Can I retire at 70 with $750,000?
Possibly, but it depends on choices you have not made yet. Spending $60,000 a year, this plan lasted in 78% of 2,000 simulated futures.
It depends most on what you spend
| Annual spending | Probability of success | Median left at 90 | Worst 10% at 90 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $40,000 | 99% | $1.65 million | $489,665 |
| $60,000 | 78% | $611,452 | $0 |
| $80,000 | 33% | $0 | $0 |
This sits in the range where the plan works in most simulated futures and fails in a meaningful minority. That is not a reason to abandon it — it is a reason to know which levers you have. Most people in this band are one moderate adjustment away from the comfortable range: a slightly later start, a slightly lower spending floor, or a part-time year or two early on. The value of knowing the number is that you can choose the adjustment deliberately rather than discovering it at 78.
What would change this
- Waiting even one or two more years, which shortens the drawdown and grows the balance at the same time.
- Separating essential from discretionary spending, so a bad market year cuts the second and not the first.
- Claiming Social Security later, which raises the inflation-adjusted income floor you keep for the rest of your life.
- Any earned income at all in the first few years, which is worth far more than the same money later.
What we assumed
- You stop working at 70 — no further income or saving.
- $2,000 a month in Social Security from age 67.
- 7% average return with 15% volatility, and 3% average inflation.
- 2,000 simulated paths, each running to age 90.
Every one of those is an assumption, and the methodology page explains what the model does not capture — including long-term care and your actual tax situation. Computed 2026-08-20.
These are not your numbers
They are the numbers for a made-up person who happens to share your age and your balance. Run it with your own spending, your own Social Security estimate, and your own accounts — it is free and takes about two minutes.
Run it with my numbers →