In Australia it's not unheard of for someone to declare bankrupcy due to medical expenses, but it's rare. Last quarter there were 1427 bankruptcies in Australia:
https://www.afsa.gov.au/about-us/statistics/quarterly-personal-insolvency-statistics
About 10% of those are due to medical expenses.
https://www.afsa.gov.au/about-us/statistics/changes-afsa-statistics
https://www.gofundme.com/en-au/c/blog/medical-bankruptcy
So here we are talking maybe 500 people a year in the whole country. But no one gets denied life saving treatment under the medicare system, regardless of circumstance.
Thinking of worst case examples like that and thinking it essentially "futile" to save is crazy. You can want changes in the system all you want, but ultimately you have to live in the world you have (or move to somewhere more favourable).
Live within your means, save, have contingencies like multiple sources of incomes (or the potential for them), and be willing to pivot if circumstances change.
Thinking of worst case examples like that and thinking it essentially "futile" to save is crazy. You can want changes in the system all you want, but ultimately you have to live in the world you have (or move to somewhere more favourable).
Live within your means, save, have contingencies like multiple sources of incomes (or the potential for them), and be willing to pivot if circumstances change.
That's not really what I meant. Saving money and having an emergency fund is absolutely a wise idea, I only meant that it is not a substitute for health insurance, even a modest procedure can easily wipe out a savings account if you are not insured.
We need insurance insurance. Insurance against insurance companies that tell you they'll cover everything and then cover nothing.
It's called savings. Smart people put aside some cash each month to go toward emergency expenses like health. Have a different bank account if you need the discipline of not touching it.
What a lot of people don't realize is that in the US you can go to any ER (A&E) get treatment and ignore the bill. Wash rinse & repeat. A lot if illegals and poor folks use this method.
That's not really what I meant. Saving money and having an emergency fund is absolutely a wise idea, I only meant that it is not a substitute for health insurance, even a modest procedure can easily wipe out a savings account if you are not insured.
Obviously also there is no perfect place to live, everywhere has advantages and disadvantages, but I am still annoyed that the country I live in gets so many things right and then totally drops the ball with this. If we had a functional national health insurance system that would take care of the only really major gripe I have, everything else I can deal with. Unfortunately the only people really willing to fix the healthcare situation are also totally nuts, and I know from experience that if they do ever have the chance to revamp the system they will find a way to screw it up horribly instead of copying what works from elsewhere.
And no politician wants to go and say, "Well maybe you shouldn't rent that $1,500 apartment but get that $900 one in that sketchy area" because their constituent is above thinking they are anything other than one to live in the nice part of town, with all the nice shops and parks that they want to live near.
Perhaps the only way to deal this is to literally enshrine in law "you can only spend 33% of your take home on rent" - that would limit rental inflation but create all sorts of headaches for housemates living together, people with erratic income or the self employed, and there would no doubt still be corruption.
Longer term better public transport makes cities more livable so the practical area of a commute becomes larger, as well as arrangements like working from home for jobs that can accommodate that.
And no politician wants to go and say, "Well maybe you shouldn't rent that $1,500 apartment but get that $900 one in that sketchy area" because their constituent is above thinking they are anything other than one to live in the nice part of town, with all the nice shops and parks that they want to live near.
Perhaps the only way to deal this is to literally enshrine in law "you can only spend 33% of your take home on rent" - that would limit rental inflation but create all sorts of headaches for housemates living together, people with erratic income or the self employed, and there would no doubt still be corruption.
Longer term better public transport makes cities more livable so the practical area of a commute becomes larger, as well as arrangements like working from home for jobs that can accommodate that.
Rent is for suckers. I saved every penny I could and bought a house when I was 25, it was a LOT more than 33% of my income at the time but it was the best decision I ever made, if I hadn't done that I'd have to have moved off into the boonies a long time ago. I cannot even fathom why someone would be content to rent any longer than they had to. It is absolutely moronic from a financial standpoint. When you buy you can eventually have it paid off which I intend to do in a year or so, then I'll own my house free and clear and no more payments, only taxes.
Even if you are freehold a larger property is like taking on debt again due to the ongoing upkeep it requires. Those urban and/or renting never see the other side of larger property ownership.
Rent is for suckers.
Perhaps the only way to deal this is to literally enshrine in law "you can only spend 33% of your take home on rent" - that would limit rental inflation but create all sorts of headaches for housemates living together, people with erratic income or the self employed, and there would no doubt still be corruption.
