Financial Balance Lets You Enjoy Tomorrow AND Today
Published on - December 7th, 2009 (Modified on - December 29th, 2009) (by J.D. Roth) This article is the 11th of a 14-part series that explores the core tenets of Get Rich Slowly. It originally appeared at Soul Shelter in a slightly different form.
For more than a decade, I was buried in debt. My relationship with money was poor. I earned a decent salary, but I couldn’t seem to get ahead. I lived paycheck-to-paycheck on $40,000 a year.
I’d frequently find myself standing in a store, holding a stack of CDs, say, or maybe several magazines. Inside, I’d be arguing with myself, almost as if there were an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other. Most of the time, the devil won. I’d buy the stack of CDs or the magazines. And I’d use credit to do it. I was a compulsive spender.
Eventually, two friends helped me to realize the path I was on. I began to read personal finance books, I started Get Rich Slowly, and I converted to the “religion” of frugality. I learned to pinch pennies.
This new-found thrift was exactly what I needed. It helped me to get out of debt and to begin building wealth. I even opened my first savings account, and have now built a sizable emergency fund. Best of all, I’m maxing out my retirement savings every year.
Going to extremes
But something happened along the way. As I converted from spendthrift to, well, thrift, my relationship with money changed — but it didn’t improve. I went from a man who spent too much to a man who spent too little.
Again, it took outside intervention for me to realize I had a problem. Last year, I complained about the cost of movies. I complained about the cost of milk. I complained about the cost of hot chocolate. “You’re not being frugal,” GRS readers told me. “You’re being cheap.”
That was a wake-up call. I realized that I was still struggling to develop a healthy relationship with money. I hadn’t achieved balance.
And balance is what’s required. I believe that thrift is a virtue, and I don’t intend to abandon it. But thrift can also be a vice if taken to an extreme. It’s not wrong to spend money on yourself, if you can afford it. Money is a tool, and it should be used to bring us joy, when possible.
The balanced money formula
One tool that I’ve embraced for the past year is the balanced money formula introduced by Elizabeth Warren and Amelia Tyagi in their excellent book, All Your Worth: The Ultimate Lifetime Money Plan.
Here’s what it looks like:

As you can see, when your financial life is in balance, you’re allocating enough for savings and needs, but you’re also setting some aside for the things you want. This idea is simple, but it was a revelation to me. No more spending too much on wants, but no more pinching pennies, either.
Since embracing the Balanced Money Formula just over a year ago, I’ve been much happier. It’s a sort of broad non-prescriptive budget the gives me the freedom to spend on my Wants — like comic books and a new bike — as long as I’m taking care of my Needs and setting something aside for Savings. I’ve learned that I can stay frugal in my day-to-day life, but it’s okay to splurge a little on the things I like — including good hot chocolate.
Finding balance
In order to find balance, you’ve got to do some soul-searching. I think of it as a three-step process:
- Find what makes you happy. Look inside yourself and ask, “What is it that brings meaning, pleasure, and joy to my life?” Be honest. How can you create a life that features more of the good stuff and less of the mundane?
- Focus on your goals. Set personal goals based on the things that make you happy. If you like music, maybe one of your goals could be to learn to play the guitar. If you want to change careers, maybe one goal would be to go back to school. Make meaningful goals a priority, and let the other stuff be secondary.
- Seek balance. Strive for moderation in all things. Pursue your goals, but don’t forget frugality. Be frugal, but don’t forget your goals. Work hard to build your financial fortress — but let yourself have a little fun, too.
The quest to achieve financial balance is about more than money. It’s also about meaning. Money is important, yes, but it’s not the only thing. Money is a means, not an end.
Each of us has parts of our lives that feel unbalanced. When we experience this lack of equilibrium, it’s important to do something about it, to make changes. From my experience, however, the most effective changes are small — they’re incremental. When we overcompensate for an imbalance, we sometimes just make ourselves miserable in a different way.
This is the 11th of a 14-part series that explores my financial philosophy. These are the core tenets of Get Rich Slowly. Other parts include:
- Tenet #1: Money is more about mind than it is about math
- Tenet #2: The road to wealth is paved with goals
- Tenet #3: To build wealth, you must spend less than you earn
- Tenet #4: Pay yourself first
- Tenet #5: Small amounts matter
- Tenet #6: Large amounts matter, too
- Tenet #7: Do what works for you
- Tenet #8: Slow and steady wins the race
- Tenet #9: The perfect is the enemy of the good
- Tenet #10: Failure is okay
- Tenet #11: Financial balance lets you enjoy tomorrow and today
- Tenet #12: Nobody cares more about your money than you do
- Tenet #13: Action beats inaction
- Tenet #14: It’s more important to be happy than to be rich
Look for a new installment in this series every Monday through the end of the year.
