Huffington Post encouraging people not to budget

[nnls]

You can read the article here http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/03/17/saving-money_n_9482026.html?ncid=edlinkauhpmg00000004

It actually tells you to put savings last as opposed to the "regular" advise of pay yourself first

Next Plimer suggested asking yourself if the the essentials and sanity savers equaled less than your income. If so then you could choose to spend some of the remainder on desirables and put some in savings.

Though it does have some sensible advice

Firstly you need to write down everything you spend money on, to the cent. ......The main thing is to live within your means, maximise your income and savings

[TheGrimSqueaker]

With the kind of articles they post, I've often thought it should be re-named "the Huffing Tons Post".

[talltexan]

Ultimately, a budget is just a way of answering the question: "Do I have the money to buy XXX right now?" You may have some other way of answering that question, such as prepaying stuff, or having a very specific ethical system.

[slugline]

If "budgeting" means drawing up an advance plan that divides up each paycheck into rigid percentages, then this article is actually not un-Mustachian.  I've read enough of MMM's blog to realize that he certainly doesn't "budget" like that. He consciously spent his paycheck on things he valued and stashed the rest. He just figured out early on that it really didn't take much spending on material things to make him happy. After that, the savings part takes care of itself.

[nnls]

If "budgeting" means drawing up an advance plan that divides up each paycheck into rigid percentages, then this article is actually not un-Mustachian.  I've read enough of MMM's blog to realize that he certainly doesn't "budget" like that. He consciously spent his paycheck on things he valued and stashed the rest. He just figured out early on that it really didn't take much spending on material things to make him happy. After that, the savings part takes care of itself.

I don't budget specific amounts either, the part of this article that I thought was un-Mustachian was telling people to spend money on things and then have savings from anything left over. As opposed to trying to save a certain amount (even 10% of your income) and then spending the rest.

"The sanity savers are the things you must keep within your budget, because without these you will feel like you are sacrificing your lifestyle and end up miserable."

[galliver]

I thought there were a lot of parts we could get behind.

As long as you are living to your own values and not sacrificing your future, it is nobody else’s business what you spend your money on.

"If the essentials and sanity savers equal more than your income then ou need to re-evaluate what is an essential, sanity savers or desirables. For example, a roof over your head is an essential, a large apartment with view may not be. A coffee once a week may be a sanity saver, two every day may be a desirable," Plimer said.

"I do not believe in working to a set percentage, primarily because the more you earn, the more you can save," Plimer said.

Ultimately, isn't that what we do? Figure out what we really, truly *need* to live on, then add a few things that give us personally good happiness "bang for the buck" (whether that's more grocery money, or a horse, or a weekly coffee, or cleaning service, or good tools, or race registration fees, etc etc), eschew things we're "supposed" to have or want (expensive jewelry, tropical vacation, endless new cars and kitchen remodels) that maybe would be nice but we can definitely live without, and stave off lifestyle inflation, saving larger percentages of larger incomes?

[nnls]

I thought there were a lot of parts we could get behind.

As long as you are living to your own values and not sacrificing your future, it is nobody else’s business what you spend your money on.

"If the essentials and sanity savers equal more than your income then ou need to re-evaluate what is an essential, sanity savers or desirables. For example, a roof over your head is an essential, a large apartment with view may not be. A coffee once a week may be a sanity saver, two every day may be a desirable," Plimer said.

"I do not believe in working to a set percentage, primarily because the more you earn, the more you can save," Plimer said.

Ultimately, isn't that what we do? Figure out what we really, truly *need* to live on, then add a few things that give us personally good happiness "bang for the buck" (whether that's more grocery money, or a horse, or a weekly coffee, or cleaning service, or good tools, or race registration fees, etc etc), eschew things we're "supposed" to have or want (expensive jewelry, tropical vacation, endless new cars and kitchen remodels) that maybe would be nice but we can definitely live without, and stave off lifestyle inflation, saving larger percentages of larger incomes?

That's true, there is some good in it. I think it probably just annoyed me as it was sent to me by my aunt who prefaced it with something along the lines of "no point cutting things out now this lady says it isn't worth it"

[galliver]

That's true, there is some good in it. I think it probably just annoyed me as it was sent to me by my aunt who prefaced it with something along the lines of "no point cutting things out now this lady says it isn't worth it"

Yeah, I can also see how it can be dangerous in the wrong hands...you could point the aunt specifically to the line roof vs view and 1/week vs 2/day line. Plimer *is* suggesting cutting things, and being critical of needs vs wants, just not trying to live bare-bones indefinitely.

One major thing she's definitely missing (at least from the article, maybe it's in her book) is finding and learning to enjoy the cheaper and simpler things; or do things you enjoy cheaper and simpler. DIY brunch with bottomless mimosas instead of the place down the street. Seeing movies several months later at the discount 2nd-run theater, or at home. Going for a walk or bike ride instead of going shopping. Not everything has an alternative that will work, but it's worth looking and trying.

[gimp]

Huffington Post is a rag, and if you read it, you deserve the cancer that's a'comin.

[MOD NOTE:  Things like this just aren't useful.  Argue the argument, not the arguer]