Posted on 07/18/2007 7:39:01 AM PDT by truthkeeper
Edited on 07/18/2007 8:06:58 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Gannett meterial must be linked-only.
It would be more relevant if they cited PERCENT of income spent on these things......
The rules of financial freedom:
1) Spend less than you earn.
2) Avoid Debt.
3) Build in some liquidity for emergencies.
4) Remember it all belongs to the Almighty anyway.
To which libs reply: “easy for you to say... blahblahblah”
As a parent of a with asthma and a special needs child who is extremely expensive, I am not swayed to go to HillaryCare.
I want less taxes, or tax breaks so that I can continue to send my special needs daughter to a private school (because the public school was failing her), or tax breaks to help pay for speech, occupational, and other therapies.
There are tax breaks after you’ve spent so much of your income on therapies, but we haven’t reached that breaking point yet. We also can use our Flexible Spending Account for therapies but it is capped at 3000 for a family of 5, and that barely covers braces and our medical deductible.
My wife and I are about the same age as these people, late 20’s and early 30’s. Together we make $160,000 a year and we save 40%. Then again, I found a way to save 10% of my income when I only making $30,000. I’ve always found a way to save because I think it is important. Anyone who makes good money and doesnt chose to save is flat out stupid.
HA....here in the NW.....the average cost of a house/condo is about $200 per square foot.....
“Since when is a couple earning $80,000 considered to be “high earners”?”
Ummm..........since the Dems decided to “soak the rich” and there weren’t enough taxpayers to get soaked....
In real estate the old saw about “location, location, location” is no longer true.
“school sytem, school system, school system” is the new mantra.
Better hold onto your wallet.
If the libs have their way, half of your money will be given to the 80,000 per year couple, because, it’s JUST NOT FAIR that you earn more.
I'm thinking about that right now. I'd like something that's a little bigger (garage/workshop would be great), with (more importantly) more land. I'm sick of listening to my neighbor's dogs bark outside my window. :-)
But, again, it won't be more than I can afford, and (at least to me) I've got legit reasons for going larger...not just to impress the locals. Keeping up with the Joneses is for fools.
By the time I'm at your age, my plan is to be (roughly) in the same financial position you're in, as well. Good planning makes things ever so much easier.
All the more reason to leave when you retire. Our home would be worth millions if it was in Los Angeles. I’d say people out there who are in a position right now to retire and who can actually take full advantage of selling their home ought to, they can usually get the same kind of home here for well below their wildest dreams, and they’ll have so much free money left that they’ll never have to worry about a social security check or anything else. Then again, if too many of them move here, it could drive up prices the way retirees moving out there 30 years ago did, so, it’s always a two edged sword.
Other things can also happen. We easily bought a house, and had our first kid. We were only planning on 2 kids, and our house was perfect for that. We could easily afford 2 kids.
Then low and behold, we had identical twins on our 2nd pregnancy. Then the charming twins had tons of medical expenses even before they were born. Then they got sick at 6 weeks and almost died. One of them had severe asthma, and the other one has brain damage.
We’ve managed to save, but boy it has been a struggle. We even managed to get a larger house a few years ago, but that was because my husband got laid off and we used his severance to pay for the new house.
Since we bought the new house, we also have had major unexpected car expenses.
But the biggest unexpected recent expense has been that we had to put our daughters in private school. The public schools just couldn’t handle teaching our daughter with brain damage. In addition the public school was terrible for teaching, violence, and language. My other daughter was miserable there.
We’ve always managed. We sold some stock early on in my husband’s career and put it into savings for an emergency. We have not had to use that. We also put money in a 401 K, and we have never had to borrow against that. We also have tons of equity in our home, and we’ve never had to take out a home equity loan.
After that, we’re living paycheck to paycheck. My kids don’t do lots of after school activities. We don’t go on fancy trips. Our kids are older now and can stay home by themselves, so my husband and I finally go out on dates. We don’t shop at fancy stores. My kids get lots of their clothes from Target and other places like that.
When the kids were very little, I didn’t buy clothes and shoes for me for over a year (except maybe a pair of jeans).
A few years ago when my husband was going to be laid off, we really scaled back. Birthday parties were just homemade cake and ice cream at our house. I made Halloween costumes. We explored beaches and parks around our house. I cooked at home a ton, and we stopped going out to eat. In about 6 months, I think we saved an additional $12K. No one suffered, and I think we could easily go back to that lifestyle. We found out about a lot of free programs at the library and county parks, and we still go to those when they are interesting.
I’m a little confused. Do they earn $80K jointly or individually? Because if it’s joint, I don’t consider them to be high earners. That’s the part of this article that bothers me. The media setting the level of what they consider “too much income” here, then moaning that the middle class is disappearing.
Remember folks, these are the “high earners” that dems want to “take back from” for the good of everyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is a big problem, people still seem to think anything over 50,000 a year is a huge income and it simply isn’t. People who earn relatively modest incomes but persist in thinking they make a lot of money are doomed.
Nope....when we retire, we’re likely moving to another high rent area (Bend, OR).....there is something called “quality of life”....my husband and I are 3rd generation Northwesterners - getting out of the Seattle area will be sweet enough! Having to fight 3 million people for the roads/forests/parks/etc....is getting tiring....we’re looking forward to only having to fight with about 250K people.
P.S....but my husband did say we might HAVE to go to Charlotte, NC first.....
“Perhaps the greatest crime in our education system is the lack of personal finance education.”
Couldn’t agree with you more strongly!
Many people get themselves into a lot of trouble financially because they are simply ignorant about finances. They have never been taught anything about it.
It is as essential a as the “three R’s”.
Failing to educate students about this subject is a MAJOR failure of the educational system.
Personal Responsiblity is not a catchy news story that will bring us to socialism.
Good catch. I suspect we'll be seeing lots more of this kind of thing as the election gets closer.
I must admit that school district was very important to where I lived. If you don’t live near a large city, it is not such a big problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.