Huuuh! Good God y'all! What is it goo-ood for? Absolutely something. Say it again! Yeah! ...

Silliness aside (this is the AoDA, after all), what's your view on money? Is it a possession to be acquired and maybe even hoarded? A status symbol? Merely a means to an end? Pretty pictures on paper? The root of all evil? A necessary evil? That thing you don't have nearly enough of? :shake: Let's hear it!

It's a VIP card some do, some don't (or don't want)to have. Having it gets you to meet certain kind of people backstage. But in the main area, the ones who have the normal ticket meet more people.

Some people can't get to the concert.

To quote David Lee Roth of Van Halen fame.

"Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy a big ass boat and pull up next to it."

I'm quite happy being poor, but well off. I do with very little and money's a non-issue for me so long as I've got enough of it to buy my food and pay the rent and the bills.

Anything extra goes into clothes and maybe a record or a book every now and then. Even one night in a bar per month is close enough to ruin my personal economy, but that's fine since I'm not that big on going to bars and get wasted.

But I am into studying some stuff that might eventually enable to get me enough of money that I'd have to get creative on using it. I'll probably donate a huge chunk of it to welfare organizations and start making investments. But the money's not the issue nor should it ever be if I intend to be a scientist, which I do.

I'm like my father in many ways being completely obsessed with financial security. If my balance drops or I find myself to have spent too much for my liking I'll tighten the belt and save it back. It can be a good thing since I tend to be careful how I spend my money and plan all my spending ahead, but it causes somewhat unnecessary stress from time to time.

I'm a capitalist pig and I love it! If I die rich I'll consider my life a success. :D But really though there is nothing money cannot buy. Of course it can buy happiness, I'd be happy never having to work, having a huge house with a full size snooker table, a HUGE tv and a swimming pool. And it can buy love can't it? I mean look at Michael Douglas, why else do you think Catherine Zeta Jone's married him? She may not love him for anything else but his money, but thats still love and I doubt he cares :p . Money can buy health... well the best private healthcare which is the best to it. If you have lots of money you will have a happy life, of course there are the rare exceptions but thats usually down to someone doing really stupid with their money (i.e drugs, gambling, fraud). So yeh IMO money is the most influential thing in the world and thats not just me being ignorant (just maybe a marxist).

Means.

Is it a possession to be acquired and maybe even hoarded? A status symbol? Merely a means to an end? Pretty pictures on paper? The root of all evil? A necessary evil? That thing you don't have nearly enough of? Yes.

I have no money, I've lived on less than $200 a week (thems NZ $'s too) for most of my adult life - 7 years. The joys of being a student...

I have no money, I've lived on less than $200 a week (thems NZ $'s too) for most of my adult life - 7 years. The joys of being a student... Yep but the whole point of going onto higher education is to of course get a better job and therefore earn more paper. :p

No, the motivation for me is solely knowledge and wisdom. Money has no intrinsical value unless it is being exchanged for goods and/or services. Until the moment it is being exchanged - bartered if you will - it only has potential value. It is that potential value that means nothing to me. Since I crave little in life other than simple pleasures, there is no need for me to worry much about money.

Life is easier with money, so I would say it should be a goal, but not a primary goal. Money is not the problem, greed is, and if you can acquire money without being greedy, that is good. That is what I am going for...

I think this is a bizarre question.

Are we talking about colored scraps of paper? Obvoiusly, those have next to no intrinsic value; they're valuable because our governments make them so by backing them up with gold?

A fluid resource that can be for goods and services? Like some precious material that can be bartered for anything? Okay, but that means when you talk about money, you are talking about the goods and services you can buy with it, unless you somehow believe that there is a use for money that you won't spend.

So if we are talking about goods and services, then that opens up a lot of possibilities. Computer games are a good. Food is a good. Having not to make your food all the time is a service. You can, in a sense, buy time; if you have enough money you can afford to quit your job. Other people can be bought to a reasonable extent; if you're willing to pay enough money, you'll probably find someone to do nearly anything for you. People talk about simple lifestyles, but it's pretty apparent that in order to do something like quit your job, travel somewhere far away from the city, and live in a nice little cabin, you need some measure of money.

