Kavanaugh's finances

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had a job that involved reviewing the financial disclosure statements of nominees in multiple (both R and D administrations), and, in the beginning, I was surprised by how little most nominees had in the way of savings. There were always the few very wealthy types, who'd been in the private sector a long time, or had family money, but the ones who'd been working on Capital Hill or other branches of government most of their career generally didn't have much.

This is not a new insight, but many people on this board have a warped view of how most Americans live.

I used to read The Hill's disclosures of the wealthiest and poorest Members of Congress. I used to be surprised at how little most have saved. Granted, the disclosures don't include any retirement savings, and so you could have $1 million in a TSP, but if that TSP and your home equity were your only assets, you would be listed in The Hill as pretty much being broke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: For those of you who think he's poor, think again.

He's a classic member of the "enabler" class (much like members of congress, etc who enable the 1%ers) and doesn't have to worry about himself or his family. The "system" takes care of that.

His salary is about 250K for LIFE with a 3-month vacation! His pension is the same amount for LIFE with a 12-month vacation! Even if that doesn't increase in the 20+ years he will be a SC judge, that's the equivalent of about $4M nest egg (assuming a 6% annuity rate for the pension).

His healthcare is taken care of.

His kid's will get into great colleges with financial aid. Whether they do or don't they will get great jobs given who their dad is.

And don't forget the paid speeches and book deals that will surely come.

What more do you need?

I personally agree with the good compensation for the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court ($250,000 in salary plus a pension). We want good people to want to do the job (and we should compensate them accordingly). I'm hoping that there's a survivor's benefit for that pension (likely some reduced amount).

[Anonymous]

There was an article in the NYT over the weekend that discussed his parents wealth. Sounds like he didn’t grow up super wealthy but his dad was pulling in millions by the time he retired. Like many of us, Brett wants to succeed on his own but his parents probably paid off the credit card debt. Nothing wrong with that and none of our business. I do not care for his politics but think this line of questioning is a non-issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: For those of you who think he's poor, think again.

He's a classic member of the "enabler" class (much like members of congress, etc who enable the 1%ers) and doesn't have to worry about himself or his family. The "system" takes care of that.

His salary is about 250K for LIFE with a 3-month vacation! His pension is the same amount for LIFE with a 12-month vacation! Even if that doesn't increase in the 20+ years he will be a SC judge, that's the equivalent of about $4M nest egg (assuming a 6% annuity rate for the pension).

His healthcare is taken care of.

His kid's will get into great colleges with financial aid. Whether they do or don't they will get great jobs given who their dad is.

And don't forget the paid speeches and book deals that will surely come.

What more do you need?

I personally agree with the good compensation for the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court ($250,000 in salary plus a pension). We want good people to want to do the job (and we should compensate them accordingly). I'm hoping that there's a survivor's benefit for that pension (likely some reduced amount).

Probably a reduced amount. I'm also sure both have enough life insurance to deal with the unforeseen.

[Anonymous]

He could have very easily gotten a Biglaw gig and made millions. Instead, he has spent almost all of his career in public service. His lack of savings as a result of his service seems an odd basis for criticism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had a job that involved reviewing the financial disclosure statements of nominees in multiple (both R and D administrations), and, in the beginning, I was surprised by how little most nominees had in the way of savings. There were always the few very wealthy types, who'd been in the private sector a long time, or had family money, but the ones who'd been working on Capital Hill or other branches of government most of their career generally didn't have much.

This is not a new insight, but many people on this board have a warped view of how most Americans live.

I don't think so. Many people on this board understand that most people don't have savings, carry balances on their ccs, etc. But we all know what people are supposed to do, which, as you noted, many don't, including this Supreme Court nominee.

