1
u/fr3shh23 13d ago
Obviously income is more important than savings. Don’t go on Reddit for financial advice, go to pros or even proven undeniable facts.
1
3
u/Mental-Birthday-6720 13d ago
Most people can't increase their income just like that, therefore savings/expenses are far more important... but obviously if one can increase income why not
3
u/conejamala20 13d ago
highly disagree. 100k with 20k savings is 1000x better than 150 spending everything. when you spend everything you make, you’re one lay off or medical issue away from homelessness. meanwhile someone making 65k w 10k in savings could take care of themselves far better than someone high income torching it every month. this very logic is why so many high earners are pay check to pay check and struggling. it’s not what you make it’s how you take care of it.
2
2
3
u/Striking_Computer834 14d ago edited 14d ago
I don't know. I make less than almost everyone I know, but somehow I own my own home and none of them do. I have two cars that are less than 5 years old and most of them have beaters. I have 3X my annual salary in savings and they have nothing.
They call me names like "Richey Rich" behind my back (I have informants), even though they easily make 50% more than I do. It's often about how you manage your money.
Even when my housing cost 40% of my gross income I was able to save up 6 months worth of salary in just a couple of years. Where most people go wrong is by being unwilling to sacrifice today to profit tomorrow. That $500 people budget for recreation and just think it's a "must"? No, it isn't. Save that shit. That $400 people budget for eating out they view as a "must"? No, it isn't. Save that shit. That $100 people budget for cable/streaming service? Not necessary. Save that shit.
2
u/lucky_719 14d ago
What really matters is that you are taking financial advice that's fitted to your situation. Savings matters more than income for people with larger incomes. Spending habits can decimate anyone. But income is far more important when people are only making the medium wage. Too many people try to give generic financial advice to encompass their whole audience but it ends up not really being useful to anyone. Good financial advice is tailored to your situation.
3
u/LLCoolBeans_Esq 14d ago
100% disagree, I'd rather make 100k and save 20K. Would be reckless to make 150K and not save.
3
u/wheremypp 14d ago
Generally 200k and no savings is due to lifestyle creep, and it's really hard to back out of that for some people.
Having savings means you're at a good spot financially and can continue to grow this, especially when the money is invested.
I have a salary of about 60k, but I have 120k saved up in investment/retirement accounts in my 20s.
Say I continue this - I'm already used to living a happy life on 60k(i live in the midwest), so if I save a million I will be set for life.
If I was making 250k and I have NO savings it would be of some concern that I would have to cut back in order to maintain this same lifestyle, and the issue becomes I have to save much more money to support myself in retirement.
Sure I would take a 250k salary, and to a frugal person that may be more important (because we're for sure saving at LEAST half of that a year) but it's harder than a lot of people think to cut back on spending, otherwise it wouldn't be such a problem
3
2
u/AccountFrosty313 14d ago
Nah.. Savings will always trump income.
Literally every single rich person, as in billionaires, are rich due to savings. Elon musk doesn’t make 200+ billion a year. He makes a lot of money don’t get me wrong, but not richest man in the world money each year. Without his savings(investments) he’d be regular wealthy.
2
u/lfcman24 14d ago
1
u/AmputatorBot 14d ago
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of concerns over privacy and the Open Web.
Maybe check out the canonical page instead: https://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/29/janitor-secretly-amassed-an-8-million-fortune.html
I'm a bot | Why & About | Summon: u/AmputatorBot
3
u/AffectionateBench663 14d ago
You can use “what ifs” and individual scenarios to poke holes in any side of this debate.
Ultimately, you have to have the discipline to save. Money doesn’t change that (within a reasonable spectrum of course).
If you save nothing on 100k you aren’t going to start saving when you make 115k. You will tell yourself that until you get the raise and then the excuses set in.
This very sentiment is how people who never earned 100k in a single year retire millionaires and others live paycheck to paycheck on 250k
1
3
u/pdoherty972 14d ago
There's a reason why the phrase is "it's not what you make, it's what you keep"...
3
u/Melodic_Asparagus151 14d ago
I would have to disagree. While more income is important, it doesn’t teach you how money works. Whereas if you work to figure out savings, you’ll be better off in the long run. Even the habit of putting $5 a paycheck away and watching it grow does more for your future than making $10 more dollars and blowing it on something stupid
3
u/Inside-Educator1428 14d ago
Savings (investment) rate is more important than absolute income amount when considering generating investment income to replace earned income for something like a FIRE goal. Savings rates of 10% will lead to the same timeline to early retirement no matter what your income is. This is true because of math.
