The Money Mustache Community
General Discussion => Welcome and General Discussion => Topic started by: Le0 on December 23, 2013, 02:06:34 PM
-
Recent Posts have really got me thinking about total income and how that changes peoples situation. I am interested where they MMM community sits in terms of how much they make.
Sorry if there is something similar on the boards already I did a bit of a search.
Household totals.
Before Tax.
-
Individual or household?
-
before or after tax?
-
I guess household. Because I am looking at peoples ability to spend while saving.
-
Not sure what the poll is going to show. Households are different sizes. I am a household of 1.
-
I will make around 35K in 2014. My girlfriend and I together will probably make about 60K in 2014. Her sister and her sister's boyfriend will probably make around 50K. The four of us live together. So depending on your definition of "household", either 35K, 60K, or 110K. I consider our household financially speaking to be the two of us, so 60K then I guess.
-
Not sure what the poll is going to show. Households are different sizes. I am a household of 1.
Well if you assume that we all live within 25% of our household income, and save 75%. Then it will show the ability of MMM reader to spend while saving 75% of their income.
The recent discussion on cleaners has got me realizing that if I were to hire a cleaner that is a clear facepunch. But if someone can hire a cleaner and keep their total spending with 25% of their income then its not a facepunch. So I am now wondering which is the majority on the forums people who can or people who shouldn't.
-
Not sure what the poll is going to show. Households are different sizes. I am a household of 1.
Well if you assume that we all live within 25% of our household income, and save 75%. Then it will show the ability of MMM reader to spend while saving 75% of their income.
The recent discussion on cleaners has got me realizing that if I were to hire a cleaner that is a clear facepunch. But if someone can hire a cleaner and keep their total spending with 25% of their income then its not a facepunch. So I am now wondering which is the majority on the forums people who can or people who shouldn't.
There was a poll a while back on savings rate. Safe to say that that's NOT a safe assumption.
And no, a cleaner is always a face punch. It's not always about the money.
-
Not sure what the poll is going to show. Households are different sizes. I am a household of 1.
Well if you assume that we all live within 25% of our household income, and save 75%. Then it will show the ability of MMM reader to spend while saving 75% of their income.
The recent discussion on cleaners has got me realizing that if I were to hire a cleaner that is a clear facepunch. But if someone can hire a cleaner and keep their total spending with 25% of their income then its not a facepunch. So I am now wondering which is the majority on the forums people who can or people who shouldn't.
There was a poll a while back on savings rate. Safe to say that that's NOT a safe assumption.
And no, a cleaner is always a face punch. It's not always about the money.
We have a cleaner come in once a month to do a deeper cleaning than we do on a regular basis. The more regular cleaning is "fit in" in to whatever 15 minute spaces appear. The pro spends about four hours resetting things to a higher standard of clean. I estimate it would take me 6 hours to do the same, and that I could break it into two or three pieces and still be relatively efficient about it. For an annual cost of about one-quartet of one percent of my annual income, for my family to not lose six hours a month of not-at-work, not-a-school time, I think it's well worth it, even if you punch me in the face.
-
Not sure what the poll is going to show. Households are different sizes. I am a household of 1.
Well if you assume that we all live within 25% of our household income, and save 75%. Then it will show the ability of MMM reader to spend while saving 75% of their income.
The recent discussion on cleaners has got me realizing that if I were to hire a cleaner that is a clear facepunch. But if someone can hire a cleaner and keep their total spending with 25% of their income then its not a facepunch. So I am now wondering which is the majority on the forums people who can or people who shouldn't.
There was a poll a while back on savings rate. Safe to say that that's NOT a safe assumption.
And no, a cleaner is always a face punch. It's not always about the money.
We have a cleaner come in once a month to do a deeper cleaning than we do on a regular basis. The more regular cleaning is "fit in" in to whatever 15 minute spaces appear. The pro spends about four hours resetting things to a higher standard of clean. I estimate it would take me 6 hours to do the same, and that I could break it into two or three pieces and still be relatively efficient about it. For an annual cost of about one-quartet of one percent of my annual income, for my family to not lose six hours a month of not-at-work, not-a-school time, I think it's well worth it, even if you punch me in the face.
