You Have $5 Million for Retirement. The Hard Part Is Knowing How to Spend It
Accumulating $5 million for retirement sounds like the point at which financial planning should become easy. The mortgage may be manageable or gone, children are often financially independent, and the investment balance appears large enough to support almost any reasonable lifestyle. Yet affluent retirees frequently reach this stage without being able to answer the most basic question in the entire plan: How much do we actually spend?
That number matters more than nearly every sophisticated investment product that can be added afterward. A household spending $100,000 a year with $5 million in financial assets faces a fundamentally different retirement problem from one spending $250,000, even though both begin with the same portfolio. Without an accurate spending target, projections about retirement dates, Roth conversions, charitable gifts and inheritances become exercises in precision built on an unreliable foundation.
The solution is to work backward from the life the household actually wants. Estimate sustainable spending first, identify how much Social Security, pensions and other recurring income will cover, and then determine what the investment portfolio must supply. Once that cash-flow requirement is understood, the tax strategy becomes much easier because withdrawals and Roth conversions can be designed around actual needs rather than arbitrary account-balance targets.
Retirement Planning Starts With Spending, Not Net Worth
High earners often know their salary, investment balance and annual contribution almost perfectly while having only a vague idea what leaves the checking account each year. That can work during the accumulation phase because strong income masks inefficient spending, but retirement removes the salary and exposes every assumption underneath the lifestyle.
A household may believe it spends $100,000 annually because that is what regular monthly expenses suggest. Add property taxes, travel, gifts, insurance premiums, vehicle replacements, home renovations and taxes, however, and the real number might be $140,000 or $160,000. Retirement planning should therefore distinguish recurring lifestyle expenses from irregular but predictable large purchases rather than pretending the latter do not exist because they do not arrive monthly.
The difference can dramatically change the required portfolio withdrawal. A retiree with $5 million spending $100,000 annually before Social Security is initially drawing just 2% of the portfolio, while a $250,000 lifestyle requires 5% before any other income is considered. Those are entirely different levels of dependency on investment returns and deserve different portfolio, tax and retirement-date decisions.
This is why sophisticated planning should begin with bank and credit-card records rather than a Monte Carlo simulation. The model becomes useful only after the household knows what lifestyle it is being asked to finance.
The Biggest Retirement Risk May Be Saving Too Much in the Wrong Account
A household with $5 million can have a surprisingly large tax problem if most of the wealth sits inside traditional 401(k)s and IRAs. The account balance looks like the retiree’s money, but a portion effectively belongs to the government because withdrawals are generally taxed as ordinary income.
Tax deferral was valuable during high-earning years because contributions reduced taxable income and allowed the entire pretax balance to compound. The complication arrives when a large account continues growing into retirement while spending remains relatively modest. Eventually required minimum distributions can force taxable withdrawals even if the retiree does not need the money.
That is where Roth conversions become relevant. Moving traditional retirement assets to a Roth intentionally creates taxable income today, but it can reduce the traditional balance that generates future mandatory distributions and create a pool of assets whose qualified withdrawals can generally be taken tax-free.
The objective should not be eliminating the traditional IRA simply because Roth accounts are attractive. The goal is determining which dollars are cheaper to tax today than tomorrow and converting only when the expected lifetime economics justify paying the bill early.
The Years After Work Can Be the Most Valuable Tax Years
A high-income professional earning several hundred thousand dollars annually may have little reason to complete major Roth conversions while still working. Once salary disappears, however, taxable income can fall abruptly even though the household remains extremely wealthy.
For 2026, married couples filing jointly enter the 22% federal bracket above $100,800 of taxable income and remain there through $211,400, while the 24% bracket extends from there through $403,550. Those ranges can provide substantial room for intentional conversions after employment income ends, particularly before Social Security and required distributions increase the tax return later.
Consider a couple with several million dollars in traditional retirement accounts but only $120,000 of annual spending. They may be able to fund part of the lifestyle from taxable savings while converting additional traditional IRA assets into the 22% or 24% bracket. Paying those rates voluntarily can be sensible if projections show that future RMDs or a surviving spouse would otherwise face similar or higher marginal rates.
This retirement-to-RMD period is valuable because the household still controls when income appears. Once mandatory withdrawals begin, some of that control disappears, which is why waiting until the first RMD to think about Roth conversions can waste years of tax flexibility.