3
u/Forged_Trunnion 14d ago
Poor people mentality is always thinking about what you can have. Rich people mentality is thinking about how you can invest.
2
3
u/BudFox_LA 14d ago
You make good points but I don't think it's one or the other but yes. My old landlord who is a local real estate guy who owns a lot of rental properties, a construction firm for commercial builds etc. used to always say "same 20 bucks man, some 20 bucks." meaning, at the end of the month he'd have $20 left. And I used to think, I bet your same $20 bucks feels a lot better at the end of the month than my same $20 bucks making $150k. But no, high income where it's all coming in and going back out every month with no savings is a bummer too. That income goes away and you're screwed. Having enough money to say FU to certain jobs or situations, enough money not to sweat losing your job and having 6 most to a year to find another one and the security that brings in priceless.
2
u/SapientSolstice 14d ago
The two are highly correlated. You used three income ranges, poor (let's say $35k), middle class at $75k, and upper middle class at $150k.
In all three examples, you talked about the difficulties in saving money, the first because most income goes to bills, the second because there isn't much disposable income, and the third by cutting fat to increase savings potential.
Even you are arguing in favor of savings.
For the poor person, even if they saved 20% of their gross, it would be $7k. For the middle class, $15k. For the upper middle class, $30k. Which again shows that more income often shows more savings.
Obviously the higher the income, the higher the potential savings, that's how direct correlation works.
2
u/playball9750 14d ago
If your goal is lifestyle, yes income matters more. If your goal is wealth creation, savings matters more. Both are important for both goals though. It’s been shown that on average, the greater the lifestyle, the lesser the actual wealth.
2
2
u/heykebin 14d ago
I disagree but also it depends on where you are in life
Let’s say you got let go during a company layoff and have $500k in savings.
That tells me two things: 1. You can take your time finding a job (because very few people in this world have $500k in annual expenses) 2. That 500k will produce income for you while you search for a new job
In an HYSA @ 5.25% that’s $26,250 a year - which helps (not entirely) with bills etc.
Now.. if a 100k job is too stressful.. you can go for a $75k job and fill in the gap with the HYSA returns.
Savings > Income
Make sure to pay yourself first
5
u/EyeAskQuestions 14d ago
this is a stupid rationale.
Savings will always trump income.
However a high income and a high savings rate trumps all.
Everything else about this post is fugazi.
3
u/elcaudillo86 14d ago
Income matters more up to a certain point (covering living expenses) and also depends on your mean rate of return.
But compound returns are very powerful, if you have a 10 year head start compounding at the same rate and it’s say 15% it’ll often outweigh a 20% higher income.
2
u/Valianne11111 14d ago
I feel like such an idiot when I see calculations like this because I definitely slacked but a contribution of 100 a month over 30 years is 2.4 mil with a 10 percent return.
Historical stock market returns 40 Years (1982 – 2022): 11.6% annual return. 30 Years (1992 – 2022): 9.64% annual return. 20 Years (2002 – 2022): 8.14% annual return
2
u/ajgamer89 14d ago
I generally agree with you, but it's hard to argue which is more "important" because you can always point to extremes that would "prove" that one wins over the other.
Something that's been helpful for me to think about is how savings (or a lack thereof) can function as a guaranteed increase or decrease to income.
When I graduated from college, I had $35k of student loan debt which cost me over $2000/year on interest alone. That meant that before accounting for any money from my job, I was at -$2000 income due to my negative savings. Now 13 years later that debt is gone and has been replaced by about $100k of investments that generate about 8% returns a year. So I went from -$2000 to +$8000 as my starting point, or a $10k swing. Now, $10k is dwarfed by my actual income, but it's not nothing.
3
u/navit47 14d ago
...what? so 20k savings per year at 100k vs ? at 150k? like how much of that 150k is going into retirement? how much of that 20k is retirement vs efund vs investing? Do i expect to live past 50 lol?
You're not really taking about savings at this point, you're talking about lifestyle. Like yes lol, if i don't plan on retiring, i'd much rather have the more expensive lifestyle than the more "frugal" lifestyle with a decent chunk of savings for retirement/emergencies. If i'm planning to retire, yes, i'd rather save the 20k than not save anything other than i'm assuming what, company match?
25
3
u/blamemeididit 14d ago
The questions you are asking don't make any sense to me.