This article is about Basics
SEARCH FOR RECENT ARTICLES




This is a great way to approach your financial well being. If you spend too much you’re in trouble and spend too little you’re in trouble again. You need to enjoy life while keeping savings a reality.
loading....
To Andrea (12):
I just worked this for my family’s personal situation and included childcare in the “needs” category. Hope this helps!
loading....
I like this formula a lot, I just can’t follow it completely on my income.
Here’s the breakdown. I make about 2360 take home per month.
Our rent is 1000, our landline is 20, our cable/internet is 60 and our electricity averages out to 65. If you divide that total into my net take home, we’re at about 51%. But there’s no food in that. I’d say food is about another 10%. This brings me to 60% on needs.
We were saving 10% and I’m upping to 12.6%, with an eye towards 15% and ultimately 20%. It’s not easy on one salary.
I don’t think we really spend over $700 on wants. I think that’s too much, given our monthly income. That’s probably a good thing, given that I clearly spend much of my monthly income on needs. I think $300 per month would be reasonable for us on wants.
Now, I’m not including everything. I have little boosts in my check from time to time and my hubby had a three month stint in a temporary job. We saved all of that money, which really improved our financial picture.
Regardless, this is a good goal to work towards, but it’s very hard for those at or slightly below the median income. What we really need is more income. But, there’s only so much we can do about that right now.
I actually don’t make a bad salary, but I have to pay large portions of my income towards health insurance. Add in another 5% (with match) for retirement, dental and a modest disability policy, that’s what’s left.
loading....
Hm, yes. I have noticed the same trend. Sometimes i am thinking about wether or not i should buy a beer when i go out with some friends for example.
I think what we should keep in mind is that it’s all about QUALITY of life, and how we earn, save and spend money is just a means to an end but it should never be the goal.
loading....
It is interesting to have such a formula for ‘directing’ one’s flow of money into the right places. However, what I believe many people lack is the ability to view money in an absolute manner, i.e. looking objectively at what money can mean to them and how it can make them happy. In stead, many people relate themselves to what others have, resulting in a big mix-up of ‘needs’ and ‘wants’.
Myself, I try to save as much as I can each month, and with each purchase or transaction I determine how it enriches the quality my life. Sometimes, I save only 8% of my net wage, sometimes it’s 30%.
Cheers,
Aleks.
loading....
@26: I too have struggled with differentiating needs from wants. My roommate just moved out with all of his furniture and kitchen supplies, thus I “need” an entire need apartment of Stuff. How much should I pay for this Stuff? Is gasoline a need or want? What if I drive alot for pleasure? Are Christmas gifts for my family a need or a want? What about groceries? It’s hard to draw the line.
loading....
The brutal truth is, Christmas gifts are a Want. It’s nice to be able to give presents, but if it would be a hardship, anyone who loves you will appreciate that you are broke and now is not the time.
Driving for pleasure is, by definition, a Want. If it really relaxes you and replaces all other entertainment, then budget for that gas. But if you’re doing this in addition to other entertainment spending, it’s a Want – a luxury, in fact.
Food is a Need, but what you Need is very minimal. You have to look at what you normally buy and ask yourself, is this necessary to sustain life? Every item for which you would not answer “yes,” is a Want.
Furniture is a Want. There’s a world full of people who sit, sleep, and eat on the floor (sometimes on bare dirt!). If you’re broke and your roommate just moved out with all his furniture, sit and sleep on the floor for a while, and budget some dollars every month to save up for furniture. Or advertise for a roommate. Which you should probably do anyway, if you’re broke!
Kitchen gear is a Want. You can get by with one cooking pan, one turner/spatula, one plate, one set of flatware, one mug. Make it into a game: if I had to carry everything I need on my back, what would I need?
This kind of austerity outlook isn’t always necessary, but it can really help you define what you Need.
loading....
I’m still walking this tightrope and working on getting out of debt. I first ran across the balanced money formula here and have been using my own variation on it for a year. I have to agree with KF, though, that charitable giving is an important missing piece here.
loading....
THE POINT IS: If your obligations tie up too much of your income then you need to re-evaluate.
Regarding wants vs needs, there is some fuzzy room in there. I don’t need steaks for dinner, but I do need dinner. If I’m budgeting well on my other needs I will slide it in as a ‘need’ because, well, because I CAN. As long as i am saving what I need to be saving it doesn’t impact anything.
