How are people able to spend more than what they make, without going into debt?
"That's just his base salary for last year.  Keep reading in the article: He also received $1.6 million worth of securit[ies]. Plus, he's probably earned plenty in salary, bonuses, and other compensation in previous years to more than keep up his lifestyle.  He can also sell (relatively) small amounts of the stock he already owns to get millions in cash without raising an eyebrow. how are people able to spend more than what they make, without going into debt? Well, people can't spend more than they have without going into debt. Certainly money can be saved, won, inherited, whatever without being ""earned"".  Other than that, debt is the only option. That said, MANY ""wealthy"" people will spend WAY more than they have by going into debt.  This can be done through huge mortgages, personal loans using stock, real estate, or other assets as collateral, etc.  I don't know about Bezos specifically, but it's not uncommon for ""wealthy"" people to live beyond their means - they just have more assets behind them to secure personal loans, or bankers are more willing to lend them unsecured money because of the large interest rates they can charge.  Their assumption is presumably that the interest they'll pay on these loans is less than the earnings they'll get from the asset (e.g. stock, real estate).  While it may be true in some cases, it can also go bad and cause you to lose everything." Rich people use debt for various reasons. The question should not assume that billionaires don't use debt. They also pay lower interest rates on that debt because they have enough collateral that their debt is safer than a typical mortgage. Many rich people will use interest only mortgages on their primary residences so that they can keep their stock earning at higher growth rates than the mortgage interest that they are paying all while writing off a portion of that mortgage interest on their taxes.  Taking an artificially low salary and receiving equity for the larger portion of compensation is also a tax strategy to limit the amount of taxes owed on that income. If paid directly in stock grants, that will count as income, but if paid in options, then the purchased stock will only be taxed at the lower capital gains rates if the stock is held for a year after the options are exercised. Every billionaire will have complicated tax avoidance strategies that will require multi-year planning for the best long-term minimization of taxes. Debt is a strategic part of that planning. Also consider that a major part of that upscale lifestyle (corporate jets, fancy meals, etc.) is on the company dime because the CEO is always on the clock. As long as he is meeting with business prospects or doing other company business, those expenses will be justified for the corporation and not attributed as income. I don't know about Jeff Bezos in particular but, in general, and with a a few other notorious exceptions like Warren Buffet, billionaires also have incomes (salary, dividends, fees to seat on various boards of directors, etc.) in the millions, not the tens of thousand. That's typically still much lower than their wealth but certainly enough to sustain a comfortable lifestyle. However it's still true that some billionaires have so much of their wealth tied up in a single corporation that they could not practically get it all out at once, if they ever wanted to. But they can still typically sell at least some shares, which is exactly what Jeff Bezos has done to buy the Washington Post for example. "Bezos made very little ""money."" But he is very wealthy because of stock grants and options, from his previous years. Banks or brokerage firms will lend him (or anyone else) up to half the value of his stock. In Bezos' case, we're talking about billions. So he could, if he wanted to, cash out half of those billions. If the stock continues to go up (as it has), he will be able to cash out more each year. Imagine a person earning $1 a year in cash with $1 billion of stock, on which he can borrow up to $500 million. That, in a nutshell, is Bezos (with larger numbers)." "If you make $10 in salary, $5 in interest on savings, and $10 in dividends, your income is $25, not $10. If you have a billion dollars in well-invested assets, you can take a loan against those assets and the interest payment on the loan will be smaller than the interest you earn on the assets. That means your investment will grow faster than your debt and you have a net positive gain. It makes no sense to do this if the value of your asset is static. In that case, you would be better off just to withdraw from the asset and spend it directly, since a loan against that static asset will result in you spending your asset plus interest charges. If you have a good enough rate of return on your investment, you may actually be able to do this in perpetuity, taking out loan after loan, making the loan payments from the loan proceeds, while the value of your original asset pool continues to grow. At any given time, though, a severe downturn in the market could potentially leave you with large debts and insufficient value in your assets to back the debt. If that happens, you won't be getting another loan and the merry-go-round will stop spinning. It's a bit of a Ponzi scheme, in a way. The U.S. government has done exactly this for a long time and has gotten away with it because the dollar has been the world's reserve currency. You could always get a loan against the value of the U.S. currency in the past. Those