Living From the Traditional IRA Can Sometimes Beat Converting Everything
Roth conversions receive so much attention that retirees can forget a simpler strategy: spend traditional retirement money. A household already needing $100,000 or $150,000 annually may be able to satisfy part of that lifestyle through planned IRA withdrawals rather than converting money merely to withdraw it from the Roth later.
The tax result can be similar because both withdrawals and conversions create ordinary income, but the economic purpose is different. A withdrawal provides spending cash and naturally reduces future RMD exposure, while a conversion preserves the money for future growth in the Roth. If the retiree expects to spend the money relatively soon, paying conversion tax merely to move it between retirement accounts may add little value.
A strong plan therefore separates money likely to be consumed from money likely to compound for decades or pass to heirs. Traditional assets can be used intentionally to fund lower-tax retirement years, while excess amounts above spending needs can be evaluated for conversion.
That approach also prevents an unnecessary obsession with the Roth balance itself. The retiree is not trying to win a contest for the largest tax-free account but to maximize the after-tax value of the entire household balance sheet.
Spending $100,000 With $5 Million Creates a Different Problem
Some affluent retirees are remarkable savers even after they have accumulated more than enough. Someone with $5 million who lives comfortably on roughly $100,000 annually has a spending rate low enough that the portfolio may continue growing despite withdrawals.
That sounds ideal, but it can create a tax and estate problem rather than a sustainability problem. If investment growth consistently exceeds withdrawals, the traditional retirement balance can become larger with age instead of smaller, increasing future RMDs and potentially leaving children large taxable inherited accounts.
This is where financial planning shifts from asking whether the money lasts to asking what the money is for. If the household has no desire to increase spending dramatically, the excess wealth will eventually go to heirs, charity or taxes. Those destinations should therefore become explicit planning decisions instead of accidental outcomes.
Affluent retirees sometimes need permission to spend more rather than another strategy for saving. A plan that maximizes ending wealth while preventing people from enjoying a retirement they clearly can afford is mathematically successful but potentially life-planning failure.
Future Tax Rates Matter, but Nobody Knows Them
Roth-conversion pitches frequently rely on one assumption: future tax rates will be higher. That outcome is possible, particularly given the federal government’s long-term fiscal pressures, but it cannot be known with enough certainty to justify paying any current tax rate merely out of fear.
The 2025 tax legislation made many individual provisions from the 2017 tax law permanent and established the 2026 bracket structure now in effect. Married couples filing jointly remain below the 32% bracket until taxable income exceeds $403,550 in 2026. Those current rates give planners concrete numbers for today’s conversion, while the future remains a range of scenarios.
The best analysis tests several possibilities. One projection can assume roughly similar real tax rates, another can model higher future rates, and another can consider lower rates or changes in deductions and account rules. A conversion that improves the plan across several scenarios is more compelling than one that succeeds only if Congress eventually raises rates dramatically.
Tax uncertainty is itself a reason to own Roth assets, but diversification is different from prediction. A mix of taxable, traditional and Roth accounts preserves flexibility if future tax law develops differently from today’s expectations.
The Surviving Spouse Can Face a Much Bigger Tax Problem
Married retirees often analyze Roth conversions using joint tax brackets without considering how abruptly those brackets change after one spouse dies. The surviving spouse generally files as single while potentially inheriting most of the same retirement accounts.
That can produce the so-called widow’s tax penalty. Household expenses usually decline somewhat but rarely fall by half, while traditional IRA balances, investment income and required distributions may remain substantial. The survivor therefore can have a similar amount of taxable income compressed into much narrower brackets.
For 2026, the 24% bracket begins above $105,700 for single taxpayers but not until above $211,400 for married couples filing jointly. A conversion that appears optional while both spouses are alive can consequently become much more valuable when measured against the tax environment the surviving spouse may eventually face.
This is another reason retirement tax planning should model the household after the first death. A plan optimized exclusively for years when both spouses are filing jointly can leave the survivor with the least flexibility precisely when managing the finances has become more difficult.
Charitable Giving Can Solve More Than One Problem
Affluent retirees who already intend to give substantial money to charity have an additional planning opportunity. Charitable strategies can redirect wealth that might otherwise create taxes while supporting organizations the family genuinely values.
A donor-advised fund can be useful when someone wants a current charitable deduction while deciding over time which charities ultimately receive the money. The donor contributes assets to the sponsoring organization and can generally recommend future grants, but the contribution is irrevocable once made. For households with highly appreciated investments, contributing securities rather than selling them first can also avoid realizing the embedded capital gain personally when the applicable requirements are satisfied.