THE SECOND POINT IS: If you’re saving enough wants vs needs doesn’t really matter. The balanced money formula is not a budget! It is a tool to help you budget. It is a sanity check.
But I also know if something goes wrong, like this year when my rental didn’t make any money for 10 months, I can cut out the steak and be perfectly fine. That’s the point. I can have steak, as long as it fits into the rest of the overall picture, but depriving myself of it for the sole reason of saving more money when everything else is going along fine is just sad.
Therefore THE THIRD POINT IS: Depriving yourself of something you enjoy for the sole purpose of saving more money, despite the fact that your financial obligations (‘needs’) and future goals (‘savings’) are met is not a healthy way to live. You don’t have to spend money if it doesn’t matter to you. If you are a homebody who gets your kicks from quilting or woodworking (I fall into that category) good for you. But don’t look down your noses at people who prefer opera tickets and dream of world travel, as long as they continue to meet their obligations (which was the author’s point in the first place, how those people can balance their money).
loading....
To expand on what Shara said, this is a tool. It’s supposed to give a simple picture of where money is going so that you know where you can cut or expand if necessary. If you have to itemize your grocery bill to figure out your needs vs wants, then you’re probably missing the point. If you like itemizing your grocery bill in such a manner, have fun and go at it.
Much of what JD and others post on blogs like this are tools for you to use or modify. There isn’t a one size fits most solution. The best solution are the ‘ones’ that work for you.
loading....
Although this formula has the virtue of simplicity, I think it is too simplistic. First, percentages should be applied to PRE-tax income, not after tax. After all, your ability to carry a mortgage is assessed on this basis, and for most people their mortgage (or rent) is their single largest expense. As well, while your tax deductions are fixed, your overall tax rate can be impacted by two other important expenditures – charitable giving and retirement savings.
Second, the formula should explicitly include categories for non-mortgage debt reduction and charitable giving. Lumping debt reduction into “savings” is counter-intuitive and misleading. If you’re not actually building a positive balance, it’s NOT saving. As for giving, as a number of others have pointed out, we should be dedicating a portion of our resources helping those less fortunate or supporting a cause in which we believe. It may be a small percentage at first, but unless we are in dire circumstances, we should all be willing to do our part to make the world a better place.
Third, there appears to be little benefit to assigning percentages to the the “wants” and “needs” spending categories. As some have mentioned, this seems to promote lifestyle inflation, and there is no agreed definition as to what constitutes a “need” versus a “want.” A better approach would be something like: after accounting for retirement savings, debt reduction, giving and taxes, I have x% of my income left to spend, and translate that % into a dollar amount. Then figure out how you want to spend the remaining money, using whatever budget categories you choose. There are probably only a relatively small number of truly “fixed” expenses in the short term (shelter-related costs such as rent/mortgage, utilities, phone, property taxes, cable, insurance and transportation-related costs such as gas, insurance, car payments or public transit), so it should be relatively easy to get a handle on these. This approach also reinforces the notion that any increase in income is not all available for spending. As an example, if your “% left to spend” is 40%, you should only be spending 40 cents of every extra dollar of income. And if you’re trying to pay down debt, you should probably be applying 100% of any extra income towards the debt until it is eliminated.
Just my two cents …
JS
loading....
I loved this book as well. We can’t quite live on 50%. We live on about 66% for needs, but we are slowing cutting back and not increasing our lifestyle with raises so in time we hope to be living on 50%. I think it’s okay to start somewhere and work at getting better. You don’t have to be perfect right off.
A lot of people were confused about what they “should” be doing with regards to retirement savings. I think you should interpret the book as best you can and tweak it for yourself.
What we are doing is saving 20% of take home for retirement. But since retirement comes out pretax, we are not paying as much in taxes. So we take the money we save in taxes and also put that towards retirement. So yes, it’s more than 20% for retirement, but we are still left with 50% for needs and 30% for spending (when we get can reach that balance anyway).
To me (and this is just me saying) I would feel i was cheating by taking that money we’re saving on taxes and putting it towards spending or needs. I really want to get down to 50% needs so that I can feel good about spending 30%. I want to earn that 30% spending the right way, not get there through a loophole (the extra in taxes).
loading....
I too have read the entire book (twice, as well as Warren’s other book), and found it very helpful.
My own recollection and the way I set up the spreadsheet that I used to apply the formula the book presents to my own situation is that the authors work with pretax, not post-tax income. There are (IMO) a few oddities in the formula the authors present, but I don’t actually see this as one of them — I just calculate taxes as a need, as we cannot legally avoid paying them (not that we cannot drive them up or down, but what we owe, we owe).
