What % of income for monthly payment consider okay

Vulcan Rider wrote:

wbwood wrote:
now we have people who want to dictate how others live and spend their money.

The amount of people reading what I said, which was worded pretty simply I think, and not coming close to comprehending the problem I guess, just goes to prove WHY the problem is so bad......and why the recent crisis didn't wake up near enough people.

I am not trying to "dictate" anything to anybody, except maybe education. But on the other side of the coin, I don't think I should have to pay for the care and keeping of people who make better money than I do and, for instance, spend more money on beer in a weekend than they spend on food for a whole week.

I think it is sad when folks spend themselves into poverty.
I think it is a national disease and needs treatment.
I don't think that treatment should be forced on anybody but I think they should be prepared to bear the consequences of their stupidity and not put that off on others.

So, those that disagree with that......exactly what part of it do you disagree with ??

Do you think it is somehow good that as much as 30% of the population is chronically over their heads in debt even though they have steady jobs ?
Do you think it is somehow good that these people repeatedly take bankruptcy about as often as the law allows ?
Do you think it is somehow good that they end up old and feeble and probably sick due to bad choices......and flat broke so that the Government (which really is everybody else) has to take care of them ??

If you think you should be allowed to live like a King and then force others to pick up the bill for you later, I have a serious problem with that.

Education is the key. It should start in grade school but seems to be completely absent.

Then the mere mention of getting back to a sane and responsible financial life plan brings angry responses like this.

SIGH.

First of all, I believe it's more than 30%. No one said that people shouldn't reap the consequences of the choices they make. I am in full agreement on that. What I don't agree with is for you to tell people that they are socially inept because of how they choose to spend their money. How much of taxpayers money goes to things in relation to some people's "issues"? Smoking, drugs, alcoholism, sexual diseases, obesity, heart disease, cancer (some), etc? Don't pick just one....lay them all out in a line. That way maybe some politicians can see the need to enforce the school systems and parents to keep the kids in a straight and narrow line.

Don't get me wrong, I am against welfare. At least long term welfare. I don't think it should be easy, nor do I think it should be a lifestyle. But I don't think it's fair to tell a grown person that if they spend their money or live their life a certain way that they are a bad member of society. If that's the case, then everyone is a bad member. Because I may not agree with how you are dealing with things also.

wbwood wrote:
now we have people who want to dictate how others live and spend their money.

The amount of people reading what I said, which was worded pretty simply I think, and not coming close to comprehending the problem I guess, just goes to prove WHY the problem is so bad......and why the recent crisis didn't wake up near enough people.

I am not trying to "dictate" anything to anybody, except maybe education. But on the other side of the coin, I don't think I should have to pay for the care and keeping of people who make better money than I do and, for instance, spend more money on beer in a weekend than they spend on food for a whole week.

I think it is sad when folks spend themselves into poverty.
I think it is a national disease and needs treatment.
I don't think that treatment should be forced on anybody but I think they should be prepared to bear the consequences of their stupidity and not put that off on others.

So, those that disagree with that......exactly what part of it do you disagree with ??

Do you think it is somehow good that as much as 30% of the population is chronically over their heads in debt even though they have steady jobs ?
Do you think it is somehow good that these people repeatedly take bankruptcy about as often as the law allows ?
Do you think it is somehow good that they end up old and feeble and probably sick due to bad choices......and flat broke so that the Government (which really is everybody else) has to take care of them ??

If you think you should be allowed to live like a King and then force others to pick up the bill for you later, I have a serious problem with that.

Education is the key. It should start in grade school but seems to be completely absent.

Then the mere mention of getting back to a sane and responsible financial life plan brings angry responses like this.

SIGH.

Vulcan Rider wrote:
He really should be asking for professional financial help in learning how to determine that on his own.

And yet you gave him professional financial help by how?

Going on your postings, I suppose you do not do any "careless things" yourself? Hopefully you don't speed, smoke, drink, eat fattening foods, etc...why you can become a burden to the rest of us...

I've thought I've seen it all. I thought the me-me-me thing was bad...now we have people who want to dictate how others live and spend their money.

Ductape wrote:
This is really going sideways now. It was inevitable I suppose.

I'm on the page with Vulcan; it's nobodies business UNLESS people are putting toys ahead of the needs and responsibilities on his list. People who do that, and then want us to support them with social support programs after living the grasshopper life are all our business.

You gotta be kidding me.

To get back to the OP's question, I don't think it's a matter of "percentage of your income" or even "percentage of your disposable income".

It's a matter of how much of your disposable income are you comfortable tying up for a set amount of time. You also have to account for the additional repair/maintenance costs to be incurred. For me, I am finally in a place where I HAVE disposable income. I like being able to go out to lunch, etc. without checking my bank balance. So for me, a smaller payment than average is preferred, so I don't change my current situation. For others, that may be different.

.except that he has to ask someone else how to determine if he can afford his new toy

Wrong again. He's not asking what he can afford, he's asking what others consider when making a decision. Real life experiences can be as valuable or more valuable than a financial planner.

What society thinks matters......because those who become old and infirm and are BROKE become burdens on society.

THAT is a statement of fact by the way it is written. Judge lest ye be judged.

Crowe wrote:
What society thinks matters......because those who become old and infirm and are BROKE become burdens on society.

Sorry, but this has to be one of the most ridiculous statements on here. And possibly one of the most judgmental posts I've ever read.

It is not ridiculous and you are damn right it is judgmental.

We are ***NOT*** talking about people who are in dire straights through no fault of their own; that is what "social programs" are created for, to take care of those who can not take care of themselves.

What we are talking about is those who create their own bad situations because of selfish, greedy, short sighted irresponsible behavior. Unfortunately those kinds of people benefit from social safety net programs just as much as the disabled Vet. does.

Now.....there is no real evidence that the OP is that kind of person.....except that he has to ask someone else how to determine if he can afford his new toy. He really should be asking for professional financial help in learning how to determine that on his own. Teach a man to fish......

Done. I didn't come here to fight.
I state my opinions; take it or leave it but don't try and convince me I'm wrong. It is an opinion.

Having been in the people business for a very long time, and hearing many life stories. I am convinced. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Folks who, save everything, and do little to nothing, waiting for retirement, usually do not end up very well. And on the other end those who spend everything and save nothing, end up badly as well.

I believe it is a balancing act to enjoy life, spend some and save some.

It has been my observation many folks don't balance stuff, all that well. And often end up at one extreme or the other. Not everybody, but more than a few, go to the extremes.

So for me, I don't think the real issue, is, if you wait and pay cash, or if you buy on time. The real issue is, are you balancing your enjoyment of life and your money. After that, either option works, and matters little.

This is really going sideways now. It was inevitable I suppose.

I'm on the page with Vulcan; it's nobodies business UNLESS people are putting toys ahead of the needs and responsibilities on his list. People who do that, and then want us to support them with social support programs after living the grasshopper life are all our business.

What society thinks matters......because those who become old and infirm and are BROKE become burdens on society.

Sorry, but this has to be one of the most ridiculous statements on here. And possibly one of the most judgmental posts I've ever read. What society thinks does NOT matter. Personal decision, period, accompanied by personal responsibility. Where does it state the OP will become old and infirm? Any one of us could become dependent REGARDLESS of whether or not we spend money on an RV. Riddle me this, if you are financially stable, you buy said RV, have a major accident and suffer injuries that require 7x24 care, exhaust all your resources, then become one of those dependent "old and infirm" people you seem to abhor, should you have not bought the RV? Oh, you can't predict that? No kidding. Why should the OP NOT live life the way he wants to on an "if"?