query: Can saving/investing 15% of your income starting age 25, likely make you a millionaire?

positive: Yes, quite easily, in fact.  You left a lot of numbers out, so lets start with some assumptions. If you are at the median of middle income families in the US that might mean $70,000/year. 15% of that is an investment of $875 per month. If you invest that amount monthly and assume a 6% return, then you will have a million dollars at approximately 57 years old. 6% is a very conservative number, and as Ben Miller points out, the S&P 500 has historically returned closer to 11%. If you assumed an aggressive 9% return, and continued with that $875/month for 40 years until you turn 65, that becomes $4 million. Start with a much more conservative $9/hr for $18,720 per year (40 hours * 52 weeks, no overtime). If that person saved 14% of his/her income or about $219 per month from 25 to 65 years old with the same 9%, they would still achieve $1 million for retirement. Is it much harder for a poor person? Certainly, but hopefully these numbers illustrate that it is better to save and invest even a small amount if that's all that can be done. High income earners have the most to gain if they save and the most to lose if they don't. Let's just assume an even $100,000/year salary and modest 401(k) match of 3%. Even married filing jointly a good portion of that salary is going to be taxed at the 25% rate. If single you'll be hitting the 28% income tax rate.  If you can max out the $18,000 (2017) contribution limit and get an additional $3,000 from an employer match (for a total monthly contribution of $1750) 40 years of contributions would become $8.2 million with the 9% rate of return.  If you withdrew that money at 4% per year you would have a residual income of $300k throughout your retirement.

positive: It depends on how much you save, how much your savings earns each year.  You can model it with a very simple spreadsheet:  Formula view:  You can change this simple model with any other assumptions you wish to make and model. This spreadsheet presumes that you only make $50,000/year, never get a raise, that your savings earns 6% per year and that the market never has a crash like 2008. The article never states the assumptions that the author has made, and therefore we can't honestly determine how truthful the author is.  I recommend the book Engineering Your Retirement as it has more detailed models and goes into more details about what you should expect. I wrote a slightly more detailed post that showed a spreadsheet that is basically what I use at home to track my retirement savings.

positive: Millionaire, Shmillionaire! Let's do this calculation Bruno Mars style (I wanna be a Billionaire...) If my calculations are correct, in the above scenario, at age 80, you would have more than a billion in the bank, after taxes.

positive: Yes, becoming a millionaire is a reasonable goal.  Saving 15% of your income starting at age 25 and investing in the stock market will likely get you there. The CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) of the S&P 500 over the last 35 years has been about 11%. (That 35 years includes at least two fairly serious crashes.) You may get more or less than that number in the future, but let's guess that you'll average 9%. Let's say that you begin with nothing invested, and you start investing $100 per week at age 25. (If your annual income is $35,000, that is about 15% of your income.)  You decide to invest your money in an S&P 500 index mutual fund. 35 years from now when you are 60 years old, you would be a millionaire ($1.2 Million, actually). You may earn less than the assumed 9%, depending on how the stock market does.  However, if you stick with your 15% investment amount throughout your whole career, you'll most likely end up with more, because your income will probably increase during your career.  And you will probably be working past age 60, giving your investments time to earn even more.

positive: I'll offer another answer, using different figures. Let's assume 6% is the rate of return you can expect.  You are age 25, and plan to retire at age 65.  If you have $0 and want $1M at retirement, you will need to put away $524.20/month, or $6,290.40/year, which is 15% of $41,936.  So $41,936 is what you'd need to make per year in order to get to your target. You can calculate your own figures with a financial calculator:  480 months as your term (or, adjust this to your time horizon in months), .486755% as your interest (or, take your assumed interest rate + 1 to the 1/12th power and subtract 1 to convert to a monthly interest rate), 0 as your PV, and $1M as your FV; then solve for PMT.

positive: I see a lot of answers calculcating with incomes that are much higher than yours, here is something for your situation: If you would keep your current income for the rest of your life, here is approximately how things would turn out after 40 years: All interest is calculated relative to the amount in your portfolio. Therefore, lets start with 1 dollar for 40 years: With your current income, 15% would be 82.5 dollar. At 12% this would over 40 years get you almost 1 million dollar. I would call a required return of more than 12% not 'likely'. The good news, is that your income will likely increase, and especially if this happens fast things will start to look up.  The bad news is, that your current salary is quite low. So, it basically means that you need to make some big jumps in the next few years in order to make this scenario likely. If you can quickly move your salary towards ranges that are more common in the US, then 15% of your income can build up to a million before you retire. However, if you just follow gradual growth, you would need to get quite lucky to reach a million.  Note that even if reaching a million appears unlikely, it is probably still a good idea to save!

positive: The article links to William Bernstein’s plan that he outlined for Business Insider, which says: Modelling this investment strategy Picking three funds from Google and running some numbers. The international stock index only goes back to April 29th 1996, so a run of 21 years was modelled.  Based on 15% of a salary of $550 per month with various annual raises: Broadly speaking, this investment doubles the value of the contributions over two decades. Note:  Rebalancing fees are not included in the simulation. Below is the code used to run the simulation.  If you have Mathematica you can try with different funds.    Notice above how the bond index (VBMFX) preserves value during the 2008 crash.  This illustrates the rationale for diversifying across different fund types.

positive: As others have shown, if you assume that you can get 6% and you invest 15% of a reasonable US salary then you can hit 1 million by the time you retire. If you invest in property in a market like the UK (where I come from...) then insane house price inflation will do it for you as well. In 1968 my parents bought a house for £8000. They had a mortgage on it for about 75% of the value. They don't live there but that house is now valued at about £750,000. Okay, that's close to 60 years, but with a 55 year working life that's not so unreasonable. If you assume the property market (or the shares market) can go on rising forever... then invest in as much property as you can with your 15% as mortgage payments... and watch the million roll in. Of course, you've also got rent on your property portfolio as well in the intervening years. However, take the long view. Inflation will hit what a million is worth. In 1968, a million was a ridiculously huge amount of money. Now it's 'Pah, so what, real rich people have billions'. You'll get your million and it will not be enough to retire comfortably on! In 1968 my parents salaries as skilled people were about £2000 a year... equivalent jobs now pay closer to £50,000... 25x salary inflation in the time. Do that again, skilled professional salary in 60 years of £125000 a year... so your million is actually 4 years salary.  Not being relentlessly negative... just suggesting that a financial target like 'own a million (dollars)' isn't a good strategy. 'Own something that yields a decent amount of money' is a better one.

positive: "Other people have already demonstrated the effect of compound interest to the question. I'd like to add a totally different perspective.  Note that the article says if you can follow this simple recipe throughout your working career, you will almost certainly beat out most professional investors [...] you'll likely accumulate enough savings to retire comfortably. (the latter point may be the more practical mark than the somewhat arbitrary million (rupees? dollars?) My point here is that the group of people who do put away a substantial fraction of their (lower) early wages and keep them invested for decades show (at least) two traits that will make a very substantial difference to the average (western) person. They may be correlated, though: people who are not tempted or able to resist the temptation to spend (almost) their whole income may be more likely to not touch their savings or investments. (In my country, people like to see themselves as ""world champions in savings"", but if you talk to people you find that many people talk about saving for the next holidays [as opposed to saving for retirement].) Also, if you get going this way long before you are able to retire you reach a relative level of independence that can give you a much better position in wage negotiations as you do not need to take the first badly paid job that comes along in order to survive but can afford to wait and look and negotiate for a better job.  Psychologically, it also seems to be easier to consistently keep the increase in your spending below the increase of your income than to reduce spending once you overspent. There are studies around that find homeowners on average substantially more wealthy than people who keep living in rental appartments (I'm mostly talking Germany, were renting is normal and does not imply poverty - but similar findings have also been described for the US) even though someone who'd take the additional money the homeowner put into their home over the rent and invested in other ways would have yielded more value than the home. The difference is largely attributed to the fact that buying and downpaying a home enforces low spending and saving, and it is found that after some decades of downpayment homeowners often go on to spend less than their socio-economic peers who rent. The group that is described in this question is one that does not even need the mental help of enforcing the savings. In addition, if this is not about the fixed million but about reaching a level of wealth that allows you to retire: people who have practised moderate spending habits as adults for decades are typically also much better able to get along with less in retirement than others who did went with a high consumption lifestyle instead (e.g. the homeowners again).  My estimate is that these effects compound in a way that is much more important than the ""usual"" compounding effect of interest - and even more if you look at interest vs. inflation, i.e. the buying power of your investment for everyday life.  Note that they also cause the group in question to be more resilient in case of a market crash than the average person with about no savings (note that market crashes lead to increased risk of job loss).  Slightly off topic: I do not know enough how difficult saving 50 USD out of 50 USD in Pakistan is - and thus cannot comment whether the savings effort called for in the paper is equivalent/higher/lower than what you achieve. I find that trying to keep to student life (i.e. spending that is within the means of a student) for the first professional years can help kick-starting a nest egg (European experience - again, not sure whether applicable in Pakistan)."

