What do you consider "Living below your means"? (sell, value)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem with this is that I, who make $25k, ........
If you are living below your means with a $25K income, you live on what you have, you do not run up debt, you put a little away most months, whatever you can spare.
If you are lower income, you are still going to get old and retire, just like anyone else. Whatever you have put away for retirement, it is sure going to be better than having absolutely nothing.
When I first got married, our family income was less than that. We bought two acres outside of town and lived in a travel trailer for a couple of years until we had finished building a very small house. I grew fruit and vegetables and ran a business out of the property. My husband drove into town to work. We never borrowed any money for anything. I work a mean budget. I consider that we lived well and very cheaply. That land was money in the bank.
I am still waiting for the first person on one of those TV "home finder " programs who walks in to a 2800 sq ft house and says ..............Its too dam big.
It amazes me when I see a couple ( married but no kids ) who say they " need " a four bedroom, three bathroom house. Are they going to run a bed and breakfast business ?
JiM B.
My office, his toy room, a guest room. Our bathroom, guest bath, normally the third is a half bath. I do not care to have every guest or contractor on my pot
If you are living below your means with a $25K income, you live on what you have, you do not run up debt, you put a little away most months, whatever you can spare.
If you are lower income, you are still going to get old and retire, just like anyone else. Whatever you have put away for retirement, it is sure going to be better than having absolutely nothing.
When I first got married, our family income was less than that. We bought two acres outside of town and lived in a travel trailer for a couple of years until we had finished building a very small house. I grew fruit and vegetables and ran a business out of the property. My husband drove into town to work. We never borrowed any money for anything. I work a mean budget. I consider that we lived well and very cheaply. That land was money in the bank.
I have managed to squirrel away, including retirement accounts, about $36k (backing out the value of all financial gifts I have been given by family members). But I certainly could not afford anything remotely resembling what you describe. There is no affordable land for sale within 40 miles of my location that does not have zoning rules that would prohibit what you describe. I also could not afford to have another person and I have a combined income of $25k - because two people cost significantly more than 1.
But by renting a room about a mile from work and not owning a vehicle I am able to save money.
To add, we live in a nice up scale neighbor anyone can be proud to live in! The Philippines does have poverty stricken areas, but we don't live in one!
Here's where we live in the Philippines: picture of Paseo de Sta Rosa - Google Search
If you are living below your means with a $25K income, you live on what you have, you do not run up debt, you put a little away most months, whatever you can spare.
If you are lower income, you are still going to get old and retire, just like anyone else. Whatever you have put away for retirement, it is sure going to be better than having absolutely nothing.
When I first got married, our family income was less than that. We bought two acres outside of town and lived in a travel trailer for a couple of years until we had finished building a very small house. I grew fruit and vegetables and ran a business out of the property. My husband drove into town to work. We never borrowed any money for anything. I work a mean budget. I consider that we lived well and very cheaply. That land was money in the bank.
I prefer to spend no more than 10% of my post-tax earnings. If I don't save a minimum of $1,500 a month, I feel I'm broke. Money is hard to come by. In America, after-tax earnings of $100 will take you an entire day or longer to generate. That is why I don't like to spend money. It's so hard to obtain in the first place.
I prefer to spend no more than 10% of my post-tax earnings. If I don't save a minimum of $1,500 a month, I feel I'm broke. Money is hard to come by. In America, after-tax earnings of $100 will take you an entire day or longer to generate. That is why I don't like to spend money. It's so hard to obtain in the first place.
If my parents paid all my bills I could do it too. I'd have about $190k in savings and I could BUY a house like the one I'm now renting just one room in...
But alas, I'm a grown-up with grown-up responsibility.
When indexed for the ability to replace 80% of one's working income in retirement, the suggestion of living on 99.8% of one's income as a "technical" definition of living "below" one's means is a laughable fallacy, a twisting of the spirit of the term, and a rather facetious scoff at the person asking the question by people who don't need a large percentage of their income to cover the cost of living line (flat for every man and woman regardless of income) lecturing the guy who needs 90% of his income to cover COL.
Since I'm not afraid to offend the affluent, nor do I believe any deference is owed to them nor to their sensitivity/defensiveness regarding living in a volatile and income-polarized Country of people they are increasingly NOT representative of, I'll tackle the term. Living below one's means is a socio-economic concept; only the well to do on here get uppity and try to sanitize it as some neutral arithmetic quantity. As a socioeconomic term, it effectively means choosing to live a social and material lifestyle below the social CLASS one could afford with one's income. A very pointed and conscious choice to downgrade one's appearance, material possessions and behavior, to include affronting personal and professional associations in the process of making said lifestyle choice. That's living below one's means.
Most Americans are highly expenditure-sensitive/inelastic, that is, even at the low levels of income, they are quite inelastic to a conscious downgrade in material consumption. Most americans are trying to maintain yesteryear's lifestyle by continuing to finance it; the thought of outliers willingly driving in the opposite direction is incomprehensible to them and a social pariah. This is not conjecture. Our human relationships penalize us for making downgrading choices (the hot girl won't sleep with you, the employer of choice won't hire you, et al). To be free is to proceed with our choices in spite of the shunning, in order to attain the freedom of the "position of F*** You", as coined by John Goodman in the movie the Gambler.
Very few people are willing to make such social stances, but it can prove quite financially solvent in the long run. Now back to your regular narrative driven by the well to do on here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
