Add Barriers to Your Savings Account to Protect Yourself from Impulsive Spending
There's nothing wrong with dipping into your savings account when you need to, but if you're prone to doing it a bit too often, using certain kinds of accounts can help deter you from going to them more than necessary.
Photo by Jeff Belmonte.
You can never understate the importance of budgeting, but it can be difficult when you have just one giant pile of money stashed away in a savings account. Personal finance blog Wise Bread recommends a few different types of accounts to deter you:
For short-term, emergency-fund type savings, I recommend a high-yield online savings account. It should be one that's not directly attached to your checking account, a debit card, or an ATM. That way you can't get to the money easily.
And because transfers to and from online savings accounts typically take a few days, you'll be less likely to reach into those funds for a splurge. I've found that the three to five day window really helps me to stay away from those funds. Yet, the savings account is still flexible enough to help you if you lost your job, or had a medical emergency that would require the use of the funds.
Using a high-yield savings account is good for short-term savings, since it merely makes it more difficult to get your money. For longer-term savings, however, they recommend more aggressive barriers, like a retirement account that deducts tax savings if you draw from it before retiring. These barriers may not be necessary for everyone, but if you find that impulsiveness is more a danger to your savings than anything else, it's a good way to keep yourself on track. Hit the link to read more, and share your strategies in the comments.
J.D.’s equation is correct, but it’s only part of the story. cash flow is in fact income minus expenses like the article states. However, cash flow does not correlate directly to wealth. You would naively think that wealth is the integral of cash flow with respect to time. It isn’t.
Suppose you earn $50,000. You immediately spend this money on building supplies and build a house with it. Your net cash flow is $0, but you now have a house that’s worth more than what you paid for it. You’ve got a property with a value of, say, $60,000. This is investment. Certainly you needed some cash flow to start the investing process, but cash flow itself is not wealth. Also, you now have the ability to generate $60,000 new dollars in positive cash flow by selling the house you built, in which case you can invest in something new.
The average American household income is about $3,000/month, after taxes. If you spend *all* of that on living expenses, you will never save your $50,000 to build your house. If you manage to cut your living expenses by half, you can now save your $50k in about three years. However, if instead you were able to double your income, you could save your $50k in half that time. If you take this even further and double your income again (to $12k/month) you could save you $50k in only 6 months. However, if instead you cut your living expenses by half a second time (to $750/month) it would still take you 22 months to save $50k.
You quickly hit a point of diminishing returns with cutting expenses, where each additional percent cut from your budget buys you less and less. The opposite is true for increasing your income. There is absolutely no way to save $50k in less than 16 months on $3,000/month. However, if you’re making enough money, there’s no limit to how fast you can do it.
Here’s one more example that’s not so extreme:
Set a goal to save $250,000. Pretend you want to buy a house in cash.
Start off with the same $3,000/month salary.
Start with the same $3,000/month living expenses.
Scenario 1: Your living expenses never change, but each year, you manage to increase your income 7% over the previous year. This seems feasible, it’s not a “get rich quick” scheme, you can probably find some way to improve your performance in whatever business you’re in by about this much.
You save your $250,000 in a bit over 12 years. At the end of the 12 years, you make about $120k/year. This is definitely a good salary, but it’s not ridiculously, infeasibly high.
Scenario 2:
You keep the same salary every year, but cut your expenses by 7%.
You save your $250k in 17 years, which is significantly longer. You’re also living on $920/month at the end of this, which is probably infeasible in real life. You just can’t keep cutting and cutting and cutting to this degree.
Scenario 3:
You combine both 1 and 2, both increasing your income by 7% every year, and cutting expenses the same amount. You’d think this would make a huge difference, right?
You’ll save your $250k in 10 years. This is definitely an improvement over either one of the other scenarios, but it’s not nearly the same sort of improvement you see if you solely increase income instead of solely decreasing spending. It also requires you to live on $1500/month at the end, which is certainly a lot more feasible that $920, but you still may think that’s a bit low.
This whole calculation ignores inflation (meaning, your 7% raise per year is probably more like 10% in absolute terms). It also means that at the end, when I say you’re living on $920/month, that’s $920 dollars at 2010 value, not 2027 value.
This is essentially the same concept that J.D. likes to call ‘the power of compound interest’, except applied in a slightly different way.
One other note on this example: selling your ’stuff’ makes almost no difference here. Even assuming you had $10k worth of stuff to get rid of at the beginning of this, it only buys you a few extra months in any of these scenarios. This is because a single, one-time influx of $10k is small in a scenario that takes 10-17 years to play out. At the end of these scenarios, you’re saving in the ballpark of $2000-$5000 every month. The extra $10k just isn’t that big of a deal any more. Selling ’stuff’ can help you reduce debts and stop paying interest to other parties if you can do it all at once, but it really doesn’t help you build long-term savings very well.
I know the site is called “get rich slowly”, but I like to think that is meant to convey an idea of perseverance and the fact that “get rick quick” schemes don’t work. It’s not meant to imply you should go artificially slower than you have to, just because.
In short: ask for a raise every year, even if you don’t always get it. Don’t be afraid to take a job at a competing company if they’ll offer you a better salary (assuming the job is otherwise similar). You don’t need to start your own company to make a few more percent every year. Just be valuable in your industry, show that to your employers, and don’t be afraid to ask for raises.
penis extender
Add Barriers to Your Savings Account to Protect Yourself from Impulsive Spending
There's nothing wrong with dipping into your savings account when you need to, but if you're prone to doing it a bit too often, using certain kinds of accounts can help deter you from going to them more than necessary.
Photo by Jeff Belmonte.
