I think he does generally have good savings habits and tips, but as he owes much of his success to rental property income I found a lot of his advice to not be applicable to my situation (and probably not most people's situations). That pays for all the bills and then some, so he could afford to put away most of his paychecks.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
How to Invest for Retirement
- Thread starter Piecake
- Start date
I think he does generally have good savings habits and tips, but as he owes much of his success to rental property income I found a lot of his advice to not be applicable to my situation (and probably not most people's situations). That pays for all the bills and then some, so he could afford to put away most of his paychecks.
anonymous_abc
Member
Does anyone read Mr Money Mustache? I do from time to time but his writing style becomes unbearable after a while.
I subscribe to the Listen Money Matters podcast and they interviewed him. I have listened to it probably 10 times by now. Dude's a nut, but he has a great philosophy. It's a terrific episode, below is a link for those that want to listen:
http://www.listenmoneymatters.com/early-retirement-with-mr-money-mustache/
I want to get to the point that he is at. Dude socked away 25x the money he used yearly and was able to live off of it and the earnings the money generates. More than anything I need to cut back my expenses, especially housing. My current savings rate is around 28%
I'm on their forum, it's fun to read.
And I really dig the idea of saving up 25*my annual spending.
I am currently at a 54% savings rate
My SO is at 31%.
So we are moving in the right direction.
Wellington
BAAAALLLINNN'
MMM is lucky also, and he admits it, in that his housing is paid off.
Wow, you guys will be there in short order with that type of savings rate.
I'm on their forum, it's fun to read.
And I really dig the idea of saving up 25*my annual spending.
I am currently at a 54% savings rate
My SO is at 31%.
So we are moving in the right direction.
Wow, you guys will be there in short order with that type of savings rate.
RumblingRosco
Member
-
Hey guys, just wanted to ask about some basic retirement savings advice as I'll be starting my first permanent career job this fall. I'm still super young but I'll be getting enough pay that I'll absolutely want to begin contributing to my savings as much as possible as soon as possible. I'm moving from Canada -> US for this and so I'm not sure exactly what all of my options are. I'm pretty sure I can contribute to a long term savings + a 401k + a Roth IRA, but I'm not sure how they all work in terms of yearly limits or how much I should be contributing to each. My employer will match 50% of my 401k contribution (which maxes out at 6% for matching), but I'm not sure what the legal max contribution is, or even really how 401k and IRAs work.
I'm going to do a bunch more research, but I thought I'd chime in and see what the best practices are for someone starting out young with no family, mortgage, or car to be funnelling money into. Is there an easy tool to see how much I'd be saving over time with specific contributions? It would be extra helpful if it included interest and employer contributions but I don't mind just doing the math myself.
I'm going to do a bunch more research, but I thought I'd chime in and see what the best practices are for someone starting out young with no family, mortgage, or car to be funnelling money into. Is there an easy tool to see how much I'd be saving over time with specific contributions? It would be extra helpful if it included interest and employer contributions but I don't mind just doing the math myself.
TangoAlphaLima
Member
Roth limit is $5,500 and 401k limit is $18k for 2015. So if you can, do a 401k up to the employer max match of 6% (meaning you'd put in 12%, so 18% total), then max out the Roth, then max out the 401k if you haven't already. You could change up that order slightly depending on your current tax bracket if you want to put a Roth at a little higher priority, but it's obviously hard to pass on free money from an employer match.
But note that you can't do a regular Roth if your MAGI is $131k or more, but you could still do a backdoor.
Most people have lost money ignoring this advice. I'm going to play it safe when it comes to this sort of stuff and index funds seem like the best route.
TheRagnCajun
Member
What is Canada-GAF putting in their TFSA's? I was given the advice to pick high dividend stocks so the returns can be re-invested, but I know dividends are taxed at a reduced rate anyways. Isn't it better to seek high-growth capital gains in a TFSA account?
