Living with what you need and not to impress others

What's her opinion on spending your amassed fortune on rentboys?

Isn't that basic common sense?

Even if I won the lottery, my ideal house would still be a 2000 sq ft house with well-designed space and— this is key— great windows. A small but beautiful yard.

Yesterday a house went on the market in my area. It’s 1700sq feet, but it’s perfect for me. Unfortunately it’s 1.4M, so I don’t be buying it any time soon. But, that’s the house I’d want if I woke up rich tomorrow.

Money is best spent on experiences, not buying overpriced widgets because "everyone else at work"" or "all my neighbors have one". Worry about your own happiness and wellbeing.

[quote]Isn't that basic common sense?

It is and it's something most people lack. As the saying goes, 'Common sense is not so common'.

No, I disagree. Live within your means, yes. But to live in a specific sized box because you live alone is just another form of trying to impress a certain group.

If you want to live in a five-bedroom home, so be it. Many single people use the extra bedrooms as walk-in closets, a Pilates room, meditation room, art studio, etc. Who the hell is anyone to decide what is best for an individual.

If we were to live with only “what we need,” there would be not luxury products. Does anyone “need” a fancy car, jewelry, ski trips, sail boats?

[quote] so I don’t be buying it any time soon.

mafuckin!

I agree it’s not good to fetishize self-denial. If a big house gives you joy, so be it!

But I’ve found big houses with unused rooms to make me really sad. Not to mention they can be creepy.

I wouldn’t want one.

I’d probably make a bad lottery winner. I don’t have a lot of fancy things, but I also don’t want them.

I’ve also observed throughout my life that once I really look forward to getting some material thing, I almost always feel a little sad once I get it. I sort of instinctively avoid wanting expensive things as a result of this sadness.

Now pets, holiday decor, plants and gardening stuff— yes. I piss away a lot of money on that stuff.

[quote]No, I disagree. Live within your means, yes. But to live in a specific sized box because you live alone is just another form of trying to impress a certain group.

Interesting answer. Who would that certain group be ?

[quote]If we were to live with only “what we need,” there would be not luxury products. Does anyone “need” a fancy car, jewelry, ski trips, sail boats?

We need good quality toiletries such as shower gel and body lotion. Do we need good quality lotion and shower gel with 14k gold-dust in it ? I don't think so. But it's impressive to say that's what you use. (and I sold that crap for many years in my store).

I kind of agree, definitely don’t overspend against long term financial safety and stability. But if you have more than you absolutely need, there’s a justification for some pleasure as well.

My local paper ran a piece today about affordable housing that said affluent people here have been buying or renting homes for themselves that are much cheaper than what they can actually afford, which means less is available for lower income people.

There’s usually a tipping point where you stop getting more quality for increased cost.

I’m happy to go to the “fancy” grocery store in my neighborhood to get produce. Their quality is worlds better than the store where I buy, say, canned goods.

But I won’t go to Erewon or however you spell it. Total waste of money.

Shoes are another good example where it pays to spend a bit more to get greatly enhanced quality (and shoes that last years longer.)

But, you all already know this.

You’d think it was basic common sense. Not too long ago I met a gay couple of a certain age who bragged they’d recently purchased a “10,000sq ft mansion.”

Really? You’re even using the word “mansion”?

What the hell are you going to do with all those rooms?

Pretentious twats.

Peter Thiel, is that you at r1?

[quote]Money is best spent on experiences

So I guess that covers R1.

Suze Orman’s financial advice is how I’m living my life. Live within your means!

I’ve found that if you buy a home and a car based on what you can truly afford, all the rest can be done easily.

Oh please - fuck the two bedroom condo and modest living.

If I had excessive wealth, I'd enjoy every fucking dollar of it. I'd buy a luxurious townhouse/mansion in Philadelphia. I'd hire a staff - a maid dressed as Mamacita, a chauffeur and personal assistants. Of course, I'd take care of my family first, give to charity, and help the needy. It's not to impress others; it's to enjoy life and to make this world a better place. You only live once.

[quote]If I had excessive wealth, I'd enjoy every fucking dollar of it. I'd buy a luxurious townhouse/mansion in Philadelphia.