Y'all should chime in over here if you haven't already:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/antimustachian-wall-of-shame-and-comedy/house-cleaning/
-
Whoops, I clicked the wrong category. I'm earning just over $60,000 AUD... But in USD, that's only ~$54,000. Sorry.
-
I would not have expected that distribution at all. Very interesting….
-
Rather than household income, a better statistic would be something like average income for working members of the household. Or just individual income rather than household.
Right now the statistics are meaningless because there's no way to separate couple's income from single's.
-
I thought the poll was depressing as I was in the low range, until I found out it was for household totals, which made me feel a bit better. Though then it became sort of meaningless to me as I don't know how many of the poll participants are single incomes, and how many are dual (or even more?), and which demographic has chosen what.
I live in a sharehouse, but I only put my income in, as I have no idea how much my housemates earn, and we do our own thing most of the time. Though, of course we do share rent and other bills, and if we were to hire a cleaner one day, for example, that would be something we'd arrange together.
-
North of $60K but not quite $70K since I've cut my hours back to be home during the week while my wife works.
Since the OP was curious about savings rate, currently we're only at 10-15% but that's going to quickly escalate as our debts retire. We only spend 25% of our income on actual living expenses/expenses that will continue into ER, and we have 3 kids.
-
I don't think it's a useless poll. This has come up several times and it's helpful information for some of the discussions. Sure it would be nice to have more details but you can't have anything. I guess someone can make 2 more polls, one for singles & one for couples, and anyone with alternate situations (>2) will have to figure something else out.
For example until 3 years ago, our highest combined income ever was $45K. Whether you're a single or a couple, it's going to be tough to get to FI on that.
-
I wonder if 'Household income divide by # of income earners' would be a better statistic?
-
I can't vote on my phone.. somewhere around 120-140k. I haven't done the year end numbers yet. That's 6 income streams between the two of us.
-
I had trouble with it too in this regard: does "male" include taxable dividends, all dividends, realized or unrealized capital gains?
-
I picked 20,001-30,000. After taxes and 401k contributions and health insurance, including bonuses and other spiffs, I've made 28,915 and am looking forward to 1 more check before the year ends.
I know this isn't much to most people but I was actually earning WAAAAAAAAAY less last year with no insurance, no 401k no benefits.
-
\ does "male" include taxable dividends, all dividends, realized or unrealized capital gains?
Hmmm. Now I am wondering what "female" might mean. ;-)
-
Would people be interested in doing a survey?
We could make a long list of questions - vote to a short list.
Then create a google form to collect the data. Everyone is able to see it. That way we can do some more stats like the individual earnings etc.
I think that the household income before taxes shows the potential of a household to spend. I am not saying everyone operates within their 25%... but at a certain income level it should be very simple to live like that give the MMM rules.
With a longer survey we could do some kind of rent versus income versus savings rate comparison.
-
Not sure what the poll is going to show. Households are different sizes. I am a household of 1.
Well if you assume that we all live within 25% of our household income, and save 75%. Then it will show the ability of MMM reader to spend while saving 75% of their income.
The recent discussion on cleaners has got me realizing that if I were to hire a cleaner that is a clear facepunch. But if someone can hire a cleaner and keep their total spending with 25% of their income then its not a facepunch. So I am now wondering which is the majority on the forums people who can or people who shouldn't.
Funny, I kind of interpreted the MMM philosophy as living on as little as possible and saving the rest. Whether that's living on 20% of $100k or 80% of $25k. (That's $20k both times.) I posit it's very difficult (not impossible, but most likely highly undesirable) for someone to live on 25% of $20k/year.
My stipend comes out to $26k before taxes.
-
Not sure what the poll is going to show. Households are different sizes. I am a household of 1.