So it appears to me that when you ask about money, you're just talking about stuff you can buy and consume. This, in the modern world, means a lot of things.

Money is a resource. Nothing more, nothing less. The problem is when people put money above other, more important things, like family, friends and God (for those that believe, of course). It is in your family and friends that you find real happiness. Money just pays for the food you eat the entertainment you enjoy and whatever else that you need. It can facilitate enjoyment, but in and of itself it does little.

While it is important to have enough money to pay for food and shelter, water, heat and electricity, even a few luxuries, we don't need a bazillion dollars in the bank. Don't let the accumulation of money rob you of the time to enjoy the things you get with it and the loved ones that you share these things with and you'll be just fine.

I'm a student yet and I don't spend too much money. What I spend is less than 20 US$ a month. I live with my mom, she buys food (mostly vegetables which are cheap here) and pay electricity, water and internet bills. According to E.U. standards we're poor but we're happy. If I find a job after university, we'll be happier though. :grin:

Also I agree that money can buy everything including love and health. I just don't want to buy everything. I'm fine with whatever I have.

I'm 21 years old and I'm making $75,000 NZ a year after tax. I'm not intentionally hoarding this wealth but I just can't seem to spend it fast enough. I already have all the stuff I need and I've always been a 'bread and butter' type of person when it comes to my wants.

I have enough of it but I still want more. I view it as a measure of my success since in my line of work it is the result of a successful job (commission based work) and I don't think there's anyone who wants to be less successful. If anything I want to save enough money so that I can support myself and a family without my wife or kids ever needing to work till my kids are at least out of university. If I can do that I think I've succeeded financially.

But on that note I don't want to just 'succeed'. I want to pass with high grades so I'd want to have enough money so that my family would be considered 'upper class' at least.

Aquiring money is my objective but I don't want to aquire money just for the sake of having more money but because having more money will allow my family to be in a state I wish them to be.

I know it is possible to be happy without (a large amount of) money but I think it's impossible to lead a happy life without money since in the economics of today and how interdependant we are and how specalised everyone it we 'need' it to purchase things we could not provide for ourselves if left to our own devices.

I do not see aquiring vast amounts of money and the desire to do so as an evil thing. It is HOW you aquire that money, what you do with it and if you let it affect your opinion of yourself for having it and your opinion of others for not. If aquiring vast amounts of money is 'evil' then Bill Gates by definition must be one of the most evil people on the face of the world despite the fact that he is responsiable for the continued existance of at least a million African lives via donations from his personal bank account.

$75,000 NZ How much is that in U.S? (If you know the rate)

I've got ninety thousand pounds in my pyjamas,
I've got forty thousand french francs in my fridge.
I've got lost of lovely lire,
Now the Deutschemark's getting dearer,
And my dollar bills would buy the Brooklyn Bridge.

There is nothing quite as wonderful as money,
There is nothing quite as beautiful as cash.
Some people say it's folly,
But I'd rather have the lolly,
With money you can make a splash.

There is nothing quite wonderful as money,
(money, money, money, money)
There is nothing like a newly minted pound,
(money, money, money, money)

Everyone must hanker for the butchness of a banker,
It's accountancy that makes the world go round.
(round, round, round)

You can keep your Marxist ways
For it's only just a phase.
For it's money money money makes the world go round.
(money, money, money, money, money, money, money, money, moneeeeeeeeeeeyyyy)

they're valuable because our governments make them so by backing them up with gold? Well, actually, I'm afraid to say that gold standard went out years ago. In some people's eyes, this would mean that paper money is not actually backed by anything, other than everyone else's belief that is worth something, thus allowing them to accept it as a medium of exchange.

Saber, NZ$75,000 is usually about US$45,000 depending on the exchange rate on the day.

Money is created by us for us---but not by me, and most of my money is for someone else.