positive: If by being a millionaire you mean dollar millionaire then I doubt that it is really that easy in Pakistani context. At present the exchange rate is 107 Pakistani rupees per US dollar so even with this exchange rate, to have a million US dollars means having 107 million rupees of wealth. Now with this maths in mind you can very well calculate how much possible it is for an average 25 years old Pakistani to have that much wealth. And by the time you have 107 million Pakistani rupees of wealth the exchange rate against the US dollar would have only gone up against Pakistani currency. That article which you have mentioned makes calculations in US context and dollar terms. However if you talk only in terms of your country's context then being a millionaire means having 1 million rupees of wealth and that is something which is quite achievable with your salary and within very short span of time.

positive: The really simple answer is that compound interest is compound not linear.  Money invested for longer earns more interest, and the sooner you start investing, the longer it has to earn interest.  These ideas come out of pension investment where 65 is the usual retirement age and what you invest in the 1st ten years of your pension (or any other compound interest fund) accounts for over 50% of what you will get out. 25 to 65 is forty years and $100 invested at 7% for 40 years is $1400.  $100 invested every year for 40 years the pot would be worth just under $20,000. At 30 years, it would be worth under $10,000, and at 20 years it would be worth only $4099.  If you double your investment amount every 10 years you would have invested $15700, and the pot would be worth $45,457. Do exactly the same but starting at 35 instead of 25 and your pot would only be worth $14,200.

positive: I just want to point out a couple of things, and I do not have enough reputation to comment. Saving 50% is totally possible. I know people saving 65%. For more see here EDIT: Let me repeat that 4% it the maximum you can assume if you want to be sure to have at least that return in the long term. It's not the average, it's the minimum, the value you can expect and plan with. Just to reinforce the claim, I can cite Irrational Exuberance of Robert Schiller, who explicitly says, on page 135 of the 2015 edition, that from January 1966 to January 1992 the real annual return was just 4.1%. Sure, this does not matter so much if you are investing all the way through, but it's still a 26 year period.

negative: There's a bit of working backwards that's required.   This is a summary of a spreadsheet I wrote which helps to get to the answer. What you see here is that at age 25, one might have saved about a half year's salary, assuming they worked 5 years. The numbers grow exponentially to at 65, about 15 years salary saved. This will allow a withdrawal of about 60% final income each year using the 4% guideline. More will come from Social Security in the States to get closer to 100%. The sheet start with assumptions, a 10% per year rate of saving, and an 8% annual return. Salary is assumed to rise 3% per year. One can choose their age, enter their current numbers and their own assumptions. I had to include some numbers and at the time, 8% seemed reasonable. Not so sure today. What I do like is the concept of viewing savings in terms of 'years salary' as this leads to replacement rate. Will $1M be enough for you? Only you can answer that. But the goal of 80-100% replacement income is reasonable and this sheet can be used to understand the goals along the way. (note, the uploaded sheet had 15% saving rate, not the 10 I thought. I used 15 to show a 10% saving along with a 5% match to one's 401(k). Those interested are welcome to enter their own numbers. The one objection I've seen is the increase to salary. Increases tend to be higher in the first 20 than the second, or so I'm told.)

negative: It's important to have both long term goals and milestones along the way. In an article I wrote about saving 15% of one's income, I offered the following table:  This table shows savings starting at age 20 (young, I know, so shift 2 years out) and ending at 60 with 18-1/2 year's of income saved due to investment returns. The 18-1/2 results in 74% of one's income replaced at retirement if we follow the 4% rule. One can adjust this number, assuming Social Security will replace 30%, and that spending will go down in retirement, you might need to save less than this shows. What's important is that as a starting point, it shows 2X income saved by age 30. Perhaps 1X is more reasonable. You are at just over .5X and proposing to spend nearly half of that on a single purchase.  Financial independence means to somehow create an income you can live on without the need to work. There are many ways to do it, but it usually starts with a high saving rate. Your numbers suggest a good income now, but maybe this is only recently, else you'd have over $200K in the bank.  I suggest you read all you can about investments and the types of retirement accounts, including 401(k) (if you have that available to you), IRA, and Roth IRA. The details you offer don't allow me to get much more specific than this.

negative: They start at six figures with just a bachelor's, and their raises tend to be pretty substantial. Many of them will earn more than $200k before they are age 30. Basically, if they were to live relatively normal lifestyles (many do not), save and invest most of their earnings, then they should be able to become a millionaire at around age 30 while just following their career path, without taking big risks such as starting a business.

negative: "It's called disposable income for a reason. It's what's left after obligations, whatever bills you have, and saving. Saving half one's income is pretty much at one end of the spectrum, very few can afford this. The combination of high savings and low actual spending will enable you to retire very early if you wish.  Saving 'only' 15% might actually be out of your comfort zone, maybe 25% will keep you happy. What remains is yours to spend on what you wish, whatever makes you happy. There was a time I joked ""I spent most of my money on women and beer. The rest, I wasted."" Now, I don't mind travel, but it's not my passion. If traveling the world is yours, do it. Enjoy every minute of it."

negative: "I disagree with the selected answer. There's no one rule of thumb and certainly not simple ones like ""20 cents of every dollar if you're 35"". You've made a good start by making a budget of your expected expenses. If you read the Mr. Money Mustache blogpost titled The Shockingly  Simple Math Behind Early Retirement, you will understand that it is usually a mistake to think of your expenses as a fixed percentage of your income. In most cases, it makes more sense to keep your expenses as low as possible, regardless of your actual income.  In the financial independence community, it is a common principle that one typically needs 25-30 times one's annual spending to have enough money to sustain oneself forever off the investment returns that those savings generate (this is based on the assumption of a 7% average annual return, 4% after inflation). So the real answer to your question is this: UPDATE Keats brought to my attention that this formula doesn't work that well when the savings rates are low (20% range). This is because it assumes that money you save earns no returns for the entire period that you are saving. This is obviously not true; investment returns should also count toward your 25-times annual spending goal. For that reason, it's probably better to refer to the blog post that I linked to in the answer above for precise calculations. That's where I got the ""37 years at 20% savings rate"" figure from. Depending on how large and small x and y are, you could have enough saved up to retire in 7 years (at a 75% savings rate), 17 years (at a 50% savings rate), or 37 years! (at the suggested 20% savings rate for 35-year olds). As you go through life, your expenses may increase (eg. starting a family, starting a new business, unexpected health event etc) or decrease (kid wins full scholarship to college). So could your income. However, in general, you should negotiate the highest salary possible (if you are salaried), use the 25x rule, and consider your life and career goals to decide how much you want to save. And stop thinking of expenses as a percentage of income."

negative: Start as early as possible and you will want to kiss your younger self when you get to retirement age. I know you (and everyone else at that age) thinks that they don't make enough to start saving and leans towards waiting until you get established in your career and start making better money. Don't put it off. Save some money out of each paycheck even if it is only $50.  Trust me, as little as you make now, you probably have more disposable income than you will when you make twice as much. Your lifestyle always seems to keep up with your income and you will likely ALWAYS feel like you don't have money left over to save. The longer you wait, the more you are going to have to stuff away to make up for that lost time you could have been compounding your returns as shown in this table (assuming 9.4 percent average gain annually, which has been the average return on the stock market from 1926-2010).  I also suggest reading this article when explains it in more detail: Who Wants to be a millionaire?

negative: "It is difficult to become a millionaire in the short term (a few years) working at a 9-to-5 job, unless you get lucky (win the lottery, inheritance, gambling at a casino, etc). However, if you max out your employer's Retirement Plan (401k, 403b) for the next 30 years, and you average a 5% rate of return on your investment, you will reach millionaire status.  Many people would consider this ""easy"" and ""automatic"". Of course, this assumes you are able to max our your retirement savings at the start of your career, and keep it going.  The idea is that if you get in the habit of saving early in your career and live modestly, it becomes an automatic thing. Unfortunately, the value of $1 million after 30 years of inflation will be eroded somewhat.  (Sorry.) If you don't want to wait 30 years, then you need to look at a different strategy.  Work harder or take risks.  Some options:"

negative: "(Congratulations on the little one on the way.) I'd recommend saving outside of tax-advantaged accounts.  Pay your taxes and be done with them. I'd recommend putting your old-age fund first before shelling out a lot of money for college. I'd recommend not shelling out a lot of money for college.  Ideally, none.  There are ways today to get a four-year degree for $15,000.  Not $15,000 per year.  $15,000 total.  Check here.  (This isn't an affiliate link.)  They can pay for this themselves! I'd recommend making sure you hold the hammer.  Don't let them party on your nickel. I'd recommend teaching your kids to ""fish"" as soon as possible.  Help them start a business.  They could be millionaires by the time they're teenagers.  Then they can make their own money.  You won't have to give them a dime."

negative: I believe the following formula provides a reasonable approximation. You need to fill in the following variables: The average annual return you need on investing the 15% =  (((MP5 - MP20) * 12) + (.0326 * .95 * PP / Y)) / (PP *.15) Example assuming an interest rate of 4% on a 100K home: If you invest the $15K you'll break even if you make a 9.86% return per year on average. Here's the breakdown per year using these example numbers: Note this does not consider taxes.

