$500k and 33years old, when is enough enough?

[NotCranky]

[quote=Doooh]My 2010 resolution was to hammer down our finances and our budget. Quickbooks was broken out last night, for a final round before the year ends, and there’s a couple more tweeks needed to come to a hard conclusion.

I want to exclude all toy expenses and rental costs. I have enough wrapped up in toys that I don’t need more, and when I get tired of the ones I have, I’ll have to the time to sell them for what ever new junk I want. Rent will be out of the picture with a paid off home under my belt.

I want to see what food, utilities and clothes cost. We lived frugally, as we normally would have through 2010, though we didn’t try and break ourselves down in order to spend the bear minimus. There’s some savings that can easily be had if we wanted… For instance Turkeys were $5 after Thankgiving those suckers are GOOD deep fried, and they will last a year in the freezer. I hunt and fish, and with some extra TIME laying around, I think all of these things can bring the food bill way down, maybe by 25-40% or so, and we would be eating better to boot.

So, I think I can deduce what our lifestyle would cost minus the extra Health insurance bill and the payed of house maintenance that we’d incur. Fuel cost would drop dramatically, I want to say the work clothes bill would drop too, but I work in pants a t-shirt so there wouldn’t be a change.

What have I missed, besides the cost of a kid or two? (insert sarcasm here)[/quote]

Kids are not that expensive. Child care is. Private school is…but why on earth would part time working parents need private school? We sent our kids to pre-school part time after they could talk with us about it. It was for the experience and socializing.They had fun with almost zero child care stress. That cost a bit, but it was optional.It did help with the quality of all of our lives.

Team Sports could cost some and demands a lot of time, but it isn’t hard or harmful to help them be indifferent about it.We did a couple of years of different stuff to give each kid a taste of it. I told them if they didn’t practice at home I wasn’t going to sign them up.I tried modest encouragement. They didn’t practice. I built them a small BMX track already FREE,close to home and more exercise than baseball, more fun than baseball plus crosstraining(note not a mention of football).

If you look for ways to spend money on them and train them to be expensive they surely will be. We have 3 boys, by the time they start eating a lot they can grow some of their food. Maybe I will even sell some of it. We can pay their way through school farming, and when they are done have farming knowledge, a degree and a farm instead of a ton of debt. Half serious, but geez, people with what you have AND LESS, do find ways to live outside of a full on rat race and raise somewhat thriving human beings too.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=temeculaguy] . . . If you think you are going to die soon, then take a different track, live where you want. personally, I could live in S.D. but ever since viagra/ciallis came out I’ve adjusted my strategy. I figure I need to save 50% of my income so I am richer as I age. With the current medications and the fact that the odds totally tilt in a man’s favor every day over 40 as far as the population of singles go. It’s going to be pandemonium. By 70, it’s like 3-1 women to men, I gave up sugar a few years ago, I exercise every day. I fully plan on wearing out my prescription drug coverage . . .[/quote]

TG, in my limited experience in “online dating” with the “boomer” set, I’ve noticed there are three or more men for every ONE woman. They’re not necessarily “available” men or “quality” men, for the reason(s) you mentioned above :={

Perhaps you’ve been shopping for “dates” in another age group??

[bearishgurl]

[quote=temeculaguy] . . . If you think you are going to die soon, then take a different track, live where you want. personally, I could live in S.D. but ever since viagra/ciallis came out I’ve adjusted my strategy. I figure I need to save 50% of my income so I am richer as I age. With the current medications and the fact that the odds totally tilt in a man’s favor every day over 40 as far as the population of singles go. It’s going to be pandemonium. By 70, it’s like 3-1 women to men, I gave up sugar a few years ago, I exercise every day. I fully plan on wearing out my prescription drug coverage . . .[/quote]

TG, in my limited experience in “online dating” with the “boomer” set, I’ve noticed there are three or more men for every ONE woman. They’re not necessarily “available” men or “quality” men, for the reason(s) you mentioned above :={

Perhaps you’ve been shopping for “dates” in another age group??