If I had "excessive wealth" the last thing I'd do is live in Philadelphia.

I would say that one of the worst financial mistakes you can make in life is following the advice of someone like Suze Orman.

Once you move into your 10,000 sq. ft. house, you will discover that down the road, someone has a 20,000 sq. ft. house, which will make you miserable. This is the problem with thinking that having 'things' is the key to happiness. This is not saying you have to live in a tiny place in a crummy neighborhood.

R21 - it's the root of all greed though.

That's why billionaires are never satisfied - they always want more - more than they could ever need and are still empty inside. A pit of endless want.

Scandinavians are raised with a concept of "I have sufficient" - which goes a fucking long way with general equality. Not saying there aren't wealthy Scandinavians with large homes - but they tend to be more modest than these obscene multiple mansions in other countries.

The other problem with too much money is that because you can buy anything you need - then you use it for power over people and politics and society.

Billionaires are a cancer on society and should be taxed to oblivion. You can have an extremely nice life on a few hundred million.

Too much money makes people crazy and immoral - it really does. It should be checked - but that will never happen.

r12 That's one of the many reasons why I disapprove of humanity in general.

R10, the top quote was from my post. The group would be the reverse snobs who look down on (envy, judge?) those whom they may perceive as living a life of excess

When you are financially independent, what may be perceived by others as excess is in reality, your norm. I have two daily drivers one of which is a 2005 Mercedes SLK350. To me, it's a sporty, reliable car I've had forever. Yet to those who see it, it seems to be some symbol of out-of-reach (or out-touch?) wealth. I laugh when I see people admiring my car in a parking lot. To me it's just a 20-year-old car. A damn fun ride, but not any big deal. To them it seems to represent something so much more. I suppose my point is what is considered excess varies by personal socio-economic experiences.

If I had the big bucks, I certainly wouldn't buy a fucking condo.

I'm not buying a piece of something that you constantly have to pay for...oh, and have "partners" you have to meet with and you all have to agree on how to run shit.

Ghastly.

That said, I've never understood the need for a hugeass "mansion" with a dozen bedrooms and 18 bathrooms. The old mansions pre WWII were at least interesting to look at but the later ones and today, all look like medical office buildings or hotels. Gross.

Another disagree here. I lived below my means for years and then, low and behold, I turned 50 by myself during the pandemic.

Now, I'm like, fuck it. I do and spend what I want. You can't take it with you and I wouldn't if I could.

P.S. Suze Orman is a hack. She's now claiming you need AT LEAST 5 million dollars for a "comfortable" retirement.

R25 is right - A lot of the McMansions and newer huge home builds are trying to harken back to a time when the extremely wealthy had those large mansions.

BUT - there was also a reason for those. They had a lot of large parties at home - and had guests stay over. This is before the proliferation of hotels and large places for events like weddings.

If you wanted to entertain, it was a necessity - cultural norms had people staying as guests often. Plus, you had larger families back then.

You also had to have living space for all of the servants - on the upper floors or down below - along with large storage rooms, kitchen facilities, etc. Staff of 10-20 was not uncommon - indeed, some had considerably more, if you include groundskeepers, drivers, etc.

I'm just saying the size of the old mansions were somewhat practical for their needs. The new ones? Not at all. There are rooms just to have rooms - total waste and show-off.

R27 I'm not a huge fan of hers but she's not really wrong about that...if you want to feel safe about the future, I'd aim for at least $5m, too. Inflation is crazy.

And, "comfortable" is subjective. If you want enough money to be able to afford a nice place to live, a nice car, to be able to travel when and where you want, and to be able to give money to worth causes/people who need the money, then $5m is a good target to aim for.

Oh, yeah...and healthcare. It isn't going to get cheaper. At least not in this country. And, senior care. Same.

We like to believe that there’s two distinct lifestyle categories: performative and “authentic”. But it’s more complicated than that. You can enjoy something because it’s high quality and enjoy the status it telegraphs as well. “What we need” is just as subjective as anything else. And opinions are going to very wildly.

