucket), 4–10 years in intermediate bonds (income bucket), and the rest in equities (growth bucket). You spend from the safety bucket and periodically refill it from the growth bucket when markets are up. This provides psychological comfort and structural protection against sequence of returns risk.
Each of these strategies trades some simplicity for resilience. The 4% rule's appeal is that it's a single number. The strategies above require ongoing attention — but they also dramatically improve portfolio survival in adverse conditions. For a comprehensive comparison of withdrawal approaches, see our safe withdrawal rate guide.
The verdict: does it
still work?
As a starting point, yes. As a plan, no.
The 4% rule remains a useful mental anchor. It tells you that a $1 million portfolio can plausibly support roughly $40,000 per year in spending. It's a reasonable first approximation when you're 45 and trying to figure out whether you're on track. It gives you a number to react to, adjust from, and build around.
But as an actual retirement plan, a fixed 4% rate ignores too much. It ignores the taxes that reduce every withdrawal from a traditional account. It ignores the reality that most retirements today last longer than 30 years. It ignores that bond yields are lower than the historical periods it was tested against. And it ignores that spending in retirement isn't flat — healthcare costs accelerate, while travel spending declines.
For most people retiring today, 3.3% to 3.5% is a more defensible starting rate. This is supported by Pfau's research on lower-yield environments, by the Trinity Study's own data on longer time horizons, and by the simple math of tax drag on traditional account withdrawals. On a $1 million portfolio, that's $33,000 to $35,000 per year — supplemented by Social Security, and ideally drawn from a tax-optimized mix of Roth and traditional accounts.
But even 3.3% isn't the real answer. The real answer is year-by-year modeling that accounts for your specific accounts, tax situation, Social Security timing, and spending trajectory. A single withdrawal rate — whether 4%, 3.5%, or 3% — can't capture the complexity of a 30- to 40-year financial plan. What works in year one may need to change by year five, and will almost certainly need to change by year fifteen.
The 4% rule was a breakthrough in 1994 because it replaced guesswork with data. The next step is replacing a single number with a dynamic model. That's what sequence-aware, tax-adjusted planning is designed to do.
Model your own
scenario
The scenarios above use round numbers for clarity. Your retirement won't have round numbers. You'll have a specific mix of Roth and traditional accounts, a Social Security benefit based on your earnings history, a state tax rate based on where you live, and spending needs based on your actual life.
Here's how to model the 4% rule with Drawdown Arc — with real tax math included:
1. Calculate your 4% number. Take your total portfolio (Roth + traditional + taxable) and multiply by 0.04. For example, $1.2M × 4% = $48,000.
2. Enter it as your spending target. Put that $48,000 in the Annual Spending field. This is your after-tax spending — the money you actually live on.
3. The engine handles taxes automatically. Drawdown Arc grosses up every withdrawal to cover federal and state income taxes. If you need $48,000 after tax and you're pulling from a traditional 401(k), the engine might withdraw $56,000–$60,000 to cover the tax bill. You see the true cost of the 4% rule — not the pretax fiction that most calculators show.
4. Inflation is built in. Your $48,000 spending target increases each year by your chosen inflation rate, exactly as the 4% rule prescribes.
The projection table shows your withdrawals, taxes, and portfolio balance year by year through age 95+. You can see the year your portfolio peaks, the year withdrawals outpace growth, and whether adjusting your target spending by $5,000 changes the outcome by a decade. Most 4% rule calculators ignore taxes entirely — Drawdown Arc shows you what the rule actually costs.
Related guides