Money, get away.
Get a good job with good pay and you're okay.
Money, it's a gas.
Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash.
New car, caviar, four star daydream,
Think I'll buy me a football team.

Money, get back.
I'm all right Jack keep your hands off of my stack.
Money, it's a hit.
Don't give me that do goody good bull****.
I'm in the high-fidelity first class traveling set
And I think I need a Lear jet.

Money, it's a crime.
Share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie.
Money, so they say
Is the root of all evil today.
But if you ask for a raise it's no surprise that they're
giving none away.

But seriously, for those who want to get rich and fulfil all their dreams, remember this: when you've got everything, all that's left is nothing.

Yep but the whole point of going onto higher education is to of course get a better job and therefore earn more paper.You have to remember Nat is a Philosophy Major (I think) and we all know the financial rewards of that.

I think if I am lucky I might be able to be a lecturer and that will give me some stable income, but other than that I might as well be getting a BA in sitting-on-the-couch-drinking-beer-ology.

Im not doing higher education for the potential of getting a good job, Im doing it to avoid working ;)

Aquiring money is my objective but I don't want to aquire money just for the sake of having more money but because having more money will allow my family to be in a state I wish them to be. This is exactly how I feel. I don't want or need to have money to buy a mansion or a yacht. I would like for my wife to be able to stay home with our children, for us to live in a reasonable style home, pay all the bills, save up enough to send the kids to a public university, and stock a little away for retirement. Now, those things cost quite a bit of money, so in a sense, I do view acquiring money as important. However, I do not have designs on becoming a millionaire.

I also agree that while money does not lead to happiness directly, you can purchase things with money that make you happy. It is also absolutely true that people with the most money receive the best health care, and tend to live longer, healthier lives. People in the top 10% of earnings live on average 7-9 years longer than those in the bottom 10% of earnings, and that can't be just conincidence.

Money doesn't buy happiness. Some people work long hours and don't spend time with their famalies. Worse still are the couples that have babysitters bringing up their children for them.

Call me old fashioned, but I would rather live in poverty with a loving family that want to spend time with me, than a rich family that prefers work to home.

I'm with Chev, money is a means to an end. I've lived below the poverty line and it sucks. I enjoy being able to relax and take a nice vacation. I enjoy not have any debts (except the mortgage). I will really enjoy paying off the mortgage early.

Money allows security. Me and Mrs Bruno put as much as we can in retirement funds, paying down the mortgage and putting away some in savings. It's comforting to know that if something bad happens we won't lose our home.

Even though there are a lot of pluses with having money, both my wife and I work only eight hours a day and travel very little for work -- we could make more by taking jobs that involve more travel or longer hours, but being home is more important.

A means to an end:
The end being:
House and Property
Not having to work
Still able to afford the good things in life (of which the most expensive is probably holidays.)

I should love to (and therefore will) refer you to Francisco d'Anconia's money speech (http://compuball.com/Inquisition/AynRand/danconiaspeech.htm) from Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged".

@Motresor: Aye, good words on that.

Money's always means to an end. Sadly in this world the honest men are few and thus money becomes often a tool to sate greed. Money's a means to an end, but what becomes of from the accumulation of wealth for the sake of wealth. What is the use of all the riches in the world if they are used to build monuments for greed and destruction?

Those who do not have a need for wealth because of glory, or pride, or for security shall be rewarded hansomly, since they already have these in abundance. But those who are lacking, no amount of wealth is enough. "...for whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have." (Luke 8:18 KJV)

IMO money is the lubricant for the uh...thing in need of lubing up...that is life! :hahaerr:

Its just a means to an end IMO...

Money was created to replace the ancient barter system and place value of objects. Money is valuable only because we make it so, and with most of it being in credit form these days, the term "hard cash" will become a thing of the past. :2c:

Money these days is usually just a number on a screen. I know some people who haven't handled cash on a regular basis for years. Money only has value because people are stupid enough to give it value.