Thanks for the response! I think the 401k stuff is slightly different, but I don't think it affects this strategy. I'm pretty sure what they mean is that they'll match 50% of my contribution up to 6%, and then I'm on my own. As in if I contribute 6% or more, they'll match 3%.
What is the deal with the 131k adjusted income? If it's higher than that I'm ineligible? What if over time I eventually exceed that?
I guess I'm also not clear on the main differences between something like a Roth IRA and a 401k, why is contributing to the IRA more advantageous (ignoring the employer match on the 401k)
Thanks for all of your help!
Randolph Freelander
Member
IRAs are going to give you more investment options (better funds, lower fees, etc.), but there's a lower limit. 401Ks have a higher limit with limited options (even plans with good, low-fee funds are still limited in the number of available funds). For most normal people, there's no income limitations on a 401K, but there are with both the traditional (deductibility) and Roth IRAs (eligibility).
The higher contribution limit on the 401K is going to give you more ability to defer taxation, should you choose to contribute to a "traditional" 401K plan (many employers now offer a Roth 401K, which has the same tax implications as the Roth IRA). This is going to reduce your taxable income in the present year, with withdrawals being taxed at whatever the prevailing rates happen to be during retirement. If you earn a high income now, this could be to your advantage. On the other hand, if you earn a lower income now but project to earn more during your retirement years, it would be advantageous to pay a low income tax now and then contribute your funds towards a Roth plan, either with your 401K or an outside IRA.
My advice for a high income earner is to go 401K first, then Roth IRA, particularly if your 401K plan offers a reasonable selection of good funds. If you are a low income earner, then follow the advice already offered: secure the full employer match in your 401K, then prioritize a Roth IRA above the 401K.
Edit: As for the modified adjusted gross income on the Roth IRA, your eligibility quickly phases out once you pass a certain threshold. However, just to prove how stupid the system is, there's a loophole that allows you to convert a traditional IRA to a Roth at any time, and you pay taxes at that time on any gains. It's called a "backdoor Roth," basically, where you open an IRA, deposit your funds, and then immediately convert it. You can google the topic and read more on it if your annual income is approaching the limit.
TangoAlphaLima
Member
Don't forget that age is an important factor as well. The longer a Roth IRA has to grow tax free, the more advantageous it is over a 401k/Traditional IRA. Since this is Appleman's first "permanent career" job, I think it's safe to assume he's at least relatively young.
And don't forget that there are other advantages to a Roth as well. Unlike a 401k/Traditional IRA, a Roth does not have require minimum distributions during the owner's lifetime. And when it passes to an heir, although the heir is required to take minimum distributions, he/she can take them over his/her life expectancy while the Roth continues to grow tax free. As a vehicle to leave money to your heirs, I don't think the value of a Roth can be understated.
Everyone's individual circumstances will be different, and the decision of a 401k/Traditional IRA vs. a Roth IRA will largely be made upon the particularities of those circumstances.
Randolph Freelander
Member
I want to first say that it is absolutely possible that my mental (and otherwise) modelling might be way off base, but my next statement is that the math does not necessarily support that, assuming you're saving at a rate that will maintain a similar standard of living as your pre-retirement years.
Let's assume first that you are saving every last penny you can afford. If so, then saving via Roth is by definition going to allow you to save less. (Every dollar you pay in tax now is a dollar you cannot save.) If your top marginal rate is in the 25% tax bracket, that means you're saving potentially 25% less dollars, and more as you go through the brackets. As earnings compound, your total is still that same percentage less at whatever point in time you wish to look, assuming you have reasonably similar funds to select from. The question then comes back to what taxes did you avoid in order to save traditionally, and what taxes will you have to pay when you start to make withdrawals. If you saved 25 or 28 percent, and you end up paying 20, then the math is clearly on the side of the traditional 401K.
Please, tell me where I'm wrong. I'm absolutely interested.
