Saving for a non-necessity
Total income - mandatory spending (ie bills) = discretionary income.  Make a budget and calculate how much discretionary income you have each pay period. Save some fraction of your discretionary income towards this purchase. Pull the trigger when you have enough saved.  By thinking this way, you ensure that the PS is robbing from movies, dining out, booze, etc instead of taking from rent money or the electric bill. Do not use debt to make this purchase. It would be wise to put off this purchase until you have a solid emergency cash reserve that can sustain you if life throws you a curve ball. You should also make sure to eliminate any bad debt, like credit card debt, before splurging on a new gaming console. The same as you would save for anything else, buget and make sure your expenses are less than your income each week. Put away a little each week for the item you want to buy, and when you have saved up enough for the item you can buy it. In the mean time whilst you are saving for it, you can shop around to see where you can buy it at the lowest price. Your question is rather direct, but I think there is some underlying issues that are worth addressing.  One How to save and purchase ~$500 worth items This one is the easy one, since we confront it often enough.  Never, ever, ever buy anything on credit. The only exception might be your first house, but that's it. Simply redirect the money you would spend in non necessities ('Pleasure and entertainment') to your big purchase fund (the PS4, in this case). When you get the target amount, simply purchase it.  When you get your salary use it to pay for the monthly actual necessities (rent, groceries, etc) and go through the list. The money flow should be like this: Two How to evaluate if a purchase is appropriate It seems that you may be reluctant to spend a rather chunky amount of money on a single item. Let me try to assuage you. 'Expensive' is not defined by price alone, but by utility. To compare the price of items you should take into account their utility. Let's compare your prized PS4 to a soda can.  Is a soda can expensive? It quenches your thirst and fills you with sugar. Tap water will take your thirst away, without damaging your health, and for a fraction of the price. So, yes, soda is ridiculously expensive, whenever water is available. Is a game console expensive? Sure. But it all boils down to how much do you end up using it. If you are sure you will end up playing for years to come, then it's probably good value for your money.  An example of  wrongly spent money on entertainment: My friends and I went to the cinema to see a movie without checking the reviews beforehand.  It was so awful that it hurt, even with the discount price we got. Ultimately, we all ended up remembering that time and laughing about how wrong it went. So it was somehow, well spent, since I got a nice memory from that evening.  A purchase is appropriate if you get your money's worth of utility/pleasure. Three Console and computer gaming, and commendation of the latter There are few arguments for buying a console instead of upgrading your current computer (if needed) except for playing console exclusives. It seems unlikely that a handful of exclusive games can justify purchasing a non upgradeable platform unless you can actually get many hours from said games.  Previous arguments to prefer consoles instead of computers are that they work out of the box, capability to easily connect to the tv, controller support... have been superseded by now. Besides, pc games can usually be acquired for a lower price through frequent sales. More about personal finance and investment "In the course of one's spending, it's not tough to find things that are going to be that expensive.  A median income is in the $50K range in the US. The diamond folk advertise that one should spend 3 month's salary on an engagement ring. Even with a decent income, I spent zero. My wife was practical, not interested in jewelry, and wanted a big house. The money went to the downpayment. The house cost 2.5 years salary at that time.  A car, even used, will cost some month's salary.  If that $50K earner is saving, has an emergency account, and is on track with their financial long term goals, a week's pay can buy a nice sized TV.  A nice vacation can cost a week's pay to a month's pay.  Your question is great, although it shows a concern that's typical very early on in one's career. There are related question here about ""how can I spend more?"" They tend to come from someone living on a student budget that now has an adult's income from a desirable job. The answer is to sit down, list your monthly spending, properly budget a decent portion for savings, and see how much you have for frivolous spending. Keep in mind, it's easier to sock it away now. No house, no kids, etc. When we were first married, we lived on my wife's income (in effect) and socked mine away. The house tightened the budget, as did the kid.  In the end, the PS4 is less about the $400 than it is about the rest of your finances."