negative: "I argued for a 15% rule of thumb here: Saving for retirement: How much is enough? Though if you'll let me, I'd refine the argument to: use a rule of thumb to set your minimum savings, then use Monte Carlo to stress-test and look at any special circumstances, and make a case to save more. You're right that the rule of thumb bakes in tons of assumptions (great list btw). A typical 15%-works scenario could include: If any of those big assumptions don't apply to you (or you don't want to rely on them) you'd have to re-evaluate. It sounds like you're assuming 4-5% investment returns? As you say that's probably the big difference, 4-5% is lower than most would assume. 6-7% (real return) is maybe a middle-of-the-road assumption and 8% is maybe an unrealistic one. Many of the assumptions you list (such as married/kids, cost of living, spouse's income, paying for college) can maybe be bundled up into one assumption (percentage of income you will spend). Set a percentage budget and as you go along, stay within your means by sacrificing as required. Also smooth out income across layoffs and things by having an emergency fund. By staying on-budget as you go you can remove some of the unpredictability. The reason I think the rule of thumb is still good, despite the assumptions, is that I don't think a ""more accurate"" number based on a lot of unpredictable guesses is really better; and it may even be harmful if you use it to justify saving less, or even if you use it to save far too much. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_bias Many (most?) important assumptions are not predictable: investment returns, health care inflation, personal health, lifestyle creep (changing spending needs/desires), irrational investment behavior. I agree with you that for many scenarios and people, 15% will not be enough, though it's a whole lot more than most save already. In particular, low investment returns over your time horizon will make 15% insufficient, and some argue that low investment returns over the coming 30 years are likely. Without a doubt, 20% or more is safer than 15%. Do consider that ""saving enough"" is not a binary thing. If you save only 15% and it turns out that doesn't completely replace your income, it's not like you're out on the street; you might have to retire a few years later, or downsize your house, or something, but perhaps that isn't a catastrophe. There's a very personal question about how much to sacrifice now for less risk of sacrifice in the future. Maybe I'd better qualify ""not a binary thing"": some savings rates (certainly, anything less than 10%), make major sacrifices pretty likely... so in that sense there is a binary distinction between ""plausible plan"" and ""denial."" Also, precise assumptions and calculations get a lot more useful as you approach retirement age. You can pretty much answer the question ""is it reasonable to retire right now?"" or ""could I retire in 5 years?"" (though with a retirement that could last 30 years, plenty of unknowns will remain even then). I think at age 20 or 30 though, just saving 15% (20% if you're conservative), and not spending too much time on a speculative analysis would be a sound decision. That's why I like the rule of thumb. Analysis paralysis (saving nothing or near-nothing) is the real danger early in one's career. Any plausible percentage is fine as long as you save. As your life unfolds and you see what happens, you can refine and correct, adjusting your savings rate, moving your retirement age around, spending a little less or more. The important thing earlier in life is to just get in the right ballpark."

negative: "Yes. A most emphatic yes.  I suggest you look at your 2014 return and project what 2015 will look like. I'd convert enough to ""top off"" the 15% bracket. Note, if you overshoot it, and in April 2016, see that you are say $5K into the 25% rate, you can just recharacterize the amount you went over and nail the bracket to the dollar.  If you have the time and patience, you can convert into 2 different Roth accounts. One account for one asset class, say large cap stocks/funds, the other, cash/bonds. In April, keep the account that outperformed, and only recharacterize the lagger. Roth Roulette is my name for this strategy. It's risk free, and has the potential to boost the value of your conversions.  Edit - To be clear, you are permitted to recharacterize (undo) any or all of the converted amount. You actually have until tax time (4/15 or so) plus the 6 month extension. You can recharacterize for any reason - A personal anecdote - I manage my mother in law's money. She is well under the 25% bracket cutoff. Each year I convert, and each April, recharacterize just enough to be at the top of the 15% bracket. Over $100K has been shifted from Traditional IRA to Roth by now. Taxed at 15% so her daughters will 'not' pay 25% when they withdraw. $10K in tax saved from uncle sam, for my effort of filling out paper twice a year for 12 years now. Well worth my effort."

negative: "Age. Current marginal rate. Total saved so far. Current rate of savings. Joint or single filer. These are among the variables that go into making this decision. Without this, my answer is a general response. In general, you have one marginal rate today. (Unless you happened to be straddling a bracket limit).  In retirement, you have your marginal rate, of course, but also every bracket up to that level. It can make sense to save today pretax to avoid 25%, knowing this money will be withdrawn at an average 10 % or so in retirement.  Edit to clarify to the one who offers comment below to the contrary.  The 2015 taxtable for single filer:  A single person has a combined $10,300 standard deduction and exemption. This means that if he has no other income in retirement, a withdrawal of $47,750 results in a tax bill of $5156. This is an average 10.8% on that withdrawal. It also means that one can save nearly $1.2M before hitting the 25% bracket in retirement. With the numbers I offered, the next $1 is taxed at 25%. In general, if a new worker starts by using Roth, and goes to traditional to avoid slipping into the 25% bracket, they will have a nice mix of pre and post tax money.  In the end, it's not a long term binary choice. Each year, you can decide which flavor or mix of flavors to use. You can convert from traditional to Roth each year to ""top off"" the 15% bracket, so you retirement withdrawals never push you into the 25% bracket.  Note - the math above tragically ignores The Phantom Tax Rate Zone caused by the taxation of Social Security benefits. For a young person, I don't know that I'd advise counting on this benefit, but if you believe in fairy dust, unicorns, and the like, you should be aware of how the government currently plans to tax you. This situation leans strongly toward the Roth. Until congress decides to use Roth withdrawals as a trigger to tax or reduce your benefits, in which case, just using a taxable account will be all that's left.  2 years ago, I wrote a blog post The 15% solution which walks the reader through the process of optimizing their savings from a tax standpoint. The choice of investments is another matter, this simply addresses the pre-tax post-tax issue."

negative: "Definitions are in order: These definitions are important. Someone making 1,000,000 a year who spends all of it is poor. Someone who makes 500K, spends 450K a year and has three million in stocks and a paid-for million dollar home may be rich but they can't retire. They need another seven to eight million to retire. Someone with a million dollars in assets who makes 40K a year through their job, can be Financially Independent and retire.  This last example is important. In The Millionaire Next Door the authors share their discovery that the average millionaire accumulated their wealth with just a working income of around 50K (the book is a bit dated so the number should be elevated if you adjust for inflation). Finance Independent is a strange thing to wrap your head around and people with high incomes often fall victim to misunderstanding it. When figuring out how much a person needs to accumulate for their ""nest egg"", their working income is not a direct variable. Their spending and savings rate are. A doctor making 500K, who spends 450K needs to work for 51 years if they are planning to keep spending 450K/year (adjusted for inflation) forever. Someone making 60K starting at age 21 who saves 18K (30%), could retire at 49. Someone with a truly low income and poor, say 30K and under and living in a old developed nation, investing will help them a bit. Say they save 10% of their income, by the time they reach 65 (the typical age federal retirement pensions begin), they'll have enough money to live off of in perpetuity and in comfort.  They'll actually have a higher retirement income than income while they were working. But, it is challenging at those levels to save 10% of your net income. Events like your car randomly deciding to break down one day can destroy an entire year's saving."

negative: The best way to look at it is this: I would suspect most people would say no.  Most people do not have the time, skill, or risk tolerance to be able to leverage capital as large as the value of their own home. Remember that a 15-year fixed has a slightly lower interest rate than a 30-year fixed (difference of 0.5–1%).  If you won't have the discipline to invest every cent left in your pocket, then you are better off with the 15-year and the lower rate.

negative: In addition to what others have said, I think it is important to consider that government retirement assistance (whatever it is called in each instance) is basically a promise that can be revoked. I talked to a retired friend of mine just yesterday and we got onto that subject; she mentioned that when she was young, the promise was for 90% of one's pay, paid by the government after retiring. It is very different today. Yes, you can gamble that you won't need the saved money, and thus decide not to save anything. What then if you do end up needing the money you did not set aside, but rather spent? You are just now graduating college, and assuming of course that you get a decently-paying job, are likely going to have loads more money than you are used to. If you make an agreement with yourself to set aside even just 10-15% of the difference in income right from the start, that is going to grow into a pretty sizable nest egg by the time you approach retirement age. Then, you will have the option of continuing to work (maybe part-time) or quitting in a way you would not have had otherwise. Now I'm going to pull numbers out of thin air, but suppose that you currently have $1000/month net, before expenses, and can get a job that pays $1800/month net starting out. 10-15% of the difference means you'll be saving around $100/month for retirement. In 35 years, assuming no return on investment (pessimistic, but works if returns match inflation) and no pay rises, that will still be over $40K. That's somewhere on the order of $150/month added to your retirement income for 25 years. Multiply with whatever inflation rate you think is likely if you prefer nominal values. It becomes even more noticable if you save a significant fraction of the additional pay; if you save 1/3 of the additional money (note that you still effectively get a 50% raise compared to what you have been living on before), that gives you a net income of $1500/month instead of $1800 ($500/month more rather than $800/month more) which grows into about $110K in 35 years assuming no return on investment. Nearly $400 per month for 25 years. $100 per week is hardly chump change in retirement, and it is still quite realistic for most people to save 30% of the money they did not have before.

negative: "I think your very long list of possible assumptions makes a tacit point of your own:  to state ""15%"" as a general value is bogus.  I think, in most cases, the ""15%"" is merely a popular meme.   To give any fixed number or percentage of income saved is insufficient without expanding things in the way you show.  Therefore, a formula, in which at least a handful of variables can be plugged into it, seems like the right approach.  (And this is what is being discussed here with the Monte Carlo method)."

