Unpopular Opinions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Buying Starbucks isn't going to be the difference between being a millionaire or not. The most important factor is income. Period. It's much easier to make your money grow when you have more of it.

Too much boomer advice. Keep enjoying your subscriptions to Kiplinger's detailing the latest and greatest boring ass ETFs so that you can make 7% returns per year and finally become a millionaire by the time you're 65 and have Alzheimer's.

show me anyone that has beaten 7% for more than 3 years year in year out

I'll wait

I’m up an average 15 percent annually over the past five years

Me too.

ugh that's not my point S&P 500 has gotten that over the last 5 years

My point is no one can beat the market long term no one. ETFs are the most practical in a landslide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Life insurance is a racket. If each spouse has a career and you live within your means, then you have no need for it.

That's not an unpopular opinion, it's the right one. Term life is the only thing you should have. never whole life.

One one hand, you agree that life insurance is a racket and people don't need it. On the other, you say people *should* have term insurance. Please reconcile.

The first opinion is idiocy. Yes, a small subset of the population has no need for life coverage. But the the rest of us, who have a mortgage, and college to pay for, and families we love, it's lunacy not to have it. We make about $500k HHI; about 85% of that comes from me. If I were to drop dead tomorrow, of course my wife and kids would need life insurance. We live well within our means, but that does not mean that her salary can cover everything. We're not banking my salary now and living off hers.

This was not an unpopular opinion, it's a stupid opinion.

If you drop dead, she will find another guy to pay the bills. Maybe he wont make 400k, but they will be ok.

So in your opinion, I should leave my wife no choice but to marry someone to pay the bills? Got it.

I think I'll pay the fairly modest premiums for term insurance.

As I said, if each spouse has a career and you live within your means, you have no need for life insurance. I consider living within your means to mean that each spouse can support the family on a single salary. Clearly, your wife can't - hence your need for life insurance. Spouse and I have purposely built our lives around us being each 100% capable of maintaining our lifestyle with or without the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Life insurance is a racket. If each spouse has a career and you live within your means, then you have no need for it.

That's not an unpopular opinion, it's the right one. Term life is the only thing you should have. never whole life.

One one hand, you agree that life insurance is a racket and people don't need it. On the other, you say people *should* have term insurance. Please reconcile.

The first opinion is idiocy. Yes, a small subset of the population has no need for life coverage. But the the rest of us, who have a mortgage, and college to pay for, and families we love, it's lunacy not to have it. We make about $500k HHI; about 85% of that comes from me. If I were to drop dead tomorrow, of course my wife and kids would need life insurance. We live well within our means, but that does not mean that her salary can cover everything. We're not banking my salary now and living off hers.

This was not an unpopular opinion, it's a stupid opinion.

If you drop dead, she will find another guy to pay the bills. Maybe he wont make 400k, but they will be ok.

So in your opinion, I should leave my wife no choice but to marry someone to pay the bills? Got it.

I think I'll pay the fairly modest premiums for term insurance.

As I said, if each spouse has a career and you live within your means, you have no need for life insurance. I consider living within your means to mean that each spouse can support the family on a single salary. Clearly, your wife can't - hence your need for life insurance. Spouse and I have purposely built our lives around us being each 100% capable of maintaining our lifestyle with or without the other.

Hopefully you have other reasons you are both working (i.e. you love your jobs, obsessed with saving), but if you are "building your lives" around both of you working in order to be self sufficient if someone dies so as to not have to purchase life insurance, that is lunacy. You can address that risk very inexpensively, because as you know the insurance co diversifies that risk over tens of thousands of lives. You are effectively running an insurance company with two clients in order to hedge a very low likelihood event.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Life insurance is a racket. If each spouse has a career and you live within your means, then you have no need for it.

That's not an unpopular opinion, it's the right one. Term life is the only thing you should have. never whole life.

One one hand, you agree that life insurance is a racket and people don't need it. On the other, you say people *should* have term insurance. Please reconcile.

The first opinion is idiocy. Yes, a small subset of the population has no need for life coverage. But the the rest of us, who have a mortgage, and college to pay for, and families we love, it's lunacy not to have it. We make about $500k HHI; about 85% of that comes from me. If I were to drop dead tomorrow, of course my wife and kids would need life insurance. We live well within our means, but that does not mean that her salary can cover everything. We're not banking my salary now and living off hers.

This was not an unpopular opinion, it's a stupid opinion.

If you drop dead, she will find another guy to pay the bills. Maybe he wont make 400k, but they will be ok.