R29 Yes. I have been told by people who would know that you can go from $5M to broke in a surprisingly short amount of time, and for a bunch of reasons.

[quote]What's her opinion on spending your amassed fortune on rentboys?

[quote]Isn't that basic common sense?

Suze also says that in order to control your money, you shouldn't go out to restaurants.

With the price increases and mid-quality - I have to agree with her. It's a huge waste of money - although it does serve 2 purposes - food and entertainment.

There's a middle ground here - I don't want to live frugally all my life to finally have the money later and I don't have the social circle to enjoy it or it is so ingrained in me, I can't enjoy a splurge.

Nobody wants to date someone who doesn't want to go out to a restaurant or other entertainment. Some of these behaviors assume you're already partnered up or with a partner who is on the same exact plan as you - and that doesn't happen often.

Really, with food prices as high as they are, there's not much price savings by eating at home anymore. When Safeway is selling a couple of t-bone steaks for $30, you might as well just go to a restaurant.

A fun question for those living in a micro apartment is, “How long will the apartment reek from cooking this?”

If you are rich, I’d greatly advise a pre-war oak-filled apartment - the kind with a built-in ironing board and telephone nook. The HOAs are always low and there’s usually a window in the shitter.

R29, the S&P historical average is 10pc -- slightly less than 7 when accounting for inflation.

Do you really need between 350k to 500k in income as you age? If that's the case, what are you pulling in now?

[quote] When Safeway is selling a couple of t-bone steaks for $30, you might as well just go to a restaurant.

Or stop eating meat. I must be saving a fortune, literally!

I'm big on big old houses. They make *some* sense for me because it's been an academic, professional, and lifelong interest. It's not about impressing anyone with size or ostentation, it's for me, and many if my favorite houses are not showy on the exterior. I'm a private person outside of a few friends, and have no interest on showing off to others.

In that sense I'm indulgent beyond my means, and likewise on art and furnishings. In other ways I'm not extravagant. I don't own a car and wouldn't unless I were very rich. I like quality clothes that last, but they aren't wildly priced nor trendy. I don't follow what other people are doing so I can buy all the same shit. I buy relatively few things new, much more is old. I "consume" a lot, but by way of re-consuming or recycling ownership over decades or centuries. And what new art I buy isn't generally the top stuff that's "killing the planet," it's paint on canvas.

R36 - The problem is being able to survive an unforeseen catastrophic health or financial disaster, which is probably not as uncommon as people think. It's not the $500k annual income they are interested in.

When someone is very wealthy they can easily choose to live to impress. Or they often choose to live luxuriously, which is not the same as "to impress". You might like a big house, and several of them, and expensive gardens - because it is a pleasure. And the staff required to run something like that is keeping the money in circulation.

In the early 2000s I had the opportunity to travel extensively on that era's super yachts. The ships are insanely luxurious yet they employ many many people, and keep a lot of money in circulation, running them. I thought the experience on them was remarkably pleasurable. So it's not just about impressing others, although it is surely that, too. It's about appreciating the objects and experiences that very high wealth can buy.

r37 The good heirloom tomatoes are $6 to $7 a pound here in Seattle. So, you're not saving much by only eating veg.

R41, I live in Calif where it's easy (& cheap) to grow pretty much all vegetables & they're so much better than the supermarket stuff.

R42 That's lovely.

If you own a home with a yard/garden.

I do, R43. And at the rate I'm apparently saving a fortune daily by not killing animals or birds to sustain my own life, maybe I can buy a second one soon! (I do eat fish, but that's pretty cheap here on the westcoast.)

R34 - or even better - slaughter your own cows in your micro-apartment. The money you'll save!

why ok to kill fish to survive but not the little birdies? 🤡

Fair question, R46. The answer is that I've never had a close relationship with fish as I have with animals & birds. I try to avoid bonding with marine life, though there are exceptions in the form of octupuses, lobsters, etc. & I don't eat those. Now don't be like my carnivorous father & badger me about "killing" the poor little tomatoes....

Why not? Broccoli and cabbage scream when cut or damaged.

[quote]What's her opinion on spending your amassed fortune on rentboys?

[quote]Isn't that basic common sense?

