nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

What's a lot of savings to have for 40 year old

3 the square

Just wondering what do people think is a lot of money to have in a savings account or similar ??

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Viscount Aggro

Age 45. I always keep about 20k in savings account which I can access within a week.
I can also access high 6 figures within a few days, without selling property.

smelly sock

Well this thread has just turned into a pissing contest.

RGDATA!

AlanG wrote: »

4-6 months take home pay would be a minimum. A lot of savings would depend on what you are saving for and if you have a mortgage or not.

a minimum for whom? good for you if you have it btw.

Pac1Man

smelly sock wrote: »

Well this thread has just turned into a pissing contest.

I can piss at a strong 70 degree angle for about 3 meters. I have access to this at any time.

Widdershins

Eleventy something somethings. At the very least.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Pac1Man wrote: »

I can piss at a strong 70 degree angle for about 3 meters. I have access to this at any time.

If you can't piss at a 6 figure angle you're clearly a total pleb.

BrokenArrows

I had about 6 months salary of savings but thats soon to disappear into the deposit for my house.

So i guess it will probably take me 2 years to save up another 6 months salary.
Always aiming to have 6 months salary in case i lose my job and now that im buying a house i cant really afford to be missing mortgage payments etc.

I also put a decent amount into my pension. Im planning on being a pension millionaire and happily retiring at 55. Lets hope that works out!

King George VI

"savings"

What?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

biko

osarusan wrote: »

I have 9 cigarettes in a box.
For a rainy day.

"Toss me a cigarette, I think there's one in my raincoat"
"We smoked the last one an hour ago"
So I looked at the scenery, she read her magazine
And the moon rose over an open field

SEPT 23 1989

Shrouds have no pockets

cml387

biko wrote: »

"Toss me a cigarette, I think there's one in my raincoat"
"We smoked the last one an hour ago"
So I looked at the scenery, she read her magazine
And the moon rose over an open field

"In this life
One thing counts
In the bank
Large amounts"

It falls apart a bit after that but the initial sentiment is sound.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Glenster

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Shrouds have no pockets

True, but alive people do.

And most people at 40 would hope to live at least a little bit longer.

Viscount Aggro

That's the oldest excuse out there.
A lot of people seem to be banking on the old age pension. Its likely to be less in real terms, and they keep raising the age to access it, catches less people I guess. State pension on it's own is fine - if you want to exist on hot water and cream crackers.

Pac1Man

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Not even that, I would be so stressed out if I had nothing tucked away.

I'm 'paying' for that security and peace of mind.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Shrouds have no pockets

No but what about in the meantime? If you can live comfortably and save then do so. Savings lead to a much easier life later on. I know, I've done it.

This crap about not taking it with you is the extreme. Nobody is saying save at the expensive of your livings standards now or to save with no intentions of spending it at some stage.

Glenster

Viscount Aggro wrote: »

That's the oldest excuse out there.
A lot of people seem to be banking on the old age pension. Its likely to be less in real terms, and they keep raising the age to access it, catches less people I guess. State pension on it's own is fine - if you want to exist on hot water and cream crackers.

The old age pension is too generous as it is.

There are 17 year olds working 35 hours a week of backbreaking labour who get less than a 66 year old sitting on his arse.

Spanish Eyes

There are no answers to this, depends on circumstances.

However, a cushion of say six months mortgage/bills etc. in case of redundancy/illness, together with say 10-20k for enjoyment and major house stuff would be ideal.

If people have more than that, that's great. But a rainy day fund is the first thing to have IMV. Always.

Electric Sheep

RGDATA! wrote: »

a minimum for whom? good for you if you have it btw.

A minimum as a cushion against loss of job, illness, other unexpected disasters. It's called an emergency fund.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

[Deleted User]

Glenster wrote: »

The old age pension is too generous as it is.

There are 17 year olds working 35 hours a week of backbreaking labour who get less than a 66 year old sitting on his arse.

The 66 year old has spent their entire lives paying tax. The 17 year old has a long long way to go to contribute an ounce of what the 66 year old did.

Electric Sheep

Glenster wrote: »

The old age pension is too generous as it is.

There are 17 year olds working 35 hours a week of backbreaking labour who get less than a 66 year old sitting on his arse.

Anyone who is working only 35 hours a week is not breaking their back.

Glenster

Electric Sheep wrote: »

Anyone who is working only 35 hours a week is not breaking their back.

9-5 five days a week carrying heavy things around.

Its pretty tough.

Glenster

Elsie Thundering Roast wrote: »

The 66 year old has spent their entire lives paying tax. The 17 year old has a long long way to go to contribute an ounce of what the 66 year old did.

No he hasn't, he's a paedophile who has always been on the dole.

Mod: banned

Electric Sheep

Glenster wrote: »

9-5 five days a week carrying heavy things around.

Its pretty tough.

Should have stayed in school.

H3llR4iser

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I see...what I mean was "at which point it can be tangibly convenient", as opposed to the "too little gain that's not even worth bothering with it". You know what I'm talking about

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Mmm...to be frank, I can understand both views - it's the third option (more to it in a while) that I just can't.

If someone has kids, like you, I definitely see the concept of "covering all bases", without getting it too far of course. It's a no brainer.

For someone like myself, single, no kids, 36 years old...not really planning on having a family at any point (although you can never say), it's a bit of a less obvious choice - personally I like to have a bit of a "cushion" should anything go wrong at some point, but I won't go out of my way to "save money". If one month I can't put anything aside, no big deal. I earn decently NOW (after a decade of barely making ends meet, shall I add) and can enjoy it while I'm healthy and youngish, without overdoing it.

The attitude I can't understand is that of people actively hampering their living in order to save stashes of money indefinitely; There are a lot like that - then they die in "poverty", only for relatives to discover they had like 500 grands in the bank...

Viscount Aggro

I recommend reading "Your Money or Your Life". It's a classic of personal finance.
If you were to work out what you really earn per hour, take away what it costs you to attend the workplace, transport, clothing, lunch etc. The figure would surprise a lot of people - not in a good way.

Scotty #

bmwguy wrote: »

Everyone should be putting money away towards retirement though a 40 year old today will not get a state pension until 68 which is too old in my opinion to have to work full time. 60 and I'll retire.

Watching a program about retirment one night on RTE there a year or two ago they said that retiring was the worst thing you can do for your life expectance with the average life span of a retiree in Ireland, regardless of what age they retire, being just 2.5 years.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Scotty # wrote: »

Watching a program about retirment one night on RTE there a year or two ago they said that retiring was the worst thing you can do for your life expectance with the average life span of a retiree in Ireland, regardless of what age they retire, being just 2.5 years.

And I saw a programme some years ago that said people retiring at 55 instead of 65 lived an average of ten years longer that the retiree at 65. Hence ten more years of retirement. When those retiring due to ill health were excluded, of course.

Also, the stats are skewed in your example by the fact that non retired people who die before 65 are excluded..