Consequences of Spending Without Saving- Disaster in lurking in the Horizon

‘E kena Boghe Bunjeyya, Dweehi Kamman Payojaye, Chathuthancha Nidapeyya, Apadasu Bhawissathi’. Lord Buddha has thus shared his wisdom in the manner in which an individual ought to allocate his or her earnings. According to his preachings, 25% of the earnings should be saved to accomodate for future emergencies. Likewise, all the religions emphasise on the urgency to save earnings, for the future cannot thrive without a safety net. Nowadays, the society tends to spend first, and later consider the possibility of saving. That is entirely catastrophic, since there are certain unpredictable factors that might cause implications in the future. What happens if one fails to ensure such a safety net? Here are a few possible outcomes, if one tends to overspend without considering the hidden consequences.

LOSING THE BENEFIT OF TIME.

For all the expert advice that is out there surrounding retirement planning and investing, there is one key advantage that every earner has in preparing for retirement, and it doesn’t cost a thing or require much financial know-how at all: Time.

The longer you have to work towards retirement, regardless of where you invest and how the economy performs, the better prepared you are to retire one day.

According to Certified Public Accountant Ryan Himmel, many individuals won’t have more than $100,000 saved up for when they retire, and it’s because they don’t even start thinking about retirement as a prioritized goal until their 50’s.

The reasons for putting it on the back burner are understandable: Your younger years are often marked by lower salaries, and possibly, digging your way out of student loan and credit card debt.

Then, you begin to focus your savings on buying a home, cars, and having a family. Before you know it, retirement isn’t so far off into the horizon; but you’ve cost yourself dearly by simply missing the advantage that time brings to long-term investment growth.

Consider the difference between a person who saved $100 a month starting at age 25, versus 35: Assuming an 8 percent return on investment, the younger saver would amass $365,000 for retirement by age 65.

The one who started ten years later would have less than half of that saved by the same age, simply due to the lost opportunity of long-term growth.

YOU CANNOT PREDICT THE MACRO ECONOMY.

Economists, stock brokers and investors all make a living by studying and spotting economic trends before they happen, but the reality is, no one can predict what the future economy beholds, because it is dictated by so many unpredictable forces, including global politics, the weather, and human behaviour.

Regardless of what you think life will be like when you’re ready to retire, you have no way of knowing. Without retirement savings, you’re completely at the mercy of the unknown.

If you haven’t saved enough for retirement and it’s nearing, you’ll have no choice but to make up for lost time by putting your money into higher return—and higher risk— investments.

If the real estate market is in a down cycle, you could be left with a home whose equity you cannot leverage by way of a sale, refinance, or reverse mortgage.

If lifestyles, technology, and other innovations put your skill set less in demand, you may not be as marketable as you imagine.

While any of these factors could happen regardless of how much you’ve saved, having retirement funds gives you more control over the uncontrollable.

NOT GETTING YOUR WORTH.

If you’re shunning retirement savings because you intend to work until you drop, rethink your plan. In a recent survey conducted by Capital One Sharebuilder, one in four Americans plans to work part-time during their retirement; one-third plans to maintain their current lifestyle.

The issue with that plan is the availability of high-compensation job options that will be available to the aging population. Take for example, the “lump of labour theory,” a widely accepted belief by European economists that postulates the existence of older workers in an economy takes jobs from younger workers.

Regardless of whether you believe the theory, the heart of the message is worth considering: If employers must choose, will they opt for an older worker who has loads of experience—but higher income expectations, or a younger worker who is willing to do the job for less money?

LIVING LONGER THAN YOU THINK.

According to the Society of Actuaries 2000 Annuity Table, there is a 17% chance a male age 65 will live to age 95. Females who are 65 have a 23% chance of living to age 95.

For married couples, there’s a 36% chance that either member of the joint couple will live to age 95. If you’re putting off retirement savings because a life of golfing and relaxing isn’t on your bucket list, consider that regardless of your desire, health issues brought on by the aging process may have an unintended consequence.

In the brief, “The Decline of Career Employment” published by The Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, experts estimate that 15 to 20 percent of older workers are not healthy enough to remain in the workforce during their older years.

NOT HAVING A FALLBACK PLAN.

Though the future of social security remains a political hot button, economists agree that the funds won’t be around at their current levels and criterion, for much longer.

In the most recent Social Security Trustees’ annual report, the year 2033 is marked as the time social security and disability funds are expected to decline significantly.

Though Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue did state at a press conference that social security likely wouldn’t be depleted entirely in 2033, (if Congress does nothing,) he did acknowledge change, stating “there will be sufficient assets to pay 75% of the benefits.’’

Given that current social security income levels aren’t even enough to support many retirees, plan on social security as a supplemental, rather than primary, source of income–at best.