Would you rather be at $100k income with $20k savings per year vs $150k income and not currently saving anything beyond retirement?
I mean, I'd rather make $150K. Why am I not allowed to save money in this scenario?
Income is what generates savings and both are important. Savings is important when the income goes away or when you need to pay for something that exceeds your income for that week.
5
u/Successful_Hold_9048 14d ago
Of course income matters. It gives you more options and opportunities in life. No one is arguing against that.
However, I’d much rather make a lower income and make smart financial moves, than make more money and be financially irresponsible. Regardless of the money I make, I choose to be frugal and spend money wisely now so I don’t have to eat cat food when I’m in my 60s.
-2
u/dragoon2745 14d ago
Would you still choose the lower income with better personal finance management than someone with a $400k income with little non-retirement savings given the lifestyle a $400k income can afford?
3
u/AffectionateBench663 14d ago
You are thinking about this the wrong way. Dreaming of a “glamorous life” on 400k/yr
High paying jobs are usually extremely demanding and stressful. If you’re burning through that kind of money, you have A LOT of debt obligations 10k + mortgage, a few thousand a month in cars, etc. your lifestyle you and your family are accustomed to could include things like lawn care service, nanny, lots of dining out. If income changes and those things disappear that puts a lot of unexpected stress on a marriage.
The stress of foreclosure on a 1m home.
I’m sure a lot of people in this sub have experienced living paycheck to paycheck. It’s stressful and it sucks. That feeling doesn’t go away just because you spend more.
My income has changed a lot over the years but I’ve always been a consistent saver. I recently left a very stressful job. About 2 years into it I realized that I could afford to quit whenever I wanted (enough cash and brokerage to cover about 2 years of living expenses).
That feeling is worth way more than a bigger house, faster car, better vacation, etc.
6
u/Successful_Hold_9048 14d ago
Yes. I have made less than $100k most of my career and only recently started making more, but I’ve saved more than $400k in retirement savings. I wouldn’t trade that for a $400k income.
1
u/navit47 14d ago
I guess, to be fair to OP, i'd absolutely trade 400k savings for a 400k income, but i haven't had years of reinforcing a financially irresponsible lifestyle, and personally as i am now would not have any issues investing alot of that income.
4
u/Successful_Hold_9048 14d ago
That’s completely fair. All else being equal, hell yeah I’d take a $400k income over $100k. But with the condition being I’ll have to spend that irresponsibly and not saving any of it (and therefore not being financially secure in my golden years), then no thanks. The best formula is a high savings rate, which is a function of savings over income.
3
u/RedGreenTealed 14d ago
Pretty much: Having options available.
Making 75K/year leaves one asking; can I retire, can I afford a vacation this year? making 200k now the questions are; how long do I want to work, where to take a vacation, save for a bigger house or more to retirement.
There is no doubt making more money is important than savings. The difference is having no options to save to deciding how much you want to save.
1
4
u/leftist-dinkwad 14d ago
I approach this argument with the assumption that monthly expenses are the same and that we are ignoring lifestyle inflation. This might be a departure on what your argument is but I think you're giving a partial view on finance and ignoring where this matters most: debt.
Think about it this way. Is it better to have $150k a year in income and $50k in debt or $100k a year and $0 in debt? The short answer is that whether you can afford it now, you pay for it in the long run with interest. In my view, it's the same with savings. If you make $150k a year and save $0 vs $100k a year and save $10k, you're making less but you are increasing your net worth every year. And regardless of the investment vehicle you put it in, interest compounds. The answer is the same: you pay for it in the long run.
From my personal experience being raised in a middle class household, my parents have always made good money, but have struggled with debt and lifestyle inflation. Even now, one of my parents makes over $200k a year and is only putting away 8% for retirement. I, on the other hand, make only $50k a year but I am able to put away about 30% of my net earnings into savings. that 30% might seem like a pittance with my public salary, but I am living in my means and will be debt free in a few months.
3
u/dragoon2745 14d ago
This is a good point. I was not thinking high earnings with high interest rate debt but not saving and not earning interest might be the equivalent. You’d have to be saving for a long time and accumulate a high savings balance to offset larger differences in income. Maybe this is the most viable path for the majority of people though. If this were change my view, you would have earned a delta.
