Cruising on $5,000 / Month

[BandB]

Originally Posted by cwjohm

My point was how can you state a cruising budget of X without consideration of the day when you can no longer cruise, or no longer wish to cruise or live on a boat and making some financial consideration for such. This must consider depreciation and other factors. This is not only fiscally reckless but also socially irresponsible it seems to me.

However, I will take it as read that the cruising budget as it is referred to here makes no reference to these factors and simply refers to general expenses.

Simply you can account for things on a cash basis and not an accrual basis or accounting basis. In fact most people do so when living their daily lives. I don't know many individuals at all (obviously businesses do) who prepare personal income statements including depreciation of vehicles and boats, building reserves for future home repairs, and providing accruals for future retirement income or expenses. It's simply the way most approach their budgets and barring accounting degrees might be wisest and safest. The depreciation of a boat might not be relevant at all if they have no intent of ever replacing it. I actually do just as you say and consider depreciation in my boating budgets. But the reason is that I am younger and I do foresee replacing them at some point and the need to reserve and/or build funding to do so. But I'm also a businessman with an accounting background.

While this approach may not equip one to replace their boat and it's fair even if you want to say fiscally reckless (although I wouldn't necessarily agree) I don't go along with claims of it being socially irresponsible. Simply people look at things differently. And the majority of people look at cash flow in their personal budgeting.

[ArtM]

Originally Posted by cwjohm

Sorry, but I did not mean to take it off topic.

My point was very much related to the cruising budget and this thread.

Contrary to your stated "socialisation" point most economies are deflating retirement benefits over time. This is a brutal reality.

My point was how can you state a cruising budget of X without consideration of the day when you can no longer cruise, or no longer wish to cruise or live on a boat and making some financial consideration for such. This must consider depreciation and other factors. This is not only fiscally reckless but also socially irresponsible it seems to me.

However, I will take it as read that the cruising budget as it is referred to here makes no reference to these factors and simply refers to general expenses.

I agree. The general public takes little interest in fiscal responsibility. This is public politics in play. The maintenance of a disinterested, misinformed, and compliant public works to the public benefit.

The reality is that they they neither know nor care what will happen at that time - they merely presume that it will somehow take care of itself - and for the most part, it does.

I have a lady living in one of my buildings who gets everything for free. Apartment, utilities, a telephone, food, healthcare, entertainment (if you can call television that), and a small monthly income to cover any further incidentals.

No matter what happens, there has always been and I guess always will be a program of some sort to take care of it. Old and sick people in the United States are never simply put out into the streets to fend for themselves like animals, except it appears in the case of mental illness. Still trying to sort out exactly how that happens.

[ArtM]

Originally Posted by BandB

Wifey B: And what the h... does this pile of crap have to do with the topic? Seriously, do you just think the purpose of the thread is to allow you to spew your venom at every person and every group you hate? And my hubby's words for you were much too kind. Just the

What venom? What hatred? This is just observational diatribe.

It's specifically relevant to cruising because many cruisers go out with the specific plans and intent of taking advantage of these public facilities to lower costs and enable them to live a lifestyle at public cost.

I have no concern about that. As was previously stated, we need people to work at McDonald's if we want to make sure we can always get a Big Mac for less than $5. We make that happen by making it easy for people to be poor.

And that was where the whole conversation started - a conversation about whether it was easier to be poor than not.

[Coops]

Ladies and gentlemen. The conversation on this thread has taken a bit of a nasty tone and it will be locked until we decide if it deserves a reinstatement after a clean up or if it has basically run it's course. Thank you.

Coops.