Should I aim to 'die with zero' or leave a legacy?

This is a values question as much as a math one, and there's no universal right answer. "Die with zero" argues that money unspent is life-experience left on the table, so you should deliberately draw down assets, give to heirs while you're alive to see the impact, and not over-save into your final years. The legacy view prioritizes leaving wealth to children, charity, or future generations, accepting a more conservative drawdown. In practice most FIRE retirees land in between: spend freely enough to enjoy life, but keep a longevity buffer because running out at 90 is catastrophic while leaving a little extra is not. Your choice shapes withdrawal rate, Roth-versus-traditional strategy (Roth is great for heirs), and how much risk you take. Decide intentionally rather than by default. Explore both directions with wealthserene.com/goals/leave-a-legacy.