Colleague friend of mine sent me this link. Interesting read.
In relation to here in the age group I fall in, I couldn't spend over 6,000 baht (>$200) a day living here in Thailand.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other...day/ar-BBUCreR
Colleague friend of mine sent me this link. Interesting read.
In relation to here in the age group I fall in, I couldn't spend over 6,000 baht (>$200) a day living here in Thailand.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other...day/ar-BBUCreR
Interesting -
Overall, Americans spend the most on housing, followed by groceries, utilities, and health insurance.
Americans spend the least amounts overall on alcohol, pets and vehicle insurance.
We like our McMansions, and, of course Food, lots and lots of food. Health insurance, well, biggest scam going.
Sobriety - hmm... we tend to be a sober bunch - explains a lot. For the resta ya tossers, well - back to the piss.
The problem with America is our capitalistic "buy, buy, buy" mentality. Few Americans understand that money is for saving - not spending. An accident can end your ability to earn tomorrow. But, Americans love their credit cards. Going consensus seems to be "I'll start saving tomorrow".
In my experiences, friends and family, few know what they spend their money on, they just know that they don't have enough.
Also Bowie, what is really scary is I have friends that have <$100k in retirement holdings whether it be IRA, pension or 401k. They say their retirement funds will be the equity from the sale of their house. Guess a lot plan on being homeless....
Do they have reverse mortgages in the US?
Personally I do not consider my house as my pension. I worked hard to get mortgage-free and do not want my heirs to go through the same struggles. Now my family has a foot on the property ladder, it would be selfish or foolhardy to lose it as it's getting harder and harder to get on that ladder.
One thing I may consider is downsizing: Frees up some cash for me to enjoy in my dotage but leaves some property, albeit smaller, to my heirs.
There is a huge disincentive to save.
Family "A" scrimps and saves and foregoes the new car every three years and never eats out at restaurants and lives frugally saving lots of money. When it comes time to apply for their kids college, they get hammered with little aid and no sympathy because they are wealthy.
Family "B" lives large and has no savings and new cars and boats but is always on the edge of insolvency. They are "poor" and get benefits Family A will never see.
I say fuck the poor people, fuck the government, and fuck redistributing wealth.
You do realize the power of the purse is not with the executive, don't you? Why do people with such little understanding of things try to come across as experts with a vested interest?
Bizarre indeed.
Yeah, moi never subscribed to the popular notion of 'he who has the most toys wins' BS and thus retired early - got some toys now though - heh
There has to be a balance to living and saving. Most can't do it. They either spend everything they make or save and do nothing waiting for that one big incident or event.
Years back I met a few financial advisor types. I was early 30s. The advice that stuck with me was pay yourself 10% ( or more, I did 15%) of every check and either save it or put in a 401K. That 10% adds up fast and you quickly adjust your living around not seeing it. With that approach you can still spend, live life, have fun but at the same time save for later. By 45 I had secured a nice chunk of change as my 401K was returning an additional 7 to 9%. People tend to live way outside their means in the states. But to Texpats point you have to show a lot of debt to get benefits. Weird system
Ahh... but, we live, and die, by statistics. For myself, with, gender and nationality, my life expectancy is 85. So, statistically speaking - if I were a betting man, I will achieve the ripe old age of 85 before they light the funeral pyre. Statistics are very hard to "overcome". Being of somewhat sound mind, and certainly a very sound body for my age, also, not being a "risk" taker, knowing my limitations and capabilities, and, having a family history of long aged ancestors, I do expect to exceed my life expectancy.
So, in my financial planning I used 100+ as my financial goal. I'll be fine, all things considered, I'm financially good to the ripe old age of 110.
And, do remember this golden rule - It doesn't matter how much money you have. All that matters is how much money you have compared to how much money other people have - that is what determines the lifestyle you can afford.
Someone once told me (or I read somewhere) a '50/50' rule of spending to savings and investments. I don't know if it actually makes sense or is even feasible in every case but that has always been my goal.
I greatly distrust financial advisor types in general though. If they're so great with money why are they wasting time telling me what to do with mine.