Stupid? That is purely a point of view. Do you realy believe that, without money, humanity would share everything equaly? There will always be people who want more then they have, and those that have less then they need.

Those people are ignorant...

I should love to (and therefore will) refer you to Francisco d'Anconia's money speech from Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged". :lol: Yes, that one is always good for a laugh. I always thought that woman mostly an annoying piece of work, with her 10 cent philosophy on the "virtue of greed," or whatever she called it.

Regarding the topic of money: I suppose it is like anything else one needs to survive. It's like asking how important is food, or air, or even sex for that matter. Well, I guess without it, life would be difficult. Franklin once said, when asked about food, "Some eat to live, others live to eat." I suppose one could say the same of money.

Money is reasonably useful stuff, but it is amazing how most people don't really understand it all that well. Other than the super intellects at BoM, of course.

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."

Of course nobody's saying they value money "for its own sake." When was the last time you heard anyone admit to doing anything for its own sake? Even for the most greedy corporate ****er money's a means to an end, even if the end is something as trivial as the status boost between 10 billion and 11 billion.

I'd sure like to have more money, to live comfortably, to have more space. But that would take work, so blargh.

A lot of people think that money doesn't aid happyness, and that you could have all the money in the world and still be unhappy, but when you have no money worries, live in a huge home, have a ferrari in the drive, eat expensive food, sleep with beautiful women/men, and live in complete luxury, trust me, you'll be a lot happier, and probably as happy as you're ever going to be.

Yes, it's true that lots of people with a lot of money are unhappy, but you'll find that a lot of these people are people who are born into wealth and don't know about the lack of, and so don't realise the significance of what they have.

I've tasted wealth, and know lots of wealthy people, I was however born into poverty, and lived in it long enough, so I know what it feels like from both sides of the spectrum. I currently live with not much, well, what my credit cards and overdraft can provide. Yes, when I have my degrees, then I can get a high paying job, but the fact is, I'm probably always going to have to work, spending most of my precious time doing so, until my body decides to give up. All I can do is try my best to improve my financial situation so that I can improve my life and my state of well being.

Yes, that one is always good for a laugh. I always thought that woman mostly an annoying piece of work, with her 10 cent philosophy on the "virtue of greed," or whatever she called it.Like Francisco, I will invite you to refute a single point in his speech, then. ;)

Here, here Sarevok. Having money means you can basically do anything you want. There are places I'd love to visit but don't have the money, loads of clothes I want but don't have the money, people I'd like to treat but don't have the money. I want a new car but don't have the money. I'd like to be able to afford a mortgage. Other bits and bobs I'd love to be able to do and have but I can't, because I'm skinto.

Money doesn't buy happiness? Total bollocks.

Is there anybody here who think they have 'enough' money? Or does everyone here think if they had 'just a bit more' then they'd be happy?

The difference is that some people do honestly need more money to be able to afford things that some other people take for granted. For example, a nice car and a mortgage. Other people take for granted their 200,000 mortgage and their 15,000 car and just want extra money for more little luxuries.

Nobody "needs" a nice car!

But they need a place to live. And some peoplke just can't afford, or get, a mortgage. In which case they have to rent, which is just dead money. With just a little more, they'd be able to afford a mortgage ;) . Once that happens, you feel a little happier in yourself as you know you're not wasting your money.

Is there anybody here who think they have 'enough' money? *raises hand* Mostly thanks to Mom's life insurance at the moment, but it should last me more than long enough to finish college and get a good job. I just don't need a lot, because I don't eat much, I have fun with games I already have, and TBH I wouldn't ever leave the house if I didn't have to.

This question reminds me of the halfling in Gullykin village. He asks: Who is more the fool: the man who sits idle in his old chair enjoying the sunshine, or the man who labors long for a fine new chair that he might sit in some day?

I have enough money and am quite happy sitting in the chair I have.