days may be dwindling, with more countries choosing alternative currencies to conduct business with and the dollar becoming comparatively weaker into the foreseeable future. If you have savings, you can spend more than you make, which will put you into debt, then you can draw down your savings to pay that debt, and at the end of the month you will be out of debt, but have less in savings. You cannot do this forever. Eventually, you run out of savings. If you have no savings, you immediately go into debt and stay there when you spend more than you make. This is simple arithmetic. If you have no savings, but you own assets (real estate, securities, a collection of never-opened Beatles vinyl records, a bicycle), then you could spend more than you make, and be in debt, but have the potential to liquidate assets to pay off all or part of the debt. This depends on finding a buyer and negotiating a price that helps you enough to make a real difference. If you have a car, and you owe $10 on it, but you can only find a buyer willing to pay $8 for the car, that doesn't help you unless you can refinance the $2 and your new payment amount is lower than the old payment amount. But then you're still $2 in debt on the car even though you no longer possess it, and you've still increased your debt by spending more than you made. If you stay on this path, sooner or later you will not have any assets left and you will be in debt, plain and simple. As a wrinkle in the concrete example, let's say you have stock options with your employer. This is a form of a ""call."" You could also purchase a call through a broker in the stock market, or for a commodity in the futures market. That means you pay up front for the right to buy a specific amount of an asset at a fixed price (usually with an expiration date). You don't own the stock, you just have the right to buy it at the call price, regardless of the current market value when you buy it. In the case of employee stock options, your upfront cost is in the form of a vesting schedule. You have to remain employed for a set time before a specific number of stocks become eligible for you to purchase at your option price (the stocks ""vest"" on a certain date). Remain employed longer, and more stocks may vest, depending on your contract. If you quit or are terminated before that date, you forfeit your options. If you stick around through your vesting schedule, you pay real money to buy the stock at your option price. It only makes sense to do this if the market value of the stock is higher than your option price. If the current market value is lower than your option price, you're better off just buying the asset at the current market value, or waiting and  hoping that the value increases before your contract expires. You could drive yourself into debt by spending more than you make, but still have a chance to eliminate your debt by exercising your call/option and then re-selling the asset if it is worth more than what you pay for it. But you may have to wait for a vesting period to elapse before you can exercise your option (depending on the nature of your contract). During this waiting period, you are in debt, and if you can't service your debt (i.e. make payments acceptable to your creditors) your things could get repossessed. Oh, don't forget that you'll also pay a brokerage fee to sell the asset after you exercise your option. Further, if you have exhausted your savings and nobody will give you a loan to exercise your stock (or futures) options, then in the end you would be even further in debt because you already paid for the call, but you are unable to capitalize it and you'll lose what you already paid. If you can get a loan to exercise your option, but you're a bad credit risk, chances are good that the lender will draft a contract requiring you to immediately pay back the loan proceeds plus a fee out of the proceeds of re-selling the stock or other asset. In fact the lender might even draft a contract assigning ownership of your options to them, and stipulating that they'll pay you what's left after they subtract their fee. Even if you can get a traditional loan, you will pay interest over time. The end result is that your debt has still cost you very real money beyond the face value of the debt. Finally, if the asset for which you have a call has decreased in value lower than the current market value, you would be better off buying it directly in the market instead of exercising your option. But you'll pay transaction fees to do that, and the entire action would be pure speculation (or ""investment""), but not an immediate means to pay off your debt. Unless you have reliable insider trading information. But then you risk running afoul of the law. Frankly it might be better to get a loan to pay off your debt than to buy an ""investment"" hoping the value will increase, unless you could guarantee that the return on your investment would be bigger than the cumulative interest and late fees on your debt (or the risk of repossession of your belongings). Remember that nothing you owe a debt on is actually yours, not your house, not your car, not your bicycle, not your smartphone. Most of the time, your best course of action is to make minimum payments on your lowest-interest debts and make extra payments on your highest interest debt, up to the highest total payment you can tolerate (set something aside in a rainy day fund just in case). As you pay off the highest-interest debt, shift the amount you were paying on that debt to make extra payments on your next highest-interest debt until that one is paid off, and repeat on down the line until you're out of debt, then live within your means so that you don't find yourself working at McDonald's because you don't have a choice when you're in your 80's."