I'm so confused. If hes had a pension since 2006, why would someone put money into TSP after that? Also, how is that even fair that someone get a lifetime pension and still be allowed to contribute to tax deferred retirement accounts? Additionally I'm not a federal worker, and have to plan, but why would someone save aggressively if he had a lifetime job and lifetime pension? All one would need is insurance. He does have 500k in TSP, plus that pension, not sure why he's not supposed to spend his disposable income. Is there some special virtue in hoarding money?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had a job that involved reviewing the financial disclosure statements of nominees in multiple (both R and D administrations), and, in the beginning, I was surprised by how little most nominees had in the way of savings. There were always the few very wealthy types, who'd been in the private sector a long time, or had family money, but the ones who'd been working on Capital Hill or other branches of government most of their career generally didn't have much.

This is not a new insight, but many people on this board have a warped view of how most Americans live.

I don't think so. Many people on this board understand that most people don't have savings, carry balances on their ccs, etc. But we all know what people are supposed to do, which, as you noted, many don't, including this Supreme Court nominee.

I'm so confused. If hes had a pension since 2006, why would someone put money into TSP after that? Also, how is that even fair that someone get a lifetime pension and still be allowed to contribute to tax deferred retirement accounts? Additionally I'm not a federal worker, and have to plan, but why would someone save aggressively if he had a lifetime job and lifetime pension? All one would need is insurance. He does have 500k in TSP, plus that pension, not sure why he's not supposed to spend his disposable income.
Is there some special virtue in hoarding money?

No but there’s value in building wealth. If he stays on his current track he will have made millions over his career and spent almost ALL of it. That’s a waste of a good salary. He doesn’t make a ton but enough to not be living paycheck to paycheck.

There’s a difference between hoarding money and living paycheck to paycheck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had a job that involved reviewing the financial disclosure statements of nominees in multiple (both R and D administrations), and, in the beginning, I was surprised by how little most nominees had in the way of savings. There were always the few very wealthy types, who'd been in the private sector a long time, or had family money, but the ones who'd been working on Capital Hill or other branches of government most of their career generally didn't have much.

This is not a new insight, but many people on this board have a warped view of how most Americans live.

I don't think so. Many people on this board understand that most people don't have savings, carry balances on their ccs, etc. But we all know what people are supposed to do, which, as you noted, many don't, including this Supreme Court nominee.

I'm so confused. If hes had a pension since 2006, why would someone put money into TSP after that? Also, how is that even fair that someone get a lifetime pension and still be allowed to contribute to tax deferred retirement accounts? Additionally I'm not a federal worker, and have to plan, but why would someone save aggressively if he had a lifetime job and lifetime pension? All one would need is insurance. He does have 500k in TSP, plus that pension, not sure why he's not supposed to spend his disposable income.
Is there some special virtue in hoarding money?

No but there’s value in building wealth. If he stays on his current track he will have made millions over his career and spent almost ALL of it. That’s a waste of a good salary. He doesn’t make a ton but enough to not be living paycheck to paycheck.

There’s a difference between hoarding money and living paycheck to paycheck.

Why is he supposed to build wealth? Me, as a someone who works in the private sector MUST build wealth in order to secure my future. I do not do this to be virtuous, I do this for my survival. That's the only reason I build wealth. I'm also 41. If today someone gave me a lifetime job with a lifetime pension, I dont see any value in building wealth. Heck, how much is that pension worth? 4M 5M? Despite my financially conservative nature, my 401k will never look like that.

I honestly dont understand the uproar over someone who is spending his money, has 500k saved, and who has a lifetime pension that only a fraction of the population could ever have.

Again, why should be build wealth given the security he has had as an appointee for over a decade? I truly dont fer it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had a job that involved reviewing the financial disclosure statements of nominees in multiple (both R and D administrations), and, in the beginning, I was surprised by how little most nominees had in the way of savings. There were always the few very wealthy types, who'd been in the private sector a long time, or had family money, but the ones who'd been working on Capital Hill or other branches of government most of their career generally didn't have much.

This is not a new insight, but many people on this board have a warped view of how most Americans live.

I don't think so. Many people on this board understand that most people don't have savings, carry balances on their ccs, etc. But we all know what people are supposed to do, which, as you noted, many don't, including this Supreme Court nominee.

