@hank said,

But I’d have more money if I’d sunk 100% in PRWCX 25 years ago and followed with a “RipVanWinkle” act!

I stand at the launch pad of retirement (age 62) thinking that PRWCX, VWINX and a little Cash will provide a safe withdrawal (different than a safe withdrawal rate) in the first ten years of retirement. I am positioning about 1/3 of my portfolio in these two funds (plus 1 year of cash equivalent withdrawals). My hope is to derive both growth and income from these positions.
The remaining 2/3 will hopefully not be needed for 10 years and will be invested for growth (to help fund year 72 - year 92 ). Along the way, I hope to reallocate gains from this long term bucket back into these 2 funds (and replenish cash). I will deal with down markets by withdrawing a little less since I have other reliable monthly income. I am a fan of withdrawing fixed percentages rather than fix dollar amounts and letting the market dictate the ups and downs of the actual dollar amount (withdrawal).
A 4% withdrawal (based on the entire portfolio) from a fund like VWINX which has a MAXXDD of about 10% would mean a withdrawal haircut in a very bad year that equates to 3.6% (10% off of 4%). I can live with that as a number to plan around. I feel VWINX will work well in conjunction with cash (as an alternative withdrawal source) giving VWINX a 1 year recovery time if we have a MAXDD event. PRWCX will remain a 5 - 10 year position that will be milked or kept out to pasture depending on what the market offers. PRWCX's milk will be refrigerated into VWINX and Cash as needed.
Long time (2/3 of my portfolio) I want to invest in trends....healthcare, tech, and consumerism...trying to own the very best funds and the very best fund managers.

To help with forward planning for you and yours: ARTICLE

Electronically. These days, me too. Because how much of what you're being TOLD is ACTUALLY the case? Dubious proposition. Refer to @Ben's comments re: Vanguard, for instance. A different thread. Asset Transfers to Vanguard. When I opened a non-retirement, ordinary brokerage account with TRP some months ago, it was likewise way less than satisfactory. LONG hold on the phone. The agent wanted to impress me with how well SHE understood all of this sh... stuff, rather than specifically answer my very simple questions. On 3rd try, I got an Agent who understood, and did not fill the air with words, just to fill the air with words. Then the stock I chose to invest in went to feces. I swear there is criminal junk going on with the shorts and the arbitrage. But it's just a small bite of my money, and a dividend is due. I wait, and watch.

No deductions. None. And I assume the tax applies to all income. For all taxpayers including businesses, which is the subject of this thread.
So we eliminate the deduction that mutual funds get for passing through their earnings to investors. Make no mistake, that's a deduction that they get now. See IRC 26 USC § 852, that talks about "the deduction for dividends paid", including "capital gain dividends". Mutual funds will be taxed on their earnings.
And we eliminate the IRA deduction. That's an "above the line" deduction rather than an itemized deduction, but a deduction is a deduction. We want to keep things simple. Obviously HSA, FSA, 401k deductions, and so forth also get tossed.
And income is income, no special cases there either. In the above cited 26 USC § 852 is §852(b)(6). That excludes certain sales of appreciated property from being counted as income. Of course that special treatment has to go in pursuit of simplicity and fairness. That's the exclusion that enables ETFs to spin off capital gains without them being taxed. So now we tax the ETF in-kind transactions like all other income.
Regarding the suggested tax regimen generally, Milton Friedman was more considerate of the poor. In 1962 he proposed what he called a negative income tax. The amount paid on zero income would be negative, and taxes increased (at a flat rate) as one's income increased.
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/23/business/23scene.html
https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/negative-income-tax-explained

From Retirement Manifesto:

Below is every step I take during the course of a year while managing our money, along with a brief explanation and an estimate of the time required. Under each step, I’ve included links to previous articles which provide more details for those who would like to dig deeper.
In the conclusion, I’ll provide the final estimate of how much time I spend managing our money over the course of a year.
The final figure surprised me

how-much-time-i-spend-managing-our-money/

I'm sure this is welcome news to many.
When TRP changed the structure to their funds into two sections, I speculated to myself that there would be some re-openings of some of their popular funds.
They probably lost some investors due to the effects of old age.
The year end distributions are going to be fairly high, so those who might want to invest in a taxable account might want to wait until after distributions are paid.
I think that they will be changing managers in this fund as the present one is somewhere in his early sixties, nearing retirement. Another unknown is how the research team is being split? On the positive side, TRP hasn't disappointed me with their management.
I wouldn't be surprised if they had limited re-openings of a couple of their other closed funds. I have part of my Roth in PRWCX .

Simple calc for many of you, I am sure.
Panicked by high equity valuations and weak bond prospects, Joe decides to put his $1M retirement egg under the mattress, for keeps. He has 25y to live, he figures. He needs to take out $40k a year to live happily. (No heirs or charities, spend to zero.)
So he reckons he's all set if there were no inflation. But he knows that's not gonna happen.
So ... how much extra does he need to put under the mattress and leave there in order to draw $40k annually if inflation is 2.5% a year for 25y? How about if 3% ?