Like Francisco, I will invite you to refute a single point in his speech, then. It is simply a matter of moral opinion (another person's morality is another person's...). And like some other things, eveyone has an opinion. If you enjoy your belief in that rot, then I welcome you to it. This is like those pointless threads about whether or not there is a God, or if religion is good or bad, or abortion, or sexual preference. The debate over such matters is pointless, and if your desire is to worship, money or Rand, or Fransico, or whomever, then I welcome you to your belief - quite undistrubed.

Having money means you can basically do anything you want. There are places I'd love to visit but don't have the money, loads of clothes I want but don't have the money, people I'd like to treat but don't have the money. I want a new car but don't have the money. I'd like to be able to afford a mortgage. Other bits and bobs I'd love to be able to do and have but I can't, because I'm skinto.Join the club, but where's the priority of needs? I'll grant you the Mortgage is a biggie, as a home of your own is something you will need if you want more out of life. Clothes are a necessity, but where is the line between covering your nakedness and dressing to be fancy or impress someone. If I split the arse out of my two pair of good pants, then I need more of them. At this point I'd simply like a couple extra pair so that I don't have to do laundry as often if my social calendar picks up...

Money doesn't buy happiness? Total bollocks.There's a difference between hapiness and pleasure. I derive pleasure from a vacation, I used to derive pleasure from getting drunk or high, but did they make me happy? I was happy on my last vacation (where I actually went somewhere) not by where I was or what I did, but because of who I spent my time with.

Is there anybody here who think they have 'enough' money? Or does everyone here think if they had 'just a bit more' then they'd be happy?Being in a period of financial hardship, I can say no, I don't have enough. While more money could allieviate some of the stress I feel, it will buy pleasure, but not true hapiness. But it will give me the opportunity to find hapiness by allowing me to date and to socialize more to cultivate friendships...

But they need a place to live. And some peoplke just can't afford, or get, a mortgage. In which case they have to rent, which is just dead money. With just a little more, they'd be able to afford a mortgage [Wink] . Once that happens, you feel a little happier in yourself as you know you're not wasting your money.I'll give you that one, but the happiness comes from the satisfaction of doing something wise, not from the money itself. It is an enabler at best.

In which case they have to rent, which is just dead money. Um, in times of inflated house prices, renting is not dead money - it's a smart option. Too many landlords with multiple investment properties bought at stupid high prices with crippling mortgages, all competing for the same pool of quality tenants. Where I live, there's never been a better time to be a renter (so long as you save the money you are saving on mortgage interest and don't blow it all on gadgets and beer).

When you rent something, the money is dead. I.e. you are seeing nothing for your money. At least with an expensive mortgage the house will actually be yours at the end of it. Money on renting is going nowhere so it's dead money.

Nonsense. You don't get 'nothing' for your money. You get somewhere to live. You get a landlord to fix stuff when they break. You get to move to a different house whenever you feel like a change. You get to use all your spare cash for other things.

And at certain times in the economic cycle (like now) it can be miles and miles and miles cheaper to rent. If I didn't already have a house and a mortgage, I'd be renting for sure right now. Granted, it is usually better to try and buy a house, but not right now it isn't (unless economic conditions are dramatically different where you are, which I don't think they are - unlike the USA where you get a tax deduction for your residential mortgage interest).

Fair points.

It's just, you could rent a house for 20 years or get a mortgage over 20 years or whatever the time-frames are. After 20 years mortgage, you'll be well on your way to fully owning a property that will probably be worth more than what you paid for it by then. After 20 years renting a house you've spent thousands and thousands of pounds and don't have anything tangible for your money. You don't even get to decorate the property how you want it.

Yes, you are mostly right. I just wanted to point out that renting isn't always a dead end. But one of the main benefits of a mortgage is that it forces you to save money whereas many renters will not be disciplined enough to save up the extra money that they are not paying on their mortgage.