[bearishgurl]

[quote=temeculaguy] . . . If you think you are going to die soon, then take a different track, live where you want. personally, I could live in S.D. but ever since viagra/ciallis came out I’ve adjusted my strategy. I figure I need to save 50% of my income so I am richer as I age. With the current medications and the fact that the odds totally tilt in a man’s favor every day over 40 as far as the population of singles go. It’s going to be pandemonium. By 70, it’s like 3-1 women to men, I gave up sugar a few years ago, I exercise every day. I fully plan on wearing out my prescription drug coverage . . .[/quote]

TG, in my limited experience in “online dating” with the “boomer” set, I’ve noticed there are three or more men for every ONE woman. They’re not necessarily “available” men or “quality” men, for the reason(s) you mentioned above :={

Perhaps you’ve been shopping for “dates” in another age group??

[bearishgurl]

[quote=temeculaguy] . . . If you think you are going to die soon, then take a different track, live where you want. personally, I could live in S.D. but ever since viagra/ciallis came out I’ve adjusted my strategy. I figure I need to save 50% of my income so I am richer as I age. With the current medications and the fact that the odds totally tilt in a man’s favor every day over 40 as far as the population of singles go. It’s going to be pandemonium. By 70, it’s like 3-1 women to men, I gave up sugar a few years ago, I exercise every day. I fully plan on wearing out my prescription drug coverage . . .[/quote]

TG, in my limited experience in “online dating” with the “boomer” set, I’ve noticed there are three or more men for every ONE woman. They’re not necessarily “available” men or “quality” men, for the reason(s) you mentioned above :={

Perhaps you’ve been shopping for “dates” in another age group??

[bearishgurl]

[quote=temeculaguy] . . . If you think you are going to die soon, then take a different track, live where you want. personally, I could live in S.D. but ever since viagra/ciallis came out I’ve adjusted my strategy. I figure I need to save 50% of my income so I am richer as I age. With the current medications and the fact that the odds totally tilt in a man’s favor every day over 40 as far as the population of singles go. It’s going to be pandemonium. By 70, it’s like 3-1 women to men, I gave up sugar a few years ago, I exercise every day. I fully plan on wearing out my prescription drug coverage . . .[/quote]

TG, in my limited experience in “online dating” with the “boomer” set, I’ve noticed there are three or more men for every ONE woman. They’re not necessarily “available” men or “quality” men, for the reason(s) you mentioned above :={

Perhaps you’ve been shopping for “dates” in another age group??

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Doooh][quote=Doooh]Explain HDHP and how to qualify.[/quote] . . . So, I think I can deduce what our lifestyle would cost minus the extra Health insurance bill and the payed of house maintenance that we’d incur. Fuel cost would drop dramatically, I want to say the work clothes bill would drop too, but I work in pants a t-shirt so there wouldn’t be a change.

What have I missed, besides the cost of a kid or two? (insert sarcasm here)[/quote]

An “HDHP” is a High-Deductible Health Plan, which is a plan that often includes preventative coverage at 100% and has a co-pay of at least $40 for a doctor visit but all other outpatient procedures and hospitalization are subject to a $5K deductible annually and up to $8K out of pocket for the patient (co-insurance) per year. If you are only 33 and otherwise healthy, your premium should be somewhere around $110 per mo for this type of (preventative and catastrophic) coverage. Your spouse, presumably a female of childbearing age, would possibly have a somewhat higher premium, even if healthy. HDHP’s are very good and reasonable-cost plans, underwritten by the nation’s biggest health insurers with the most pricing clout. For medically uninsured homeowners in CA, HDHP’s are a godsend, since the State of CA DOES NOT have to go to court to obtain a judgment to place liens for unpaid medical bills on a patient’s property. Persons availing themselves of CMS services and Medi-Cal coverage in CA typically have liens filed against them in their respective county recorders’ offices for their care. However, the vast majority of these patients do not own property and so these liens are virtually uncollectable until such time as they try to purchase property.