You can never understate the importance of budgeting, but it can be difficult when you have just one giant pile of money stashed away in a savings account. Personal finance blog Wise Bread recommends a few different types of accounts to deter you:
For short-term, emergency-fund type savings, I recommend a high-yield online savings account. It should be one that's not directly attached to your checking account, a debit card, or an ATM. That way you can't get to the money easily.
And because transfers to and from online savings accounts typically take a few days, you'll be less likely to reach into those funds for a splurge. I've found that the three to five day window really helps me to stay away from those funds. Yet, the savings account is still flexible enough to help you if you lost your job, or had a medical emergency that would require the use of the funds.
Using a high-yield savings account is good for short-term savings, since it merely makes it more difficult to get your money. For longer-term savings, however, they recommend more aggressive barriers, like a retirement account that deducts tax savings if you draw from it before retiring. These barriers may not be necessary for everyone, but if you find that impulsiveness is more a danger to your savings than anything else, it's a good way to keep yourself on track. Hit the link to read more, and share your strategies in the comments.
J.D.’s equation is correct, but it’s only part of the story. cash flow is in fact income minus expenses like the article states. However, cash flow does not correlate directly to wealth. You would naively think that wealth is the integral of cash flow with respect to time. It isn’t.
Suppose you earn $50,000. You immediately spend this money on building supplies and build a house with it. Your net cash flow is $0, but you now have a house that’s worth more than what you paid for it. You’ve got a property with a value of, say, $60,000. This is investment. Certainly you needed some cash flow to start the investing process, but cash flow itself is not wealth. Also, you now have the ability to generate $60,000 new dollars in positive cash flow by selling the house you built, in which case you can invest in something new.
The average American household income is about $3,000/month, after taxes. If you spend *all* of that on living expenses, you will never save your $50,000 to build your house. If you manage to cut your living expenses by half, you can now save your $50k in about three years. However, if instead you were able to double your income, you could save your $50k in half that time. If you take this even further and double your income again (to $12k/month) you could save you $50k in only 6 months. However, if instead you cut your living expenses by half a second time (to $750/month) it would still take you 22 months to save $50k.
You quickly hit a point of diminishing returns with cutting expenses, where each additional percent cut from your budget buys you less and less. The opposite is true for increasing your income. There is absolutely no way to save $50k in less than 16 months on $3,000/month. However, if you’re making enough money, there’s no limit to how fast you can do it.
Here’s one more example that’s not so extreme:
Set a goal to save $250,000. Pretend you want to buy a house in cash.
Start off with the same $3,000/month salary.
Start with the same $3,000/month living expenses.
Scenario 1: Your living expenses never change, but each year, you manage to increase your income 7% over the previous year. This seems feasible, it’s not a “get rich quick” scheme, you can probably find some way to improve your performance in whatever business you’re in by about this much.
You save your $250,000 in a bit over 12 years. At the end of the 12 years, you make about $120k/year. This is definitely a good salary, but it’s not ridiculously, infeasibly high.
Scenario 2:
You keep the same salary every year, but cut your expenses by 7%.
You save your $250k in 17 years, which is significantly longer. You’re also living on $920/month at the end of this, which is probably infeasible in real life. You just can’t keep cutting and cutting and cutting to this degree.
Scenario 3:
You combine both 1 and 2, both increasing your income by 7% every year, and cutting expenses the same amount. You’d think this would make a huge difference, right?
You’ll save your $250k in 10 years. This is definitely an improvement over either one of the other scenarios, but it’s not nearly the same sort of improvement you see if you solely increase income instead of solely decreasing spending. It also requires you to live on $1500/month at the end, which is certainly a lot more feasible that $920, but you still may think that’s a bit low.
This whole calculation ignores inflation (meaning, your 7% raise per year is probably more like 10% in absolute terms). It also means that at the end, when I say you’re living on $920/month, that’s $920 dollars at 2010 value, not 2027 value.
This is essentially the same concept that J.D. likes to call ‘the power of compound interest’, except applied in a slightly different way.
One other note on this example: selling your ’stuff’ makes almost no difference here. Even assuming you had $10k worth of stuff to get rid of at the beginning of this, it only buys you a few extra months in any of these scenarios. This is because a single, one-time influx of $10k is small in a scenario that takes 10-17 years to play out. At the end of these scenarios, you’re saving in the ballpark of $2000-$5000 every month. The extra $10k just isn’t that big of a deal any more. Selling ’stuff’ can help you reduce debts and stop paying interest to other parties if you can do it all at once, but it really doesn’t help you build long-term savings very well.
I know the site is called “get rich slowly”, but I like to think that is meant to convey an idea of perseverance and the fact that “get rick quick” schemes don’t work. It’s not meant to imply you should go artificially slower than you have to, just because.
In short: ask for a raise every year, even if you don’t always get it. Don’t be afraid to take a job at a competing company if they’ll offer you a better salary (assuming the job is otherwise similar). You don’t need to start your own company to make a few more percent every year. Just be valuable in your industry, show that to your employers, and don’t be afraid to ask for raises.
online stock trading online stock trading how to lose weight fast
NFL Training Camp <b>News</b>: MRI Shows No Damage To Albert <b>...</b>
NFL Training Camp News: MRI Shows No Damage To Albert Haynesworth's Knee.
Next OpFlash "takes on board feedback" <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net
Read our news of Next OpFlash. ... Latest News. Next Operation Flashpoint named . Latest Screenshots. Screenshot Today 09:40 . Developer EA DICE. Publisher Electronic Arts. Release Date TBC ...
Johann Hari: And the Most Inspiring Good <b>News</b> Story of the Year Is...
After slavery was abolished in 1833, Britain's GDP fell by 10 percent -- but they knew that cheap goods and fat profits made from flogging people until they broke were not worth having. Do we?
big white booty
No comments:
Post a Comment