Longer term better public transport makes cities more livable so the practical area of a commute becomes larger, as well as arrangements like working from home for jobs that can accommodate that.
Rent is for suckers. I saved every penny I could and bought a house when I was 25, it was a LOT more than 33% of my income at the time but it was the best decision I ever made, if I hadn't done that I'd have to have moved off into the boonies a long time ago. I cannot even fathom why someone would be content to rent any longer than they had to. It is absolutely moronic from a financial standpoint.
Well the problem is that the cheapest home you can buy anywhere in the south of England for instance would be around £200,000. That is, in terms of a house that you could live in. It would not be big and would probably be in a rough area, but it's a place to live.
To buy that you would need a min. downpayment of £10,000 (if you have excellent credit score to get a 95% mortgage) plus around another £5,000 for solicitors and other costs. So say £15k plus you really should have an emergency fund on top of that. And you need an income of at least £44k at the maximum loan to salary ratio of 4.5x, but most banks like 4x, so assume £50k (~$60k).
So the 'cheap' house now requires a salary almost twice as high as the median income in this country (~£33k). A job a lot of people cannot expect to achieve as it requires skills they don't have and probably never will. The ironic thing is, the mortgage over 30 years would probably cost about the same as the rent, but it's not available without meeting the downpayment or loan to salary calculations. You can add cash to the purchase of the house, which is how a lot of people on lower incomes buy homes (usually inherited or given to them by parents) but if you're not lucky enough to have that, tough.
People get trapped renting. It's very easy to end up in this situation. I'm sure similar calculations apply for the US. Just think about an example $20/hour worker and think what kind of home they could buy on that wage, even if they were very frugal. OK, engineers on top salaries are doing fine but a society is going to struggle when some of the most essential workers are struggling to pay the rent and have nowhere to call home.
Even if you are freehold a larger property is like taking on debt again due to the ongoing upkeep it requires. Those urban and/or renting never see the other side of larger property ownership.
That's a bargain compared to renting, any way you slice it, renting costs more in the long run, usually a LOT more and when you move out you have nothing. My house cost me ~90% of my income when I bought it, I had two roommates for several years to make ends meet. It is faulty logic to look at renting a place on one's own, get roommates, find a second job, do whatever it takes, it will be harder in the short term but much easier and better in the long term. The problem is that people want instant gratification, they have rigid requirements that they insist be met NOW, whereas I was always looking ~10 years out. I chose to sacrifice in my 20s so that I'd be comfortable in my 30s and beyond.
The problem is it doesn't matter how much you want it, if you have £1,000 a month rent and a £1,800 a month paycheque (after tax figure) -- which is very typical for an average earner in this country -- you are never going to be able to save up enough to qualify for a mortgage on any remotely worth living in.
... I could eat comfortably on $10/day pretty easily.
If people spent as much effort on actually earning more...
It's definitely easier to eat healthier when you have more time, though. If your earnings only come in because you work long hours, live far away from where you work (consequentially having a long commute) and then add in the stress of doing all of this, then you easily get a vicious cycle where cheap crap food just makes some problems go away for a bit.
Of course personal responsibility is a factor (I think we've been there on other threads) but humans definitely aren't perfect and I can't blame people for not wanting to sacrifice everything to get the house. Not that it should be easy, but someone working average hours (37hrs/week) at a median wage should be able to afford to buy a home, this was definitely possible 20-30 years ago, but it's rapidly becoming impossible across most of the western world.
QuoteIf people spent as much effort on actually earning more...
I think you are lacking empathy. Not everyone has your drive, your ambition, your goals, your ranking of hardships, your desires. And quite a few may even pretty close to your ideal but nevertheless be derailed by circumstances.
Even if you are freehold a larger property is like taking on debt again due to the ongoing upkeep it requires. Those urban and/or renting never see the other side of larger property ownership.
You don't have to do upkeep on the whole property. Loads of people have rural acreage and leave much of it to nature. I don't need a massive manicured lawn, a field and trees is fine with me.
Citing this view of reality might be lacking in empathy, but it doesn't make the view of reality incorrect.
If people are happy enough with their own drive, ambition, goals, ranking of hardships, and desires and the outcomes that those result in, there's no problem at all. I'm glad they're happy. If they're not happy, I'd urge them to change something.