While there is no age limit, bear in mind that saving money makes sense only if it doesn't delay your paying off expensive debt.

If you have credit cards or expensive loans you would be best placed to focus on paying them down before saving a lot.

If you save and keep debt, you'll effectively lose money as the interest on your debt will usually be higher than you can earn on savings.

Having said that, it's worth saving a small amount anyway to have as an emergency fund.

As you pay off your debt, start saving the money you no longer have to pay out and it will soon pay dividends.

As AskAboutGadgets notes, there's no lower age limit.

You current age (24) is a pretty good one; you'll have four decades or so for your money to grow and compound, allowing it to become a veritable fortune when you're ready to retire if you invest it fairly aggressively.

Are you working?

Does your employer offer a 401(k)

and if so, is there any match?

Saving should be taught to kids at the same time they are old enough to get an allowance.

There are many numbers tossed around, but 10% is a start for any new saver.

If a college graduate can start by saving even 15%, better still.

If you find that the 10% is too much, just start with what you can spare, and work to build that up over time, perhaps by splitting any future raises, half going toward savings, half to spending.

Good luck.

As an example, I'm opening a Roth IRA for my 12 year old daughter,

a 10 year head start on her retirement savings.

She made good money this summer baby sitting.

She's 14 now.

Three deposits to the Roth total $6000, and she's planning to up the number this year.

Her goal is to have $50K saved in her Roth by the time she graduates college.

Age 18 and off to college next month.

Just under $24K, all invested in an S&P low cost index.

We are planning to continue deposits of $4-$5K/

yr, so the $50K is still a good goal.

She turned 21 last month.

Third year of college.

The Roth is just shy of $45K, 2018 ended with the S&P down 4.4%, but the deposit was more than this, so the account still grew.

And YTD, S&P up 28% really helped.

2020/21 deposits point to a balance

over $50K by graduation even if the next 18 months are flat to down a bit.

money.stackexchange.com/users/187/JTP - Apologise to Monica

There is no age limit in fact, the sooner you start the better - the sooner the money starts to compound.

There is an old Chinese proverb that I find really motivating: The best time to plant a tree

was 20 years ago.

The second best time is now.

As all said, the age limitation thing is nothing, and saving money not necessarily means to live poor nor Skimpy, spend your needs and try to get what you need instead of what you want,the 24 years old is a good start for saving money, the whole life still in front of you Good luck!

It's nearly always a good idea to save for your future, if you don't already have sufficient funds to see out the rest of your days.

The hardest part of the saving decision is knowing exactly what portion of your funds to save.

If we save too aggressively, we risk having an adverse impact on our everyday life and, of course, there's always the possibility that we'll never make it to old age.

But if we don't save, we risk the prospect of a poverty stricken retirement.

It's not always easy to find a balance.

The best solution is to make so much money that we cannot possibly spend it all!

You've never saved money?

Have you ever bought anything?

There probably was a small window of time that you had to pool some cash to buy something.

In my experience, if you make it more interesting by 'allocating money for specific purposes' you'll have better results than just arbitrarily saving for a rainy day.

Allocate your money for different things (ie- new car, emergency, travel, or starting a new business) by isolating your money into different places.

Ex-

your new car allocation could be in a savings account at your bank.

Your emergency allocation can be in cash under your bed.

Your new business allocation could be in an investment vehicle like a stocks where it could potentially see significant gains by the time you are ready to use it.

The traditional concept of savings is gone.

There is very little money to be earned in a savings account and any gains will be most certainly wiped out by inflation anyway.

Allocate your money, allocate more with new income, and then use it to buy real things and fund new adventures when the time is right.

Question: I am around 24. I've never saved money. I don't know when I should start or stop saving money.    Is there an age where I should stop saving money?  Is there an age when I should start saving money?

At what age should I start or stop saving money?

There is no lower age limit for saving money, as long as it doesn't stop you from paying off a debt. The sooner the start the better and it is always a good idea to save for your future.

There is no age limit to start saving and any time is a good time to start putting money away for the future. However, it is not a good idea to be saving if you still have debts that need to be paid.

There is no age limit for saving and any time is a good time to start saving money for the future.

It is not a good idea to start saving if you still have debts that need to be paid.

24 is a perfectly good age to start saving.


John's answer is similar to what I was thinking.

You should invest in insurance "because there's an insurance salesman who needs to pay to send his kid to college."

I will never be a fan of any type of permanent insurance, and I think it wrong to sell a single person with no dependents such a policy.

I've used the expression "Variable Annuities are sold, not bought.

" I feel the same about these insurance policies.

The best advice I can offer in a short reply is this: If you need life insurance, buy term.

Save as much as you can, 10% minimum, more if you are able.

A young person should be saving for retirement and to position them self to buy their first house, if that's what they wish.

What good is a full up Whole Life policy when you need to raise $40K to put down on a house?

Sorry to sound like I'm lecturing, this is one of my hot points.

money.stackexchange.com/users/187/JTP - Apologise to Monica

I can tell you the reason the people who are calling you think you ought to use life insurance as an investment.

What they will tell you : It is a way to avoid taxes.

What they are thinking

: It is a way for me to sell an investment with a huge commission.

Whole life insurance as an investment really doesn't make sense for all but a very small minority of investors.

If you have people that depend on your income to survive, buy term life insurance.

It is much more practical and affordable.

Who depends on you?

I personally wasn't insured until I had a family.

Of course I had the required insurance policies like auto, but no health until I was 29 and had a kid who needed me.

Now I have health, dental, vision, life, auto, homeowners and renter's insurance.

I can't let an accident or disaster affect my baby's future.

Insurance isn't an investment.

It's a hedge against your untimely death, and is meant to replace the potential income that will be lost by not having you there to provide for your family.

Buy term, and invest the difference.

Traditional investments will outperform the insurance fund, as well as offering more flexibility.

As a 24 year old, single,your needs for insurance are minimal.

Why you might consider it are for these reasons.

You are young, so it will be cheaper than buying say at 34.

Insurance is always on sale.

Two, there is no guarantee that your health will always be good, you may have to pay additional premiums later or even be refused coverage.

Ask me, I pay 70% more than others my age for the same coverage.

Three, insurance ownership with equity values can grow tax free as you accumulate the monies.

Consider it like a bond portfolio offering guaranteed returns on portions of the growth, and a long term return of 5.5% or slighly more.

Four, stating sooner versus later means more cash buildup.

Just like being in a pension will generate more cash for you by age 65, than if you had started at age 34.

Insurance is only one tool in getting a good start.

It is not a panacea.

Question: As i am 24 now i get lot of calls from lot of insurance companies asking to take up an insurance policy.... So i decided to get answers for some of my questions in basicallymoney...   Why should i invest my money in insurance?  What age would be appropriate for investing money in insurance?

Why should I invest my money in a life insurance policy?

It is better to buy term life insurance and then invest the difference. However, you need for insurance at your age are minimal and you could wait until you have a family.

You may wish to buy term life insurance if you have a family or dependents. In all other cases, there is little point.

You may want to buy term life insurance if you have a family or dependents.

If you don't have dependents, there is little point in buying life insurance.


Not to be a downer...

but: Another thing to consider is an update to your "accounts document".

By that I mean, your list of banks, account numbers, insurance policies, access information, etc.

I'm told that keeping this information up to date and attached to your will can make a lot of things go far smoother in the event of an untimely passing.

I should probably get on that myself...

You should pull your credit report from all the credit reporting agencies annually to make sure only the accounts you know of are being reported.

You should also update your Net Worth Statement as well as an inventory of all your assets.

Unfortunately these are extremely time consuming, but in the event that you pass away your loved ones will know all of your finances and it will be easier for them in a very difficult time.

The Net Worth Statement compiles just that, your net worth.

The net worth is compiled by subtracting your liabilities from you assets.

Assets include things such as cash, money in accounts, all estimated value of your household items, any life insurance, bonds, mutual bonds, and retirement money.

The liabilities include amounts such as your mortgage, second mortgage, car loans, unsecured loans, credit cards, student loans, and life insurance loans.

This statement is a great way to track year to year how you are doing on your finances and if you are where you need to be in order to retire when you would like.

The Inventory is also very important.

This is used in the event that you have a fire or some sort of disaster that requires you to give a statement of any items you had in your home.

This is a very difficult thing to go through, and having this statement ready to hand over only makes thing easier.

There are a couple ways to do this.

Some people take pictures of everything they have in their house and make notes of prices and values, some people take a video of the whole house, and some people write down item by item on the computer or on a piece of paper.

Whatever way you would like to do

it is fine, what works for one person does not necessarily work for the other.

Plenty!

Following are just a few:

For things like RESP and RRSP which have an "end" date; as you or your children age, you should be migrating to less speculative investments and more secure ones.

When children are young, for example, you might be in a "growth" type fund.

Later on, you would likely want to switch that to an "income" fund, which is also more conservative and less likely to lose principal.

Are you getting the best benefit from your credit cards?

Is there another card with benefits that you would get more "back" from using? Is that fee-based Air miles card worth it?

Is cash-back better for you?

If you have regular investment withdrawals, can you increase them?

Do you like the plan they are going in to?

Similarly look over any other long-term debt repayment.

Student loans, car loans, mortgage.

What is coming up this year, what is "ending".

If, for example, car payment will end, how will you earmark that money, so it just does not disappear into general funds.

While you could go over things like these more often, once a year should be plenty often to keep tabs and not obsess.