TangoAlphaLima
Member
I guess a lot of it depends on what you predict tax rates will be in the future. Even if you're in the 25% tax bracket currently, that's only about $1,833 you're paying in taxes on $7,333 earned to have $5,500 to put in the Roth. Using a conservative 8% return rate, it will be worth $119,484 in 40 years. To withdraw it will cost no additional taxes.
Now, let's use that $7,333 pre-tax number and say it was invested in a 401k/Traditional IRA instead. It's worth $159,305 in 40 years. If you're taxed at 20% on that, you'd come out ahead of the Roth. If you're taxed at 25%, the Roth gets a very tiny advantage. If you're taxed at 30%, then the Roth wins. Obviously it's all a guessing game as to what specific tax rates will be in the future, but it's likely they'll be going up, not down.
It also depends on how you plan to invest in the future. The $5,500 yearly max for a Roth will probably go up over time, but it will surely stay far behind the 401k yearly max. For estate planning purposes, I'd rather have a larger portion of my wealth in a Roth, and the only way I can do that is by maxing it out every year. It's easier to play catch up with the 401k later, given the higher limits (and the possibility/likelihood of jumping into the next higher tax bracket, thus giving the 401k a bigger advantage later, due to the current tax savings being greater). So for that reason, I like 401k to employer match first, followed by Roth, followed by 401k max.
Let's also throw into the equation how you intend to live in retirement. Will you be looking to spend your retirement savings, or are you mostly going to sit on your money? If you're spending, then the required minimum distributions from a 401k/Traditional IRA aren't a problem. If you're just going to sit on your money, then they are a problem, because you don't have another way to invest those distributions in a tax-advantaged account if you aren't working. So while a Roth owner can just sit on his money and continue to let it grow tax free, an individual who is forced to take disbursements from a 401k/Traditional IRA will have to pay taxes on those disbursements, plus will pay capital gains tax on any future growth if those disbursements are reinvested.
I think it's a very interesting debate, and I'm not saying you're wrong to prioritize a 401k over a Roth, but for me personally, I think the Roth is a better option after you've done a 401k up to the employer match. But again, everyone's personal circumstances are going to be different, and that's the most important factor that will be guiding which to choose (ideally, of course, you don't have to choose if you max out both!).
Randolph Freelander
Member
Thank you for your perspective. I'll only "challenge" this:
I would not predict rates going up, at least not on the middle class, and certainly wouldn't give it better odds than the alternative. The historical trend is to try to reduce rates, and it would take an enormous amount of guts for either side to propose a rate increase, despite the boogeyman that is the national debt.
I would not predict rates going up, at least not on the middle class, and certainly wouldn't give it better odds than the alternative. The historical trend is to try to reduce rates, and it would take an enormous amount of guts for either side to propose a rate increase, despite the boogeyman that is the national debt.
Walter White Walker
Member
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102468940
"The commission of the investment sins listed above is not limited to 'the little guy.' Huge institutional investors, viewed as a group, have long underperformed the unsophisticated index-fund investor who simply sits tight for decades," Buffett wrote in his latest letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders.
"Buffett already has his money where his mouth is. His famous "Million-Dollar Bet" with hedge fund-focused investment firm Protégé Partners is that a simple S&P 500 index fund managed by Vanguard would beat a mix of five funds of hedge funds over 10 years.
Through seven years, Buffett's index fund is up 63.5 percent while the five funds of funds selected by Protégé are up an estimated average of 19.6 percent, according to a Fortune report in February."
Later in the article hedge fund guys try to defend themselves but nope, not buying it.
TangoAlphaLima
Member
You may be right, but one thing is certain, the Roth locks in your tax rate, and as the cliche goes, better the devil you know than the devil you don't know.
http://www.chicagobooth.edu/capidea...anagers-have-trouble-keeping-up-with-the-pack
This seems like a pretty good overview of the pro-skill investing research.
I am assuming they counted for small sample size of stocks in a small fund produces greater variance even if the chance of win/loss is 50/50. I struggle to see how anything, but a massive fund exerts so much pressure on a price that it is able to move it significantly. Could obviously be wrong since it is just my thoughts.