negative: "The Roth/Traditional decision is complex, but can be broken down into a set of simple rules.  Ideally, you want to choose to tax your money at the lowest possible rate. This specifically refers to your marginal rate, the rate you last $100 was taxed or next $100 of income with be taxed. That, in itself, is another issue, answered with questions here discussing marginal rates.  My suggestion has been that if you are in the 15% bracket, use Roth. And continue to do so until you hit 25%. At that point, begin to shift to the traditional, pre-tax 401(k) or IRA. (My article The 15% solution, goes into detail on this, although it references the 2013 tax rates. I need to re-edit). If you are already in the 25% bracket, I'd suggest just going pre-tax. Given the ability to convert, it's not as if there are 2 points in time (deposit and withdrawal) but you can decide every year if your situation changes. It's not uncommon to get married, have a baby, buy a house, and find you just dropped back down to 15% marginal rate when you were solidly 25% prior.  Let me explain why you should go 100% pretax if already at 25%.  A single person hits the top of the 15% bracket (in 2017) at $37,950 taxable. Add the standard deduction and exemption, and you are at $48,350. The tax on this is $5226, less than 10% average, despite the next $100 being taxed at 25%. It would take over $1M to have an account large enough to withdraw $40K/yr.  If you blow through that number, you hit 25%, I agree, but why pay 25% now, for sure, to avoid 'maybe' hitting 25% later? You have decades of opportunities for conversion, and even more when the funds are transferred to IRAs if you have a job change. (And the conversion discussion has multiple layers when the IRA is involved) Say you are 'too' successful. You are hitting $2M before age 55. If you retire post-55, you can withdraw from the 401(k) penalty free. But, you have 15 years before you'd start to take SS benefits. 15 years to use conversions, even if pushing into 25%, to reduce the impact of SS taxation.  My advice is not a set-and-forget solution. It's an annual evaluation of the plan for the coming year.  Further notes on my choice of ""15% Solution"" - This is the 2017 tax table for singles -  I note that median individual income is ~$30K which puts that median single at ~20K taxable. This is where the analysis begins. This earner might have upward mobility, to reach the 25% bracket and begin to save pre-tax. The goal would be to have a mix of pre/post tax money, so that over the course of their life, the 25% bracket was avoided, perhaps completely.  In general, my writing tend towards the second highest quintile, the 60-80% slice of the population. The numbers might appear arbitrary, but, in the end, the discussion has to start someplace. The concept I described here is best implemented by the single or couple who is still at 15%, but soon pushing higher than the 15/25 line. This enables them to start by saving in the Roth, and slowly shifting towards pre-tax. The final mix at retirement depends on that timing as well as their opportunities for conversions along the way.  Part of my focus on that line is that the differential is greatest in bracket shifts between 15 and 25%. Much of the benefit in the whole IRA/401 discussion is in that shift, depositing at 25%, yet withdrawing at 15%. The 28% couple might wish to avoid the 33% bracket at retirement, but that level of income impacts far fewer people, and fewer still that are either reading these boards or my other writing."

negative: "Not at all. The Millionaire Next Door offers a book full of anecdotes on couples that earned money and saved their way to being millionaires. I believe about 1/3 or so had businesses, but the rest were employed and simply saved wisely.  $3860/yr saved for 40 years at 8% will return $1M. Adjust the numbers to hit a million sooner or reach a higher goal.  The Author might be accused of survey bias. This is the phenomenon of studying the final results without looking at the pool of people years prior. Little Adv' is correct that while 1/3 of millionaires may have gotten that way by starting a business, that says nothing about how many businesses need to start to find the one millionaire that resulted.  I view the book more as a lesson of ""spend beneath your means"" and focus on his anecdotes of the dual income couples who saved their way to this status. If you are in no rush, get this book from your library and spend the few hours to read it. In response to my Friend Dilip's comment, MoneyChimp offers a good look at compound growth (for the S&P) over time. The 40 years ending 2012, which obviously include the 'lost decade,' returned a CAGR of 9.78%. Not to be confused with the average 11.43%. When I pull the numbers for each year's return and apply an annual $3860 deposit, the 40 years ends with $2.2M. A 1% fee, or 1% lower return resulted in $1.6M.  If 8% isn't conservative, of course you can run the numbers you wish. The 40 years contained both a lost decade and two great ones. Will the 3 decades post-lost average to get the Quad-Decade period to 8%+? I don't know."

negative: If you are looking to begin living off the money now, then Dheer's answer is correct - it is not possible. However, if you are looking to grow that money (and potentially additional money added at later dates), then you could make this work. 250 a month corresponds to 3000 per year. A first approximation is that you will need a diversified portfolio of 20-25x that amount (60k-75k) to get the required return. This approximation is based on the rule of thumb for how much life insurance to buy. Therefore you need to determine how to grow the 4k you currently have into 60-75k. These numbers, however, are not adjusted for inflation. In the US I would like put the long term inflation adjust diversified market return at 4% per year (your money doubles about every 18 years). So your best approach if you have time is a diversified portfolio with rebalancing and adding additional money each year.

negative: The stock market at large has about a 4.5% long-term real-real (inflation-fees-etc-adjusted) rate of return. Yes: even in light of the recent crashes. That means your money invested in stocks doubles every 16 years. So savings when you're 25 and right out of college are worth double what savings are worth when you're 41, and four times what they're worth when you're 57. You're probably going to be making more money when you're 41, but are you really going to be making two times as much? (In real terms?) And at 57, will you be making four times as much? And if you haven't been saving at all in your life, do you think you're going to be able to start, and make the sacrifices in your lifestyle that you may need? And will you save enough in 10 years to live for another 20-30 years after retirement? And what if the economy tanks (again) and your company goes under and you're out of a job when you turn 58? Having tons of money at retirement isn't the only worthy goal you can pursue with your money (ask anyone who saves money to send kids to college), but having some money at retirement is a rather important goal, and you're much more at risk of saving too little than you are of saving too much. In the US, most retirement planners suggest 10-15% as a good savings rate. Coincidentally, the standard US 401(k) plan provides a tax-deferred vehicle for you to put away up to 15% of your income for retirement.  If you can save 15% from the age of 20-something onward, you probably will be at least as well-off when you retire as you are during the rest of your life. That means you can spend the rest on things which are meaningful to you. (Well, you should also keep around some cash in case of emergencies or sudden unemployment, and it's never a good idea to waste money, but your responsibilities to your future have at least been satisfied.) And in the UK you get tax relief on your pension contribution at your income tax rate and most employers will match your contributions.

negative: Gail Vaz-Oxlade has a budget calculator here that shows how much of your monthly net income should be allocated where. She recommends 35% for housing, 15% for transportation, 25% for life, 15% for debt repayment, and 10% for savings. Some people spend more then they make and her budget sheet helps get things under control for those people. For someone like yourself who seems to have things under control, this budget sheet can be a guideline for you. Play with the percentages if you like, and keep your spending under 100%.

negative: "An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest, as Ben Franklin said. However, this is not a question I can answer for you, as it depends on the opportunities that are specifically available to you as an individual. Sometimes opportunities will knock on your door and you can take advantage, other times you have to create that door to allow opportunities to knock. Maybe you have a friend that is opening a side business, maybe there is a class you can get into at a trivial cost. What I suggest is to start investing just to get into the habit of it, not so much for the returns. Before you do, however, any financial advisor will advise you to begin with a emergency fund, worth about 3-6 months of your expenses for that time. I wanted to hit the ground running and start investing in stocks, but first things first I guess. ""Millionaire Next Door"" will help you get into a saving mindset, ""I will teach you to be rich"" is ok, plenty of other books. My advice is keep doing what you're doing, learn to start saving, and once you have obtained an emergency fund of the amount of your choosing, start looking to invest in Index Funds or ETFs through any platform that has LOW FEES!! I use Betterment, but Vanguard is good too, as they allow you to get your feet wet and it's passive. Hope this helps."

negative: You're ignoring inflation. Even if we assume the ECB sticks to its 2% inflation  target, and your salary only rises in line with inflation, you will be saving considerably more in forty years' time than you are today. In fact, an interest rate of 2% and an inflation rate of 2% make the sums exceptionally easy. You need to save €25,000 per year in 2057 euros to be a millionaire by 2057, which is €11,322 in 2017 euros. Challenging, but achievable. Of course, you'll only be a millionaire in 2057 euros, which will be worth less than half as much as a euro is worth right now.

negative: "First, the limit this year is $16,500, $22,000 for age 50 or older. Next, does the company give you any match? If so, how much? Some will match your deposits dollar for dollar up to a certain percent of your pay. If you make $50k and deposit say 6%, that's $3k matched by company, for example. This deposit/match is the first priority.  Next, you should understand the expenses in the account. A bad 401(k) with high cost quickly negates any tax deferral benefit. The 401(k) options also may be limited, what are the choices of investments?  Is your income high enough that you can save $21,500? One thought is to save enough to drop back out of the 25% bracket, and go Roth after that. This is a good balance for most. By the way, Fairmark is a great site to see what bracket you are in. If your return is simple, you can just find your standard deduction and exemption numbers and get to your taxable income very simply. The debate of of Roth vs Pretax (for both IRA and 401(k) accounts) can get pretty complex, but I found the majority of earners falling into the ""live in the 15% bracket, tops"" range."