I'm so confused. If hes had a pension since 2006, why would someone put money into TSP after that? Also, how is that even fair that someone get a lifetime pension and still be allowed to contribute to tax deferred retirement accounts? Additionally I'm not a federal worker, and have to plan, but why would someone save aggressively if he had a lifetime job and lifetime pension? All one would need is insurance. He does have 500k in TSP, plus that pension, not sure why he's not supposed to spend his disposable income.
Is there some special virtue in hoarding money?

No but there’s value in building wealth. If he stays on his current track he will have made millions over his career and spent almost ALL of it. That’s a waste of a good salary. He doesn’t make a ton but enough to not be living paycheck to paycheck.

There’s a difference between hoarding money and living paycheck to paycheck.

Why is he supposed to build wealth? Me, as a someone who works in the private sector MUST build wealth in order to secure my future. I do not do this to be virtuous, I do this for my survival. That's the only reason I build wealth. I'm also 41. If today someone gave me a lifetime job with a lifetime pension, I dont see any value in building wealth. Heck, how much is that pension worth? 4M 5M? Despite my financially conservative nature, my 401k will never look like that.

I honestly dont understand the uproar over someone who is spending his money, has 500k saved, and who has a lifetime pension that only a fraction of the population could ever have.

Again, why should be build wealth given the security he has had as an appointee for over a decade? I truly dont fer it.

He should build wealth so he earns MORE money. A dollar invested should yield earnings. 200k isn’t a lot, especially considering his spending. He needs to make more money than 200k. One way to do this is to earn a higher salary/bonus. Another way is to invest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had a job that involved reviewing the financial disclosure statements of nominees in multiple (both R and D administrations), and, in the beginning, I was surprised by how little most nominees had in the way of savings. There were always the few very wealthy types, who'd been in the private sector a long time, or had family money, but the ones who'd been working on Capital Hill or other branches of government most of their career generally didn't have much.

This is not a new insight, but many people on this board have a warped view of how most Americans live.

I don't think so. Many people on this board understand that most people don't have savings, carry balances on their ccs, etc. But we all know what people are supposed to do, which, as you noted, many don't, including this Supreme Court nominee.

I'm so confused. If hes had a pension since 2006, why would someone put money into TSP after that? Also, how is that even fair that someone get a lifetime pension and still be allowed to contribute to tax deferred retirement accounts? Additionally I'm not a federal worker, and have to plan, but why would someone save aggressively if he had a lifetime job and lifetime pension? All one would need is insurance. He does have 500k in TSP, plus that pension, not sure why he's not supposed to spend his disposable income.
Is there some special virtue in hoarding money?

No but there’s value in building wealth. If he stays on his current track he will have made millions over his career and spent almost ALL of it. That’s a waste of a good salary. He doesn’t make a ton but enough to not be living paycheck to paycheck.

There’s a difference between hoarding money and living paycheck to paycheck.

Why is he supposed to build wealth? Me, as a someone who works in the private sector MUST build wealth in order to secure my future. I do not do this to be virtuous, I do this for my survival. That's the only reason I build wealth. I'm also 41. If today someone gave me a lifetime job with a lifetime pension, I dont see any value in building wealth. Heck, how much is that pension worth? 4M 5M? Despite my financially conservative nature, my 401k will never look like that.

I honestly dont understand the uproar over someone who is spending his money, has 500k saved, and who has a lifetime pension that only a fraction of the population could ever have.

Again, why should be build wealth given the security he has had as an appointee for over a decade? I truly dont fer it.

He should build wealth so he earns MORE money. A dollar invested should yield earnings. 200k isn’t a lot, especially considering his spending. He needs to make more money than 200k. One way to do this is to earn a higher salary/bonus. Another way is to invest.