I’m not actually currently “living” the formula, and the authors make the point that you won’t, always. Right now I have a small child and am working less than I was and paying for daycare, and that’s affected the ratios. But over time, I believe the formula is a good one (not necessarily a perfect one, and maybe there’s no such thing, but a good one), and I do understand that because I’m spending more on needs right now, I’m more vulnerable to setbacks and less able to save for the future than I’d otherwise be.
loading....
I guess it’s a good thing that my “wants” are a higher retirement/income savings than most people.
loading....
Focusing on goals is the biggest key for me. Using written goals was a huge help even from a very young age to focus on future gratification instead of instant gratification.
loading....
Thanks J.D., for this timely and informative post! When it comes to Personal Finance, I often do not have a happy medium or a sense of balance. I truly believe this has contributed to several incidents where my budget and fiscal goals were completely derailed because I had set incredibly stringent standards. Not being mindful of your wants sets the stage for deprivation which may lead to reckless spending. This can be a pervasive cycle keeping households fiscally stagnant for years to come.
loading....
Everyone should give this book a read. It was available at the local branch of my library and I read it in an afternoon. Not too much of a commitment if you’re interested.
As some who have read the book have pointed out, the 50% on needs is an upper limit, not a goal, and the idea is to keep your needs under 50% so that if you have to go on unemployment or go from two incomes to one, you can still get by. This means that the “needs” category is just the basics: housing, contractual obligations, health care, basic subsistence-level food. Anything extra goes in “wants.” For those who think 30% allocated to wants is too high, note that this category includes clothing, oven mitts, any food above $180/month per adult, etc. And it would include additional savings, “good” debt repayment, charitable giving, and the like. The authors aren’t suggesting you make sure to fritter away 30% of your income on netbooks and cars if you don’t want to…
The book is genius in my opinion because it’s such a strong, but simple, idea. Keep your needs below 50% of your pay, allocate 20% to savings, and you can do whatever you want with whatever’s left. Done.
loading....
Finding balance is not easy. I struggle with being too frugal. I don’t indulge me and my family enough. I was raised this way. I’m working on indulging my wants because I just want to enjoy the moment.
For example I love to travel, but it’s been two years. We have money saved, but we had our first child a few months ago and we are trying to save everything we can for the future. But when is saving go too far?
I think it goes too far when we are too worried about what might be instead of what is.
loading....
$180/month per adult on food?!?! That is considered subsistence-level? Wow, we would be dining like kings if we spent that much.
loading....
Is anyone getting screwy results from using post-tax income? Basically if I do this it shows I need to basically save between 18-19% of post tax income. Right now depending how I calculate it we are spending between 59-63% on essentials, that’s pretty bare-boned. But what their calculations tell me what is 50% of essentials is really 60% plus of my take home income. So even if I do everything correctly I will be spending more on essentials than the formula, which takes away from the non-essential area. For example someone like me who is 10% off from their ideal for essentials, plus according to formula has to save another 10%, I end up only having 10-20% of income for non-essentials. This seems pretty harsh, considering my non-essentials includes all my miscellaneous such as household, home improvement, clothes, etc. I think I’d prefer a more clear cut formula, like 15% of pretax income to try to save for, which makes more sense and may be more acheivable.
loading....
The 50% needs, 20% savings/debt, 30% wants is a guide to a stable Financial life. That is all it is nothing more. The higher percentage your needs are the more unstable you are Financially. You can save more or spend more on wants. It will be different for every individual and family. In the end it is only a guide.
Currently my percentages for my Family are 66% needs, 20% saving/debt and 14% wants. We started using this formula in July when I read this book and so far have paid off $6000 of debt.
loading....
I think the irony with trying to find this balance is that we HAVE to veer too far in the opposite direction so we know how much is too much. Otherwise, finding a true balance point is really just a guessing game.
So while being aware of the fact that the best results are achieved somewhere in the middle, I think we have to continuously test the boundaries either way to make sure we’re still “in balance.”
loading....
I was pointed to this page from another blog about financial literacy. Great information. Thank you!
loading....
Just picked this book up at the library and found that my balance is currently:
56% needs
10% savings
34% wants
I was quite surprised at the wants and savings. Not quite so surprised on the needs. I’m only on chapter 3. I’m hoping I can change the balance for the savings & wants.
loading....
So, would mortgage overpayments be considered a want or a saving?
loading....