negative: "At that sum, it essentially doesn't matter what you do, unless you just want to outright gamble the money.  Let's look at some options: ""High"" interest guaranteed savings.  A five year CD returns a sad 2% right now.  That means if you invest all $1,000 into a CD, by 2016 you will have earned $105.08 in interest.  Think about that:  About a hundred bucks over the next five years.  Of course, with 3% inflation, that $105.08 will be worth about $90.57.  In fact, the total amount will be worth $953.25.  Your ""doing something with your money"" did nothing. Stocks can return significantly more interest, but there is no guarantee.  Even if you made 20% year on year, you would only make maybe $1,500 in returns or so in the next 5 years, and 20% every year is like Warren Buffet territory--totally unrealistic.  That's also not taking into account inflation. And neither of these is taking into account taxes! However, if you go to a casino and gamble the $1,000, it is possible you could turn it into significantly more.  It's very much unlikely, and I do not advise it at all, but it's possible.   The point is, you need money to make money, and, in some sense, $1,000 is not money at all.  I recommend you work on your skills, knowledge, and preparation for making money in the future, and by 25 or so you can really be cooking with gas.  Don't waste your efforts trying to find a brilliant way to make a few hundred bucks over the next half decade.  Save the money and find ways to try to double it by earning money on small projects.  Then challenge yourself to double it again, and keep honing your skills."

negative: "I don't think you should mix the two notions.  Not starting out with at least.  It takes so much money, time and expertise to invest for income that, starting out at least, you should view it as a goal, not a starting point. Save your money in the lowest cost investments you can find.  If you are like me, you can't pick a stock from a bond, so put your money into a target retirement fund.  Let the experts manage the risk and portfolio.  Start early and save often!  At only 35 you have lots of time. Perhaps you are really into finance, in which case you might somebody manage your own portfolio.  Great, but for now, let an expert do the heavy lifting. You are an app developer.  Your best bet to increase your income stream with via your knowledge and expertise.  While you are still so young, you should use labor to make money, and then save that money for retirement.  I am going to make an assumption that where you are will software development means you can become a great developer long before you can become a great financier.  Play to your strengths. I am also afraid you are over estimating how comfortable you are with risk.  Any ""investment"" that has the kinds of returns you are looking for is going to be wildly risky.  I would say those types of opportunities are more ""speculation"" rather than ""investments.""  There isn't necessarily anything wrong with speculations, but know the difference in risk.  Are you really willing to gamble your retirement?"

negative: "So you are off to a really good start.  Congratulations on being debt free and having a nice income. Being an IT contractor can be financially rewarding, but also have some risks to it much like investing.  With your disposable income I would not shy away from investing in further training through sites like PluralSite or CodeSchool to improve weak skills.  They are not terribly expensive for a person in your situation.  If you were loaded down with debt and payments, the story would be different. Having an emergency fund will help you be a good IT contractor as it adds stability to your life.  I would keep  £10K or so in a boring savings account.  Think of it not as an investment, but as insurance against life's woes.  Having such a fund allows you to go after a high paying job you might fail at, or invest with impunity.   I would encourage you to take an intermediary step:  Moving out on your own.  I would encourage renting before buying even if it is just a room in someone else's home.  I would try to be out of the house in less than 3 months.  Being on your own helps you mature in ways that can only be accomplished by being on your own.  It will also reduce the culture shock of buying your own home or entering into an adult relationship. I would put a minimum of £300/month in growth stock mutual funds.  Keeping this around 15% of your income is a good metric.  If available you may want to put this in tax favored retirement accounts.  (Sorry but I am woefully ignorant of UK retirement savings).  This becomes your retire at 60 fund.  (Starting now, you can retire well before 68.)  For now stick to an index fund, and once it gets to 25K, you may want to look to diversify. For the rest of your disposable income I'd invest in something safe and secure.  The amount of your disposable income will change, presumably, as you will have additional expenses for rent and food.  This will become your buy a house fund.  This is something that should be safe and secure.  Something like a bond fund, money market, dividend producing stocks, or preferred stocks.   I am currently doing something like this and have 50% in a savings account, 25% in a ""Blue chip index fund"", and 25% in a preferred stock fund.  This way you have some decent stability of principle while also having some ability to grow.   Once you have that built up to about 12K and you feel comfortable you can start shopping for a house.  You may want to be at the high end of your area, so you should try and save at least 10%; or, you may want to be really weird and save the whole thing and buy your house for cash.  If you are still single you may want to rent a room or two so your home can generate income.   Here in the US there can be other ways to generate income from your property.  One example is a home that has a separate area (and room) to park a boat.  A boat owner will pay some decent money to have a place to park their boat and there is very little impact to the owner.  Be creative and perhaps find a way where a potential property could also produce income. Good luck, check back in with progress and further questions! Edit:  After some reading, ISA seem like a really good deal."

negative: "You'd need to test the assumptions here - in effect you're saying that in 15 years your account will have a balance 10x your income. But normally you'd expect your income to grow over the years (e.g. promotions) and so you'd hope that your income in 15 years would be significantly larger than what it is now.   But, even in the case where your account eventually does grow to 10x your salary at that time, it may still be worth continuing to contribute. In effect, adding a further 1% to your account is boosting the ""compounding return"" on your account by 1% - after fees and risk free. This additional 1% ""return"" in effect makes your retirement plan safer - you either get a higher total return for the same investment mix, or you can get the same total return for a slightly safer investment mix. In effect, you're treating your salary as a ""safe"" annuity and each year putting 10% of the ""return"" from that into your more risky retirement account."

negative: A person who always saves and appropriately invests 20% of their income can expect to have a secure retirement. If you start early enough, you don't need anything close to 20%. Now, there are many good reasons to save for things other than just retirement, of course. You say that you can save 80% of your income, and you expect most people could save at least 50% without problems. That's just unrealistic for most people. Taxes, rent (or mortgage payments), utilities, food, and other such mandatory expenses take far more than 50% of your income. Most people simply don't have the ability to save (or invest) 50% of their income. Or even 25% of their income.

negative: Congratulations on saving up $75,000.  That requires discipline and tenacity.  There are a lot of factors that would go into making your decision.   First and foremost is the security of the income stream you have now.  Being leveraged during times of hardship is not a pleasant experience.  Unexpected job losses can and do happen.  Only you can determine how secure your and your spouse's situation is.   Second, I would consider the job market in the location that you live.  If you live in a small town it will be hard to find income levels like you have now.  Rental properties are additional ties to an area.  Are you happy in the area in which you live?  If you were laid off are there opportunities in the same area.  Being a long distance landlord is again not a pleasant experience.  I can throw being forced to sell to relocate at a reduced price into this same bucket. Third, you need to have 3 to 6 months of expenses saved for emergencies.  This is in addition to having no consumer debt (credit cards, car loans, student loans).  $75,000 feels like a lot.  Life can throw you curve balls.  You need to be prepared for them because of the fundamental nature of Murphy's Law.  If you were to be a landlord you should err closer to the six month end of the scale.  I own two rentals and can speak to people being late a given month, heating and air problems, plumbing issues, washers and dryers breaking, weather related issues, and even a tenant leaving behind for truckloads of trash.  Over 20 years I guess I have seen it all.  A rental agency will only act as a minor buffer.   Fourth, your family situation is important.  I personally save 10% of my income for my child's education.  If you haven't started doing so or have different feelings on what you might contribute think about it before any financial move. Fifth, any mortgage payment you are making should be 25% or less than your take home pay for a 15 year fixed rate mortgage.  Anything less than 20% down and you start burning up money on PMI insurance.  'House Poor' is a term for people that make high incomes but have too much being spent for housing.  It is the cause of a lot of financial stress. Sixth, you need to save for retirement.  The absolute minimum I recommend is 15% of your income.  Even if the match is 6% you should invest the full 15% making it 21%.  Social Security is a scary thing and depending on it is not wise.  I think your income still qualifies you for contributions to a Roth IRA.  If you aren't personally contributing 15% do so before making a move. There is an old joke that homeless people who have a 0 net worth often are richer than people driving fancy cars and living in fancy houses.  Ultimately no one can tell you the right answer.  Every situation is unique.  You have a complex tapestry to your financial life that no else one knows.

negative: Well, sorry to hear about your struggles! For your question, $15,000 is sadly not enough money to build a career on investing for yourself, if you’re referring to the stock market. Unfortunately you need I believe $25,000 to even have a day trading account, plus the best investors in the world probably net 5-10% which is only tops $2,500 per year!  On the other hand, $15,000 maybe you could use an FHA loan and buy a small condo that you could renovate and flip. FHA lenders only require 3.5% down plus closing costs.  I would need more information on what type of investing you’re referring to.

