Whats your net worth

We are a low income grad couple. Even though we are already in our late forties, our total income is only $180k pa. We can only afford to save $60k pa due to the high cost of condo and car ownership, parents financial support, high children education and holidays.

We struggle to survive in this demanding environment where your in laws expect you to live in a condo or else risked being looked down. My car also needs to be a European make to be on par with brother in laws.

I am still in debt for my condo and car.

Life is tough.

Good achievement. What's your annual income, net worth? What's your retirement plan? Any plans? Are you going to take care of grandchildren?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Whoa, whoa, don't swing to extremes. Don't blindly save to achieve that $m as it is more important to lead a meaningful, enriching and enjoyable life. We saved only to ensure that we can live out our twilight years independently financially.

It is about striking a balance. Don't overspend and don't over save.

Now in my mid fifties I have noted that my household expenses have more or less stabilized around $100k to $120k pa when we were in our 40s. Since our household income hit $250k with bonuses when were in our early 40s, we were able to save $100k + yearly. The children's education expense will spike when they get into uni. Overseas uni can set you back $50k or more per year. Luckily my children chose to study locally.

What kind of lifestyle the $100k - $120k pa afford us? We stay in a condo with full facilities, 6 of us including maid. We have a car (Jap car). We eat out at mid range restaurants every weekend. We take a short holiday to M'sia or Indon'sia durin June Holidays, and a longer one further away eg Europe, or Japan, Korea etc at year end. We find our lifestyle enjoyable and yet not lavish.

Our savings grew from $100k+ in our early 40s to high $200k+ now, a result of higher income combined with passive income. For eg., our net worth grew by another $1m in 3+ years.

I am thus not surprised with the rising number of millionaires as there are many couples out there with much higher earning power than ourselves.

Like that sure die one. When your present car COE expires, you will have to spend another $150k to buy another conti car. This will set you back 3 years of savings.

Actually your expenditure of $120k pa is not excessive at all generally, but as a percentage of your not-so-high income it is high.

All is not lost, $60k pa saving is still better than nothing. At least you can continue to buy a new conti car every 3 years. Just that your retirement will have to wait, till you are 65 or later or those relatives that look down on you are no longer around.

I just could not understand why people need to look down on others be it academic performance, income, jobs, or what have you. Everyone has some strong qualities and weak qualities. Everyone is different.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

We are a low income grad couple. Even though we are already in our late forties, our total income is only $180k pa. We can only afford to save $60k pa due to the high cost of condo and car ownership, parents financial support, high children education and holidays.

We struggle to survive in this demanding environment where your in laws expect you to live in a condo or else risked being looked down. My car also needs to be a European make to be on par with brother in laws.

I am still in debt for my condo and car.

Life is tough.

Marrying a girl from a rich family may not actually be good for men because of the high expectations from the family. If the parents help to buy you a condo, then you are lucky but you feel indebted. So most men will not accept the girl's parents help due to ego and loss of face. You don't want relatives to look at you one kind, because they know (of course the mother in law will brag to them that they help to pay the downpayment). So, in the end, you still buy a condo using your own resources.

My friend said he is lucky to marry a heartlander girl, very simple, not demanding and her parents just live in an old 3 room HDB flat. So when he bought a new BTO 5 room HDB flat, his in laws are so proud of him and he always get praises from them. He feels good. He also don't need to own a car as her in laws said better to save money than waste on a car. He is so lucky.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Like that sure die one. When your present car COE expires, you will have to spend another $150k to buy another conti car. This will set you back 3 years of savings.

Actually your expenditure of $120k pa is not excessive at all generally, but as a percentage of your not-so-high income it is high.

All is not lost, $60k pa saving is still better than nothing. At least you can continue to buy a new conti car every 3 years. Just that your retirement will have to wait, till you are 65 or later or those relatives that look down on you are no longer around.

I just could not understand why people need to look down on others be it academic performance, income, jobs, or what have you. Everyone has some strong qualities and weak qualities. Everyone is different.

This is a wake up call.

I plan to ask my wife to quit working until our two daghters (in P1 and P3) get into top schools and clear their O levels.

This means our household income will drop from $230k pa to $130k pa. This is tough but is worth it in the long run.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Most parents regret working too much during children's early years

Monday, February 24, 2014 - 19:34
AsiaOne

SINGAPORE - More than 95 per cent of the 250 parents polled here regret spending too much time at work during their children's formative years.

The survey, conducted by three students from NTU's Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, revealed that 74 per cent of parents spend only three to four hours on a typical day with their children, with a majority citing work as the primary obstacle.

23 per cent of parents also regretted not developing a shared hobby with their children - activities that would help in developing a child's problem-solving abilities and social intelligence - which are fundamental to a child's mental development in the long term.

A social campaign led by the three NTU undergraduates, dubbed The Happiness Revolution: Best Gift for Your Child, aims to encourage parents to think about the best way to spend time with their child to improve their mental well-being.

Over 300 parents have pledged to provide the best gift for their children as a step towards a more successful and happier life since the launch of the initiative in January.

"Children learn to manage their emotions by observing how other family members express and manage their emotions," said team member Ms Joyce Lim, 23.

"In a huge way, parents play a critical role in modelling how to respond to strong feelings."