@msf said,
"- Inherited Roth IRAs have RMDs."
There is no Require Minimum Distribution for Inheirted IRAs, but instead, a Required Full Withdrawal following the 5 or 10 year rule. One could wait 10 years before making that one full required withdrawal providing an additional 10 years of tax free growth from the date of inheritance.
This article does a good job of explaining Inherited (Roth) IRAs:
https://fool.com/retirement/plans/inherited-iras/
1. A spouse (as a beneficiary) can rollover an Inherited Roth IRA (from a deceased spouse) and continue to enjoy no RMDs.
2. Withdraw the funds as a lump sum. You may withdraw all of the money from the original owner's IRA as a single lump sum. Doing so gives you a lot of money now, but also results in a high tax bill for the current year, unless you're withdrawing the funds from a Roth IRA that the original owner held for at least five years. In that case, you won’t owe any taxes on these withdrawals. However, if the owner didn’t have the account for at least five years, then you could owe income taxes on the Roth IRA earnings.
3. Use the five- or 10-year withdrawal method. The five- or 10-year withdrawal method enables you to withdraw money as often as you'd like and in whatever increments you choose, as long as the money is completely withdrawn within five or 10 years. If you fail to withdraw all the funds in time, then you'll pay a 50% penalty on whatever remains in the account.
You have five years to withdraw all the money from an inherited IRA if the account owner died in 2019 or earlier, and 10 years if they died in 2020 or later.
For all of us, this can be very confusing. If you have a specific scenario (question). I would suggest reader's ask their questions on the Ed Slott (Discussion Forum). It is a great IRA resource.
https://irahelp.com/phpBB

As I understand the IRS instructions, you have to use the total amount of all your IRAs to calculate the RMD.

Do not calculate in your Roth IRAs, but do include your Roth 401Ks as part of your RMD (though that portion would be tax free). Once the Roth 401K portion is distributed it loses it Roth status. All this can be avoided.

There are presently no RMD on Roth IRAs as it stand right now.
If I owned any Roth 401Ks I would roll them over into Roth IRA status and enjoy the benefits afford Roth IRAs.

You can avoid having to take future RMDs from a Roth 401(k) by rolling the money over to a Roth IRA. Roth IRAs are not subject to required minimum distributions. If some of your money is in a Roth 401(k) and some is in a traditional 401(k), roll the traditional 401(k) money into a traditional IRA and the Roth 401K money into a Roth IRA to avoid any tax complications. “That will make record keeping a whole lot easier,” says Stuart Ritter, a certified financial planner with T. Rowe Price.

Avoiding Required Minimum Distributions from Roth 401(k)s

Truth: "Yup - If I were running a retirement fund with a near limitless time horizon I’d feel the same way..."

In the same issue: "These Pros Aren’t Worried About Inflation”

From linked article:
“On the equity side, now I’m actually risking up,” said Elizabeth Burton, chief investment officer of Hawaii’s Employees’ Retirement System. “I don’t know how you make money, long term, without equities, anyway, but I don’t think now is the time to be taking less risk there.”
Yup - If I were running a retirement fund with a near limitless time horizon I’d feel the same way.
I do think there’s some credence to the low inflation / deflationary theory (technology plus demographics). But if that’s the case, than I’d say the run-up in a multitude of risk assets ought to burst sooner or later.

Howdy folks,
Responded earlier on my phone but the throttle monsters ate my postie.
Sorry about the typo. Indeed, my point is that Defined Contribution pensions can get pretty close to Defined Benefit pensions, IFF, there is a company match, there are investment choices, folks are educated on investing and they have sufficient time to accrue. Even when you're converting the old DB to a new DC pension, you can do it humanely and don't have to be assholes. When Michigan converted their state employees some 20-25 years ago, they forced everyone under 5 years. Above that you had a choice. They had a sliding scale but it was biased towards the retirement ages (i.e. 50, 55, 60, etc.). That said, the DC replacement started with 4% from the state and they will match your 3% up to 10% total. The best option I've seen for health insurance coverage is full for active duty employees and an medical savings account for retirement (with a match and investment choices). Damnit, it can work.
As for protocols to @Ben and @BenWP, sorry. This old geezer is trying but these newfangled computers . . . '-)
and so it goes,
peace and wear the damn mask,
rono

From Wikipedia -
In 1991 Buckley joined Vanguard as an assistant to company founder John C. Bogle. From 2001 to 2006 Buckley was Chief Information Officer, and from 2006 to 2012 he was head of the Retail Investor Group. He became Chief Investment Officer upon the retirement of Gus Sauter in 2013.
In 2017, Vanguard's Board of Directors unanimously elected Buckley to succeed F. William McNabb III as chief executive officer, effective January 2018.

