Build a steady fund to cover future premiums. Test scenarios, fees, and growth assumptions quickly. See results instantly, then download reports for records later.
| Input | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Start age → Target age | 30 → 65 | 35-year horizon |
| Annual premium (start) | $1,800 | Assumes 3% yearly growth |
| Premium years | 20 | Premiums paid for 20 years |
| Return / Fees | 6% / 1% | Net growth depends on assumptions |
| Inflation | 2.5% | Used for real-value display |
| Target ending balance | $25,000 | Optional cushion for later years |
Use the calculator above to reproduce this scenario and export results.
The calculator uses a period-by-period projection:
Here, B is balance, C is contribution, and W is premium plus extras. Fees and taxes apply to projected growth.
Consider reviewing multiple scenarios to test sensitivity to returns, fees, and premium growth.
A longer funding horizon reduces the required periodic contribution because investment growth has more time to compound. Extending from 25 to 35 years increases contribution periods by 40% (300 to 420 monthly periods), which often lowers the per‑period need over time even if total premiums rise. The extra decade can improve early-year stability.
Premium growth matters because increases stack over time. A 3% yearly premium increase roughly doubles a premium after about 24 years, while a 5% increase reaches that doubling in about 15 years. When premiums rise faster than your contribution, withdrawals can pressure the fund and create negative balances during high‑premium years. Testing multiple growth rates helps you see whether a modest contribution increase, such as 1% per year, keeps pace with premium escalation.
The projection applies an effective periodic return and an effective periodic fee drag. A 6% gross return with a 1% annual fee reduces long‑run accumulation materially: the difference between 6% and 5% compounded over decades can change the ending balance by tens of percent, especially with steady contributions. A small fee change from 1.0% to 1.5% can also meaningfully increase the required funding amount.
Nominal balances can look healthy while real value erodes. With 2.5% inflation, $25,000 in 25 years has purchasing power similar to about $13,500 today. At 3.5% inflation, that same $25,000 is closer to $10,600 in today’s dollars. The calculator displays both nominal and inflation‑adjusted ending values so goals stay realistic.
Two controls shape the required contribution: keeping the fund non‑negative and meeting a target ending balance. The non‑negative constraint protects against timing risk when premiums are due. The ending target acts as a cushion for later‑life costs, helping absorb higher premiums, riders, or lower returns. If a target cannot be met within the cap, reduce the target, extend years, or revisit return and fee assumptions.
It estimates the smallest contribution per selected period that keeps the fund from dropping below zero (if enabled) and reaches your chosen ending balance target.
Premium withdrawals may exceed contributions during certain years, especially with premium growth or short horizons. Turning on the non‑negative constraint forces the solver to avoid those dips.
Each period applies an effective return, then subtracts an effective fee amount. Taxes are applied to estimated gains after fees using your provided tax rate.
Use a conservative long‑term estimate based on your funding approach. Run multiple scenarios (for example 4%, 6%, and 8%) to understand sensitivity and risk.
Inflation reduces purchasing power over time. The real-value display helps you judge whether your ending balance target will still feel meaningful in future dollars.
No. This is a planning model to compare funding strategies. Actual premiums, charges, and credited rates depend on your insurer, policy design, and underwriting.
Important Note: All the Calculators listed in this site are for educational purpose only and we do not guarentee the accuracy of results. Please do consult with other sources as well.