Vast majority. Like 90some%. Reality is for most of us we cannot save with this in mind and there's nothing you can do to proactively change that either. It's on us to be responsible enough to save for unexpected car/house repairs, temporary job loss, etc. But a medical diagnosis? Not worth the time, energy, and resources. If you're one of the unlucky ones then you're sunk.I am familiar with your situation. I think an issue we have as a country as well is that the majority of us are a devastating diagnosis away from ruin.
You know, as you get older and understand life more, you begin to realize that they teach us a lot in schools, HS, college, but they don't teach a class on real world fiscal responsibility.My kid, at 19, has roughly double the savings of AOC. We tend to look askance at younger generations as being different. They're not. Still the same percentage breakdown of great folks and idiots.
My healthcare coverage is pretty good. But it's high deductible and many cancer "treatments" required aren't covered by any health insurance.Healthcare required not due to poor diet or poor personal decisions(smoking) is probably the best excuse for living paycheck to paycheck.
That being said, many stable professions provide good healthcare coverage.
Gotcha...sorry to hear bud.My healthcare coverage is pretty good. But it's high deductible and many cancer "treatments" required aren't covered by any health insurance.
Roth, HSA, 503b, all can consume pre-tax and post-tax $$$.I thought the max was $18.5k <50, with an extra 6k >50. I m all about saving, but you should have some liquidity in case of emergency.
LOL - they ended up buying a soft coated Wheaton terrier for this reason exactly.I am waiting for the "I have an allergy and need X dog".
Ahhh - so you drove the fancy car. I remember guys like you in college.I drove a 2003 Accord with 265000 miles on it to pay for college JERK
At 100k income you can pack away 18.5k 401k, 6k traditional IRA, 7k HSA, so 30k or so pre-tax monies.I thought the max was $18.5k <50, with an extra 6k >50. I m all about saving, but you should have some liquidity in case of emergency.
I mean I suppose its good we have someone "in the struggle" repping the people. But it sounds like she is well above the struggle. Which is sad.
The advice I’ve been given by multiple people is to have six months of living expenses saved before maxing out retirement and investment accounts. And to get rid of all debt first.I agree with you but if you are putting a ton in your 401k and have basically nothing liquid to survive missing a paycheck (or two), you are doing it wrong.
Or just file bankruptcy once a decade...Many people have no idea how much they screw themselves running up credit card debt. Or maybe they do and expect a bailout. Whatever it is there’s a ton of irresponsible decisions made by a lot of folks.
For all of the flak they get, Boy Scouts of America does a good job with this. One Eagle required merit badge, Personal Finance, involves creating a budget. Another Eagle required MB , Family Life, involves reviewing the family's budget at a high level.You know, as you get older and understand life more, you begin to realize that they teach us a lot in schools, HS, college, but they don't teach a class on real world fiscal responsibility.
It isn't sexy, but looking back, how much would a class on how to save, medical insurance, budgeting in college have helped us all? To get my economics degree I took Marxism and China's economy as electives. Surprisingly, I don't find these topics coming up much now.
This subject always makes me laugh. This advice while sound isn't practical for many. Every situation is different, but the path from school to home ownership to kids to saving (or in some other order)...how long does that take? In previous generations it was financially feasible to get to the last point in your 20's or early 30's (with good planning) before you make the big step professionally. Now? I don't think we have sufficient data to make an average road map and it's going to depend greatly market-to-market, but in most cases I don't think it's feasible without the big step professionally until at least deep into your 30's and later wouldn't surprise me. And by then you're weighing your own savings vs. your kids future education costs. Conventional wisdom is to save for yourself before your kid, but I sympathize with a parent looking at that sort of decision and opting not to be selfish.The advice I’ve been given by multiple people is to have six months of living expenses saved before maxing out retirement and investment accounts. And to get rid of all debt first.
That would be my guess, too. The term "paycheck to paycheck" is used a lot now. As far as I know, it's not an official term with an official definition like we have with things like "poverty". If someone asked me if I live paycheck to paycheck, I might have to say yes but I think it's really unfair to minimum wage people with large health bills to label me the same way. They'd look at me with contempt if I complained about needing more money.Agree with others that those with exorbitant healthcare costs probably account for a very small % of the people living paycheck to paycheck.
I spent less on clothes, vehicles, rental housing, entertainment, restaurants, furniture(things that depreciate) in my 20s...enabled me to have more savings than most. Didn't have children or an expensive wife. Zero help from my parents outside of modest bday and xmas gifts.This subject always makes me laugh. This advice while sound isn't practical for many. Every situation is different, but the path from school to home ownership to kids to saving (or in some other order)...how long does that take? In previous generations it was financially feasible to get to the last point in your 20's or early 30's (with good planning) before you make the big step professionally. Now? I don't think we have sufficient data to make an average road map and it's going to depend greatly market-to-market, but in most cases I don't think it's feasible without the big step professionally until at least deep into your 30's and later wouldn't surprise me. And by then you're weighing your own savings vs. your kids future education costs. Conventional wisdom is to save for yourself before your kid, but I sympathize with a parent looking at that sort of decision and opting not to be selfish.
I think this is a little too much whoa is me so it doesn't sit particularly well, but a friend of mine put this rather aptly recently. (paraphrasing) I ask others who seem to be ahead how they got there and the answer is almost always 'someone in my family with a lot of money died' or they decided not to have kids. It's hyperbolic and includes those same 75% of people that are irresponsible spenders, but the point is still a good one. How can you finance it all? Until you get to that point professionally, you can't. So what's the first corner you are going to cut until you get there? Probably savings.
The bolded. That seems to be a common theme with those that are in a good place financially. Sure, like anything, children are a choice. But in today's environment the vast majority of people are not in a financial position to consider it until sometime after they're considered 'at risk.' Many do anyway, but the data suggests fiscal responsibility is playing at least some role. If the trend continues...I spent less on clothes, vehicles, rental housing, entertainment, food in my 20s...enabled me to have more savings than most. Didn't have children or an expensive wife. Zero help from my parents outside of modest bday and xmas gifts.
It can be done it just requires discipline and the ambition to land a solid career out of college/high school.
Since it's been brought up a few times this seems relevant. How society views people that are bad with money: https://imgur.com/ET6dWUh
And they major in Art History and Creative Writing. Then complain they cant get a job....Another topic...educational loans.
I chose an in state university that was nearly free for me vs. going to expensive, more highly ranked out of state universities....no question it was the right choice fiscally.
I see parents dropping 50K a year on out of state tuition to schools that don't justify the price tag with their kids majoring in graphic design. You just can't fix stupid.
Not so funny recent story that seems applicable here...I am a dog person and a rescue dog adopter. Don't get me even started on this. Buying a dog is lud-a-cris, spending 2k is idiotic, financing this is insane.
They are literally giving dogs away for free. Yikes.
Thankfully they offer it in high school here. My oldest took it, the rest will. Or I'll teach them, or a combination.You know, as you get older and understand life more, you begin to realize that they teach us a lot in schools, HS, college, but they don't teach a class on real world fiscal responsibility.
It isn't sexy, but looking back, how much would a class on how to save, medical insurance, budgeting in college have helped us all? To get my economics degree I took Marxism and China's economy as electives. Surprisingly, I don't find these topics coming up much now.
I get your point, but it sure seems like most 20-30 year olds "need" the new iPhones, nicer cars, etc. We mostly did without, have 5 kids and manage. With zero help from our parents, other than they rose us fairly well. It's not easy but it can be done.The bolded. That seems to be a common theme with those that are in a good place financially. Sure, like anything, children are a choice. But in today's environment the vast majority of people are not in a financial position to consider it until sometime after they're considered 'at risk.' Many do anyway, but the data suggests fiscal responsibility is playing at least some role. If the trend continues...
My son took "Math and Financial Applications" his senior year. He had already taken Algebra 1 and 2, Geometry, and Statistics. (He took accelerated math, so took Algebra 1 in Junior High). He did not go to college, he took a 2 year course in High School prepping him for his EMT, he took the exam in August (Had to be 18) and is working full time as an EMT for a local ambulance company. He would like to be a Firefighter/Paramedic. My son loved this math course and finished the year with a 100%. It was not difficult math, having already passed Algebra 1 and 2 made this a breeze, but the money skills he learned were invaluable.You know, as you get older and understand life more, you begin to realize that they teach us a lot in schools, HS, college, but they don't teach a class on real world fiscal responsibility.
It isn't sexy, but looking back, how much would a class on how to save, medical insurance, budgeting in college have helped us all? To get my economics degree I took Marxism and China's economy as electives. Surprisingly, I don't find these topics coming up much now.
Math and Financial Applications Grades: 11-12 Weeks: 40 Unit(s): 1
In this elective, students will learn about the psychology of money, basic money management (budgets, financial statements and the difference between an asset and a liability), types of income (earned, passive, and portfolio), how credit and credit scores work, good debt versus bad debt, dangers of credit card, types of investments (real estate and paper assets), how to start a business and build a business plan, and what is required to exit the financial rat race of living paycheck to paycheck. Overall, students will learn how to build a plan for taking control of their money rather than letting money control them.
Yup. When someone who has some money doesn't take care of their kids, we call them a deadbeat (possibly, criminal). When people (who already don't have a pot to piss in nor window to throw it out of) continue to reproduce, we make excuses for them.Since it's been brought up a few times this seems relevant. How society views people that are bad with money: https://imgur.com/ET6dWUh
Not only that, we give them tax breaks and other benefits.Yup. When someone who has some money doesn't take care of their kids, we call them a deadbeat (possibly, criminal). When people (who already don't have a pot to piss in nor window to throw it out of) continue to reproduce, we make excuses for them.
I think focusing on the behaviors of the majority of people in each demographic leads to poor conversation. The majority are unfortunately irresponsible. You probably won't find many people that consume as little as I do, so you can probably guess how I feel about those that spend above their means and complain when their situation suffers a setback. You can also probably guess the sort of people I hang out with. I don't have the patience...eh, let's be honest - tolerance, for the irresponsible. I'm referring to the portion of that group that do things the right way and the only way you can really assure yourself of a stable situation at a relatively early stage in life is to not have kids. It isn't a sustainable model. I'd slightly rather that responsible person be the one creating more little people than the alternative. Which brings me back to the first two sentences of this post. Because now we're gonna keep getting more of that.I get your point, but it sure seems like most 20-30 year olds "need" the new iPhones, nicer cars, etc. We mostly did without, have 5 kids and manage. With zero help from our parents, other than they rose us fairly well. It's not easy but it can be done.
Asking for a friend:Or just file bankruptcy once a decade...
Isn't the struggle that they are going through "living in the now". I feel bad for those that have medical issues that put them in a bad situation. Those things can't be helped. I've spent that last 20 years not only making tough financial decisions due to my daughters diabetic needs, but also personal decisions. For 5 years, we didn't trust anyone (and some didn't want to take on the risk) of babysitting our daughter if we went on vacation or out for an evening. They didn't want to administer the insulin shots.You would probably be surprised to find out how many people are doing this. Odds are very high that if you could honestly poll a dozen of your neighbors, at least 8 of them would be in a situation that being out of work for 1 month would put them into "desperation mode" - i.e. paying for food, mortgage, utilities, etc would be near impossible for more than 1 month without their current income.
And that includes a lot of people that look like they have everything going for them - i.e. nice car, clothes, etc. They live "in the now" and are not planning for the future nearly enough.
My instate is 30KAnother topic...educational loans.
I chose an in state university that was nearly free for me vs. going to expensive, more highly ranked out of state universities....no question it was the right choice fiscally.
I see parents/kids dropping 50K a year on out of state tuition to schools that don't justify the price tag with their kids majoring in graphic design. You just can't fix stupid.
the bankruptcy court will require a payback plan of some sort...but you are paying back only a small portion of the debt in many situations. Also, I don't believe you can declare BK just to declare it...you'd have to prove loss of job etc.Asking for a friend:
How exactly does this work? Let's say my friend has an enormously high amount of credit available, no liabilities, no debt outstanding, but funds in different savings accounts, 401k, brokerage accounts, etc. - if he was to run up a $500k bill in credit, could he file bankruptcy and just not pay it back?
It can get complicated. The non-retirement monies can get divided to creditors. He might have to pay a percentage of unsecured debt back depending on income. If he ran the debt up shortly before filing, creditors could argue that he's committing bankruptcy fraud but such cases aren't common. From your description, though, it sounds like fraud to me.Asking for a friend:
How exactly does this work? Let's say my friend has an enormously high amount of credit available, no liabilities, no debt outstanding, but funds in different savings accounts, 401k, brokerage accounts, etc. - if he was to run up a $500k bill in credit, could he file bankruptcy and just not pay it back?
We have one good car. A leased 2017 Subaru Forester. Cost is $235 a month.I drove a 2003 Accord with 265000 miles on it to pay for college JERK
Are you sure?the bankruptcy court will require a payback plan of some sort...but you are paying back only a small portion of the debt in many situations. Also, I don't believe you can declare BK just to declare it...you'd have to prove loss of job etc.
Can't be sure if this is a serious question but, just in case.Asking for a friend:
How exactly does this work? Let's say my friend has an enormously high amount of credit available, no liabilities, no debt outstanding, but funds in different savings accounts, 401k, brokerage accounts, etc. - if he was to run up a $500k bill in credit, could he file bankruptcy and just not pay it back?
There a lot of good points here but there's also still a number of things that rely on choices. I was by far not "perfect" in what all I did through the year. And there were plenty of lean years, sometimes self imposed. But there was always an "end goal" in mind. If I had been more fanatic in some of my planning, I could have been in a different place faster, etc. But a lot had to do with having some goals in mind.This subject always makes me laugh. This advice while sound isn't practical for many. Every situation is different, but the path from school to home ownership to kids to saving (or in some other order)...how long does that take? In previous generations it was financially feasible to get to the last point in your 20's or early 30's (with good planning) before you make the big step professionally. Now? I don't think we have sufficient data to make an average road map and it's going to depend greatly market-to-market, but in most cases I don't think it's feasible without the big step professionally until at least deep into your 30's and later wouldn't surprise me. And by then you're weighing your own savings vs. your kids future education costs. Conventional wisdom is to save for yourself before your kid, but I sympathize with a parent looking at that sort of decision and opting not to be selfish.