Well if you assume that we all live within 25% of our household income, and save 75%. Then it will show the ability of MMM reader to spend while saving 75% of their income.
The recent discussion on cleaners has got me realizing that if I were to hire a cleaner that is a clear facepunch. But if someone can hire a cleaner and keep their total spending with 25% of their income then its not a facepunch. So I am now wondering which is the majority on the forums people who can or people who shouldn't.
Funny, I kind of interpreted the MMM philosophy as living on as little as possible and saving the rest. Whether that's living on 20% of $100k or 80% of $25k. (That's $20k both times.) I posit it's very difficult (not impossible, but most likely highly undesirable) for someone to live on 25% of $20k/year.
My stipend comes out to $26k before taxes.
Yes it is impossible. But that means there is a threshold income where you can retire in 7 years. Below the threshold have longer to go until FI.
I am hypothesizing that this threshold is at about 80,000. Which is 2 mid-range incomes if I am correct.
-
The correct answer is not enough.
-
The distribution is much more even than I would have predicted. It does look like the community is weighted above median, but that's to be expected given the professions from the poll.
-
I am hypothesizing that this threshold is at about 80,000. Which is 2 mid-range incomes if I am correct.
US median household income is approximately $50k, Canadian income tend to be slightly lower. So you may be over estimating what "midrange" is
-
Funny, I kind of interpreted the MMM philosophy as living on as little as possible and saving the rest.
I don't think MMM lives on "as little as possible", though. Also, Jacob of ERE had a more spartan life, and even he splurged on martial arts classes.
-
Funny, I kind of interpreted the MMM philosophy as living on as little as possible and saving the rest.
I don't think MMM lives on "as little as possible", though. Also, Jacob of ERE had a more spartan life, and even he splurged on martial arts classes.
I think it's more appropriately: "Consider the value of every dollar spent. Conscious spending."
At it's basest, that is Nord and MMM's life.
-
Way to go!
I picked 20,001-30,000. After taxes and 401k contributions and health insurance, including bonuses and other spiffs, I've made 28,915 and am looking forward to 1 more check before the year ends.
I know this isn't much to most people but I was actually earning WAAAAAAAAAY less last year with no insurance, no 401k no benefits.
-
Not sure what the poll is going to show. Households are different sizes. I am a household of 1.
Well if you assume that we all live within 25% of our household income, and save 75%. Then it will show the ability of MMM reader to spend while saving 75% of their income.
The recent discussion on cleaners has got me realizing that if I were to hire a cleaner that is a clear facepunch. But if someone can hire a cleaner and keep their total spending with 25% of their income then its not a facepunch. So I am now wondering which is the majority on the forums people who can or people who shouldn't.
I doubt very much that is true. I save about 50% and I'm not looking for a really early retirement either. Let's not pigeonhole people, there is more diversity on this board than you assume.
-
I voted for before taxes income, maybe it was a wrong way to do it...
The most meaningful number I think would be derived by taking the total household after tax income (also subtracting pension fund contributions if relevant) and dividing by the number of people in the household.
-
I am hypothesizing that this threshold is at about 80,000. Which is 2 mid-range incomes if I am correct.
US median household income is approximately $50k, Canadian income tend to be slightly lower. So you may be over estimating what "midrange" is
Canada's median household income in 2011 was $72k: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/famil108a-eng.htm
US median household income in 2004 was $44k: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Median_income
-
With the current exchange rate and resource boom Canadians are almost certainly richer than Americans at least in nominal dollars.
-
This poll really needs to be split based on how many people are in the household.
-
This poll really needs to be split based on how many people are in the household.
how many wage earners in the household ;)
we have 3 non-wage earners in our house essentially (my wife is a stay at home mom who does coupons so she "earns" by saving). Then we have our biggest non-wage earner -- the dog. He has no future earning potential at all…..
-
My Wife makes 28K =full time job 14 bucks/hour
I make:
20K= around 1,000hrs a year 18bucks/hour plus tips
+3240 to be landlord at a duplex down the street (270/mo)
+approx 9000 net from our rentals we own
_____________________________________
=60K/yr
Cheers,
Scott
-
This poll really needs to be split based on how many people are in the household.
how many wage earners in the household ;)
we have 3 non-wage earners in our house essentially (my wife is a stay at home mom who does coupons so she "earns" by saving). Then we have our biggest non-wage earner -- the dog. He has no future earning potential at all…..
Actually, I think that if what you're looking for is a way to analyze income relative spending and saving, it's more useful to look at all people in the household, rather than just wage earners. Our household has 2 wage earners, but 6 spenders (not counting the two dogs) and I would argue (as I have in other places on the forum) that despite the fact that the second wage earner in our house makes more than 1.5x what I make, there is no possible way that we can save as much as I could save if I were single with no kids. It doesn't matter how many people are making the money, what matters is how much total money comes in and how many people are spending it. I agree with Albert above that the most useful metric is probably income/number of people.
-
Funny, I kind of interpreted the MMM philosophy as living on as little as possible and saving the rest.
I don't think MMM lives on "as little as possible", though. Also, Jacob of ERE had a more spartan life, and even he splurged on martial arts classes.
*as little as you can (eliminating wasteful/excessive spending) while still gathering enjoyment from life (spending time and money on what matters) and not imposing on others undesirably (e.g. mooching). :)
-
This poll really needs to be split based on how many people are in the household.
how many wage earners in the household ;)
we have 3 non-wage earners in our house essentially (my wife is a stay at home mom who does coupons so she "earns" by saving). Then we have our biggest non-wage earner -- the dog. He has no future earning potential at all…..
Actually, I think that if what you're looking for is a way to analyze income relative spending and saving, it's more useful to look at all people in the household, rather than just wage earners. Our household has 2 wage earners, but 6 spenders (not counting the two dogs) and I would argue (as I have in other places on the forum) that despite the fact that the second wage earner in our house makes more than 1.5x what I make, there is no possible way that we can save as much as I could save if I were single with no kids. It doesn't matter how many people are making the money, what matters is how much total money comes in and how many people are spending it. I agree with Albert above that the most useful metric is probably income/number of people.
I thought this was looking at income per person, not income vs savings. that's why I pointed that out. I agree with the savings metric, though.
-
After thinking about it a bit more I think it would be better to divide by 1.5 for every additional household member because there are significant savings with 2 (or more) people living together instead of separately.
So my formula would be Total net income/0.5+0.5x where x is a number household members
Of course that still doesn't take into account cost of living in your area and what you need to save for (pension or not?, free education or not?), but it's better than nothing.
-
Would people be interested in doing a survey?
I like the idea of a survey, though there are probably better (more anonymous) ways to do it that will correlate answers and all that fancy business for you. I've never made a survey so I'm not sure what would be best, but my university uses Surveymonkey and Doodle all the time.
-
Would people be interested in doing a survey?
I like the idea of a survey, though there are probably better (more anonymous) ways to do it that will correlate answers and all that fancy business for you. I've never made a survey so I'm not sure what would be best, but my university uses Surveymonkey and Doodle all the time.
Survey monkey would be good. I just would want to make sure anyone from mmm that wants access to the data can easily get it. And I would want the survey to be transparent, not just a couple members doing it something everyone can follow.
-
Myself: 140-150
My family (I choose to live with my parents, who who work full time) : ~270
-
After thinking about it a bit more I think it would be better divide by 1.5 for every additional household member because there are significant savings with 2 (or more) people living together instead of separately.
At the same time, for some of us, to get married will almost assuredly increase my per/person expenses. I'm currently renting with 2 other guys and getting married would reduce the number of people from three to two.
-
Already voted before reading all of the other posts. I put down how much I make pretax (Only voted on income that is taxes however) and I only included myself. Oh well, lol. I' surprised to see most of the individuals polled making quite a bit even for higher priced areas within the United States.
-
I am hypothesizing that this threshold is at about 80,000. Which is 2 mid-range incomes if I am correct.