Quick points: Renting property is dead money because you don't get anything permanent from it when you could have otherwise by buying. Interest on a mortgage is also dead money, because you get squat from paying it. In this case, it's not a matter of dead money vs. no dead money, but which option is less dead money. Sometimes dead money is worth it. Like renting while you look for a good buy instead of taking a desperation buy that wasn't worth it. Or not paying off (as a whole) a mortgage that you could because you're getting more interest on the money in the bank than you're paying on the mortgage. (I have a really good rate. :grin: )

because you're getting more interest on the money in the bank than you're paying on the mortgage. Surely that could only happen in the USA, where the tax deductibility of mortgage interest makes it more likely. In NZ, mortgages are paid from post tax earnings whereas deposit interest is taxed at your marginal rate so, in effect, your deposit interest would have to be more than 39% higher than your mortgage interest for there to be any benefit (which would be extremely unlikely - except for shonky deals from here today, gone tomorrow finance companies).

Well, it does require a very low rate like I've got and tying up money in a CD, but that money would be tied up anyway if you just paid off the mortgage.

People have often said that "you can't buy happyness". I believe this to be true. For example, if you won several million dollors what would you do with it? You would probably quit your job, buy a REALY expensive house, a car probably worth more than the house and never have to want for anything again. People who have everything want nothing, and if you want nothing, what is there to life?

If I won a million dollars, I'd be dead within a couple years because I'd have a big hous with a ton of computers and play several videogames at once, not venturing out except to spend money and die of a heart attack...

If I won a million dollars, I probably wouldn't change my life too much. After paying off the house, the remainder would not be enough for me and my family to live the rest of our lives without working, so I might as well carry on working for a while, go on a nicer holiday each year, maybe have a nicer car, and probably retire 10 years earlier than planned.

If I won a million dollars, I probably wouldn't change my life too much. After paying off the house, the remainder would not be enough for me and my family to live the rest of our lives without working, so I might as well carry on working for a while, go on a nicer holiday each year, maybe have a nicer car, and probably retire 10 years earlier than planned. Agree completely. One million dollars doesn't go as far as it used to. Even if you are a wise investor, there's no way you could support a family for an indefinite period of time on 1 million dollars. Think of it this way. Even if you are very frugal, and manage to spend only $50,000 per year on everything you need for yourself, your spouse, and your children, that million dollars will be used up in 20 years. Now, if you want to live pretty well and spend, say $100,000 per year, you'll use up the money in 10 years. I've actually thought about this, and I have estimated that I would need between 5 and 6 million dollars at this point in my life to be able to retire and live comfortably along with my wife and any children we may eventually have. For one million dollars - I'd still have to go to work every day.

Agree completely. Yay!

I've actually thought about this, and I have estimated that I would need between 5 and 6 million dollars at this point in my life to be able to retire and live comfortably along with my wife and any children we may eventually have. Same here. I have calculated that $7 million would be my lottery winning cutoff point for stopping work completely and living (very) comfortably off the conservatively invested proceeds.

You are assuming the money is being kept in a matress. You can get a CD at more than 5% interest that will give you $50,000 per year. The million would never be depleted.

Even at a spending level of $100,000 per year you should be able to stretch that out for 15-20 years depending on how well you invest the money.

My aim would be to live purely off the investment returns, plus save some to keep building the capital in order to offset the effects of inflation. Consider that you might live for another 60 years. $100,000 a year will be pretty useless in 60 years time, so your investments had better be earning you $500,000 or more by then. And that can only happen if you add to your capital each year.

If I won $7m and invested it at your theoretical 5% per year, I would probably reinvest $150k pa and spend $200k. I could live pretty sweetly on that, and never have to worry about running out.

You are assuming the money is being kept in a matress. You can get a CD at more than 5% interest that will give you $50,000 per year.CDs are up to 5%? What duration? 12-month? 18-month? 5% seems awfully high for a 12-month rate, but if so, it's definitely a pretty good investment option at this point. 5% beats inflation over all but the most heavy-inflation years. It doesn't match the average stock return of 9% annually, but it's guaranteed. Randomly picking stocks will give you an average return of almost double that, but you may make less than 5%, or you may lose all that you invest.

end :yot: rant.