Good Luck!

Things I do annually: Estimate car depreciation Price shop for car insurance Review credit report for errors and get a general sense of who reports what, and who's looking at it.

Taxes (duh!)

Re-evaluate my W4 Consider moving some extra savings into my Roth IRA.

Tweak retirement money allocation to target age appropriate holdings.

Question: In order to maintain the health of your finances, do you do any particular activity on an annual basis that you would recommend that might benefit others?  Say, a "spring cleaning" of some sort?

Spring cleaning for your finances? Is there any activity that should be done annually, with respect to your money?

You should look annually at your insurance contracts and check your credit rating. Consider moving some savings around and think about you taxes. Do an inventory of all your assets.

There are number of things that you might want to consider doing annually, such as checking your credit report for errors or reviewing any savings or investments. You will also have to pay taxes on a yearly basis. Another activity that may be worth doing is an inventory of your assets to update your net worth statement.

Each year you may wish to check your credit report for errors.

You might want to review any savings or investments make sure they are in the best location.

You should review and pay your taxes each year.

You might want to do an inventory or your assets and update your net worth statement.


The word you're looking for is usury - the crime of lending money at rates above an amount set by law.

In Canada section 347 of the Canadian Criminal Code makes it illegal to charge more than 60% annually.

Since most Canadian credit card annual interest fee is below this they are within that legal limit.

However this is limited only to the rate and not necessarily a cap on the absolute interest charges.

In the U.S., each state has its own local usury law.

This website has a separate page for each state summarizing the local usury law and provides a reference to the local statute.

The rules aren't simple: some set absolute limits, some appear to be pegged to something like the Prime Rate, some states don't have a general usury limit, the rules don't apply to certain loans because of the type of loan or lender, etc.

There are US Federal laws dealing with usury, primarily in the context of racketeering -- the RICO Act lets the Feds go after racketeers that violate local usury laws beyond certain parameters.

In the US, usury is complicated and depends on the type of account, the bank charter and the where the bank makes credit decisions.

Most major US credit cards are issued by entities in Utah, South Dakota and Delaware.

None of these states have usury limits.

Many states have usury limits.

In New York, for example a loan may not exceed 16% interest, if the institution is supervised by the State.

Credit card issuers are usually chartered as "National Associations" (ie Federally chartered banks regulated by the Comptroller of the Currency).

There is no Federal usury statute, and Federally chartered banks are allowed to "export" many of the regulations of the state where credit decisions are made.

Small states like South Dakota basically design their banking regulations to meet the needs of the banks, which are major employers.

What are those maximums, and do all countries have them?

Usury, lending money for any interest at all, used to be anti-biblical: it wasn't a Christian thing to do, and so in Christian countries it was Jews who did it (Jews who were money-lenders).

Asking for interest on loans is still anti-Koranic: so Islamic banks don't lend money for interest.

Instead of your getting a mortgage from the bank to buy a house, the bank will buy the house, which you then buy from bank on a rent-to-own basis.

Further details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury

In the EU, you might be looking for Directive 2000/35/EC (Late Payment Directive).

There was a statutory rate, 7% above the European Central Bank main rate.

However, this Directive was recently repealed by Directive 2011/7/EU, which sets the statutory rate at ECB + 8%.

(Under EU regulations, Directives must be turned into laws by national governments, which often takes several months.

So in some EU countries the local laws may still reflect the old Directive.

Also, the UK doesn't participate in the Euro, and doesn't follow the ECB rate)

Question: When I worked in the corporate world, I remember dealing with a company from the U.K. who cited a U.K. regulation on maximum interest/finance charges that necessitated a change in their contract.  What are those maximums, and do all countries have them?

Is there a law or regulation that governs the maximum allowable interest amount that can be charged on credit cards or in agreements where credit is extended?

Canada has a law making it illegal to charge more than 60% annually. In the US, each state has its own law, in New York it is 16%.

Such legislation is known as 'usury legislation' and is governed on a state-by-state basis in the USA and varies between countries.

The legal term for this is 'usury' and such legislation aims to prevent interest rates from exceeding a certain limit.

In the USA, there is no federal usury legislation and it varies on a state-by-state basis and between countries.


Now, if you're still intrested, Mint.com works also for Canadian banks.

Mint Canada

Yodlee will also work.

I asked a similar question (and provided answers) here .

Thrive, so far, is the best in my opinion.

Their tech support is top notch and their UI is far superior to Yodlee's (which provides the backend for Mint).

I use MoneyStrands (formerly called Expensr), but mostly just to track expenses and look at reports on my spending habits.

It has some really pretty charts, with the ability to drill down into categories and sub-categories, or graph monthly spending for any custom date range.

It does a half-decent job of auto-categorizing the imported bank transactions, and you can set up additional rules for common vendors, but I still have to do some manual work after each import.

It does a good job of integrating my credit cards, bank accounts, and I can even manually add cash transactions.

It has some basic budgeting capabilities, but they're not very useful for someone who needs to carefully budget thier monthly spending.

Another one I've heard about is mint.com, but it only supports American banks (last I heard, anyway).

Here's a link with comparison of various online and offline PF software: http://personalfinancesoftwarereviews.com/compare-personal-finance-software/

Now, keep in mind I'm biased because I'm an engineer at this company, but FutureAdvisor.com provides advice on your savings and investments.

We currently help users optimize their portfolios for retirement savings, but plan on rolling our more savings goals in the future.

CashBase has a web app, an iPhone app and an Android app, all sync'ed up.

It doesn't integrate with banks automatically, but you can import bank statements as CSV.

Disclosure: Filip is CashBase's founder.

Question: I'm looking for an intuitive free to use personal finance management web application. There's a whole bunch of them out there and the few that seems modern are:  www.buxfer.comwww.wesabe.comwww.budgetpulse.commoney.strands.comwww.moneytrackin.comwww.justthrive.com  I plan to try each one of them but that might take me a while to find my perfect match. Which personal finance web app do you guys use or recommend?  EDIT  I've already checked out Mint, it's for US users only.  I'm looking for a web app for Canadian or International users.

What's a good personal finance management web app that I can use in Canada?

Mint also works for Canadian banks. You can also use Yodlee, Thrive and Moneystrands. Cashbase and Futureadvisor also offer advice on savings and investments.

The answer to this question will be subjective, but some suggestions include Mint, Yodlee, MoneyStrands or CashBase.


First off, you generally want to park your emergency fund somewhere

that is "safe", meaning something that is not subject to market fluctuations.

Your emergency fund is something you need to be able to count on when times are tough!

That rules out things like stock market investments.

Secondly, you need to think about how quickly you will need access to the money.

If you have an emergency, odds are you don't want to be waiting around for weeks/months/years for the money to become available.

This rules out most fixed-term investments (Bonds, traditional CDs, etc).

If you are concerned that you will need near-instant access to your emergency money, then you probably want to keep it in a Savings or Money Market Account at the same bank as your checking account.

Most banks will let you transfer money between local accounts instantly.

Unfortunately, your local bank probably has pitiful interest rates for the Savings/MMA, far below the inflation rate.

This means your money will slowly lose value over time.

Be prepared to keep contributing to it!

For most people, being able to draw the cash from your fund within a few days (<1 week) is sufficient.

Worst case, you charge something on your credit card, and then pay down the card when the emergency fund withdrawal arrives.

If "money within a few days" is okay for you, there are a few options: Money Market (Mutual) Funds (not to be confused with a Money Market Account ) -

This is the traditional place to keep an emergency fund.

These are investment funds you can buy with a brokerage account.

An example of such a fund would be Fidelity Cash Reserves .

MMFs are not FDIC insured, so they are not exactly zero risk.

However, they are considered extremely safe.

They almost never go down in value (only a few times in the past few decades), and when they have, the fund manager or the Federal Govt stepped in to restore the value.

They usually offer slightly better return than a local savings account, and are available in taxable and non-taxable varieties.

Online High-Yield Savings or Money Market Account

- These are a relatively new invention.

It's basically a the same thing as what your local bank offers, but it's online-only.

No local branch means low overhead, so they offer higher interest rates (2.0% vs 0.5% for your local bank).

Some of them used to be over 5% before the economy tanked.

Like your local bank, it is FDIC insured.

One bit of caution: Some of these accounts have become "gimmicky" lately.

They have started to do things like promo rates for a few months, only offering the high interest rate on the first few $K deposited, limiting the amount that can be withdrawn, etc.

Be sure to read the details before you open an account!

No-Penalty CDs - Certificates of Deposit usually offer a better rate than a Savings Account, but your money is locked up until the CD term is up (e.g. 36 months).

If you need to cash out before then, you pay a penalty.

Some banks have begun to offer CDs that you can cash out with no penalty at all.

These can offer better rates than the savings account.

Make sure it really is no-penalty though.

Also watch what your options are for slowly adding money over time.

This can be an issue if you want to deposit $100 from every paycheck.

Rewards Checking Accounts - These are checking accounts that will pay a relatively high interest rate (3% or more) provided you generate enough activity.

Most of them will have requirements like you must have direct deposit setup with them, and you must do a minimum number of debit card transactions from the account per month.

If you can stay on top of the requirements, these can be a great deal.

If you don't stay on top of it, your interest rate usually drops back to something pitiful, though.

Personally, we use the Online High-Yield Savings Account for our emergency fund.

I'm not going to make a specific recommendation as to which bank to use.

The best deal changes almost week to week.