US median household income is approximately $50k, Canadian income tend to be slightly lower. So you may be over estimating what "midrange" is
Canada's median household income in 2011 was $72k: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/famil108a-eng.htm
US median household income in 2004 was $44k: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Median_income
Thanks! I hadn't bothered to check the numbers, and just went with the "higher salaries in the states" assumption, which turns out to be wrong in the aggregate. I was posting from my phone, where everything is harder then from a computer.
For what it's worth, updated US income figures put the median household income at $53,046 (2008-2012). Also, I'm sure it's not a huge effect, but now that Stats Can has switched from the mandatory long-form survey to the voluntary version, their numbers aren't considered as accurate, and in fact one of the worries was that it would be biased towards higher income groups (who have the time, education, and inclination to fill out voluntary surveys).
Thanks for setting me straight. You learn something new everyday.
-
I am hypothesizing that this threshold is at about 80,000. Which is 2 mid-range incomes if I am correct.
US median household income is approximately $50k, Canadian income tend to be slightly lower. So you may be over estimating what "midrange" is
Canada's median household income in 2011 was $72k: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/famil108a-eng.htm
US median household income in 2004 was $44k: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Median_income
The US mean income is highly distorted by income inequality.
The average income for the bottom 90% (everyone excluding the top 10%) is only $30k.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph)
-
The US median income is highly distorted by income inequality.
The average income for the bottom 90% (everyone excluding the top 10%) is only $30k.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph)
How would income inequality distort the median income?
http://www.conceptstew.co.uk/PAGES/mean_or_median.html
The mother jones article seems to be using "average" income as synonymous with mean income. Calculating the mean is not a good idea for data like income that is not symmetrically distributed. Also, this is probably a losing battle, but average should not be synonymous with the mean, it simply means some measure of central tendency.
I also think infographics in general are to be distrusted:
http://xkcd.com/1273/
http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3167
-
Nice poll - interesting feedback
Merry Christmas everyone
-
Yes, mistyped. Corrected to mean.
Also, in general usage mean is a synonym with average.
The point is that averaging a few Bill Gates's in with a few (more) Joe Blow's highly distort the average US income. Most people are no where near as well off as commonly reported data would lead one to believe.
-
I am voted for 0 to 10000 individual because i think for the individual person its the average amount of money. Your poll is very interesting and effective for the gaining knowledge. so thanks for sharing it.
-
Poll results are not surprising, a website about saving money/investing gets more visitors who are well off.
It's unfortunate, as it's the people making less money that could most use the advice here.
-
I am hypothesizing that this threshold is at about 80,000. Which is 2 mid-range incomes if I am correct.
US median household income is approximately $50k, Canadian income tend to be slightly lower. So you may be over estimating what "midrange" is
Canada's median household income in 2011 was $72k: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/famil108a-eng.htm
US median household income in 2004 was $44k: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Median_income
Thanks! I hadn't bothered to check the numbers, and just went with the "higher salaries in the states" assumption, which turns out to be wrong in the aggregate. I was posting from my phone, where everything is harder then from a computer.
For what it's worth, updated US income figures put the median household income at $53,046 (2008-2012). Also, I'm sure it's not a huge effect, but now that Stats Can has switched from the mandatory long-form survey to the voluntary version, their numbers aren't considered as accurate, and in fact one of the worries was that it would be biased towards higher income groups (who have the time, education, and inclination to fill out voluntary surveys).
Thanks for setting me straight. You learn something new everyday.
Thanks! I realize the US data was fairly old, but it was the most recent data Wikipedia had and I didn't want to spend too much time looking for the latest figures. Thanks for finding something more recent!
Good point about the decline in Stats Can's ability to collect accurate information. I believe the 2010 census still had a mandatory long-form census, and the median household income that year was $69,860. The jump from 2010-2011 does look bigger than jumps in the previous few years, which could be a result of the changes in Stats Can.