"Debt increases your exposure to risk.  What happens if you lose your job, or a major expense comes up and you have to make a hard decision about skipping a loan payment?  Being debt free means you aren't paying money to the bank in interest, and that's money that can go into your pocket. Debt can be a useful tool, however.  It's all about what you do with the money you borrow.  Will you be able to get something back that is worth more than the interest of the loan? A good example is your education.  How much more money will you make with a college degree?  Is it more than you will be paying in interest over the life of the loan?  Then it was probably worth it. Instead of paying down your loans, can you invest that money into something with a better rate of rate of return than the interest rate of the loan?  For example, why pay off your 3% student loan if you can invest in a stock with a 6% return?  The money goes to better use if it is invested.  (Note that most investments count as taxable income, so you have to factor taxes into your effective rate of return.) The caveat to this is that most investments have at least some risk associated with them.  (Stocks don't always go up.)  You have to weigh this when deciding to invest vs pay down debts.  Paying down the debt is more of a ""sure thing"". Another thing to consider: If you have a long-term loan (several years), paying extra principal on a loan early on can turn into a huge savings over the life of the loan, due to power of compound interest.  Extra payments on a mortgage or student loan can be a wise move.  Just make sure you are paying down the principal, not the interest!  (And check for early repayment penalties.)" "In that example, ""creating money"" could be used interchangeably with ""making promises"".  There's no inflation, and no problem, so long as everyone keeps their promises. Which sounds like a horrifying thing to say about the foundations of the economy, but the remarkable thing is that people mostly do." "I think you're thinking that ""in debt"" doesn't just mean ""owes a debt"" but somehow means ""owes more debt in total than the assets"". That condition, owing money without offsetting assets, is ""having a negative net worth"". If you have a mortgage then you have a debt and you are in debt. You may have a positive net worth, if you have equity in the house and your car and such like, and have cash in the bank. You may have a negative net worth if you owe more than you own. But either way you are technically in debt. Knowing that, it's not surprising that 75% of Americans are in debt. It's surprising that 25% are not. They have no credit card, no car loan, no mortgage, no line of credit, no student loans. Is it because they've paid all that off? Or because they are deadly poor and own nothing and can't be lent anything? You can't just say it's bad to have debt. It's bad to have too much debt, to have a negative net worth, to be in the habit of borrowing to finance a lifestyle you can't actually afford, and so on. But it's perfectly normal to have a debt or two. That's how our system mostly works." Firstly, make sure annual income exceeds annual expenses. The difference is what you have available for saving.  Secondly, you should have tiers of savings. From most to least liquid (and least to most rewarding): The core of personal finance is managing the flow of money between these tiers to balance maximizing return on savings with budget constraints. For example, insurance effectively allows society to move money from savings to stocks and bonds. And a savings account lets the bank loan out a bit of your money to people buying assets like homes.  Note that the above set of accounts is just a template from which you should customize. You might want to add in an FSA or HSA, extra loan payments, or taxable brokerage accounts, depending on your cash flow, debt, and tax situation. I get exactly what you mean and I agree, but that reality of it is that that's not always possible. I have friends who are just barely able to pay rent and have to use the rest of their income to eat bread and butter for every meal. They work full-time and has two jobs (at one point he had three just to stay afloat after getting injured on his way to work), and he's not able to save up anything and even when he tracks his balances, he teeters on the fine edge of being evicted for not paying rent, starving to pay bills, or overdrafting. It doesn't really make sense to cure indebtedness with more debt.  This is why your friend is having trouble finding someone to loan him money.  If he can't borrow at a lower rate then he should probably focus on paying down some of his debt. "So what is preventing people from racking up as much credit card debt as possible in cash advances or consumer goods or whatnot, and then walking away from it?  Then rinse and repeat once the debt is ""gone forever""?  