Why the 50/20/30 rule is ridiculous

17 Jan

There is a rule floating around the interwebs that says you should organize your finances according to the 50/20/30 rule. Essentially, your fixed expenses should total 50% of your take-home pay, 20% should go to savings/investments and the 30% left over is for discretionary spending.

That sounds pretty stupid to me, because as I’ve said before, percentages mean nothing except in relation to an integer.

Let’s say you’re a recent grad making minimum wage. In the U.S., that’s $7.25 ($9.32 here in lovely Washington state, but let’s go with the low number. If you work 40 hours a week, and are single with no dependents, that’s $13,500 in after-tax money a year, or $1125 a month.

Half of that is $562.50. That’s what you have, by the rule, to spend on rent and bills. Pretty tight, and probably near impossible in places like NYC, but do-able in many smaller cities. You find a cheap place with roommates, get a low-cost cell phone, and are super frugal with your grocery buying. It’s tough, but you make it work. You then, by this rule, have $225/month to save (or pay off things like student loans) and $337.5 ($84/week – seems high to me, and if this was my budget, I’d probably move $100 of that to food and living expenses, but to each their own) to have fun with. You are financially content in this situation, but it’s tough.

You work there for a while, gain some skills, and move on to a job paying $35,000/year, so your take-home pay nearly doubles. Go, you! Wanting to be smart with this new windfall, you start recalculating based on the 50/20/30 rule.

Your new budget categories are: necessities: $1125, savings/debt payoff: $450, discretionary fun money: $675.

Wow! You can move into a way nicer apartment, get a fancy cell phone, go out to eat every day, and save twice as much money! You could buy a car! Cool!

Or, you could … not.

Let’s say instead you move into a slightly nicer place and get a fancy cell phone. Maybe up your monthly necessities to $800 (remember though, these aren’t really necessities, this is a lifestyle inflation you’re choosing, and you survived perfectly well on less), so now they’re 32% of this new fancy salary you have. Give yourself a little more fun money, maybe $400 a month, or 16% of your paycheck.

Wow! You’ve increased your spending and you’re still saving 52 PERCENT OF YOUR PAYCHECK.

Damn, you’re impressive.

That’s $1300/month, or $15,600/year. That’s money you’ll have in the bank to fly home for a family emergency, or spend as a down payment on a home in a couple years, or see you through a period of unemployment, or invest as an awesome start to an impressive net worth.

Imagine you get a raise, or another new job, in a year or two, and now you’re bringing home $3000/month. But you are already living a life you’re happy with, so you just stick that extra $500/month in your savings too. It’s not like you need it to be happy.

All of this is a long way of saying, letting your income determine your spending is ridiculous. Just because you’re saving 20% of your paycheck does not mean you “deserve” to spend whatever is left over on Chipotle and movies and a small pile of new clothes every month.

Your spending should be determined by what it takes to live a comfortable life, probably with a few luxuries (I go to bars/restaurants 2-3 times a week. It’s not like I live in a cave). Coming in $100 under on your discretionary budget on the 29th isn’t a reason to go see what’s on sale at Target, it’s an opportunity to chuck that $100 in your savings account, where it can do way more good for your future than that motivational poster, sweater and video game ever will.

Note: Yes, I realize there are people supporting whole families on minimum wage. There are people whose budget is already cut to the bone, and still they’re struggling to get by. This post is not directed at those people. This post is directed primarily at my fellow post-grads, who suddenly find themselves with salaries and more money than they’ve ever had, but are hemorrhaging it away instead of being smart about it.


One Response to “Why the 50/20/30 rule is ridiculous”

  1. ricodilello January 17, 2015 at 4:09 pm #

    Some very good points in your post. There are many more silly financial rules floating around. One size doesn’t fit all.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: