I am not against saving money. But if you put aside the fact that 7% is nowhere to be earned, not without risk, and definitely not for 40 years.
Consider this :
Let me give you a real example: Say you have Sarah, who decides at 25 to save $1,000 a month. She does that for 10 years. And then she stops. Then you have Roger, who waits until he's 35, and he saves $1,000 a month for 30 years. They both earn 7 percent on their savings.
Now, 30 years after she stops contributing Sarah would have $1,262,089.05. But Roger, who would have put away three times as much as Sarah, would only have $1,133,529.44.
The reason Sarah only saved a third as much as Roger but ended up with more money is because she started earlier.
Doesn't that mean, if Sarah paid off her house in 10 years, Roger paid 3x for his house after 40 years while Sarah can be wasting $1000 a month for the remaining 30 years? Obviously most people can't earn 7% on their savings, so how can you make this work to your advantage?
What in this country is a guaranteed fix rate other than CD, bonds, child support, and mortgage?
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.