Doooh, after the Health Care Reform Act (HCRA), was signed into law earlier this year, one no longer has to “qualify” for individual health coverage and/or an HDHP. However, even though insurance companies must now accept every applicant, until 2014 they can still PRICE an applicant’s premiums according to risk. So yes, if you apply for individual health coverage, you will have to open up your medical records to the insurance company you are applying to plus undergo whatever other tests they require, often with their own “furnished” provider.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Doooh][quote=Doooh]Explain HDHP and how to qualify.[/quote] . . . So, I think I can deduce what our lifestyle would cost minus the extra Health insurance bill and the payed of house maintenance that we’d incur. Fuel cost would drop dramatically, I want to say the work clothes bill would drop too, but I work in pants a t-shirt so there wouldn’t be a change.

What have I missed, besides the cost of a kid or two? (insert sarcasm here)[/quote]

An “HDHP” is a High-Deductible Health Plan, which is a plan that often includes preventative coverage at 100% and has a co-pay of at least $40 for a doctor visit but all other outpatient procedures and hospitalization are subject to a $5K deductible annually and up to $8K out of pocket for the patient (co-insurance) per year. If you are only 33 and otherwise healthy, your premium should be somewhere around $110 per mo for this type of (preventative and catastrophic) coverage. Your spouse, presumably a female of childbearing age, would possibly have a somewhat higher premium, even if healthy. HDHP’s are very good and reasonable-cost plans, underwritten by the nation’s biggest health insurers with the most pricing clout. For medically uninsured homeowners in CA, HDHP’s are a godsend, since the State of CA DOES NOT have to go to court to obtain a judgment to place liens for unpaid medical bills on a patient’s property. Persons availing themselves of CMS services and Medi-Cal coverage in CA typically have liens filed against them in their respective county recorders’ offices for their care. However, the vast majority of these patients do not own property and so these liens are virtually uncollectable until such time as they try to purchase property.

Doooh, after the Health Care Reform Act (HCRA), was signed into law earlier this year, one no longer has to “qualify” for individual health coverage and/or an HDHP. However, even though insurance companies must now accept every applicant, until 2014 they can still PRICE an applicant’s premiums according to risk. So yes, if you apply for individual health coverage, you will have to open up your medical records to the insurance company you are applying to plus undergo whatever other tests they require, often with their own “furnished” provider.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Doooh][quote=Doooh]Explain HDHP and how to qualify.[/quote] . . . So, I think I can deduce what our lifestyle would cost minus the extra Health insurance bill and the payed of house maintenance that we’d incur. Fuel cost would drop dramatically, I want to say the work clothes bill would drop too, but I work in pants a t-shirt so there wouldn’t be a change.

What have I missed, besides the cost of a kid or two? (insert sarcasm here)[/quote]

An “HDHP” is a High-Deductible Health Plan, which is a plan that often includes preventative coverage at 100% and has a co-pay of at least $40 for a doctor visit but all other outpatient procedures and hospitalization are subject to a $5K deductible annually and up to $8K out of pocket for the patient (co-insurance) per year. If you are only 33 and otherwise healthy, your premium should be somewhere around $110 per mo for this type of (preventative and catastrophic) coverage. Your spouse, presumably a female of childbearing age, would possibly have a somewhat higher premium, even if healthy. HDHP’s are very good and reasonable-cost plans, underwritten by the nation’s biggest health insurers with the most pricing clout. For medically uninsured homeowners in CA, HDHP’s are a godsend, since the State of CA DOES NOT have to go to court to obtain a judgment to place liens for unpaid medical bills on a patient’s property. Persons availing themselves of CMS services and Medi-Cal coverage in CA typically have liens filed against them in their respective county recorders’ offices for their care. However, the vast majority of these patients do not own property and so these liens are virtually uncollectable until such time as they try to purchase property.