So in your opinion, I should leave my wife no choice but to marry someone to pay the bills? Got it.

I think I'll pay the fairly modest premiums for term insurance.

As I said, if each spouse has a career and you live within your means, you have no need for life insurance. I consider living within your means to mean that each spouse can support the family on a single salary. Clearly, your wife can't - hence your need for life insurance. Spouse and I have purposely built our lives around us being each 100% capable of maintaining our lifestyle with or without the other.

Hopefully you have other reasons you are both working (i.e. you love your jobs, obsessed with saving), but if you are "building your lives" around both of you working in order to be self sufficient if someone dies so as to not have to purchase life insurance, that is lunacy. You can address that risk very inexpensively, because as you know the insurance co diversifies that risk over tens of thousands of lives. You are effectively running an insurance company with two clients in order to hedge a very low likelihood event.

What is the downside to the setup of having a lifestyle where you only need a single income? The 2nd income becomes savings and/or mad money. It gives you the freedom to retire early / travel / downshift career / quit your job. All of that without needing to pay a premium and needing one of you to die first...

[Anonymous]

^NP and setting up your life around the lower earner seems like it would set up some odd results if there is a significant variance in your earnings (i.e. one spouse earns $50K and the other $150K). To set up your lifestyle on $50K of income in that situation seems bizarre to me.

I agree what you're proposing works if you are both high earners.

[Anonymous]

Of course you need life insurance ..thinking otherwise is so bizarre..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Life insurance is a racket. If each .

As I said, if each spouse has a career and you live within your means, you have no need for life insurance. I consider living within your means to mean that each spouse can support the family on a single salary. Clearly, your wife can't - hence your need for life insurance. Spouse and I have purposely built our lives around us being each 100% capable of maintaining our lifestyle with or without the other.

And what if both you and your spouse die at the same time or several years apart and your kids are still
Minors? It is cheaper to buy term insurance when you are young and healthy. Buy a 30 year level term.

[Anonymous]

Unpopular opinion: None of us deserve what we have. Most people can do our jobs with two years of training, and most of us produce nothing of real value to society. The world would lose nothing if our individual professional contributions never occurred. We are fortunate to be in a part of the machine that provides us with some wealth, but we are all just passing the time pretending we matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Life insurance is a racket. If each spouse has a career and you live within your means, then you have no need for it.

That's not an unpopular opinion, it's the right one. Term life is the only thing you should have. never whole life.

One one hand, you agree that life insurance is a racket and people don't need it. On the other, you say people *should* have term insurance. Please reconcile.

The first opinion is idiocy. Yes, a small subset of the population has no need for life coverage. But the the rest of us, who have a mortgage, and college to pay for, and families we love, it's lunacy not to have it. We make about $500k HHI; about 85% of that comes from me. If I were to drop dead tomorrow, of course my wife and kids would need life insurance. We live well within our means, but that does not mean that her salary can cover everything. We're not banking my salary now and living off hers.

This was not an unpopular opinion, it's a stupid opinion.

If you drop dead, she will find another guy to pay the bills. Maybe he wont make 400k, but they will be ok.

So in your opinion, I should leave my wife no choice but to marry someone to pay the bills? Got it.

I think I'll pay the fairly modest premiums for term insurance.

As I said, if each spouse has a career and you live within your means, you have no need for life insurance. I consider living within your means to mean that each spouse can support the family on a single salary. Clearly, your wife can't - hence your need for life insurance. Spouse and I have purposely built our lives around us being each 100% capable of maintaining our lifestyle with or without the other.

Hopefully you have other reasons you are both working (i.e. you love your jobs, obsessed with saving), but if you are "building your lives" around both of you working in order to be self sufficient if someone dies so as to not have to purchase life insurance, that is lunacy. You can address that risk very inexpensively, because as you know the insurance co diversifies that risk over tens of thousands of lives. You are effectively running an insurance company with two clients in order to hedge a very low likelihood event.

What is the downside to the setup of having a lifestyle where you only need a single income? The 2nd income becomes savings and/or mad money. It gives you the freedom to retire early / travel / downshift career / quit your job. All of that without needing to pay a premium and needing one of you to die first...

What is the downside to me keeping $1m in cash to replace my $1m home in case it burns down instead of buying insurance to protect against this? What is the downside to me keeping $20k in cash to replace a $20k engagement ring instead of insuring it? Both are insane and a poor allocation of resources. So back to the original q, what is the downside of working an entire career so that you could keep the same lifestyle if someone dies, rather than insuring against it? The last post brought up another factor of additional saving, which is a different story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Buying Starbucks isn't going to be the difference between being a millionaire or not. The most important factor is income. Period. It's much easier to make your money grow when you have more of it.

