What The ‘Die With Zero’ Philosophy Gets Right—And Where Planning Still Matters

This article was originally published on Forbes.com on April 22, 2026.

Written by:
Chad Waddoups
Vice President of Wealth Management

Money compounds. Time doesn’t.

This tension sits at the center of nearly every financial conversation today. While older generations have become effective at building and preserving wealth, I find it compelling that so much energy is spent planning what happens after we are gone, yet far less time is spent asking whether we are deploying money intentionally while we are still here.

The growing interest in the “die with zero” philosophy reflects a subtle shift in that mindset. At its core, this idea challenges the assumption that financial success is defined solely by how much we build. Instead, it raises a more human question: Are we aligning money with health, energy and relationships while we still have them? I understand why these questions resonate and why they make people uneasy. But without structure, it can be misunderstood. The goal is not recklessness—it’s alignment.

Why The Idea Resonates Now

In recent years, I have noticed many people who are on track financially but still feel unsettled. Their savings rates are strong. Their retirement projections appear solid. And yet there is often a quiet sense that they are deferring their lives.

The pandemic accelerated that awareness. People saw how quickly circumstances can change and how fragile long-term assumptions can be. For others, it is the fatigue of decades spent delaying gratification—with the promise that enjoyment will come later.

The die with zero philosophy gives language to that tension. It reframes money as a tool rather than a scorecard, suggesting that wealth should serve life rather than simply accumulate alongside it. Still, the idea can be interpreted too narrowly.

What The Philosophy Gets Right—And Where It Is Misunderstood

What resonates most with me is the emphasis on intentionality. Money that is never used cannot improve comfort, deepen relationships or create meaningful memories. In that sense, unused wealth carries diminishing value, especially when it is preserved long after it could have had the greatest impact.

Confusion arises when a conclusion is made that you can ignore longevity risk or abandon prudence. The following factors remain relevant: Healthcare costs are uncertain, market volatility is inevitable, people are living longer, and retirement can span decades. Planning for those realities is not fear-based; it is responsible.

I believe the die with zero philosophy works best not as a literal objective of reaching zero, but as a counterbalance to excessive caution. It pushes back against saving reflexively without revisiting whether that caution still serves a purpose. In my experience, the resistance to spending is rarely mathematical. More often, it is psychological.

The Timing Problem: Money, Health And Capacity

One of the most powerful truths embedded in this philosophy is the mismatch between when wealth and physical capacity peak. I have seen wealth crest later in life, while health and stamina are strongest much earlier. Experiences get postponed for “someday”—extended travel, time with grandchildren, long-imagined adventures—only to discover that mobility or energy have shifted. A trip may still be affordable at age 75, but it’s not the same trip it would have been at age 60.

What complicates this further is the way people are raised to think about money. I grew up watching a generation equate financial virtue with restraint. Many baby boomers were taught that saving was strength, debt was dangerous and spending—even when affordable—required justification. That mindset created discipline, but it also created hesitation.

I see the contrast at home. My daughter feels anxious whenever her bank account drops below a set minimum. Although she has income and opportunity ahead of her, that number represents security in her mind. Her generation has faced different uncertainties, and that shapes how she experiences money.

These early lessons stay with us. Whether we were taught to hold tightly or to stay fluid, those instincts follow us into midlife and retirement. Saving is no longer just a strategy; it’s an identity. Shifting from an approach of preservation to purposeful spending can feel far more uncomfortable than the spreadsheets suggest.

From Accumulation To Alignment

This philosophy does not diminish the importance of saving early, investing consistently and protecting assets against risk. Alignment requires a different framework. It asks not just how much is being saved, but what that money is intended to support. It requires clarity about a person’s season of life, health, family structure and priorities.

For individuals in their peak earning years, alignment may mean accelerating certain experiences while children are still at home or physical capacity is strong. For retirees, it may mean granting themselves permission to upgrade comfort, support loved ones or pursue long-delayed interests without feeling that each withdrawal represents failure.

To me, financial success should not be evaluated solely by what remains at the end. It should also reflect how effectively resources support a life well lived.

Applying The Idea Responsibly

Applying this philosophy responsibly requires structure. Essential expenses in retirement should be supported by income sources such as Social Security, pensions or conservative withdrawal strategies.

From there, conservative projections can test longevity assumptions, market downturns and healthcare variability. When plans demonstrate resilience, confidence increases and spending decisions feel less threatening.

Flexibility also matters. Rather than rigid spending ceilings, adaptive ranges can allow for greater freedom in strong years and moderation in weaker ones. Regular reviews help ensure that plans evolve as health, priorities and family dynamics change.

A Better Question

For decades, the dominant financial question has been, “How much is enough?” This question still matters, but it is incomplete. A more important question may be, “Am I using my money at the right times in my life?”

I have met disciplined savers who worry constantly about running out. More often than not, their greater risk is not financial ruin but reaching the end of life with resources unused and experiences unrealized.

Since money compounds and time does not, plan for both realities. That way wealth shifts from something preserved to something purposefully deployed.

The information provided here is not investment, tax or financial advice. You should consult with a licensed professional for advice concerning your specific situation.