negative: Definitely not.  You are too young.  Let me explain: Your money will be locked up for at least 40 years, and you will have to navigate some really quirky and trap-laden rules in order to get money for simple things.  Let's say you want to buy a house.  You won't be able to leverage the 401K for that.  College Tuition?  Limits. Your money is locked in and you may get some match, but that assumes your smartest decision at your age is to save money for retirement.  At your age, you should be investing in your career, and that requires cash at hand.  If you want to withdraw early you pay more of a penalty than just the tax rate.   Put differently: investing in your human capital, at a young age, can yield stronger results than just squirreling money.  I'd say don't worry until you are 30. BTW: I'm 24 now.  I used to save money in a 401K for a few months, before I understood the rules.  Since then, I decided against 401K and just saved the money in a bank.  After a few years, I had enough to start my business :)  the 401K couldn't give me that opportunity. Further Explanation: I am in the NYC area.  Many of my friends and I had to decide between living in manhattan or choosing to live in the outer boroughs or NJ.  One thing I noticed was that, while the people in manhattan were burning much more money (to the tune of 1500 per month), they were actually much more productive and were promoted more often.  Having lived in brooklyn and in manhattan, even though it is less expensive, you actually lose at least an hour a day thanks to the commute (and have to deal with crap like the 6 train).  Personally, after moving in, I invested the extra time in myself (i.e. sleeping more, working longer hours, side projects).  Now, when all is said and done, the people who decided to invest in themselves in the short term are financially more secure (both job-wise and economically, thanks to a few bonus cycles) than those who decided to save on rent and put it in a 401K. As far as the traps are concerned, my dad tried to take out a student loan and was denied thanks to a Vanguard quirk which didnt allow more than 50K to be borrowed (even though the account had over 500K to begin with).


query: For insurance, why should you refuse $4,000/year for only 10 years and prefer $500/year indefinitely?

positive: The breakeven amount isn't at 8 years. You calculated how many years of paying $500 it would take to break even with one year of paying $4000. 8 x 10 years = 80 years. So by paying $500/year it will take you 80 years to have spent the same amount ($40000 total) as you did in 10 years. At this point it may seem obvious what the better choice is. Consider where you'll be after 10 years: In scenario #1 you've spent $5000 ($500*10) and have to continue spending $500/year indefinitely. In scenario #2 you've spent $40000 ($4000*10) and don't have to pay any more, but you currently have $35000 ($40000 - $5000) less than you did in scenario #1. If you had stayed with scenario #1 you could invest that $35000 at a measly 1.43% annual return and cover the $500 payments indefinitely without ever dipping into your remaining $35000. Most likely over the long term you'll do better than 1.43% per year and come out far ahead.

negative: "Indefinitely is easy to answer. Assume that the average house currently costs four times the average salary, and that house prices rise 1% faster than salaries indefinitely. Then in only 1,000 years' time, the average house will cost around 84,000 times the average salary. In 10,000 years, it will be 6.5*10E43 times the average salary. That doesn't seem plausible to me. If you want arguments about ""for the foreseeable future"", instead of ""indefinitely"", then that's harder."

negative: There is not necessarily a need to prevent what you describe - 'turning insurance on before high risk situations'. They just need to calculate the premiums accordingly. For example, if an insurance needs to take 50$/year for insuring your house against flood, and a flood happens in average every 10 years, if you just insure the two weeks in the ten years where heavy rain is predicted, you might pay 500$ for the two weeks. The total is the same for the insurance - they get 500$, and you get insurance for the dangerous period. In the contrary; if a flooding (unexpectedly) happens outside your two weeks, they are out. From the home owners view, 500$ for two weeks when heavy rains and floods are expected, and nothing otherwise sounds pretty good, compared to 50$ every year. It is the same of course, but psychology works that way.

negative: I need to see the policy you are referring to give a more accurate answer. However what could be happening, it’s again the way these instruments are structured; For example if the insurance premium is say 11,000 of which 1000 is toward expenses and Term insurance amount. The Balance 10,000 is invested in growth. The promise is that this will grow max of 9.5% and never below zero. IE say if we are talking only about a year, you can get anything between 10,000 to 10,950.  The S & P long-term average return is in the range of 12 -15% [i don't remember correctly] So the company by capping it at 9.5% is on average basis making a profit of 2.5% to 5.5%. IE in a good year say the S & P return is around 18%, the company has pocketed close to 9% more money;   On a bad year say the Index gave a -ve return of say 5% ... The Insurance company would take this loss out of the good years. If say when your policy at the S & P for that year has given poor returns, you would automatically get less returns.  Typically one enters into Life Insurance on a long term horizon and hence the long term averages should be used as a better reference, and going by that, one would make more money just by investing this in an Index directly. As you whether you want to invest in such a scheme, should be your judgment, in my opinion I prefer to stay away from things that are not transparent.

negative: "What you have here is an interesting argument. Right now, this is totally complicated by the state of ""forced insurance"" that is currently in such hot debate right now.  As a general rule of thumb though, most Americans pay their medical bills in one way or another. Though It is also accurate to say that most Americans have avoided paying a medical bill at one point or another.  I will give an example that will help clarify. My wife gets a Iron infusion shot one every year or so. We choose not to have insurance. The cost to us is around $275. We know this upfront and have always paid it up front. Except for one year. One year we had insurance. The facility that does the infusions charged us $23,500 to do the infusion that year. The insurance paid $275 to them. We refused to pay the remaining  $23,225.  This is a real example using real numbers.  SO while we are more then able to pay the ""normal"" amount, and we could, in theory, pay the inflated amount, We out right refuse to.  The medical facility tried to negotiated the amount down to $11,000 but we refused. They then tried to talk us into a credit plan. We refused. Then they negotiated the entire thing down to $500. We refused. Finally, after 2 years of fighting they agreed that the service had been pair for by the insurance. And sent us a $0 bill.  The entire time, that facility was more then willing to keep doing this annual service for $275.At no time were we denied care. We did have a dent in our credit for a while, but honestly it didn't matter to us. Wrap Up It is fair to say that most Americans do pay their medical bills, but it is also fair to say that most Americans do not pay all their medical bills. The situation is complicated, and made more so by recent changes.  Heath insurance is the U.S. is nearly criminal and while some changes have been made in recent years the same overriding truth exists. Sometimes, a medical bill, when going through insurance, is just plain silly, and the only recourse you have as a customer is to not pay it, for a while, till you get it sorted out."

negative: "In terms of how to make your decision, here are some considerations. Comprehensive insurance often covers other perils besides collision, including fire, theft, hail or other weather damage, additional liability coverage etc. It may be worth looking at your specific policy to see what is covered. No matter what you do, make sure you have some form of personal liability coverage in case you are sued (doesn't necessarily need to be through the auto policy). While it can make financial sense to drop comprehensive coverage once you can afford to self-insure against collision, this will only be the case if you are certain that you can set aside dedicated savings that you would only need to dip in to in the case of a collision or other major loss. For example, if you only have $5-$10,000 in the bank, and you happen to lose your job, and then the next month you happen to be hit in an accident and the car is totaled, could you afford to replace the car out of pocket? I would recommend looking at dropping comprehensive insurance as similar to a ""DNR"" (do not resuscitate) order for your car, i.e. under no circumstances would you choose repair the car were it totaled or damaged. For example, if your car's exterior were badly damaged in a hail storm (but still ran fine), would you pay $500 or more to repair it, or would you simply get a new car? Ultimately, this is going to be a judgement call based on how much financial risk you want to take on. Personally, I would continue to pay the extra $300 per year for now in order to insure a $6-8,000 asset (5% of the asset value) However, in the next few years the resale value of your car will continue to decline. If in a few years the car were worth $1,500, I would probably not pay the same $300 a year (or 20% of the asset's value). When you should make that choice depends on how many more years of service you expect to get from the car, which is a very localized question. Hope that helps!"

negative: "You'll have to research the Canada side of things on your own or maybe someone else can answer that side. For the Germany side, there is a gift tax (Schenkungssteuer) which depends on the relationship (Verwandschaftsgrad) of the giver and receiver. steuerklassen.com has an overview here which shows the tax class (Steuerklasse) and tax free amount (Freibetrag). So according to the overview, nieces get 20 000 € tax free amount, anything over 20 000 € within 10 years from the same gift giver will be taxed with tax class 2, which can range from 15% to 43% depending on the gifted amount. The full article is here It also mentiones a few ""tricks"" for example if you want to gift 40 000 € to your niece, you could gift 20 000 € directly and 20 000 € to your brother or sister who then gifts it to their daughter - you'll have to trust them to do that, though, because you can't put that in a contract. Bottom line of this: If you want to gift more than 20 000 €, your niece should contact a tax advisor (Steuerberater).  About the bank transfer: Your niece will have to declare any bank transfers over 12 500 € that she receives. Her bank will know how to do that so she should just ask them. It also might be helpful for her to have a letter from you stating that the money came from you and is a gift, just in case the tax office (Finanzamt) doesn't believe that the money isn't from moonlighing (Schwarzarbeit)."

negative: Simply put, it makes sense from the moment you can afford the loss without negative consequences. For example, if your car costs $20000 and you happen to have another $20000 laying around, you can choose not to insure your car against damage. In the worst case, you can simply buy a new one. However, not insuring your car has a hidden cost: you can't long-term invest that money anymore. If your insurance costs $500 a year, and you can invest those $20000 with a return on investment of more than 2.5%, it still makes sense to invest that money while having your car insured.