Anyway, even factoring in interest payments, I agree with what HB says about then factoring in inflation. The $50,000 per year you are spending today will likely only have the buying power of $25,000 per year in 20 years time.

Believe me, I have done the math on this. I assume I spend $100,000 per year every year, adjusted for inflation with an annual rate of 3.5%, and that means I need to start with an initial nest egg of at least 5 million dollars. Other assumptions made in this calculation were that I live to be 90 years old (I probably won't, but it's better to over-estimate than under-estimate this figure) that I have two kids and that they are both going to want to go to college (and 20 years from now, a 4-year college education can easily cost $200,000 per child). Also pursuant to the kids, I'd have to buy a signifcantly larger home than I currently live in, and that would easily cost me $500,000. If I wanted to live in one of the nicer areas around Baltimore, it would be more like $750,000.

The thing is, every year I'm assuming I'm spending more. Year 1 I spend $100,000, Year 2 $103,500, etc. By the time you start looking 50 years from now (I'm currently 32) that gets into some pretty hefty bucks. Besides HB's estimation is even higher than mine - he went with $7 million dollars. However, I am unsure what the coversion rate is between U.S. and New Zealand dollars, so it may not be much of a difference after all.

Aldeth, NZ$7m is about US$5m, depending on the day, so we're about spot on in our calculations. We rule!

Whoa, I'm with Aldeth - CD's are earning that much? My 'dream windfall' calculations assumed a 3% ROI (fees, charges, and all the other sundry ways the financial community seek to suck me dry)

That means I could win/steal/earn a smaller amount than I originally estimated to make the initial purchase of assets and then pay off living expenses for a 'modest but comfortable lifestyle' from the remainer's investment interest...


But ANYWAY, back to the original question:

I see money as literally, a representation of effort - I do a task for someone; they gauge the value of my work, and reimburse me this commodity.

Hypothetical Illustration: a chicken farmer operates his business and determines that a dozen of his eggs is worth a fair trade to his neighbor the dairy farmer for a quart of milk. To make these exchanges easier, they invent a method of currency - each is valued at 'one dollar', for argument's sake.

Very elementary demonstration, but it hits back to what money IS - representation of the value or worth of someone's time and effort.

This can lead to some interesting comparisons of various consumer products' 'prices':

"Huh - sony REALLY thinks this thing is worth 74 hours of my work to own? I think I'll wait until they start lowering their bids to me." :)

or

"Yeah, it took me three day's work, just to pay off the unexpected layover - what with food, hotel and taxi fees."

Now some people may make the comment that people can get 'greedy' and seek to hoard large amounts of money. I look upon this as an exaggerated response to an underlying survival instinct - in a contemporary urban environment, one needs money to acquire the goods and services to survive (food, shelter, health care, etc.).

Maybe it's a over-compensation from a time when the person was in a formative state and had very little money, and perhaps had to undergo serious privation or embarassment due to it?

ROFL - just as I was typing this part, Weird Al Yankovic's song "This is the life" came on...my jukebox is reading my mind and playing contextually-relevant music! sorry for the tangent)

Or perhaps they feel a need to 'compete' with other hoarders and 'have the most'?

Or it could just be that they despise the financial infrastructure that today's world is 'infected with' and seeks merely to take as much currency 'out of circulation'?
:p


Now I'm willing to say that possessing money imbues the bearer with a certain amount of power, much like pushing a rock to the top of a hill imbues it with potential energy. The bearer could spend their money to aid others, or to acquire personal possessions, or even to hire a person to deny a third party of their possessions, freedoms, or even life. :skeptic:

Now, if a person has what most decide is a 'vast' amount of money, this possession 'buys' a fair amount of courtesy, respect and even assistance (in the hopes of that philanthropic actions will be repaid). As such, that 'stockpile' of money in and of itself brings power to the possessor - the ability to control one's environment, and even the actions of others.

.
.
.

Then on the other side of the profound/absurd coin, we have money as the catalyst that helps a ridiculous (and hopefully amusing) theorm:

assume the following statements to be true - 'a marriage requires time and money', 'time IS money', and 'money is the root of all evil.'


