Your FIRE number is your annual expenses divided by the withdrawal rate you’re prepared to rely on — 25× expenses at 4%, about 28.6× at 3.5%, roughly 33.3× at 3%. That’s the whole formula. The hard part isn’t the arithmetic; it’s that the answer swings by a third depending on which withdrawal rate you pick, and by nearly half depending on the inflation you assume — and most calculators bury both in a default you never see.
What you actually spend, not what you earn.
Used only to project the date.
Mutual funds, stocks, EPF, NPS — not your home.
Assumed to rise with inflation.
Nominal, before inflation. Equity-heavy portfolios have historically done 11–12%.
RBI targets 4%, with a 2–6% tolerance band.
The share of the corpus you draw in year one.
Share of today’s spending you plan to fund.
This calculator needs JavaScript to run. The arithmetic is below and you can do it on paper: annual expenses divided by your withdrawal rate gives the corpus, and everything after that is compounding.
In today’s money. —
—
What the same lifestyle will cost by then.
—
The maths runs in today’s rupees. Your return is reduced by inflation to a real rate, and your monthly investment is assumed to rise with inflation — so the target stays fixed and the compounding is honest. Returns are treated as a smooth annual rate, which no real portfolio delivers; a 30-year path that averages 11% will spend years well above and below it. Tax on withdrawals, and any pension, rent or annuity income you expect, are not modelled.
Take a household spending ₹80,000 a month. That’s ₹9.6 lakh a year, and the corpus target depends entirely on the withdrawal rate:
| Withdrawal rate | Multiple of expenses | Corpus needed |
|---|---|---|
| 4.0% | 25× | ₹2.40 Cr |
| 3.5% | 28.6× | ₹2.74 Cr |
| 3.0% | 33.3× | ₹3.20 Cr |
Same household, same spending, and the target moves by ₹80 lakh — a third of the whole number — purely on an assumption. That is the single most consequential input in any FIRE calculation, and it is the one most tools set silently to 4% because that is what the internet says.
The figures above are in today’s rupees. If you plan to stop working in 20 years, you won’t be spending ₹9.6 lakh a year by then — you’ll be spending whatever ₹9.6 lakh becomes after two decades of inflation.
| Assumed inflation | Annual expenses in 20 years | Corpus needed then |
|---|---|---|
| 4% (RBI’s target) | ₹21.0 L | ₹6.0 Cr |
| 5% | ₹25.5 L | ₹7.3 Cr |
| 6% (top of RBI’s band) | ₹30.8 L | ₹8.8 Cr |
Two percentage points of inflation — the width of the upper half of RBI’s own tolerance band — adds about 46% to the corpus you need. Over 30 years, moving a single point from 4% to 5% adds roughly 33%. Nothing else in the calculation is anywhere near this sensitive, which is why a plan is only as good as the assumption it states out loud.
What to assume. RBI’s mandate is 4% CPI inflation with a 2–6% tolerance band, retained for April 2026 to March 2031. Inflation was 3.48% in April 2026 — comfortably inside the band and below target. But a plan spanning decades shouldn’t assume the low end of a band holds for decades. Model the 4% target, then check what breaks at 6%.
The 4% figure isn’t a law of finance. It comes from research into historical US market returns, testing how often a portfolio survived a 30-year retirement while the retiree withdrew an inflation-adjusted 4% a year. Within that frame it held up well, and it became shorthand everywhere.
Three things change when you move the question to India.
The whole point of FIRE is retiring early. Someone stopping work at 35 is not funding 30 years — they may be funding 50. A longer horizon means more sequences of bad returns to survive, and mathematically it supports a lower withdrawal rate, not the same one. Using a 30-year answer for a 50-year problem is the most common structural error in Indian FIRE planning, and it has nothing to do with which country you’re in.
The original work sat inside an economy with state-backed retirement income and, for retirees, public health cover. India has no comparable universal backstop, so a medical event in year 18 is a corpus event rather than an insurance event. That argues for a larger buffer, held deliberately, rather than a tighter number.
A rule derived from one country’s equity, bond and inflation history is a statement about that history. Indian equity returns and Indian inflation have their own distributions, and there is no reason a constant fitted to one should be a constant in the other. That’s not an argument that Indian outcomes are worse — it’s an argument that borrowing the number without re-deriving it is unjustified.
Put together: 4% is a reasonable ceiling to test against, not a floor to plan on. Many Indian FIRE plans that look tight at 4% look sane at 3.5% and comfortable at 3% — and the difference between those three is entirely a judgement about how much certainty you want to buy.
