Why do people insist that they can't save anything?

[ScrimpAndSave]

Honestly...I can kinda understand where vole is coming from...and I am a saver.

[whitestripe]

people have to want to save before it ever truly works for them. i have a friend who is in a lot of debt, and she gets money taken out of her account every pay to a savings account. it only takes her about two seconds to decide that she doesn't have enough money for the weekend ahead, and she will be in the bank, drawing it out.

[skylovessea]

What? One shouldn't have to dig into their savings for summer camp? Or tuition? Isn't that what savings are for?

If you are saving specifically for these things, then yes. But some people have different motives when saving. It is a very specific thing and the way that Vole described it made it seem like that's not what the savings mentioned were intended for.

[Well Spent]

I see many of my co-workers, and even relatives, who receive financial aid and breaks not because of misfortune, but because they spent their money and didn't save.

In fact, college advisers suggest buying a new car and having major home renovations done before children apply to colleges.

And isn't it true that those who borrow money and have credit card debt actually have better credit ratings than those who live within their means?

-Dave

You should have to pay for your kids' summer camps. It is a luxury, not a need. Kids who get scholarships for camps would not be able to attend without aid. Scholarships allow kids from impoverished backgrounds to have enriching experiences they would otherwise be denied. It's not kids' fault that their parents don't make enough money for them to do activities.

Financial aid for education is almost all loans. There are very few soley need-based grants these days. There is merit aid from private and public colleges to attract high-performing kids who would otherwise nor attend them. You should have your kids apply to for merit-based grants.

I think making expensive purchases in order to appear poorer to colleges is immoral and just a plain bad idea. You kid will just get more loans. Do you want to pay for school now or do you want your kid to pay later? The college isn't going to pay for it unless they want your kid, then they'll award her merit aid.

[Well Spent]

I don't believe the wrong attitude is present here. One shouldn't have to dig into their savings for things like this. What is the point of saving money if it is just going to end up spent?

Maybe I'm looking that this the wrong way, but that's the way I see it.

Why are you saving money if you don't plan on spending it on worthwhile things eventually?

I believe people should absolutely have to dig into their own savings to pay for homes, education, and summer camps.

[Well Spent]

I agree. In fact, most doctors agree. In 2006, over 60% of prescriptions were filled for generic drugs.

True. Betapace is the brand name, sotalol is the generic name, so yes, I would recommend using the generic, as do most doctors.

This is absolutely not true in my area. I have many Medicaid patients in my practice and finding specialists who accept the insurance is very difficult and sometimes impossible. One company, for example, does not have a participating dermatologist within 60 miles of here. There is only one local orthopedist who accepts one of the Medicaid plans and getting an appointment there is nearly impossible. The only Medicaid physical therapy sites are the 2 local hospitals and they are perpetually booked so getting a new patient in can take weeks or months. If you have an HMO or private insurance, I can make one phone call and have you in with most specialists within 24 hours.

Also not true in our area. Where I live, the only people using public transit are the poor. Everyone else drives.

DisneySteve, the New York Times did an interesting series on class and money a couple of years ago. One segment of the series featured the disparities in health care between the upper middle class and the working class/poor. Like you said, the poor patient had difficulty getting transportation (taking 2 trains and a bus over two hours or something daunting like that) to get to appts. and not having a nearby grocery store for fresh fruits, meats, and vegetables that her doctor prescribed to manage her health problems. The care was worse, too, because the rich patient's doctored ordered all kinds of expensive tests that revealed problems that could be treated now, but the poor patient's doctor gave her the least amount of care possible. It wasn't until she got worse that they were obligated to give her the expensive testing and treatments.

[Investing First Steps]

I think well spent's argument is typical of how discussion on "class" and "poverty" always breaks down. I think everything he says as far as health care being more expensive and difficult for the poor is true, but I think coming to the conclusion that the type of "class warfare" he describes is worthwhile or even prevalent is invalid.

I believe that ultimately people always tend to underestimate their own circumstances, so it only follows that the "rich" underestimate the difficulty of being "poor." All of that said, I think the notion that the rich are actively working with the middle class to oppress the poor, is a bit of a stretch. I think it's more a case of everyone also has a tendency to underestimate the difficulties of other's positions and the potential benefits of making those difficulties easier.

Once again when you invoke "class warfare" imagery and start talking about getting the middle class to help fight the rich, I think that's once again simplifying things. The "rich" (whoever that may be exactly), typically got that money by doing something society needed. Anecdote aside they probably had the skills or resources someone else needed badly, or else someone in their family history did.

I could get into all kinds of discussion about class disparity, causes and solutions, but ultimately I think it's always counter-productive to start invoke "class warfare" imagery.