Instead, I will say to check out Bankrate.com for a list of savings accounts and CDs that you can sort.

The Bank Deals blog is a good place to follow rate changes.

I would suggest your local credit union or local bank for security and liquidity.

Liquidity is probably the most important issue for a emergency fund.

This is probably a good time to note that credit is not a liquid asset, and not an emergency fund.

Credit can be revoked or denied at any time, and Murphy's law states that you may have issues with credit when everything else goes wrong too.

I am using ING for my emergency savings, but sometime last year I discovered SmartyPig.

As of 4/24/2010 they offer 2.1%, which is even better than the 1 year CDs at most banks.

I've switched two small accounts to SmartyPig and plan to switch my emergency savings.

Their accounts are geared around monthly contributions, but you don't have to use that feature.

Something with an FDIC guarentee, so a bank.

With an emergency fund, I think the 'return of capital' is more important than the 'return on the capital', so I'm fine with putting it in a standard savings account in a local bank(not an internet account) even if it pays next to nothing.

The beauty is that since the bank is local, you can walk in and withdraw it all during any weekday.

Question: This is the US companion of the same question for Canadians  Where can I park my rainy-day/ emergency fund? .  Basically I want to know what options I have for my emergency fund?

Where should I park my rainy-day / emergency fund?

Some banks have started to offer CDs that you can cash out without a penalty and these offer a better rate than a Savings account. You can also try an online high yield account with a bank or Money Market if you can wait a few days for your money.

The answer to this question will be subjective and will depend on how quickly you want access to your money. Ideally, you will want to desposit your fund with a bank, and they will have a range of options for you to choose from. However, if you're prepared to wait for your money, Certificates of Deposit or Money Market Funds might be an options for you.

Certificates of Deposit might be a good option if you're not looking to retrieve your money quickly

Ideally, you want to deposit your money with a bank, and they will have a range of different accounts or facilities on offer for such a purpose.

Money Market Funds might be a good option if you're not worried about waiting a few days for your money.


I'm familiar with the quote.

The institution you donate to can keep you anonymous.

The person actually benefiting is not aware of your generosity.

This is how I understand the biblical meaning.

By the way, a number of people who donate, do not take the tax deduction, so as to not benefit.

To them I suggest they calculate the refund, and add that to their donations the next year.

money.stackexchange.com/users/187/JTP - Apologise to Monica

In the US: You can use an intermediary site like justgive.org or Network For Good .

Network For Good charges 5% and JustGive charges 4.5% for the service.

I've no experience with either site to recommend them or otherwise.

In the UK: You can set up a CAF (Charities Aid foundation) Charity Account .

This allows you to donate to charities anonymously, while still allowing the recipient to benefit from Gift Aid (where they can reclaim the income tax you'd paid on the donation).

You can even use this account to donate to overseas charities if you're donating at least £250.

Or you can use a different intermediary such as BT MyDonate or The Big Give or another intermediary.

See the Wikipedia article "Comparison of online charity donation services in the United Kingdom" .

In Canada: You can use an intermediary site.

As of April '16, it looks like the only options are

CanadaHelps (which is itself a registered charity) and Chimp .

Each website charges a fee for its services — either a percentage or a flat fee.

Each website accepts several methods of payment, including credit cards and other options.

You will get a tax receipt for your donation.

If there's a United Way charity in your country, it may have a donor choice program which may be able to forward a designated donation to any other charity in your country.

The United Way probably charges a fee for this service.

I'm not sure whether or not the United Way would be willing to keep you anonymous, and I'm not sure whether or not the United Way would add you to its mailing list.

More details may be available elsewhere online.

Can you get a cashier's check from your bank, made out in the charity's name, and mail it to the charity?

From what I recall of the last few times I've gotten a cashier's check from the bank, it didn't have anything on it that identified me.

A determined person could probably trace it back to you, but you're not really looking for strong anonymity.

Another possibility would be a postal money order, but I'm not sure whether you can leave the "From" section blank.

The money order would have a fee, but the cashier's check should be free.

(It is at both my local bank and my CU.)

How big or frequent of a donor are you?

For larger donors in the U.S., there is the Donor Advised Fund .

You donate to the DAF, and the money can either be re-donated onward to a charity of your choice, or stay there and be invested (the choices are similar to a 401K, index funds, bond funds, etc.), and later donated .

As far as anonymity, you simply tell the DAF that you want to be anonymous when you re-donate.

The DAF takes care of it, and is the donor of record.

The DAF is a charity itself , and you take the tax deduction at the time you donate to the DAF .

So in that sense, it's like an IRA for charitable donations.

This lets you time-shift your donations: you can make a big lump sum donation one year and meter it out in future years.

I do that myself, and it's a good way around the Trump tax changes (which doubled the standard deduction, which kills deductibility for most people who had it before; this has hurt charities badly).

Also, many DAFs have an "initial price of entry" around $5000, so that plays well with that.

The DAF keeps you honest, and protects you from flim-flams.

They do the research, and will only donate to bona-fide charities.

It lets you shut down cold any fundraisers who accost you on the street; "I donate a different way; I'll need your EIN."

End of conversation.

It also stops private fundraisers, who send most of that junk mail and take your money , only giving the residue "after expenses" to the charity.

Some charities have gotten only 9% of the money.

The DAF also handles "complex" gifts that the charity would be ill-equipped to handle directly.

For instance it's always better to donate appreciated stock, rather than sell the stock.

In other words, let the charity pay the capital gains tax, at its rate of 0%.

But your local SPCA is ill-prepared to accept stocks .

So you donate to the DAF and they liquidate it for you.

They can also handle very complex donations like apartment buildings, musical rights, etc.

My DAF tells me about 60% of their total contributions are immediately re-donated, so clearly, this "convert my weird gift for me" function is widely used.

money.stackexchange.com/users/44366/Harper - Reinstate Monica

If I were donating money to a charity, i.e. an organization set up to help others, I would simply send them the money and ask that my name not be used in publicity.

That would mean that the person(s) actually benefiting from my donation didn't know who I was.

The charity would know, but they don't themselves benefit.

Question: I would like to donate some money to a charity, but I would rather  they not know who donated it .  How could I go about this if cash isn't an option?

How to donate money anonymously?

You can use an intermediary site like justgive.org. You can also send the money and ask not to be named publicly.

There are a number of options available to you, although the simplest is probably to donate via an intermediary. In the UK, it is also possible to set up a Charities Aid Foundation to keep donations private. Other options include postal money orders or simply asking the charity to keep your details private.

You could use a postal money order, but it is unclear whether this provides you with complete anonymity.

You could simply request that the charity keep your details private.

In the UK, it is possible to set up a Charities Aid Foundation to keep your donations private.


There is no accounting reason that it should be different, there are likely psychological reasons that it should be, however.

Assuming that you live in a western country with good banking regulation, you likely have deposit insurance or a similar scheme.

Here in Canada we are covered up to $100,000 in a single account with various limitations.

At least my rainy-day account plus savings is nowhere near that, so I'm good to go.

That said, however, having a large lump of money in an account you regularly use may tempt you more than you can stand.

That iPad, car, home improvement, etc., might be too easy to buy knowing

you have relatively easy access to that money.

So it really becomes a self-discipline question.

Good Luck

I see two ways to look at it: Discipline:

If you keep your emergency fund in a separate account, you will be less likely to dip into it when tempted by a big purchase or investment.

Maximize Earnings: If you keep your emergency funds in the same account as your general savings, then the higher balance can sometimes swing you into a higher interest earning rate bracket (depending on your banking institution and balance).

i think emergency fund should be in a more liquid account (like regular saving or money market)

so you can withdraw money any time, while your regular saving can be tied up in a long term CD, bond or an investment account.

I keep several savings accounts.

I use an online-only bank that makes it very easy to open a new account in about 2 minutes.

I keep the following accounts: Emergency Fund with 2 months of expenses.

I pretend this money doesn't even exist.

But if something happened that I needed money right away, I can get it. 6 6-month term CDs, with one maturing every month, each with 1 month's worth of expenses.

This way, every month, I'll have a CD that matures with the money I would need that month if I lose my job or some other emergency that prevents me from working.

You won't make as much interest on the 6-month term, but you'll have cash every month if you need it.

Goal-specific accounts

: I keep an account that I make a 'car payment' into every month

so I'll have a down-payment saved when I'm ready to buy a car, and I'm used to making a payment, so it's not an additional expense if I need a loan.

I also keep a vacation account

so when it's time to take the family to Disneyland, I know how much I can budget for the trip.

General savings: The 'everything else' account.

When I just NEED to buy a new LCD TV on Black Friday, that's where I go without touching my emergency funds.

We put our fund in a local credit union that we only use for the emergency fund.

We have a savings account that sweeps all funds into a 6 month CD that automatically renews upon maturity.

We pretty much don't think about it, and make a deposit with our excess savings after we pay our property taxes in January and school taxes in September.

Why?

When my wife and I set it up the emergency fund, the purpose is to have a cushion against emergencies, not earning money or having convenient access.

We wanted access to the money to be onerous enough that neither one of us could pull money out of without calling someone or driving over to the branch.

We even opted not to take an ATM card.

In the event that we need the money, we can terminate the CD early and pay a 3 month interest penalty.

With $10k, that translates to about $25.

Question: Should your rainy day / emergency fund be in the same account as general savings?

Should your rainy day / emergency fund be in the same account as general savings?