Doooh, after the Health Care Reform Act (HCRA), was signed into law earlier this year, one no longer has to “qualify” for individual health coverage and/or an HDHP. However, even though insurance companies must now accept every applicant, until 2014 they can still PRICE an applicant’s premiums according to risk. So yes, if you apply for individual health coverage, you will have to open up your medical records to the insurance company you are applying to plus undergo whatever other tests they require, often with their own “furnished” provider.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Doooh][quote=Doooh]Explain HDHP and how to qualify.[/quote] . . . So, I think I can deduce what our lifestyle would cost minus the extra Health insurance bill and the payed of house maintenance that we’d incur. Fuel cost would drop dramatically, I want to say the work clothes bill would drop too, but I work in pants a t-shirt so there wouldn’t be a change.

What have I missed, besides the cost of a kid or two? (insert sarcasm here)[/quote]

An “HDHP” is a High-Deductible Health Plan, which is a plan that often includes preventative coverage at 100% and has a co-pay of at least $40 for a doctor visit but all other outpatient procedures and hospitalization are subject to a $5K deductible annually and up to $8K out of pocket for the patient (co-insurance) per year. If you are only 33 and otherwise healthy, your premium should be somewhere around $110 per mo for this type of (preventative and catastrophic) coverage. Your spouse, presumably a female of childbearing age, would possibly have a somewhat higher premium, even if healthy. HDHP’s are very good and reasonable-cost plans, underwritten by the nation’s biggest health insurers with the most pricing clout. For medically uninsured homeowners in CA, HDHP’s are a godsend, since the State of CA DOES NOT have to go to court to obtain a judgment to place liens for unpaid medical bills on a patient’s property. Persons availing themselves of CMS services and Medi-Cal coverage in CA typically have liens filed against them in their respective county recorders’ offices for their care. However, the vast majority of these patients do not own property and so these liens are virtually uncollectable until such time as they try to purchase property.

Doooh, after the Health Care Reform Act (HCRA), was signed into law earlier this year, one no longer has to “qualify” for individual health coverage and/or an HDHP. However, even though insurance companies must now accept every applicant, until 2014 they can still PRICE an applicant’s premiums according to risk. So yes, if you apply for individual health coverage, you will have to open up your medical records to the insurance company you are applying to plus undergo whatever other tests they require, often with their own “furnished” provider.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Doooh][quote=Doooh]Explain HDHP and how to qualify.[/quote] . . . So, I think I can deduce what our lifestyle would cost minus the extra Health insurance bill and the payed of house maintenance that we’d incur. Fuel cost would drop dramatically, I want to say the work clothes bill would drop too, but I work in pants a t-shirt so there wouldn’t be a change.

What have I missed, besides the cost of a kid or two? (insert sarcasm here)[/quote]

An “HDHP” is a High-Deductible Health Plan, which is a plan that often includes preventative coverage at 100% and has a co-pay of at least $40 for a doctor visit but all other outpatient procedures and hospitalization are subject to a $5K deductible annually and up to $8K out of pocket for the patient (co-insurance) per year. If you are only 33 and otherwise healthy, your premium should be somewhere around $110 per mo for this type of (preventative and catastrophic) coverage. Your spouse, presumably a female of childbearing age, would possibly have a somewhat higher premium, even if healthy. HDHP’s are very good and reasonable-cost plans, underwritten by the nation’s biggest health insurers with the most pricing clout. For medically uninsured homeowners in CA, HDHP’s are a godsend, since the State of CA DOES NOT have to go to court to obtain a judgment to place liens for unpaid medical bills on a patient’s property. Persons availing themselves of CMS services and Medi-Cal coverage in CA typically have liens filed against them in their respective county recorders’ offices for their care. However, the vast majority of these patients do not own property and so these liens are virtually uncollectable until such time as they try to purchase property.

Doooh, after the Health Care Reform Act (HCRA), was signed into law earlier this year, one no longer has to “qualify” for individual health coverage and/or an HDHP. However, even though insurance companies must now accept every applicant, until 2014 they can still PRICE an applicant’s premiums according to risk. So yes, if you apply for individual health coverage, you will have to open up your medical records to the insurance company you are applying to plus undergo whatever other tests they require, often with their own “furnished” provider.

[temeculaguy]

BG, you need not take things I write too literally. These are jokes, unfortunately sarcasm and humor are tricky to write, maybe I’m not doing it correctly.

