|
$50,000
Covers three or four months of expenses if one of us lost our job |
That's reality for dual income couples who burn $15 or $20K a month in expenses. |
|
Depending on the market you are competing in, it may make sense to throw all your cash into the down payment and then get access to it for emergencies through a HELOC. A larger down payment makes you a more attractive buyer in competitive markets.
If competition isn't an issue, I'd stick to the 20% down payment rule and invest the rest of your funds in a money market or other investment vehicle that you can access easily. |
I would move heaven and earth to earn more and spend less then. |
Many people are already doing this and still don’t earn in a year what some of you are able to save. |
Not us. We spend about 17k/mo and don't keep more than 25k in cash savings. Only time we build up savings is if we need to buy a new car or do a home improvement, as we don't take on debt. |
|
So people saving large amounts is why Trump got elected? Yet, Trumps policies are very much those of Paul Ryan, where if you lose your jobs it’s all up to you....maybe the govt will turn your food stamps into a box of dried beans, powdered milk and peanut butter.
That’s logically incoherent. My husband and I save cash aggressively. We could probably get thru 6 months on a bare bones budget. I’d love to get up to a full year of bare bones budget, but expenses have necessitated some dipping into reserves. We leave the market for our retirement accounts....and are both contributing 15%. |
| 50k |
| Another 50k here. |
Nobody is telling to save two years of their expenses. It's your own, your own minimum. |
What is your point? |
|
When we purchased our house we went down to $10k. That made me nervous. We are now at $60k and that would cover 10 months of expenses. I’d like to get it up to $70k to cover about a year.
|
My point is that the small % of Americans who are heavy savers is not the reason why Trump got elected |
now I understand. I agree with you.
|
People in jobs that afford them a large savings are not stupid enough to think ANY administration is obligated to feed and house them if they lost their jobs. That's loser logic and a recipe for a lifetime of failure. |