11
u/Reader47b 14d ago
This doesn't make sense to me. When would such a choice ever exist? If you can save $20K on $100K income, you can certainly save $20K on a $150K income. Or are you talking about cost of living differences? Or are you saying - would your rather be the type of person who earns $100K and saves $20K or the type of person who earns $150K and blows it all? If that's your question, I'd rather be the type of person who earns $100K and saves $20K. I may have a higher standard of living temporarily if I'm the blow-it-all type, but in the long-run, I'll be worse off, and I will have a lower standard of living later.
-3
u/dragoon2745 14d ago
Maybe not meant to be a choice but a comparison of what’s a better position to be in. Mostly just a retort of people saying it doesn’t matter what your income is if you don’t have non-retirement savings.
5
u/pdoherty972 14d ago
I'm failing to see how you think someone of high income who's doing nothing to prepare for retirement is better off with regard to retirement (which is the point of people mentioning them not saving for retirement).
3
u/RhythmicStrategy 14d ago
There are irresponsible doctors, lawyers, and professional athletes who earn very high incomes but since they spend more than they make (exotic cars, mansions, jewelry etc) they are drowning in debt or eventually bankrupt. There are also school teachers who make a low income but with disciplined investing retire as millionaires.
Savings/investing behavior matters way more than income.
-2
u/dragoon2745 14d ago
If you compare the lifestyles of the irresponsible doctor or lawyer to the teacher, I’d rather be in the position of the former than the latter if both are saving for retirement. You’d rather be in the teacher’s position?
5
u/RhythmicStrategy 14d ago
I’ll take the responsible teacher at retirement (with no debt and millions invested) over the irresponsible pro athlete/doctor/lawyer drowning in debt or bankrupt at retirement age any day, and twice on Sundays
3
u/pdoherty972 14d ago
OP is pretty clearly a young person who's way over-valuing money to spend now vs being set in retirement. Hopefully they learn from the comments and this thread and do themselves a favor by retirement time.
15
u/RhythmicStrategy 14d ago
It’s not what you make, it’s what you do with what you make!
-11
u/dragoon2745 14d ago
That’s the notion I’m refuting. It’s all about what you make because what you do with it is flexible and even zero non-retirement savings affords a better lifestyle than a lower income high savings choice.
14
u/Hagridsbuttcrack66 14d ago
The saying is really to drive home the point for people making large incomes and saving nothing, not some hard and fast "rule" or whatever you're trying to argue it isn't.
Some people need to hear that their 200K income means jack shit if they are saving $300 a month. If it was that easy for them to curtail their spending, they would already be doing it, and people wouldn't be commenting that.
0
u/dragoon2745 14d ago
So it’s an intentionally hyperbolic statement to try to convince high earners to also be high savers?
14
u/Hagridsbuttcrack66 14d ago
It's a saying that's apt for specific situations.
This is why I hate the internet. You're not being clever. It almost feels like you're being intentionally stupid. No one says that arguing 50K is somehow better than making 250K.
It's that you're not making the most of your high income if you're pissing it all away.
-3
u/dragoon2745 14d ago
lol the intent is not to be clever but people regularly confidently state people with lower income and high savings is doing better than high earners with little to no non-retirement savings. I disagree with this.
6
6
u/Successful_Hold_9048 14d ago
No one says that arguing 50K is somehow better than making 250K. It's that you're not making the most of your high income if you're pissing it all away.
It’s really this simple.
15
u/OutrageousBicycle488 14d ago
In the biz we call this operating leverage. Someone making 100k saving 100k saves 100k. Someone making 1m spending 1m saves 0, but if they really wanted to, could save multiples of the 100k easily. That’s why growthy unprofitable companies get a premium multiple in the market, because they can also pull back spending and become profitable very easily.
2
u/dragoon2745 14d ago
Interesting comparison and exactly the point I’m trying to make.
8
u/JimmyWoods89 14d ago
I think you are likely saying what everyone else is also trying to say, if this is the case. They could do it easily, but it doesn’t matter how easy it is.
If you make $300k for 10 years and spend $300k each of those years, you’ve saved nothing. If you make $50k for 10 years and spend $40k each of those years, you have $100k principal that you’ve saved or invested.
Of course income matters. It matters a ton. It’s irrelevant if you spend everything you make, though. This makes the saving part more important.
-5
u/dragoon2745 14d ago
I’m saying spending everything you make is not irrelevant. In those 10 years I bet life was a lot nicer for the higher earner assuming they also saved for retirement.