I was gonna say. Better than blowing it all on shit to impress others

Seriously I'd rather that than some tacky 15 bedroom/bathroom Mcmansion, or some supercar that I could never drive to its full potential

I'm with R11. Conspicuous consumption because you want to be conspicuous is icky, but let's not be puritanical about spending (when you have the money) either. There is room for generosity but there is also room for joy.

The few generational, truly wealthy folks I have known were not at all what I expected. I was expecting Dynasty's Carrington family . They did not wear trendy or obvious logo designer garments or accessories. Everything they have seemed to be excellent quality and kept that way via care and repair. Their households had a lot of nNon matching china and silver pieces, worn out antique rugs, obviously well used luggage, etc. Seeing them on a street, you might recognize the good haircut, nice watch and quiet confidence, but you won't see a look-at-me-I'm-rich aura. Having a really, really great education seemed a matter of quiet pride.

This is so relevant to me!

R51 "Dynasty's Carrington family" ... it's because, especially nowadays, most TV writers do not hang around (and I mean socialize privately on a regular basis) with those types and don't have the foggiest idea how they live. PS the rugs are wore out because they're 500 years old.

Sorry, Suze, but one of Stan Dixon, Bobby McAlpine, Olson Kundig, etc., WILL be designing my future home. And if it ends up at 10k+ square feet, so be it.

A couple I know married in 1982 (second marriage for both) in their mid-30s. He did investments and made a lot of money. She owned a boutique clothing store and did very well for 10 years, then closed and stayed home (she never wanted to work for someone else). They have no kids. They both had families quite a distance away, and hardly associated with either side.

After a couple of years of marriage, they bought a big, beautiful historic four-bedroom / 2 bath home in a very wealthy neighborhood in my city. They went out to dinner / theater occasionally, but never ever entertained at home. They joined every exclusive country club / beach club, etc. in the state but never attended . She once let it slip out to me that it was worth paying the memberships just so people saw their names on the list.

The only parties / events they attended were work-related for the husband. They didn't have many friends and never entertained at home (the wife was very private and didn't want people knowing 'too much' about her or 'get into her business' as she said). She believed everyone was 'jealous' of their lives -starting with their neighbors. I remember once she said to me, "I want everyone to drive by my house and wonder about our lifestyle", which I thought was rather odd since I don't think that many people cared as everyone had beautiful homes and money in their neighborhood. But she thought they (as a couple) impressed everyone else, for some reason. Gio figure.

Five summers ago, at the age of 72, during the pandemic, they sold their 4 br historic home, and bought a 6 br / 6 bath home on the coast, complete with a guest house and Olympic size swimming pool. No parties, entertaining, or visiting goes on at this house. I just found out today that a month ago, the husband died at age of 77 from a 'severe head injury' (not sure what caused it). Now the wife, pushing 80, is in this house alone. Not sure who is going to do all the upkeep of this home (the husband was in charge of all that).

In my opinion, I think Suzy Orman was right - a 2 br condo was all they needed. At 72 they should have downsized five years ago, not upsize,

Where I live, it's cars. $$$$ cars ....

R56 ... And they are mostly leased via their company because of the tax advantage. It's the same thing where I live.

Look at clothing. So many people are brand conscious, dressing to impress others. It must have killed many gays when Brooks Bros. went bankrupt. Now the label exists, probably stuff made by blind Belgian nuns. And really, what woman needs a $42,000 handbag? There's something sick striving for that!

I don't care about impressing others (and my clothing & car reveal that), but I do like spending money on travel. But I agree about not buying a big house or expensive car just because you can.

R59: same wavelength - modest car, no more coach tickets.

Completely agree with her. DONT spend a huge percentage of your money on housing. 30% tops. Cash in the bank is the thing that truly affects your day to day happiness, stress and contentment. Big houses, fancy cars, and branded clothing is for insecure chumps. Happiness is money for an emergency.

But what if you NEED to IMPRESS OTHERS?

The one thing I would never be cheap about is housing. However much money I had, it would always be the priority to enjoy what measure of luxury I could for my home. Second would be to prioritize travel.

