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.
It allows you to accomplish 12 months' worth of investing in 10 months. While savings accounts aren't yielding much, that's not so true of other investments, and that added time in the market can make a difference.
It's not a huge advantage, but it's an advantage.
You would have to keep it in regular savings. To pay bills and eat the other two months. Gamble those two months or have them in long-term investments? No.
You have not explained why. Interest rates on savings are crap. pennies.
Time value of money, opportunity costs and having more money sooner rather than later. All legitimate financial concepts
Now explain to me financially why getting the same amount of money over 12 months is a better financial move than getting the same amount over 10 months. Why didn't you give a reason when asked?
You would have to keep it in regular savings. To pay bills and eat the other two months. Gamble those two months or have them in long-term investments? No.
Unless you don't spend everything you make. If you save 50% of your income and invest it does it change your opinion? It's certainly a viable reason to get the same money over a shorter period of time if it's an option
You would have to keep it in regular savings. To pay bills and eat the other two months. Gamble those two months or have them in long-term investments? No.
No, you only have to keep the part you're planning to spend in regular savings. The part you're going to invest long-term can go in right away.
Say you plan to put $1200 in your IRA (to keep the math simple). If you're paid monthly, that's $100 invested per month over 12 months. If you're paid on a 10 month basis, that's $120 invested per month over 10 months. Same amount of money invested overall, but the person who's getting the money invested on the 10 month schedule is getting that money in the market faster, and thus is giving it more time to grow. Over the course of years, that adds up.
The exact details are not important to the general principle I was trying to elucidate. I am sorry the specific example I chose led to so much quibbling and bickering. I was actually trying to address people's attitudes toward money management and wondering aloud how it is possible to just have virtually no management going on at all!
There could be a thread about marshmallows, and there would be bickering. Go figure.
IMHO, a good share of the time, people can't distinguish between wants and needs, as another member said. Examples can be found with folks who make a "decent living" and those who don't make much.
Unless you don't spend everything you make. If you save 50% of your income and invest it does it change your opinion? It's certainly a viable reason to get the same money over a shorter period of time if it's an option
Most people don't do that. They have to pay rent or mortgage and other bills those two months. You can't say 10 checks is better when you are referring to a minority sub-set regarding how they use their income.
Irrelevant and just because most don't do it doesn't mean it's not beneficial to get all your money sooner
Quote:
They have to pay rent or mortgage and other bills those two months. You can't say 10 checks is better when you are referring to a minority sub-set regarding how they use their income.
No I can say getting your money sooner is always better. You can not provide any response as to why getting 12 checks is financially better than 10, none, you've countered with nothing factually based.
Irrelevant and just because most don't do it doesn't mean it's not beneficial to get all your money sooner
No I can say getting your money sooner is always better. You can not provide any response as to why getting 12 checks is financially better than 10, none, you've countered with nothing factually based.
I already did you just thing it's irrelevant. Most people don't live that far beneath their means and the pennies they'd earn in regular savings taking a portion of each of the ten paychecks to pay their bills and eat the other two months is not a benefit of any kind.
What is the point of going round and round about it? 10 paychecks or 12 is not even the topic.
I already did you just thing it's irrelevant. Most people don't live that far beneath their means and the pennies they'd earn in regular savings taking a portion of each of the ten paychecks to pay their bills and eat the other two months is not a benefit of any kind.
What is the point of going round and round about it? 10 paychecks or 12 is not even the topic.
Earnings some over nothing is a financial benefit. What you described is not a financial benefit so you arguing with me over which is more beneficial is silly as there is no financial benefit delaying your paychecks if you have the choice
Earnings some over nothing is a financial benefit. What you described is not a financial benefit so you arguing with me over which is more beneficial is silly as there is no financial benefit delaying your paychecks if you have the choice
You are totally 100% right, thank you for your wisdom.
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.
