Quote:
Originally Posted by kamakazitp
Irresponsible on who's standards? Who's responsibility other than that person's is it to tell them what they can and can't afford. No one. I think I'm saving enough of my salary, but the next guy might think its way too much and the next might think its way too little. It's all relative to each person's own future goals, etc. If they don't want to save at all for the future, thats their choice. They'll be "living large" now, those who save will be "living large" later, provided they are all still alive.
PS, I'm 24 and I've been putting 10% of my salary into 401k for 2 years.
|
you're very defensive, and wasnt referring to you or your situation, but if it applies?...heres an analogy.......prior to the subprime mortgage debacle that coincided with the housing boom, legitimate lenders(ie banks, not the vampires) required that you provide documentation of your income and used a strict standardized % of your gross income to prove affordability, and thus approval......these standards were based on economic data, very similar to actuarial tables.... one's membership to Netflix, their cell bills et al was superfluous, and not used to calculate affordability......the data was based on well researched, accurate HISTORICAL information ...the same is true for autos, which, besides housing, is typically the largest expense one has...statistical data regarding affordability of autos is there....check out bankrate.com..I didnt just pull a figure out of my a**....this is well researched stuff....those who spend 50% of their gross annual income on a car CANNOT live large now AND later...bottom line is that little angel on a person's shoulder should advise them what they can afford i.e common sense.....and by the way, I really could care less what people do with their money, but I write the sobering facts....
BTW, IMO you should be putting 4k into a Roth as well every year.....