Clothing; cars; fine dining, wine, drink, drugs; expensive creams and lotions and scents and cosmetic alterations; memberships and being at the 'right' places... these are very much lesser priorities if at all.

Having a great home is luxury for yourself, a cocoon in which to enjoy your own tastes and interests. So many of the other things are luxuries aimed more to impress others, more fleeting.

Luxury in housing for me isn't measured in having a gilded ballroom, 37 bedrooms, 48 bathrooms, and a helipad and sports complex. It could as easily be a beautiful two-bedroom apartment with one extraordinary painting, or a great view, or exceptional interiors. It needn't be showy outside, it could be the small but perfect house hidden behind a high hedge, or within the quiet anonymity of an apartment building, as quiet (or flashy if you're that type) as you like.

Warren Buffett lives in a house of 6500 square feet that he bought in 1958 for $35,000. The interior looks like the public rooms of a middle class private nursing home. Obviously housing is not a priority, not that he needs a better house, but he's happy with mid-range Marriott luxuries inside and his focus lies more on amassing more and more money. Aside from its size, there's nothing very luxurious about the place, nothing special, and certainly no flash to it. If I had a fraction of Buffet's money, I wouldn't live in ostentation, but I would have a house or apartment whose architecture and furnishings were something more than the equivalent a Stouffer's Frozen Dinner.

But different people like different things...

Some of the posters here would apparently love my 1900 sq foot house. I do love the look of a large, spacious house. But to be fair, what I have is about as much house as I can handle. I can (just barely ) keep it clean. It has 3 small bedrooms on the upper floor (one is slightly larger with a half bath "en suite") so it functions as the master bedroom. One bedroom is an office/junk room for me, and the other room is a guest room. Because I grew up in an enormous family, I feel I should have 3-4 guest bedrooms and more bathrooms upstairs than I have. (One full, one half). But downstairs I have a large room, which currently is half occupied by two studio grand pianos and the other half is for parents and students to wait during lessons, a laundry room, and a fairly large bathroom.

Other than that, I have a small kitchen upstairs, and a medium sized living room. It's not my dream house, but I own it outright, and I like it because it is full of windows and reasonably light during our lengthy short, dark, and cold winter days. It also has a fairly spacious lot that it's given me great pleasure to landscape with flowering trees, shrubs, flower beds, and vegetable beds. I average one houseguest a year needing my spare room, so why obsess about more? It's fun to do little things to my little house. This past weekend, I have a solar tube installed in my upper, formerly windowless full bathroom. I love it!

Eventually I'm going to want/need a single level house instead of this split entry house. Hopefully there will be one available when my body tells me it's time. 1800-1900 sq feet will be fine for that one too. If I weren't a pianist, 1200 square feet would probably be sufficient.

Or I might die before that day comes. Learning to be happy with what you have is like learning to be happy about where you live. It's a mindset as much as anything else. To always be coveting is not a healthy psychological state.

Yes I've always thought like that, which has allowed me to build some savings that will hopefully mean I can retire earlier than I would have otherwise.

I have some friends and family members who spend, spend, spend and I just think "did you really need that?" but I'd never actually say anything. After all, it's their money not mine.

It's interesting though that those with all the flash watches and cars are viewed as being incredibly wealthy while those who are more frugal (and hence probably have more money) aren't seen that way.

I'm not saying people think I'm "poor" but I never have anyone question why I don't 'upgrade' things, when I've heard them question people with more showy possessions that way. Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying I'm a very wealthy person but I could go and buy a Rolex today if I really wanted one, but I couldn't care less about flashy possessions designed to impress other dickheads.

One thing I meant to say is I have to be careful not to be too frugal as well. I was planning a holiday a few weeks ago and then part of me stopped and thought "hang on, that's quite a bit of money to spend it one go, surely I'd be better off keeping it".

But then I went ahead and booked it because - while I do like being frugal in general - I want to be able to enjoy life as well. I'm glad I did now and I'm looking forward to it!

Suze orman does not follow her own advice and has a rather extravagant lifestyle herself

She's a lez, right?

R66 Sounds more like you were being careful, not frugal. Nothing wrong with being careful on spending money.