From time to time I run across references to 'the 70% of pre-retirement income being needed to maintain one's standard of living in retirement". I also see references to 'perhaps 50% is all that is needed'. I don't recall ever seeing the calculations and assumptions behind the 70% estimate but someone likely did it years ago. I expect there is some logical rationale behind this percentage estimate.
I wonder...did those calculations include "an equivalent income" from a home that is owned during retirement?
In many cases, the rent one would have to pay to replace one's home is not a small sum, and it should therefore be considered in the "How much do I need for retirement?" question.
When financial advisers are giving conservative advice to the general public the 70 % estimate may not be that far off the mark if one's home is included as part of the income. There may also be a bit of a safety factor in the 70% estimate.
For example, if one owns a $200,000 home, this "net worth component" could be sold and the money invested. It would provide perhaps $14,000 per year ($1,167/month) before tax at 7%.