This makes sense to me. In a unsaturated sector, there is more money opportunities and the market works less efficiently.
Thinking of it another way, if there are skilled fund managers who can beat the market, you either need to find them before they get too big and make sure they are in an unsaturated sector or pick a financial planner who can then pick funds for you that meet this criteria. Basically, you have to have more knowledge than the market or know someone who does, and then have enough knowledge to get out of that fund when it becomes too large or the market too saturated.
So essentially you have to be an expert to consistently pick the right fund or get lucky and hire a financial adviser who can do that for you. But arent you getting into the same probelm with the finanical adviser? If he is some genius with skill, wouldn't money start flowing his way? And if he has that much skill, why the heck would he deal with my piddly ten to hundrends of thousands of dollars? That's not even mentioning that you need to find an adviser with your best interests at heart.
So yay, money managers can display some skill in certain instances, but it doesnt matter to me at all. I certainly do not want to spend the great deal of time, effort, and practice to become an 'expert' anyways, and who knows if I would actually have any skill? Index funds just seem like a much more logical choice. Am I missing something here?
This seems like a pretty good overview of the pro-skill investing research.
I am assuming they counted for small sample size of stocks in a small fund produces greater variance even if the chance of win/loss is 50/50. I struggle to see how anything, but a massive fund exerts so much pressure on a price that it is able to move it significantly. Could obviously be wrong since it is just my thoughts.
This makes sense to me. In a unsaturated sector, there is more money opportunities and the market works less efficiently.
Thinking of it another way, if there are skilled fund managers who can beat the market, you either need to find them before they get too big and make sure they are in an unsaturated sector or pick a financial planner who can then pick funds for you that meet this criteria. Basically, you have to have more knowledge than the market or know someone who does, and then have enough knowledge to get out of that fund when it becomes too large or the market too saturated.
So essentially you have to be an expert to consistently pick the right fund or get lucky and hire a financial adviser who can do that for you. But arent you getting into the same probelm with the finanical adviser? If he is some genius with skill, wouldn't money start flowing his way? And if he has that much skill, why the heck would he deal with my piddly ten to hundrends of thousands of dollars? That's not even mentioning that you need to find an adviser with your best interests at heart.
So yay, money managers can display some skill in certain instances, but it doesnt matter to me at all. I certainly do not want to spend the great deal of time, effort, and practice to become an 'expert' anyways, and who knows if I would actually have any skill? Index funds just seem like a much more logical choice. Am I missing something here?
Darren870
Member
Does anyone read Mr Money Mustache? I do from time to time but his writing style becomes unbearable after a while.
I subscribe to the Listen Money Matters podcast and they interviewed him. I have listened to it probably 10 times by now. Dude's a nut, but he has a great philosophy. It's a terrific episode, below is a link for those that want to listen:
http://www.listenmoneymatters.com/early-retirement-with-mr-money-mustache/
I want to get to the point that he is at. Dude socked away 25x the money he used yearly and was able to live off of it and the earnings the money generates. More than anything I need to cut back my expenses, especially housing. My current savings rate is around 28%
I started reading his blog after a few recommendations on here. I found a lot of the information obvious though. I mean nothing was ground breaking and most of it I had learned from reading investment & savings books over the years. A lot of it was: "why are you buying expensive cars" "why are you eating out so much" "why do you live so far away from work" etc. Most those seemed obvious to me.
However, he is really into biking and not driving. Though I don't drive to work I was taking public transport. I've switched to biking though or hitch a ride with the missus when she has to drive in (real estate agent, so car is needed). Though sometimes she bikes in as well. So that is a nice save $2000 a year.
My missus and I area able to save 50-60% of our take home cash. Our retirement accounts are paid for by our employers (10% of our salary) and the rest we put back into or mortgage (4.55% interest). Or we put it into home reno that will benefit the home or help us save. Eg we built a huge veggie and fruit garden. We just started being able to get our veggies from there. We might look into solar panels or double glazing to keep electricity down.