negative: It is not likely the YA would die in 10 years. Hence the investment the parents make in policy premiums would lose all of its money. Repeat: lose all money.  On average, you'll slightly lose with insurance. It's there for peace of mind and to mitigate a catastrophe. It's not an investment. Of course, if the YA is likely to die suddenly, that might change things. But concealing medical information would be grounds for denying the policy claim.

negative: Good. The quality of programming on TV seems to decrease year after year. In an effort to combat people ignoring advertisements the shows now contain horrendous [product placement](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQYwFND7rHE) filler, which is barely [disguised anymore](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfHuZ5qrYX4), and the comedy becomes weaker and weaker as shows like Two and a Half Men go on and on, replaying the same tired plots, refusing to die, as yet more unfunny filler appears, e.g. Mike and Molly.  TV is dying not only because people like the freedom of the internet, but also because people don't like shit. You get 500 channels of cable, 10 of them are watchable. Those ten are only watchable between 7 and 12 at night, if even then.  Why is TV failing? Because TV sucks.

negative: "An extra 7200 a year can buy me a lot of happiness. Hell 10k for one year would buy me a helluva lot of happiness. Not talking drugs, or a car or anything like that. It'd just be ""cool that's 600 a month I DON'T have to worry about"" and that covers a few bills."

negative: The eligibilty of the deduction is based on what the borrowed money is used to purchase and NOT what asset is used as collateral.  So at the beginning of your mortgage, 10% of the interest is deductible because the entire loan was used to purchase the condo.  But when you withdraw money from the account the additional interest is usually not deductible.  It can get confusing with all the withdrawals and payments that will be coming in and out of the account if you happen to use it a lot like a chequing account. An easy example would be if you only paid the interest on the loan...  Say you had a $100 000 loan at 5% APY (for simplicity's sake).  After one year, you would have paid $5000 interest.  $500 of the would be deductible given that your office is 10% of the condo.  Then you buy a $1000 couch and continue to only pay interest for the next year.  You would have paid $5100 interest...  $5000 on money borrowed to buy the condo, and $100 on money borrowed to buy the couch.  So you can still only deduct $500. What happens when you pay back $500 against the line of credit?  Could you designate that 100% of the money should be applied to the non-deductible interest?  Or does it have to applied proportionally?  I don't know. I think it'd would be wise to separate the loans somehow.  Manulife may even have some tools to facilitate that.  However, I wouldn't recommend the Manulife One product.  I looked into when I was buying my house two years ago, and at that time it was too expensive.  The rate was the same that other banks were charging for a home equity line of credit (which was prime at the time).  You can replicate the Manulife One in a cheaper way using a traditional mortgage and a home equity line of credit...  The majority of the loan will be the traditional mortgage at (hopefully) a cheap rate.  Then you can use your line of credit as the chequing account.

negative: If the insurance policy is a whole-life (or variable life) policy, it might have a surrender value that the owner of the policy might be able to get by surrendering the policy in whole; if it is a term life policy, it has no surrender value. In many cases, the owner of the policy is also the insured and so ask Uncle Joe whether he would be willing to surrender the life insurance policy and give you the proceeds now instead of making you wait till he passes away. If it is a term life policy, ask him to consider not renewing the policy and from now on, just give you the premium he would have been paying to the insurance company. Whether he will pay you increasing amounts in later years (as a renewable five-year level term policy might require) is a more delicate matter that you can negotiate with him. On the other hand, if the policy owner is Aunt Annie but the insured is Uncle Joe (and you are the beneficiary), talk to Aunt Annie instead; she is the one who can cancel the policy, not Uncle Joe. And for heaven's sake, don't grease the skids to facilitate Uncle Joe's first step onto the stairway to heaven; there are, depending on where you live, various laws prohibiting payments to beneficiaries who have had a hand in arranging for the happy event to occur.

negative: "John's answer is similar to what I was thinking. You should invest in insurance ""because there's an insurance salesman who needs to pay to send his kid to college."" I will never be a fan of any type of permanent insurance, and I think it wrong to sell a single person with no dependents such a policy. I've used the expression ""Variable Annuities are sold, not bought."" I feel the same about these insurance policies.  The best advice I can offer in a short reply is this: If you need life insurance, buy term. Save as much as you can, 10% minimum, more if you are able. A young person should be saving for retirement and to position them self to buy their first house, if that's what they wish. What good is a full up Whole Life policy when you need to raise $40K to put down on a house? Sorry to sound like I'm lecturing, this is one of my hot points."

negative: "As others have pointed out, it's all about a fixed, small cost versus the potential of a large cost. If you have insurance, you know you will pay a fixed amount per month. There is a 100% probability that you will have to pay this premium. If you don't have insurance, there is a large chance that you will have no cost in any given month, and a small chance that you will have a large cost. Like my home-owners insurance costs me about $50 per month. If I didn't have insurance and my house burned down, I would be out something like $100,000. What's the chance that my house will burn down this month? Very small. But I'd rather pay $50 and not have to worry about it. On the other hand, I just bought a filing cabinet for $160 and the store offered me an ""extended warranty"" for something like $20 a year. What's the probability that some accident will happen that damages my filing cabinet? Pretty small. Even if it did, I think I could handle shelling out $160. I can imagine my stomach in knots and lying awake at nights worrying about the possibility of losing $100,000 or finding myself homeless. I can't imagine lying awake at nights worrying about losing $160 or being force to stuff my files under the bed. I'll take my chances. When I was young and had even less money than I have now, I bought cars that cost me a thousand dollars or. Even poor as I was, I knew that if the car was totaled I could dig up the cash to buy another. It wasn't worth paying the insurance premium. These days I'm driving a car that cost me $6,000. I have collision and comprehensive insurance, but I think it's debatable. I bought the car with cash to begin with, and if I had to I could scrape up the cash to replace it. Especially considering that my last payment for my daughter's college tuition is due next month and then that expense is gone. :-)"

negative: I edited in the total annual out of pocket for each level to help illustrate what's going on. Your question makes sense, of course, but it's less a matter of afford vs an attempt to save. The way these plans work is to allow some choice based on your past experience. I can afford any option, but knowing the number of visits we have had in the past, the lowest cost option has the highest premium. A young couple who hardly sees a doctor may choose the highest deductible, risking the potential $3434 extra they may pay in a bad year for the savings of $1016.  Personally, I'd not be able to guess accurately enough to benefit from the middle choices, and can see the two extremes being picked most often.

negative: "While it's definitely possible (and likely?) that a diversified portfolio generates higher returns than the S&P 500, that's not the main reason why you diversify. Diversification reduces risk.  Modern portfolio theory suggests that you should maximize return while reducing risk, instead of blindly chasing the highest returns. Think about it this way--say the average return is 11% for large cap US stocks (the S&P 500), and it's 10% for a diversified portfolio (say, 6-8 asset classes). The large cap only portfolio has a 10% chance of losing 30% in a given year, while the diversified portfolio has a 1% chance of losing 30% in a year. For the vast majority of investors, it's worth the 1% annual gap in expected return to greatly reduce their risk exposure. Of course, I just made those numbers up. Read what finance professors have written for the ""data and proof"". But modern portfolio theory is believed by a lot of investors and other finance experts. There are a ton of studies (and therefore data) on MPT--including many that contradict it."

negative: You will be liable to pay the tax For the 2017 year of assessment (1 March 2016 - 28 February 2017) if you earned less than R75 000 you will not have to pay any tax The annual budget speach is this week and the new tax rates will be released but most likely that R75 000 will increase to R78 000+- so if you earn less than that tax would not even be applicable on you, Should you earn in a tax year more than R75 000 then would be able to do your own tax return and payments via E-Filling on SARS's website : http://www.sarsefiling.co.za/ But if you earn less than R350 000 then you don't have to submit a tax return, but there is nothing that stops you from submitting one if you feel that you want to. You can use https://www.taxtim.com/za/ to help you with other questions  you might have. You can potentially bring down your tax-able income by showing a loss in capital value of your equipment that you purchased that is now worth less than it was when you initially purchased it, but these are all things you should discuss with a tax practitioner, I am not entirely sure how you will show a loss in capital value as a sole-proprietor, that is what you will be since you are not a company.

negative: "How can one offset exposure created by real-estate purchase? provides a similar discussion. Even if such a product were available in the precise increments you need, the pricing would make it a loser for you. ""There's no free lunch"" in this case, and the cost to insure against the downside would be disproportional to the true risk. Say you bought a $100K home. At today's valuations, the downside over a given year might be, say, 20%. It might cost you $5000 to 'insure' against that $20K risk.  Let me offer an example - The SPY (S&P ETF) is now at $177. A $160 (Dec '14) put costs $7.50. So, if you fear a crash, you can pay 4%, but only get a return if the market falls by over 14%. If it falls 'just' 10%, you lose your premium.   With only 5% down, you will get a far better risk-adjusted return by paying down the mortgage to <78% LTV, and requesting PMI, if any, be removed. Even if no PMI, in 5 years, you'll have 20% more equity than otherwise. Over the long term, 5 year's housing inflation would be ~ 15% or so. This process would help insure you are not underwater in that time. Not guarantee, but help."