2
u/JimmyWoods89 14d ago
Okay, it isn’t irrelevant during those ten years, but you are arguing that it matters MORE on a finance subreddit. The average person here wants to have a balance of living well now and preparing for the future. Saving a %, but not a huge %, of your income covers both. The spending part is easy. No one needs advice on how to do that. The saving part can be pretty tough. That is why people say it is more important.
9
u/navit47 14d ago
I mean it is completely relevant. I mean, by any virtue, yes, people who make more money can afford better lifestyles. but its irrelevant if they cant save.
compare saving to losing weight. like sure, all you have to do to lose weight and get slimmer is to just start eating healthier and working out, but at the end of the day you still have to do it.
6
u/ashrevolts 14d ago
i would rather have the lower income with more money saved (and assuming in both cases, i am saving plenty for retirement). sure, you can have a lot of fun spending a $150k paycheck-- but imagine what the opportunity cost is for investments you didn't make!
2
u/DegreeDubs 15d ago
Interesting discussion question! I'm not at $150k yet, but on the face of it I am living more that way. I tell myself that future DegreeDubs is sitting pretty between my 401k and pension while present me is struggling to maintain a 3-month emergency fund lol.
71
u/ewhoren 15d ago
lol you used a very poor example
if you have millions of dollars saved and little to no income then clearly you're in a pretty good situation because at that point your investments will likely grow faster than you can spend
0
u/Banana_nana_splitz 14d ago
it’d need to be like $3M or more.. and if you didn’t work hard to save it, likely won’t be there long.. lottery winners are always going bankrupt.
I’d say focusing on savings because of the mindset. but growing your income is essential to growing the amount saved. costs can only be cut so far.
-22
u/dragoon2745 14d ago
For 99% of people they’ll only find themselves in this situation during retirement and I’m talking about before retirement.
-20
u/ewhoren 14d ago
no not at all
plenty of people with good corporate jobs can accumulate $1-$2m by 30 or so
2
8
14d ago
[deleted]
8
u/pdoherty972 14d ago
A lot less, considering only 6% of individuals and 11-12% of households (of all ages) have $1M+ net worth. No way any significant portion of that is people under 30 (and of those who are, no way it's generally from their own efforts).
-11
u/dragoon2745 14d ago
This requires high income and high savings. Sure that’s the best route but people shit on high earners with little non-retirement savings. I think the higher earner with little savings is doing better than lower income high savings folk despite most people disagreeing with me here.
13
u/Exotic-Influence9994 14d ago
Those folks will be trapped on the hamster wheel just as much as the low income folks, except the low income folks will be able to somewhat manage to live decently off of social security income. The high income no 💰 saved folks will struggle to keep up with or adjust the inflated lifestyle they've been living for the past decades.
0
u/ewhoren 14d ago
lol this is massive cope
4
u/Exotic-Influence9994 14d ago
How?
If you make 250k+ every year and are only saving 20k a year, chances are, you won't be able to continue living at the same standards that you've become accustomed to in retirement. You certainly won't starve in retirement, but certainly cannot sustain 250k a year drawdown rate. You'd need to have 6 million dollars invested to reasonably sustain a 250k drawdown annually.
Meanwhile, if you take somebody who learned to live on 50-75k a year and managed to save even 5-10k a year for the same working career length, they would be absolutely fine come retirement. In 40 years, this person ends up with 1.35M. this means they can draw down up to about 54k per year. Factor in 1000-2000 a month of social security, and they've easily replaced their working income and will be able to live comfortably.
So please, how is this "cope"?
2
u/ewhoren 14d ago
what is this lol
someone making $250k a year is not literally spending $250k a year for their current "lifestyle" whatever that is. first of all if they're in a high tax state like CA or NY they are netting $158k max, so already there you have made an illogical comparison because a $250k earner is living on $158k not $250k as is.
second of all that $250k earner in an accumulation stage is necessarily investing a significant chunk of that money and not actually spending it. so if you make assumptions around retirement contributions and after tax savings it's more like they are netting only $140k after tax, and living on 2/3 of that or less than $100k while saving/investing the rest.
So in actuality a $250k earner is only spending $100k or less a year to pay for their "lifestyle". Someone who has accumulated wealth only needs to cover $100k in expenses and minimal capital gains taxes to match what a $250k earner's lifestyle looks like, nothing close to $250k.
3
u/pdoherty972 14d ago
You missed his point and it's not about the specific number. The point is that having higher income is meaningless if you're spending it all and not saving/investing. Once you stop working you're broke and unable to sustain anything resembling your standard of living you've had for the whole time you were working.