The reason is more psychological than anything. You may be tempted to spend it.

Whilst there is no accounting reason why you should treat your rainy-day fund differently from other savings, keeping it in an account which is easily accessible could tempt you to spend it on something unnecessary.

From an accounting perspective, there is no reason why your rainy-day fund should be treated any differently from other savings.

If your rainy-day fund is kept in an account that is easy to access, it may be more tempting for you to spend it on something unnecessary.


There seems to be a lot of speculation here.

How about a few concrete sources ?

From the U.S. Department of Labor : The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) does not require payment for time not worked, such as vacations, sick leave or federal or other holidays.

These benefits are matters of agreement between an employer and an employee (or the employee's representative).

From the Missouri Department of Labor & Industrial Relations : Employers are not required to provide vacation pay, holiday pay, or severance pay — these are benefits given at an employer’s discretion.

The exception would be instances where an employer has entered into a contract where certain benefits are established by agreement.

From the New York Department of Labor :

Q: Must an employer pay workers for holidays, sick time and/or vacations?

A:

Under the New York State Labor Law, payment for time not actually worked is not required unless the employer has established a policy to grant such pay.

Holidays, sick time and/or vacations fall under 'time not worked.'

When an employer does decide to create a benefit policy, that employer is free to impose any conditions they choose.

From the California Department of Industrial Relations :

There is no legal requirement in California that an employer provide its employees with either paid or unpaid vacation time.

However, if an employer does have an established policy, practice, or agreement to provide paid vacation, then certain restrictions are placed on the employer as to how it fulfills its obligation to provide vacation pay.

Under California law, earned vacation time is considered wages, and vacation time is earned, or vests, as labor is performed.

And, unless otherwise stipulated by a collective bargaining agreement, upon termination of employment all earned and unused vacation must be paid to the employee at his or her final rate of pay.

Illinois requires unused vacation to be paid.

Nevada does not require it to be paid.

Massachusetts says vacation is not required, but if offered, may be considered wages.

You can find most states' policies by searching for something like Missouri vacation laws .

As you see, the standards vary.

The federal government doesn't require employers to pay vacation at all, but states may make more specific laws about it.

In my personal experience, most employers do pay out unused vacation (except perhaps in the case of a firing), but the fact that they do so doesn't necessarily indicate that they're legally required to.

The legal requirements for this vary by state but most states do require that employers pay for any unused paid vacation time upon leaving your job.

In my experience, I have been paid for the full amount of the accrued vacation.

I would expect that from any employer; it is just as much a part of my compensation as my salary is.

The alternative is that I use all my vacation before leaving (and thus get paid for it) -- so just pay me for it.

It depends on the employer.

I don't think they are legally required to pay you for unused vacation days, but many companies do.

In my company, the policy is that you can get paid for up to 10 days of unused vacation if you have already accrued it, but it also clearly states that the company has the right to not pay it out at their own discretion.

I have always gotten paid for all of my unused vacation days when I left a job at my hourly rate.

I have always lost any unused sick days, however.

You should check your employee handbook or vacation policy, though.

The last job I left also wouldn't let me use any sick time after I gave my notice.

So you should definitely get familiar with your company's policies and plan ahead, if you can.

Good luck!

My company does allow you to get paid for vacation days when you leave, but I also know of people that only receive a percentage of pay for vacation days.

Yes and no.

Some companies do pay it all out or only a set amount.

I have had to fight with employers in the past over this.

Sick leave, on the other hand, almost never gets paid out.

I took a leave of absence for a year one time and kept all my sick leave.

Now I have over 100 hours and it keeps accumulating.

I'll probably never use it, but it is nice that its there.

Yes.

I cashed out unused vacation when leaving my last job.

The lump sum increased my withholdings rate, but I get the extra back as soon as I can file income taxes.

In fact, sometimes employers will mandate employees take vacation as a way of reducing liabilities on the books, since stuff owed to employees can be more senior than bondholders and shareholders.

It depends entirely on your company and your contract.

A previous employer of mine cashed out all unused vacation at the end of every year, and at termination.

My current employer has a "use it or lose it" policy (which means every December is a mad scramble for people to "use it").

Check with your HR department to find out what your employer's policy is.

Legally, other answers have this question covered.

In my experience, this generally breaks down a few ways: Employers who offer "PTO" that covers all forms of leave -- they pay out, up to a limit that they publish in their employee manual.

Employers who offer specific vacation, sick leave and personal time usually only pay out for vacation leave, up to some pre-specified limit.

I left a job last year and had about 3 days built up.

I gave notice, and then learned that they wouldn't be paying it out before I left.

I emailed my boss on Friday afternoon and told him I was taking my three days off and would be back on Thursday. :)

Question: In the U.S., do you get paid for vacation days untaken when you leave a job?

In the U.S., do you get paid for vacation days untaken when you leave a job?

Some places require unused vacation to be paid. A lot of employers do it even when not required. It depends on your company and your contract.

The exact answer will depend on your employment contract and the company that you work for. However, whilst there is no legal requirement for companies to pay unused vacation at the end of an employment contract, it is understood that many do.

Most companies do pay out unused vacation at the end of your employment.

The answer will depend on your contract and employer.

There is no legal requirement in the USA to pay unused vacation at the end of employment.


Mint.com

—Easy solution to provide insight into finances.

Pros:

Web based

Automatically updates all accounts Free Works in plain english

Supports large number of institutions "Goals" feature lets you define and track savings goals Clear spending reports help you balance your budget and identify areas to trim spending.

Dedicated support team as well as Community based support Cons:

Can not perform transactions though it - you can only view transactions Can not track cash efficiently.

Web based

- they store a copy of your credentials and transactions until you delete your account

Accounts often fail to update causing much frustration

Only works in the USA & Canada

GnuCash —Great for the meticulous who want to know every detail of their finances.

Pros: Free.

Locally stored, so you know you information is secure.

Can import statements from most major banks.

Supports American and Eurpoean banking data protocols (OFX and FinTS).

Tracks prices of currencies and common investments (stocks, mutual funds, bonds) Scheduled transaction calculations (for example, splitting out principle and interest from a given loan payment).

Double entry accounting standards to helps with research and audits.

Complete reports and graphs make understanding you finances easy.

Budgets Open Source software Cons:

Community supported, so getting answers to problems can occasionally be time consuming.

Designed for business accounting, so interface is sometimes more complicated the needed for personal finance.

Double entry accounting can be complicated for a beginner.

I like You Need A Budget (YNAB)

Pros: Integrated budget as key concept, not an afterthought.

This is far and way YNAB's best feature, being able to plan what your money will do rather than monitoring it after it has been spent.

Refined interface that is visually appealing.

Easy setup and use.

Can manually enter or import transactions from any financial institution supporting Quicken.

Can track cash.

Free, frequent updates until the next major version.

The updates sometimes include new functionality.

No forced upgrades or expiring download capabilities.

License allows installation on multiple computers.

Cons: The application is focused on day to day finances.

Although you can track stocks, mutual funds, etc., the application does not provide specialized interfaces or tools for this activity.

Data not in the cloud, but you can sync to an iPhone app or an Android app.

Data can now be in DropBox.

Excel Pros: Extremely flexible

Many available spreadsheet templates that can automate many tasks Easy to import / export data Easy to generate graphs / charts Cons: Difficult initial set up Less convenient than a dedicated budget solution

Intuit Quicken .

Pros : Fairly Easy setup Good Account Management Lots of Flexibility Will automatically pull transactions from most banks Cons : Possibly too complex for many users Bad file format Unclear behavior

I'm a big fan of buxfer.com

Mvelopes.com Mvelopes is envelope-style budgeting in an online application.

I've tried all of the other applications

and I choose to pay for this one for the following reasons:

Automatically downloads transactions from banks Envelopes

let you spread income and know exactly what you have for each category at present Billpay service that integrates with envelopes 12 month spending plan(budget) Debt tracker

I just switched (from the abandoned, but good MS Money) to Moneydance 2010

KMyMoney Pros : Free (and open source) Easy to use Locally stored, so you know you information is secure.

Can import statements from most major banks.

(OFX) Tracks prices of currencies and common investments (stocks, mutual funds, bonds)

Scheduled transactions Graph / Reporting tools Basic budget tool Works on Windows, Linux and Mac OSX Cons :

Windows and Mac OSX support not as good as Linux support

For Mac it's definitely iFinance .

I use iBank for Mac to keep track of my expenses.

I also use the iPhone version since they can sync over Wi-Fi

and I can capture expenses right on the spot instead of trying to remember what I spent on when I turn on my laptop.

For iPhone: iExpenseIt Highly customizable and practical. Visual indicator of monthly budget vs expenses. Overview of Today's spending vs daily spending average. Expense Summary of total, average expense per day and top expense of the month Repeat Expenses - allow recurring expenses such as monthly rent, mortgage, utility bills, etc.

Customize Detail / Simple monthly Budgets.

Store digital photo receipts.

Instantly generate graphical reports.

Dynamic reports view:

Specify reports by criteria such as report by payment, by vendors, etc.

Supports VAT/GST.

and so on...

see the link ;)

Money Manager Ex PROS:

It is free and open Simple Does not require an install.

Can run from a USB key CONS Weak importing feature

No any localized rule (e.g. taxes)

No portable device support

Emergency Account Vault (Windows)

I use it to store info about all of my accounts/assets in an encrypted document.

It's more for keeping track of everything that is in your name than managing money.