Your long-term saving targets will include retirement, kids' college, house, etc. Medium-term might be your college, or a car. Short-term might be a vacation somewhere or a new laptop. In all cases saving, then spending money you do have is better than spending money you don't have. I think that's the first takeaway of this truism. However, I also believe 10% is said as a retirement target. Retirement is very important and this advice is stressed by many financial planners because it's very easy to underestimate how expensive it is. By the same token, it's recommended that you spend 2 months' salary on an engagement ring, and that particular truism can be traced back to a DeBeers ad. I personally don't know whether 10% as a retirement target is sage - it sounds right but I haven't followed it for a variety of reasons. Please corroborate against multiple sources and apply to your own financial person. Keep in mind that chasing after tax savings tends to not be a good way of saving money.  What is a good strategy? Making sure that you take all the deductions you are entitled to. What is a bad strategy: You asked for a book recommendation. The problem is that I don't know of any books that cover all these topics. Also keep in mind that all books, blogs, articles, and yes answers to questions have a bias. Sometimes the bias can be ignored, other times it can't. Just keep looking for information on this site, and ask good specific questions about these topics. "This questions is rational but ,in my view, definition of savings will be like this : ""Savings is that amount of money which will be useful in unexpected future cash demanding events or they will stay ideal through out your life"" Human can purchase/pursue  any luxury items at any point of time in their life but there will come several unavoidable events which will take away your savings and (some how) you will not have any control over it. Example: You found out you have a cancer at the age of 45. Doctor says you can under go several treatments and will be fine again. For this you will have to spend $1m. Now this can be considered as unavoidable expense and only your savings will be helpful to you in this kind of situations. So Savings is nothing but a money kept at a safe location which will be used in such unavoidable situations or they will stay ideal during your entire life time and your next generation will be able to use them after your death." Try and save up for another month's expenses in your emergency fund, but while you are doing so begin building what is called a ladder of CDs.  Tomorrow is April 1, so open a three-month CD (yes, the rates are abysmal but better than money-market fund rates) with one month's emergency fund. Repeat the process on May 1. So now you have two CDs maturing on July 1 and August 1. On June 1, take whatever of that extra month's expense you have saved up and open yet another three-month CD.  On July 1, re-invest the proceeds of the first CD into a new three-month CD. Ditto on August 1. On September 1, add the additional savings towards the additional month that you managed to make to the smaller CD to bring it closer to one month's expenses. Lather, rinse, repeat. You will, I hope, soon be in a state where you will have four months of expenses in your emergency fund: one month on hand for immediate use if needed right away, and three months of additional expenses becoming available in 30 days or less, between 30 and 60 days, and between 60 and 90 days. There is nothing right or wrong about this. On such a short goals, you are essentially saying you need $2700 in next 4 months to buy 3 items. Essentially you can have sub-goals to save $675 each month. As you already have some funds; you can go by priority buy the bed and then once you have more saved, buy the laptop and then buy the bed. If you buy the bed now, it means that you will have to wait more for the laptop. If the goals are further apart; say something in few months and something in few years, you would have to create to separate buckets to save and contribute proportionately to both the buckets. Looks like you don't want to participate in the consumerist rush but feel that you just have to do that too. First of all, you don't have to do what you don't want. Then there're researches showing that joy from a compulsive purchase only lasts for a short period of time and then you are left with a relatively useless item in your house. So it's one thing if you really wanted that cool full-electronic sewing machine (or whatever DIY item you might want) to be able to repair all the stuff and craft all the nice things you wanted, but it's another thing if you look at the item and can't decide whether you really need it. The latter scenario is you struggling with the consumerism rush. If you feel really happy and can save half of what you earn just save the difference - it won't hurt. Having a good sum of money saved is really helpful in many scenarios. It's nearly always a good idea to save for your future, if you don't already have sufficient funds to see out the rest of your days. The hardest part of the saving decision is knowing exactly what portion of your funds to save. If we save too aggressively, we risk having an adverse impact on our everyday life and, of course, there's always the possibility that we'll never make it to old age. But if we don't save, we risk the prospect of a poverty stricken retirement. It's not always easy to find a balance. The best solution is to make so much money that we cannot possibly spend it all! "Long ago, a friend of mine shared with me the ""Lakshmi rule"" which can be used for managing one's spending:  1/3rd: Save, 1/3rd: Donate, 1/3rd: Survival. Survival refers to primary needs like food, clothing, shelter, medicine, family and priority needs like travel. The word ""Lakshmi"" comes from the Sanskrit language and is often used to denote money, wealth or opulence. Its etymological meaning is - to perceive, understand, objective, observe, to know etc. As per ancient thought leaders, wealth is to be used wisely and with great care. Carelessness and misuse of it means havoc not only in one's own life but also on a community level. Rather than seeing money as a source of one's own happiness, it should be used as tool for the larger good. This will give proper fulfillment in life and helps one shy away from spending on those little things which only give temporary happiness. Having a deeper perspective to our everyday actions and situations, can help develop beneficial habits that easily helps control one's impulsive urges and distractions." My approach won't work for everyone, but I keep a longer list of things I want in my head, preferably including higher value items.  I then look at the cost of an item vs the amount of benefit it gets me (either enjoyment or ability to make more money or both).  