[vole]

You should have to pay for your kids' summer camps. It is a luxury, not a need.

Yes, it is a luxury. But why should I need to pay while those who don't save get the reduce cost?

I think making expensive purchases in order to appear poorer to colleges is immoral and just a plain bad idea. You kid will just get more loans.

Not quite true. Those parents I spoke with who got financial aid were very happy. They did not get loans.

A comment was made that savings are supposed to be spent. I am saving for a rainy day. I'm saving in case I lose my job or if I can't work. I am also saving for my retirement. Those people who don't save get rewarded while those of us who feel a sense of responsibility pay list price. Those of us who save live more modestly. We miss out on vacations, eating out at restaurants, buying a a new car.

Our government is talking about helping home owners who can't pay their mortgage. Their mortgages are being renegotiated to lower rates. I bought the cheaper house to make sure I could afford my mortgage. I act responsibly and end up with the cheaper house and paying full price for it.

Saving gets penalized. Looks at the interest rates that banks pay on a savings account: 0.5%. My checking account earns more than that. (I now save at ingdirect.com and get 3% in my savings account.)

[disneysteve]

I am saving for a rainy day. I'm saving in case I lose my job or if I can't work. I am also saving for my retirement. Those people who don't save get rewarded while those of us who feel a sense of responsibility pay list price.

You just answered your own question. The folks who aren't saving might get "rewarded" in the short term by qualifying for aid, but those of us who live below our means and save for the future will win out in the end. What happens to those non-savers when they lose a job? How will those non-savers ever retire? What will they do when the rainy day comes? They'll be screwed and you'll be sitting pretty.

[vole]

...but those of us who live below our means and save for the future will win out in the end. What happens to those non-savers when they lose a job? How will those non-savers ever retire? What will they do when the rainy day comes? They'll be screwed and you'll be sitting pretty.

Except that's not the case. My savings are taken away because I'm charged full price and the price is higher than what it should be because I'm subsidizing the "non-savers".

My debts don't get renegotiated, my debts don't get forgiven, I pay full tuition for camps and schools. My kids couldn't go to private elementary or high school because I couldn't afford it.

[Joan.of.the.Arch]

Vole, every place that I can think of that has financial aid for those who cannot afford the camp or classes for children have separate sources for funding the financial aid. The cost of financial aid is not rolled into the price charged those who are paying full price. I know that both as a recipient of such as a child and as a donor to scholarship funds for kids in the last ten years.

[disneysteve]

vole, I can understand being pissed that undeserving people are getting aid, but you're missing my point. If those people are able to qualify for that aid because they have high expenses and no savings, is that really a position that you envy? What happens to them when one of them loses their job? Or their car dies? Or the roof needs to be replaced? There won't be any aid to bail them out when their lack of savings catches up with them.

So you can't afford private school. Neither can I (not that I would have sent DD to one even if I could). But that's a short-term want. I'd much rather be living below my means and taking care of all of our needs, present and future.

So while I agree with being upset about the people who cheat the system, I certainly wouldn't want to be in their shoes later on when their poor planning leaves them in serious trouble for which there is no financial aid.

[vole]

...If those people are able to qualify for that aid because they have high expenses and no savings, is that really a position that you envy?

I don't envy their position. I just resent the breaks and the financial assistance they get, a reward, for acting irresponsibly.

So you can't afford private school. Neither can I (not that I would have sent DD to one even if I could). But that's a short-term want. I'd much rather be living below my means and taking care of all of our needs, present and future.

The public schools where I live are terrible and very inferior to the private school. Why don't I have the same choice as those not saving? As for future needs? All the signs point to means tests for SS and Medicare. I get penalized again.

So while I agree with being upset about the people who cheat the system, I certainly wouldn't want to be in their shoes later on when their poor planning leaves them in serious trouble for which there is no financial aid.

The non-savers are not cheating. They are playing the game correctly. Serious trouble comes, and the savers still lose everything. In fact, even without serious trouble public and private policy looks to take savings away from people. Inflation eats away the value. Equities investing to protect against inflation is a roulette wheel with numbers on the wheel called Enron, Qwest, Madoff, Adelphia, AIG, and too many more to list.

No, I think the old values of savings have changed in this economy of paper money and giant corporations. Those that keep to outdated strategies will end up losing, just as those in outdated industries disappear.

-Dave

[disneysteve]

No, I think the old values of savings have changed in this economy of paper money and giant corporations. Those that keep to outdated strategies will end up losing, just as those in outdated industries disappear.

I'm curious what you propose doing instead of saving for the future.

[kork13]

I'm curious what you propose doing instead of saving for the future.

I think the best answer is clearly quite simple: Start wearing cardboard boxes as clothing, tin foil on our heads, and wait for the end to come.


Really now?