Can we build a great family life for £2,500 a month?  June spending: £2,333  £167 under our £2,500 target  We did it!  For the first time in this ‘rebranded’ series, we’ve managed to get our monthly spending below £2,500.  We spent £2,333 in June, putting us £167 below our target. The biggest reason is a much quieter month for entertainment and miscellaneous spending, although food is still higher than we would like.  Obviously one month under £2,500 doesn’t prove that we’ve cracked it, but it’s encouraging to see that the target is at least achievable while we’re living our normal family life.  And we’ve even managed to start building a climbing wall in the living room…  June at a glance  June 2026 Our target£2,500 Actual spending£2,333 Over/under target-£167

Don’t miss an episode of our podcast, Personal Finance for Long-Term Investors. Available on all podcast players. Here’s the latest episode: Small change, giant impact. One challenge in financial planning is when a “small” decision creates much bigger than we assumed. “End of Plan” is one such decision. Some planning software might call it “planning horizon” or “life expectancy” or any number of other euphemisms for “when might you die?” Yes, death is scary to consider. And it’s obvious how our lifespan affects our finances. The longer we live, the more money we need to live a successful retirement. But there’s so much more! If you’ve ever dabbled with financial planning software (Boldin, Pralana, eMoney, RightCapital, Empower, etc.), you might be unaware of the unintended side effects that “age at death” is creating in your plan. Defining the “Problem”… The (frequent) “problem” I witness follows this logic: Running out of money is a scary idea. I don’t want to underestimate when we’ll die. I’ll overestimate instead…I’ll live until 90. My wife, 95. Boom. I’ve “solved” the problem of running out of money. [Narrator: But they were completely unaware of the unintended side effects…] I agree that it’s important to “stress test” whether you’ll run out of money. Changing your assumed age of death is a good idea. But what else are people missing? Let’s dive into what people often miss. Side Effect 1: Social Security Claiming Extending your End of Plan to age ~85+ almost assuredly pushes your Social Security claiming strategy out to age 70. If you live a long time, you wouldn’t want to claim Social Security early. This one is straightforward. In fact, it might be less of an “unintended side effect” and more of a “known headliner.” Plenty of couples should be claiming Social Security before 70 — at least for one of the two spouses. But if you model your End of Plans out at 85, 90, etc., then the planning software might encourage you both to delay until age 70. Side Effect 2: Roth Conversions Roth conversions are tricky. Decades of unknowns lie ahead, and you need to account for them in today’s Roth conversion math. It’s a gray area. Nevertheless, what’s the effect of assuming someone lives until age 95? The main effect is that said person would have 20+ years of required minimum distributions, the last of which would be more than 10% of their account value. These RMDs would push this person into higher and higher tax brackets, likely making present-day Roth conversions more and more attractive. Said succinctly: later death = more Roth conversions today. But if that same person dies at 75? Roth conversions might be outright bad. If they die at 80? Perhaps much smaller Roth conversions would be appropriate. The choice of modeling death at age 85, 90, or 95 can encourage