These aren’t different formulas. Two of them are the same formula with a different expense base; the third is a genuinely different idea.
A deliberately low expense base, so a smaller corpus suffices and the date arrives sooner. Less margin if anything goes wrong.
A comfortable expense base and therefore a much larger corpus. Later date, far more slack.
The point where what you've already invested will compound to your full number by your target age with no further contributions.
Coast FIRE is the one worth understanding properly, because it’s the milestone most people hit years before they realise. It isn’t retirement — you keep working — but you stop having to save. You reach it when your current corpus, compounded at your assumed return for the years remaining, arrives at your FIRE number on its own. It reframes the goal from a distant date into something you can cross in your thirties, and it’s the reason the projection is worth running even when full independence looks far off.
The calculator above is deliberately the short version: four inputs, one number, thirty seconds. If you want the long one — the emergency fund carved out before anything is projected, your home loan amortised to the month it closes, NPS locked until 60, capital gains tax on withdrawals, and a probability rather than a single figure — that lives on the retirement planner. It is the same arithmetic, taken as far as it goes.
TLDR Money shows your FI number, how far along you are, and a projected retirement date — modelled for Lean, Coast and Fat FIRE, so you can see every version of the finish line rather than one.
The reason it sits in the same product as spending and net worth is that a FIRE projection is only as good as its two inputs. It needs your real annual expenses, which comes from automatically tracked spending rather than a guess, and your real current corpus, which comes from a net worth figure that includes everything. Kept in separate apps, those two numbers are estimates, and a projection built on two estimates is a wish. That’s the argument for one product doing all three, and it’s the gap this cluster keeps pointing at: the platforms with the best tracking mostly don’t model spending, and the spending apps mostly don’t model independence.
TLDR Money earns from the subscription alone — ₹299 a month or ₹1,999 a year, no ads, no referrals, no fund commissions, no lending arm. See pricing.
Take your real annual expenses and divide by the withdrawal rate you are willing to rely on. At 4% that is 25 times annual expenses; at 3.5% it is roughly 28.6 times; at 3% it is about 33.3 times. Then inflate that figure to the year you actually plan to stop working, because your expenses then will not be your expenses now. The arithmetic is simple — the difficulty is that the answer is extremely sensitive to two assumptions most calculators bury.
It was not built for the question most Indian savers are asking. The 4% figure comes from studies of historical US market returns over rolling 30-year retirements. Someone retiring at 35 in India is planning for perhaps 50 years, not 30, and a longer horizon mathematically supports a lower withdrawal rate. There is also no state healthcare backstop of the kind the original work implicitly assumed. None of that makes 4% impossible — it means it is a US answer to a US question, and treating it as a universal constant is the actual error.
Plan against the policy framework rather than this month’s print. RBI’s mandate is 4% CPI inflation with a tolerance band of 2% to 6%, retained for the period from April 2026 to March 2031. Actual inflation moves around inside that band — it was 3.48% in April 2026 — but a retirement plan spanning decades should not assume the low end of a band persists for decades. Assuming the 4% target, and testing what happens at the 6% ceiling, is more useful than picking a single optimistic figure.
Far more than people expect, because it compounds. Over 20 years, assuming 6% inflation instead of 4% raises the expenses you need to fund by about 46%, and therefore raises your corpus target by about the same proportion. Over 30 years, moving just one percentage point from 4% to 5% raises it by roughly 33%. This is why an assumption buried in a calculator’s defaults matters more than the precision of any other input.
They are the same arithmetic with different inputs. Lean FIRE targets a deliberately low expense base, so the corpus is smaller and reachable sooner, with less margin for error. Fat FIRE targets a comfortable expense base and therefore a much larger corpus. Coast FIRE is different in kind: it is the point where what you have already invested will compound to your full number by your target age without you adding another rupee — so you still work, but you no longer have to save.
Not the one you live in. A home you occupy is genuine net worth but it cannot produce the income you plan to withdraw, and you cannot sell it without needing somewhere else to live. Counting it toward a FIRE corpus is the most common way people conclude they are far closer to financial independence than they are. Property you rent out is different, because it produces income — value the equity, and count the rent, not the notional sale price.
Your FI number, how far along you are, and a projected date — modelled for Lean, Coast and Fat FIRE.
Join the waitlistWe are opening seats in batches. No spam, ever.
Every figure above is arithmetic on stated assumptions, and the assumptions are the point — change them and the answer changes materially. Returns are not guaranteed, projections are illustrations rather than forecasts, and this is an explanation of how the calculation works, not advice about your own money. TLDR Money is not a registered investment adviser.