I'm going to start putting money into stocks and other funds again. I cashed out all my stocks when I bought this house, so now I'd like to start putting money back into it once I can readjust our budget. We just bought this place so everything needs to be readjusted.
I'd like to retire like him in a few years
TangoAlphaLima
Member
That's pretty much what you hear from Dave Ramsey as well. It's funny that this is considered "expert advice," because before any of these guys were around, my parents just called it "common sense."
http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-brings-lunch-from-home-to-cut-down-on-small-jo,37912/
I really hate financial advice blogs because they're so condescending. Almost all of the ones I've read shame the reading for buying things that can be enjoyed. MMM takes this to a ridiculous extreme.
I really hate financial advice blogs because they're so condescending. Almost all of the ones I've read shame the reading for buying things that can be enjoyed. MMM takes this to a ridiculous extreme.
Darren870
Member
Yea, exactly. In the ends it all boils down to. - "Don't live beyond your means". People (and the internet) have a tendency to jump from one blog/site/figures to the next looking for the latest expert advice. The advice hasn't changed for the past 20 years though. Books I read in the 90's say the same damn thing as books published last year. 'Your Money or Your Life' is pretty much the same exact advice given by that blog, eg living off investments. In the end, its just the face/personality selling rehashed material.
Really, its not much different then the latest diet fads/blogs/programs.
While I do like reading these types of things, I do hope that some people actually listen to the advice they are presented. Hopefully, it changes their financial outlook and gets them out of the mess they are in.
While I do agree with what you are saying. It would be ridiculous to eat out a lot when you have high CC or Car debt. Fair enough if you only have a mortgage to worry about, but everything else does blow my mind. Also putting a limit on your daily "fun" expenses is a better start then just cutting it all out. Some people I work with get 3-4 cups of coffee a day, then might get a lunch too. That's about $25-35 here, per day! I know that's probably only an hr worth of work and it makes the day go better and fine I'm not one to say how you should spend your money. But if you have a large cc debt, then I say you don't have you head on straight and need to have another look at your finances and long term goals.
HOMEBOY OVER HERE
Banned
what are the best stocks to invest in right now?
All of them.
This has nothing to do with predicting when the market will go up, sideways, or down. We know it does, so having a triggering event in place in prep for either scenario to reap some nice rewards that costs pennies on the dollar is not as far fetched as you would imagine (and quite fun too imo).
but, yes, I am a partner in a firm
This sounds like:
The Trading Methodologies of W.D. Gann
Randolph Freelander
Member
And, to be clear, we do mean all of them. Not one of them.
RumblingRosco
Member
-
Randolph Freelander
Member
Right, you have until tax day to make 2014 contributions, but you can make 2015 contributions from Jan 1 through tax day next year. As with Vanguard, Fidelity has you select the year.
Lumination
'enry 'ollins
Hey all. I'd like to open an IRA with Vanguard and contribute the maximum amount for 2014. Is it advisable to avoid doing this online, or should that be ok? I'd like to avoid the hassle of having to mail documentation back and forth if that sort of thing is needed.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Randolph Freelander
Member
You can open it online no problem, but my understanding is that the account has to be opened by December 31 of the tax year in order to be able to contribute, though you have until April 15 to complete the contributions. You can certainly give them a call if you want to verify your eligibility.
Darren870
Member
I did mine online... Vanguard prefers it.
Lumination
'enry 'ollins
Oh jeez, that throws a wrench in my plans. Teaches me for slacking off on this stuff. At least I've filled up the 401k.
Thanks.
Easystride
Member
No, you should be able to still contribute to 2014 if you open an account before April 15th. I just had a friend do that very thing with a Vanguard Roth IRA in February.
cubicle47b
Member
I opened an IRA this year and contributed to 2014.
Randolph Freelander
Member
Lumination
'enry 'ollins
Well I might as well give it a shot tomorrow. Thanks everyone!
