Have a spare $23K? Here’s an idea for it
Occasionally I wonder on what plane of reality some of these financial
planners and advisers live because it’s sure not the one I call home.
The other day, I was watching one of the morning TV shows — the one that each morning announces it has real news — and one of these financial gurus was the guest. She was talking about retirement planning and what you can do for it when you’re 50. It’s a little late for me, but I watched and listened.
As is generally the case, she recommended the trusty ol’ 401K investment. Check. Then, the guru took the cloud express to somewhere else. She said if you put $23,000 a year into a 401K when you’re 50, then you’ll have more than $500,000 saved by the time you’re 65.
Excuse me?
That sounds great, if you have $23,000 spare income a year that’s sitting around not doing anything.
Apparently this lady thought that would be a simple thing to do. I suppose it could if you didn’t have house and car payments, insurance payments, utility payments, food purchases, gasoline payments, medical expenses, school and child care expenses, unexpected costs and rising prices for everything to deal with.
It ranks up there with the financial adviser who used Jay Leno as an example of how you can save for retirement. According to him, Leno didn’t spend his salary from The Tonight Show, but invested and saved it. He used pay from stand-up comedy gigs and personal appearances for living expenses. The guy’s point: Put half your income into savings, or get a second job and put everything from either it or your primary job into savings.
Yeah, right. Refer to the comment above about house and car payments, insurance payments, utility payments, etc.
Somehow, I don’t think this advice was for us survivors of the middle class, or low-income families. It more likely was for those “middle-class” individuals with the $250,000 annual income range, which as I recall was defined as middle class when trying to prevent tax increases on the 1 percent.
This is great financial advice if you can afford to do it. Of course, such advice usually is accompanied with the admonition to save first, make it the priority. Somehow, I think giving first priority to those who can shut off your utilities, repo your car, cancel your insurance and generally make your life miserable is more important.
Plus, I don’t know that many people these days whose income is such that they can put that much money in savings. Check to check is more like it, and I think that describes many more people than you might realize. And when they hear “experts” recommend saving $23,000 a year or putting away half their income it’s obvious the “experts” aren’t in the same league. Their advice makes as much sense as Steve Martin’s on how to become a millionaire: “First, get a million dollars.”
How about telling people getting by with a little more than minimum wage, or who are living check to check without any extravagances how they can save for the future? That would be a lot more practical and realistic.
Now, I’m not saying don’t try to squirrel away money for the future. If you can save some, you should.
If you can live frugally, that’s good, too.
Contrary to what the advertising industry says, we really don’t have to have every gadget, gizmo and latest fashion trend to live.
But I don’t think everyone should live like a monk or Ebenezer Scrooge or those folks on that TLC show about cheapskates, either. I’ve known a few folks who did, and a lot of them seemed pretty miserable.
Of course, I think if folks focused more on simply saving than “building wealth” — the buzzword of talk radio and countless get-rich-quick commercials — we’d be better off.
When exactly did making a living get usurped by “building wealth?”
There are plenty of folks out there with advice for fortune-building and getting rich quick. (And if they can make people think they’re getting one over on the government, that just sweetens the pot.)
Most of these schemes, ... uh, plans, are intended to build wealth — theirs, not yours. Instead of getting rich or adding to savings, folks just wind up with less.
We should be concerned with living good lives, taking care of our responsibilities and bills, enjoying our families and putting a little aside for that inevitable rainy day, not driving ourselves into the ground and hoarding every cent in an effort to “build wealth.”
After all, no one on their deathbed ever said they wished they’d worked harder, saved more and built wealth.
Well, maybe someone did, but they still didn’t get to take it with them.
The other day, I was watching one of the morning TV shows — the one that each morning announces it has real news — and one of these financial gurus was the guest. She was talking about retirement planning and what you can do for it when you’re 50. It’s a little late for me, but I watched and listened.
As is generally the case, she recommended the trusty ol’ 401K investment. Check. Then, the guru took the cloud express to somewhere else. She said if you put $23,000 a year into a 401K when you’re 50, then you’ll have more than $500,000 saved by the time you’re 65.
Excuse me?
That sounds great, if you have $23,000 spare income a year that’s sitting around not doing anything.
Apparently this lady thought that would be a simple thing to do. I suppose it could if you didn’t have house and car payments, insurance payments, utility payments, food purchases, gasoline payments, medical expenses, school and child care expenses, unexpected costs and rising prices for everything to deal with.
It ranks up there with the financial adviser who used Jay Leno as an example of how you can save for retirement. According to him, Leno didn’t spend his salary from The Tonight Show, but invested and saved it. He used pay from stand-up comedy gigs and personal appearances for living expenses. The guy’s point: Put half your income into savings, or get a second job and put everything from either it or your primary job into savings.
Yeah, right. Refer to the comment above about house and car payments, insurance payments, utility payments, etc.
Somehow, I don’t think this advice was for us survivors of the middle class, or low-income families. It more likely was for those “middle-class” individuals with the $250,000 annual income range, which as I recall was defined as middle class when trying to prevent tax increases on the 1 percent.
This is great financial advice if you can afford to do it. Of course, such advice usually is accompanied with the admonition to save first, make it the priority. Somehow, I think giving first priority to those who can shut off your utilities, repo your car, cancel your insurance and generally make your life miserable is more important.
Plus, I don’t know that many people these days whose income is such that they can put that much money in savings. Check to check is more like it, and I think that describes many more people than you might realize. And when they hear “experts” recommend saving $23,000 a year or putting away half their income it’s obvious the “experts” aren’t in the same league. Their advice makes as much sense as Steve Martin’s on how to become a millionaire: “First, get a million dollars.”
How about telling people getting by with a little more than minimum wage, or who are living check to check without any extravagances how they can save for the future? That would be a lot more practical and realistic.
Now, I’m not saying don’t try to squirrel away money for the future. If you can save some, you should.
If you can live frugally, that’s good, too.
Contrary to what the advertising industry says, we really don’t have to have every gadget, gizmo and latest fashion trend to live.
But I don’t think everyone should live like a monk or Ebenezer Scrooge or those folks on that TLC show about cheapskates, either. I’ve known a few folks who did, and a lot of them seemed pretty miserable.
Of course, I think if folks focused more on simply saving than “building wealth” — the buzzword of talk radio and countless get-rich-quick commercials — we’d be better off.
When exactly did making a living get usurped by “building wealth?”
There are plenty of folks out there with advice for fortune-building and getting rich quick. (And if they can make people think they’re getting one over on the government, that just sweetens the pot.)
Most of these schemes, ... uh, plans, are intended to build wealth — theirs, not yours. Instead of getting rich or adding to savings, folks just wind up with less.
We should be concerned with living good lives, taking care of our responsibilities and bills, enjoying our families and putting a little aside for that inevitable rainy day, not driving ourselves into the ground and hoarding every cent in an effort to “build wealth.”
After all, no one on their deathbed ever said they wished they’d worked harder, saved more and built wealth.
Well, maybe someone did, but they still didn’t get to take it with them.
.jpg)
Amen!
ReplyDeleteThanks!
ReplyDelete