I'm not disagreeing that there aren't other very good options, and I use a lot of them, but the 6% can increase with inflation as well.  If you only take 5% from the VA, you will have even a better chance of increasing the income and still have a guarantee that mutual funds can't provide.  Obviously, if the portfolios are identical then higher expenses have an effect and you will make more in the mutual funds.

I was only pointing out in my first post that when looking at expenses and taxes we typically aren't comparing apples to apples.  Very few retirees have the tolerance for a 100% equity portfolio.  We reduce our risk by either using the VA at an additional cost, or adding fixed income that comes with a cost as well (in lower long term performance).  What happens when the market goes -big% and the client in in mutual funds?  We either have to adjust income or risk running out of money.  With the VA we can adjust if we wan't, however, some clients can't take a 30%+ reduction in income.   Additionally, when using an advisor it is usually going to cost about 1%/year either in commission or asset fees, lowering the cost difference.  1% in fees with no guarantees or 2% with a guarantee.    The VA isn't the solution for every client and every situation but it isn't the evil that I lot of people have been led to believe.

Most people will not annuitize.

  To answer your question, there is a GMWB (that's "W" for withdrawals; it is not a rate of return of course) from Hartford that provides 6% for life after age 70, and 6.5% for life after 75. Does not work if any income is taken prior to those ages.