Hacker News Reader

Comment by beambot | Hacker News Reader

Focus on cutting unnecessary expenses... As that serves double duty: saves that $100 and simultaneously reduces the savings burden to retire.

As for "dumb" things you can do: cook more at home, pregame before going out, do activities that are cheap or free (eg bike rides instead of theaters), bike more instead of driving everywhere, read library books, etc

(The benefit of these over "do consulting" answers also lies in the added quality time with family rather than more work.)

View on HN

This actually works even better than you think. My father explained to me once: 'Earning an extra $100, you have to pay half[0] to the government. Saving an extra $100, you get to keep all of it.'

Still, I'm a pretty dull guy, don't spend much, and have most of my savings in order. My goal is mainly to see if there's easy ways to better use the time I currently waste on video games, use my craft to make some money.

[0] I'm in the 47% tax bracket (Canada), so any extra income is hit at that rate, if I'm not dumping it into a tax-deferred account, which I totally would be.

You've already paid the tax on the amount you are saving.

Yes, but $100 feels like $100. It feels equivalent, but it's not.

Saving $100 is worth a lot more than earning $100, is the point.

Frugality is great, but, repeating myself from below, I assume that effort is already there and the OP is trying to generate additional revenues beyond his or her primary income.

> pregame before going out

Or just don't drink alcohol, it's is stupid expensive for something you're just going to pee out. Plus, it's empty calories.

Tea is cheap and good, milk is cheap and good for you, (tap) water is basically free.

Regardless on your opinion on drinking alcohol, it's folly to ignore the perceived effects people use it for. Tea, milk nor water affect the mind in the same way.

The OP is trying to save for retirement, when I think he's assuming he will have zero income. Slashing expenses and living frugally is always a good idea. But if you're trying to save up a nest egg, you can't cut your way to savings.

I think the idea is to save the money that you cut? If your income stays the same but your monthly expenses drop $x per month, that would be the same savingswise as earning x dollars more per month and keeping your expenses the same.

Ain't no law that says you have to spend everything you earn.

I'm with you on that. But if your goal is to have savings set aside so that one day you can afford to live on those savings (in "retirement"), then savings alone won't get you there. you need to have actual savings.

That last sentence seems a bit tautological. Can we settle on "your income has to exceed your expenses" as the best way to build up savings?

EDIT: spelling

Ok, yes I get what you're saying now. Trim expenses and pocket the incremental short-term savings into longer-term savings. Sure that can work every bit as much as finding additional income assuming expenses don't change. My tautology referred to different usages of the word "savings". In one case it referred to saving money on something, vs. storing money in a long-term savings account. The problem with English is that savings is used in different contexts here. But yes you're right!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com