Too much boomer advice. Keep enjoying your subscriptions to Kiplinger's detailing the latest and greatest boring ass ETFs so that you can make 7% returns per year and finally become a millionaire by the time you're 65 and have Alzheimer's.

show me anyone that has beaten 7% for more than 3 years year in year out

I'll wait

I’m up an average 15 percent annually over the past five years

Me too.

ugh that's not my point S&P 500 has gotten that over the last 5 years

My point is no one can beat the market long term no one. ETFs are the most practical in a landslide.

Who needs to play long term? YOLO and get rich quick or die trying. No one wants to be a rich 70s something with alzheimer's pooping into a diaper. I'd rather die poor in that state knowing I at least tried to get rich while I was younger and healthier when I could have enjoyed my money.

Enjoy your kiplingers and bogleheads forum returns. ZzZzZz.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Buying Starbucks isn't going to be the difference between being a millionaire or not. The most important factor is income. Period. It's much easier to make your money grow when you have more of it.

Too much boomer advice. Keep enjoying your subscriptions to Kiplinger's detailing the latest and greatest boring ass ETFs so that you can make 7% returns per year and finally become a millionaire by the time you're 65 and have Alzheimer's.

show me anyone that has beaten 7% for more than 3 years year in year out

I'll wait

I’m up an average 15 percent annually over the past five years

Me too.

ugh that's not my point S&P 500 has gotten that over the last 5 years

My point is no one can beat the market long term no one. ETFs are the most practical in a landslide.

Who needs to play long term? YOLO and get rich quick or die trying. No one wants to be a rich 70s something with alzheimer's pooping into a diaper. I'd rather die poor in that state knowing I at least tried to get rich while I was younger and healthier when I could have enjoyed my money.

Enjoy your kiplingers and bogleheads forum returns. ZzZzZz.

Enjoy being poor in 3 years when your get rich quick plans fail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Buying Starbucks isn't going to be the difference between being a millionaire or not. The most important factor is income. Period. It's much easier to make your money grow when you have more of it.

Too much boomer advice. Keep enjoying your subscriptions to Kiplinger's detailing the latest and greatest boring ass ETFs so that you can make 7% returns per year and finally become a millionaire by the time you're 65 and have Alzheimer's.

show me anyone that has beaten 7% for more than 3 years year in year out

I'll wait

I’m up an average 15 percent annually over the past five years

Me too.

ugh that's not my point S&P 500 has gotten that over the last 5 years

My point is no one can beat the market long term no one. ETFs are the most practical in a landslide.

Who needs to play long term? YOLO and get rich quick or die trying. No one wants to be a rich 70s something with alzheimer's pooping into a diaper. I'd rather die poor in that state knowing I at least tried to get rich while I was younger and healthier when I could have enjoyed my money.

Enjoy your kiplingers and bogleheads forum returns. ZzZzZz.

Enjoy being poor in 3 years when your get rich quick plans fail.

Already worth millions. 32 y.o. and will probably retire by 37. Only working now because of sheer boredom. Enjoy working until 72 and having wealth by the time you have Alzheimer's. Depends are expensive!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:K-12 schools should teach personal finance and coping skills as mandatory subjects, in lieu of some of the current subjects.

If a person understands personal finance, and how to cope with difficult situations (instead of self-medicating with drugs and alcohol), they have a huge advantage. It may not sound as intellectual as studying Shakespeare or Physics, but it is way more useful to a person's general well-being.

I agree with the personal finance and coping skill bit. I don't think any current subjects should be cut. In fact, I believe that school year and day should both be extended so that there is at least two extra years gained from K-12. More subjects and content need to be taught to students, and there should be a week or two off after every quarter.

God, you are so American! If you don't want to live a good life - work to live, at least let the kids do it while they can!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course you need life insurance ..thinking otherwise is so bizarre..

I’m dropping life insurance in a few years at age 55. Our kids will all be through college and I will have sufficient wealth for my wife to live comfortably for the rest of her life if I drop dead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular opinion: None of us deserve what we have. Most people can do our jobs with two years of training, and most of us produce nothing of real value to society. The world would lose nothing if our individual professional contributions never occurred. We are fortunate to be in a part of the machine that provides us with some wealth, but we are all just passing the time pretending we matter.

+1 Lots more luck involved than work like people think