Good for situations when you need to quickly look up info about a specific account you own.

For any android device you can try:Daily Expense Manager - to track your expensesand a host of other apps to suit your specific needs.

Question: What are the best software tools for personal finance?    Please list what you like about the software you use.

What are the best software tools for personal finance?

There are many finance tools available such as GnuCash, Mint.com, Intuit Quicken, buxfer.com, iFinance for Mac. They can support import statements from most banks and give complete reports and graphs to make understanding your finances easy.

The answer to this question will be highly subjective. However, some potential options include Mint, GnuCash, Quicken, Moneydance or iFinance, to name a few. Aspects that users like about such applications are the interfaces, the ease of use and facilities like tracking, budgeting and customisation.

There is a wide range of tool available, including Mint, GnuCash, Quicken, Moneydance or iFinance, to name a few.

Many of the aspects that users like about such applications are the interfaces, the ease of use and facilities like tracking, budgeting and customisation.


Whole life insurance accumulates a cash value on a pre-tax basis.

With a paid-up policy, you make payments until a particular age (usually 65 or 70), at which point you are insured for the rest of your life or a very old age like 120.

You can also access this pool of money via loans while you are still alive, but you reduce your benefit until you repay the loans.

This may be advantageous if you have a high net worth.

Also, if you own a business or farm, a permanent policy may be desirable if the transfer of your property to heirs is likely to generate alot of transactional costs like taxes.

Nowadays there are probably better ways to do that too.

Whole life/

universal life is a waste of money 95%+ of the time.

An example, my wife and I were recently offered open-enrollment (no medical exam) insurance policies our employers in New York.

We're in our early 30's.

I bought a term policy paying about $400k which costs $19/mo.

My wife was offered a permanent policy that pays $100k which costs $83/mo, and would have a cash value of $35k at age 65.

If you invested the $60/mo difference between those policies and earned 5%/year with 30% taxes on the gains, you'd have over $40k with 4x more coverage.

Whole life is life insurance that lasts your whole life.

Seriously.

Since the insurance company must make a profit, and since they know they will always pay out on a whole life policy, whole life tends to be very expensive, and has lower "death" benefits than a term policy.

Some of these policies are "paid-up" policies, meaning that they are structured so that you don't have to pay premiums forever.

But what it amounts to is that the insurance company invests your premiums, and then pays you a smaller "dividend," much like banks do with savings accounts.

Unless you are especially risk-averse, it is almost always a better decision to get an inexpensive term policy, and invest the money you save yourself, rather than letting the insurance company invest it for you and reap most of the benefits.

If you are doing things properly, you won't need life insurance your whole life, as retirement investments will eventually replace your working income.

For most people Term is the way to go.

I consider life insurance a necessity not an investment.

See this article on SmartMoney .

Term life insurance is just that - life insurance that pays out if you die, just like car insurance pays out if you have an accident.

Like car insurance, it's easy to compare amongst term life insurance policies - you can even compare quotes online.

Whole life insurance is life insurance plus an investment component.

The money that you pay goes to pay for your life insurance and it also is invested by the insurance company.

Insurance companies love whole life because it is not a commodity; they can come up with a large variety of variants, and that fact plus the fact that it combines insurance and investment means that is very difficult to compare policies.

Not to mention that fact that none of the companies - as far as I can tell - publish their whole life insurance rates, so it is very difficult to shop around.

Just to add to @duffbeer703

comment, additionally, the cash value is NOT part of the death benefit.

The policy is intended to grow the cash value to the point where it matches the death benefit and then it 'matures' and you get the cash.

My point being, is that since they don't give you both, you are really transferring the reponsiblity from them to you over time, your savings (that you lose) becomes part of the death benefit and they supliment it with less and less over the years so that it would equal the death benefit.

@duffbeer703 nailed it right on the head, buy term and invest the difference and once you've got your savings built, really the need for insurance isn't there any longer (if you've got 1/2 million saved, do you really need insurance?)

Question: How would one decide which is most appropriate? Are there tax or benefits differences that one offers over the other?

What's the difference between Term and Whole Life insurance?

Whole life insurance lasts your whole life. It accumulates a cash value on a pre-tax basis. Term life insurance pays out if you die or if you have an accident.

It is not clear what the exact difference is between whole life or term life insurance.


USDA publishes a document on a monthly basis that can be used to estimate food costs for a household and provides four "tiers": thrifty, low-cost, moderate-cost, and liberal.

It likely varies by region, as well as by personality.

In our family, where both my wife and I are frugal, we usually come in below the "thrifty" level.

On the other hand, incomes in this area are literally only 65% of other places in the country.

There is no real answer for this, because it totally varies depending on the composition of your family, the standard of living you are accustomed to, and where in the world you live.

The answer for you will be different than for everyone else.

The best thing you can do is to start keeping track of your food expenditures, either by collecting your receipts and totalling them at the end of the month, or by making a note of them after each purchase (e.g. in a notebook you keep in your purse or pocket).

After a few months you will see what your average food expenses are, which you can use as a baseline for your budget.

Once you've done that, you can assess whether you're spending too much on food, and then you can look for ways you can cut back (plan to buy your common items when they are on sale, buy in bulk, cut back on take-out and restaurant meals, etc).

To add a counterpoint to 0A0D's answer, without being completely frugal the budget for one person that eats out around twice a week would be somewhere around $65-80 a week.

Here are some assumptions: Breakfast: cereal, oats, or comparable: < $1Lunch: sandwich + snacks: $2-3Evening:

salad: $2 or cooked meal: $3-5; average $3-4Other snacks: <

$1Daily total: $6-8Weekly total: $42-56Eating out: additional $10-13 / meal * 2 = $20-26Total: $62 - $82

For my family of 3, we pay approximately $200 every two weeks.

That is being frugal.

We use lots of coupons.

Maybe this is not really to the point of your question as it was worded, but rather than seek out guidelines for how much one should spend on food, I would start off differently.

Guidelines would suggest targets that others have found doable and sustainable.

I would rather find those for myself.

So here goes: My approach would be to minimize total disutility or "pain".

You really need to decide how much you enjoy groceries, cooking, eating out, etc., and balance that against how much you could save by doing with less of it.

If you are trying to cut back on your overall spending, first figure out if spending on food and eating out is a large part of your total budget -- or alternatively, how much discretionary spending on food (eating out, buying fancy groceries) is as a fraction of your total discretionary spending.

If it is a small part, then it would be better to concentrate on another area of your budget.

If spending is sufficiently large as a fraction of your spending, then determine how much you could reasonably cut out to start off with.

How much would that achieve?

Leaving aside very high-end restaurants, food costs relative to income tend to level out much more quickly than other common items like houses or cars.

Even high-quality steak can only cost so much :)

so it is difficult even to say how much of your income food should reasonably consume.

At the other end of the spectrum, it's also quite possible to have - relative to your income - a crappy car or even no car, but there is a pretty hard floor on how little you can spend on food and still be healthy.

I would simply suggest taking a poll of people who live/work near you and appear to have a similar standard of living & income (+/-25%).

That should give you a good idea to start.

Me and my future wife spend about 200€ in a month.

We are very careful when we buy stuff, always going to the cheaper store for any item

I budget $200 each for my girlfriend and me per month.

I could cut probably half of that cost by buying conventional produce, meat, and dairy instead of the organic, grass-fed, free-range stuff I usually buy.

I rarely buy packaged, processed food; cooking from scratch tastes better and costs less.

I think it might be better to work backward in this case.

First determine your discretionary income, and then allocate that to the various areas you'd spend money on.

It's nice to hear "you should spend X% of your income on food" but maybe for you, it's more important to eat out 3 time a week including one super-fancy per month than it is to go on vacations.

Food is obviously a requirement, unlike travel or electronics, but fancy or expensive food is not.

So I'd say that the food allocation of your discretionary income should be the amount that's above a certain baseline - a reasonable, "thrifty" amount.

This might be something like assuming 5 inexpensive take-out meals per month (say $8 each) and cooked food the rest of the time (maybe $5-6 per day).

So a rough estimate of your baseline might be $200 or so.

Now how much do you like to eat out, or buy lobster and duck to cook at home?

How much do you travel?

If you've got $5000 to do what you want with, would you rather take a $3000 trip and have an extra $2000 to spend on food?

That's an overly simplified case, but you get the idea...

Question: In planning out a budget, what is a realistic amount to budget per person for food expenses per month?    EDIT: Thanks to Ether's answer, here's a clarification: What guidelines or warning signs are there that we can use when planning out the food portion of our budget?  I've seen guidelines for housing expenses, but nothing for essentials such as food.  What is a normal amount to use as a guideline?  Percentage of salary?  Fixed amount per person?

How much is a typical food budget per person?

The answer to this varies by region and the standard of living you are accustomed to. For 2 people, you could count $200 per month or $65-80 a week for a single person. The USDA publishes a document on a monthly basis to estimate food costs for a household.

The answer to this question will depend on your personality and where you live. Many people would consider $200 per month to be enough to two people, but other people may think that this is too low. The USDA publishes rough guidelines on a monthly basis which may be useful, or you might want to consult with people who live or work near you for their opinion.

The answer to this will be highly subjective and depend on your own personality and where you live.

Some people believe that $200 a month is an appropriate amount for two people to spend on food.

A person who eats out twice a week might spend up to $80 a week on food.

USDA publishes a monthly a document which may provide you with some rough guidelines.

You could consider asking people you live or work near you about what they spend.