'a marriage requires time and money'
or
Marriage = time x Money

and 'time IS money' (time=money) so

Marriage = money x money
or
Marriage = money²

and since 'money is the root of all evil' (money=√evil) thus

Marriage = (√evil)²
or
Marriage = evil

So I put it that without money, we cannot come to the conlusion that marriage is evil! :hahaerr:


But that's just MY thoughts; I have it on good authority that I'm loopy as a loon...grains of salt will be mailed out for consumption at the time of dwelling upon my ramblings. ;)

Due to UK house prices, $1million US, coupled with my current property value, would just about get me to my intended top of the housing ladder.

It's difficult to predict inflation and therefore how much you need to be earning in, say 50 years time. However, (and these are extremely rough figures)looking at the past 25 years, the average salary has gone up by about 10 times (From about £2000 to £20,000. Using this as a guide, would mean in 50 nyears time, the average salary would be around the £2m mark. Hardly bears thinking about does it!

I believe that no man, no man in the entire world, need more money than what he need to live and then a wee bit to actually be able to do something. Millionaires disgust me.

@ Register - Actually you pretty much need to be a millionaire by the time you retire. If you take a million dollars, assume an aftertax rate of return of 3% on savings, and assume that you will live for forty years, that would give you only $42,000/year after which you are broke. Actually the 3% after tax rate is probably a bit too high given that you would most likely be invested in GICs or other low risk instrumnets at retirement age so you would probably end up with slightly less than that.

@JSBB – it’s actually even worse than that, because your example doesn’t take inflation into account. If you use a 2.5% annual inflation factor, that $42,000 you get in year 40 is only worth about $15,000 in today’s dollars.

If you want to factor in inflation, a simple rule of thumb is to assume that the rate of inflation equals your after-tax rate of return (probably a reasonable assumption if you’re investing conservatively as JSBB suggests). In that situation, you are getting no “real” return on your money, because the interest you earn is just allowing you to keep up with inflation. So in JSBB’s example, you would just take the $1,000,000, divide by the 40 years that you want it to last, and you get $25,000. You would be able to spend $25,000 in the first year, $25,000 plus inflation in the second year, the Year 2 amount plus inflation in the third year, etc. Another way to think about it is to divide the $1,000,000 into 40 separate investments of $25,000, and spend one investment (plus the interest it’s earned since day 1) each year.

Yeah, with inflation your $42,000 annuity gets pretty worthless by the time you reach your 90s. Amusingly, the vast majority of pensions work on a non-inflation adjusted % of your salary before retirement basis so anyone out there who is relying on the old company pension to take care of them had better hope they don't live too long.

I checked out current GIC prices and the current GIC rate is only 3% to begin with. After tax that is around 1.8% to 2.2% depending on tax bracket. Inflation is actually just under 2% right now meaning that you may have a negative real after tax return on GICs. If we round it to a zero real rate of return that actually does reduce your 40 year payout to Splunge's $25,000/year in present $ terms. That might cover your basic living costs but when those high medical costs for drugs etc. start kicking in you can forget about that. The alternative is to go for more risky investments to get the rate of return up but if you have a set back at that stage of your life then you will be in big trouble - which is why investment advisors normally start you with high risk stuff when you are young and move you more towards GICs and other low risk instruments when you approach retirement.

That being said I would say that you would need at least $1.5 million to comfortably retire. I would set the target minimum at $2 million myself, but I suppose that I am used to a relatively high standard of living.

Edit: I am actually a bit surprised at how poor the GIC payouts are. I would have expected that the rate had gone up to the 4% range given the way the mortgage rates have gone up over the last couple years. The mortgage rates are starting to creep down again so the GIC rates will probably end up going down too - given that inflation is unlikely to go down by much we are probably looking at real after tax rates heading towards -1% on low risk investments. Not good.

[ November 24, 2006, 19:25: Message edited by: JSBB ]