Be Patriotic. Spend down your assets you hoarders...

[daylatedollarshort]

I've gotten interested in sustainable living in retirement so I don't see the point of buying more stuff I don't need. We're having a hard enough time trying to declutter as it is.

 

[dunkelblau]

think I'll pass on the upgrade to fyre

 

[ShokWaveRider]

And here I thought for sure you were going to say, "I'm spending my assets....... on wine, women and song... and the rest I'm wasting."

Oh! And that, French & Chilean Wine, Russian Women & Polish Dance Tunes.

 

[googily]

I need a bunch of small-to-medium work done around my house, and have found a contractor who I adore and who does great work and who I trust without question (and I trust his workers, too). But he comes at a premium. I decided, this is exactly the kind of thing I want to splurge on. It's not an insanely excessive amount, but at the same time, how many times have I said, "Man, I would pay good money to have someone I can really count on." And so I am going to. Peace of mind, and keeping me in a house that is extraordinarily valuable, is one way I'll keep Bloomberg happy.

 

[samclem]

Peace of mind, and keeping me in a house that is extraordinarily valuable, is one way I'll keep Bloomberg happy.

And--reward a business that does good work, encouraging their growth at the expense of lesser competitors. A social good!

 

[googily]

And--reward a business that does good work, encouraging their growth at the expense of lesser competitors. A social good!

And it also trickles down some of my stash!

 

[teejayevans]

Browning’s suggestion is that financial planners urge their thriftiest clients to make big purchases–like a second home or a fancy car–before they retire, out of their pot of savings. The idea, he said, is “training people to spend.”


-Agenda? Yup. Spend, spend spend! Because I make money when you spend.


Ridiculous.

But FPs make $ based on your financial assets, so FP LOSE money if their clients spend.

 

[LARS]

I need a bunch of small-to-medium work done around my house, and have found a contractor who I adore and who does great work and who I trust without question (and I trust his workers, too). But he comes at a premium. I decided, this is exactly the kind of thing I want to splurge on. It's not an insanely excessive amount, but at the same time, how many times have I said, "Man, I would pay good money to have someone I can really count on." And so I am going to. Peace of mind, and keeping me in a house that is extraordinarily valuable, is one way I'll keep Bloomberg happy.

Agree 100%. Have a contractor that does excellent work and is reliable, but I pay a premium. And you know what... money very, very well spent.

 

[GrayHare]

Spending purely for the sake of spending is detrimental for an economy because it creates deceptive demand, often rewarding products and services of no real benefit. For example, I could pay crew A to dig a hole, then crew B to fill it back in. I will have spent but have not gained anything worthwhile. That type of spending is the first to cease during the next recesssion.

 

[Chuckanut]

I just bought another pair of First Class airplane rides.

No! No! NO!!!!

You are supposed to spend hours on your computer tracking down the absolutely cheapest seat you can find. Then spend the next weeks or months until you depart, complaining about all the extra charges you have to pay for reserved seats, carry on luggage, food etc. Upon your return home you then spend weeks complaining about the lack of leg and foot space, crowded shoulder-to-shoulder conditions on the plane, lack of storage, etc. etc. etc....

It's a great way travel. Right?

Can you get a refund on the 1st class seats and now do it right??

 

[explanade]

If you're planning to travel a lot, you may want to budget for shipping your computer by FedEx to/from your destinations.

 

[athena53]

And--reward a business that does good work, encouraging their growth at the expense of lesser competitors. A social good!

Yes, that's a luxury of mine, too. My only clothing purchases this year were 2 pair of Birkenstock sandals (made in Germany) and a backpack made in the USA. You can find a lot of products made in the USA just by searching on "--- made in USA". I doubt I spend much more over the long run since cheap products made in developing countries typically don't last as long. Less worn-out junk in the landfills, too.

 

[W2R]

A website which I read but shall not name, castigates all Baby Boomers because according to them we are greedy and spending all our supposedly immense (and supposedly easily earned) wealth on ourselves instead of just giving it away to younger people, the sooner the better.

Yeah, uh huh.

To me the lesson to be learned, is that stereotypes don't often hold, and greediness isn't limited to any one generation of people.

 

[RobbieB]

I did my part, I retired.

Now some recently graduated engineer has his new start in life.

He can work for his dough like I did -

 

[Happyras]

Beginning this year we are increasing our spending by proxy in that we will start giving our 2 kids (in their mid to late 30's) the max we can each year without it needing to be reported. ($14k per person, so $28k each).

There are no grandchildren and none expected so we decided we'd rather begin giving the kids their inheritance slowly over time rather than a big lump sum in possibly another 30 years time when we die.

+1 We started this last year. With the WA estate tax and no portability of exemption to spouse, its either gift it to them or 20% or more later to the state. Still, 28K to each daughter, and 28K to each son in law is not making a dent due to investment returns far out pacing those gifts.

Time to buy the Bentley coup! But I just not old enough for that ride

 

[CardsFan]

I did my part, I retired.