-
I'm assuming this income survey is meant to exclude dividends or investment returns, as otherwise the results are more a measure of how near retirement people are, or how well the market did this year. And what about 401k matching funds? Home equity increases? Spun just the right way, our household income this year is truly ridiculous, almost 3x our AGI number.
edit: interesting bimodal distribution of incomes. Think that's the difference between single and dual income households?
-
You can tell there's a bunch of engineers around here. You guys over-analyze everything (I kid!) I answered the question on the poll and then read the clarification in the post, so my poll answer is wrong. I answered $70,000-$80,000 but if we're including household income then I'd need to add in the other half's income, so that would put my correct answer at $100,000-$110,000.
-
edit: interesting bimodal distribution of incomes. Think that's the difference between single and dual income households?
Probably a factor, but I wonder if it's also the case that high earners are in their current work "because" of the money, and perhaps consequently more interested in getting out early and so more likely to be drawn to early-retirement sites (I know that's me).
-
Interesting you see a hump at $70,000 to $80,000 and another hump at $140,000 to $160,000
Two income households vs one income?
-
Interesting you see a hump at $70,000 to $80,000 and another hump at $140,000 to $160,000
Two income households vs one income?
The hump is most likely due to the large income range at that level. OP jumped from $10,000 increments to a $50,000 increment.
-
Most people here are from US and the average pre-tax household income there is 52k so the range here is vastly above that no matter how you look at it.
-
Interesting you see a hump at $70,000 to $80,000 and another hump at $140,000 to $160,000
Two income households vs one income?
The hump is most likely due to the large income range at that level. OP jumped from $10,000 increments to a $50,000 increment.
This.
-
Interesting you see a hump at $70,000 to $80,000 and another hump at $140,000 to $160,000
Two income households vs one income?
The hump is most likely due to the large income range at that level. OP jumped from $10,000 increments to a $50,000 increment.
This.
Current poll results by 50k increments:
0-50 70
50-100 134
100-150 77
150-200 39
200-250 28
250-300 12
300-350 6
-
Interesting you see a hump at $70,000 to $80,000 and another hump at $140,000 to $160,000
Two income households vs one income?
The hump is most likely due to the large income range at that level. OP jumped from $10,000 increments to a $50,000 increment.
This.
Current poll results by 50k increments:
0-50 70
50-100 134
100-150 77
150-200 39
200-250 28
250-300 12
300-350 6
Ok we really need to consider a survey. :p
-
My wife and I are just $130k with her very recent 3% raise, and her bonus puts us over that target. I will be getting my raise somewhere in the springtime along with a bonus. Plus some side income from my woodworking.
-
My wife and I already quit those blasted jobs that paid us 70K/yr. Not FI yet, but MUCH happier making 18bucks an hour part time....
Cheers,
Scott
-
Should one include taxable fringe benefits?
-
Current poll results by 50k increments:
0-50 70
50-100 134
100-150 77
150-200 39
200-250 28
250-300 12
300-350 6
Thanks for restoring my faith in normal distribution.
-
Current poll results by 50k increments:
0-50 70
50-100 134
100-150 77
150-200 39
200-250 28
250-300 12
300-350 6
Thanks for restoring my faith in normal distribution.
I would say there is an very interesting skew on this distribution.
-
Income is not normally distributed...it tends to skew right, as we can see from this data. If you're trying to get a more normal distribution, you'd want to take the log of income, which smooths out the higher extremes.
-
Those folks in the $350k range... What are you guys doing? Surgeons?
-
My wife and I both bring home around 100k pre-tax... and another 30k in investment income... so around 230k pre-tax total. We spend around 30k annually.
My wife loves her job, while I loathe mine... needless to say, 2014 is my last year of work. Between my wife's income and our dividends, we will still be able to save a lot of money - not sure when my wife will join me in freedom from employment, but she is in no rush. I am so excited for 2015 - a full two years ahead of my original ER date. I will be 42. I think 2014 is going to go sloooooooowwwwly.
Our ability to maintain our modest lifestyle while our incomes skyrocketed is the best decision we ever made.
