role: assistant

text:
They’re today’s numbers in the sense that they use the figures you and Lisa are discussing now:

- Lisa allowance: `~$17,000/mo` to `~$19,500/mo`
- Your fairness benchmark: `50%`
- Retirement age: `67`
- Asset math using current withdrawal-rate planning ranges

They are not “today’s numbers” in the sense of:
- inflation-adjusted future dollars
- a court-calculated figure
- a market-priced annuity quote

So: current benchmark math, yes. Final real-world target, not yet.


role: user

text: no, i mean w/r/t inflation.


text:
No. The `$2M-$3M` figures I gave were basically in **today’s dollars / today’s purchasing power**.

If you want the target stated in **age-67 nominal dollars**, you should inflate it forward about `11` years.

Rough conversion:

- `2.0%` inflation: multiply by `1.24`
- `2.5%` inflation: multiply by `1.31`
- `3.0%` inflation: multiply by `1.38`
- `4.0%` inflation: multiply by `1.54`

So:

- `$2.0M` today becomes about:
  - `$2.49M` at `2.0%`
  - `$2.62M` at `2.5%`
  - `$2.77M` at `3.0%`
  - `$3.08M` at `4.0%`

- `$2.5M` today becomes about:
  - `$3.11M`
  - `$3.28M`
  - `$3.46M`
  - `$3.85M`

- `$3.0M` today becomes about:
  - `$3.73M`
  - `$3.94M`
  - `$4.15M`
  - `$4.62M`

So if you mean “equivalent to today’s purchasing power at age 67,” then yes, the real target is higher than the raw `$2M-$3M` numbers.

Two useful anchors:
- The Fed’s current longer-run inflation projection is `2.0%` PCE inflation:
  https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcprojtabl20251210.htm
- BLS’s CPI calculator is the standard government tool for consumer-price inflation context:
  https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

Practical takeaway:
- `$2M` is a **today-dollar floor**
- in future dollars by `67`, that floor is more like `~$2.5M-$3.1M` depending on inflation

If you want, I can recast your whole retirement position in either `today dollars` or `age-67 dollars` so it stays internally consistent.


text: no, today's dollars is fine.  so i should ask for $2.5M for retirement.  i can't help but notice that's exactl 50% of the trust corpus.


text:
Yes. If you’re keeping everything in today’s dollars, `~$2.5M` is a coherent **fairness anchor** for retirement security.

But I would be careful about the way you frame it.

What I think:
- `~$2.0M` is the rough floor where a `support ends at 67` plan starts to become serious.
- `~$2.5M` is a more defensible **actual ask** if you do not want to negotiate from the bottom edge.
- `~$3.0M` is closer to fully preserving your stronger marital-expectation theory.

And yes: `2.5M` happens to be `50%` of a `5M` corpus.

I would **not** emphasize that connection.

Reason:
- it makes your ask sound like an indirect claim on trust principal
- that invites the wrong fight
- your stronger framing is: `this is the retirement-security math, in today’s dollars, based on our marital expectation and my current position`

So:
- ask for `~$2.5M` as the retirement-security benchmark if support stops at `67`
- do **not** say “because it’s half the corpus”
- say “because that’s what it takes to avoid a cliff and provide real security”

That is a much stronger position.


text: and will they push back on the $3M as being too high?


text:
Yes. Almost certainly.

`$3M` is where I would expect immediate pushback, because:

- it starts to look less like “retirement equalization” and more like “half the trust in disguise”
- it is farther above what a Missouri court is likely to frame as baseline maintenance
- it is a round, psychologically big number

That does **not** mean it’s irrational.
It means it is a strong anchor and an easy number for them to attack.

So my read is:

- `~$2.0M`
  - defensible floor
  - still substantial
  - harder for them to dismiss as fantasy

- `~$2.5M`
  - strong but still pretty defensible
  - probably the best balance between “serious ask” and “not obviously theatrical”

- `~$3.0M`
  - very likely to draw “that’s too high / beyond court reality” pushback immediately
  - still usable as an anchor, but you should expect resistance

So if your goal is:
- `maximize fairness leverage` -> `$3M` is usable
- `sound firm but sane` -> `$2.5M` is probably the better number

If you want the blunt version:
- yes, they will push back on `$3M`
- they will probably push back on `$2.5M` too
- but `$2.5M` is much easier to defend as “this is serious retirement math, not punishment”


text: and why is $2.5M serious retirement math?


text:
Because in today’s dollars, `~$2.5M` is roughly what it takes to generate a durable retirement income in the neighborhood you say the marriage implicitly contemplated.

Using simple withdrawal math:

- At `4%`, `$2.5M` supports about `100k/yr`
- At `5%`, it supports about `125k/yr`

That sits right on top of the income range you’ve been pointing to:
- `50%` of `17k/mo` = `102k/yr`
- `50%` of `19.5k/mo` = `117k/yr`

So `$2.5M` is “serious retirement math” because it is not an arbitrary round number. It is the capital base that corresponds to:
- your stated retirement benchmark
- your age (`56`)
- your desired retirement age (`67`)
- the fact that you do not already have retirement assets built up

In other words:
- `$2.0M` is closer to the minimum that might barely work
- `$2.5M` is where the numbers start to line up with the actual income benchmark you’re asserting
- `$3.0M` gives more cushion and more fully protects against downside / lower withdrawal rates

So the short answer is:
- `$2.5M` is serious because it roughly capitalizes a `~$100k-$120k` retirement income floor in today’s dollars.

That is why it is much stronger to frame it as:
- `capital needed to support the retirement-income benchmark`
and not:
- `half the trust corpus`


text: is $120k retirement income a reasonable ask?


text:
Yes. In your facts, `~$120k/yr` is a reasonable **fairness ask**.