Paying off your student loan before buying a house is certainly a great risk reduction move for you.

It will lower your debt to income ratio allowing your mortgage approval to go easier and it will free up more of your dollars to pay for the many miscellaneous projects that come with buying a house.

I think that if you are considering paying off your student loan before buying a house that means that your student loans are an amount you can fathom paying off and that you are motivated to be rid of your student loan debt.

Go for it and pay off your student loan.

It depends on the terms.

Student loans are often very low interest loans which allow you to spread your costs of education over a long time without incurring too much interest.

They are often government subsidized.

On the other hand, you often get better mortgage rates if you can bring a down payment for the house.

Therefore, it might be more beneficial for you to use money for a down payment than paying off the student load.

There may be specific answers that can be determined based on the interest rates, amounts, tax provisions, etc.

But I'm here to tell you...

It is much easier (i.e., less stressful) to own a home when you have less debt.

Pay off any and every debt you can before purchasing a home because there will always be something requiring you to spend money once you own one.

It might be a good idea, because later in life if a large expense shows up or an income source disappears, you will only have the mortgage payment, rather than a mortgage AND a student loan payment.

One extremely important aspect that must be taken into consideration is the state of the housing market.

If prices are rising it will probably be a false economy to delay your house purchase.

Say you pay off a £5,000 student loan, thus delaying your house purchase another year you could well end up forking out an extra £10,000 on the mortgage due to the rise in house prices.

Of course, if the housing market is falling then, without a doubt, pay off the student debt.

IMO student loans are junk debt that should be dealt with as soon as possible.

Buying a house comes with risks and expenses (repairs, maintenance, etc) and dealing with a student loan at the same time just makes it tougher.

Personally, I would try to pay off at least a few of the loans first.

Question: Should I pay off my student loan before buying a house?

Should I pay off my student loan before buying a house?

Paying off your student debt first will certainly be a good idea. Once you own a house there will always be things requiring you to spend money. However, if prices are rising it could be a false economy to put off buying a house.

The answer will depend on the terms of your student loan and the state of the present housing market. It is generally considered wise to pay off any debt, including student debt, before buying a house, but there are some circumstances where buying a house might be considered a more sensible option.

It is generally considered that you should pay off your student debt before you buy a house.

The answer will depend on the state of the housing market and whether house prices are rising or falling.

The answer may well depend on the terms of your loan.

In some circumstances, it could be more beneficial to pay off your student loan first.


Do NOT cancel old cards.

The higher your total credit line, the older your credit accounts, the higher your credit score is.

It's OK to apply for new cards if you get good offers, your credit score might be negatively affected in the short term, but it will recover in a couple of years.

However try not to apply for too may credit accounts when you need to apply for a new mortgage or refinance your current mortgage.

Other things that can affect your credit score:

Lower overall utilization (good)

On a particular credit account, lower than 50% if you can, and must stay under 90% utilization.

(good if keep utilization low)

Never go over

credit limit Certain cards (e.g. Amex) allow you to increase your credit limit online without pull your credit report, take advantage this to increase your overall credit line.

Ultimately, the higher your credit score, the cheaper it is for you to borrow money.

Even you are a disciplined consumer who pays off your credit cards every month, who knows?

Maybe sometime in the future you will need to borrow money.

Does it make any sense to open another account, just to get the cash back?

This depends on several things, primarily how much you spend on your card.

Work out the math.

If you spend $100 a month, then you would only be getting $1.00 a month back, which wouldn't be worth having the new card.

Also, if you are taking any penalties for being late, you're better off cutting the credit cards all together.

Interest (often at 15% or more) will quickly outpace any money you would be getting back.

Would it be smart to cancel the Visa if I do?

If you can use the new card everywhere, yes.

This prevents you from possible non-usage charges, the paperwork associated with the card, and possible card misuse.

One reason to have two credit cards that hasn't been mentioned yet is that you have a backup in case one card is lost/stolen.

This can be especially helpful in a pinch while you're away from home.

In your case, you might keep the new card as your "backup", store it separately from the primary card (i.e. so they don't both get lost at once), and maybe use it for

some nominal monthly bill (Netflix or something) to avoid inactivity fees.

FWIW, Discover might not be my first choice as a backup, Visa/MC are accepted at more places.

Don't open another credit card account just for cash back.

The Visa you currently have is all you need.

The only reason I can think of for opening another account is if some place you shop regularly doesn't accept Visa.

I have an American Express charge card because Costco doesn't take other credit cards.

Credit scores depend on more than just total credit.

Here's the Wikipedia entry on credit scores .

Your actual score may differ between TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax.

Two or Three credit cards are a reasonable number (if you are responsible enough to pay them off every month*).

An extra card or two at home can work as a backup if your wallet is lost or stolen.

This amount will give you more options on closing the account if you have problems with the card issuer in the future, or if you find a much better deal, without hurting your credit score.

You might as well take the bonuses from an awards card, because everyone subsidizes the people who use them.

Just check the 5% category on the card and see if you already spend a significant amount of money there in your budget.

*If you can't pay it off monthly, you can't afford it, and you're paying more for everything in the long term to the issuer, along with the least responsible and the most responsible people.

Question: I just got a mailer from Discover offering a new card, with 5% back on some items and 1% back on everything else. However, I already have a Visa which I have had for a few years.  Does it make any sense to open another account, just to get the cash back? Would it be smart to cancel the Visa if I do?

How many credit cards do I need? Should I open another just for the cash back feature?

If you can use the new card everywhere then it could be a good idea. Don't open another credit card just for cash back.

Whether you should get a credit card for cashback will depend on how much you use your card and, even then, the answer will be subjective. Some people think that one card is enough, whilst others believe that two or three credit cards is perfectly acceptable. In any case, it is generally not a good idea to cancel old credit cards.

The answer to this question will depend on how much you use your credit card.

The answer as to whether or not you should get a card for cashback will be subjective.

How many credit cards you need will be subjective, with some people believing one is enough and others believing that two or three is perfectly fine.

It is not a good idea to cancel old cards.


That's the official site for getting your free yearly credit report (one free per year from each of the 3 reporting bureaus).

Assuming you are asking about a credit score in the United States, the following applies.

To find out your FICO score, navigate to AnnualCreditReport , the official site to help consumers receive their credit report from each of the three organizations providing these scores - Equifax , Experian , and TransUnion .

You are - in many states - entitled to a free copy of your credit report from each of these organizations annually.

This copy of your credit report will not contain your credit score from that organization.

It will, however, contain information that goes into your credit score - the lines of credits on file, any delinquencies reported, etc.

If you decide you would like to pay for your credit score from each bureau, you will have the option to receive this information while getting your credit report, but you will have to pay a nominal fee for it.

Remember that each of the 3 bureaus gives you a different score.

Averaging

your 3 scores should give you a good idea of your FICO score.

Note that your report is far more important than your score - once you know that, you know if you're in a good place or not.

These other questions are so close that they might even be considered duplicates, and provide other suggestions for how to check your score.

As a warning, don't trust the many ads out there saying you can get your score for free.

Only AnnualCreditReport is considered a safe place for entering the very personal information required to get a score.

The FTC backs this up.

Since no one else answered this part of your question yet: Checking your own credit score or report will not affect it in any way.

It only hurts you when someone looks it up to run a credit check at your request for the purpose of possibly getting a loan, for example a car dealership.

This only hurts it a tiny bit, and is not worth worrying about unless you are going to 20 different car dealerships who each do a check.

However, it is a good idea not to let them run your credit until you are seriously ready to buy a car.

In fact, it is better to just get financing somewhere else and not let them run it at all.

Different states have different laws, check your local laws concerning credit.

Some states even guarantee you to get one free credit report per year.

If you recently apply for an apartment, a mortgage or denied a credit card or loan, you can usually get a free copy from whomever you authorized to pull your credit report.

Sign up credit monitoring service, there are quite a few of these.

Most credit card companies offer such service, Amex, Chase, Citibank, etc.

It' costs around $10-$20 per month.

If you sign up a service and pull your own credit report, it's considered a "soft" pull which won't affect your score negatively.

Check with your bank.

As of January, 2015, the following banks and credit unions are offering free credit-scores: Barclaycard US First Bankcard (the credit card business of First National Bank of Omaha)

Citibank (C), Discover (DFS), Digital Credit Union, the Pentagon Federal Credit Union, and North Carolina's State Employees' CreditUnion Announced, in the pipeline:

JPMorgan Chase (JPM) Bank of America Source:

Banks to offer FICO credit scores for free Personal Experience: I've been receiving free FICO score from my credit union for more than 6 months now.

Advice: Most people have multiple bank/credit-union accounts.

The FICO score will be the same whoever offers it.

If none of your financial institutions offer you a free credit-score then you may opt for free services like creditkarma.com or other paid services.

Please note that a credit-score is number summarizing your credit-report and should not be confused.

In the news: FICO Announcement from 2013 - Free FICO credit scores coming to millions - CNN Obama's Speech at the Federal Trade Commission as of January, 2015 - An expansion in the number of Americans benefiting from free credit scores - The Washington Post

Question: I've seen the commercials for freecreditreport.com, but commercials with singing pirates make me uneasy; maybe they'll steal all my booty (personal information).  What are the different ways to check my credit score? How will checking affect the score?

How can I check my credit score?

You can use the official site, AnnualCreditRport to receive your report from each of the three organizations providing these scores. You can also check with your bank.