Why does he need to earn more money and build wealth? He makes 250k and is free of debt. He also has 500k in a tax deferred account and on average given his position will retire at 79. I seriously do not understand why he MUST do this and why this has anything to do with the supreme court. Should every appointee be required to be an investor? What is the value to the American people in that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had a job that involved reviewing the financial disclosure statements of nominees in multiple (both R and D administrations), and, in the beginning, I was surprised by how little most nominees had in the way of savings. There were always the few very wealthy types, who'd been in the private sector a long time, or had family money, but the ones who'd been working on Capital Hill or other branches of government most of their career generally didn't have much.

This is not a new insight, but many people on this board have a warped view of how most Americans live.

I don't think so. Many people on this board understand that most people don't have savings, carry balances on their ccs, etc. But we all know what people are supposed to do, which, as you noted, many don't, including this Supreme Court nominee.

I'm so confused. If hes had a pension since 2006, why would someone put money into TSP after that? Also, how is that even fair that someone get a lifetime pension and still be allowed to contribute to tax deferred retirement accounts? Additionally I'm not a federal worker, and have to plan, but why would someone save aggressively if he had a lifetime job and lifetime pension? All one would need is insurance. He does have 500k in TSP, plus that pension, not sure why he's not supposed to spend his disposable income.
Is there some special virtue in hoarding money?

No but there’s value in building wealth. If he stays on his current track he will have made millions over his career and spent almost ALL of it. That’s a waste of a good salary. He doesn’t make a ton but enough to not be living paycheck to paycheck.

There’s a difference between hoarding money and living paycheck to paycheck.

Why is he supposed to build wealth? Me, as a someone who works in the private sector MUST build wealth in order to secure my future. I do not do this to be virtuous, I do this for my survival. That's the only reason I build wealth. I'm also 41. If today someone gave me a lifetime job with a lifetime pension, I dont see any value in building wealth. Heck, how much is that pension worth? 4M 5M? Despite my financially conservative nature, my 401k will never look like that.

I honestly dont understand the uproar over someone who is spending his money, has 500k saved, and who has a lifetime pension that only a fraction of the population could ever have.

Again, why should be build wealth given the security he has had as an appointee for over a decade? I truly dont fer it.

He should build wealth so he earns MORE money. A dollar invested should yield earnings. 200k isn’t a lot, especially considering his spending. He needs to make more money than 200k. One way to do this is to earn a higher salary/bonus. Another way is to invest.

Why does he need to earn more money and build wealth? He makes 250k and is free of debt. He also has 500k in a tax deferred account and on average given his position will retire at 79. I seriously do not understand why he MUST do this and why this has anything to do with the supreme court. Should every appointee be required to be an investor? What is the value to the American people in that?

Because he can’t live off of only 200k!!!!! He hasn’t been able to do so yet so he’s not going to be able to do so in the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had a job that involved reviewing the financial disclosure statements of nominees in multiple (both R and D administrations), and, in the beginning, I was surprised by how little most nominees had in the way of savings. There were always the few very wealthy types, who'd been in the private sector a long time, or had family money, but the ones who'd been working on Capital Hill or other branches of government most of their career generally didn't have much.

This is not a new insight, but many people on this board have a warped view of how most Americans live.

I don't think so. Many people on this board understand that most people don't have savings, carry balances on their ccs, etc. But we all know what people are supposed to do, which, as you noted, many don't, including this Supreme Court nominee.

I'm so confused. If hes had a pension since 2006, why would someone put money into TSP after that? Also, how is that even fair that someone get a lifetime pension and still be allowed to contribute to tax deferred retirement accounts? Additionally I'm not a federal worker, and have to plan, but why would someone save aggressively if he had a lifetime job and lifetime pension? All one would need is insurance. He does have 500k in TSP, plus that pension, not sure why he's not supposed to spend his disposable income.
Is there some special virtue in hoarding money?

No but there’s value in building wealth. If he stays on his current track he will have made millions over his career and spent almost ALL of it. That’s a waste of a good salary. He doesn’t make a ton but enough to not be living paycheck to paycheck.