If I only had a few things I wanted, it would be easy to buy them even if the payback wasn't that great, but because I have a large list of things I'd like to be able to do, it's easier to play the comparison game in my head. Do I want this $50 thing now that will only give me a little bit of enjoyment and no income, or would I rather be able to get that $3000 digital cinema camera that I would enjoy having and could work on projects with and actually make money off of? (This is a RL example that I actually just bought last week after making sure I had solid leads on enough projects to pay myself back over time.)  For me, it is much easier to compare with an alternative thing I'd enjoy, particularly since I enjoy hobbies that can pay for themselves, which is really the situation this strategy works best in. It might not work for everyone, but hobbies that pay for themselves can take many different forms.  Mine tends to be very direct (get A/V tool, do projects that pay money), but it can also be indirect (get sports stuff, save on gym membership over time).  If you can get things onto your list that can save you money in the long run, then this strategy can work pretty well, if not, you'll still have the overall saving problem, just with a longer wish list. That said, if you are good about saving already and simply want to make better use of your disposable income, then having a longer list may also work to let you seek out better deals for you.  If you have funds that you know you can healthily spend on enjoyment, it is going to be difficult to choose nothing over something that gives enjoyment, even if it isn't a great return on the money.  If you have alternatives that would give you better value, then it's easier to avoid the low value option. "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." "Maybe it's a slightly different interpretation of ""slowing down"" that you're referring too, but selective procrastination can definitely save you money.  It's basically a technique for advertisement resistance:  When I see some item that I want (but really have no need for), I just procrastinate getting it.   This mostly involves just not actively going out and getting it, waiting for it to go on sale (and then waiting for a better sale), and just generally being lazy about it.  If I still want it by the time I get around to it, then it's usually something that I consider worth its value.   Usually though, after a month or two, I've forgotten about it altogether and moved on to the next thing.   This is most effective in avoiding buying the latest tech gadgets and depending on your gadget consumption can save you hundreds.  I'm currently procrastinating buying an iPad until it either goes down in price, a nice alternative shows up, or I decide that it's worth getting myself to an Apple Store - or I decide it's not worth the hype altogether." If you're referring to investment hedging, then you should diversify into things that would profit if expected event hit. For example alternative energy sources would benefit greatly from increased evidence of global warming, or the onset of peak oil. Preparing for calamities that would render the stock market inaccessible, the answer is quite different.  Simply own more of things that people would want than you need.  A list of possibilities would include: Precious metals are also a way to secure value outside the financial markets, but would not be readily sellable until the immediate calamity had passed. All this should be balanced on an honest evaluation of the risks, including the risk of nothing happening.  I've heard of people not saving for retirement because they don't expect the financial markets to be available then, but that's not a risk I'm willing to take. Since you ask.... How do I do it? My frugality doesn't come from budgeting or even half so much from keeping money away from myself (though mostly-one-way retirement accounts help). It's a matter of world-view. Spending and shopping for things you don't need is a vice. Limit your indulgence in it. I've also made wasteful purchases in my life. When I find myself considering buying something that I don't really need, I ask myself whether it will end up like... like the stupid eyeglass cleaner gadget from the Sharper Image that I used twice. Or the Bluetooth earpiece that spent 98% of its time lost and .02% of its time in my ear. Or the little Sony VAIO laptop which was great on the train, but probably cost 8 times as much as an EeePC and didn't do way too much more. (In my defense on that one, it was just before netbooks were really taking off... but I still felt bad about it the next year). I've also got two savings goals. The first is responsible and very big (financial stability: a year's expenses plus money for a down payment on a house. a California house. in a good neighborhood.) The second is personal and just medium-big (a large musical instrument). I've decided not to spend money on the second until I'm financially stable and I have enough money to take care of the first... so that makes me more willing to scrimp and save to pursue the first than I would be otherwise. Advice for others? Ask yourself: Why are you buying that thing? You can survive without it, can't you? You didn't need it a week ago, did you? Does the old one have holes in it or something? Or will you at least use it regularly, for years? Why aren't you buying the cheaper kind? Or buying it used? Nice idea, but you will have a potential problem. State lawmakers have already considered this option: I looked at this site: Saving for college because it include info for on all the plans. For Illinois it discuses income tax recapture. Effective January 1, 2007, rollovers from this plan to an out-of-state   program are included in Illinois taxable income to the extent of prior   Illinois deductions. Effective January 1, 2009, nonqualified   distributions from this plan are included in Illinois taxable income   to the extent of prior Illinois deductions. Most of the states have similar wording. When looking up the law the key word is recapture. The reason why there is no recapture provision at the federal level is that there is no tax deduction on contributions. The 10% penalty make it less likely that somebody would want to have nonqualified distributions. If a state gives a tax deduction in the year of the contribution they want to demand that tax deduction back if the funds are not used for educational purposes. Generally there are of course provisions for scholarships, death, and disability. "New SEC rules also now allow brokers to collect fees on non-dividend bearing accounts as an ""ADR Pass-Through Fee"". Since BP (and BP ADR) is not currently paying dividends, this is probably going to be the case here. According to the Schwab brokerage firm, the fee is usually 1-3 cents per share. I did an EDGAR search for BP's documents and came up with too many to read through (due to the oil spill and all of it's related SEC filings) but you can start here: http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/m/q207/adr.html"