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

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who don't spend money on luxuries need to "live a little".

I think that the issue here is when the people who don't spend are super judgey about those who do. If you prefer to hoard money go ahead and do it! But don't assume (as OP said) that the people who spend it are in debt and don't have as much as those who don't.

Anonymous wrote:People who don't spend money on luxuries need to "live a little".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's an unpopular opinion you have in regards to money or personal finance?

Mine is that, contrary to the common (?) belief that people who have fancy lifestyles must be "swimming in debt", the majority of people living like that can afford it. In general, people make more or have much more money than you think, and if you think you are behind relative to your peer group, it's because you probably are.

DCUM people are way too conservative, from investment choices, to debt leverage, to oversaving for retirement

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.

Anonymous wrote:Expensive cars are stupid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Virginia requires a personal finance class as one of its graduation requirements.

Kudos to Virginia. I think that it should be taught every year in school, but even if it's taught just in one semester, that is better than nothing.

But, when Virginia did that, it did so at the expense of the performing arts of music, band, theater and chorus instruction time. They could have made a better trade-off.

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

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

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.

+1000

these are the same people who think it's a good idea to pay cash for property.

All these trite Boomer sayings "OMG THE STARBUCKS AND THE AVOCADO TOAST!" In what reality do these people live?