Why adjust for inflation annually, as opposed to realising it after the holding period?
I would use neither method.  Taking a short example first, with just three compounding periods, with interest rate 10%.  The start value y0 is 1. So after three years the value is 1.331, the same as y0 (1 + 0.1)^3. Depreciating (like inflation) by 10% (to demonstrate) gets us back to y0 = 1 Appreciating and depreciating by 10% cancels out: Appreciating by 10% interest and depreciating by 3% inflation: This is the same as y0 (1 + 0.1)^3 (1 + 0.03)^-3 = 1.21805 So for 50 years the result is y0 (1 + 0.1)^50 (1 + 0.03)^-50 = 26.7777 Note You can of course use subtraction but the not using the inflation figure directly.  E.g. (edit: This appears to be the Fisher equation.) 2nd Note Further to comments, here is a chart to illustrate how much the relative performance improves when inflation is accounted for.  The first fund's return is 6% and the second fund's return varies from 3% to 6%.  Inflation is 3%.
"You may want, or at least be thinking of, the annualized method described in Pub 505 http://www.irs.gov/publications/p505/ch02.html#en_US_2015_publink1000194669 (also downloadable in PDF) and referred to in Why are estimated taxes due ""early"" for the 2nd and 3rd quarters only? . This doesn't prorate your payments as such; instead you use your income and deductions etc for each of the 3,2,3,4-month ""quarters"" to compute a prorated tax for the partial year, and pay the excess over the amount already paid. If your income etc amounts are (nearly) the same each month, then this computation will result in payments that are 3,2,3,4/12ths of 90% of your whole-year tax, but not if your amounts vary over the year. If you do use this method (and benefit from it) you MUST file form 2210 schedule AI with your return next filing season to demonstrate that your quarterly computations, and payments, met the requirements. You need to keep good per-period (or per-month) records of all tax-relevant amounts, and don't even try to do this form by hand, it'll drive you nuts; use software or a professional preparer (who also uses software), but I'd expect someone in your situation probably needs to do one of those anyway. But partnership puts a wrinkle on this. As a partner, your taxable income and expense is not necessarily the cash you receive or pay; it is your allocated share of the partnership's income and expenses, whether or not they are distributed to you. A partnership to operate a business (like lawyers, as opposed to an investment partnership) probably distributes the allocated amounts, at least approximately, rather than holding them in the partnership; I expect this is your year-end draw (technically a draw can be any allowed amount, not necessarily the allocated amount). In other words, your husband does earn this money during the year, he just receives it at the end. If the year-end distribution (or allocation if different) is significant (say more than 5% of your total income) and the partnership is not tracking and reporting these amounts (promptly!) for the IRS quarters -- and I suspect that's what they were telling you ""affects other partners"" -- you won't have the data to correctly compute your ""quarterly"" taxes, and may thus subject yourself to penalty for not timely paying enough. If the amount is reasonably predictable you can probably get away with using a conservative (high-side) guess to compute your payments, and then divide the actual full-year amounts on your K-1 over 12 months for 2210-AI; this won't be exactly correct, but unless the partnership business is highly seasonal or volatile it will be close enough the IRS won't waste its time on you. PS- the ""quarters"" are much closer to 13,9,13,17 weeks. But it's months that matter." Assuming this'll be a taxable account and you're an above-average wage earner, the following seem to be biggest factors in your decision: tax-advantaged income w/o retirement account protection - so I'd pick a stock/stocks or fund that's designed to minimize earnings taxable at income and/or short-term gains rates (e.g. dividends) declining risk profile - make sure you periodically tweak your investment mix over the 2-3 year period  to reduce your risk exposure.   You want to be near savings account risk levels by the end of your timeline.  But make sure you keep #1 in mind - so probably don't adjust (by selling) anything until you've hit the 1-year holding mark to get the long-term capital gains rates. In addition to tax-sensitive stock & bond funds at the major brokerages like Fidelity, I'd specifically look at tax-free municipal bond funds (targeted for your state of residence) since those generally pay better than savings on after tax basis for little increase in risk (assuming you stick w/ higher-rated municipalities). Inflation is basically this:  Over time, prices go up! I will now address the 3 points you have listed. Suppose over a period of 10 years, prices have doubled.  Now suppose 10 years ago I earned $100 and bought a nice pair of shoes.  Now today because prices have doubled I would have to earn $200 in order to afford the same pair of shoes.  Thus if I want to compare my earnings this year to 10 years ago, I will need to adjust for the price of goods going up.  That is, I could say that my $100 earnings 10 years ago is the same as having earned $200 today, or alternatively I could say that my earnings of $200 today is equivalent to having earned $100 10 years ago. This is a difficult question because a car is a depreciating asset, which means the real value of the car will go down in value over time. Let us suppose that inflation doesn't exist and the car you bought for $100 today will depreciate to $90 after 1 year (a 10% depreciation). But because inflation does exist, and all prices will be 0.5% higher in 1 years time, we can calculate the true selling price of the car 1 in year as follows: 0.5% of $90 = 0.005*90 = $0.45 Therefore the car will be $90 + $0.45 = $90.45 in 1 years time. If inflation is low, then the repayments do not get much easier to pay back over time because wages have not risen by as much.  Similarly the value of your underlying asset will not increase in value by as much. However as compensation, the interest rates on loans are usually lower when inflation is lower. Therefore generally it is better to get a loan in times of high inflation rather than low inflation, however it really depends on how the much the interest rates are relative to the inflation rate. 10% seems to be a little bit too optimistic, but 5%-8% annually on average is doable. 1% is way too little, you're doing something wrong, unless you mean real return (i.e.: after adjustment for inflation), and even then it's not too high. At any given year it may be easy or difficult, but the point is that we're talking about long term averages. For example, if you look at the DJI for the last 30 years, you'll see a rise of 1300% (give or take), which annually is ~40%. In the last 3 years the rise is even steeper, but in the last week - it is negative. So it depends on your time line and the way you manage your investments. You've got to balance between stocks and bonds and cash, but even if you park your money in cash you can get more than 1% right now (Capitol One on-line savings is 1.15%), and that's with the lowest rates ever, so getting 1% over time does mean that you're doing something wrong IMHO. Inflation can be a misleading indicator. Partly because it is not measured as a function of the change in prices of everything in the economy, just the basket of goods deemed essential. The other problem is that several things operate on it, the supply of money,  the total quantity of goods being exchanged, and the supply of credit. Because the supply of goods divides - as more stuff is available prices drop - it's not possible to know purely from the price level, if prices are rising because there's an actual shortage (say a crop failure), or simply monetary expansion. At this point it also helps to know that the total money supply of the USA (as measured by total quantity of money in bank deposits) doubles every 10 years, and has done that consistently since the 1970's.  USA Total Bank Deposits So I would say Simon Moore manages to be right for the wrong reasons. Despite low inflation, cash holdings are being proportionally devalued as the money supply increases. Most of the increase, is going into the stock market. However, since shares aren't included in the measures of inflation, then it doesn't influence the inflation rate. Still, if you look at the quantity of shares your money will buy now, as opposed to 5 years ago, it's clear that the value of your money has dropped substantially.  The joker in the pack is the influence of the credit supply on the price level. I recall similar strategies when (in the US) interest rates were quite a bit higher than now. The investment company put 75% or so into into a 5 year guaranteed bond, the rest was placed in stock index options. In effect, one had a guaranteed return (less inflation, of course) of principal, and a chance for some market gains especially if it went a lot higher over the next 5 years.  The concept is sound if executed correctly. Is it true that due the to the increase in interest rates that inflation is likely to increase as well? It is typically the reverse where inflation causes interest rates to rise. Interest rates fundamentally reflect the desire for people to purchase future goods over present day goods.  If I loan money to someone for 5 years I lose the ability to use that money.  In order to entice me to loan the money the borrower would have to offer me an incentive, that is, they would have to give me additional money at the end of that 5 years.  This additional money is the interest rate and it reflects the desire of people to spend money in the future versus the present day.  If offered the same amount of money today versus 5 years from now almost everyone would chose to take the money now.  Money in the present is more valuable than the same amount of money in the future. Interest rates would still exist even with a currency that could not be printed. I would still prefer to have the currency today than in the future. If the currency is continually devalued (i.e. the issuer is printing more of the currency) than borrowers may charge additional interest to compensate for the loss in purchasing power when they make a loan. Also, it is hard to compare interest rates and inflation.  Inflation is very difficult to calculate. New products and services, as well as ever changing consumer desires, continually change the mixture of goods in the market so it is nearly impossible to compare a basket of goods today to a basket of goods 5, 10, 20, or 30 years ago. Hot dogs - counts as part of the food basket. Hardly one-off.   Cars - maybe could be included. On average, people buy cars every 5 years, so 12 cars for an 80 year old.   Gas - that one could well be warranted, the problem is the high volatility and the fact that fluctuations are not due to inflation, but rather commodity price fluctuations.   All the other stuff (phones, tv’s, Appliances, etc) is stuff that needs to be replaced several times throughout a persons life, so not one-off purchases.   House prices can and should address d through other mechanisms that have nothing to do with inflation. Either through better planning codes or macro prudential measures, but certainly not through manipulating interest rates.