negative: Both are incorrect. What it says is if your fund value is 25,000 in first year; then this will earn 19.4% compound for 5 years. This is same as 142.5 absolute. The money invested in second year, will only earn for 4 years, compound interest of 19.4%. so on ... The 25000 invested last year only 19.4 for a year. The other aspect you are missing is when you pay 25,000; 4% goes towards charges. So you are only investing 24,000. Plus there is an amount towards life cover. Depending on age, around 1000 for one lacs. This means the investment is only 23000 or 23500. Generally it is not advised to buy ULIP. It is cheaper to buy term insurance plus mutual fund.

negative: You can't defer reporting of the RRSP purchases.  The financial institution will report those purchases to CRA, and the CRA expects to see you report those purchases on your return.  If they don't match, expect to be audited and to pay penalties.  However, you can defer the tax deduction of those purchases until later years. That means you but you must have the RRSP contribution room available in the year you make the purchase.  So if you have $50 000 of contribution room, you can contribute $50 000 all at once and deduct $16 667 in the next 3 years.  However, if you only have $20 000 of contribution room, CRA will make your life very unhappy if you contribute $50 000 all at once.  In that case, your best bet is to contribute enough to use all your contribution room and repeat each year as you get more contribution room. Also, you have a $2000 lifetime overcontribution limit.  That means whatever contribution room you have, you can contribute $2000 more.  But you won't be able to deduct that amount, and you don't get more overcontribution space each year.

negative: One reason is that insurance gives you tranquility.  Without insurance, you live with the uncertainty of not knowing if/when disaster is going to strike. Insurance allows you to trade this uncertainty for regular monthly/yearly payments.

negative: I politely decline. Insurance is there to protect me against catastrophic financial loss (huge medical bills, owing a mortgage on a house that burned down, etc.) not a way to game the system and pay for routine expenses or repairs.

negative: If one makes say, $10K/mo, and the company will match the first 5% dollar for dollar, a 10%/mo deposit of $1K/mo will see a $500/mo match. If the employee manages to request 90% get put into the 401(k), after 2 months, he's done.  If the company wished, they could continue the $500/mo match, I agree. They typically don't and in fact, the 'true up' you mention isn't even required, one is fortunate to get it. Many companies that match are going the other way, matching only after the year is over. Why? Why does any company do anything? To save money. I used to make an attempt to divide my deposit over the year to max out the 401(k) in December and get the match real time, not a true up.

negative: "short answer:  any long term financial planning (~10yrs+). e.g. mortgage and retirement planning.  long answer: inflation doesn't really matter in short time frames. on any given day, you might get a rent hike, or a raise, or the grocery store might have a sale.  inflation is really only relevant over the long term.  annual inflation is tiny (2~4%) compared to large unexpected expenses(5-10%).  however, over 10 years, even your ""large unexpected expenses"" will still average out to a small fraction of your spending (5~10%) compared to the impact of compounded inflation (30~40%). inflation is really critical when you are trying to plan for retirement, which you should start doing when you get your first job.  when making long-term projections, you need to consider not only your expected nominal rate of investment return (e.g. 7%) but also subtract the expected rate of inflation (e.g. 3%). alternatively, you can add the inflation rate to your projected spending (being sure to compound year-over-year). when projecting your income 10+ years out, you can use inflation to estimate your annual raises.  up to age 30, people tend to get raises that exceed inflation. thereafter, they tend to track inflation. if you ever decide to buy a house, you need to consider the impact of inflation when calculating the total cost over a 30-yr mortgage. generally, you can expect your house to appreciate over 30 years in line with inflation (possibly more in an urban area). so a simple mortgage projection needs to account for interest, inflation, maintenance, insurance and closing costs. you could also consider inflation for things like rent and income, but only over several years. generally, rent and income are such large amounts of money it is worth your time to research specific alternatives rather than just guessing what market rates are this year based on average inflation. while it is true that rent and wages go up in line with inflation in the long run, you can make a lot of money in the short run if you keep an eye on market rates every year. over 10-20 years your personal rate of inflation should be very close to the average rate when you consider all your spending (housing, food, energy, clothing, etc.)."

negative: New cars are sold for about $500 over their blue book value. They drop in value by about 20% their first year. Used cars are sold for about $2,500 above their blue book. They depreciate like normal. My advice based on my personal experience is to get a new car. When buying a used car, remember that the previous owner sold it for a reason. You are buying someone else's problems.  Average car is flipped every 4 years when it takes 5 years to pay it off. Don't do that...keep it for 5+ years if you get a new car. My knowledge comes from being a Chevrolet car salesman. This info is generalized and about 10 years old.

negative: "For most situations the ""no need"" answers are 100% correct. The corner case to think about depends on your health and your family history.  Not to be morose, but if folks in your family who died young from heart issues, clusters of cancer or other terminal illnesses, you may want to consider getting medically qualified for a modest amount of insurance when you are young. Then, when you have children, you usually have the option of incrementally upgrading your coverage over time."

negative: There is an opportunity cost of your future insurance needs, Here, the savings vs risks ratio is difficult to figure out. Hence it is always worth that extra cost to buy the larger and longer policy if you can afford it. Basically if you can afford it today, it will cost peanuts after 20 years.

negative: Depends on what you are, an investor or a speculator. An investor will look at an 'indefinite' investment period. A speculator will be after a fast buck. If you are an investor, buy your stock once as that will cost less commissions. After all, you'll sell your stock in 10, 15, 20 years.

negative: As a 24 year old, single,your needs for insurance are minimal. Why you might consider it are for these reasons. You are young, so it will be cheaper than buying say at 34. Insurance is always on sale. Two, there is no guarantee that your health will always be good, you may have to pay additional premiums later or even be refused coverage. Ask me, I pay 70% more than others my age for the same coverage.  Three, insurance ownership with equity values can grow tax free as you accumulate the monies. Consider it like a bond portfolio offering guaranteed returns on portions of the growth, and a long term return of 5.5% or slighly more. Four, stating sooner versus later means more cash buildup. Just like being in a pension will generate more cash for you by age 65, than if you had started at age 34. Insurance is only one tool in getting a good start. It is not a panacea.

negative: The average of a dozen good answers is close to what would be right, the wisdom of crowds. But any one answer will be skewed by one's own opinions.  The question is missing too much detail. I look at $400K as $16K/yr of ongoing withdrawals. How much do you make now? When the kids are all in school full time, can your wife work? $400K seems on the low side to me, especially with 3 kids. How much have you saved for college?  The $150K for your wife is also a bit low. Without a long tangent on the monetary value of the stay at home spouse, what will you spent on childcare if she passes?  Term life also has a expiration date. When my daughter was born, my wife and I got 20 year term. She is now 16, her college account fully funded, and we are semi-retired. The need for insurance is over. If one of us dies, the survivor doesn't need this big of a house, and will have more than they need to be comfortable in a downsized one. My belief is that the term value should bridge the gap to the kids getting through college and the spouse getting resettled. Too much less, I'd have left my wife at risk. Too much more, she'd be better off if I were dead. (I say that half joking, the insurance company will often limit the size policy to something reasonable.)

negative: Whole life insurance accumulates a cash value on a pre-tax basis. With a paid-up policy, you make payments until a particular age (usually 65 or 70), at which point you are insured for the rest of your life or a very old age like 120. You can also access this pool of money via loans while you are still alive, but you reduce your benefit until you repay the loans. This may be advantageous if you have a high net worth. Also, if you own a business or farm, a permanent policy may be desirable if the transfer of your property to heirs is likely to generate alot of transactional costs like taxes. Nowadays there are probably better ways to do that too. Whole life/universal life is a waste of money 95%+ of the time. An example, my wife and I were recently offered open-enrollment (no medical exam) insurance policies our employers in New York. We're in our early 30's. I bought a term policy paying about $400k which costs $19/mo. My wife was offered a permanent policy that pays $100k which costs $83/mo, and would have a cash value of $35k at age 65. If you invested the $60/mo difference between those policies and earned 5%/year with 30% taxes on the gains, you'd have over $40k with 4x more coverage.

negative: "Let's face it: most people pay more in insurance premiums than they ""get back"" in claims.  I put ""get back"" in quotes because, with very few exceptions, the money paid out in claims does not go to the insured, but to others, such as doctors and hospitals.  But even if you ignore the question who does the money actually go to, it's a losing proposition for most people. The exceptions are those who have a major loss, greater than what they put in over the years.  But never forget: these are exceptions.  The return on your money, on the average, is only a little better than playing the lottery. The usual counter-argument to the above is, but what if you are one of the exceptions?  I for one refuse to let my life be dictated by worries of unlikely events that might happen.  If you're the sort who obsesses on what could (but probably won't) happen, then maybe you should have insurance.  Just don't tell me I need to do the same. When I lived in California, they had a program where you could deposit $25,000 with the State, and then you could drive, legally, without insurance.  I did this for a while, didn't have any accidents, and exited the system (when I moved out of state) a few years later with more money (interest) than I put in.  You don't accomplish that with insurance. But let's get back to rich people.  Unless you get into an accident with you at fault and the other guy needing a head transplant as a result (joke), you could probably absorb the cost of an accident without blinking an eye.  Those in the upper-middle-class might do well with high-deductible insurance that only pays out if there's an extreme accident. Then again if you have to borrow to buy something expensive (making monthly payments), they will usually demand you buy insurance with it.  This is a way for the lender to protect himself at your expense, and if you refuse, good luck getting a loan somewhere else. I hate the idea of insurance so much I would make an act of insurance punishable by law."