-
My husbands paystub says $130k gross for 2013...but he is in the army, and pays very little/none in taxes so his take home is very high. Never calculated what it would be in "civilian" terms... And his pay had a huge jump in july when we moved, so 2014 will be much higher i suppose...
-
Interesting survey. I am still kind of floored anytime I add up my income and my SO's--until recently we were both in grad school earning stipends of anywhere from $18-30k/yr, and we still tend to spend with that mindset. We keep our finances separate but share all household expenses and make major spending decisions together. Our decision to operate as a household rather than 2 individuals on a day-to-day basis definitely impacts our ability to save (in a good way), so I ticked off the box for our combined income. Though, this poll also reminded me that what you earn can feel quite relative! For example, although our income is high, I am fairly certain we actually earn a bit less than many of our couple friends, simply because neither of us are in software development (hello, Bay Area). Fortunately we aren't interested in much of the stuff that they blow money on, so it's all going to even out in the end :)
-
Funny, I kind of interpreted the MMM philosophy as living on as little as possible and saving the rest.
I don't think MMM lives on "as little as possible", though. Also, Jacob of ERE had a more spartan life, and even he splurged on martial arts classes.
I think it's more appropriately: "Consider the value of every dollar spent. Conscious spending."
At it's basest, that is Nord and MMM's life.
Todd Tresidder of FinancialMentor.com refers to it as "values-based spending".
I can only ride one longboard at a time, and surf wax is cheap...
-
In 2013, about $35K as a flight attendant, plus rental income of $20K, wife owns a store and had a bad year, cleared probably $15K. Changed jobs in October and went back to my old career, will make $150K plus rental income in 2014. Income quadrupled, but the fun factor was cut 10-fold...
-
I can only ride one longboard at a time, and surf wax is cheap...
"How many yachts can you water ski behind?"
-
I can only ride one longboard at a time, and surf wax is cheap...
OK, a bit off topic, but I just got back from vacation in Kauai. I met a very fit ~70 yr old guy and his jack russell terrier, both on his stand up paddleboard. As they came to shore I said to him, "I think that's the first dog I have ever seen who is wealthy enough to afford his own paddler." The guy didn't miss a beat and replied, "Well, it was written into his trust." True story; great comeback.
-
I can only ride one longboard at a time, and surf wax is cheap...
OK, a bit off topic, but I just got back from vacation in Kauai. I met a very fit ~70 yr old guy and his jack russell terrier, both on his stand up paddleboard. As they came to shore I said to him, "I think that's the first dog I have ever seen who is wealthy enough to afford his own paddler." The guy didn't miss a beat and replied, "Well, it was written into his trust." True story; great comeback.
Lots of that around here...
http://the-military-guide.com/2011/08/29/lifestyles-in-military-retirement-surfing-photos/
http://surfshooterhawaii.smugmug.com/Team-Rider/Ringo-SUP-Standup-Pooch
-
I polled for my personal income, which is about $91K, but household is about $160K, plus rental income of $9180, which at best breaks even with expenses.
-
Our income is very low and consists of investment income and some minimum wage work totaling less than $3000 in 2013. Investment income, dividends and interest, total around $20k. So at age 61 we are living on savings, but we have enough to last us to age 70 when we will hopefully get a boost from social security (might start a spouse benefit at age 66) and will start drawing from IRA accounts. (I guess we will have to start mrd's whether we need them or not).
-
but now that Stats Can has switched from the mandatory long-form survey to the voluntary version, their numbers aren't considered as accurate, and in fact one of the worries was that it would be biased towards higher income groups (who have the time, education, and inclination to fill out voluntary surveys).
I'm not so sure about that even - I had to do the long form once, and it was a horrible time-suck, took most of an evening. I consider myself pretty civic-minded, but now that it is voluntary I would be strongly tempted to not do it.
It was an eye-opener for my husband, though, if he had done it there would have been a lot less time on family support. Didn't change what he did around the house though.