There’s a difference between hoarding money and living paycheck to paycheck.

Why is he supposed to build wealth? Me, as a someone who works in the private sector MUST build wealth in order to secure my future. I do not do this to be virtuous, I do this for my survival. That's the only reason I build wealth. I'm also 41. If today someone gave me a lifetime job with a lifetime pension, I dont see any value in building wealth. Heck, how much is that pension worth? 4M 5M? Despite my financially conservative nature, my 401k will never look like that.

I honestly dont understand the uproar over someone who is spending his money, has 500k saved, and who has a lifetime pension that only a fraction of the population could ever have.

Again, why should be build wealth given the security he has had as an appointee for over a decade? I truly dont fer it.

He should build wealth so he earns MORE money. A dollar invested should yield earnings. 200k isn’t a lot, especially considering his spending. He needs to make more money than 200k. One way to do this is to earn a higher salary/bonus. Another way is to invest.

Why does he need to earn more money and build wealth? He makes 250k and is free of debt. He also has 500k in a tax deferred account and on average given his position will retire at 79. I seriously do not understand why he MUST do this and why this has anything to do with the supreme court. Should every appointee be required to be an investor? What is the value to the American people in that?

Because he can’t live off of only 200k!!!!! He hasn’t been able to do so yet so he’s not going to be able to do so in the future.

What do you mean he can't live off 200k? Are we looking at the same article? He has no debt, 2 kids in private school. His mortgage is in good standing, he had 500k saved. He will be collecting at least 250k or more and will nearly die on the job. What am I missing? Why are you so worried about him? Why are you worrying about someone with his excellent financial picture? As a private sector employee this would be amazing if I had this and I'm speaking as a 40yr old who just broke 1M in retirement savings.

I'm not being an ass, I'm just baffled by these 20 pages of handwringing over this guy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had a job that involved reviewing the financial disclosure statements of nominees in multiple (both R and D administrations), and, in the beginning, I was surprised by how little most nominees had in the way of savings. There were always the few very wealthy types, who'd been in the private sector a long time, or had family money, but the ones who'd been working on Capital Hill or other branches of government most of their career generally didn't have much.

This is not a new insight, but many people on this board have a warped view of how most Americans live.

I don't think so. Many people on this board understand that most people don't have savings, carry balances on their ccs, etc. But we all know what people are supposed to do, which, as you noted, many don't, including this Supreme Court nominee.

I'm so confused. If hes had a pension since 2006, why would someone put money into TSP after that? Also, how is that even fair that someone get a lifetime pension and still be allowed to contribute to tax deferred retirement accounts? Additionally I'm not a federal worker, and have to plan, but why would someone save aggressively if he had a lifetime job and lifetime pension? All one would need is insurance. He does have 500k in TSP, plus that pension, not sure why he's not supposed to spend his disposable income.
Is there some special virtue in hoarding money?

No but there’s value in building wealth. If he stays on his current track he will have made millions over his career and spent almost ALL of it. That’s a waste of a good salary. He doesn’t make a ton but enough to not be living paycheck to paycheck.

There’s a difference between hoarding money and living paycheck to paycheck.

Why is he supposed to build wealth? Me, as a someone who works in the private sector MUST build wealth in order to secure my future. I do not do this to be virtuous, I do this for my survival. That's the only reason I build wealth. I'm also 41. If today someone gave me a lifetime job with a lifetime pension, I dont see any value in building wealth. Heck, how much is that pension worth? 4M 5M? Despite my financially conservative nature, my 401k will never look like that.

I honestly dont understand the uproar over someone who is spending his money, has 500k saved, and who has a lifetime pension that only a fraction of the population could ever have.

Again, why should be build wealth given the security he has had as an appointee for over a decade? I truly dont fer it.

He should build wealth so he earns MORE money. A dollar invested should yield earnings. 200k isn’t a lot, especially considering his spending. He needs to make more money than 200k. One way to do this is to earn a higher salary/bonus. Another way is to invest.