Experts have cited a culture of digital and electronic distraction as another obstacle towards parent-child engagement.

Child psychologist Ms Anne Chua said that initiating activities that would encourage children to think about their social skills.

"Something as simple as a quiz or treasure hunt where kids interact with their peers and learn how to negotiate decisions," she said.

For more information, visit The Happiness Revolution's website or Facebook page.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

This is a wake up call.

I plan to ask my wife to quit working until our two daghters (in P1 and P3) get into top schools and clear their O levels.

This means our household income will drop from $230k pa to $130k pa. This is tough but is worth it in the long run.

This is just my observation. Parents tend to push their kids too hard when young to get into top schools. Often it seems to work quite well until about O Levels. However beyond that, it's the kid's innate ability at A levels and Uni, and there is very little the parents can do. So sometimes they waste a huge amount of time and potential retirement savings on the kids who do well until O Levels only for the kids to turn mediocre at A levels and Uni. There are only that many places for Medicine and Law... Point is that most children will eventually turn out to be pretty average people in the rat race and sacrificing everything for them doesn't usually pay off.

While I am not for hot-housing and stressing our children, I find your reasoning below defeatish, narrow and shallow.

Just because there are limited spaces available for law, medical and other coveted educational courses, it does not mean you should not even try. And if you dont try, how would you ever know you will be up there? Children in their formative years, have no or very vague ideas what they would like to do in life. This is where parents can play a big part, simply because they are your children - meaning your genes are in them.

Getting ahead educationally also give a big boost to the young children's morale and when they see that they can understand and do difficult problems they get really encouraged. This is where the extra help, tuition comes in handy.

Now at the institutions of higher learning, other skill sets come into play and where problem sets are open ended and they are required to think independently and at the same time work in teams. Some of these students may not have these innate skills or nor the aptitude. But the important fact is that they did well enough to get into the Uni.

I suspect many students missed the chance to get into Uni because they didnt have the privilege of tuition or that extra help early. It is a pity.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

This is just my observation. Parents tend to push their kids too hard when young to get into top schools. Often it seems to work quite well until about O Levels. However beyond that, it's the kid's innate ability at A levels and Uni, and there is very little the parents can do. So sometimes they waste a huge amount of time and potential retirement savings on the kids who do well until O Levels only for the kids to turn mediocre at A levels and Uni. There are only that many places for Medicine and Law... Point is that most children will eventually turn out to be pretty average people in the rat race and sacrificing everything for them doesn't usually pay off.

I totally agree. I took 10 years off from work to coach my son until he got into a top global university. The rest is history. Our household income dropped from $800k pa to $500k pa. But it was worth it.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

While I am not for hot-housing and stressing our children, I find your reasoning below defeatish, narrow and shallow.

Just because there are limited spaces available for law, medical and other coveted educational courses, it does not mean you should not even try. And if you dont try, how would you ever know you will be up there? Children in their formative years, have no or very vague ideas what they would like to do in life. This is where parents can play a big part, simply because they are your children - meaning your genes are in them.

Getting ahead educationally also give a big boost to the young children's morale and when they see that they can understand and do difficult problems they get really encouraged. This is where the extra help, tuition comes in handy.

Now at the institutions of higher learning, other skill sets come into play and where problem sets are open ended and they are required to think independently and at the same time work in teams. Some of these students may not have these innate skills or nor the aptitude. But the important fact is that they did well enough to get into the Uni.

I suspect many students missed the chance to get into Uni because they didnt have the privilege of tuition or that extra help early. It is a pity.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

While I am not for hot-housing and stressing our children, I find your reasoning below defeatish, narrow and shallow.

Just because there are limited spaces available for law, medical and other coveted educational courses, it does not mean you should not even try. And if you dont try, how would you ever know you will be up there? Children in their formative years, have no or very vague ideas what they would like to do in life. This is where parents can play a big part, simply because they are your children - meaning your genes are in them.

Getting ahead educationally also give a big boost to the young children's morale and when they see that they can understand and do difficult problems they get really encouraged. This is where the extra help, tuition comes in handy.

Now at the institutions of higher learning, other skill sets come into play and where problem sets are open ended and they are required to think independently and at the same time work in teams. Some of these students may not have these innate skills or nor the aptitude. But the important fact is that they did well enough to get into the Uni.

I suspect many students missed the chance to get into Uni because they didnt have the privilege of tuition or that extra help early. It is a pity.

I think your view is outdated and you really don't understand how things like A levels work.Also, everyone has tuition, but many fail to get into University anyway. Yet many many kids from poor households who never had tuition make it. There are many top professional households with two lawyer or doctor parents, where the kids succeed without the parents giving up. Overparenting them can be harmful.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I totally agree. I took 10 years off from work to coach my son until he got into a top global university. The rest is history. Our household income dropped from $800k pa to $500k pa. But it was worth it.

If your spouse earned $500k pa 10+ years ago, you should have retired anyway. Its quite different from the other guy whose household income drops from $230k to $130k. He's literally going into poverty in some gamble on his children. Many kids who do badly early in school buck up and do well later. Many kids who are pushed too hard resent it and rebel against their parents later, often turning into delinquents.