Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why do people insist that they can't save anything?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • SnoopyCool
    replied
    If some of those "non-savers" found themselves in the position my family is in now, they'd be out on their keisters. I'm glad to have saved, and am happy to continue on.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pitman
    replied
    Personally, I don't see why there's such a big debate on how Vole feels about savings. He sounds no different that 85% of my friends who also feel saving their money would be a huge waste. At the end of the day, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I know this site prides itself on being money savvy, but if someone wants to go against "our grain", they have every right.

    So, Vole, if you don't want to save bro, you don't have to. I sure am not going to try to convince you. Everyone lives by their own merit.

    Just my $.02.

    Leave a comment:


  • Johansen8
    replied
    I like this topic, thanks for bringing this one up..It's true people think they cant actually save BIG TIME if they save "very little money" from time to time

    this rings my alarm, new yrs resolution!

    Leave a comment:


  • simpletron
    replied
    Originally posted by vole
    The non-savers are not cheating. They are playing the game correctly. Serious trouble comes, and the savers still lose everything. In fact, even without serious trouble public and private policy looks to take savings away from people. Inflation eats away the value. Equities investing to protect against inflation is a roulette wheel with numbers on the wheel called Enron, Qwest, Madoff, Adelphia, AIG, and too many more to list.

    No, I think the old values of savings have changed in this economy of paper money and giant corporations. Those that keep to outdated strategies will end up losing, just as those in outdated industries disappear.
    maybe you should update your strategy to saving. but savers are still winners over their non-saving counterpart especially during a downturn.

    take college financial aid: instead of saving a stack of cash, payoff your mortgage. it puts you in same position as a non-saver according to financial aid formulas, but puts you in a better overall financial picture.

    you might be thinking "oh no, my 401K was just cut in half and all spots on the equities roulette wheel are losers". while I thinking "yes! my 401K was cut in half and I get to buy all these great companies for ridiculusly low prices, giving me more shares for the same money, which will only get me to retirement faster".

    being able to capitalize on others mistake: while some non-saver are struggling with thier mortgage because they over-spent and are hoping that the government bails them out. last year, I went out and bought a house for 25% less than 2 years ago and with a very good rate because of the "credit crisis". people moving into a larger home have an easier time because the price difference is smaller. a couple of month ago a car dealership had so many rebates/mark downs that you could get a new SUV for 10K. but to be able to capitalize on these, you needed cash on hand because the financing well had dried, so non-savers couldn't get this savings. on top of this so many business are having deeper discount sales to get your dollars, so I can buy more for the same amount of money.

    there is still no shortcut for retirement savings, so eventually it will catch up to them unless they have some great pensions(which are rapidly disappearing).

    while sometimes, it pisses me off how the irreponsible get some nice breaks. but I realize that if I think hard enough, I will also be able to capitalize on some of those breaks. and the ones I can't, I say to myself "oh well, I'm still and will be in a better position than they are"

    Leave a comment:


  • Well Spent
    replied
    Vole, if that's how you believe it works, then stop saving and spend everything you make. Live paycheck to paycheck. Live it up and let your dependents fend for themselves. Apply for scholarships for schools and camps. They'll probably get loans but paying those will make them slef-reliant and responsible. It sounds like you resent your kids more than anything so stop going above and beyond. Just provide them with the basics.

    Leave a comment:


  • kork13
    replied
    Originally posted by disneysteve View Post
    I'm curious what you propose doing instead of saving for the future.
    I think the best answer is clearly quite simple: Start wearing cardboard boxes as clothing, tin foil on our heads, and wait for the end to come.


    Really now?

    Leave a comment:


  • disneysteve
    replied
    Originally posted by vole View Post
    No, I think the old values of savings have changed in this economy of paper money and giant corporations. Those that keep to outdated strategies will end up losing, just as those in outdated industries disappear.
    I'm curious what you propose doing instead of saving for the future.

    Leave a comment:


  • vole
    replied
    Originally posted by disneysteve View Post
    ...If those people are able to qualify for that aid because they have high expenses and no savings, is that really a position that you envy?
    I don't envy their position. I just resent the breaks and the financial assistance they get, a reward, for acting irresponsibly.


    So you can't afford private school. Neither can I (not that I would have sent DD to one even if I could). But that's a short-term want. I'd much rather be living below my means and taking care of all of our needs, present and future.
    The public schools where I live are terrible and very inferior to the private school. Why don't I have the same choice as those not saving? As for future needs? All the signs point to means tests for SS and Medicare. I get penalized again.


    So while I agree with being upset about the people who cheat the system, I certainly wouldn't want to be in their shoes later on when their poor planning leaves them in serious trouble for which there is no financial aid.
    The non-savers are not cheating. They are playing the game correctly. Serious trouble comes, and the savers still lose everything. In fact, even without serious trouble public and private policy looks to take savings away from people. Inflation eats away the value. Equities investing to protect against inflation is a roulette wheel with numbers on the wheel called Enron, Qwest, Madoff, Adelphia, AIG, and too many more to list.

    No, I think the old values of savings have changed in this economy of paper money and giant corporations. Those that keep to outdated strategies will end up losing, just as those in outdated industries disappear.

    -Dave

    Leave a comment:


  • disneysteve
    replied
    vole, I can understand being pissed that undeserving people are getting aid, but you're missing my point. If those people are able to qualify for that aid because they have high expenses and no savings, is that really a position that you envy? What happens to them when one of them loses their job? Or their car dies? Or the roof needs to be replaced? There won't be any aid to bail them out when their lack of savings catches up with them.

    So you can't afford private school. Neither can I (not that I would have sent DD to one even if I could). But that's a short-term want. I'd much rather be living below my means and taking care of all of our needs, present and future.

    So while I agree with being upset about the people who cheat the system, I certainly wouldn't want to be in their shoes later on when their poor planning leaves them in serious trouble for which there is no financial aid.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joan.of.the.Arch
    replied
    Vole, every place that I can think of that has financial aid for those who cannot afford the camp or classes for children have separate sources for funding the financial aid. The cost of financial aid is not rolled into the price charged those who are paying full price. I know that both as a recipient of such as a child and as a donor to scholarship funds for kids in the last ten years.

    Leave a comment:


  • vole
    replied
    Originally posted by disneysteve View Post
    ...but those of us who live below our means and save for the future will win out in the end. What happens to those non-savers when they lose a job? How will those non-savers ever retire? What will they do when the rainy day comes? They'll be screwed and you'll be sitting pretty.

    Except that's not the case. My savings are taken away because I'm charged full price and the price is higher than what it should be because I'm subsidizing the "non-savers".

    My debts don't get renegotiated, my debts don't get forgiven, I pay full tuition for camps and schools. My kids couldn't go to private elementary or high school because I couldn't afford it.

    Leave a comment:


  • disneysteve
    replied
    Originally posted by vole View Post
    I am saving for a rainy day. I'm saving in case I lose my job or if I can't work. I am also saving for my retirement. Those people who don't save get rewarded while those of us who feel a sense of responsibility pay list price.
    You just answered your own question. The folks who aren't saving might get "rewarded" in the short term by qualifying for aid, but those of us who live below our means and save for the future will win out in the end. What happens to those non-savers when they lose a job? How will those non-savers ever retire? What will they do when the rainy day comes? They'll be screwed and you'll be sitting pretty.

    Leave a comment:


  • vole
    replied
    Originally posted by Well Spent View Post
    You should have to pay for your kids' summer camps. It is a luxury, not a need.
    Yes, it is a luxury. But why should I need to pay while those who don't save get the reduce cost?


    I think making expensive purchases in order to appear poorer to colleges is immoral and just a plain bad idea. You kid will just get more loans.
    Not quite true. Those parents I spoke with who got financial aid were very happy. They did not get loans.

    A comment was made that savings are supposed to be spent. I am saving for a rainy day. I'm saving in case I lose my job or if I can't work. I am also saving for my retirement. Those people who don't save get rewarded while those of us who feel a sense of responsibility pay list price. Those of us who save live more modestly. We miss out on vacations, eating out at restaurants, buying a a new car.

    Our government is talking about helping home owners who can't pay their mortgage. Their mortgages are being renegotiated to lower rates. I bought the cheaper house to make sure I could afford my mortgage. I act responsibly and end up with the cheaper house and paying full price for it.

    Saving gets penalized. Looks at the interest rates that banks pay on a savings account: 0.5%. My checking account earns more than that. (I now save at ingdirect.com and get 3% in my savings account.)

    Leave a comment:


  • Investing First Steps
    replied
    I think well spent's argument is typical of how discussion on "class" and "poverty" always breaks down. I think everything he says as far as health care being more expensive and difficult for the poor is true, but I think coming to the conclusion that the type of "class warfare" he describes is worthwhile or even prevalent is invalid.

    I believe that ultimately people always tend to underestimate their own circumstances, so it only follows that the "rich" underestimate the difficulty of being "poor." All of that said, I think the notion that the rich are actively working with the middle class to oppress the poor, is a bit of a stretch. I think it's more a case of everyone also has a tendency to underestimate the difficulties of other's positions and the potential benefits of making those difficulties easier.

    Once again when you invoke "class warfare" imagery and start talking about getting the middle class to help fight the rich, I think that's once again simplifying things. The "rich" (whoever that may be exactly), typically got that money by doing something society needed. Anecdote aside they probably had the skills or resources someone else needed badly, or else someone in their family history did.

    I could get into all kinds of discussion about class disparity, causes and solutions, but ultimately I think it's always counter-productive to start invoke "class warfare" imagery.

    Leave a comment:


  • Well Spent
    replied
    Originally posted by disneysteve View Post
    I agree. In fact, most doctors agree. In 2006, over 60% of prescriptions were filled for generic drugs.

    True. Betapace is the brand name, sotalol is the generic name, so yes, I would recommend using the generic, as do most doctors.

    This is absolutely not true in my area. I have many Medicaid patients in my practice and finding specialists who accept the insurance is very difficult and sometimes impossible. One company, for example, does not have a participating dermatologist within 60 miles of here. There is only one local orthopedist who accepts one of the Medicaid plans and getting an appointment there is nearly impossible. The only Medicaid physical therapy sites are the 2 local hospitals and they are perpetually booked so getting a new patient in can take weeks or months. If you have an HMO or private insurance, I can make one phone call and have you in with most specialists within 24 hours.

    Also not true in our area. Where I live, the only people using public transit are the poor. Everyone else drives.
    DisneySteve, the New York Times did an interesting series on class and money a couple of years ago. One segment of the series featured the disparities in health care between the upper middle class and the working class/poor. Like you said, the poor patient had difficulty getting transportation (taking 2 trains and a bus over two hours or something daunting like that) to get to appts. and not having a nearby grocery store for fresh fruits, meats, and vegetables that her doctor prescribed to manage her health problems. The care was worse, too, because the rich patient's doctored ordered all kinds of expensive tests that revealed problems that could be treated now, but the poor patient's doctor gave her the least amount of care possible. It wasn't until she got worse that they were obligated to give her the expensive testing and treatments.
    Last edited by Well Spent; 01-08-2009, 01:12 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X