It seems too good to be true - either there's something missing there, or people would be getting tens of thousands of dollars for free every half decade..." "Is it not that bad? Depends how bad is bad. The problems causes by a government having large debt are similar to those caused by an individual having large debt. The big issue is: More and more of your income goes to paying interest on the debt, and is thus not available for spending on goods and services. If it gets bad enough, you find you cannot make payments, you start defaulting on loans, and then you have to make serious sacrifices, like selling your property to pay the debt. Nations have an advantage over individuals in that they can sometimes repudiate debt, i.e. simply declare that they are not going to pay. Lenders can then refuse to give them more money, but that doesn't get their original loans paid back. In theory other nations could send in troops to seize property to pay the loan, but this is a very extreme solution. Totally aside from any moral considerations, modern warfare is very expensive, it's likely the war would cost you more than you'd recover on the debt. How much debt is too much? It's hard to give a number, any more than one could give a ""maximum acceptable debt"" for an individual. American banks have a rule of thumb that they won't normally loan you money if your total debt payments would be more than 1/3 of your income. I've never come close to that, that seems awfully high to me. But, say, a young person just starting out so he's not making a lot of money, and he lives someplace with high housing prices, might find this painful but acceptable. Etc." "Your main reason to not pay off your debts right now seems to be: Enjoy life while ""I am young"" and not miss opportunities to have fun? I think the good news is that having fun usually does not require spending a lot of money. I would propose that most of the times when we considered something fun it had more to do with who we were with than what we were actually doing. Of course there are many fun things that are expensive, but there are even more fun things that require little money at all. My suggestion to you would be to prioritize your debt in a responsible way such that you have a plan to pay it off quickly, but if something comes along that does require extra money, don't be afraid to make an adjustment. For example, you can try to put 2000€ towards your debt every month, but if some exciting adventure comes along that you really want to do and it costs 1000€ one month, you shouldn't feel like you absolutely must turn it down. That month you could put 1000€ towards debt and the other 1000€ towards the adventure. I wouldn't recommend taking an adventure every month, but I wouldn't always turn one down either. Besides, I think most of the time you can have lots of fun for free." As long as you can be trusted with a Credit Card i find that if you have a setup that uses three accounts: 1. your Credit Card, 2. 2. a high interest internet account (most of these accounts don’t have fees), 3. a savings account.  The Method that works for me is: 1st i calculate my fixed monthly bills i.e Rent and utilities and then transfer it into my high interest account.  for the month whenever i make a purchase i transfer the money into the high interest account ( this way I can keep a running balance of what money I have left to spend in the month. Then when the Credit Card bill comes I transfer the money out of the high interest account across to pay off the Credit Card ( this way you generate interest on the money which you would have spent throughout the month and still maintain $0 of interest from the Credit Card) over a year you can generate at least enough money in interest to go out for dinner on one of free flights! "The real question is what can you NOT do!  If you track all your monetary actions, you know everything about your monetary situation.  That means you have the tools to ask and answer ""what if"" questions, such as: ""If I get a 10% raise, could I take longer vacations?""  You could calculate how much you spend per day on vacation and then consider the amount of your raise and how much of it you'd need to allocate to vacations to, say, be able to take a two-week vacation instead of a one-week vacation. ""How much more would I have to earn to move to this nicer apartment?""  This may seem like a simple question, but a surprising number of people can't answer it in a reliable way, because they don't have a clear understanding of how much money they make and how much of it they can afford to spend on housing.  If you find you have lots of spare income, maybe you can move to the nicer place right away; if not, at least you can get a sense of how much more money you'd need to make it happen. ""If I started taking the bus to work, how much would I save?""  You can look at how much you spend on gas and compare that to the price of a bus pass.  By separating out categories like gas, repairs, and car insurance, you can also calculate different scenarios, like if you still kept your car but only used it for occasional trips, versus if you sold the car and used only public transportation. ""If I want to take a trip to Tahiti, what can I cut back on to save the money?""  Using your table you can pencil out scenarios like ""Suppose I stop eating out for lunch at work and just bring my lunch, how long would I have to do that to save enough to pay for a plane ticket?"" These are just a few random examples.  The general idea is that with a record of hard numbers, you can start to consider potential tradeoffs in an objective way --- that is, you can ask ""how much in category X would I have to give up to gain this thing I want in category Y?"" The real trick in making use of your data is not so much ""what"" you can do, but ""how"" exactly to do it.  You may have to become more of a spreadsheet wizard to really delve into these questions.  Also, if you have programming expertise, you can even use something like Python to do calculations that might be laborious in a spreadsheet." You can fairly simply make a spreadsheet in your favorite spreadsheet application (or in Google Docs if you want portability). I like to make an overview page that shows how much I take in per month and what fixed bills come out of that, then break the remaining total into four to get a weekly budget. Then, I make one page per month with four columns (one per week), with each row being a category. Sum the categories at the bottom, and subtract from your weekly total: voila, a quick reference of how much you can spend that week without going over budget. I then make a page for each month that lists what I bought and how much I spent on it, so I can trace where my money's gone; the category total is just a summation of the items from that page that belong in that category.  Once you have a system, stop checking your bank balance except to ensure your paycheck is going in alright. Use the spreadsheet to determine how much you can spend at any time. Then make sure you pay off everything on the card before the end of the month so you don't incur interest. You might miss an opportunity or three by strictly avoiding debt, but I can't think of a problem you will create by being debt free. So maybe it isn't the absolutely smartest thing to avoid debt on principle*, but it certainly is pretty smart at the very least. "As others have pointed out, it sounds like the problem isn't the accessibility of your money, the problem is willpower. So, address that instead. How?  Willpower is both a finite resource AND a resource that can be increased -- like muscle strength.  Since willpower is finite, break down the problem into as many pieces as possible, then address only one of those pieces at a time. ""Be more sensible with my money"" is nebulous, vague, and large; there's no place to start.  So break it apart: first thing is the one example in your question -- you go out on payday with friends/coworkers, intending to only buy a couple of beers (alcohol lowers willpower), and end up blowing through far more. So, what about making a rule to not go out on payday?  Nice idea, but that might still be too hard to do -- if you have a habit of going out with them on payday, then this has become your community, and you will feel the loneliness of not going out with them, as well as the social pressure from them to do as you've always done.  So, set up a different habit for that night, one that both involves the obligation of going there instead, and other people who will expect you to be there. Some examples would be a sport that happens to practice or compete on payday nights, or some charity that happens to need you at that time.  Once you've broken that habit (and exulted in the resulting fattening of your wallet), look for other, similar leaks. I'm going to guess that all your money gets spent on going out to pubs (as opposed, say, to buying bric-a-brac you don't need). If so, then you need to face that you've adopted a pub-going culture, and that your community has shrunk to just those kind of people. It may seem like you have a lot of people in your life, but if all it takes to lose connection to all of them is to stop going to pubs, then you really don't. Your human connections, essential for an enjoyable life, are too fragile, too singly focused. So if that's the problem, branch out. Diversify the communities you're part of. I've already mentioned sport; church is another good one -- I mean a living church, the kind where the people are always doing stuff together and it's fun to go to, not the other kind where everyone sits in a pew for an hour a week and rushes the exits as soon as possible. Other possibilities are reaching out to neighbors or becoming politically involved.  Hmmm... I started writing about willpower but I'm ending up at community. At your core, do you feel like if you didn't spend this way, that you wouldn't have any friends?" "The title of your question is quite different then the content.  The term ""Rat Race"" was coined in the 70's and refers to the endless cycle of working hard to consume more.  Fortunately it is very easy not to participate in the cycle and probably will lead to more happiness.  Just because one ""works"" does not mean they are participating in the ""rat race"", and I would recommend the following: When I think of ""rat race"" I picture a a bumper-to-bumper freeway of people struggling to get to work.  For others it might be different, but that kind of rat race is easily avoided by the multitude of remote work opportunities.  Some jobs allow you to work anywhere in the world. Avoiding the rugged consumerism also helps avoid the feelings of being a rat on the wheel.  Sure one can like nice things, but do we have to have everything that Madison Ave is trying to sell us?  No.  Pick some nice things and pay cash. Debt, especially consumer debt, causes a person (in effect) to work for a bank.  Avoiding debt will remove those feelings. Saving and investing also helps avoid those feelings.  There is profound satisfaction in watching ones account balances grow.  Once you see that your investment earnings can outpace your expenses, and then your salary you really feel like you are getting ahead.      Above all else giving is a paramount and often overlooked part of a person's financial life.  It causes one to be humble and recognize that most people, in this world, are less fortunate that us.  It avoids runaway provide that justifies purchases that we cannot afford.   So yea you can avoid the ""Rat Race"" and still work."