I think you need to work on your math a bit.
Comparing a 60w light bulb with a 12.5w led equivelent, and run it for only 4 hours per day, you break even after 3 years. If you're smart about where you install the LEDs, focusing on your most used fixtures in the house, the breakeven point will come sooner.
If the LED bulb only lasts 4 years, at 4 hours a day total cost for the LED is $31 and total cost for the incandescent is $40. You'll have to buy 4 incandencent bulbs over those 4 years ($1.76) and use 350kwh powering it (costing $38.54).
The Philips LED bulbs are actually rated for 25000 hours of use, not 5000. LED bulbs do not have the problems CFL bulbs have with lifetimes -- you can switch them on and off as much as you like and not impact their life. The only thing they're senative to is heat (meaning you shouldn't install them in closed fixtures). Several of the Philips LED bulbs in my house are probably approaching 6000 hours with no issues.
At 4 hours per day, that bulb should last for 17 years. If the bulb actually makes it that far, you'll spend $57 on the led bulb and $171.29 on the incandescent bulb. That, of course, assumes that the cost of power remains 11c per kwh. If the cost of power goes up over time, the cost disparity will increase.
Philips has a new version of their 60w bulb that consumes only 10w (its actually brighter than the existing bulb to boot!), and is rated for 30000 hours (or 20 years @ 4hr/day). Over 4 years the difference is $29 vs $40.30 (or 30% savings) per bulb, and over 20 years $78 vs $201 (or 60% savings).
LED bulbs do require non-trivial up front costs, but do result in measurable savings over the life of the bulb. And those savings will only go up as energy prices continue to rise. There are certainly reasons to continue to use incadescent bulbs, but the "it costs a lot up front" argument is rather short sighted...