I haven't read the book, but learned about the concept. It sounds like the idea is that your family would benefit more from you (your presence) and your money while you are still alive more than they would when you pass on, in part because later in their lives they should be more financially established and stable, so you should focus on amassing a large wealth for your children to inherit, but should be giving it while you're still alive. If that sounds off or needs correction/clarification, go ahead and make it known.

That being said, I've been thinking about it lately and there are some very good points there. At first I was really liking the idea. However, the catch to me is that it can be hard to find the right balance so you don't run out of money. It seems foolish to spend all your money in case you die much later than expected. It seems more wise to build up a large nest egg and live off the interest so you can live off of your money as long as you need to. In a recent discussion, people brought up that the author of the book was very wealthy and therefore very unlikely to run out of money, but most people aren't in that position.

Perhaps a good compromise would be to increase how much you plan to save for retirement so you can take out more without negatively affecting your balance, or taking out a little more so your balance will decrease but will be more likely to last your life (I acknowledge that this could be where my lack of reading may show, as it may be proposed as a solution in the book). Anyway, those are my thoughts.