What to say to Non-Savers (taxes, get, jobs, year)

[Huckleberry3911948]

Saving is not a rip off its how I retired early
My best years started @ 60 very fit mind u

[randomparent]

OP, I don't say anything at all to non-savers. I keep my focus on my own financial well-being.

[griffon652]

Originally Posted by RememberMee

I think I explained it very clearly why mass "saving for the future" within framework of the consumer capitalism would result in a major economic disaster immediately. Once that disaster strikes, you'll have nothing to "save for the future". So be grateful, non-savers keep the circus running.

Originally Posted by RememberMee

Things and intangibles you should "invest" in, rain or shine:
1) Marketable skills
2) Reciprocal Relationships
3) Tools
4) Ammo

These are hard to take from you. "Saving for the future" as you understand it is such a tiny speck of human history, you have very few historical data points to claim that it protects and insures against anything, not speaking of making "haves". You can't save your way into being a part of "haves", you got to risk everything, save nothing to get there, not speaking of kissing lots of arses.

I don't understand the point of this post. You literally just paraphrased everything you typed in your previous post. Just to reiterate my point is "no I'm not thankful for them because they aren't doing me any favors; they are spending because they are irresponsible." And point two was "No I'm not going to go out and start spending like crazy because EVERYONE might magically start saving as much as me tomorrow, thereby bringing doom to the economy." Could that happen? Sure even the most implausible thing has a small chance of occurring.

But that’s why I made the comments about apocalyptic scenarios. If you’re going to prepare for that type of economical crash, then you should also go and spend all your money on preparing for the next mega tsunami or mega volcano eruption. Its one thing to have emergency supplies for a month or two for disasters that may actually occur but its completely different and inefficient to blow all my money on 3 years of food, a underground bunker and tools restart civilization in case a super virus might wipe out 99.999% of the population.

As far as saving related to the haves and it being a "tiny" speck of history; you make points that are completely against what history has taught us. Historically, no country that was ever been an economic powerhouse got there by recklessly spending their resources and then "risking everything while saving nothing." That’s just crazy.

And no before you refer to civilizations building armies with their resources as “spending”, that’s not a waste or spending. They are USING resources to build something objective with the goal to acquire more resources. Its the same concept as saving your money to invest to make more money.

In regards to being a "have" in the micro economics level, most of the power players in the current world economy are there because of GENERALTIONAL wealth. Meaning through decades and sometimes centuries those families FIRST SAVED. Next they invested what they saved to make even more money and made shrewd political moves and every generation preceding them repeated that cycle. Point is, they wouldn’t be able to accomplish the other steps without saving first. That was a very general description of how the world turns but that’s just how the world has always worked and will continue to work.

If the people that are the have's lived by your philosophy of the "what if scenario’s and spent like there's no tomorrow" they wouldn't be a part of the have's. If you want an example of people following your philosophy, just look up what happens to most pro football players after they retire.

[AmFest]

Originally Posted by RememberMee

I think I explained it very clearly why mass "saving for the future" within framework of the consumer capitalism would result in a major economic disaster immediately. Once that disaster strikes, you'll have nothing to "save for the future". So be grateful, non-savers keep the circus running.

Things and intangibles you should "invest" in, rain or shine:
1) Marketable skills
2) Reciprocal Relationships
3) Tools
4) Ammo

These are hard to take from you. "Saving for the future" as you understand it is such a tiny speck of human history, you have very few historical data points to claim that it protects and insures against anything, not speaking of making "haves". You can't save your way into being a part of "haves", you got to risk everything, save nothing to get there, not speaking of kissing lots of arses.

This is the most thought provoking post I've read in a while. You are absolutely correct in saying that there is little historical evidence for savings to save one's life at old age. We humans haven't lived in peace for any extended period of time, and if history provides any meaningful lesson on survival, having a practical skill is perhaps the most secure way to survive in any society, any time period, any geographical location. Money is (has been) too easy to lose to insure or guarantee anything.

All right, I'm back to work to actually learn something useful, and back to social life to make meaningful relationships. I've been thinking a bit too much about money lately.

Thanks a lot for the wake up call. I mean it.

[Stockyman]

OP, the thing you should definitely say to Non-savers in case they end up broke and needing a loan: "Sorry, but I'm not a bank and I did not save for your future but mine."

