Retirees -- are you SPENDING enough money?

[bazza73]

26 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

On people hoarding for legacy reasons, perhaps more of them should consider starting to give their money away while they are still alive! Wouldn't it be more satisfying for example to help a worthy struggling relative start a business at a younger age?  Possibly you could even have some influence (guilt trips?) in the recipient not blowing it, certainly more chance of that while alive. Charity giving as well for those inclined. Spending more while alive doesn't necessarily only need to be selfish pleasure spending. 

My sister struggles, so she gets money every time I see her. My son owns his house because I gave him a substantial sum towards buying it. My Thai GF knows she will be well off when I go.

Hell man, I'm not giving ALL of it away. That would be stupid.

[Jingthing]

Nobody said give it all away while alive. But helping out loved ones while alive seems more wonderful than when not. 

[taxout]

Paranoia? No.

 

Simply an understanding of the effects of compounding and inflation. Just look at what things cost 30 or 40 years ago.

 

And an acceptance of the fact that really sad things sometimes do happen to people, particularly with aging. Even to you and me.

 

But if that is paranoia to you, then I say better to be paranoid than blind to the future awaiting us.

 

 

[Jingthing]

Just now, taxout said:

Paranoia? No.

 

Simply an understanding of the effects of compounding and inflation. Just look at what things cost 30 or 40 years ago.

 

And an acceptance of the fact that really sad things sometimes do happen to people, particularly with aging. Even to you and me.

 

But if that is paranoia to you, then I say better to be paranoid than blind to the future awaiting us.

 

 

I didn't mean it as an insult word. Sorry if you are offended.  I agree with you entirely. You have to face the harsh possibilities. But if you're at higher wealth levels, you don't need to hoard it all. Simple.

[taxout]

The underlying point here is that different people have different propensities to spend. Always have and always will. That's natural. And it doesn't change easily.

 

Just look at any couple. How many relationships run into trouble because the two have different views on spending money? How many arguments in how many living rooms are taking place right now over money?

 

So in the end, this comes down to accepting that different folks have different views about spending money, and moving on.

[55Jay]

I get this is mostly about "older folks", I've still got a while to go, so I hoard, preserve and grow what I've got. 

 

If I wasn't though, the last person I would take unsolicited advice from about my financial attitude, is a bossy, pedantic dude in Pattaya with a minimal financial portfolio who says so cavalierly that it's all so "simple". 

Edited May 19, 2017 by 55Jay

[Moonlover]

5 hours ago, peleid said:

Drink it while it is fizzing (life).There are many rich people in the graveyard

There are no rich people in grave yards!

[Moonlover]

I once read a book by Stephen Pollan called 'Die Broke'.

 

In the preface it said 'The last cheque you write should be to your undertaker. And make sure it bounces!'

 

I'm well on the way!

[impulse]

"Averages" quoted in the linked article are meaningless when a single Warren Buffet probably offsets 10,000 dirt poor retirees who struggle to eat better than beans and wienies and pay the rent in the same month.  

 

Bottom line, with wages stagnant since the '70s and Americans' net saving close to negative the only way to grow the economy is to get them to spend into debt, or spread some of that corporate profit to the workers who make it possible.

 

The linked article is an attempt to manipulate people into doing the former, using dodgy "statistics".  On which I call bullcrap.

[Jingthing]

5 minutes ago, Moonlover said:

I once read a book by Stephen Pollan called 'Die Broke'.

 

In the preface it said 'The last cheque you write should be to your undertaker. And make sure it bounces!'

 

I'm well on the way!

I read that too! It's a good philosophy if you're amazing at timing. 

[Moonlover]

5 minutes ago, Moonlover said:

I once read a book by Stephen Pollan called 'Die Broke'.

 

In the preface it said 'The last cheque you write should be to your undertaker. And make sure it bounces!'

 

I'm well on the way!

Sorry, I rescind that last sentence. My wife's well on the way!

[Jingthing]

19 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

I get this is mostly about "older folks", I've still got a while to go, so I hoard, preserve and grow what I've got. 

 

If I wasn't though, the last person I would take unsolicited advice from about my financial attitude, is a bossy, pedantic dude in Pattaya with a minimal financial portfolio who says so cavalierly that it's all so "simple". 

So you are not in the group of people that this topic involves but you just pop in to hurl yet another personal attack at me? Dude, not cool.

Also, you grossly oversimplify the breadth of my posts here.

I'm tired of your insult games. 

As far as the message that younger people need to save more for retirement. Yes, of course, that is basic, and so many people do reach older age with much less than they will need to be comfortable, or even survive. 

Hope that you do have the problem someday of possibly considering you aren't spending ENOUGH. 

It's a special problem for the more wealthy. 

Edited May 19, 2017 by Jingthing

[Moonlover]

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I read that too! It's a good philosophy if you're amazing at timing. 

Yes, but wouldn't it be cool if you got it right?

[Jingthing]

Just now, Moonlover said:

Yes, but wouldn't it be cool if you got it right?

Well, honestly, it's not realistic. If you had spent down significantly your final time would likely be very stressful and unpleasant at best. 

[55Jay]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

So you are not in the group of people that this topic involves but you just pop in to hurl yet another personal attack at me? Dude, not cool.

Also, you grossly oversimplify the breadth of my posts here.

I'm tired of your insult games. 

As far as the message that younger people need to save more for retirement. Yes, of course, that is basic, and so many people do reach older age with much less than they will need to be comfortable, or even survive. 

Neither are you. 