Why does he need to earn more money and build wealth? He makes 250k and is free of debt. He also has 500k in a tax deferred account and on average given his position will retire at 79. I seriously do not understand why he MUST do this and why this has anything to do with the supreme court. Should every appointee be required to be an investor? What is the value to the American people in that?

Because he can’t live off of only 200k!!!!! He hasn’t been able to do so yet so he’s not going to be able to do so in the future.

What do you mean he can't live off 200k? Are we looking at the same article? He has no debt, 2 kids in private school. His mortgage is in good standing, he had 500k saved. He will be collecting at least 250k or more and will nearly die on the job. What am I missing? Why are you so worried about him? Why are you worrying about someone with his excellent financial picture? As a private sector employee this would be amazing if I had this and I'm speaking as a 40yr old who just broke 1M in retirement savings.

I'm not being an ass, I'm just baffled by these 20 pages of handwringing over this guy.

Because he’s earning 300k and has been racking up credit card debt and refinancing his home multiple times.

He’s in his 50s and has the same financial profile as someone in their early 30s (20-30 percent equity in home, 500k in retirement etc)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had a job that involved reviewing the financial disclosure statements of nominees in multiple (both R and D administrations), and, in the beginning, I was surprised by how little most nominees had in the way of savings. There were always the few very wealthy types, who'd been in the private sector a long time, or had family money, but the ones who'd been working on Capital Hill or other branches of government most of their career generally didn't have much.

This is not a new insight, but many people on this board have a warped view of how most Americans live.

I don't think so. Many people on this board understand that most people don't have savings, carry balances on their ccs, etc. But we all know what people are supposed to do, which, as you noted, many don't, including this Supreme Court nominee.

I'm so confused. If hes had a pension since 2006, why would someone put money into TSP after that? Also, how is that even fair that someone get a lifetime pension and still be allowed to contribute to tax deferred retirement accounts? Additionally I'm not a federal worker, and have to plan, but why would someone save aggressively if he had a lifetime job and lifetime pension? All one would need is insurance. He does have 500k in TSP, plus that pension, not sure why he's not supposed to spend his disposable income.
Is there some special virtue in hoarding money?

No but there’s value in building wealth. If he stays on his current track he will have made millions over his career and spent almost ALL of it. That’s a waste of a good salary. He doesn’t make a ton but enough to not be living paycheck to paycheck.

There’s a difference between hoarding money and living paycheck to paycheck.

Why is he supposed to build wealth? Me, as a someone who works in the private sector MUST build wealth in order to secure my future. I do not do this to be virtuous, I do this for my survival. That's the only reason I build wealth. I'm also 41. If today someone gave me a lifetime job with a lifetime pension, I dont see any value in building wealth. Heck, how much is that pension worth? 4M 5M? Despite my financially conservative nature, my 401k will never look like that.

I honestly dont understand the uproar over someone who is spending his money, has 500k saved, and who has a lifetime pension that only a fraction of the population could ever have.

Again, why should be build wealth given the security he has had as an appointee for over a decade? I truly dont fer it.

He should build wealth so he earns MORE money. A dollar invested should yield earnings. 200k isn’t a lot, especially considering his spending. He needs to make more money than 200k. One way to do this is to earn a higher salary/bonus. Another way is to invest.

Why does he need to earn more money and build wealth? He makes 250k and is free of debt. He also has 500k in a tax deferred account and on average given his position will retire at 79. I seriously do not understand why he MUST do this and why this has anything to do with the supreme court. Should every appointee be required to be an investor? What is the value to the American people in that?

Because he can’t live off of only 200k!!!!! He hasn’t been able to do so yet so he’s not going to be able to do so in the future.

What do you mean he can't live off 200k? Are we looking at the same article? He has no debt, 2 kids in private school. His mortgage is in good standing, he had 500k saved. He will be collecting at least 250k or more and will nearly die on the job. What am I missing? Why are you so worried about him? Why are you worrying about someone with his excellent financial picture? As a private sector employee this would be amazing if I had this and I'm speaking as a 40yr old who just broke 1M in retirement savings.