I did this online. They still needed me to mail them something to verify my identity. It took around 2 weeks. I don't see the downsides of doing it online versus the mail. It's just quicker to do it online.
I opened my account this Jan and was able to contribute the max amount for 2014.
To the bold, yes, absolutely. That's in part what MMM doesn't understand. (The following isn't aimed at you, just a general comment on MMM.) Not everyone can stomach cutting to the bone in the interest (no pun intended) of getting out of debt or saving more, and doing so can actually be counter productive. But to MMM, spending $5 once a week for a bite out is a violation to be chastised. (My wife emailed me that Onion article...while I was eating leftover soup for lunch at work. It hit a little close to the mark.) It all depends on severity of situation course, and I'm all for shooting for the stars, but there's a general lack of reasonableness to his recommendations that I find grating.
It's like dieting. Making too much change too quickly can actually be counter productive, because it factors out our basic humanity from the equation. My advice would be, go out once a week for a (cheap) meal, as a reward for cutting the rest of your eating out during the week. That's much more likely to be followed, and thus more productive advice, that "all free cash flow must go to savings or paying down debt or you will DIE" that MMM preaches.
Darren870
Member
Yep, I 100% agree. I think its taking small steps with everything and finding that perfect balance.
My favorite though is the people that complain about expensive restaurants. "I could never afford that!" "You spent how much!?" "Think of how much you could have saved if you just went somewhere cheaper!". Yet these people have $30 Italian meals 5 times a week, which would be more expensive if you just went out once a week for a nice meal. One that you actually could look back and remember, rather then eating out everyday at random take away joints.
Its all about finding that perfect balance though, and every person is different. But going to the MMM extreme is a bit much and that's why I didn't read much of his advice. That and everything else was just the same old advice everyone says.
I really never got that feeling with MMM, and I don't think he ignores humanity. His philosophy is predicated on a great deal of introspection of what truly makes humans happy - friends, family, exercise, outdoors, etc. All stuff that can be enjoyed for free or relatively cheap. His whole reason of early retirement is to increase that time as much as possible so that you can do the things you truly love and be with the people you truly love and not be forced or coerced into working for 2/3rds of your day. I mean, does the accumulation of things or buying expensive services truly make humans happy? Besides some certain necessities, I really don't think so.
Why does buying a meal make you happy? Is it really the food, or is it the event of going out with friends and family and having a conversation with someone? Why can't you make a special event at home and cook a meal that you have never tried before? Trying to cook something new could actually be more fun and rewarding because you are learning and doing something different. If it is just getting out of the house, you can just get out of the house for free by going walking, biking or camping.
So yea, I don't think he thinks you'll die if you splurge on an expensive meal. He will just think you are stupid for having your priorities so messed up because all of those splurges and luxuries are just increasing the time that you are being forced to work and not do the things you enjoy because you want to. Now, you might say you like work, but there is actually a major difference between being forced to work and choosing to work because you enjoy it. The feeling of coercion is a powerful negative force on our happiness.
Now, before you say I am indoctrinated or something like that, I am just trying to explain his philosophy from my understanding. I think it makes a good deal of sense. Problem is, is that it requires a lot of effort and work that I really and not sufficiently motivated to do just yet. I gotta bunch of other shit on my mind and on my plate before I do any sort of extreme savings plan. I only got so much willpower!
anonymous_abc
Member
Will you need the money on a specific date or wouldn't it matter if its +- a year or so?
I find eating a good meal is one of the great pleasures in life. I'm also an introvert, but I put on a brave face and do my thing as high-visibility financial analyst at a large corporation. Often very long, very hard hours (60+ last week). Often my only refuge during the day is lunch, when I can find a quiet corner in the cafe and at least enjoy a meal with a bit less stress. I don't like to do other things when I eat - I like to pay attention to a good meal. Four days out of the week, it's leftovers from home. (Usually tasty, as my wife is a good cook.) But once a week, I make the trek across campus to the cafe that serves a good GF pizza. It's my reward for packing all week, and as a way to celebrate another week of work done. It costs $5 for this meal.
