What about $100K? Or $200K?

I guess it's all relative.


Bozo wrote:
True. It's also relative about how much of one's assets would they sink into
a depreciating recreational toy.


That is exactly the case. To put a slightly finer point on it, how much
would they sink into *one* depreciating toy.

If you want a McMansion, a new Beemer and/or SUV every year, designer
jeans, the country club, the hunting trips to Alaska & the scuba diving
trips to St Kitts (input snow skiing or horses, alternatively), and a
nice sailboat, then you gotta either have one heck of a lot of
disposable income or else cheapen everything you do by some amount.

All I can afford is a nice boat... well, I do have a decent guitar...



For most people:
50K is several years of disposable income saved up.

That's because most people live at the outer limit of their means, if
not actually beyond. The down-home values of saving up for a rainy day
has largely vanished from American culture, and we're suffering for it.


... Then after that, most of
the disposable income goes into maintenance, upgrades, etc. In the end, the
boat owns you. Then consider what if you took that 50K and invested it, look
at the lost opportunity cost.


What if you save up for years, invest wisely, and can pay for both the
boat & it's upkeep out of your investment income?


A good portion of the American economy is based on frivolous purchases such
as this. But hey, that keeps people working and paying taxes and...


Yep. Gotta keep that wheel cranking!

The rat race has a high entry fee and people will do anything to join.


You sure do have a way with words. I assume you posted this excellent
saying because you wanted me to quote it... and I will be happy to oblige!

Regards
Doug King