I think this is a little too much whoa is me so it doesn't sit particularly well, but a friend of mine put this rather aptly recently. (paraphrasing) I ask others who seem to be ahead how they got there and the answer is almost always 'someone in my family with a lot of money died' or they decided not to have kids. It's hyperbolic and includes those same 75% of people that are irresponsible spenders, but the point is still a good one. How can you finance it all? Until you get to that point professionally, you can't. So what's the first corner you are going to cut until you get there? Probably savings.
I think that's a bit harsh... I just don't think a lot of people think "big picture". Maybe "common sense" covers that but I don't think that's it.Work ethic, common sense, discipline, ambition....things 95% of Americans don't have.
A topic like this is only going to fit "the majority" of a population. There are always going to be some people that do things "right" but still struggle. It totally happens. I think the idea that stats say that like something like 80%+ are living paycheck to paycheck shows that the "majority" are making poor decisions. Any individual may have a different situation but as a "generality", a bunch of those people are in that spot because of not thinking long term and/or making poor decisions.I think focusing on the behaviors of the majority of people in each demographic leads to poor conversation. The majority are unfortunately irresponsible. You probably won't find many people that consume as little as I do, so you can probably guess how I feel about those that spend above their means and complain when their situation suffers a setback. You can also probably guess the sort of people I hang out with. I don't have the patience...eh, let's be honest - tolerance, for the irresponsible. I'm referring to the portion of that group that do things the right way and the only way you can really assure yourself of a stable situation at a relatively early stage in life is to not have kids. It isn't a sustainable model. I'd slightly rather that responsible person be the one creating more little people than the alternative. Which brings me back to the first two sentences of this post. Because now we're gonna keep getting more of that.
Again, there are always exceptions. Not every situation is the same. Not every solution is the same. I am only speaking of generalities and the statistics. There are plenty of individuals that do not fit the rule and are in a "bad spot" for legitimate reasons. There are also lots of folks there due to self induced crisis - I'm not even judging those people, just stating the facts. Lots of people are sucked into being able to "get it now" but pay much more for it than they should in interest, etc. And then it becomes a cycle.Isn't the struggle that they are going through "living in the now". I feel bad for those that have medical issues that put them in a bad situation. Those things can't be helped. I've spent that last 20 years not only making tough financial decisions due to my daughters diabetic needs, but also personal decisions. For 5 years, we didn't trust anyone (and some didn't want to take on the risk) of babysitting our daughter if we went on vacation or out for an evening. They didn't want to administer the insulin shots.
Everyone has decisions to make each day. Some are good, some are bad, and some are out of our control.
If you mean the last 14 years i was fancy I'll TAKE ITAhhh - so you drove the fancy car. I remember guys like you in college.
Sorry this included room and board which I assume we are all paying in some form.wowzaMy instate is 30K
The short answer is that your friend's savings accounts and brokerage accounts would almost entirely be used to pay back his unsecured credit (subject to some small exemptions). The 401k would be protected up to a cap, then liquidated. Other assets would be marshalled and liquidated, again subject to statutory exemptions. Some confusion in the responses as between a chap 13 (wage-earners payment plan) and chap 7 (liquidation) bankruptcies. In short, the bankruptcy law for the most part makes sense. Absent fraud, you can't discharge debt while living high on the hog.Asking for a friend:
How exactly does this work? Let's say my friend has an enormously high amount of credit available, no liabilities, no debt outstanding, but funds in different savings accounts, 401k, brokerage accounts, etc. - if he was to run up a $500k bill in credit, could he file bankruptcy and just not pay it back?
Don't some states allow you to exempt your home?The short answer is that your friend's savings accounts and brokerage accounts would almost entirely be used to pay back his unsecured credit (subject to some small exemptions). The 401k would be protected up to a cap, then liquidated. Other assets would be marshalled and liquidated, again subject to statutory exemptions. Some confusion in the responses as between a chap 13 (wage-earners payment plan) and chap 7 (liquidation) bankruptcies. In short, the bankruptcy law for the most part makes sense. Absent fraud, you can't discharge debt while living high on the hog.Asking for a friend:
How exactly does this work? Let's say my friend has an enormously high amount of credit available, no liabilities, no debt outstanding, but funds in different savings accounts, 401k, brokerage accounts, etc. - if he was to run up a $500k bill in credit, could he file bankruptcy and just not pay it back?