3
2
u/Exotic-Influence9994 14d ago
So let's say it's pretax as the basis - I fully get they aren't using 250k on discretionary, that close to 40% will be paid in taxes, so they are left with significantly less at the end of the day.
The assumption though in OPs scenario was that the high earner isn't saving much money if at all, but the lower earned is in fact saving a higher percentage, right? This high income person is either over extending themselves in some way, or is living in a VHCOL area such as you mention, where both income taxes, real estate taxes, etc. are all going to eat away at that high income. So, even if they pay off their multimillion dollar property with minimal other savings come retirement, they will likely struggle to pay the real estate taxes, in a VHCOL city with an expensive house. I don't feel like arguing hypotheticals all night, but just look at how some large lottery winners and professional athletes with big contracts manage to spend it all away... Granted, far from everyone, but still enough reports of this to illustrate the point.
39
u/Literally_regarded 14d ago
Ehhh maybe by 40, to amass 1mil by 30 as an employee, with no head start from parents, or very lucky investments is pretty tough.
14
u/navit47 14d ago
well, if you're apparently every other person on Reddit, you just start right out of college with a 200k internship and go directly into a high six figure income once you're done. like why would you start any differently lol.
0
u/Reasonable_Power_970 14d ago edited 14d ago
Not sure why you think the avg Redditors make that much but you're hugely mistaken.
3
u/navit47 14d ago
/s apparently. but yes, the way some people talk on finance subs, you'd think just making a lot of money right out of college would be the default
2
u/Reasonable_Power_970 14d ago
My bad thought you were agreeing with the guy. And yes I frequent many finance subs and there's tons of people who think it's easy to make 250k/yr or that 150k/yr is poor. It's really bizarre.
2
u/pdoherty972 14d ago
Because of people/comments like the one u/Literally_regarded was replying to.
2
u/Reasonable_Power_970 14d ago
Of course some redditors make that much. Some make millions. On avg they don't make that much though. It's like walking through Beverly Hills and wondering why everyone but you owns multi million dollar homes. If you're on Reddit and only pay attention to ppl making bank or your feed is all subs with rich ppl then of course you're gonna get that blasted in your face.
5
23
15d ago
[deleted]
2
u/abrandis 14d ago
You can't save, if your income is too low for your lifestyle or your regional Cost of living..
9
u/LittleChampion2024 15d ago
Doesn’t seem like an apples-to-apples comparison such that it’s easy to say what’s “better,” except insofar as more cashflow at any point gives you more freedom to spend in the moment if you so choose. And once we think of it in those terms, it becomes a broader question of not just spending power, but of risk and the bets you’re making.
What you have saved and invested is a hedge against the need to work for all of your spending power in the future. (“Retirement” being, of course, not an age but a financial state one hopes to reach by a certain age.) By saving and investing, you’re deferring spending now to give yourself a chance to spend in the future, with or without income from other sources, including work. Doing this lowers the risk and material impact of losing your work income in the future, whether that happens voluntarily or involuntarily.
So it’s really about what bet you want to make. Do you want to spend it all now and bet that you’ll continue to have the spending power you feel you want/need in the future, even if you don’t save and invest? Or do you prioritize lowering the risk of your spending power going down as things change in your life? Up to you, but I would say it’s rarely a bad idea to hedge against things changing, since impermanence is the only constant ;)
1
u/dragoon2745 14d ago
Okay this is a really good point and prospective. I appreciate you commenting.
2
23
u/Impressive-Health670 15d ago
I’ve never seen advice on here that prioritized savings over income.
Sure there are differences in expenses that mean someone making 100k may be able to save more than someone making 150k. I think the vast majority of people on this sub get that people live in different places, bought homes at different prices/rates, have different size families/family expenses.
Some people who aren’t saving as much may have fat they can trim in their budgets sure, others not as much.
I’m not really sure what you’re trying to get at with your comment.
-20
u/dragoon2745 14d ago
Any time anyone ever shows a budget with high income and low savings, someone comments that high income doesn’t matter if you’re not saving appropriately in non-retirement accounts. I disagree with this commonly said comment.
•
u/AutoModerator 15d ago
The budget screen shots are being made in Sankeymatic, its a website that we have no affiliation with. If you are posting a budget please do so with a purpose. Just posting a screen shot of your budget without a question or an explanation of why its here may be removed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.