Page 1 of 1

10 Commandments of Financial Happiness

Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2003 11:40 pm
by wanderer
Picture this. You have two American families.

The first earns less than $50,000 but is in control of the family money. These folks aren't anal with a capital A, but they've adopted at least four of the following six habits:


They balance their checkbook at least once a month.


They have some sort of filing system in place.


They pay their bills as they come in.


They don't spend more than they can afford on three or more things (though they may occasionally bust the budget on one or two).


They don't often buy things that they don't need.


They know where their money goes.

The second family earns at least 50 percent more -- upwards of $75,000 a year -- but its members don't feel they have as much control. They are not financial fiascoes across the board, but they have at least two of these six bad habits:


They don't balance their checkbooks every month.


Their finances are disorganized, so they have to scramble to find what they're looking for.


They pay all their bills once a month.


They spend more than they can afford on three or more items.


They often buy things they don't need.


They don't know where their money has gone.

Who's happier with their finances?

Neither one. Roughly six out of 10 families in both categories say they're financially happy.

My conclusion
Adopting good money-management habits is like earning another $25,000 a year. And that's it.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/09/29/pf/chat ... tm?cnn=yes

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2003 3:11 am
by WiseNLucky
Your happiness doesn't hinge on how much you make. Your happiness hinges on how you handle it. Good luck!


I liked the conclusion.

The thought that keeping track of your money and following common rules of money management provides you the happiness of a 50% raise is remarkable.


As someone who is so close to zero debt that I can taste it, I disagree with her assertion that zero debt people are no happier than people who have a mortgage and car loans. Then, maybe I'm just wierd. I believe the contributors here are in a fiscal minority in today's world.

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2003 4:15 am
by ElSupremo
Greetings WiseNLucky :)
As someone who is so close to zero debt that I can taste it, I disagree with her assertion that zero debt people are no happier than people who have a mortgage and car loans. Then, maybe I'm just wierd.


I don't think your weird. If you are so am I. I've been debt free for decades and can say without reservation that I'm happier because of it. So there! :wink:

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2003 5:53 am
by wanderer
lol. people rarely get in trouble for having 'too little' debt. I say that being a half a mill in the hole. :shock:

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2003 8:44 am
by peteyperson
As Dave Ramsey says, "If being normal means being broke all the time, I'd rather be weird!"

Petey
ElSupremo wrote: I don't think your weird. If you are so am I. I've been debt free for decades and can say without reservation that I'm happier because of it. So there! :wink:

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2003 8:44 am
by peteyperson
Were you just kidding?

Petey
wanderer wrote: lol. people rarely get in trouble for having 'too little' debt. I say that being a half a mill in the hole. :shock:

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2003 6:44 pm
by wanderer
no.

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2003 10:06 am
by JWR1945
lol. people rarely get in trouble for having 'too little' debt. I say that being a half a mill in the hole.

If I am not mistaken (IINM), wanderer should have said having been instead of being.

Have fun.

John R.

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2003 10:15 am
by BenSolar
JWR1945 wrote: If I am not mistaken (IINM), wanderer should have said having been instead of being.


Either that or he is using 'in the hole' for 'debt owed with out regard to offsetting assets' as opposed to 'net worth negative'

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2003 11:10 am
by ataloss
W has some big time leverage :wink:

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2003 5:02 pm
by wanderer
my god you guys require precision! :wink:

you're all correct: I meant, against the related value of the rentals/land (which exceed the amount of debt), we have about $500k of debt. W&L can confirm this trait (at least among non-dishonest accountants): we generally abjure 'netting'. :wink:

ataloss - leverage is relative. you should see our coverage ratios. :wink:

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2003 9:04 pm
by WiseNLucky
W has some big time leverage


$500K sounds like a lot, but 80% mortgages on only four $160K rental properties would do it. He might have even refinanced in the recent favorable mortgage climate and pulled out some of his equity at really low interest rates if he had a better place for the money.

One would have to see the asset side of his balance sheet to know whether $500K is "a lot" of debt for him. It might not even be big time leverage.

To me, $500K would be A LOT :)

Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2003 3:22 am
by ataloss
ataloss - leverage is relative. you should see our coverage ratios.


I meant prudently large :wink: and iirc less large since the increase in re prices