Balance is the answer. A financial advisor once told me "You would be amazed at how many of my clients make six figures (USD >$100k) and have to borrow money to pay their taxes at years end." Yet, there is no magic to the game of life.
Myself, life plans divide in thirds, 0-30 grow up, establish, get educated, 30-60 work, raise family, accumulate wealth, 60-90 enjoy retirement and a life well lived. It worked for me. Over time I socked 10-15% of my salary into tax-defered retirement accounts and then pretty much ignored it, the nest egg grew well and swelled to a most secure chuck of change, I did achieve one of the the upper rungs of the economic/financial ladder.
Now, at the ripe old age of 62, I'm sitting back, doing what I damn well please and nothing more or less. Very comfortable. I did retire at the ripe old age of 60 years old as planned, and, it certainly did feel good. I'll never want for anything no matter how long I live.
I'm not understanding why in every group "charitable donations" is quite high? why anybody?
Virtue signalling -- a conspicuous expression of moral values. It's a way for people of modest means to feel "above their station" for a while -- even if it's probably a lie and they've never donated to anything, to anyone.
And if they did donate, the motivator was not the recipient of the donation, but the self-congratulatory feeling of philanthropic smugness by slipping the little people a tiny sliver of their burgeoning largess.
Call me a cynic.
You'd better start spending and enjoying it.
I've suggested to my wife that after we build here and after I die, she should sell the house when she reaches 65. She has no heirs, so may as well enjoy the equity of the house and pay rent rather than stay in it and die poor. At today's rates, if the house sold for 10M, she'd have 10k per week for 20 years just living off the cash, and interest accrued would stretch that out a few more years, which is an ok retirement in Thailand for a retired Thai.
I know the flaw in this is what happens if she lives longer. She'd be a 90 year old pauper. Risk vs benefit. But then, an 80 year old wouldn't be spending 10k per week, so at 90 she'd still have enough for a modest life.
If I didn't have heirs, I would definitely cash-up and live off it.
That mentality doesn't work here.
My wife's house is nowhere near 10 million, but she will have inheritance that will be well over that amount.
She doesn't even want to entertain the notion of selling it because even if she doesn't have kids it's better to stay in the family.
And this has worked pretty well for her Thai friend whose house and land near state tower is now worth over 1 billion baht and has been with the family for 200 years. She gets constant offers from developers to sell, yet they never will.
TSP (Thread Smugness Potential): 10/10.
Where's TC?
According to some consumer report a while back, most Brits couldn't put together £500 in a hurry. Don't know about America, probably similar.
So here is one of the risks of saving saving and working working through your prime years say 25 to 55. I know many that have approached it in that manner. They lived very frugal, traveled nowhere, bought basic boring transportation to save money even though numerous times they would say "Man I would love to own that car". They routinely passed up on opportunities to go see and do things because of the cost. 2 of them died before ever retiring. Sad really and it's not uncommon.
I retired once at 48 for a few years then got convinced I was too young and can bring a lot to a company, so I went back to work. Few years later I retired again..few years after that same story. But I have to say working on and off is just as rewarding as being fully retired full time in many regards. Why you may ask, because when you do not have to work the job is always better and quite honestly you are more productive. There is no stress. I had been "retired" for the last 2 years and was sought out to help a US tech business that has product development here. I accepted because quite frankly it's on my terms. I do not see it being a long time position. However it is an opportunity to bank some bucks to go play and buy shit. I am also helping my niece with some of her college expenses. She never asked, I offered.
As for living a long life as Bowie mentioned, again age means little to me, quality of life is everything. Who wants to be 80 and sitting doing nothing with a lot of money. I say after 55 spend like you stole it.
In the states a study was out and IIRC most Americans would struggle to pull together $10,000 and most that did , leveraged credits cash advances to do so. I am always on my daughter's to pay themselves. My youngest is on board now at 23. My oldest not so much. I told them do not plan on a big inheritance from me, I plan on running out.
Speaking of that I read that the new financial plans that many 25 to 35 year olds have is live at home and wait for the inheritance. So no need for them to save. Go out and buy that $100k Benz, BMW or Porsche and live off the parents.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)