I'm not being an ass, I'm just baffled by these 20 pages of handwringing over this guy.

Why do you keep saying he has no debt? He does have debt -- a large outstanding mortgage (in his 50s). More importantly, he has refinanced his mortgage multiple times in order to pull cash out, and had $60-200k in credit card debt as of 1 year ago. He's clearly living beyond his means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had a job that involved reviewing the financial disclosure statements of nominees in multiple (both R and D administrations), and, in the beginning, I was surprised by how little most nominees had in the way of savings. There were always the few very wealthy types, who'd been in the private sector a long time, or had family money, but the ones who'd been working on Capital Hill or other branches of government most of their career generally didn't have much.

This is not a new insight, but many people on this board have a warped view of how most Americans live.

I don't think so. Many people on this board understand that most people don't have savings, carry balances on their ccs, etc. But we all know what people are supposed to do, which, as you noted, many don't, including this Supreme Court nominee.

I'm so confused. If hes had a pension since 2006, why would someone put money into TSP after that? Also, how is that even fair that someone get a lifetime pension and still be allowed to contribute to tax deferred retirement accounts? Additionally I'm not a federal worker, and have to plan, but why would someone save aggressively if he had a lifetime job and lifetime pension? All one would need is insurance. He does have 500k in TSP, plus that pension, not sure why he's not supposed to spend his disposable income.
Is there some special virtue in hoarding money?

No but there’s value in building wealth. If he stays on his current track he will have made millions over his career and spent almost ALL of it. That’s a waste of a good salary. He doesn’t make a ton but enough to not be living paycheck to paycheck.

There’s a difference between hoarding money and living paycheck to paycheck.

Why is he supposed to build wealth? Me, as a someone who works in the private sector MUST build wealth in order to secure my future. I do not do this to be virtuous, I do this for my survival. That's the only reason I build wealth. I'm also 41. If today someone gave me a lifetime job with a lifetime pension, I dont see any value in building wealth. Heck, how much is that pension worth? 4M 5M? Despite my financially conservative nature, my 401k will never look like that.

I honestly dont understand the uproar over someone who is spending his money, has 500k saved, and who has a lifetime pension that only a fraction of the population could ever have.

Again, why should be build wealth given the security he has had as an appointee for over a decade? I truly dont fer it.

He should build wealth so he earns MORE money. A dollar invested should yield earnings. 200k isn’t a lot, especially considering his spending. He needs to make more money than 200k. One way to do this is to earn a higher salary/bonus. Another way is to invest.

Why does he need to earn more money and build wealth? He makes 250k and is free of debt. He also has 500k in a tax deferred account and on average given his position will retire at 79. I seriously do not understand why he MUST do this and why this has anything to do with the supreme court. Should every appointee be required to be an investor? What is the value to the American people in that?

Because he can’t live off of only 200k!!!!! He hasn’t been able to do so yet so he’s not going to be able to do so in the future.

What do you mean he can't live off 200k? Are we looking at the same article? He has no debt, 2 kids in private school. His mortgage is in good standing, he had 500k saved. He will be collecting at least 250k or more and will nearly die on the job. What am I missing? Why are you so worried about him? Why are you worrying about someone with his excellent financial picture? As a private sector employee this would be amazing if I had this and I'm speaking as a 40yr old who just broke 1M in retirement savings.

I'm not being an ass, I'm just baffled by these 20 pages of handwringing over this guy.

Because he’s earning 300k and has been racking up credit card debt and refinancing his home multiple times.

He’s in his 50s and has the same financial profile as someone in their early 30s (20-30 percent equity in home, 500k in retirement etc)

LOL at that being the typical financial profile of someone in their mid-30s. Most people in their mid-30s are lucky to even afford a decent home and have an open retirement account (yes, even in this area).