Nat Eliason is wrong

	A	B	D	E	F	G	H	I
1			Year	Salary (nom)	Expenses (nom)	NW (nominal)	Target NW (nom)	Ratio
2	Initial Salary	100	0			0	1875	0.00%
3	inflation rate	3%	1	100	75	25	1875	1.33%
4	expected returns (nominal dollars)	7%	2	100	77	50	1931	2.56%
5	Initial saving rate	25%	3	100	80	73	1989	3.69%
6	Initial Expenses	75	4	100	82	97	2049	4.71%
7	SWR	4%	5	100	84	119	2110	5.64%
8	Initial Target Net Worth	1875	6	100	87	140	2174	6.45%
9			7	100	90	161	2239	7.17%
10	Target is not 25 times income, but 25 times expenses. We need to talk in nominal dollar. Mixing nominal and inflation adjusted is a mess. Taking "nominal" numbers into account means that the target is moving. It's 25 times (i.e. 1/SWR) current expenses, which are growing by inflation. if you never get a raise, you're becoming poor. At one point, if expenses grow with inflation, you'll stop saving and start spending. So this model is broken. Yes, we could use "real dollars" but it would be more complicated. next...		8	100	92	180	2306	7.79%
11			9	100	95	197	2375	8.30%
12			10	100	98	213	2446	8.71%
13			11	100	101	227	2520	9.02%
14			12	100	104	239	2595	9.22%
15			13	100	107	249	2673	9.32%
16			14	100	110	256	2754	9.31%
17			15	100	113	261	2836	9.20%
18			16	100	117	262	2921	8.98%
19			17	100	120	260	3009	8.65%
20			18	100	124	255	3099	8.22%
21			19	100	128	245	3192	7.67%
22			20	100	132	230	3288	7.01%
23			21	100	135	211	3386	6.23%
24			22	100	140	186	3488	5.34%
25			23	100	144	156	3593	4.33%
26			24	100	148	118	3700	3.20%
27			25	100	152	74	3811	1.95%
28			26	100	157	22	3926	0.57%
29			27	100	162	-38	4044	-0.93%
30			28	100	167		4165
31			29	100	172		4290
32			30	100	177		4419
33			31
34			32
35			33
36			34
37			35
38			36
39			37
40			38
41			39
42			40
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100