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 should he build wealth? Well he has a pension, but nothing to leave his wife and daughters if he should die? I'm guessing he must have a lot of life insurance. And maybe there's a 50% survivor's benefit for his wife.
At least for me, I want to build wealth to be able to help my kids with a down payment on their first home, as my parents did for me. I like for each generation to help the next. It doesn't make you lazy at all, as you always have to keep spending in check to be able to pass it down to the next generation. By buying a home at a young age, you can build equity and start to get ahead.
To me, it seems like kind of a waste to grind away at work for 40-45 years, and to have nothing (assets) to show for it. A pension is not something you can hand down.
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.