But to your comment, I’m 43, I’m not a boomer. I have no problems finding dates, I just like making jokes and abstract social commentary. But regarding boomers, they are less likley to use the internet for social networking and men more likely than women so that is why you saw an imbalance. Socially those women tend to behave a little more conservatively, they are from a different time. When they were younger it was rare to find them making out with girls, piercing their naughty bits or having sex with more than one person at a time. But when those women become grandmas, look out. My jokes were pointed at the fact that when women my age get older, when the lower back tattoo/implants/something naughty pierced/sexually liberated crowd gets old, it will be different social environment than it is today. The part about leading a healthy life and planning my finances so I can enjoy my golden years, that was not a joke. Of course my version of “enjoy my golden years” is predicated on my belief that in 20 or 30 years, casual sex will be rampant amongst the elderly.

But this is a severe thread-jack and I’m obviously losing my touch if I have explain my jokes.

[temeculaguy]

BG, you need not take things I write too literally. These are jokes, unfortunately sarcasm and humor are tricky to write, maybe I’m not doing it correctly.

But to your comment, I’m 43, I’m not a boomer. I have no problems finding dates, I just like making jokes and abstract social commentary. But regarding boomers, they are less likley to use the internet for social networking and men more likely than women so that is why you saw an imbalance. Socially those women tend to behave a little more conservatively, they are from a different time. When they were younger it was rare to find them making out with girls, piercing their naughty bits or having sex with more than one person at a time. But when those women become grandmas, look out. My jokes were pointed at the fact that when women my age get older, when the lower back tattoo/implants/something naughty pierced/sexually liberated crowd gets old, it will be different social environment than it is today. The part about leading a healthy life and planning my finances so I can enjoy my golden years, that was not a joke. Of course my version of “enjoy my golden years” is predicated on my belief that in 20 or 30 years, casual sex will be rampant amongst the elderly.

But this is a severe thread-jack and I’m obviously losing my touch if I have explain my jokes.

[temeculaguy]

BG, you need not take things I write too literally. These are jokes, unfortunately sarcasm and humor are tricky to write, maybe I’m not doing it correctly.

But to your comment, I’m 43, I’m not a boomer. I have no problems finding dates, I just like making jokes and abstract social commentary. But regarding boomers, they are less likley to use the internet for social networking and men more likely than women so that is why you saw an imbalance. Socially those women tend to behave a little more conservatively, they are from a different time. When they were younger it was rare to find them making out with girls, piercing their naughty bits or having sex with more than one person at a time. But when those women become grandmas, look out. My jokes were pointed at the fact that when women my age get older, when the lower back tattoo/implants/something naughty pierced/sexually liberated crowd gets old, it will be different social environment than it is today. The part about leading a healthy life and planning my finances so I can enjoy my golden years, that was not a joke. Of course my version of “enjoy my golden years” is predicated on my belief that in 20 or 30 years, casual sex will be rampant amongst the elderly.

But this is a severe thread-jack and I’m obviously losing my touch if I have explain my jokes.

[temeculaguy]

BG, you need not take things I write too literally. These are jokes, unfortunately sarcasm and humor are tricky to write, maybe I’m not doing it correctly.

But to your comment, I’m 43, I’m not a boomer. I have no problems finding dates, I just like making jokes and abstract social commentary. But regarding boomers, they are less likley to use the internet for social networking and men more likely than women so that is why you saw an imbalance. Socially those women tend to behave a little more conservatively, they are from a different time. When they were younger it was rare to find them making out with girls, piercing their naughty bits or having sex with more than one person at a time. But when those women become grandmas, look out. My jokes were pointed at the fact that when women my age get older, when the lower back tattoo/implants/something naughty pierced/sexually liberated crowd gets old, it will be different social environment than it is today. The part about leading a healthy life and planning my finances so I can enjoy my golden years, that was not a joke. Of course my version of “enjoy my golden years” is predicated on my belief that in 20 or 30 years, casual sex will be rampant amongst the elderly.

But this is a severe thread-jack and I’m obviously losing my touch if I have explain my jokes.

[Author]

Posts