Howdy folks,
Great discussion. Start with @msf and Ford raising his workers wages so they could afford to buy a Ford. Another classic was the GI Bill after WW2. It was simply a labor control device to slow the reentry of the GI's into the work force. After WW1, the GI's marched on WashDC for jobs and Uncle to call out active duty soldiers to quell the uprising. That said, what the GI Bill resulted in was an incredible investment in human capital which led the the posterity of the 50's and 60's. Both are example of Demand Side economics . . . which we need more of. Not because we're bleeding heart liberals or socialists or even nice guys. IT'S TO STIMULATE AGGREGATE DEMAND. Duh. That's what this Employment strike will result in. That's why the states that maintained the excess unemployment benefits had better economies than those that didn't. The extra bennies went to AGG Demand. And what is so brain dead, is that the republicans are so damn mean, they continually choose the wrong actions and shoot themselves in the foot.
@Ben and @oldJoe, Unions were and are a necessary evil. However, once they were founded, they became institutionalized and aren't much different today than management. Not unlike organized religion. Once established, they become more obsessed with preserving the institution than the membership.
@hank, all true about the demise of organized labor, etc. That said, a DC pension can be a good substitute for a DC pension but it has to be done right and at the beginning of employment and most often they are not. You can have decent benefits for employees and not have enormous legacy costs. My township has great benefits and no legacy costs. 403(b) with match and investment guidance and flexibility. Health care while working and health savings for retirement. It can be done, but you first have to give a shit about your employees.
We need more demand side economics. Raising the minimum wage would be perfect but it's going to have to be a grass roots movement (like a general strike) due to the inability of Washington to do anything right for the right reasons. Infrastructure? Huge. It's jobs. That's what people need and want. The reason why demand side econ is so superior to supply side is the Marginal Propensity to Consume. This is how a person saves or spends each additional dollar. Down around the bottom of the income ladder the MPC approaches 1.0. They are forced to spend (consume) every additional dollar. By consuming, they're buying stuff and then stuff has to be made. When the cost of capital is 0.0%, nothing will ever 'trickle down'.
And for every business with a Help Wanted sign in their window. PAY YOUR WORKERS MORE AND YOU WON'T HAVE THIS PROBLEM.
and so it goes,
peace and wear the damn mask,
rono

Sure it is (a crap shoot). Look at his conclusion:
“ Keep in mind that the 4% rule (or the 4.5% rule, or any X% rule) is a backward-looking observation that is meant to be used as a guideline. It is only a rule of thumb. It makes no promises or guarantees about the future. Allow it to provide a framework for expectations, but remain flexible, particularly in regards to spending in retirement.”

From Yahoo :
Allowab (non-advisory)
Commonwealth Universe
Mid Atlantic Capital Group
Pershing Retirement Plan Network
Raymond James
Raymond James WRAP Eligible
Vanguard NTF

SS Primer:
when-take-social-security-complete-guide

Here's an NPR piece about how Ford raising his workers' wages helped to create the middle class. It concludes with the statement:

[A] century after Henry Ford started paying $5 a day, it's not at all clear that today's employers and workers can reach a similar bargain and reboot a 21st century version of the working middle class.

https://www.npr.org/2014/01/27/267145552/the-middle-class-took-off-100-years-ago-thanks-to-henry-ford
Just maybe it can happen.
This will benefit not only workers now but when they retire. The Social Security Primary Insurance Amount (what you'd get if you retired at your Full Retirement Age) is based on your past earnings, adjusted to the year you can first retire (minus 2). That adjustment is determined not by inflation, but rather by the rise in average wages.
So as the quality of life for workers rises over time (the so called "American Dream"), so does the value of one's SS benefits.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/awifactors.html
I'm cautiously optimistic about consumer discretionary. Not the Tiffany's, but the Disney's. Sure, costs at places like Disneyland will rise, but as in Ford's time maybe now many people will be able to afford that vacation or that night out at Applebee's that they've been putting off. And not just because of the pandemic.

Thanks Edmond...great insights! Full disclosure, our household has 3 retirement accounts currently - IRA Rollover (Me), IRA Rollover (Wife) and a 401k (Me at my current Employer)
The 3 Bond Funds I own (1 in each) are DODIX, BCOIX and GIBLX...
GIBLX is in my 401k and this account s my active/tactical account where I take more risk and move $$$ around. The Rollovers are pretty stable and I like to make minor adjustments.
Next move is to find a Fund to pair with GIBLX in my 401k...I've owned PIMIX in the past and have looked at PTIAX too. I have been tracking TCEIX but I can get that exposure with PIMIX...
Bond Funds are not as easy to research with their returns all muted in the past 5 years and not knowing whats under the hood. Cash isn't cash and Gov't issues could be multiple securities. Derivatives, Sovereign/Non-Dollar denominated debt...