To check your credit score, you might want to use a credit monitoring service, such as Annual Credit Report, although there are other options too. Your bank may also offer such a service. In any case, checking your credit score will not affect it provided it is you that is checking it.

You could make use of a credit monitoring service, such as Annual Credit Report, for example.

You could check with your bank to see if they offer such a service.

Checking your own credit score yourself will not affect your score.


Yes you can rollover as many different 401(k)'s into a single IRA account.

I have done it personally and it really cuts down on the overhead of keeping up with lots of different accounts.

Your brokerage or mutual fund company should be able to help you with it.

If you are using a company that just gives you forms and those forms don't mention an easy way to combine.

Then I suggest rolling over one 401(k)

first then once that's finished you can rollover the other 401(k) into that same account.

There are a few things to consider.

The answers others gave here are correct, but I'll offer some reasons you may not want to roll to an IRA:

The new 401(k) plan has very low fees for its investment choices.

(My S&P fund cost is .02%, below any ETF or Mutual fund.

You plan to retire early.

One can take withdrawal from their 401(k) if they retire at 55 or later, compared to 59-1/2 for IRA money.

You want to keep the option of a 401(k) loan.

This may not matter to you, but if you ever have the need for a loan, the 401(k) loan is nearly the cheapest you'll ever find.

You have non-deducted IRA money.

If you do.

I recommend you first convert your IRA money to a Roth.

You'll need to pay tax on the amount that hasn't yet been taxed (either pretax deposits or earnings) but if this amount is relatively small, it's worth converting before flooding your IRA with pre tax money.

money.stackexchange.com/users/187/JTP - Apologise to Monica

As other responders said, you can certainly roll over multiple 401(k) into a single account.

An added benefit of such rollover (besides the ease of tracking) is that you can shop around for your Rollover IRA provider and find the one that gives you the specific mutual funds that you want to invest in, the lowest expenses, etc.

in short, find the best fit to your priorities.

There are also "lemon" 401(k) plans and if you are in one of them, get out!

And rollover is the way out.

There is also one possibility to keep an eye on as it happens rarely, but it does happen - rolling a 401(k) over into another 401(k).

I've done it once when I started a job at a company that had a great 401(k) with a good selection of low-cost mutual funds.

I rolled the 401(k) from one previous job in to

this 401(k) to take advantage of it.

At the same time I kept a Rollover IRA, combining the 401(k) from all other jobs; it had more investment options and provided some flexibility.

Can I combine all my 401ks into one account?

Yes.

Short and sweet.

I've rolled mine over into IRAs, and once you have one rollover account you can roll further 401ks into it--

I've done that.

Question: I have multiple 401(k)s from past employers.  I know I can roll each of these over into new IRA accounts at my brokerage, but do the 401(k) rules allow me to  combine  these 401(k)'s into one IRA account?  The rollover forms are always phrased in terms of rolling old 401(k) account into a new IRA account, never any option to select an existing IRA account.  If combining is not allowed, then why?

Combining 401(k)'s from different past employers?

You can roll as many 401ks as you want into a single IRA account. Your broker should be able to help you with it.

Yes, it is possible to combine multiple 401ks and this is something that your brokerage or mutual fund company should be able to help you with.

Yes, you can roll multiple 401Ks into a single account.

Your brokerage or mutual fund company should be able to help you combine your 401ks.


First of all, look for a savings account with a decent interest rate.

Online banks are good at offering those, and you can transfer your money back and forth from the checking account with a couple of business days' delay.

ING Direct offers 1.1% APY right now - lame, but much better than nearly-nothing.

If you'd like a little nicer rate of return you should also consider putting some of the money (the part you need least) in a short- or intermediate-term bond ETF or mutual fund.

You can sell them quite readily, they pay more interest than a savings account, and because of the shorter maturities involved the interest rate risk is limited.

(That's the one that makes your bonds less valuable now because the rates went up after you bought them.)

I have some NYSE:

BIV that's yielding 3.8% or so.

I suppose it depends on how liquid you need, and if you're willing to put forth any risk whatsoever.

The stock market can be dangerous, but there are strategies out there that will allow you to insure yourself against significant loss, while likely earning you a decent return.

You can buy and sell options along with stocks so that if the stock drops, your loss is limited, and if it goes up or even stays where it's at, you make money (a lot more than 1% annually).

Of course there's risk of loss, but if you plan ahead, you can cap that risk wherever you want, maybe 5%, maybe 10%, whatever suits your needs.

And as far as liquidity goes, it should be no more than a week or so to close your positions and get your money if you really need it.

But even so, I would only recommend this after putting aside at least a few thousand in a cash account for emergencies.

Since you're coming out of college, you're probably a new investor and don't know too much about stocks, etc.

I was in the same situation as well.

I wanted to keep my cash 'liquid' and wanted to make low risk investments.

What I ended up doing was investing the majority of my money in higher interest GICs (Guaranteed Investment Certificate) and keeping the rest in my chequing/savings account.

I understand that GICs aren't exactly the most liquid asset out there.

However, instead of investing it all into 1 GIC, I put them in to smaller increments with varying lock-in times and roll-over options.

I.e. for 15000keep $3000 on hand in your account2x$1000 invested for 2 years4x$1000 invested for 1 year3x$1000 invested for 180 days3x$1000 invested for 90 days When you find that you run out of cash from your $3000, you'll have a GIC expiring soon.

The 'problem' with GICs is that redeeming them before the maturity period usually incurs a penalty in the form of no interest.

Keeping them in smaller increments allows you to redeem only the amount you need without losing too much interest.

At maturity, if you don't need the money, you can just have the GIC renew.

The other problem with GICs, is that interest rates, though better than savings accounts, aren't that much more.

You're basically just fighting off inflation.

The benefit is that on maturity, you are guaranteed your principal and the interest.

This plan is easy to implement if your bank/credit union allows you to create and manage GICs online.

I would suggest a high interest checking account if you qualify, or if you don't, an Investor's Deposit Account (IDA).

Provide you are willing to do a bit of work each month, you should apply for a "rewards checking" account.

Basically these accounts require you to set up direct deposit (can be any amount and your employer can easily deposit $25 into one account and the rest into another if you like).

They also require you to use your debit card attached to the account (probably about 10 times per month).

Check out the list on the fatwallet finance forum .

Right now the best accounts are earning over 4%.

I'd have a look at Capital One's Online account too, they've got 1.35% interest rate with 10% bonus if you have over $15k deposited.

It is still low like all interest rates, but at least it is on top (or at least close)!

I'm new to this, but how about putting a big part of your money into an MMA?

I don't know about your country, but in Germany, some online banks easily offer as much as 2.1% pa, and you can access the money daily.

If you want decent profit without risk this is a great deal, much better than most saving accounts.

Question: Since I graduated from college, I've collected ~$15K USD of savings.  Currently this is sitting idle in a low interest checking account.  I'd like to put it to better use, but I also need to make sure I can draw on it if necessary.  Should I go for a high-yield checking account, or is there a better option?

Put idle savings to use while keeping them liquid

It depends how much you need to keep available and how much risk you are willing to take. You can put some of the money into a GIC and keep the rest in your savings account. Look for a savings account with a decent rate. You could try Capitol One's online account that has a 1.35% interest rate.

The answer to this question will depend on how much risk you're willing to take and how quickly you want to recover your money. However, many banks will offer savings or checking accounts with high rates of interest which could be beneficial for you. As an alternative, you might want to consider Guaranteed Investment Certificates.

The answer to this question will depend on how quickly you want to be able to get your money back and how much risk you're willing to take.

You might want to consider investing in Guaranteed Investment Certificates.

Each bank will offer a range of savings and checking accounts which could provide you with a higher rate of interest for your savings.


Putting money into a Roth IRA or 401(k) will save you money if your taxes this year will be lower than your taxes in retirement.

If you're young and just starting your career, there's a good chance of this in general.

Even if you're not, most people are anticipating tax increases in our nation's future If you have a lot of expenses one year, e.g. for medical reasons, you may have to realize a significant amount of income that year, so having it be Roth money instead of regular can help avoid higher taxes.

See also the Wikipedia retirement-savings matrix.

Another consideration is that you are going to wind up with money in the "regular" 401(k)

no matter which one you contribute to.

The employer match can't go into the Roth 401(k).

So all employer matching funds go in with pre-tax dollars and will be deposited in a normal 401(k) account.

Edit from JoeTaxpayer - 2013 brought with it the Roth 401(k) conversion the ability to convert from the traditional pretax side of your 401(k) account to the Roth side.

If you are in the 15% marginal tax bracket, I'd agree, no harm in using Roth.

If you are in the 25% bracket or above, it would take quite a bit of savings to retire in a higher bracket.

I can't know your entire situation, but the average person is barely saving enough to be in the 15% bracket in retirement, let alone higher.

money.stackexchange.com/users/187/JTP - Apologise to Monica

Also, consider the possibility of early withdrawal penalties.

Regular 401k early withdrawal (for non-qualified reasons) gets you a 10% penalty, in addition to tax, on the entire amount, even if you're just withdrawing your own contributions.

Withdrawing from a Roth 401k can potentially mean less penalties (if it's been in place 5 years, and subject to a bunch of fine print of course).

As fennec mentioned, it is about your tax rate today vs your tax rate when you retire.

One of the big issues is whether you have a lot of tax deductions today that will disappear when you retire, which is likely.

These include dependents (aka kids) and your home mortgage.