Why:
- it is not some luxury number you pulled out of the air
- it is just `50%` of the approximate `19.5k/mo` stream you’ve been discussing
- it reflects the marital standard you say you both implicitly planned around
- you are not asking to exceed the stream, only to share it

What I would not say is that `120k/yr` is a clearly likely **court-ordered baseline**.
That is a different question.

So again the split is:

- `Reasonable as fairness benchmark?` Yes.
- `Reasonable as mediated opening position?` Yes.
- `Likely as clean courtroom outcome?` Less likely.

If Lisa says it sounds high, the answer is simple:
- it sounds high only because the underlying allowance is high
- but `50%` of the stream is not an extravagant theory if the whole premise is that the stream was your shared retirement backstop

So yes: `~$120k/yr` is a reasonable ask if your frame is fairness and marital expectation.

If you want the sharper version:
- `120k/yr` is not an aggressive fantasy number
- it is simply what your own stated benchmark implies


text: ok.  Lisa is asking for hard numbers.  what should i say to her?


text:
I’d keep it concrete and non-argumentative:

```text
You asked for hard numbers, so here they are.

I would like to retire at 67.

In today’s dollars, the retirement income benchmark I’m using is about $120,000 per year. That is roughly equivalent to what I understood we were implicitly planning to share during the marriage.

If the structure ends at 67 rather than continuing beyond that, then the corresponding retirement asset target is about $2.5 million in today’s dollars. That is the level I think would be needed for me to have real retirement security rather than a cliff.

I’m not saying it has to be achieved in only one way. But those are the concrete numbers I’m using when I think about what would be fair.
```

Why this version works:
- it answers her exact question
- it gives both an income target and an asset target
- it uses `today’s dollars`, which avoids inflation confusion
- it does not reopen the whole `law vs fairness` fight in the same message

If you want, I can tighten it further.


text: ok - can you create a document that reflects this position?


text: I’m locating the right home for this so it lands with the other legal position docs, then I’ll write it as a clean one-page statement.


text: I’ve got the repo root. Polling the file lists now so I can drop this into the existing legal structure instead of inventing a new mess.


text: I found the existing mediator case note. I’m opening that before I write so the new document complements it instead of restating the same ground.


text: There’s already an `analysis` area for this exact kind of thing. I’m opening the retirement-equalization notes and then I’ll write a dated position memo there.


text: I’ve got the shape. I’m writing a dated position memo in `legal/records/analysis/` with the concrete benchmarks: retire at `67`, `~$120k/yr` in today’s dollars, and `~$2.5M` if support ends at `67`.


text: The memo is written. I’m giving it one read-through now to make sure it says exactly what we just agreed, not some lawyerly mutation of it.


text:
Created `legal/records/analysis/2026-03-12_retirement_security_position_today_dollars.md`.

It captures:
- retire at `67`
- `~$120k/year` retirement benchmark in today’s dollars
- `~$2.5M` asset target if support ends at `67`
- why that is fairness math, not a claim to trust corpus

If you want, next I can turn this into:
1. a cleaner mediator-facing note, or
2. a shorter text/email version for Lisa.


text: can you show me the document?


text:
`legal/records/analysis/2026-03-12_retirement_security_position_today_dollars.md`

```md
# Retirement Security Position (Today-Dollars Benchmark)

Date: 2026-03-12

Status: Working position note for mediation / lawyer discussion.

## Core Position

- I would like to retire at age `67`.
- In today's dollars, the retirement-income benchmark I am using is `~$120,000/year`.
- That benchmark reflects my understanding that, during the marriage, Lisa's
  retirement-positioned income would ultimately be shared.
- If the settlement structure ends at `67` rather than continuing beyond it,
  the corresponding retirement asset target is `~$2.5 million` in today's
  dollars.

## Why This Is The Benchmark

- This marriage operated as an integrated economic partnership.
- We did not build conventional retirement savings.
- Instead, marital resources were used for the household and for Snow Day.
- My understanding throughout the marriage was that Lisa's inheritance /
  allowance would function as our long-term retirement backstop.
- If we are now translating that shared expectation into a concrete retirement
  benchmark, an equitable starting point is `50%` of the retirement income
  stream we were implicitly planning around.

## Hard Numbers

- Lisa's allowance stream has been discussed in the range of
  `~$17,000-$19,500/month`.
- `50%` of `~$19,500/month` is `~$9,750/month`, or `~$117,000/year`.
- Rounded, that produces a retirement-income benchmark of `~$120,000/year`
  in today's dollars.

## Why `~$2.5M` Is A Serious Retirement Target

- A `~$120,000/year` retirement-income target implies a substantial capital
  base if support stops at `67`.
- In today's dollars, `~$2.5M` is a reasonable benchmark because it roughly
  capitalizes a `~$100,000-$120,000/year` retirement-income floor.
- This is not a claim to trust principal. It is a retirement-security benchmark
  for settlement modeling.
- `~$2.0M` is closer to the minimum level where a `support ends at 67`
  structure begins to look serious.
- `~$2.5M` is a more realistic fairness target because it is not built from the
  bottom edge.

## Important Clarification

- I am not saying the settlement must take the form of a single `$2.5M`
  transfer.
- I am saying that if support ends at `67`, the economic result needs to leave
  me with retirement security in that neighborhood.
- That result could be reached through different structures:
  - ongoing support,
  - a long fixed-term structure,
  - a hybrid of monthly support plus asset equalization,
  - or another mediated design that reaches the same practical outcome.

## Bottom Line

- This is not a request for luxury.
- This is not a disguised demand for trust corpus.
- This is a concrete retirement-security benchmark based on:
  - a 20+ year marriage,
  - shared retirement expectations,
  - age `56`,
  - retirement at `67`,
  - and the fact that I do not have meaningful retirement savings today.
```