A charitable remainder trust serves a different purpose. The donor transfers assets to an irrevocable trust, receives income for life or a specified term, and the remaining assets ultimately pass to qualified charities. IRS rules require the charitable remainder interest to equal at least 10% of the initial net fair market value contributed, and payment structures must meet additional statutory requirements.
The difference matters because a CRUT should not be treated as a more sophisticated donor-advised fund. It is an irrevocable split-interest trust involving income payments, charitable commitments, tax filings and administrative complexity, making it more appropriate for specific large-asset situations rather than ordinary annual giving.
Estate Taxes May Not Be the Immediate Problem People Assume
A household with $5 million may be wealthy but still far below the current federal estate-tax exemption. For 2026, the federal basic exclusion amount is $15 million per individual, subject to applicable rules and portability planning for married couples. State estate or inheritance taxes can create additional considerations depending on where the family lives.
That does not make estate planning unnecessary. Beneficiary designations, trusts, powers of attorney, healthcare documents and decisions about who receives which assets matter regardless of whether federal estate tax will ever be owed.
Income tax can actually be the larger legacy issue for a household in this wealth range. Children inheriting large traditional retirement accounts may face taxable distributions during their own high-earning years, while the parents may have had opportunities to convert those assets under more favorable retirement tax brackets.
Estate planning therefore should not begin with a fear of a 40% federal estate tax that may never apply. It should begin with the actual family goals, the tax character of the assets and how easily those assets transfer to the intended beneficiaries.
Retirement Success Is Not the Largest Ending Balance
Financial models can encourage an accumulation mentality long after accumulation has stopped being the objective. A couple that began with $5 million, spent cautiously and died with $12 million may appear extraordinarily successful on paper.
That conclusion depends on what they wanted the money to accomplish. If they hoped to leave a major inheritance or fund charities, the ending balance may represent success. If they postponed travel, generosity and experiences they could comfortably afford because they remained afraid to spend principal, the same balance tells a different story.
The spending plan therefore needs a purpose. Some retirees want to preserve real principal, others want to leave a specific dollar amount and others are comfortable using most of their wealth during their lifetimes. Each objective produces a different appropriate withdrawal and investment strategy.
This is why knowing the annual budget is only the first step. The household also needs to know what portion of the portfolio is truly intended for personal consumption and what portion has already become legacy capital in everything but name.
A Large Portfolio Creates More Choices, Not Fewer Decisions
Wealth removes many financial constraints, but it does not eliminate the need to choose. A retiree with $5 million can afford more mistakes than someone with $500,000, yet the dollar consequences of inefficient taxes, poorly structured charitable gifts and unnecessary investment complexity can also become much larger.
The strongest plans are often surprisingly simple. Determine actual spending, identify reliable income, withdraw strategically from traditional accounts, convert excess pretax assets when the marginal tax rate is attractive and reserve Roth assets for periods when tax-free flexibility has unusually high value.
Charitable and estate strategies should then serve genuine goals rather than function as products in search of a problem. A donor-advised fund can simplify giving, a charitable remainder trust can solve a specific income-and-charity objective, and Roth conversions can reduce future tax concentration when the math supports them.
The hardest part of retiring with $5 million is rarely making the money last. It is deciding what portion should be spent, what portion should be taxed now, what portion should be protected for later and what portion should eventually belong to someone else. Once those answers are clear, the investment portfolio finally becomes what it was always supposed to be: a tool for funding the plan rather than the plan itself.
Intended for educational purposes only. Opinions expressed are not intended as investment advice or to predict future performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Neither the information presented, nor any opinion expressed constitutes a solicitation for the purchase or sale of any security. Consult your financial professional before making any investment decisions. Opinions expressed are subject to change without notice.
IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES:
• Investment Advisory and Financial Planning Services are offered through Pure Financial Advisors, LLC. A Registered Investment Advisor.
• Pure Financial Advisors, LLC. does not offer tax or legal advice. Consult with a tax advisor or attorney regarding specific situations.
• Opinions expressed are subject to change without notice and are not intended as investment advice or to predict future performance.
• Investing involves risk including the potential loss of principal. No investment strategy can guarantee a profit or protect against loss in periods of declining values.
• All information is believed to be from reliable sources; however, we make no representation as to its completeness or accuracy.
• Intended for educational purposes only and are not intended as individualized advice or a guarantee that you will achieve a desired result. Before implementing any strategies discussed you should consult your tax and financial advisors.