One of the worst things about saving is people who are in financial need who know your saving habits and asking for loans. Your sacrifice is supposed to bail them out all the while they enjoyed their moments. If people ask, just tell them you lost it in the stock market.

[griffon652]

Originally Posted by Stockyman

OP, the thing you should definitely say to Non-savers in case they end up broke and needing a loan: "Sorry, but I'm not a bank and I did not save for your future but mine."

One of the worst things about saving is people who are in financial need who know your saving habits and asking for loans. Your sacrifice is supposed to bail them out all the while they enjoyed their moments. If people ask, just tell them you lost it in the stock market.

LOL what a perfect thing to say. That's what I hate about people who don't save/invest, if you have money saved they think they are entitled to your's because they don't have any. Even if the reason they don't have it is because of their reckless spending.

I have a friend who once asked me to GIVE him not loan him 5K just because he knew how well I did in investing my money. Funny thing is at that time he made more money then I did at my job, yet he blew through it and then thought I was obligated to give him my hard earned $$!

[Tallysmom]

Originally Posted by AmFest

This is the most thought provoking post I've read in a while. You are absolutely correct in saying that there is little historical evidence for savings to save one's life at old age. We humans haven't lived in peace for any extended period of time, and if history provides any meaningful lesson on survival, having a practical skill is perhaps the most secure way to survive in any society, any time period, any geographical location. Money is (has been) too easy to lose to insure or guarantee anything.

All right, I'm back to work to actually learn something useful, and back to social life to make meaningful relationships. I've been thinking a bit too much about money lately.

Thanks a lot for the wake up call. I mean it.

But -- there is absolutely no one saying you can't do both. I save money, I invest and... I cook, I bake, I can do small home repairs, and some larger ones, too. I sew, I try to reuse things that others would toss (think creative reuse), I have great friends and we have great times, I read, watch movies, and am thinking once again of writing the great American mystery novel. I clean my own house, do my own laundry, and I spend money -- I'm having a ring made right now. I get a massage every two weeks.

My mother was a black belt frugalista, because she had to be. I can do that, too. And thank heavens.

Because, I've actually seen a few people literally run out of money in their retirement years. They've had to sell their condos and move into tinier less accommodating spaces to spend their golden years because they've run out of money. They didn't plan well.

And Damn -- that's SCARY.

[Lusitano_]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

Yep, I noticed the same thing when I hit 100K in retirement funds. Once I hit this point, saving more didn't really get me that much more. I still had to maintain that same monthly dollar amount....but I'd have to save a huge amount of extra money every month to make a big difference at retirement age.

Of course, it depends on your age, too. Hitting 100K at 30 is different than hitting it at 40, etc.

of course.

100k at let's say in your younger years, will just compound without much effort.

If you're 40-45 then it's an impossible task.

I still have about 40 years to hit retirement, so there's a lot of years for my savings to compound.

And like someone said, I don't have necessarily to retire at that age. I may even "retire" sooner it's just a matter of "needing to work, or work because you want to"

[paiste13]

My dad says he wants to leave enough so we don't have to worry about emergencies but not enough to never worry.A few years back my dad sold some stock option and netted about $300k. A year later the stock was way up and he could have netted 1.5 million if he waited. I asked him if he was mad and he said "I'd still drive the same car, live in the same house, and eat the same food so what's the difference?"

My sister and I have always gotten along so I don't anticipate any fighting over inheritances (if there are any left).

EDIT - I hit 100k in both my retirement account and liquid accounts 6 months ago and I am early 30s. Life doesn't feel any different to me.

[Lacerta]

Originally Posted by darrell2525

After listening to all this, I find myself saying the same "why the hell I am maxing out my 401k to gov limits and paying extra to pay house off in 12 years, when I can be remodeling house and buying the luxrries"

Here is the problem.

The more you spend, the more you are used to having. That equates directly to you needing more money in retirement to maintain your quality of life. So the more you spend the more you need. But the more you spend, the less you have.

So if you make $80k and spend $75k, you need a lot more money in retirement than someone who was only making $40k, but only spending $30k. They are used to living on less, but saved more. Therefore in retirement, they need less money to keep their quality of life, but have more money. Which person will have a happier, longer retirement?


I do agree, however, that if everyone was a saver instead of a spender, our economy would have very different issues than it has today. I can't say it would be worse, but it would definitely be different.