 

Didn't think you'd mind the candor from the massive ignore list.  I was wrong.  So solly. 

[Jingthing]

29 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

Neither are you. 

 

Didn't think you'd mind the candor from the massive ignore list.  I was wrong.  So solly. 

You're not sorry. 

Desist from your long standing agenda of personal attacks or expect continued push back. Clear enough? 

The topic is about the topic.

 

Responding to the neither are you, as I've already addressed, it's not that simple. I've met many people in my life that strongly feel if you have any savings, you are rich, and you should just spend it. That's obviously irrational to many people, but not to them. 

 

For example, I don't want to drive in Thailand, but if I did, I have the money to buy a car. So imagine I did want to drive here, there are many people that would think it's irrational not to buy one if you have the money. Heck, there are many people that think you should go into debt to buy a car even if you don't really need one. (Obviously different if you really need one.)

 

These things can be very relative and subjective. But there are levels of wealth (and poverty) where the answers are more obvious. The Canadian example I gave I think most would agree the guy does not need to die with his full 10 million dollars. 

 

Edited May 19, 2017 by Jingthing

[55Jay]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

You're not sorry. 

Desist from your long standing agenda of personal attacks or expect continued push back. Clear enough? 

The topic is about the topic.

 

[wump]

You guys arguing over the internet again? Slow day, is it?

[Jingthing]

5 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

Happy to hear we have an understanding.

[CGW]

3 hours ago, CatCage said:

I dont spend any money, my wife is in charge of the 'spending money department'

Why? are you happy with this arrangement? surely not! sounds to be you like you need to "man up" and take charge!

[55Jay]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Happy to hear we have an understanding.

You are a real piece of work but ok, I'll leave you and your thread in peace, carry on then.

[Jingthing]

11 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

You are a real piece of work but ok, I'll leave you and your thread in peace, carry on then.

If I'm a piece of work, what does that make you, that has been hurling personal attack flames at me for years, expecting no push back? 

Edited May 19, 2017 by Jingthing

[wump]

Just let it go, these flames will get deleted anyway.

[YetAnother]

Anyone that knows anything about Texas and I lived hi there for over 20 years as an adult

knows that Texas Tech is the ultraconservative of the ultra-conservative

[YetAnother]

Why all this personal crap?

[cyberfarang]

As an English expat living in Thailand, no longer entitled to the UK National Health Service while I am resident here and not entitled to any subsidised Thai government health care as a foreigner,  in medical limbo, then I feel the need to have a considerable amount of savings put by in case I become ill or injured in a serious accident. I would not want to place burdens on my family and friends.

 

But now being over 60, as for the rest of income, I would say spend and enjoy as soon as you receive it, no point in being the richest man in heaven or in hell wherever you might end up. I have known when an elderly relative died, their children later fighting over the spoils like vultures on heat. SPEND, SPEND, SPEND IT NOW. As once old one year becomes like 2 months. Remember that.

[GarryP]

As someone who will not be entitled to any government pension, my biggest concern is saving enough to retire. Even if I am successful with my target, I won't have much to spend anyway. But at least I can avail myself of free healthcare here and will not have to pay rent (now a Thai citizen and owning my house). 

[madmax2]

I personally spent to much of my life accumulating wealth after a couple of loosing streaks

I invested my money mainly in real estate and shares for to long and should have started spending it earlier when i would have been able to enjoy travelling more

Not having enough money to live comfortably and the way you want to is no fun and you learn quickly to save your penny's for a rainy day if you have ever had a battle to pay your bills

I have given both my children a substantial amount of cash and shares and still have enough left to live comfortably and buy what i want for the rest of my life, 

I am no Bill gates, but if another major recession hits i and all the people who are important to me will have nothing to worry about financially as long as the banks do not go bankrupt

I keep the majority of my money in one of the top 20 safest banks in the world and there are over 14,000 banks and savings societies so i feel secure in my investment

I have not used finance to buy anything for over 30 years, if i cannot afford to pay cash i do without until i can afford to pay cash for anything i want to buy

Edited May 19, 2017 by madmax2

[statman78]

9 hours ago, Jingthing said:

If leaving a large legacy is your priority, then the message of this thread doesn't really apply to you.

For those in your situation that aren't focused on legacy, whether your plan was rational or not would be based on level of wealth, age, and life span expectations.

Didn't start this thread to really invite people to get into specific details about their resources, but here's an example.

Let's imagine a Canadian, age 65, with a nest egg of 10 million dollars, pension income of 35K dollars per year, projected life of 20 more years, and not focused on legacy.

Such a person does not need to maintain that full nest egg of 10 million at that level or to grow it. 

They would be very foolish and irrational to only spend the pension.

I agree with your statement that they do not need to maintain the entire nest egg but why would they be foolish?  In the example given, if the person is living the life they want to live why should they spend more?

[55Jay]

36 minutes ago, statman78 said:

I agree with your statement that they do not need to maintain the entire nest egg but why would they be foolish?  In the example given, if the person is living the life they want to live why should they spend more?

Precisely, and so do I, much to JT's chagrin.  The concept is sound, but he's in no position to be commenting or doling out advice to others.

 

Ultra Liberals like to tell others what to do with their money and how they ought to be living.  Maybe some of the rich dopes will die without a will or trust, riches go to the State treasury, and JT can avail some free stuff in the US, if he ever moves back there. Which I doubt.  Cause he can't sell his condo and he's got not capital beyond that really.  But right, let's take some advice from THIS guy.  Spend it why you got it.  LOL. 

Edited May 19, 2017 by 55Jay