Now some recently graduated engineer has his new start in life.

He can work for his dough like I did -

+1.

I feel I got out of the way, while still useful. The young un's need room to grow, and I had served my time.

Based on some of the feedback I got at the time, there were several who felt I had helped and mentored them. I wished them all well, and maybe I'll see some of them at a future retiree lunch.

That said, It is NOT my job to spend money to help the economy. It is MY job to make sure DW and I have a comfortable retirement, and are not a burden on society. If we leave some money on the table, DS has a head start.

 

[RobbieB]

I never spend dough to help the economy, I spend it to have fun and support people I care about. Helping the economy just happens.

 

[Blueskies123]

Another option would be increase donations to good charities to bump up spending.

 

[Ted_Shepherd]

The author of the Bloomberg article says that inheritances contribute to inequality in the economy. That is simply mistaken. Inheritances almost always proceed from a richer "decedent" to some one or more persons who are less wealthy than the dear departed. This is even more obviously true when the estate is split among multiple heirs. Thus it is mathematically necessary that inheritances have a strong tendency to REDUCE inequality in the economy. That would still be so if the death tax dies. The author's unexpressed beef, probably, is that the "wrong" people are inheriting assets.

 

[audreyh1]

The author of the Bloomberg article says that inheritances contribute to inequality in the economy. That is simply mistaken. Inheritances almost always proceed from a richer "decedent" to some one or more persons who are less wealthy than the dear departed. This is even more obviously true when the estate is split among multiple heirs. Thus it is mathematically necessary that inheritances have a strong tendency to REDUCE inequality in the economy. That would still be so if the death tax dies. The author's unexpressed beef, probably, is that the "wrong" people are inheriting assets.

Thanks for pointing that out. I also noticed this issue. Inheritances are also likely to transfer money from a hoarder to someone (or several someones) much more inclined to spend, IMO.

 

[JDARNELL]

Savings is really just deferred spending. At some point it will be spent by someone in the future. Perhaps my kids or their kids who knows. Most of us make decisions on the margins if the value is there.

Not a lot of things that I am really interested in purchasing at this point in my life. I will spend some money getting the McMansion ready to sell in 18 months but we are downsizing transferring wealth thru paying for kids college. We will also upgrade vehicles in the future but not at this time as insurance with two boys is a killer. Future travel will be a combination of domestic and international so what we do spend will be spread around however with a smaller home base my monthly marginal spending will only got up so much.

Having "stuff" stresses me out. As I get more seasoned in years I want simplification and I suspect with simplification I will naturally spend less. Not planning on it really but I think that is the way it will go. If I could go back in time I would have hung it up before I did at 45. I overshot the target. First world problem.

 

[Music Lover]

Agree 100%. Have a contractor that does excellent work and is reliable, but I pay a premium. And you know what... money very, very well spent.

I'm proud of my DIY skills, but sometimes just can't be bothered to take on some jobs. The BIL of a good friend is a reliable and competent handyman and I now sometimes just pay him to do the job...or the part of the job I don't want to do. This is a change from years ago when I would have never considered paying someone to do a job that I was perfectly capable of doing myself.

 

[Ted_Shepherd]

Be patriotic; in your retirement keep your assets working as the capital that supports worker productivity. People sacrificed current spending and consumer gratification to provide the capital that made your work and mine productive. My employers had huge investments in capital for plants and equipment. Yours probably did too. We can return the favor to new generations of workers. Money has value other than immediate spending. In advocating balance between spending and investing, I'm probably on safe ground. I have never before had so much disposable income. I'm not spending anywhere near as much as I could. That's because I see few things that are worth their currently inflated prices. That doesn't make me a hoarder; it makes me (a small scale) benefactor to working people. That help takes the form of employment (to sustain self-respect) rather than handouts that humiliate.

 

[meierlde]

The author of the Bloomberg article says that inheritances contribute to inequality in the economy. That is simply mistaken. Inheritances almost always proceed from a richer "decedent" to some one or more persons who are less wealthy than the dear departed. This is even more obviously true when the estate is split among multiple heirs. Thus it is mathematically necessary that inheritances have a strong tendency to REDUCE inequality in the economy. That would still be so if the death tax dies. The author's unexpressed beef, probably, is that the "wrong" people are inheriting assets.

Which is why in the past when land was the main asset often primogeniture applied by keeping all the land to the oldest son and providing small sums for other children. (Indeed John D Rockefeller senior had 1 son who inherited almost everything, and gave his daughters annuities to live on.

 

[Sunset]

Beginning this year we are increasing our spending by proxy in that we will start giving our 2 kids (in their mid to late 30's) the max we can each year without it needing to be reported. ($14k per person, so $28k each).

There are no grandchildren and none expected so we decided we'd rather begin giving the kids their inheritance slowly over time rather than a big lump sum in possibly another 30 years time when we die.

It was not clear, but since you are clever, I'm thinking you are saying $28K per child since each of you can gift $14K.