For a person with kids and a mortgage, it seems likely that the Roth would be beneficial.

If you do not have a lot of deductions, you might be ok with the regular 401k to help reduce your tax burden today.

I would look at it as more of a balance in general assuming you have the ability to contribute pre or post tax money and you expect your retirement tax rate to be about the same.

Pre-tax money gives you flexibility of withdrawal during retirement.

Say one year you have unusually high expenses you can pull money from your taxed accounts until you hit the top of your target tax bracket and then pull the rest out of already taxed accounts.

Note that if you have the same tax rate today as when you retire.

The traditional account will net you slightly more money, but not a huge amount.

Question: My employer allows new contributions to my 401(k) to go in as Roth (post-tax) or "regular" (pre-tax).  What should I consider when deciding how to distribute my contributions between the two?

What factors should I take into account when deciding how much of my 401(k) contribution should go into my Roth 401(k)?

Take the Roth option if your taxes this year will be lower than your taxes in retirement. It could also mean less penalties if you make an early withdrawal. However, if you don't have a lot of deductions, then the regular 401k might be better to reduce your tax burden.

There are number of aspects to consider when deciding how to distribute your 401k contributions, including your current and expected tax rates and what potential withdrawal penalties there are. If you do not currently have a lot of tax deductions, you may want to use your regular 401k to reduce your current tax burden. Additionally, a regular 401k provides greater flexibility on withdrawals in retirement.

When considering how to distribute your contributions, you may want to consider your tax rate and how it may change in the future.

You may want to consider what early withdrawal penalties there are in each case.

If you do not have a lot of tax deducations, you may be OK with a regular 401k to reduce your tax burden.

A regular 401k gives you more flexibility on withdrawals in retirement.


I've found it's just simpler to keep all of my receipts rather than debate which receipts to keep and which to throw away.

I shove all my receipts from August in an envelope labeled August.

Then, next year (12 months later) I shred the envelope.

That way, if I see a bank error, need to find a receipt to do a return or warranty work, etc.

I have all of them available for a year.

Doing 1 envelope per month means I only have 12 envelopes at any time

and I can shred an entire envelope without bothering to sort through receipts inside the envelope.

It is a good idea to keep the receipts.

The reason being that the dispensation from the ATM and the debit to the account are async process.

There are multiple handshakes during this process between the hardware of the ATM, the software controlling the ATM and the core banking software.like any software programming, there are chances of errors, ie amounts being debit wrong due to bugs, or duplicate of transactions being posted.

Altough such errors would normally get caught during recon between the ATM software and the Core Banking postings, its advisable to keep the receipts and verify erroneous debits.

In such cases, the receipts would provide additional information required by the Bank to rectify the errors promptly.

It's a good idea to keep them, just until your statement arrives.

As a programmer you know its supposed to be automatic, but glitches do happen.

Keeping the receipt till your statement is probably not necessary 99.999999% of the time, but it might save your butt one time, which would be worth it.

As a programmer*, I expect the ATM and counter receipts to have an error and look hard for it.

If I don't find the error I usually cram it in my pocket which is the same as throwing it away.

I should keep them, but I also look at my online balances for almost all of my accounts several times a week

so I (perhaps foolishly) don't worry about paper receipts too much.

Maybe I should be a tester.

I carefully file them in my wallet

so I can reconcile them with my bank statement at the end of the month.

Then when my wallet starts getting to cluttered I trash them all.

For the record, I never get around to reconciling them either.

Having the receipt at least for a little while does make it easier to correct a mistake, if and when it does happen.

I had an error happen to me some years ago trying to withdraw money from an ATM in a 7-11 somewhere while on vacation

(receipt came out, money didn't).

Having the receipt made it easier to correct the mistake when I got back from vacation.

I think it's interesting that the other answers here all focus on the possibility of a software glitch or other unintentional error in the ATM behaviour.

Personally, I keep ATM receipts so that if I spot a withdrawal I don't recognise, it sways it in favour of being fraud (as opposed to memory failure) if I also don't have a receipt for it.

I also always withdraw the same amount and it is not one of the default amounts presented on the screen.

Again, just a way to make any fraudulent transaction stand out on my statement.

So that when a suspicious transaction appears on your statement, you will note it.

ex.

You have 5 transactions each $100 dollars each.

You keep the receipts.

At the end of the month, online shows 6 transactions at $100 each.

Without actually reconciliation, you will likely not remember off the cuff, if all 6 transactions are valid.

Yes, anecdotally this has happened to myself, both with credit cards (skimming) and atm (???).

Without reconciliation at the end of the month, I certainly will not remember if I went to the ATM six vs five times.

Question: Do you keep ATM receipts?   I've occasionally heard some bank-insider's tips that say it's a good habit to keep the ATM receipts and check them against the online bank log.  Having a programmer background I cannot understand what could possibly happen since it's (supposed to be) an automated procedure that picks always the right amount of money from my bank account.  Thanks

Do you keep ATM receipts? Why might keeping bank ATM receipts be a good habit?

It is advisable to keep the receipts, at least until your statement arrives. It makes it easier to correct a mistake, if and when it does happen.

Many people do keep ATM receipts and it is generally considered a good idea to keep them. This is because it will make life a lot easier to resolve any errors that might occur, however unlikely they might appear to be.

There are many people who do indeed keep ATM receipts.

Most people would consider it good practice to keep ATM receipts.

Keeping the receipt does make life easier should an error occur.

Although an ATM withdrawal is an automated process, there are other places in the procedure where errors can occur.


If and only if by coincidence the car you were already considering from your research includes a 0% finance offer, go ahead a take the financing and save your cash.

If however you are being tempted to a different car, or would spend more than you initially thought were wanted to, 0% financing is just another trick to get more of you money.

Just be honest why you want the car

: is it a good price, or does the financing seem like a good deal?

Even if you are not paying interest, you are paying principal.

If you're getting 0% on the financing, it's not costing you anything to borrow that money.

So its basically free money.

If you are comfortable with the monthly payments, consider going with no downpayment at all.

Keep that money aside for a rainy day, or invest it somewhere so that you get some return on it.

If you need to lower the payments later you can always use that money to pay down part of the loan later (check with the dealer that it is an open loan).

If you're not comfortable with the payments at 0 down, put enough down to bring the monthly payment to a level where you are comfortable.

I've run into two lines of thinking on cars when the 0% option is offered.

One is that you should buy the car with cash - always.

Car debt is not usually considered "good debt," as there is no doubt but that your car will depreciate.

Unless something very odd happens or you keep the car to antique status (and it's a good one), you won't make money off of it.

On the other hand, with 0% interest - if you qualify, and remember that dealer promotions aren't for everyone, just those who qualify - you can invest that money in a savings account, bonds, a mutual fund, or the stock market and theoretically make a lot more over the 5 years while paying down the car.

In that case, you really only need to make sure you save enough to make the payment low enough for your comfort zone.

Personally I prefer to not be making a car payment.

Your personal comfort level may vary.

Also, in terms of getting your money's worth a gently used car in good condition is miles better than a new car.

Someone else took the hit on the "drive it off the lot" decline in price for you.

Do you need the car, or is this an optional purchase for you?

Do you currently have a car that is in good working order?

If you can continue to save for the car instead of buying now, you'll be getting interest on what you've saved -- and that's a lot better than 0% financing.

I'd put more money down and avoid financing.

I personally don't think car debt is good debt and if you can't afford the car, you are better off with a cheaper car.

Also, you should read up on the 0% offer before deciding to commit.

Here's one article that is slightly dated, but discusses some pros and cons of 0% financing.

My main point though is that 0% financing is not "free" and you need to consider the cost of that financing before making the purchase.

Aside from the normal loan costs of having a monthly payment, possibly buying too much car by looking at monthly cost, etc.

, a 0% financing offer usually forces you to give the dealer/financing company any rebates that are due to you, in essence making the car cost more.

At minimum, put down the sale price less what insurance would pay if you got in an accident when driving home, OR purchase gap insurance.

This auto loan calculator is fun to play around with.

The larger the down payment, the smaller your monthly payments will be.

Don't forget to budget insurance and gas!

Insurance on a car

you make payments on is more expensive.

A buddy of mine had a string of bad luck and totaled his car a few months after the date of purchase.

He learned what it meant to be 'underwater', insurance paid him a few thousand less than the value of his loan.

What's worse than having no car, having no car and a loan!

Question: I am thinking about getting a new or used car from a local dealer in town. I have worked and saved some money to use as a down payment for it. Some people have told me that I should save nearly all the price of the car before purchasing it, while others have said it doesn't really matter.   The dealer is running a special of 5 years, 0% APR currently as well.  Can anyone give me some advice on how much of a down payment I should be making?

How much of a down payment for a car should I save before purchasing it?

If the amount of repayments is comfortable, then you could consider no downpayment at all. However, the larger the down payment, the smaller your monthly payments will be.

The answer to this question will be subjective and some people would recommend not getting any car debt at all. However, if a financing option is available, and you are comfortable with the monthly payments, you may want to not pay any money down at all. Other people might suggest putting down as much money as possible to reduce your monthly payments. An additional consideration might be what the likely insurance payout would be if you had an accident.

You may want to consider putting no money down if you are comfortable with the monthly payments for the financing.

The more money you put down, the lower your monthly payments will be.

Some people would recommend avoiding car debt.

You may what to consider what the insurance payout would be likely to be if you have an accident.