MMM makes me feel like I'm being an irresponsible shit for doing so because I have a 4.625% mortgage.
To be fair, I stopped reading his blog a few years ago (for this reason), when I was really working on getting our savings and investments in order. So perhaps he's tempered himself a bit.
Going for a walk is great, and I do so often. It's not a total replacement for some things that do cost money. All of which is to say, I think it's a balance between the life style I want to live and living well within my means. MMM puts that balance way further over on the spectrum than I find enjoyable. More power to him.
Well, I don't know if MMM would approve (though he probably would), but if you know why you do it and it makes you happy then it is money well spent. I don't know if this is the point that MMM is trying to get across, but it is what I think constitutes a 'worthwhile' expenditure, is that there is another, hopefully deeper reason, for buying the thing or the service. New experiences that can only be purchased with money are also usually money well spent.
I mean, if it was your dream to buy a BMW since you were a little kid, then I think owning a BMW makes sense for that person. If you buy a BMW just because you wanted an expensive car and the status symbol then I think that is a rather stupid purchase. You are going to get used to the purchase very quickly and it will stop making you happy very quickly.
Of course, this is my 'ideal'. I certainly do not live up to this standard all the time. I honestly havent read his blog in about a year or two as well. There just really isnt anything else you can learn once you just get the general gist of what he thinks and a few good examples, tips.
Agree. It's certainly worthwhile to read the site, at least for a while. But at a certain point he was saying what I already knew, and that was enough. But to the extent that what we think of as common sense is actually far too uncommon, I do like that he's doing what he's doing. He just goes further than I would in some areas (per my too late edit above).
It kind of gets down to the life we want to live in retirement. I'm one of those people who hopes to maintain my (rather frugal) lifestyle, which does have some material pleasures, but also has a bucket list. I'm saving so I can keep doing things I enjoy, and hopefully knock a few items off that list.
anonymous_abc
Member
Honestly if that meal makes you happy go for it 100% MMM wouldn't disagree. It's all about figuring out what is important to you and now what society things is the norm.
I eat at the canteen with colleagues almost every day of the year, and I don't feel bad about it. I budget for it and know it might be potentially cheaper to cook at home and bring it in, but it's not worth the hassle as the canteen here at work is reasonably priced and serves decent food.
I cook on weekends because I enjoy it, I bake my own bread because I enjoy it and it tastes fantastic.
I'm going to stick with the target 2050 for now but might change things when I do my $5,500 deposit sometime soon. I do need to look at my other Vanguard investments though, for some reason I thought VIMSX had a lower expense ratio.
anonymous_abc
Member
If you really want to start gambling go to the Stock-Age OT
I don't recommend it, especially if you are just starting off. Better buy an index fund.
Wellington
BAAAALLLINNN'
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2014/09/22/lessons-in-badassity-from-a-night-in-houston/
This one always pushes me over the top. There was an issue with a connecting flight and rather than waiting on getting the travel voucher he paid for his hotel and then didn't want to pay for food, and fought the hunger pangs with "Stoicism". Fuck outta here dude, if I am hungry and it's not going to kill me, I am eating. Though I probably would have waited for the voucher.
That said, I feel the same way as Ghaleon. I stopped reading him because it was so over the top. The podcast episode with the LMM guys humanized him for me again, the character he plays online isn't necessarily the person he is.
With regards to brown bagging every day, I probably do it 3 of the 5 days. If I am very disciplined I get 4 of 5. I don't really think it's a big deal or hurts me to pack because the food I bring is often way tastier and healthier. What MMM preaches (based on the podcast) is that every dollar you spend is another dollar taken away from your freedom. I wish I could be like him or Pat Flynn whenever I have kids, they can take their kids to school every day and spend whatever amount of time they want with them. That is an ideal scenario for me. All of my time goes to the people and things I love, not my company.
anonymous_abc
Member
That's my main motivation. I would love to be able to afford to work part time when I have kids.